Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202103870)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103870

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

30 June 2023

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 resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of external maintenance and major works.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for financial statements in relation to the works.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.
4. The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The residents occupied their property under a jointly owned shared ownership lease. They will be referred to jointly as the resident.

Legal and policy framework

According to the landlord’s response of 22 February 2022 to this Service’s request for documents, it had no policies in relation to policies/procedures surrounding improvement programmes, but it referred to page 88 of the annual report for 2018/2019, which stated that “It is the landlord’s policy to maintain shared ownership accommodation, and it is responsible for keeping its part of the shared ownership in a continuous state of sound repair”.
The landlord operated a two-stage procedure with a 10 and 20 working days response time respectively.

Chronology

On 14 March 2018, the landlord served a statutory notice of intention of carrying out cyclical works under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. They included:
1. Partial and full window repairs or replacements, roof and guttering repairs, “general” repairs, carpet or flooring replacements or cleaning, preparation for works and decoration works, inspection and repaint or repair of doors, car park resurfacing and re-lining, brickwork, concrete, fencing and railing repair.
The landlord served a further notice on 10 September 2018. It noted that it had received several observations on the previous notice which it provided (but not to this Service). It set out the reasons for the proposed works and where elements were no longer deemed economically viable for repair.
The works included scaffolding, supplying and installing UPVC windows, replacing front entrance doors, communal intercom systems, including handsets to the internal of residents’ flats, cyclical decorations, clean flat balconies, replace timber guardrails on balconies with aluminium railing system, inspect repair or replace lighting, clear gutters and installing parking bollards.
On 21 September 2018, the landlord wrote to the resident with a complaint response regarding a previous complaint. It stated that it was aware of an expectation for the landlord to contribute towards some of the costs of the works “with justification”. It would look into this once it was in receipt of the revised quotes and discuss this with the leaseholders.
The landlord was unable to state when the works will actually commence. It apologised for the delays the residents of the block had experienced and was “looking at internal processes” to establish “how it could improve the customer journey moving forward”.
The landlord provided the relevant estimates on 12 October 2018. The landlord did not provide this to the Service. The landlord provided an undated specification for remedial works. The resident provided this Service with an undated document with a detailed description of the works and estimates and specification. They included replacing the balcony doors and windows, entrance and service doors, cleaning and decorating the common parts including ceilings and doors, repointing, guttering, clean and decorate balcony floors and ceilings, and replacing the balcony guardrails with palisade polyester powder coated aluminium railing system in black with bolt down posts to all balconies to replace existing guarding.
A meeting took place on 2 November 2018 between the landlord and the leaseholders of the resident’s block, in relation to a complaint which appears to have been made on 15 October 2018. An internal email dated 2 November 2018 indicated that service charge queries were being reviewed, the communal door and the guttering were referred to. It discussed with the residents setting up a recognised residents association It would discuss options for the windows and doors. The landlord reported that the residents were happy with the revised quotes and level of information.
There followed an unexplained gap in the evidence.
The landlord wrote to the group of leaseholders on 24 September 2020 as follows:
1. Its contractor was to continue with the decoration works, roof repairs, floor coating to the external walkways and private balconies and front boundary wall over the next 2 to 3 weeks.
2. The windows, guard rails, balcony screens and doors were currently being manufactured, with installations scheduled for week beginning 12 October 2020.
3. Scaffold-related works was expected to be completed by 13 November 2020.
4. The front scaffold strike was to commence from 2 October 2020 and the rear scaffold from 18 November 2020.
5. The main entrance door would be the last work to be completed on 15 December 2020 due to the lead manufacture time.
There was an internal discussion on 19 November 2020 about the quality of one of the proposals for the balconies. This appeared to refer to some undated plans and drawings of balconies described as balustrade posts resin to be anchor fixed and powder coated and partition panels likewise.
There was a further unexplained gap in the evidence. The landlord sent an email to the resident and other leaseholders on 24 February 2021, attaching a newsletter and “privacy panel detail for the balconies”.
There was a further unexplained gap in the evidence.
On 1 June 2021, the resident wrote that he was “completely in the dark” regarding the project and the financial information. “Phase” 2 did not match the discussions. Scaffolding was due to be erected that month. No newsletter had been shared with the leaseholders for several months despite that it was intended to be bi-weekly. He had asked that the issues were raised as formal complaints.
The landlord replied on 2 June 2021 as follows:
1. It was working to provide the financial information. It apologised for the delay due to annual leave.
2. The parties had “spent a considerable amount of time not agreeing on the format” of a newsletter and the content. This has made it difficult to manage. It had agreed to provide updates by emails as and when they become available.
3. The contractor would complete the remaining work.
4. It suggested that the resident follow its formal complaint procedure.
On 3 June 2021, the resident made a formal complaint as follows:
1. The project was around 8 years out of schedule. The project itself was just coming up to a year over consulted timelines, every piece of work was damaging to the residents’ properties.
2. The appointed contractor had done such a bad job that the landlord had withdrawn the remainder of the work from them.
3. He had been asking questions for months. He referred to a previous stage 2 complaint which had yet to be resolved.
4. He raised 3 separate complaints in the following areas:
  1. The quality of communication and work, not meeting the consulted scope of the project.
  2. The “refusal” to provide the financial accountsrelating to his block, he considered he was legally entitled to.
  3. The “refusal” and failure to log complaints.
On 14 June 2021, the landlord replied with its Stage One complaint response as follows:
1. The landlord agreed that “there had been a lot of problems”. The team had met on site every week, then every two weeks.
