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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202211289)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211289

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

3 March 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 the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the CCTV at the property prior to 2021.
    2. Response to the resident’s concerns that the CCTV at the property had not been upgraded as agreed in 2021.
    3. Handling of the resident’s complaint and its record keeping.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the resident’s complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the CCTV at the property prior to 2021.
  2. Paragraph 42(b) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure.
  3. The evidence available to this investigation indicates the resident had raised a complaint in 2019 regarding a delay in repairing or replacing the CCTV at the property and his reports of anti-social behaviour. The landlord’s records show it issued a stage three complaint response in relation to these issues in October 2020, but the resident did not escalate the complaint to this Service at that time or within 12 months of having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint and may be referred to in this report, this assessment will focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint raised in April 2022 about its failure to complete the renewal of the CCTV as agreed by 2021.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. He has resided at the property, a one-bedroom flat, since 1999. He has advised this Service that he struggles with his mental health.
  2. The resident had historically raised a complaint with the landlord regarding alleged antisocial behaviour in the vicinity of the building and records indicate he had been asking for the communal CCTV to be repaired or replaced from 2017 onwards. Within its response to his previous complaint, the landlord had previously confirmed that the CCTV would be replaced as part of a planned programme of works prior to April 2021.
  3. The resident raised a complaint in April 2022 as he was dissatisfied that the CCTV at the property did not work, that it had not been repaired as had been previously agreed and he was unhappy with the amount of time he had spent pursuing his concerns. He continued to pursue his complaint into June 2022 and raised further concerns over the lack of response. He subsequently added that he had needed to provide his own CCTV footage to the police when a neighbour had been attacked the previous year, expressed concern over his safety and asked when the perpetrators were released from prison. He advised he would not be in this position had the landlord’s CCTV been working.  He also raised additional concerns about various repair issues, problems he had had relating to the landlord’s contractors, alleged drug-usage within his building and the landlord’s response to his reports of antisocial behaviour.
  4. In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the resident had been asking for the CCTV to be replaced since 2017 and that he had been told that it would be completed by 2021. It also acknowledged that this had not happened, for which it apologised. It explained that replacement programmes could take time to implement based on several factors and further apologised for any frustration caused. It confirmed that the CCTV replacement was now due to take place by April 2023 and offered the resident £75 in recognition of the time and trouble he had spent pursuing the matter. It also addressed the other concerns raised by the resident and advised him to continue to report any drug-taking within the building to his housing manager who was aware of his reports and was investigating the issues.
  5. In its communication with this Service, the landlord identified that it could have done more to respond to the resident’s concerns and acknowledge its failings throughout the complaints process. It explained that the delay in renewing the CCTV had been caused by the impact of Covid-19 and that funds had needed to be allocated elsewhere. It offered an the resident an additional £200 compensation, comprised of £50 for its poor complaint handing, £100 for the delay in completing internal repairs (unrelated to the CCTV) and an additional £50 in recognition of the time and trouble spent by the resident. This increased the landlord’s final compensation offer to £275. Unfortunately, this increased offer does not appear to have been conveyed to the resident by this Service.
  6. The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB around the building, the delay in upgrading the CCTV system as agreed and the landlord’s poor communication. He also highlighted that he had historically needed to pay a service charge for the CCTV despite it not working and had not been fully reimbursed for this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. While it is noted that the resident raised several other concerns related to repair issues within the property, from the information seen by this Service, these issues were not raised as part of his original complaint or escalation request during the landlord’s complaints process. As such, they have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints that have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. These matters have therefore not been addressed within this investigation. While it is also noted that, in its communication with this Service, the landlord has offered £100 compensation for the delay in completing internal repairs, if the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s offer of compensation or its handling of the issues, he may wish to raise a further complaint with the landlord, if has not done so already, so that it can provide a further response to his concerns.
  2. The resident has also made mention of being dissatisfied with service charges applied by the landlord in relation to the CCTV which was not working. He advised that he had been refunded part of the service charge relevant to the CCTV, but not for the entire time it was not working. Under Paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that concern the level of service charge or the increase of service charge. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the resident would be advised to seek free and independent advice from Shelter England (https://england.shelter.org.uk) in relation to how to proceed with a case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the CCTV at the property to be repaired or replaced

  1. In this case, it is not disputed that the landlord had agreed to renew the CCTV system prior to April 2021 and that it advised the resident of this within a previous complaint response in October 2020. The evidence shows that this was not completed as agreed and the landlord has since confirmed to this Service that the renewal was due to be completed by 16 January 2023. The landlord acted appropriately by apologising to the resident for the delay in completing the renewal and offering £75 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble he had spent pursuing the renewal since its previous complaint response. Following the conclusion of its complaint procedure, it then increased its offer to £125.
