Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202231350)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231350

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

04 April 2025

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 repairs to the resident’s front door.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 9 August 1999. The property is a 3 bedroom mid terraced house.
The resident is hard of hearing. The landlord’s records note that the resident suffers from “mental health and sensory impairment.”
On 21 March 2021 the resident’s front door was made safe following forced entry. An entry on the repairs log dated 22 March notes that a new door was to be installed.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 15 September 2021, as follows:
1. Following the forced entry she was told her door would be replaced but this had not happened. Appointments were made without her knowledge so she was not always home.
2. The contractor had been out to measure the door on 3 occasions. 2 months ago she was told an appointment had been made for it to be repaired but instead measurements were taken again.
3. The door replacement was outstanding leaving the resident feeling “disgusted, frustrated and very concerned” about her safety. It had a negative impact on her mental health which in turn impacted on her physical health.
4. The door was unsecure and she was concerned there was air gushing in.
On 29 October 2021 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, the main points being:
1. It raised a works order to replace the front door. A further appointment was scheduled for 29 October as it had approved its contractor to manufacture the new door.
2. Once accurate measurements were taken the manufacturing time to installation was approximately 6 weeks.
3. The resident advised the contractor it would be unable to take measurements that morning so a further appointment would be rescheduled.
4. In the meantime its contractor would attend on 2 November 2021, to carry out a temporary fix to address the reported gap in the wooden frame.
5. After requesting evidence to support the resident’s complaint it received 22 calls on the 22 March alone. It had listened to them and not found any evidence that she had made a complaint around that time. However it could see that she had done so in July and it apologised for any oversight.
6. It upheld the complaint due to the time it took to resolve the issue with the front door and its oversight in the complaint handling.
7. It offered £335 compensation comprised of:
  1. £35 for poor complaint handling.
  2. £150 for failure to provide a service.
  3. £150 for time and trouble.
On 3 November 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to request to escalate her complaint, as follows:
1. The landlord did not “fully understand” her complaint. The compensation offered did not reflect the “mental and emotional or physical pain” caused to the resident over the past 9 months.
2. She was not satisfied that it had reviewed all the appointments made with her since March. It had not set out what took place and what the outcomes were.
3. She reiterated that her complaint was made on more than one occasion back in March.
4. She set out in detail the reasons why she disagreed with its complaint response.
5. She asked it to set out how it had calculated the compensation offered.
The front door was replaced on 7 December 2021.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 5 April 2022, the main points being:
1. The resident was given a choice of front door and the door she chose was installed 7 December 2021. It was “fully functional” and met the requirements for safety and housing standards.
2. She did not like the door she chose however, it would not replace the door. If the resident wished to do so this would be at her own cost.
3. There were no missed appointments. It apologised for any delay in fitting the new door however there was an 8 week lead in time for suppliers.
4. As part of its stage 1 complaint response it contacted relevant stakeholders responsible for resolving the resident’s concerns. It followed its procedure and did what was required to provide an appropriate outcome. It was satisfied with its complaint handling and therefore that part of the complaint was not upheld.
5. It partially upheld the complaint due to delays to replace the front door.
6. It increased the amount of compensation for complaint handling offered at stage 1 making the total amount of compensation offered £350 comprised of:
  1. £50 for poor complaint handling.
  2. £150 for failure to provide a service.
  3. £150 for time and trouble.

Events post internal complaints process.

The resident contacted us on 10 March 2023 to set out her dissatisfaction that she was left without a “safe front door” for 12 months. This has had a detrimental effect on her mental and physical health. The complaint became one we can investigate on 18 December 2024.
An internal email dated 20 January 2025 noted that having reviewed the case the amount of compensation offered was “not sufficient.” It set out its learning in relation to the complaint and identified what it would do differently. It increased its offer of compensation to £1300, comprised of:
1. £100.00 for “poor” record keeping.
2. £250.00 for “poor” complaint handling.
3. £350.00 previously awarded during the complaints process.
4. £600.00 for the delays in completing the repair and the inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

The landlord’s guide to repair responsibilities defines non routine repairs as those which may take longer due to factors including complexity and materials needed. It will complete non routine repairs within 90 days.
Its Complaints Policy says:
1. Residents can make a complaint on-line, by phone or in writing.
2. It will try to resolve complaints “quickly and effectively” with a local resolution.
3. It will abide by the timeframes set out in the relevant Ombudsman’s code of practice.
Its Customer Remedies policy says it will put things right and learn from outcomes. It will also consider financial redress, including when there is distress and inconvenience, time and trouble and poor complaint handling. When calculating compensation it will consider what is fair considering personal detriment, impact and aggravating factors.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s front door.