2. It had been agreed to meet with residents by video call and then to also provide a newsletter to convey the information to residents. This became impossible as the leaseholders “made demands” that “were not in line with the newsletter” therefore it continued “in form of verbal email communication”.
3. Another manager had sent an update regarding financial information.
4. The contractor had not abandoned the project. The project manager “felt” that all residents had the information regarding other remedial works with its contractors and that the landlord and contractors were doing their best “to keep everyone communicated with”.
5. There had been times when the supplier had disappointed and effected deadlines so that information had not been passed onto residents. He was making its contractors aware of this.
6. It apologised. It upheld the complaint (but did not explain in what regard).
On 18 June 2021, the landlord wrote as follows:
1. It enclosed a schedule of work for the items currently in progress.
2. The scaffold erection had been put in place to carry out minor repairs/painting to the front of the block and would come down as soon as completed, weather permitting in no more than a couple of days.
3. The scaffold to the rear was for the balcony soffit painting and the replacing of the balconies themselves.
4. It had rejected the balcony as substandard and was awaiting a delivery date by 21 June 2021 and would update the resident.
On 23 June 2021, the landlord wrote that:
1. Given the break in the weather, the painting had commenced and would be completed by the end of the week.
2. The works to the front fascia would take place from 28 June 2021.
3. It would inspect the balcony components on 6 July 2021 for installation from 7 July 2021.
On 4 July 2021, “due to lack of labour”, the delivery/installation was delayed to a provisional date of 8 July 2021.
On the same day, the resident raised a complaint as follows:
1. The landlord and contractor had ordered the wrong balconies.
2. Scaffolding had been erected and taken down for “the best part of two years”, most recently it had been up for two weeks in mid-summer with no works happening at all because the contractor and landlord were not able to “quality control or communicate timings”.
3. He requested that his complaint be escalated to Stage Two directly.
The landlord noted internally on 12 July 2021 that the balconies would be ready to install on 13 July 2021 and to the design sent to the residents.
The landlord held a meeting on 23 August 2021 during which it stated that:
1. The door installations had “far exceeded initial expectations”. The initial proposed doors were found not to be “compliant” and it had taken several months to find a solution. The concern around mould and condensation had been reviewed. The triple installation of the windows had left the properties airtight, therefore the cavities in the wall were not the primary cause of this issue. It set out it would still address the cavities.
2. It was not able to provide any further information about costs and would review the costing once the works have been completed.
3. All balcony works had been completed, with the exception of the brackets.
On 3 September 2021, the landlord provided its final (Stage Two) response regarding the first complaint as follows:
1. The resident was unhappy with how the works e.g. balconies, windows, door replacements had been carried out. The works that had been completed had been to a poor standard. It was confirmed at the meeting of 23 August 2021 that all works had now been completed. However, snagging works were required to both the balconies and the doors.
2. A resident liaison officer had been assigned to assist with appointments being arranged with residents for the final works to be completed.
3. The landlord acknowledged that these works had taken longer than initially anticipated. It apologised.
4. The resident had requested a financial statement on numerous occasions. He did not believe that all of the works that were within the original scope had been completed, therefore, there was a discrepancy in the costing. The landlord was not yet in a position to provide any further information surrounding the costings at the moment, however, once the works have been completed the landlord would review this and update residents accordingly.
5. In relation to its complaint handling, “it was reassuring” it had contacted the relevant stakeholders, which evidenced that it had “followed procedure” and did what it could to provide the appropriate outcome at the time.
6. It “partially” upheld the complaint escalation, in relation to the time which it took to provide a response. It apologised. It offered £20 for poor complaints handling.
The landlord wrote on 3 September 2021 with its final response in relation to the second complaint as follows:.
1. The complaint had been escalated to Stage Two on 9 July 2021.
2. The complaint was about:
  1. How the balcony works were managed: There were delays to installing the balconies due to the balconies not being suitable and interruptions with the balconies being powder coated due to staff shortages.
  2. The handling of the repairs: Following a meeting on 23 August 2021, it was confirmed that the balcony works had been completed apart from renewal of the brackets and decoration of the post. It was awaiting a date from the contractors for them to reattend and complete the works.
  3. The handling of the Stage One complaint. The resident’s Stage One complaint of July 2021 was logged and assigned and acknowledged on the 5 July 2021. It believed the complaint was withdrawn in error, and therefore escalated to Stage Two. In light of the above, it upheld this part of the complaint. It apologised. It had partially upheld the complaint escalation, due to the time it had taken to provide a response.
  4. It offered £20 for poor complaints handling.
On 9 September 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident with the notes from the meeting of 23 August 2021.
The resident replied that the responses did not address many of the concerns raised. The notes evidenced that the landlord was planning to go further off scope in regard to replacement of parts of the downstairs divides. It did not address his complaints of lack of communication. He requested a review. He also raised a complaint that he had not received a promised call back.
The landlord replied on 9 September 2021. The landlord had addressed lack of communication in the notes. Weekly meetings were replaced by weekly emails. It raised his new complaint.
The following day, the resident requested the weekly update emails from the planned team as he had not seen them,
The landlord established on 6 December 2021 that the works to the resident’s flat were completed.
The landlord confirmed on 20 December 2021 that there were no more snags to the resident’s flat, except that the external balcony required minor repointing.
According to the landlord’s surveyor in an email of 6 December 2022, the surveyor and landlord “undertook a weekly site meeting with the leaseholders throughout the works”. The resident generally attended. He added that “due to the staggered and interrupted nature of the works elements were completed at varying different times and therefore assessed at the time due to the lengthy gaps in the programme”.
Another resident had made a complaint about the balcony which works according to an internal email in December 2022 “had not gone well” and indicated it would be rectified.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of external maintenance and major works

