Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202226156)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202226156
Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)
27 November 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
- responsive repairs following a leak.
- subsequent complaint.
Background
- The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which began on 4 July 2005. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The resident has sickle cell disease, which the landlord is aware of.
- On 9 September 2022 the resident complained to the landlord that:
- he had been affected by an ongoing roof leak for approximately 5 years
- the roof was leaking again and had damaged the paintwork in his property
- the property was damp because of the leak, which he said was affecting his health
- On 14 October 2022 the landlord sent its stage 1 response in which it said:
- it had attended his property on 5 October 2022 to review the outstanding repairs
- it had found a hole in the roof and raised further works to repair the hole on 24 October 2022
- it accepted there had been a service failure because of the delays and awarded £200 compensation, which it broke down as follows:
- £100 – time and trouble
- £90 – service failure
- £10 – poor complaint handling
- On 17 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to advise that it had not addressed all his concerns in its complaint response.
- On 22 November 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. The resident said:
- he had not received an update from the landlord on progress with the repair
- he had not received a response to his email dated 17 October 2022
- On 25 January 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response in which it said:
- it had inspected the property in December 2022 to check what redecoration works were required
- it had raised a works order for the redecoration, but the landlord had raised this for the wrong address
- it had raised the works order for the correct address and made an appointment for 3 February 2023
- it noted that it had made every effort to resolve the resident’s complaint by chasing stakeholders and contractors
- it acknowledged that it had failed to acknowledge the resident’s request to escalate his complaint in November 2022
- it offered a sincere apology for the mistakes made in raising the works to the wrong address and the mistakes in complaint handling
- it increased its offer of compensation to £245, which it broke down as follows:
- £100 – time and trouble
- £120 – service failure
- £25 – poor complaint handling
- The landlord said it completed the repair to the roof on 24 October 2022.
- The landlord completed the redecoration to the resident’s bathroom and hallway on 1 August 2023. The resident complained to the landlord in November 2023 and February 2024 that he was not happy with the standard of the decoration works. The landlord carried out an inspection on 19 March 2024 and said it would either redecorate the bathroom again or compensate the resident to instruct his own contractor.
Assessment and findings
Scope of the investigation
- The resident has said that the leak was ongoing for 5 years prior to his complaint to the landlord.
- In the interest of fairness, the Ombudsman has limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s complaint dated 9 September 2022, which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 25 January 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this service.
- The resident has referred to an extractor fan within his correspondence. This did not form part of the resident’s initial complaint and therefore the Ombudsman has not considered the landlord’s response to this as part of this investigation.
- The resident said the issues in his property have had a significant impact on his health. When there is an injury or a pre-existing medical condition has been exacerbated, the courts often have the benefit of independent medical evidence. This will often set out the cause of the injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial.
- In this case, while the Ombudsman has no reason to disbelieve the resident, it would be difficult for us to arrive at firm conclusions on the cause of the resident’s health conditions, based on a review of the documentary evidence available in this case. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court as personal injury claim or to legal liability insurers. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused by the condition of the property.
Record keeping
- The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
- It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records. For example, the landlord has not provided copies of its inspection reports from August 2022 and December 2022.
- The landlord’s record-keeping has impacted this service’s ability to conduct a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.
The landlord’s handling of the residents responsive repairs following a leak
- As outlined in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, the installations for the supply of gas and electricity, heating and hot water. These obligations are also reflected in the resident’s tenancy agreement.
- The landlord’s repair guide says it will log a responsive repair as either an emergency, routine, non-routine or an inspection. The guide sets out the following timescales:
- emergency repairs – the landlord will aim to attend within 24 hours – further visits may be needed to fully complete the repair
- routine repairs – the landlord will aim to complete within 28 days (20 working days)
- non-routine repairs – the landlord will aim to complete within 90 days
- inspections – where a repair is more complicated the landlord will attend to complete an inspection before any repairs are made
- The records show that the resident reported the leak to his property on 25 August 2022. He also reported that there was damp in the property which he said was affecting his health and that the leak had damaged paintwork in his property. The landlord’s records show that it had been trying to repair a previous leak throughout 2021. The most recent appointment being in September 2021.
- The Ombudsman understands that the resident felt the leak he reported in August 2022 was a continuation of previous issues with the roof. In other words, it resulted from the landlord’s failure to fully repair the roof in September 2021. The Ombudsman is not an expert in construction matters, so we cannot independently establish whether the issues were related. Instead, we would typically rely on the expert opinion of relevant qualified professionals.
- The landlord said that it conducted an initial assessment following the resident’s report and thereafter raised follow on works, which included erecting scaffolding to inspect the roof. It is unclear from the records when the landlord carried out this initial assessment and the landlord has not provided this service with a copy of its report. This is a record keeping failure by the landlord.