Following the making safe of the door on 21 March 2021 the landlord returned to the property on 25 March 2021 to fit a bolt to the top of the door. The notes stated that the door was “beyond repair.”
A file note dated 27 July 2021 confirmed that the repair was referred on 8 April 2021 but by that date no works orders had been raised. It noted that the resident had complained because it had not contacted her for 4 months. In its post complaint review of 20 January 2025 the landlord said the delay arose because a works order was incorrectly closed therefore, the it was unreasonable.
Having been put on notice of the delay on 28 July 2021 the landlord assigned the job to provide a new door and frame. The repairs log says it was completed on 3 August 2021. However, a further entry says a quote was required and that the job was cancelled on 19 August 2021. The landlords repair logs are confusing which is a record keeping failure.
On 5 August 2021 the landlord’s contractor emailed the resident to arrange to measure for a replacement door on 5 August 2021 between 8.00am and 11.00am. However the email was sent on the day at 12.37pm therefore, its communication was confusing. This caused distress to the resident and further delayed resolution of the substantive issue.
In her email to the landlord of 15 September 2021 the resident advised that the contractor had attended the property 3 times to measure for the new door. We do not doubt the resident’s account however, there is no independent evidence to corroborate events. Therefore, it is not possible for this investigation to make a determination on this point.
She also raised her frustration about the contractor making appointments without prior warning, as set out above. The resident expressed the impact the ongoing delay was having on her. This included concerns about her family’s safety due to the condition of the door.
The repairs logs show that on 24 September 2021 an entry was made for the door to be replaced under planned works however, this was cancelled on 4 October 2021. The reasons for this are unclear which is a record keeping failure.
The landlord’s records show that when the resident called to seek an update on 30 September 2021 the responder said there was “nothing much I can do” other than chase. Their response was unhelpful and demonstrated a lack of a customer centric approach. This compounded the distress caused to the resident by the now 6 month delay.
The landlord’s records dated 4 October 2021 noted that it had realised there was a “deliverable” raised for the front door renewal as well as a repair order. It had spoken to “planned works” who advised senior officers needed to make a decision on whether planned works or repairs were going replace the door. It had told the resident it would get back to her “as soon as possible.”
The landlord’s contractor emailed the resident on 22 October 2021 to confirm that it would take 6 weeks to manufacture the door from the point the measurements were taken. However, it said it had not gained access to take measurements. It proposed that it visit on 29 October 2021 to do so.
On 22 October 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and said that a week before it had told her that the door would be completed within 5 to 10 days of the job being raised. However, she had previously been advised it would take 6 weeks. We do not doubt the resident’s account however, there is no independent evidence to corroborate events. Therefore, it is not possible for this investigation to make a determination on this point.
On 23 October 2021 the resident emailed the landlord’s contractor to explain that she required at least 24 hours’ notice for appointments which is why she had not given access previously. She said she might be available on 29 October 2021 but would need to know what time. These were reasonable requests.
The contractor replied on the same day to say they would arrive between 8.00am and 11.00am when they attended on 29 October 2021. During their ongoing email exchange that day the contractor confirmed that it would call the resident from outside when they arrived for the appointment. This was due to the resident’s hearing issues.
On 29 October 2021 the resident emailed the contractor to say they had not attended the appointment that day. However, the contractor replied to say they attended at 7.40am. On 5 November 2021 the contractor emailed the resident to say it would attend the property the following morning after 8.00am. In her reply on the same date the resident confirmed the contractor had failed to call as agreed when they attended on 29 October 2021. She also said she had advised previously she could not attend appointments on Saturdays, particularly at short notice.
The contractor’s approach to arranging appointments was inappropriate because it did not take account of the resident’s reasonable requests. Her frustration was evident in her email when she set out her dissatisfaction with their response.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 29 October 2021 confirmed that because the resident had been advised it would be unable to measure the door that morning a new appointment would need to be made. While it was positive that it said it would carry out a temporary repair the resident first raised safety concerns in her email of 15 September 2021. Therefore its response was unreasonably delayed.
In the contractor’s email to the resident of 23 October 2021 it said the “exact style of door” was not available and it would therefore fit a “composite 4 panel door and frame with multi locking system and chrome ironmongery.”
