Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202212927)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212927

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

29 May 2024

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs.
2. The landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the first floor. The landlord is a housing association.
On 22 September 2022 the resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. They stated:
1. They were complaining about ongoing noise from their upstairs neighbour and the damage the neighbour had caused to their ceiling.
2. That since 21 July 2022 they had spoken to the landlord twice and sent many emails, but the landlord had not taken any action.
3. They wanted the landlord to paint their ceiling and re-fit a light and a smoke alarm.
4. They wanted the neighbour to stop making loud noises after 11 pm and reduce the amount of noise during the day.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 October 2022. It said:
1. It believed the resident had experienced an unnecessary delay in the landlord’s handling of the reported matters.
2. The resident had reported a leak in July 2022, but it had not taken any action to resolve this. It stated it had now raised an inspection to address this issue.
3. It had now contacted the resident about the reports of ASB. It further said that, following actions by its housing team, the noise nuisance had improved, and that it had sent a letter to the neighbour about the noise and to offer support to reduce the issues the resident had experienced.
4. It acknowledged the resident had experienced noise issues with previous tenants in the upstairs flat and that it had reiterated the priority of the situation to the relevant teams.
5. There had been a delay in issuing its complaint response due to staff sickness.

It offered £60 in compensation, comprised of £15 for the delayed complaint response and £45 for the delayed response to the reported issues.

The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 3 January 2023. They advised a further leak had occurred over the holiday period, but the damage was in a different area of their living room. They stated they would like their complaint reviewed as:
1. An inspection to assess the flooring in the upstairs flat had not yet taken place.
2. Their damaged ceiling and walls still needed painting. They advised a job had been raised to spot-paint the affected areas, but this had been cancelled and sent for review as the resident did not consider it would have been effective.
3. The smoke alarm and light still needed to be re-fitted once the painting had been completed.
The landlord issued its final response on 1 March 2023. It said:
1. It would like to apologise for the delay in responding to the complaint.
2. It had inspected the resident’s property on 18 January 2023.
3. It had scheduled repair works for 1 March to 6 March 2023.
4. It had tried to bring the outstanding repairs forward, but this had not been possible due to its repair team’s availability.

It increased its offer of compensation to £120. This comprised £30 for poor complaint handling and £90 for time and trouble.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs.

The landlord’s repair policy states it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
The policy confirms the landlord is responsible for repairs relating to leaks, as well as plaster on walls and ceilings.
The landlord has supplied repair records for the resident’s property. The records confirm the resident reported a leak in their hallway on 21 July 2022. This leak had affected the electrics in the property and had caused a loss of power. The landlord attended the property the same day. This was appropriate and in line with its policy.
The landlord inspected the property on 24 October 2022 and raised 2 work orders:
1. To patch decorate the lounge, bedroom and hallway following a leak from the above flat. This was marked as completed on 15 November 2022.
2. To fit light fittings in the hallways. This was marked as completed on 22 November 2022.
While the works were marked as complete in its records, there does not appear to be any dispute that the work was never completed by the landlord. This is evidence of poor record-keeping and a failure by the landlord.
During the stage 2 complaint process the landlord reviewed the work orders. It located pictures showing a newly plastered ceiling and notes stating the resident did not want the lights and new smoke alarm fitting until the landlord had painted the ceiling. The work order to fit the lights had been closed until the ceiling had been painted. There is no evidence that the landlord had raised a new order to complete the required decoration or had considered rescheduling the electrical works rather than closing the order. These would have been reasonable steps for it to have taken.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on or around 18 January 2023. On 20 January 2023 it raised 2 further jobs:
1. To stain block the affected areas in the lounge/kitchen, bedroom, and hallway then redecorate all 3 rooms.
2. Following decoration reinstate the lights in the hallway.

These repairs were marked as completed by 6 March 2023. The resident has confirmed to this service that they have been completed.

The landlord has not provided any explanation in its complaint responses or to this service for the significant delay in completing the repairs. While it did attempt to bring forward the scheduled dates for the January 2023 jobs, there was a 6-month delay in raising the necessary orders. The Ombudsman has no evidence on which it could conclude that this delay was out of the landlord’s control or that the landlord had acted reasonably in its actions to repair the resident’s property.
There is also no evidence that the landlord had identified the potential fire risk from the resident missing an operational smoke alarm. It is unclear if the property had additional alarms, but it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have either prioritised this element of the repair or advised the resident that it would need to reinstate the smoke alarm while waiting for the painting to take place.
Based on the available evidence and for the above reasons, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
The landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses that there had been a delay in completing the repairs and offered £90 compensation.
The resident had informed the landlord that they had paid to have their property professionally decorated before the leaks occurred. The damage caused by the leak and the length of time taken to rectify it would have likely caused distress to the resident. The resident was also left without an operational smoke alarm for 8 months. The Ombudsman does not consider the compensation offered by the landlord to be appropriate to address the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

There does not appear to be any dispute that the resident has made reports to the landlord about the behaviour of tenants living in the upstairs flat.
This service made the following request for evidence from the landlord:
1. To provide details of any ASB cases from September 2021 onwards for the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour by their neighbour. For each case, please provide all records documenting any decisions made or actions taken.
2. If the resident’s reports of noise were not treated as ASB please provide any records documenting why this was the case.
3. Please provide copies of all correspondence exchanged with the resident in relation to their reports of anti-social behaviour/noise by their neighbour.
The landlord responded to this request on 17 May 2024 but did not provide any of the requested information. It instead referred to a document it had previously provided. This is evidence of poor record-keeping and a failure by the landlord.
The document details actions that the landlord took between February 2023 to March 2023 and in September 2023 in relation to an ASB complaint that had come from a third neighbour. While this ASB complaint related to the same upstairs neighbour that the resident made reports about, it is not evidence that the landlord has acted reasonably or appropriately in its handling of the resident’s reports.
The document additionally details:
1. That, while visiting the block in February 2023, the landlord had spoken to the resident who advised they had ongoing issues with the upstairs neighbour.
2. That the resident said they had reported matters to the landlord about damage caused by a leak in the upstairs flat and noise.
3. The landlord had agreed it would install noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s property.
4. The landlord believes it arranged dates to install the equipment with the resident, but they cancelled these as they were not available on those dates.
5. The landlord has no records to confirm the dates it proposed to install the equipment or why the appointments were cancelled.

This is further evidence of poor record-keeping and a failure by the landlord.

Due to the lack of records, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine whether the landlord’s handling of the ASB was reasonable and in line with its ASB policy and procedures. The Ombudsman therefore considers there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of ASB.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process with the following timeframes:
1. It must acknowledge stage 1 complaints and stage 2 escalation requests within 5 working days.
2. It must issue its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. If it requires further time this must be agreed with the resident, and it must provide weekly updates.
3. It must issue its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. If it requires further time then an extension of up to 30 days (in total) must be agreed upon with the resident.
The landlord did not meet its stated timescales for issuing its responses at either stage 1 or stage 2. This was a failure by the landlord and was not in line with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
During the stage 2 complaint, the landlord contacted the resident twice to advise it would be extending the time for its response by 10 working days. However, there is no evidence that it agreed to either extension with the resident. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with the landlord’s policy.
The landlord’s stage 2 response did not include any reference to the resident’s complaint about the handling of ASB reports. The landlord has advised this service that the resident did not make any reference to ASB when escalating their complaint to stage 2. The Ombudsman does not agree with this statement.
The resident’s stage 2 escalation made clear reference to an outstanding inspection to assess the flooring in the upstairs flat. The resident emailed the landlord on 25 October 2022 asking for it to arrange to check the flooring in the upstairs flat and referring to noise and vibration. The resident had emailed again the following day to advise the surveyor (who had attended to look at the leak damage) had heard the noises from upstairs and said the housing officer should arrange a visit to the neighbour. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to conclude the inspection mentioned by the resident was about assessing whether the flooring was a contributory factor to the reported noise.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have contacted the resident during the handling of the stage 2 complaint to ask what inspection was outstanding and whether it was in relation to the repairs or ASB. This would have been in line with the Code which states that, where any aspect of a complaint is unclear, the resident must be asked for clarification.
While the landlord’s complaint responses do accept there were delays in its handling of the complaint, only the stage 1 response provides an explanation for the delay. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have included a similar explanation at stage 2.
For the reasons above, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord has offered £30 compensation for the failures in its complaint handling. The Ombudsman does not consider this appropriate to address the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Issue a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Contact the resident to support them with any ongoing issues in line with its ASB policy. The landlord should assess whether any further incidents require investigation. The landlord must evidence:
  1. That it has contacted the resident.
  2. That it has assessed whether any ongoing issues reach the threshold to be considered ASB.
  3. If there is potential ASB, it has opened an ASB case and conducted initial assessments in line with its policy. It should then maintain records to demonstrate it continues to handle the case in line with its policy.
  4. If it does not consider any ongoing issues to reach the threshold of ASB, it has communicated that to the resident and explained why.
  5. It has considered whether there is any further support it could provide to the resident to assist with any ongoing issues.
3. Pay the resident £950 compensation. This consists of:
  1. £250 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.
  2. £500 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
  3. £200 for the time and trouble of having to raise a complaint together with the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in complaint handling.
4. This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset payments already made from the Ombudsman’s award. The landlord must make payments directly to the resident and not credit it to their rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.
At 90 days from the date of this report, the landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has handled any ASB reports from the resident, made from the date of this report onwards, in line with its policy.