The resident’s complaint indicated that a major portion of the works had not been carried out at the date of the resident’s complaint in June 2021, at which stage the delays were a year. In July 2021, the resident also referred to scaffolding having been up for two years. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint, so it is reasonable to conclude that it was not disputed that there had been significant delays. The landlord’s only explanation was that “there had been a lot of problems” and it had had issues with suppliers. Its only reassurance was that the team met weekly then fortnightly.
There was some explanation of the delays in the meeting notes of 23 August 2021. This demonstrated that the unexpected can happen. However, while it was not clear whether fault could be attributed to the landlord or its contractors, or both, it was not disputed that there were delays. The reasons for the delays may have been unavoidable. This demonstrates that poor communication and a possible lack of transparency contributed to the resident’s lack of confidence and trust in the landlord.
The evidence indicated that the landlord was responsive to the resident on occasions including consulting with the leaseholders and taking their wishes into account. However, there was no evidence that the landlord updated the resident on a regular basis or even “as and when”. The resident requested a copy of the emails with updates but there was no evidence that they were provided. The update emails provided to this Service were infrequent. While the Ombudsman does not conclude there was no communication, for example that of 18 and 23 June 2021, and there was a retrospective reference to “walkabouts” internally, the Ombudsman concludes that the communication was inadequate.
The evidence indicated that the works to the balcony were not addressed or carried out until mid-2021. While the evidence showed that the reason for the further delay to the balcony was due to supply issues, so fault is not attributed to the landlord in that regard, there had still been an overall delay to that point.
The further complaint was that repairs were of poor quality. It is not the Ombudsman’s role or within its expertise to determine whether the works were defective, but to consider the landlord’s response. The landlord focussed on the resident’s complaint about the balconies. According to the Stage Two response, the landlord was to replace the brackets and powder paint the posts, in line with the specification. The evidence of 19 November 2020 indicated that was not in doubt though the landlord did not communicate this clearly. While this caused a further delay and frustration for the resident, this resolved the substantive issue of the complaint but did not acknowledge the impact on him.
The Ombudsman accepts there are often changes in specification and snagging in substantial works. However, this needs to be communicated and explained to the resident. While the landlord had assigned a resident liaison officer, it was late in the process. The landlord stated that it was reassured by its own actions, however it was for the landlord to reassure the resident. It unreasonably did not provide any details of its communications with stakeholders. The impression was that the landlord was dismissive, and that although these works took longer than initially anticipated, it took the view that it was sufficient the works were carried out, ignoring that it had taken so long to do so.
The resident stated in September 2021 that the landlord was planning to go further than the scope. This was not part of the original complaint. The landlord raised this as a fresh complaint.
The evidence indicated that the works to the resident’s flat were completed by December 2021.
In circumstances where the landlord provides insufficient records, the Ombudsman may investigate the complaint and where there was doubt, may make adverse findings.
However, while there may be other correspondence that the Ombudsman has not seen where the resident has expressed his dissatisfaction in more detail, the Ombudsman appreciates in mitigation that the resident had not been specific in his complaint. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have made enquiries where it did not fully understand a complaint.
Given the lack of specific information, while frustrating for the resident, the Ombudsman would not consider it fair to draw definitive conclusions in this investigation and nor should the resident lose his opportunity to make his complaint. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman will make an order to address this.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration given the delays in the works without a satisfactory reason and given the lack of communication.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for financial statements in relation to the works.