The resident replied on 27 October 2021 to request a picture of the door. She also asked for further information relating to customisation such as colour and windows. The contractor replied on the same day attaching a picture of a “very similar door.” It confirmed options regarding customisation. The resident’s reply referred to the door in the image having 2 glass windows at the top which was what she wanted. She requested frosted glass and for the door to be dark blue in colour.
During a phone call with the resident on 4 November 2021 the landlord advised that the order for the new door had been raised and that it could take up to 6 to 8 weeks to be manufactured.
A file note of an internal discussion dated 5 November 2021 noted that 2 quotes were required for ‘commercial’ to decide which to accept. A further file note of the same date stated that the resident had called and was “really upset” because the landlord had to obtain a quote before it could decide who would replace the door.
On 10 November 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that the door had been ordered and that manufacturing usually took 4 to 6 weeks however, it was waiting for further information to clarify this. Given that on 4 November 2021 it had told her the order had been raised it is unclear why this was now in question. It also confirmed that as part of its complaint investigation it had requested a “full breakdown” of any missed appointments and would consider compensation in line with its guidelines.
On 15 November 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to ask when the door was ordered and with which contractor as she found it hard to believe this had already been actioned.
On 23 November 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to say it was still waiting for an update. It hoped that by the end of the week evidence would be provided that the door had been ordered. It would then be able to provide an estimated date for the installation. In the meantime it confirmed that the door was requested “as far back” as March. That it was unable to locate records to confirm if the door had been ordered was a record keeping failure. Furthermore, its failure compounded the resident’s distress.
The landlord’s post complaint review of 20 January 2025 stated that after a number of works orders were cancelled it decided to replace the door as part of its planned works programme. However, this was delayed due to budget restrictions and it therefore reverted back to the original plan of replacing the door within its responsive repairs programme. The landlord failed to effectively manage the repair causing distress and inconvenience to the resident.
On 8 December 2021 the resident called the landlord to report that the wrong door had been fitted because it had too much glass in it. The landlord called its contractor who said they had not yet issued the works order to carry out the works.
On 9 December 2021 the landlord called the resident and requested that she email photographs of the door. She subsequently emailed photographs of the door showing that it contained 2 glass panels that were half the length of the door which was contrary to what was agreed on 27 October 2021. It confirmed receipt on the same day and advised they had been forwarded onto a manager.
There is no evidence that the landlord provided a further update. This was inappropriate because it caused the resident inconvenience when she called on 17 December 2021 to seek an update. The landlord agreed that a supervisor would visit the property on the following Monday. However, it is unclear whether they did so which is a record keeping failure.
The repairs log shows that a works order was assigned to a contractor on 9 February 2022. A further update dated 10 February says works were completed and post inspected with a completed date of 5 March 2022. It is unclear what works were undertaken which is a record keeping failure.
A file note of 7 March 2022 noted that the resident chose the window sizes therefore it would not replace the door. In its stage 2 complaint response of 5 April the landlord reiterated its position. However, the evidence set out above shows its assertion was incorrect.
The landlord’s post complaint review of 20 January 2025 said that although it initially declined to replace the door a new door was installed in March 2022 to try to “bring the matter to a close.” During her phone call to us on 11 February 2025 the resident advised that the door had not been replaced. We do not doubt the resident’s account. However, there is no independent evidence to corroborate events. Therefore, it is not possible for this investigation to make a determination on this point.
In an email to us dated 31 March 2025 the resident confirmed that the inclusion of larger glass panels in the door made her feel unsafe. This was because she had suffered violence in the past. She also suffered from post traumatic stress disorder and obsessive behaviours around safety.
Landlords are legally obliged to provide secure front doors which operate correctly. Although desirable, it does not have the same obligation to meet resident’s specific design requirements. However, given the failures identified above, the landlord should consider its response as set out in the orders below.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 5 April 2022 confirmed its offer of £300 compensation for the delays in replacing the door. However, it failed to identify what had gone wrong and what it would do differently.
It was positive that the landlord carried out a further review of the case after its final response in which it tried to put right the failures identified above. This included the £300 offered at stage 2 plus an additional £100 for record keeping failures and £600 for the inconvenience caused by the delays in replacing the door. The total amount of compensation offered was £1000 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.