- The landlord said that it inspected the roof on 5 October 2022 and found a hole. The landlord said that it repaired the roof on 24 October 2022, which was 64 days after the resident logged the repair. The landlord’s repair policy states that it would record roofing repairs that require scaffolding as non-routine repairs, which the landlord aimed to complete within 90 days. The Ombudsman would therefore consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak in August 2022 to be appropriate because it was consistent with its repair policy.
- However, where there is a leak into a property, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to consider whether there were any steps it could take to mitigate the impact on the resident, such as a temporary decant. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this in this case, which was not reasonable.
- With regards to the resident’s reports of damp, a landlord is obliged, in accordance with s.9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to ensure that a property is fit for human habitation and free from category 1 hazards. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould published in October 2021 made several recommendations to landlords on how damp and mould should be addressed to prevent the ongoing risks. This included that landlords ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
- Once the landlord was on notice that there was damp affecting the property, and the resident had raised concerns about the impact on his health, it should have decided whether it needed to complete a health and safety assessment. It should have also considered whether dehumidifiers were required to address the moisture and humidity levels in the property. There is no evidence to show that the landlord inspected the damp, what action it took or whether it considered any actions to mitigate the impact on the resident. This was not appropriate because it was not consistent with the landlord’s repair obligations.
- Following receipt of the landlord’s stage 1 response the resident contacted the landlord on 17 October 2022 to inform it that he was dissatisfied with its complaint response. He said it had not addressed all the outstanding issues, as follows:
- the wall in the hallway needed repainting following damage caused by the leak
- the ceilings in the hallway and bathroom needed repainting following damage caused by the leak
- the landlord had not addressed the resident’s report of damp in the property
- The Ombudsman understands that the landlord was not obliged to carry out decoration works to the property. However, it had agreed to remedy the damage caused by the leak and therefore it was important that the landlord completed the work it had promised in a timely manner.
- Upon not receiving a response to his email, the resident sent a further email on 22 November 2022.
- The landlord asked the resident to send it photographs of the damp so that it could refer to its repairs team and arrange a mould wash, if necessary. As outlined above, the landlord ought to have assessed the resident’s report of damp at its initial inspection when the resident first raised the repair. There was no requirement for the resident to give further notice to the landlord of the repair. The landlord carried out another inspection of the property in December 2022 which gave it another opportunity to assess the resident’s reports of damp. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of its report and therefore we are unable to assess what the landlord found at that inspection and whether its response was reasonable or not. This is another example of poor record keeping which has impacted upon this investigation.
- The resident contacted the landlord in January 2023 when he informed it he had not received a response to his request to escalate his complaint. Following receipt of this email the landlord carried out a review of the resident’s complaint and found that it had raised the redecoration works order in December 2022 to the wrong address. When the landlord identified its mistake, it took steps to raise another works order for the correct address and arranged an appointment with the resident for 3 February 2023.
- The landlord’s records indicate that it attended the property on 1 March 2023 and 11 April 2023 to complete the redecoration works. On both occasions the landlord’s contractors said that it had to leave because the resident became abusive and was not happy with the standard of work. They said he refused to allow the contractor to continue. It is not clear from the records what steps the landlord took to address this. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to carry out an inspection to consider the resident’s concerns and agree a way forward with him. There is no evidence that the landlord did this. The landlord said that it completed the decoration works on 1 August 2023.
- The landlord should have completed the decoration works to a good standard. We can see that in November 2023 and February 2024 the resident challenged the quality of the work again and the way the landlord had managed the repairs. While the landlord should have responded to part of this as a new complaint by the resident, we note that the landlord advised the resident that it would be included in the Ombudsman’s investigation. We have therefore decided to address this as we believe it would be the fairest approach given the time that has passed.
- The records show that the landlord returned to the property in March 2024 to undertake an inspection. The inspection report highlighted the following points:
- the resident was satisfied with the decoration in the hallway
- decorators had used the same paint on the door and walls
- paint was cracking on the ceiling above the bath
- The surveyor recommended the landlord either redecorate the bathroom in full or compensate the resident to instruct his own contractor. The landlord said that it redecorated the resident’s bathroom, which it completed in September 2024. There was therefore a delay in the landlord completing the decoration works to a satisfactory standard from December 2022 until at least September 2024. This was not appropriate and a failure by the landlord.
- With regards to communication with the resident, the evidence shows that the landlord’s complaint handler spent a lot of time chasing the repair team for updates. Landlords must ensure that there is collaboration and co‑ordination between teams in managing complaints. The lack of response from the repairs team impacted upon the landlord’s ability to respond to the resident’s queries in a timely manner. There is evidence that the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates and responses to his concerns about the repairs. This was not appropriate and a failure by the landlord.