  2. It is important to note that social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. The landlord’s website confirms that CCTV systems are installed on some of its schemes to help tackle anti-social behaviour, vandalism and other problems that may affect residents’ security. It should be noted that landlords are not strictly obliged to place CCTV cameras outside of its properties, however, where this has been installed, the landlord would be responsible for maintaining it and renewing it where necessary. The landlord would be entitled to carry out the CCTV replacement as part of a planned programme of works over a given financial year subject to available budget.
  3. Within its responses to the resident, the landlord advised that the renewal was delayed and that replacement programmes could take time to implement based on several factors. However, it would have been appropriate for it to have explained what these factors were and why the CCTV renewal needed to be put on hold. In its communication with the Ombudsman, it has acknowledged that it could have done more to comprehensively respond to the resident and cover the length of time taken for certain elements of the complaint to be resolved. It further explained that the impact of Covid-19 had meant that funds needed to be distributed elsewhere for more urgent matters which resulted in many of its customers going without planned works commencing when promised.
  4. It is noted that the impact of Covid-19 caused significant disruption to many landlords’ repairs and planned programmes of work, primarily due to staff sickness, periods of time where non-emergency repairs were put on hold as a result of lockdown restrictions and issues related to sourcing and manufacturing materials. However, the landlord would have been expected to explain its reasoning to the resident within its complaint responses and failed to do so at the time which is likely to have caused the resident confusion and frustration. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to review the case and provide a further explanation to the Ombudsman as part of this investigation, it remains unclear why it was unable to provide similar feedback to the resident in response to his enquiries or as part of its complaint responses, as would have been appropriate.
  5. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, outstanding actions should be tracked and actioned expeditiously, and residents should be provided with regular updates following a complaint. Any limitations the landlord faced as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic were somewhat outside of its control. However, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that the landlord had proactively communicated with the resident to explain why the renewal had been delayed once it became apparent it would not be completed in April 2021 as expected, in order to successfully manage his expectations.
  6. In its communication with this Service, the landlord has stated that it is not common practice for it to update residents in relation to communal repairs or renewals and that residents are able to contact it for any further information if required. Whilst it is reasonable that landlords do not have the resources to update every resident in relation to every communal repair carried out, given the resident’s former complaint, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have seen any outstanding actions through to completion and taken steps to update him to prevent any unnecessary time and trouble to him and prevent repeated complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident was provided with any form of update prior to his formal complaint in April 2022. As such, there was a missed opportunity by the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations whilst the renewal remained outstanding.
  7. In addition, it is of concern that the landlord’s communication with this Service indicates it had not provided any further updates to the resident regarding the CCTV renewal, which it subsequently advised was due to be carried out by 16 January 2023. Whilst it had previously advised within its complaint responses that the renewal would be completed in the 2022/23 financial period, it was unable to provide a firm date for the works to be carried out. Therefore, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have maintained communication with the resident and updated him when it established when the works would be carried out, so as to demonstrate it was doing what it said it would do. This would have been helpful in an attempt to improve the landlord/tenant relationship, which had deteriorated given the length of time the issue remained outstanding, and the time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing his concerns.
  8. Overall, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer of £125 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble the resident spent pursuing the renewal is not considered proportionate given the additional identified failings related to the landlord’s communication with the resident regarding the CCTV renewal. As such, the landlord is to offer the resident an additional £75 compensation, bringing the total to £200. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which states that amounts in this range are considered proportionate where there had been considerable service failure or maladministration, but where there may be no permanent impact on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and its record keeping

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states it operates a two-stage complaint process. At stage one the landlord should acknowledge the complaint within five working days and provide a response within ten working days. If the resident’s wishes their complaint to be escalated, the landlord should provide a response at stage two within 20 working days. If, at any stage there is likely to be a delay in providing a response, the landlord would be expected to update the resident and explain the reason(s) why and provide a new response timeframe, which should not exceed a further ten working days. The landlord’s responses would be expected to address each aspect of a resident’s complaint or to contain an explanation as to why it would not do so. Its complaints policy clarifies that a complaint should not be raised if a resident is reporting antisocial behaviour and should only be used for complaints about standards of service or any action or inaction by the landlord.