The landlord stated in June 2021 that it was working to provide the financial Information. There had been evidence in the 2018 complaints process that the landlord would consider whether it would be passing on all the charges to the resident given the works had been long overdue. While the landlord did not demonstrate any understanding of the anxiety the resident would have felt about costs, it was reasonable that the landlord would review the costings at the conclusion of the works, as there would have been numerous factors to consider, including discussions with its contractors and what costs it would pass on to the residents, given its promise to consider this in September 2018.
In addition, the landlord’s provision of information is governed by sections 19-25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to comply with those provisions and to provide a reasonable level of information. If the resident has concerns about the reasonableness of the charges and whether they were reasonably incurred and the application of the sinking fund, the resident would have recourse to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident made two complaints that were referred to this Service.
The complaint of 3 June 2021 was upheld at Stage One, however the landlord escalated it to Stage Two but did not respond until 3 September 2021. This was a significant delay. The landlord did not address the issues of quality and scope of the works. While it recognised that the resident was “unhappy“ with the works, it did not address the issue in any detail. The landlord’s response was to merely say the works were complete and there would be snagging works. That was unsatisfactory.
The landlord escalated the second complaint of 4 July 2021 directly to stage two, which was reasonable given that was what the resident requested. While this was not generally good practice, there was no disadvantage in this instance. It did not, however, provide a response until 3 September 2021. This was again a significant delay.
The landlord accepted there were delays to the works which it attributed to supply issues. It did not however address the history of the delays, and the quality of the works. It merely stated that there had been a recent meeting and it would complete the works. While it was welcome that the landlord intended to address the issues, and while it accepted that these works took longer than initially anticipated, that the works would be completed does not suffice as a response. The landlord did not explain the delays or reassure the resident how it would improve in the future, or that it had learnt lessons and improved its service overall.
The landlord appeared to conflate the issues regarding the complaint handling. The resident had requested that his complaint of 4 July 2023 be escalated to Stage Two, which the landlord did, but it did not address whether it had failed to log his previous complaints. While the Ombudsman is not in a position to investigate whether the landlord did or it did not do so, it was inappropriate that it did not address that aspect of the resident’s complaint and the Ombudsman will make an order in that regard.
The landlord is expected to identify and acknowledge issues within its complaint procedure and, in complaint responses, set out actions to improve future service which will also have a meaningful impact on the complaint. The landlord should recognise the part that its complaints procedure can play to resolve issues and ensure commitments in its complaint responses are met and demonstrate customer and resolution focus. Its role is also to be transparent and provide an analysis.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. There was no evidence that the complaint handling gave an opportunity to improve the resident’s experience and communication. The tone was defensive, in particular as regards its level of communication. Moreover, it did not take the opportunity to explain its action or the history of the works. There was no explanation such as that of the surveyor in December 2022. There were significant delays in the complaint handling. There was no evidence of a proper and meaningful review. The responses were far from comprehensive and did not address the resident’s fundamental concerns, frustration and anxiety. There was little explanation for the delays of the works, except to refer to issues with suppliers.
Given it accepted there were delays, there was no evidence that it considered whether to offer the resident compensation and there was very little by way of an apology. To simply state after two years of delay it was doing the works and would complete them at an unspecified date, was not satisfactory. It was not satisfactory to address a complaint that scaffolding had been up for two years to simply explain the nature of the then works. It missed the point of the resident’s complaint, which was the inconvenience. While the evidence indicated that the resident made a number of complaints, it needed to address them systematically and accurately, in order to ensure that it addressed the complaint comprehensively. As this report has highlighted, there were instances when the landlord did not address them at all. This is particularly disappointing in the light of its assurances to the resident in September 2018 that it was “looking at internal processes” to establish “how it could improve the customer journey moving forward”.

