Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202226242)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226242

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

26 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:
1. Repairs to a structural wall of the property.
2. The associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident is the leaseholder and shared-owner of the property, which is an end of terrace house. The landlord, a housing association, is the other part owner.
The resident’s son has acted as her representative. For the purpose of this report, unless it is otherwise necessary to distinguish between them, all communication from the resident and the representative are referred to as coming from the resident.
On 17 November 2020, the resident reported cracks on the external wall of the property, which were also showing inside. The landlord advised her to arrange her own contractor and send any report to the landlord if the issue was found to be structural.
The resident pursued the matter with the landlord into 2021 and a survey was commissioned which identified numerous cracks in the structure. This was referred to the landlord’s building insurer and loss adjuster in case it was caused by subsidence. The report concluded that it was not subsidence, but a lack of “lateral restraint to the flank wall”, pushing it outwards and causing it to crack. Monitoring studs were installed to detect any subsidence between April and September 2022 and no movement was detected.
Another landlord inspection was carried out on 26 September 2022 which found that, as the property was east facing, solar heating had caused the wall to expand and contract and it had significantly moved out of alignment. It stated that more modern properties would be fitted with ties and expansion joints to prevent this, but the property pre-dated such building regulations. It concluded that structural repair was necessary and it needed to be assessed by a structural engineer.
In October 2022 the landlord informed the resident that remedial works were required and it would be in touch once it had obtained legal advice. The landlord obtained a quote from a structural engineer in December 2022 to inspect the property and provide a structural design and schedule of works for repairs (£5,800).
The landlord advised the resident, in January 2023, that the structural repairs were her responsibility in accordance with the lease agreement. It explained that, if she did not complete the necessary works, it had the right to do so and recover the costs. It therefore offered her 2 options:
1. Resident’s own structural engineer to inspect the property and employ a contractor to complete the work within 3 months.
2. The structural engineer who had provided the quote to inspect and plan the work (at the landlord’s cost) and the resident could then instruct and pay for a contractor to complete the work, within 3 months.
On 27 January 2023 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord about the lack of customer service and communication, and the responsibility for the repairs. She said the issue had been outstanding for 2 years and she was still having to chase the landlord for responses. In the landlord’s response of 14 February 2023 it explained that its legal advisors had confirmed the resident was responsible for the repairs and she must now comply with her repairing obligations. Alternatively, the landlord would complete the works and recover the costs from her.
The resident chased for a formal complaint response in March and April 2023 and continued to dispute the landlord’s position on the responsibility for the repairs. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 April 2023 and extended the timeframe for responding several times before issuing its stage 1 response on 12 June 2023. In its response, the landlord:
1. Detailed the steps it had taken to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns about the wall to date.
2. Reiterated its position that she was responsible for the repairs (and the associated costs) in accordance with the terms of the lease, and the work must be done within 3 months.
3. Said it may consider forfeiture proceedings if she did not comply with her obligations.
4. Advised her to contact her buildings insurer.
5. Apologised for the delayed complaint response and offered £75 for time and trouble.
The resident submitted a stage 2 complaint on 12 June 2023, stating that she should not be responsible for a structural issue when she pays the landlord rent. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 18 July 2023 it reiterated its previous position and said there had been no service failure. However, it offered £50 for its complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident first reported the cracks in the wall to the landlord in November 2020, but did not raise a formal complaint until January 2023. The Ombudsman expects residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, usually within 12 months of the issues complained of arising (reflected at paragraph 42.c of the Scheme). This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to investigate the issues whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is still available to properly assess them. Therefore, while the events dating back to November 2020 are noted for context, this investigation is focused on events from January 2022, 12 months before the complaint was raised.
Much of the correspondence between the parties is focused on how the terms of the lease should be interpreted to attribute responsibility for the necessary works. However, it is not within this Service’s authority to provide a legally binding decision on the interpretation of an occupancy agreement or a ruling on who is responsible for the specific repairs. It would be more reasonable and effective to seek this remedy through the courts (reflected at paragraph 42.f of the Scheme) and the resident may therefore wish to seek legal advice in that regard. Instead, this assessment is focused on the landlord’s service delivery in responding to the resident’s concerns and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
The parties have also discussed the issue of buildings insurance in this case. Paragraph 41.b of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which concern matters which do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme. As the landlord’s insurer is not a member of the Scheme, any dispute about the insurers’ processes and decisions would be for the resident to raise directly with them or via a legal claim. As above, the resident may wish to seek legal advice regarding this.
The resident has told this Service that the stress of these matters has negatively affected her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. Such matters would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the wall

