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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202205951)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205951

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

15 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

a. a fault with the electricity supply to the leaseholder’s garage, and;

b. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The leaseholder holds a shared-ownership leasehold of the property with 25% ownership. The property is a three-bedroom house.
  2. On 31 January 2019, the landlord raised a work order with the developer about the leaseholder’s garage. The issue it raised was the electricity to the garage was being drawn from a neighbouring property. The first evidence of the leaseholder chasing an update to this was on 23 February 2021. However, the leaseholder may have contacted the landlord regarding this earlier. The landlord has not provided this Service with any earlier correspondence. The landlord responded on 18 March 2021 that it was still discussing available solutions with the developers. The leaseholder chased the landlord on 22 April 2021, 17 May 2021 and 25 August 2021 however did not receive a further update until 28 April 2021 when the landlord said it was still chasing the developer and its builders for updates.
  3. The leaseholder complained to the landlord on 7 September 2021. She was unhappy with the lack of progress in finding a solution and the lack of communication. The landlord acknowledged this complaint on 8 September 2021 and provided its stage 1 response on 27 September 2021. It upheld her complaint and provided the leaseholder with £80, consisting of £50 for service failure delays and £30 for time and trouble. It also told the leaseholder it was working with the partnering developers and planning to dig up the front footpath and driveway to install a separate power supply.
  4. The leaseholder requested an escalation of her complaint on 31 January 2022. She was unhappy she still had not received further updates and that the landlord had ignored her e-mails chasing this. The landlord acknowledged this escalation on the same day. The landlord provided its final response on 11 May 2022. In this, it said that running an alternative electrical supply cable was unfeasible and that, as per its agreement with the developer, her garage should not have electricity. It informed the leaseholder it intended to disconnect the supply. For the time and trouble to the leaseholder, it offered £2,000 compensation.
  5. The leaseholder referred her complaint to this Service on 26 July 2022. She explained that she would like her electricity retained with the defect rectified. She felt that the compensation offered was inadequate and that she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her complaint. The leaseholder has since informed us that the landlord has now resolved the issue of retaining the electricity in her garage. She stated that she still felt the compensation offered was inadequate.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a fault with the electricity supply to the leaseholder’s garage

  1. The case law on this matter suggests that landlords must not “derogate from grant” (Platt v London Underground [2001] EGLR 121). This precedent means landlords must not change anything so that a benefit or convenience present at the start of the tenancy is reduced or removed.
  2. The landlord informed the leaseholder it intended to disconnect her electricity. Although this did not occur, the notice of its intention represented a failure to comply with its relevant statutory obligations. The landlord’s actions in doing so caused distress and inconvenience to the leaseholder. However, as the landlord did not disconnect the electricity supply, there was no further detriment or loss of use to the leaseholder.
  3. The fault was identified as early as January 2019, and had not been resolved at the conclusion of the complaints process. Throughout the process the landlord needed to seek legal advice, discuss the works with the developer, and seek multiple opinions from electricians about the best course of action. All these actions were appropriate for the landlord to take. Given the complicated legal nature of the issue, this Service is unable to say that the landlord unnecessarily delayed.
  4. However, the landlord failed to communicate its plans or explain the ongoing delays to the leaseholder. From the correspondence available, the leaseholder had to chase the landlord on at least seven occasions to get an update. The leaseholder informed the landlord that losing electricity to the garage would have a significant impact on their household. Given this, the landlord should have been doing more to treat the leaseholder with sympathy and should have provided updates on a more regular basis.
  5. The landlord was responsible for service failure in handling the fault with the electrical supply. It provided incorrect information to the leaseholder attempting to arrange to disconnect her electrical supply. It also failed to provide proper updates to the leaseholder leaving her to chase for updates. In its stage 2 response, it offered £2,000 for the ‘trouble caused due to the error resulting in the disconnection of the power supply’. Its offer of compensation was in partnership with the developer of the property. As the landlord did not disconnect the electricity, and the developer is not part of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service cannot ask the landlord to pay this to the leaseholder.
  6. The landlord should pay the leaseholder £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that it will provide its stage 1 response within ten working days of receiving a complaint. At stage 2, it says it will attempt to provide its complaint response within twenty working days of receiving the complaint.
  2. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the leaseholder on 27 September 2021, 14 working days after it received the complaint. The landlord failed to respond within the timelines set out in its policy. For this failure, it offered the leaseholder £80 compensation combined for the delays and trouble caused.
  3. At stage 2, the landlord took 72 working days to provide its response. Once again, this was a failure by the landlord. Its combined offer of £2,000 for time and inconvenience would have covered part of these. However, the landlord offered this in conjunction with the developer. This Service cannot ask the developer to pay compensation.
  4. The tone of the landlord’s responses was fair and reasonable.
  5. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s complaint. The landlord should pay the leaseholder £150 for failing to respond within the timelines outlined by its policies. This is including the £80 offered at stage 1 of the complaint process.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of a fault with the electricity supply to the leaseholder’s garage.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. It is ordered that within four weeks of the date of this letter the landlord pay the leaseholder £300 consisting of:
    1. £150 for its failure to communicate fairly with the leaseholder in its handling of the fault with the electrical supply to the garage.
    2. £150 for its failures to comply with its own policies when handling the leaseholder’s complaint. This is inclusive of the £80 the landlord previously offered at stage 1 of the complaint process.