Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202202295)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202295

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

19 July 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, she lives in a two-bedroom flat, situated on the second floor of a five-storey block.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord to advise there were issues with antisocial behaviour (ASB), namely noise from the tenants living in the flat above. These issues had been ongoing for some time and had previously been investigated by the landlord. In an attempt to minimise the noise from the flat above the landlord had fitted thick carpets and underlay in the tenants flat. The landlord spoke to the resident and advised it would write to the upstairs tenants regarding the noise, but the resident declined as she did not believe this would help. She also advised that her property was overcrowded. She had previously been offered registration onto a website to aid moving properties, but she declined, stating she would rather bid on properties as she had done previously.
  3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 5 May 2022, stating she did not believe the noise from the tenants living above was normal household noise. The landlord responded and asked for noise recordings, it also advised it would speak to the previous housing officer that was dealing with the resident, as the resident did not believe the officer had adequately supported her, subsequently a new housing officer was appointed. The landlord made an appointment with the resident to discuss the noise and implement an action plan. There had been a miscommunication where the landlord incorrectly believed the complaint had been withdrawn, and due to this error, it partially upheld the complaint.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord to request the complaint be fully closed, she did not require the appointment to discuss the noise to go ahead, the landlord acknowledged this and closed the complaint. Although the complaint was closed the landlord pursued an investigation as allegations about the resident were made by Children’s Social Services on behalf of the upstairs tenant. These allegations included the resident threatening the tenants with a hammer, mocking the noises the tenant’s son makes (he has autism and is nonverbal) and repeatedly banging her ceiling. Both parties were addressed and advised not to approach or speak to each other.
  5. The resident attempted to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process as she said the issues with ASB were still ongoing, however she was advised she couldn’t do this as she had requested the complaint be closed. The landlord then reopened the complaint and issued a warning letter to the tenants of the flat above. The resident explained the details of the ongoing ASB issues, she said that evidence of the noise had been provided to the landlord. The resident said the landlord had attempted to visit her to discuss the issues but had been refused access. She admitted to banging on the ceiling and would like the landlord to repair the damage caused by this, she would also like legal action to be taken against the tenants.
  6. In its final response the landlord outlined the actions it had taken to resolve the complaint, these actions included the fitting of a new carpet and underlay to the upstairs residents, providing options to the resident to facilitate a property move, visiting all parties to discuss the issues and issuing warning letters to the tenants. The landlord explained there was not sufficient evidence from the noise recordings to take legal action, and the resident was advised to report any further ASB instances. The complaint was not upheld.
  7. In referring her complaint to this service, the resident remained unhappy. She advised the new carpet wasn’t going to help minimize the noise, she was still overcrowded at her property and was bidding on bigger properties but had been refused, she was refusing to take part in mediation and was seeking legal action be taken against the tenants. She was also looking for her ceiling to be repaired. The landlord has now reviewed the resident’s case and has offered £100 in compensation, in addition it has offered early sight of a potentially suitable, larger, alternative property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour

  1. The landlord was aware that the resident had been reporting noise from the upstairs tenant for some time, the landlord had taken action to attempt to minimise the impact on the resident by installing thick carpet and underlay in the flat above. This is appropriate action for it to take and provided a practical solution to the ASB reports.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord to report the noise was still an issue. The upstairs tenants have a young child with autism and the resident was unhappy with the noises the child made at night, she believed the noise was not normal household noise and believed the tenants were stomping and banging windows and doors in order for their behaviour to prompt a house move. In response to the reports, and in addition to the carpet being fitted, the landlord offered to write a letter to the upstairs tenants to warn them the noise was an issue, it also offered the resident an option to register on a website to facilitate a move for herself. The actions the landlord has taken have been fair and appropriate. The resident declined both proposed solutions.
  3. The resident said that she had been banging on the ceiling in order to retaliate, and as a result a large part of her ceiling was damaged. The landlord had advised that it would not repair this as this is the resident’s responsibility. The resident expressed her disagreement with this decision and requested on several occasions the landlord deal with the ceiling repair. Point 7.11 of the tenancy agreement states the resident is responsible for any damage caused by them. This means damage caused by wilful acts and does not mean fair wear and tear. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, it is not the responsibility of the landlord to repair the ceiling, the responsibility lies with the resident as she has caused the ceiling damage by banging on it.
  4. The landlord began the investigation into the resident’s complaint by requesting the noise recordings the resident had previously been asked to make. It attempted to visit the resident to assess the noise and create an action plan. It also appointed a new Housing Officer to be the residents point of contact as the resident said she believed the landlord sided with the upstairs tenants. The initial investigations by the landlord have been sufficient to satisfy the Ombudsman that the landlord was eager to fully investigate and resolve the ASB issues. In addition, appointing a new Housing Officer showed the landlord’s eagerness to maintain a level of impartiality in the case.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord to request the complaint be fully closed, she no longer wished to pursue the issue and did not want any appointments to go ahead to assess the noise levels. The complaint was then closed. However, the landlord believed the matter should still be investigated as the upstairs tenant’s representative (Children’s Social Services) had made allegations about the resident. The subsequent investigation resulted in the landlord speaking to both parties and advising both parties not to approach or speak to each other. It also attempted to facilitate mediation, but this was declined by the resident. Continuing to investigate and advise despite the resident’s complaint no longer being active demonstrates the landlord’s eagerness to improve the situation and is the right thing for it to do.
  6. The landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaint stated that the complaint was not upheld. The following month the landlord visited both properties and conducted noise assessments, where it was found the noise from the landlord jumping on the floor of the tenant’s flat was not heard below. The resident reported she had been banging her balcony doors before knowing the landlord was upstairs conducting a noise assessment as she had heard a window shut in the tenants flat. Again the landlord’s continued investigations despite the complaint not being upheld shows its commitment to an attempted resolution and is an appropriate and fair course of action.
  7. Furthermore, on 22 March 2023 the landlord has offered the resident early sight of an alternative 5 bedroom property, this shows that it is considering both the overcrowding issue and the ASB reports and that it is committed to improving the resident’s situation.
  8. The Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord has attempted to work with the resident to try and resolve the issues, it has investigated the reports and provided practical solutions and advice, it has offered further mediation, it has also attempted to facilitate a move into a more suitable property.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The resident complained to the landlord on 2 May 2022, and received a reply on 17 May 2022, this is within the landlords published time frame for complaint responses. However, the landlord did not address all points contained within the resident’s complaint. As well as the ASB reports the resident also mentioned there was overcrowding at the property. The landlord missed an opportunity to offer a full and comprehensive reply at the first chance.
  2. In addition, there was some confusion regarding the closure of the complaint, the landlord believed the complaint should be closed as the resident had not given authorisation for the landlord to write to the tenant, she did not provide an action plan and declaration of consent as requested, and an appointment made to discuss the noise was cancelled by the resident as the noise had stopped. The resident disagreed and advised this hadn’t been the case, the issue had not been resolved and the appointment was cancelled due to personal circumstances. The landlord acknowledged this was a miscommunication and due to this it partially upheld the complaint. This was the appropriate action for it to take.
  3. The resident requested closure of the complaint on 24 May 2022. This was done. However, the resident contacted the landlord on 7 September 2022 advising she wished to escalate her complaint. The landlord advised her that this was not possible and that she would need to begin the complaints process again. This was not the correct action for it to take and did not provide the resident with an opportunity for a timely resolution.
  4. The landlord realised there had been an error and escalated the resident’s complaint on 23 September 2022. The landlord’s final response was issued on 8 November 2022, which was 13 days outside the landlord’s complaint handling policy time frame. This meant the resident was waiting for longer than necessary to achieve a resolution to her complaint, and the landlord did not take appropriate action.
  5. In its complaint response the landlord offered no apology to the resident. Given the miscommunication that had occurred an apology would have been appropriate to reassure the resident that the landlord was taking full responsibility for its actions.
  6. The landlord reviewed the resident’s complaint and offered £100 compensation to the resident to address the failings in its complaint handling. This was to recognise:
    1. The overcrowding issue not being addressed in the complaint response.
    2. The delay in escalating her complaint.
    3. The delay in providing a complaint response.
    4. No apology being offered.

This was the right thing for it to do, the compensation is in line with the landlord’s compensation guidelines and the Ombudsman is satisfied this is appropriate and fair in the circumstances.

  1. While the overcrowding was not addressed in the complaint, the landlord assures the Ombudsman the issue had been discussed with the resident, the resident had been correctly assessed for a transfer, and there was no detriment to the resident from the omission in the complaint response.
  2. The Ombudsman sees that there were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord has acknowledged these failings and offered £100 compensation which this service believes is reasonable. However, this service would like to point out the late actions of the landlord. This compensation offer was not made during the landlord’s internal complaint process, and the landlord did not act on its own initiative to award the compensation, it did so after the issue was referred to this service for investigation. Therefore, the Ombudsman believes there has been service failure in this respect.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a further £50 in compensation to acknowledge the delay of seven months between its final response and its compensation offer of £100. The landlord should pay this to the resident within four weeks and provide the Ombudsman with evidence it has done so.
  2. The landlord is ordered to provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has put processes in place to ensure staff are aware of the correct complaint escalation procedure. This evidence should be provided with four weeks.