Section 3(3) of the lease states the leaseholder is “To keep from time to time and at all times during the term the Premises clean and well and substantially repaired maintained and decorated (damage by fire and other risks insured under Clause 4(2) excepted unless such insurance shall be vitiated by any act or default of the leaseholder.)”
The resident does not believe she is responsible for structural repairs. She states that she pays for the landlord’s buildings insurance as part of her rent and this should cover the costs. She understands the section of the lease that says she is responsible for repairs but interprets this as internal repairs as opposed to cracks in the outside wall.
In response, the landlord took appropriate action by seeking legal advice on the interpretation of the lease terms in order to establish the rights and responsibilities of the respective parties. The result, confirmed by its legal advisors, was that the resident was responsible for structural repairs. While contrary to the resident’s interpretation, the landlord was entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its suitably qualified advisors, and the Ombudsman would not criticise it for doing so.
The landlord also took action to investigate the resident’s concerns and determine the cause of the cracks. It commissioned 2 surveys and the application of monitoring studs, which were consistent in stating that the cause of the cracks was wall movement due to heat expansion. Further, the landlord made insurance enquiries in the event the cause was subsidence, which it was informed was not the case.
These steps demonstrated that the landlord was taking the resident’s concerns seriously and actively sought to identify the issues so that appropriate remedial works could be undertaken. Again, the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its surveyors and inspections to establish the cause of the cracks and identifying the next steps.
The landlord’s decision about the responsibility of structural repairs was appropriately made based on the information available to it and the advice it had received. However, its communication with the resident throughout this process was not effective and it was this element of its service delivery which let it down. While there is evidence of internal communication and the landlord seeking advice, it was not proactive in updating the resident. Instead, she had to continuously ask for a response, which left her feeling ignored and that the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously.
On 19 October 2022 the landlord apologised to the resident for not contacting her and said it would be in touch following legal advice. However, it did not do so and the resident chased an update again on 18 November 2022 and 18 January 2023. Following the landlord’s letter advising her of her options on 23 January 2023, she tried to call the landlord on 27 January 2023 without any response.
The evidence is clear that the landlord did not update the resident unless it was prompted to do so. It is understood that the issues were complex and the landlord needed to conduct various enquiries to confirm its position before it was able to move the matter forward with the resident. However, its lack of communication and failure to explain periods of delay caused the resident to feel stressed and frustrated throughout.
The level of contact initiated by the resident should have highlighted the level of concern she was experiencing. She told this Service she wanted the landlord to “treat her like a human being and not a number.” The resident also said she would have liked the landlord to speak to her and explain everything instead of “just sending legal letters” that she did not understand.
The landlord should have communicated more effectively and proactively with the resident throughout such a period of uncertainty. While its decision and messaging was largely consistent throughout its contact on the issue, it could have made efforts to deliver this more sensitively and compassionately. This could have been in the form of telephone updates or face to face meetings to aid understanding, as opposed to letters and emails that were only sent when repeatedly prompted.
While the legitimacy of the landlord’s position regarding its responsibility for repairs is beyond the scope of this investigation, its overall handling of the matter and its communication with the resident was not adequate and amounts to maladministration. In order to ‘put things right’ (in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles) the landlord is ordered to meet with the resident to fully explain its position, with reference to the lease terms and the advice it has received. In addition, taking account of the impact the landlord’s failings have had on the resident for a prolonged period, the landlord is ordered to pay her £200 for its poor communication around the handling of the wall repairs. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for findings of maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident made a formal complaint on 27 January 2023 but this was not logged or responded to as a complaint. The resident requested a formal complaint response on 16 March 2023 but the landlord did not respond and the complaint was still not logged. When the resident chased the response again on 18 April 2023, a senior manager for the landlord asked for it to be logged as a stage 1 complaint. This was nearly 3 months after the resident submitted it. This does not comply with the landlord’s complaint policy which states that stage 1 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days.
Once the stage 1 complaint was logged, it was a further 36 working days until the landlord provided a response. During this period the resident had to further prompt the landlord when it failed to meet the 10-day deadline extension for a response. Internal communication showed the landlord was trying to establish the facts and the matter was being discussed with senior managers. However, it should have been proactive in explaining this to the resident. While the delay in logging and responding to the complaint did not exacerbate the substantive issue, it made the resident feel anxious and ignored.
When the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, the landlord responded 26 days later. This was not in accordance with its complaints policy, which states it should be within 20 days.
While there was no permanent impact on the resident and the complaint handling may not have affected the overall outcome on the substantive issue, there were continuous delays and failure to log the resident’s complaints. As highlighted above, the resident had to repeatedly contact the landlord, resulting in added stress and inconvenience to the original issue. The landlord failed to follow its complaints procedure throughout, which amounts to maladministration.
The offer of £75 compensation at stage 1 is within the landlord’s criteria of medium level failure. Compensation of £51-£160 is offered in cases where there is no permanent impact but where the resident had to continuously chase responses and complaints were not formally logged. The prolonged period and repeated requests from the resident mean the lower end of this compensation scale was not proportionate to the stress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord offered £50 compensation at stage 2, in line with its criteria of low level failure that is defined as short in duration. The delay in providing the stage 2 response was much shorter than previous instances but this formed a pattern of much more substantial delays. Therefore the amount was again not proportionate to the overall detrimental impact to the resident.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance covers maladministration where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer of compensation was not proportionate. The level of compensation suggested for this is £100 – £600. Given that the delays did not materially impact the progress or outcome of the substantive issue, but caused the resident undue distress and inconvenience, an award of £200 is made (inclusive of the £125 offered during the complaint process).

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the:
1. Repairs to a structural wall of the property.
2. Associated formal complaint.

Orders

Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange a face to face meeting with the resident to explain its interpretation of the lease terms and her responsibilities under that document.
2. Pay the resident £400 compensation
  1. £200 for its poor communication around the wall repairs.
  2. £200 for the stress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. The £125 offered during the complaints process can be deducted from this sum if already paid.