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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202229153)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229153

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

10 February 2025


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 blockages in the plumbing at the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a flat in a block. The resident was recorded as vulnerable due to being registered blind.
  2. The resident began reporting an issue with the drainage in her property regularly blocking in November 2022. When the system blocked she was left unable to use the bathroom and toilets. The landlord attended to unblock the drainage system 4 times in November 2022. It completed a “descale” of the drain on 22 November 2022.
  3. The landlord completed a CCTV survey of the drains on 8 December 2022, and the survey recommended a full descale of the drainage system. It attempted a further descale on 23 December 2022, but was unable to because of the drain was too blocked and it needed more powerful equipment. The landlord reattended to complete the descale on 26 January 2023.
  4. The resident made a complaint on 6 February 2022. She said she was unhappy about the ongoing issue of the toilets blocking. She said the issue occurred regularly and she was left unable to use her bathroom because the toilet would “back up” into the bath.
  5. The landlord sent the resident it stage 1 complaint response on 20 March 2023. It said it had not found a service failure, but accepted the persistence of the issue was “unfortunate”. It explained the issue should have been flagged as a recurring issue, and therefore upheld the complaint. It offered the resident £50 in compensation for its handling of the matter and said it would attend as soon as possible to look into the issue.
  6. The resident reported blocked drains on a further 5 occasions in March and April 2023. The landlord attended to unblock the drains on each occasion. On 3 April 2023 it completed a further descale where “mass amounts” of scale were removed from the drains.
  7. The resident reported the issue had returned on 14 August 2023, and made further reports of blocked drain on 17 August and 16 September 2023. On 20 September 2023 she asked the landlord to open a stage 2 complaint investigation, as the matter was still unresolved.
  8. The landlord attended to unblock the drains on 5 occasions in late September and October 2023. It did a further CCTV survey on 15 October 2023 and found “mass” amount of scale in the pipes and its operative recommended a further descale. It completed a further descale around this time. The exact date is unclear.
  9. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response o 26 October 2023, and upheld her complaint. It gave a history of the visits to unblock the drains and set out it had attended within the timeframes set out in its repairs policy. It explained it had completed descale and would complete a further descale with more powerful equipment to reduce the likelihood of a recurrence. It said it should have completed the descale “much sooner”. It offered the resident £350 in compensation for its handling of the drainage issue, and £50 for the delays in its complaint handling.

Events after the complaints process

  1. The landlord completed a further descale of the drains on 7 November 2023. The resident contacted this Service on 9 November 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She explained the issue was resolved, but previous fixes had only lasted a “few weeks”. She explained she wanted a lasting resolution to the drainage issue, and was unhappy it had taken a year to resolve.
  2. The landlord contacted the resident in June 2024, and said it had decided to increase its offer of compensation for its handling of the issue to £700. It explained it had done this because it had not adequately considered the resident’s vulnerabilities in its earlier complaint responses.
  3. The resident told this Service in January 2025 that the frequency of the drains blocking had improved, but had to call the landlord out to unblock the drains “several” times since the descale in November 2023. The landlord told this Service, in January 2025, that it had attended on 2 occasions in October and November 2024. The repairs notes reflect neither visit was related to the drains blocking.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of blockages in the plumbing at the property