The landlord’s record keeping.

This investigation was hampered by the lack of documents and information provided by the landlord, as highlighted in this report. There appeared to be significant gaps in their records. These gaps and omissions have meant the landlord has not been able to clearly demonstrate what steps it had taken to resolve the resident’s concerns and its overall management of the issues. Therefore, the Ombudsman has also made a separate finding on the landlord’s overall record keeping.
The Ombudsman not only would have expected the landlord to have reviewed the correspondence during the complaint process but to provide comprehensive documents for this investigation. It is concerning that the provision of documents and information was incomplete, particularly as this Service made a further specific request. The lack of records will have impacted on the landlord’s ability to monitor its actions and to fully review the history of the case when investigating the resident’s complaint under its own complaints procedure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to thelandlord’s handling of external maintenance and major works.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for financial statements in relation to the works.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

There was evidence of significant delays to the works and lack of communication. The landlord did not address the issues of the works not being carried out according to specification and being of poor quality. The Ombudsman was unable to investigate that aspect but will make an order in that regard. While the works concerned the external parts of the building, it impacted on the resident’s enjoyment of his property and caused him frustration and concern.
Given the complexities and factors at play, while there was a lack of assurances, given the natural concerns of the resident, it was reasonable that the landlord had not finalised the costs prior to completion of the works.
The landlord failed to address the resident’s complaints comprehensively. It not only missed aspects of the resident’s complaints, there were delays in its complaint handling, it did not provide any explanation or any assurances that it would effect improvements.
The lack of records hampered this investigation and indicates a lack of monitoring and proper review of the case.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation in the amount of £840 within 4 weeks as follows:
  1. The sum of £400 in relation to the delays to the works.
  2. The sum of £300 in addition to the £40 offered to the resident, in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. £100 in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.
2. Within 4 weeks of this report, a senior member of the major works team should respond to the resident’s complaint about his report of damage to his property, not carrying out the works in line with the specification and the quality of the works including as follows:
  1. It should arrange a joint inspection with the resident to demonstrate where it delivered against the specification.
  2. It should set out, with reference to its specification, whether it complied with its specification and if not, why not.
3. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should address the resident’s complaint regarding the landlord’s complaint handling, (that it did not log the resident’s previous complaints).
4. Within 4 weeks of this report, it provides to the resident a list of the resident’s complaints with the dates of its first and any final responses.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should consider any complaints that the resident deemed he has made in 2021 but that have not been addressed.
2. The landlord should review its level of communication and consider drafting and adopting a policy regarding how it handles major works including its level of communication.
3. It should ensure that it provides accounts and an appropriate level of information to the resident regarding the costs, sinking fund and service charges, if it has not done so already.
4. The landlord should take steps to ensure that its record keeping practices are adequate and that care is taken to provide all necessary documentation requested by the Ombudsman for its investigations. The landlord is referred to the Ombudsman’s report KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
5. The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within four weeks of this report.