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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202225062)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225062

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

17 September 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould at her property.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a ground floor flat. It has no vulnerabilities recorded for her, but she has explained that her health, sleep, and physical and mental wellbeing have been affected by recurring leaks, damp, and mould at the property since 2011.
  2. Following a previous uncontainable leak from the resident’s upstairs neighbour’s flat into her property in 2020, which caused damp, mould and repairs including the renewal of her bathroom, it recorded another such leak at the neighbour’s flat in July 2022. It noted that water again leaked onto their floor, which it attended to investigate after 3 calendar days, and it ordered materials and works to dig up and repair a leaking pipe in the floor from 21 calendar days after the leak. However, the resident reported her bathroom and toilet were then flooded by the leak during this time, but that the landlord initially told her it could only assist her with 2 dehumidifiers it delivered after 2 working days, when it also recorded removing excess water at her property.
  3. The resident therefore described having to sleep in her living room from the flooding onwards, due to the resulting damp and mould in both of her property’s bedrooms, as well as in the bathroom, toilet, and hallway. The landlord subsequently identified repairs in these rooms and in her kitchen, including to plasterwork, tiles, decorations and pipework, in July 2022 that it booked with follow on works in August 2022, when it also completed further leak and pipework repairs at her neighbour’s flat. It then identified more works to the resident’s ceilings and walls it was unable to complete in September 2022, when the resident made a stage 1 complaint about its reactive, limited, and delayed actions and communication she repeatedly had to chase it for.
  4. The resident added her health, sleep, work, and visitors were affected by the resulting worsening damp, mould, and damage at her property, as well as receiving her highest energy bills there due to the dehumidifiers’ running costs. She therefore felt unsafe and that recent and previous leaks, damp, and mould at the property could happen again, asking the landlord to move her and compensate her costs, time, and effort in chasing its lack of communication and timely action. The resident also sought more staff training and resources to improve their details of past incidents, listening, and attentiveness. The landlord recorded subsequently carrying out some more repairs that it did not complete at her property in October 2022, which it could not access on one occasion.
  5. The landlord’s October 2022 stage 1 complaint response apologised for the resident’s inconvenience and dissatisfaction with its delayed damp and mould repairs its specialist repairs team were due to complete by November 2022. It acknowledged she reported her resulting costs were up to £706.98 but had preferred to wait to give it the final figure after the works were concluded for it to consider reimbursing these, which it agreed to wait for. The landlord added that repairs had gone on for longer than needed and its complaint handling had been poor, so it offered £100 compensation for repair delays, £100 for the resident’s time and trouble in chasing it, and £50 for its poor complaint handling. It then arranged follow on works for November and December 2022.
  6. However, the resident subsequently made a final stage complaint to the landlord in December 2022 after its repairs at her property were not completed on the latest due date at that time, which was rescheduled to January 2023. She therefore complained that the issues in her stage 1 complaint remained unresolved, she still did not feel safe and needed to move due to her mental and physical health, and there were outstanding painting, sealing, and moving works at the property. The landlord then asked the resident in January 2023 for her energy bill statements for the affected period in the previous 2 years for it compare, work out, and reimburse her excess usage, as well as completing the above repairs and moving back furniture at her property.
  7. The Ombudsman subsequently asked the landlord in January 2023 to respond to the resident’s final stage complaint at her request in February 2023, when it explained it had to allow time to fully dry out her property to complete works there. It acknowledged these were due in December 2022 but had not been finished because of the lack of time booked, with her being unable to make any further repair appointments until January 2023, when works were completed as agreed with her. The landlord considered it had previously appropriately investigated and resolved the resident’s stage 1 complaint, but it had incorrectly suggested it could reimburse costs above £300 that it had also not received sufficient evidence for, agreeing to reimburse £222.93 for dehumidifier costs.
  8. The landlord explained the resident’s energy bill statements showed cost increases but not her usage, so it could not calculate excess costs. However, it apologised for not meeting her expectations, gave details to claim her losses from its insurers, management feedback, and a team policy discussion. The landlord also acknowledged the resident slept in her living room but it did not consider her bedroom uninhabitable, stated it moved furniture as a goodwill gesture, and partially upheld her final stage complaint, offering another £50 compensation for poor complaint handling. She then complained to the Ombudsman about its handling of leaks, damp, mould, communication, reimbursements, compensation, listening, empathy, and learning being lacking.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is concerning that the resident reports that she has had recurring leaks, damp, and mould at her property since 2011, as well as that her physical and mental health and wellbeing have been affected, which she asked to be moved for. This investigation is nevertheless limited under the Scheme to considering the landlord’s handling of her property’s leaks, damp, and mould from July 2022 to February 2023.
  2. Paragraph 42c of the Scheme states we may not consider complaints not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within 12 months of the matters arising. Paragraph 42f of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints concerning matters where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts or other tribunal or procedure. Paragraph 42o of the Scheme states we may not consider complaints concerning matters where the outcome is not within our authority to provide.
