Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202308356)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308356

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

31 July 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the communal lift.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident occupies a one-bedroom flat under an assured fixed-term tenancy that commenced on 19 November 2020. The property is on the fourth floor and has one lift servicing the resident’s building. The resident has rheumatoid arthritis, which he said can be triggered by stress and can impact his mobility. The landlord was aware of the resident’s medical condition at the time he began his tenancy.
Between 15 February 2023 and 17 April 2023, the communal lift was reported as out of service. The landlord said that this was due to a mixture of vandalism and equipment failure.
On 31 March 2023, the resident raised a complaint. He said:
1. The lift had been out of service for ten days in March alone.
2. He had reported this issue to the landlord, but he had been ignored.
3. The landlord had wrongly blamed residents for the lift failures.
4. The landlord was aware he had rheumatoid arthritis and had been trapped in his own home. He also said there were other disabled residents that relied on the lift to be functioning reliably.
5. He wanted a refund of his service charge for March 2023 and for the landlord to make a lasting and effective repair to the lift.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 May 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident. It also said:
1. Between 15 February 2023 and 17 April 2023, it had noted that the majority of outages were due to equipment failures and three of the outages were due to vandalism.
2. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint because it had attended within prescribed timescales and completed repairs in a timely manner.
3. It did not have any mobility issues recorded for the resident so there was nothing to prevent the resident using the stairs when the lift was out of service.
4. It would only consider redress to recognise “time and trouble” but would require supporting evidence from the resident. Following this, it would add this information to the system to take this into account if further issues arose affecting access to his home.
5. It would not refund the resident’s service charges because he was not paying anything towards “current repairs” because he was only paying for service charges based on estimates until the year end statement. At this point, the actual costs of service charges would be calculated.
6. It would not escalate his complaint to stage 2 unless the resident met certain criteria.
On 6 May 2023, the resident escalated his complaint. He said:
1. The communal lift had been out of order on 16 occasions since the end of March 2023.
2. The landlord was aware that disabled people and parents with young children live in the block. He said vulnerable residents were reliant on the lift.
3. It should not have taken 15 call outs to address the problem when it seriously impacted on residents.
4. The landlord had said the cause of the lift outages were due to vandalism which implied the repair was less important.
5. He spoken with a service engineer, who explained that the issue was a twisted link and faulty sensors.
6. He had raised a formal complaint which was responded to in February 2022 which contradicted the landlord’s findings.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 May 2023. It said it would not uphold the resident’s complaint because:
1. The complaint handler contacted relevant stakeholders, which showed that it had followed procedure to provide an appropriate outcome to the complaint.
2. It would not consider repairs to the communal lift dating back further than 6 months and the historic complaint the resident had referred to was from February 2021 which was 2 years prior.
3. It had consulted its repair records and the information given to it by its contractors. It confirmed that some of the lift repairs were required because of vandalism. It did not doubt or question their professional findings.
4. The resident had not provided further evidence for it to consider any disabilities he said he had, and it re-iterated this was not on its records.
5. The resident’s escalation request did not meet the criteria to investigate the resident’s complaint further and it stood by its decision at stage 1. As a result, it had found no service failure and would not provide further redress.
The resident and the landlord agree that since October 2023, there have been a reduction in further failures with the communal lift.
The landlord wrote to the Ombudsman in March 2024 and said:
1. It had conducted a technical inspection of the lift on 5 May 2023 and the persistent fault was addressed. It had not received any reported breakdowns of the lift since October 2023.
2. It recognised that the resident had made it aware in 2020 of his rheumatoid arthritis, his housing application had noted permanent physical disabilities, and it had received further supporting medical evidence in 2023.
3. It recognised its records had not accurately reflected the resident’s medical conditions at the time of the complaint.
4. The resident did not disclose any vulnerability information for it to consider at the time.
5. It would offer the resident £150 for failing to update its records. The resident told the Ombudsman this offer had not been made to him.
6. Notwithstanding the record-keeping failures, the outcome of the case would not have been altered had the information been available to it.
The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman because:
1. He wanted the landlord to apologise, acknowledge and compensate him for the distress and inconvenience of its failures, in particular, its claims about his vulnerabilities during the complaints process.
2. He wanted the landlord to refund his service charges for March 2023 because it did not manage the lift services appropriately which resulted in additional call outs and charges before it made a lasting and effective fix to the lift.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In the resident’s escalation request, he referred to an earlier complaint he had made to the landlord about the lift outages because he felt the landlord had admitted liability for service failures, which it later contradicted in its stage 1 response in March 2023. He also explained that this did not exhaust the landlord’s complaint procedure.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion (a) are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.”
The Ombudsman is unable to include this as part of the complaint because this did not complete the landlord’s complaint procedure. For clarity, this investigation will look at the events that occurred from March 2022.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal lift