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
  2. The landlord’s repairs guide for residents states that it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours. It states that a blocked toilet (when it is the only one) and blocked drains that are causing waste water to “surge” into basins and baths are considered emergency repairs.
  3. The evidence shows that on each occasion the resident reported the drains and toilets blocking in November and December 2022 the landlord attended promptly to unblock them. The landlord often attended the same day and always within 24 hours. This was in line with its repairs policy timeframes and reasonable in the circumstances. This is evidence the landlord took the resident’s reports seriously and took appropriate action to restore the toilets and drains to a working condition.
  4. That the landlord arranged for a CCTV survey of the drains in December 2022 was reasonable in the circumstances. The resident had reported the issue multiple times in a short timeframe. That it sought to identify the root cause of the issue was reasonable in the circumstances and evidence it took the matter seriously.
  5. The issue persisted after the descale it completed in January 2023, and it attended a further 4 times to unblock the drains in March and April 2023. It is again noted that on each occasion it attended within its target timeframes to unblock the drains. However, we have seen no evidence to indicate it sought to conduct further investigations into the cause of the issue or to identify whether the descale was successful. Considering the frequency with which the issue occurred, this was unreasonable and the landlord should have been more proactive at the time.
  6. Considering it later became clear a “mass” amount of scale remained in the drains, it is reasonable to conclude a more proactive approach at an earlier stage may have helped resolve the problem sooner. The resident was evidently distressed at the recurrence of the issue, and was inconvenienced by the need to repeatedly raise it. The lack of proactive investigation by the landlord may have increased the detriment she experienced.
  7. The evidence seen as part of this investigation shows that the landlord had not appropriately recorded the resident’s vulnerability, a fact it later accepted. This was a failing in its record keeping, and may have impacted on the service the resident received. Considering the particular circumstances of the resident, and her vulnerability, it is reasonable to conclude that the repeat occurrence of the issue, may have a greater impact on the resident than someone without the same vulnerabilities. Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord has a duty to minimise the disadvantages suffered connected to a person’s protected characteristics. The evidence available indicates that the landlord did not have due regard for whether the resident had a disability, as defined by the Equality Act.
  8. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of March 2023, was dismissive of the resident’s concerns about the issue. It is noted that it was accurate to state it had attended within its target timeframes each time the issue was reported. However, to state that it was “unfortunate” the issue persisted was inappropriate and lacked due regard for the impact the situation had on the resident. Up to that point the resident had reported the issue 11 times in a 5 month period. The lack of acknowledgment of its failure to be proactive to identify a lasting solution was unreasonable. The resident was inconvenienced by its failure to appropriately address her concerns.
  9. The landlord completed descaling and removed “mass” amounts of scale from the drains in April 2023. The evidence shows this improved matters for some time, but by August 2023 the issue was persisting again. A more proactive approach, such as a further CCTV survey would have been appropriate at the time. That it did not do so inconvenienced the resident as she had to repeatedly raise the issue. Regularly having limited use of the toilets and bathroom was evidently distressing for her.
  10. It is noted that on each occasion the resident reported the issue the landlord promptly attended to unblock the toilet, which is evidence it took the issue seriously. However, it is concerning that it did not seek to identify a long term solution to the repeat problem around that time. That it completed further investigation in October 2023 was appropriate, but that it was 2 months after it became clear the issue had returned amounts to an unreasonable delay.
  11. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of October 2023 gave a detailed history of the repairs and showed transparency about its handling of the issue. This showed it applied our dispute resolution principle of learning from outcomes. As at stage 1, the stage 2 complaint response failed to adequately address the individual circumstances of the resident, and her particular vulnerability. It failed to show due consideration for the impact the situation had on the resident. We acknowledge and welcome the fact the landlord identified this issue and sought it put it right in June 2024.
  12. The landlord completed a further descale with more “powerful” equipment in November 2023. This was based on the recommendations of its contractor and evidence the landlord sought to find an appropriate long term solution to the issue. The evidence shows this decreased the frequency the drains blocked. It is however concerning that it only took such measures a year after the resident began regularly reporting the issue. A more proactive and thorough approach form the outset may have improved the matter sooner and reduced the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced.
  13. While we welcome the fact the situation has improved, the resident reported to this Service, in January 2025, that the drains did still block and she had to call the landlord out “several” times since its thorough descale in November 2023. We note the landlord’s repair notes indicated the plumbing repairs it has completed since appear to be unrelated to the drains blocking. Considering the resident’s ongoing concerns, it is recommended the landlord instructs an appropriately qualified drain expert to identify any improvements it can make to the drainage system. It should set out its findings to the resident in writing, and say when it plans to complete any recommended works.
  14. As set out above, we welcome the fact the landlord acknowledged it failed to have due regard to the resident’s vulnerability after issuing its final complaint response. This Service welcomes the landlord’s decision to revisit its offers of compensation in order to try and put right its evident failings. The landlord made its offer 8 months after its final complaint response. This impacts on the degree to which the offers put right the evident failings. We have therefore determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
  15. Our remedies guidance sets out that orders between £600 and £1,000 may appropriate to put things right where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. We have determined that the landlord’s offer of £700 in compensation was appropriate in the circumstances and have therefore not made further orders for compensation.

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states stage 1 complaint responses must be sent within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses sent within 20 working days.
  2. The resident first tried to complain on 2 February 2023. That the landlord did not open a complaint at that time was unreasonable, and a failing in its complaint handling. The resident was inconvenienced by the need to contact this Service on 21 February 2023, in order to get the landlord to open a stage 1 complaint investigation.
  3. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response, of March 2023, 30 working days after she complained. This was a failing in its complaint handling, and an unreasonable delay which inconvenienced the resident. That it did not acknowledge or apologise for the delayed response was inappropriate. This is evidence it failed to adopt our dispute resolution principles of learning from outcomes and putting things right.
  4. The comments in its stage 1 complaint response about escalating the resident’s complaint were inappropriate. It said the resident could only take her complaint to stage 2 if she wanted to challenge the facts of its response, if it did not address the initial complaint, or important information was not considered. The Code states that “if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2”. Therefore, the comments in its stage 1 response were contrary to the approach mandated by our Code. The resident was inconvenienced by the landlord setting unreasonable parameters at which the complaint could be escalated to stage 2. It is noted that when the resident asked the complaint to go to stage 2 of its procedure, in September 2023, the landlord opened a stage 2 investigation.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of October 2023, was delayed and was sent 26 working days after the resident made it. The resident was inconvenienced by the fact she had to seek assistance from this Service, in September 2023, in order to get a response to her stage 2 complaint. It is worth noting any delay would have caused some level of inconvenience to the resident, overall, the delay was not excessive.
  6. Considering the above failings we have determined the landlord’s offer of £50 for its complaint handling did not fully put things right for the resident. We have determined there was service failure in its complaint handling. Our remedies guidance states that up to £100 may be appropriate to put right errors where an offer of redress does not quite reflect the detriment to the resident. As such we have determined an order for a further £75 is appropriate to put right the errors in its complaint handling in this case.

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of blockages in the plumbing at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £825 in compensation. The landlord’s offer of £750 in compensation should be deducted from this total if already paid. This comprises the £700 it offered in June 2024 for its handling of the drainage issue, and the £50 it offered for its complaint handling in its stage 2 complaint response. The compensation is broken down as follows:
      1. £700 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its response to the resident’s reports of blockages in the plumbing.
      2. £125 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by errors in its complaint handling.

 Recommendations

  1. Considering the resident’s ongoing concerns, it is recommended the landlord instructs an appropriately qualified drain expert to identify any improvements it can make to the drainage system. It is recommended it sets out its findings to the resident, and say when it plans to complete any recommended works.