  2. In this case, the resident initially raised a complaint on 1 April 2022 and continued to pursue his concerns into May and June 2022. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 7 June 2022 and issued its stage one complaint response on 17 June 2022, which was 51 working days from the resident’s initial request. The resident initially asked for his complaint to be escalated on 17 June 2022, specifically in relation to his concerns regarding the CCTV and its handling of his reports of ASB. The landlord issues its stage two complaint response on 24 June 2022, which was within its 20-working day timescale at stage two.
  3. In its communication with this Service, the landlord acknowledged that there were delays in its complaint handling which should have been identified sooner as part of the complaints process. It offered £50 compensation in recognition of any inconvenience caused by the delays at stage one. Whilst it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have identified its failings as part of its stage two complaint response and offered redress at the time, its offer is considered proportionate in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the identified delay.
  4. However, the resident also raised concerns regarding the landlord’s handling of his reports of antisocial behaviour and drug usage within the building as well as concerns regarding his safety. Whilst the landlord confirmed that it would investigate the resident’s concerns regarding a neighbour taking drugs, it failed to address his concerns regarding how it had handled his reports of antisocial behaviour or offer support in view of his concerns regarding his safety. It should be noted that the landlord may not have been able to share information related to its investigation as this may have related to other tenants’ personal information. However, if this were the case, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have explained the actions it was taking as far as possible (without breaching confidentiality) or outline the limitations it faced relating to information sharing in order to manage the resident’s expectations and resolve the complaint more fully.
  5. In view of the fact it had acknowledged the resident did not feel his reports were being taken seriously within its stage two complaint response, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have taken steps to set out any support that was available or to signpost him to the police in relation to antisocial behaviour in the area. This would have demonstrated it had considered his concerns. The landlord’s failure to show it had fully addressed the resident’s concerns is likely to have exacerbated the resident’s feeling that the issue he raised were not being taken seriously or given full consideration.
  6. In addition, as part of this investigation, the landlord was asked to provide information related to the previous complaint raised in 2019 in relation to the CCTV repair and renewal. The landlord advised it did not retain information for the majority of complaints once 12 months has passed since they were concluded and it was therefore unable to provide that further information. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was not a reasonable response as the landlord was able to provide other contact notes and internal emails related to the historical complaint dating back to 2017, which indicates the information requested potentially should have been available.
  7. Whilst the lack of information has not prevented the Ombudsman from reaching a determination on the current complaint, the omissions indicate poor record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide the information when asked. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. As such, it is recommended that the landlord takes steps to ensure that there is a clear audit trail for complaints and reconsiders its policy of not retaining some complaint information after 12 months have passed, so as to retain clear information regarding when contact has been made by residents, what was said and what any agreed next steps and expectations were.
  8. Overall, while it would have been preferable for the landlord to have made this offer during its initial complaint investigation, its offer of £50 compensation is considered proportionate in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the delay in issuing a stage one complaint response. However, in recognition of the landlord’s failure to provide an adequate response to all the concerns the resident raised, it is ordered to pay an additional £50 in recognition of the inconvenience this would have caused, bringing the total to £100.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the CCTV at the property prior to 2021 is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns that the CCTV at the property had not been upgraded as agreed in 2021.
    2. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint and its record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to, within four weeks:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £300, this is comprised of:
      1. An increased offer of £200 in recognition of the time and trouble the resident spent pursuing his concerns regarding the CCTV renewal and the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor communication.
      2. An increased offer of £100 in recognition of the landlord’s poor complaint handling. This figure includes the landlord’s previous offer of £75 if this has not yet been paid.
    2. The landlord is to write to the resident to confirm whether the CCTV renewal, scheduled for January 2023, has now been completed or explain the reasons for any delays and provide an estimated timescale for completion.
  2. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should write to the resident outlining the reasons for its offer of £100 in recognition of the delays in carrying out internal repairs to the property, as outlined in its correspondence with this Service, and make arrangements to process payment if the resident accepts its offer. If the resident remains dissatisfied, it is recommended that the landlord considers his concerns in line with its internal complaints process which was not exhausted as part of the complaint considered.
  2. The landlord should consider taking steps to ensure that actions promised in complaint responses are seen through to completion and residents who have complained about communal repairs or maintenance are adequately updated where appropriate.
  3. It is recommended the landlord takes steps to ensure there is a clear audit trail for complaints, particularly regarding agreed next steps and whether these were carried out, and that it reviews its policy regarding the retention of information relating to concluded complaints and considers retaining relevant complaint information for a period longer than 12 months.