The resident’s occupancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for communal areas and lift maintenance. It covenants to take reasonable care to maintain lifts and make sure they are fit for residents.
The landlord’s repairs handbook states:
1. It is responsible for repairs to communal lifts.
2. Lift faults where there is only one lift in the block will be treated as an emergency repair.
3. Emergency repairs should be completed within 24 hours.
4. It will carry out regular safety checks and inspections for lifts.
Between 13 September 2022 and 22 October 2023, the communal lift was out of service on 28 occasions. Of these 28 occasions, the lift was out of service 25 times due to “equipment failure” and 3 times due to “vandalism.”
The repair records evidence the landlord responded within 24 hours to each of these reports. On each occasion, the technical engineers left the lift “in service.” This was appropriate because the property was serviced by one lift, and any outage resulted in the loss of an essential amenity. Therefore, the landlord treated the repairs as a priority and acted in accordance with its repairs policy.
The landlord raised a technical inspection of the lift which was completed on 5 May 2023. The technical engineer noted that the lift had recurrent reports of being stuck and trapping people. It noted that the persistent fault was because the landing locks failed, and they had been adjusted. They also said that the car skate was rubbing on the top head of the car door, and this was likely to have occurred at the time of installation. The report also detailed that no further faults were found and that the lift was left in service.
Given that the lift suffered 14 equipment failures between 13 September 2022 and 5 May 2023, this is evidence that the landlord failed to identify a recurrent issue with the lift. As a result, this led to avoidable repetitive reports of the lift being out of service. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident because he was unable to use the lift. The resident said that during the times the lift was out of service he was trapped in his property due to restricted mobility. This was because of his rheumatoid arthritis. In addition, the lift being repeatedly unreliable caused anxiety about whether he would be able to leave his property.
The resident said that he disputed that the lift had broken down due to vandalism. He also said that the landlord had used this as an excuse to treat the lift repairs as less of a priority. The repair logs show that the landlord responded to all reports, including those listed as vandalism, within an appropriate timeframe.
The landlord confirmed that it was aware of the resident’s mobility issues at the time he commenced his tenancy in 2020. It said that it recognised this as part of the complaints procedure and had subsequently updated its systems to reflect his vulnerabilities. The evidence shows the landlord was aware of a failing with its record keeping in May 2023. However, it had only requested to update all of its records in February 2024. During February 2024 it also asked whether the resident would like a personal emergency evacuation plan produced to ensure he could exit the building safely in the event of a fire.
The Ombudsman considers that although the landlord acknowledged its record-keeping had been poor in May 2023, there is no documentary evidence it had updated all of the necessary records or considered any adjustments required in relation to fire safety for a further 9 months.
The Ombudsman considers this to be a significant failure in record keeping which the landlord delayed in addressing. This delay was concerning to note given the landlords vulnerable persons policy states it will consider any vulnerability of customers when implementing health and safety arrangements and assessments. Importantly, there is no evidence of any safety planning for the resident in the event of an emergency evacuation during those 9 months and this was another significant failure.
Overall, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration with this element of the complaint because:
1. The landlord took 8 months to make a lasting and effective repair to the communal lift which was an unreasonable delay.
2. The landlord failed to identify a recurring issue with the lift between 13 September 2022 and 5 May 2023.
3. The landlord took 9 months to update its records to reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities which was an unreasonable delay.
4. The landlord failed, at the time it recognised its record–keeping failure in May 2023, to ensure there was appropriate safety planning in place for the resident in the event of an emergency evacuation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states:
1. Stage 1 responses must be responded to within 10 working days of acknowledgement.
2. Stage 2 responses must be responded to within 20 working days of the request to escalate.
3. Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.
4. Where the problem is a recurring issue, the landlord should consider any older reports as part of the background to the complaint if this will help to resolve the issue for the resident.
The landlord issued its stage 1 on 4 May 2023. This was 23 working days after the resident’s complaint. During the first stage of the complaints process, the landlord wrote to the resident on 20 April 2023 to explain it required longer to respond to the resident’s complaint. It said it would respond by 5 May 2023.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s request for an extension came 4 working days after it ought to have issued its stage 1 response. This was a service failure because it would have been fair and reasonable for the landlord to have explained its delay prior to the timeframes for its stage 1 response elapsing.
The landlord issued its stage 2 on 17 May 2023. This was 6 working days after the resident’s escalation request. The Ombudsman considers the landlord acted appropriately because it issued its stage 2 response in line with the timeframes set out in its complaints policy and the Code.
As part of the complaint, the resident sought a refund of his service charges for March 2023. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it would not refund the resident’s service charges as he was not paying anything towards current repairs because his service charges were based on estimated costs and not actual costs. The resident said that he felt the landlord had not answered this element of his complaint satisfactorily.
The Code requires landlords to address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice. The Ombudsman considers the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint appropriately because the question of whether the resident was currently paying for the costs of the service was irrelevant. This is because the resident was ultimately liable for the service charges the landlord might seek to recover in the future which could prospectively include the additional costs for lift maintenance. It would have been more appropriate to explain to the resident its position on why the service charges were due with reference to the contractual obligations under his tenancy agreement. However, it is noted that had this element of the resident’s complaint been answered, the outcome of the complaint would have been the same.
The resident said he was deeply concerned with the statements the landlord made in its complaint responses regarding his mobility. He said the landlord had made false statements about his medical conditions and how he was impacted by the lift outages.
The landlord’s stage 1 response stated “I checked our systems and established that we do not have a notification on our system to advise you have mobility issues. I [was] informed that [we] had met with you recently and you have no mobility issues which would limit your access to and from your home when the lift is not in use. If you believe you do have mobility issues that prevent you using the stairs when the lift is out of service then I can consider a small amount of redress to recognise your time and trouble, however I will require evidence to support this.”
The landlord’s stage 2 response said, “You also mention about your disabilities, and as stated in our stage one response this information is not on your records, so for this to be considered you would have to provide evidence to support this.”
On 19 May 2023, the landlord emailed the resident and apologised for failing to keep its records up to date. When the landlord wrote to the Ombudsman in March 2024, it said it recognised the resident’s vulnerabilities were not recorded accurately which was a “record-keeping concern.” However, it also maintained that a site visit had occurred and did not note any physical impact of the lift outages on the resident.
While the landlord has recognised its failure in relation to record-keeping, its approach during and after the complaint’s procedure failed to consider the resident’s medical conditions fairly and the impact of the frequent lift outages on him. The evidence shows that the landlord continued to rely on the views of its own staff during a visit, rather than the specialist medical evidence that the resident had provided. This medical evidence confirmed that the resident had health conditions which impacted on his mobility.
The resident said this caused him distress and inconvenience because:
1. the landlord had not considered his vulnerabilities as part of the complaint process and came to an unreasonable conclusion when it considered whether to offer compensation.
2. the landlord had made false statements about him and his medical conditions which made him feel the landlord had disbelieved him.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s acted in a heavy-handed manner because it did not revise its approach based on the information available to it about the resident’s medical conditions. This caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident and could have harmed the landlord and tenant relationship. This also caused the resident time and trouble in re-explaining his medical conditions and providing further evidence to the landlord.
The evidence shows the landlord identified there had been a recurring issue with the lift outages as part of the complaint’s procedure. As a result, the landlord requested a technical inspection of the lift in May 2023. While it was entirely appropriate for the landlord to utilise its complaint procedure to identify trends and to use its intelligence to resolve issues impacting its service provision, it is unclear why the landlord did not acknowledge this in its complaint responses or explain what it had done to rectify the repair issue in light of this.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s omission was a failure because this may have mitigated the resident’s complaint by acknowledging it accepted the frequency of the lift outages and explaining its intended course of action. The Ombudsman considers the landlord failed to take responsibility for its failure to identify the recurring issue, which the landlord was aware of during the second stage of its complaint procedure.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The landlord told the Ombudsman in March 2024 it would offer the resident £150 for its record-keeping. However, the resident said the landlord had not contacted him to make this offer.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s offer of compensation did not recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is because the landlord failed to recognise:
1. The amount of time the issue with the lift had been ongoing.
2. The stress, uncertainty, and worry that the lift outages caused to the resident.
3. The particular vulnerabilities of the resident and the time and trouble caused to the resident to get the landlord to rectify its understanding of these.
Given the culmination of failures identified concerning the landlord’s complaint handling, there was maladministration because:
1. The landlord failed to notify the resident it required an extension until after it was due to respond at stage 1 of its complaint procedure.
2. The landlord failed to answer the resident’s request for his service charges to be refunded.
3. The landlord failed to be accountable and put things right during its complaints procedure when it had identified a recurring issue with the lift.
4. The landlord failed to consider the impact of its failures on the resident’s medical conditions during and after the complaints process.
5. The landlord’s proposed remedy did not take into consideration the distress and inconvenience of its failures on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the communal lift.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for:
  1. The failures in relation to the substantive repairs listed at paragraph 24.
  2. The failures in relation to its complaint handling listed at paragraph 42.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £650 comprised of:
  1. £250 for a delay of over 8 months to make a lasting an effective repair to the lift and the distress and inconvenience this caused to the resident.
  2. £250 for its failure to consider the resident’s medical conditions during the repairs and the complaints process and the distress and inconvenience this caused to the resident.
  3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience identified during the complaint procedure.

This replaces any offer the landlord made as part of its complaint procedure. If the landlord has made a payment to the resident in respect of this complaint, it is entitled to deduct this from the compensation awarded by the Ombudsman.

The landlord must conduct an audit of its records of vulnerable households in the resident’s block. In doing so, it must:
1. Write to all residents in the block to allow them the opportunity to notify it of any vulnerabilities that may be present.
2. Following this, it must offer advice and guidance to relevant individuals around any appropriate safety planning relating to a means of escape in the event of an emergency evacuation.
3. Any vulnerabilities provided and any safety planning agreed by the landlord must be reflected on its systems.

The landlord must write to the Ombudsman to confirm that it has satisfied itself that it has completed the audit and its systems have been updated accordingly.

Within 56 days of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to conduct a review of this complaint to identify why:
1. It failed to identify the recurring issue with the lift outages at an earlier stage.
2. It delayed in making a lasting and effective repair to the lift.
3. Its record keeping failed to contain important information about the resident’s medical conditions at the time of the resident’s complaint.
4. Why it delayed in updating its records between May 2023 and March 2024.
5. Why it did not offer appropriate safety planning to the resident in the event of an emergency evacuation between May 2023 and March 2024.

The landlord must produce a written report which must include its findings, any wider learning and/or changes it has identified, how this learning will be implemented, and any associated indicative timescales for this. The report must be shared with the Ombudsman and the resident.