However, the review did not take place until well over 2 years after the resident exhausted its complaints procedure. This means that we does not consider that the offer of compensation was made as part of its complaint response. This has impacted on the degree to which the offers put right the evident failings and it therefore does not prevent an adverse finding. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident emailed the landlord on 15 September 2021 to set out her ongoing dissatisfaction with its response. It emailed her the following day to acknowledge the complaint and confirmed it would respond within 10 working days. It advised there may be a delay progressing the complaint and that if it could not meet its deadline it would contact her to discuss a new response time.
On 4 October 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it had extended the complaint response time by a further 10 days. It said it would request the call log for March 2021. On 5 October 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to set out the stage 1 complaint definition.
It provided its stage 1 complaint response on 29 October 2021. This was 32 days later and 22 days over target. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it provided any further updates to the resident or that it contacted her to discuss a new response time as set out in its acknowledgement.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code requires landlords to respond to all the points raised in the complaint. The resident’s stage 1 complaint raised concerns about not being given prior notice of appointments and about repeated visits to measure up for the door. The landlord failed to provide a response to these points which was inappropriate. The resident’s frustration was evident in her email to the landlord of 3 November 2021 when she set out her dissatisfaction that it had not thoroughly investigated her complaint.
In its email to the resident on 10 November 2021 the landlord appropriately acknowledged that it had not responded to all the points raised by the resident.
Its stage 1 complaint response confirmed that it had investigated the resident’s assertion that she originally made a formal complaint during March 2021. It advised it had been unable to find any evidence to support her concerns.
It also appropriately acknowledged that the resident had originally made her complaint in July 2021 and it apologised for any oversight. The circumstances are unclear however, it was appropriate that the landlord apologised for its error. It said it had considered this when calculating its compensation of £35 for its complaint handling failures.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 3 November 2021. On 4 November the landlord emailed her to acknowledge the complaint and said it would respond within 20 working days. It again said it would contact her if it could not adhere to the timescale.
It is noted that on 23 November 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to apologise that it was not able to issue a formal response at that time because it will still collating relevant information. However, it failed to give any indication of when she could expect to receive it. There is no evidence that any further updates were provided. It therefore failed to appropriately manage her expectations which compounded her distress. The resident’s frustration was evident in her email to the landlord of 8 December 2021 when she chased the complaint response.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 5 April 2022 which was 106 days later and 86 days out of time. It is noted that the landlord increased its compensation for complaint handling failures from £35 to £50 however, it failed to set out its apology for the delay.
Furthermore, its stage 2 response failed to provide an explanation as to how it calculated the compensation offered. This was a failure because the resident had requested it do so as part of her stage 2 complaint.
The landlord failed to demonstrate an understanding of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures. It failed to identify what it would do differently to prevent a recurrence. Furthermore, it’s compensation was not proportionate.
It was positive that the landlord carried out a further review of the case after its final response. It tried to put right the failures identified above. This included a further £250 for its complaint handling failures making a total of £300.
However, the review did not take place until well over 2 years after the resident exhausted its complaints procedure. Therefore we do not consider that the offer of compensation was made as part of its complaint response. This has impacted on the degree to which the offers put right the evident failings and it therefore does not prevent an adverse finding.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The compensation offered by the landlord is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s front door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to write to the resident to:
1. Apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Confirm whether it will replace the front door in light of the failures identified in this report. If not, it should provide the reasons for its decision.
3. Share its learning from the case review with the resident if it has not already done so.
Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should reoffer the £1300 compensation to the resident if this has not already been paid.
Evidence of compliance with the above orders should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.