- In summary, the landlord:
- repaired the leak reported in August 2022 within a reasonable timescale and consistent with its policy
- failed to assess the damp in the property following the resident’s report of 25 August 2022
- failed to consider if it needed to complete a health and safety assessment
- failed to consider whether it should provide a dehumidifier
- failed to manage communications with the resident which resulted in the resident having to chase the landlord for updates
- raised the redecoration works to the wrong address which resulted in an unnecessary delay
- delayed unreasonably in completing the redecoration works
- The Ombudsman considers this did amount to maladministration. Therefore the landlord should pay the resident compensation to recognise the impact its failures had on him.
- The landlord offered £220 compensation for service failure, time and trouble. This does not, in the Ombudsman’s view, recognise the impact to the resident. As set out, the resident said he was tired and frustrated with the delays and having to chase the landlord repeatedly for the same issues. He said that he felt the landlord had not taken ownership of the issues and had not communicated effectively with him.
- The landlord has tried to put things right but the offer made was not, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, proportionate to the failings identified in the Ombudsman’s investigation. While the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s response to the report of a leak in August 2022 to be appropriate, the redecoration works to repair damage caused by the leak remained outstanding from at least December 2022 to at least September 2024. Based on the period this remained outstanding and the impact, and in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, a fairer level of compensation would be £500 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s subsequent complaint
- The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. At stage 1, the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days of being made and will provide its response within 10 working days of being acknowledged. At stage 2, it will acknowledge the resident’s escalation within 5 working days and provide its response within 20 working days.
- The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (2022) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should manage complaints. This includes an expectation that landlords will:
- respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days
- respond to escalations at stage 2 within 20 working days
- The resident raised his initial complaint on 9 September 2022, and the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 14 October 2022, which was 25 working days later. The landlord had made the resident aware in its acknowledgement of the complaint that there may be a delay in it providing its response. Paragraph 5.1 of the Code states that where a complaint is extended, landlords should provide a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. The landlord did not do this in this case and therefore the resident did not know when he would receive a response. This was not appropriate because it was not consistent with the Code.
- The resident remained dissatisfied and emailed the landlord on 22 November 2022 and 6 December 2022 to request the landlord escalate his complaint to the next stage. The landlord has said that the reason for not escalating his complaint on these dates was because it was trying to resolve the resident’s complaint without the need to escalate to stage 2. However, it was clear from the resident’s correspondence that he wished to progress his complaint to the next stage of the complaint process. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s requests which was not appropriate.
- In his escalation the resident said that the landlord had not addressed all aspects of his complaint within its complaint response. Paragraph 5.6 of the Code states that landlord’s must address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord did not do this. This was not appropriate because it was not consistent with the Code.
- Following a further request from the resident on 13 January 2023 the landlord sent it stage 2 response on 25 January 2023, which was 44 days after the resident’s first request to escalate his complaint on 22 November 2022. This was not appropriate because it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or the Code.
- On 8 November 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to complain about the standard of the redecoration works. He also complained that there were paint spots on his flooring and he had lost workdays waiting in for contractors to attend. The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 November 2023 to inform him that it considered this to be part of his original complaint and would not accept a new complaint from him. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord ought to have accepted this as a new complaint. This is because the decoration works were completed on 1 August 2023 and the resident had raised concerns over the quality of those works and not the original repair. This was a failure by the landlord.
- In summary, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint, in that it:
- delayed unreasonably in providing a response at stage 1
- failed to address all the points raised in the resident’s complaint at stage 1
- failed to acknowledge the resident’s requests to escalate his complaint
- delayed unreasonably in providing a response at stage 2
- failed to recognise the resident’s dissatisfaction with the redecoration works as a new complaint in November 2023
- In its complaint response the landlord offered £25 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This does not, in the Ombudsman’s view, recognise the impact to the resident. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available online, provides awards of compensation between £100 and £600 when there is evidence of maladministration by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.
- In this case, the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint at both stages would have delayed the resident in progressing the complaint through the landlord’s process. It would have also prevented him from exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure so that he could bring the matter to the Ombudsman for an independent investigation.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s responsive repairs following a leak.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s subsequent complaint.
Orders
- The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
- pay the resident £650 compensation comprised of:
- £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the responsive repairs following a leak
- £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint
- this is inclusive of the compensation previously offered by the landlord and therefore the landlord can deduct from this total any compensation that may already have been paid in relation to this complaint
- pay the resident £650 compensation comprised of:
- The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.