  3. This investigation cannot consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould since 2011 under paragraph 42c of the Scheme, as any reports made from that date were not made within 12 months of her formal complaint to it about these issues in September 2022. The Ombudsman additionally cannot determine liability or award damages for the effect on the resident’s physical and mental health and wellbeing under paragraph 42f of the Scheme, as we do not have the authority or expertise to do so in the way that the courts or insurers might. Moreover, this investigation cannot consider her request to be moved for this because the allocation of alternative accommodation is an outcome that is not within our authority to provide under paragraph 42o of the Scheme.

Leaks, damp, and mould

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to maintain her property’s structure, including pipework, walls, floors, ceilings, skirting boards, and plasterwork. It is required to rectify damage to decorations caused by its repairs or failures to carry these out. The landlord’s repairs guide for tenants obliges it to respond to emergency repairs such as major uncontainable water leaks and floods within 24 hours, routine repairs within 28 calendar days, and major structural repairs within 3 months. Its damp and mould process and policy require it to triage damp and mould reports on the same day, arrange fast-track inspections within 5 working days, organise other inspections, remedial works, and monitoring depending on the causes and action needed, and to be clear about these with residents and give them weekly updates.
  2. The landlord initially sought to respond to the resident’s upstairs neighbour’s flat’s 1 July 2022 uncontainable water leak in line with its repairs guide for tenants. This is because, although it attended to investigate the leak after 3 calendar days on 4 July 2022, it ordered materials and works to dig up and repair a leaking pipe in the floor from 21 calendar days after the leak began on 22 July 2022. It was also understandable that these more extensive works needed more time, and therefore began within the guide’s 28-calendar-day routine repair timescale, as well as that works were completed by running new pipework 41 calendar days after the leak on 11 August 2022. Moreover, the latter date was within the guide’s 3-month timescale for major structural repairs.
  3. However, it is of concern the landlord did not attend the resident’s neighbour’s above leak within 24 hours, as required by its repairs guide for tenants for such emergencies, even though attended on the next working day. This is because it might have reduced the later damage to her property by attending the neighbour’s leak earlier. The landlord might also have done so if it had attended the subsequent leak it recorded at the resident’s property on 20 July 2022 sooner within the guide’s 24-hour timescale, instead of 2 calendar days later to provide 2 dehumidifiers and remove excess water on 22 July 2022. It is also concerning it identified extensive plasterwork, tile, decoration, and pipework repairs in her bedrooms, bathroom, toilet, hallway, and kitchen on 26 July 2022.
  4. While it is understandable that dehumidifiers would have been required to dry out the resident’s property to allow the landlord to begin works there, it is nevertheless of concern that it began scheduling these from 1 and 2 August 2022 but did not finish them until almost 6 months later on 30 January 2023. This is because this was 3 months later than its repairs guide for tenants’ 3-month timescale for such major structural repairs, which was unsuitable. It is noted the landlord raised follow on works at the resident’s property for 3 and 10 August 2022, but it could not complete the repairs there at that time or during the next works it scheduled on 7 and 8 September 2022, as well as being unsuccessful in attempting to book further repairs for 15 September 2022.
  5. Following some of the plastering, tiling, pipework boxing in, stain blocking, and painting the landlord recorded carrying out at the resident’s property on the above dates, it noted raising some more of these repairs for 4, 7, and 17 October 2022, but that it was unable to access the property on the latter date. It therefore rearranged these follow on works to 28 November 2022, despite telling her they were due to be concluded while being overseen by its specialist repairs team by 3 November 2022, which was inappropriate. The landlord then scheduled further works to complete the outstanding repairs at the resident’s property on 7 and 15 December 2022, but it explained it could not finish these due to the lack of time booked, which was unsuitable.
  6. The landlord stated that the resident could not accommodate any more appointments to complete the above works that remained at her property until 2023, and that these were completed as subsequently arranged with her on 30 January 2023. Nevertheless, while it was understandable that it had to rely on her availability in order to finish these repairs, it was also predictable that she was unlikely to be able to arrange them during the holiday period. Therefore, by delaying the works until that time, the landlord was additionally responsible for further delaying their completion until after the holidays, which was inappropriate. This made it suitable that its complaint responses apologised for her inconvenience and dissatisfaction from its repair delays.
  7. The landlord also sought to put right its above failings, as per the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle for it to do so, by offering £100 compensation for repair delays, and another £100 for the resident’s time and trouble chasing it. The latter was due to her explaining its poor communication about the works meant she repeatedly had to chase it for this and its lack of timely action. The landlord’s above compensation offers are in the range recommended by its compensation policy and guidance for medium failures in not completing repairs when it said it would and her unnecessary effort in communicating with it. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance also recommends this for such time, trouble, and delays getting matters resolved.
  8. Moreover, the landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged its poor handling of the resident’s complaint at both stages of its complaints procedure, which it offered her an additional £100 compensation for. This too was in the range recommended by its compensation policy and guidance for poor complaint handling, as well as by the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for time and trouble from such failures. After the resident confirmed to the landlord on 25 October 2022 she had incurred £706.98 from the cost of running dehumidifiers, it agreed to consider reimbursing her costs once her property’s repairs were concluded, including the £22.98 she spent on dehumidifier filters. Nevertheless, it did not go on to do so, despite the details she gave it of her energy bills.
  9. The landlord’s compensation policy and guidance states, if evidence is provided of losses or damage caused by its actions, it can reimburse these up to £300, with higher losses to be considered by its insurance team. It therefore subsequently told the resident that it had previously wrongly suggested it could reimburse her costs above £300, which it gave her its insurers’ details to claim from them, and that it could offer her £22.98 for her dehumidifier filters receipt but only £200 for her increased energy bills. The landlord said that the latter was because her energy bill statements showed cost increases but not her usage, so it could not her calculate excess costs, which it had asked for her statements for the affected period in the previous 2 years to compare this for.
  10. It was unreasonable that the landlord previously suggested it could reimburse the resident’s reported £706.98 dehumidifier costs when its above compensation policy and guidance explicitly stated it could not. It was therefore appropriate for it to then apologise for not meeting her expectations about this and give her its insurers’ details to seek such costs, in line with the policy and guidance. It was also understandable for the landlord to offer the resident £200 for her increased energy bills, when it could not calculate her excess costs up to the £300 permitted by its policy and guidance from her statements. However, it would have instead been preferable to request details of her usage from her energy supplier to do so via her or directly from the supplier with her authority.
  11. It is nevertheless also of concern that there is no evidence that the landlord complied with its damp and mould process and policy throughout the resident’s case. This is despite her 7 September 2022 stage 1 complaint explaining that she had to sleep in her living room from the July 2022 leak at her property onwards, due to the resulting damp and mould in both bedrooms, as well as in the rest of the property, which she asked it to move her for as she could not breathe. While the landlord explained it did not consider the resident’s bedrooms to be uninhabitable, there is no indication it took any further action to address her damp and mould concerns during its above nearly 3-month repair delay in her case, contrary to the process and policy.
  12. The landlord was instead obliged to triage the resident’s damp and mould reports on the same day, arrange fast-track inspections within 5 working days, and organise other inspections, remedial works, and monitoring depending on the causes and action needed. Its damp and mould process and policy also required it to be clear about these and provide weekly updates to her on the property’s damp and mould. The fact that there is no evidence that the landlord specifically triaged and inspected the resident’s property for this, remedied or at least provided mitigations and monitoring while waiting to complete leak damage repairs was completely unacceptable. It was also unsuitable of it not to clearly communicate with or provide weekly updates to her about this.
  13. Therefore, while the landlord took some steps to partly put right its above repair delays and lack of communication, its actions were not proportionate to fully put things right. This is because its above offers did not fully recognise the extent of the adverse effect on the resident of the delays, poor communication, incorrect reimbursement information, lack of further energy usage investigation, and absence of specific damp and mould action by it. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommends up to £600 compensation for such failures adversely affecting the resident, so the landlord is ordered below to pay her £822.98 total compensation, including its dehumidifier cost and filter offers, as well as to apologise for the further failings identified by this investigation.
  14. The resident also asked for the landlord’s staff to receive training and resources to improve their details of past incidents, listening, and attentiveness. It explained it had given feedback to its management and arranged a team meeting discussion to remind staff of its policies. It is noted that the landlord has since self-assessed its compliance against the Ombudsman’s spotlight and follow up reports on damp and mould. However, it is still concerning that it has not shown how it will prevent its above failures from occurring again, contrary to our dispute resolution principle for it to learn from outcomes.
  15. The Ombudsman has found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following several investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving repairs, damp and mould, complaint handling, and record keeping. As a result of these, the Ombudsman issued a wider order to the landlord under paragraph 54f of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures identified, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter.
  16. The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its practices, processes, and procedures in relation to responding to repairs, damp and mould, complaint handling, and record keeping. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the previous cases, so we have ordered the landlord below to incorporate the learning from this complaint into the wider review, ordered as part of case 202011109. In addition to this, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case that would duplicate those already made to the landlord as part of the wider order.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould at her property.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £822.98 total compensation within 4 weeks, which is broken down into:
      1. £600 in recognition of any distress and inconvenience she experienced from the failures by it identified by this investigation.
      2. £222.98 it previously offered her for her dehumidifier costs and filters.
    2. Write to the resident within 4 weeks to apologise for the further failings in its response to her reports of leaks, damp, and mould at her property identified by this investigation, take responsibility for these, acknowledge their impact on her, and outline exactly how it proposes to prevent these from occurring again in the future.
    3. Incorporate the learning from this complaint into the wider review, ordered as part of case 202011109, of its practices, processes, and procedures in relation to responding to repairs, damp and mould, complaint handling, and record keeping due within 6 weeks.
  2. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 and 6 weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders.