Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202229406)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229406

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

25 January 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. The resident’s concerns regarding the balcony in the property above.
2. Repairs to resolve damp and mould in the property and its offer of a permanent decant.
3. The resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, living in a flat. The upstairs property has use of a balcony on the flat roof which is directly above the resident’s bedroom.
The resident has intermittently raised concerns between 2020 and 2022 that her neighbour was feeding birds on the balcony, which was causing a nuisance. In response, the landlord restricted the neighbour’s use of the balcony.
A property survey was completed on 12 August 2021 which found evidence of rising damp and issues with the structure of the property. The survey also stated the roof structure needed to be upgraded if the landlord intended to allow it to be used as a balcony by the upstairs neighbour. On 20 May 2022, the landlord told the resident she would need to be permanently decanted (moved from the property) for works to be completed.
The resident raised a complaint on 18 January 2023. She said she was not informed that works would be completed (although not explicitly stated by the resident, it appears the works were to her neighbour’s balcony). She said the works caused noise disturbance, the landlord did not have planning permission, and she was not decanted. She did not think the landlord had considered her medical needs. She also said she had doorbell camera footage of the landlord’s staff members saying they would get an injunction to complete works to her property.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 March 2023. It said:
1. It had reviewed the doorbell camera footage and apologised for the inconvenience caused. It said the staff member no longer worked for the landlord. It reminded staff to be more mindful when discussing cases. It had no concerns that the management of the resident’s case illustrated discrimination or victimisation.
2. The resident was eligible for a 2-bedroom property. It advised her to continue to bid to find a suitable property and signposted her to mutual exchange.
3. A second property condition survey was required to assess the damp and mould and overall property condition, as the initial survey was over 12 months prior. Once the survey was completed, it would assess whether a decant was required. It encouraged the resident to provide access for the survey.
4. It recognised there were several “housing and tenancy matters” involving her neighbour that had caused her distress. It said it was working to support the resident and resolve the issues.
5. As the works to her neighbour’s balcony were to replace damaged fixtures, rather than make alterations or improvements, it did not require planning permission. The works had been deemed fit for purpose.
6. It had recently received correspondence from the council planning department about the balcony and it would keep the resident updated. In the interim, it had told her neighbour to only use the balcony for resting and fresh air. It would continue to ensure the neighbour was not causing antisocial behaviour (ASB).
7. It offered £50 compensation for time and trouble and £20 for poor complaint handling.
The resident escalated her complaint on 3 March 2023. She disputed the balcony was fit for purpose and she said it was not compliant with the previous surveyor’s report. She was dissatisfied that her neighbour had been given permission to use the balcony to feed birds and thought it was the basis for the landlord’s decision to complete repairs to the balcony without planning permission. She said the landlord had not addressed her concerns that she had not been rehoused despite being given “permanent decant status”. She did not think the landlord had considered her medical or disability factors, and she thought it had discriminated against her.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 4 April 2023, it stated:
1. The resident was registered on the transfer list and her current banding was C2. It would review the documents she had submitted and write to confirm any housing changes by 17 April 2023. It encouraged the resident to expand the postcode areas she was interested in.
2. It was unable to provide decants in all instances that repairs were required, but it would consider all the circumstances, including the resident’s health conditions, once the necessary repairs were determined. It needed access to the property to assess the repairs required and would offer temporary accommodation if the works were extensive. It apologised if there was any miscommunication regarding the matter or upset caused.
3. It was satisfied that it had carried out a full investigation into the reported ASB and took appropriate action. Her neighbour’s use of the balcony was restricted to 9am-9pm. It did not currently think the behaviour amounted to ASB or had a detrimental impact on the resident. It would continue to monitor the situation and advised the resident to submit any further evidence.
4. It had repeatedly liaised with the council regarding the balcony and had received confirmation it was able to maintain the balcony structure.
5. It had acted appropriately to ensure the resident’s health, safety and wellbeing was not compromised and had referred her to the relevant department for support.
6. It had addressed the doorbell camera footage in its stage 1 response, and it apologised for any distress caused. It would learn from the incident as it was not appropriate to have conversations regarding residents in public spaces.
7. In place of the compensation at stage 1, it offered £100 compensation for time and trouble and £20 for poor complaint handling.
In correspondence with the Service on 4 October 2023, the landlord increased its compensation offer to £50 for its complaint handling, due to the time taken to resolve the stage 1 complaint.
In the resident’s complaint to the Service, she said she was unhappy her neighbour had permission to feed the birds, as it caused disturbance to her sleep. She was concerned that the landlord had not adhered to the surveyor’s findings or planning regulations regarding the balcony. She said the landlord had not explained what permanent decant status meant, which caused her uncertainty about her security of tenure. She was concerned the landlord would move her somewhere unsuitable and she wanted autonomy over deciding where to move. She also said damp and mould issues had been ongoing for 9 years and she had concerns over staff conduct.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident reported to the Service that damp and mould issues have been ongoing in the property for 9 years. In line with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. The report has therefore focused on events from 6 months prior to the complaint being raised.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the balcony in the property above

In accordance with the landlord’s repairs responsibility guide, it is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the building. It is clear from a letter from the council planning department in 2001 that the landlord was permitted use of the roof terrace as a balcony. The neighbour’s use of the balcony is included within their tenancy agreement. The landlord would therefore be required to take reasonable steps to ensure it was maintained. As the balcony is on the flat roof above the resident’s bedroom, the landlord should appropriately respond if she raises concerns that the balcony is impacting the use of her property.
The resident has intermittently raised concerns for several years about her neighbour feeding birds on the balcony, as it attracted pigeons and squirrels, and the noise was impacting her sleep. While the reported behaviour would not necessarily constitute as ASB, given that the resident said it caused significant disruption, the landlord should have assessed whether it could take actions to reduce the impact on her. The landlord wrote a letter to the neighbour on 27 April 2022 reiterating that it had withdrew permission for him to feed the birds on 17 July 2020. Given the impact on the resident, this was a reasonable action to take.
The resident reported that her neighbour was continuing to feed birds on the balcony on 26 September 2022. In her complaint escalation on 3 March 2023, the resident said the landlord told her that her neighbour could use the balcony to feed the birds from 9am – 9pm. It is noted that there is no evidence to confirm this agreement. However, in its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed the neighbour’s use of the balcony was restricted to 9am-9pm. It also said, “we appreciate that you find your neighbour feeding the birds as a health and safety risk, we do not agree with this interpretation as there is no evidence that his bird feeding is causing ASB or is detrimental to you”. It therefore appears that it would not take any further action to stop the neighbour feeding birds on the balcony.
The landlord had somewhat set a precedent by previously withdrawing permission for the neighbour to feed the birds. The landlord should maintain a consistent approach to nuisance reports unless it has new evidence that supports its decision to take different action. It therefore should have provided clear and appropriate reasons regarding why it had determined it would not take further action to prevent the neighbour feeding birds, including details of its investigations and findings.
The landlord told the Service it would occasionally check on the neighbour and only saw small birds and no evidence of pigeons or vermin. However, it has not provided evidence of its investigation. It is important that landlords keep clear records so it can provide evidence it acted reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures. In this case, it has failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify its decision to not take further action to prevent the neighbour feeding the birds.
The landlord should also consider individual circumstances when managing such issues. The resident said the noise caused by pigeons and squirrels on her roof impacted her sleep and her ability to manage her son’s medication throughout the night. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this information in its decision to allow the neighbour to continue feeding birds.
The resident also raised concerns about her safety in relation to her neighbour’s use of the balcony. On 22 April 2022 the resident reported that her neighbour stored items on the balcony and a metal object had fallen into her garden. The landlord acted appropriately as it promptly told the neighbour not to use the balcony and said it would look to reinstate the railings. On 5 May 2022 the resident reported that her neighbour was still using the balcony. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged her concerns or contacted her neighbour to ensure the balcony was not in use. This was inappropriate as although it was seeking a long-term solution, it should have managed the resident’s reports in the interim to ensure no further safety risks arose.
The landlord installed railings on the balcony in January 2023. The resident subsequently raised concerns that the landlord had failed to adhere to planning regulations when completing work on the balcony. On 8 March 2023 the council’s planning department confirmed the roof terrace was lawful but it subsequently advised the new railing and decking required planning permission. In its complaint response, the landlord said it was corresponding with the council’s planning department and would keep the resident updated, but there is no evidence it did.
The resident contacted the council to request an update and it confirmed it was not pursuing enforcement action. The landlord should have kept the resident updated to manage her expectations and prevent causing her additional time and trouble pursuing the issue. Nonetheless, the landlord has appropriately liaised with the council and followed its advice regarding planning regulations. Following completion of the complaints process, the landlord has submitted a planning application, on the advice of the council, and it should ensure it provides the resident with any relevant updates.
The resident has raised concerns about the findings of a surveyor’s report from 12 August 2021. The report stated he had previously proposed installing a handrail on the flat roof so the neighbour could have use of the balcony. He said he was not “confident that this roof is constructed to support this increased load … and if you were so minded to permit this use, it would be necessary to upgrade the roof structure”. Due to the elapsed time since the report, the Service is unable to comment on whether the landlord acted appropriately at the time. Nonetheless, as the resident raised concerns regarding the survey’s findings within her complaint, the landlord should have addressed the matter.
There is no evidence that the landlord meaningfully engaged with the resident’s concerns regarding the survey’s findings. It should have explained why it had proceeded with reinstating the handrail to allow use of the balcony, and confirmed how it had satisfied the balcony was safe to use, in order to assure the resident it had considered her concerns. The resident told the Service that the landlord told her the report was “biased”, but no contemporaneous records have been provided relating to this conversation. Regardless, the landlord would be expected to rely on the findings of a more suitably qualified contractor or additional evidence, if it had determined it did not need to act on the surveyor’s findings, which it has failed to demonstrate.
In its complaint response, the landlord said the balcony works were deemed as suitable and fit for purpose. However, it did not explain how it had satisfied the balcony was safe for use or confirm whether it had acted on the previous surveyor’s report. As a result, it has not provided sufficient evidence to support its decision to allow the neighbour to use the balcony or that it reasonably addressed the resident’s concerns. This has caused significant distress to the resident due to her safety concerns, as the balcony is on top of her son’s bedroom.
In view of the evidence, the landlord has not appropriately responded to the resident’s concerns regarding her neighbour’s balcony. It has failed to reasonably handle both the resident’s concerns about her neighbour feeding birds and the safety of the use of the balcony. It is evident that this has caused the resident ongoing distress, inconvenience, disruption, and time and trouble pursuing the issues.
The landlord did not acknowledge or take steps to redress its failings within its complaint responses. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, it is ordered to pay the resident £300 compensation due to the failings identified and the impact on the resident. It should set out an action plan to investigate the resident’s reports of the disturbance caused by her neighbour feeding the birds. It should also clearly address the resident’s concerns regarding the safety of the balcony structure and provide clear reasons for its decision to permit its use.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to resolve damp and mould in the property and its offer of a permanent decant

In accordance with the repair responsibilities guide, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure of the property. The guide states it should complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days and non-routine repairs within 90 days. It is unclear when the resident initially reported damp and mould in the property.
It is noted that a historical survey of the resident’s property was completed on 12 August 2021, which identified damp and mould caused by numerous structural issues. As the scope of the investigation does not include this period due to the time elapsed, the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the landlord acted appropriately at the time of the survey. However, the landlord told the resident on 20 May 2022 that she would need to be “permanently decanted” so it could complete works to eradicate damp and mould, including extensive roof works. It is unclear why a permanent decant was deemed necessary, as they are typically only required if the property is uninhabitable. The landlord therefore should have ensured it promptly acted and offered appropriate support to the resident.
Following notification that she needed to be permanently decanted, the resident said she was subsequently unable to contact the landlord as her Housing Manager was on annual leave. She then contacted her MP and councillor as she was concerned about how the decant status would impact her tenancy, what works were required, and how the decant would be managed. In future instances if a decant is offered, the landlord should clearly explain the reasons for the decant, the decant process, and how it will support the resident, to properly manage expectations and prevent causing distress. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised for any miscommunication about the decant in its stage 2 complaint response.
The resident had concerns about the suitability of potential decant properties, particularly due to her family’s medical needs, which the landlord confirmed it would accommodate. She was also concerned she would be evicted if she refused an unsuitable property, and the landlord said it would discuss any properties with the resident before making a formal offer. While it was reasonable that the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns, there is no evidence that it took steps to progress the decant or offered the resident any properties.
It is understood that the landlord has limited available properties, further limited by the resident’s requirements, so it may have taken a significant amount of time for a suitable property to become available. Nonetheless, the landlord should have considered steps to reduce the impact of the damp and mould on the resident in the interim, such as a mould wash, but there is no evidence it did.
In its stage 1 response on 1 March 2023, the landlord said a second property condition survey was required to assess the possibility of a permanent decant as the initial survey was over 12 months prior. This was not necessarily unreasonable as it was likely the property condition had changed during the elapsed time. However, the landlord should have addressed the reasons for the delay in completing the works.
A second survey was completed on 30 August 2023 and found mould in the main bedroom, but it was not present in the other rooms as it had been cleaned by the resident. The surveyor said, “the mould problems experienced by the tenant in the property are in my opinion the consequence of condensation due to inadequate ventilation and uninsulated surfaces”. It recommended works for the landlord to upgrade the insulation, increase ventilation, and complete precautionary works to the structure to prevent rising damp. The resident told the Service the works remain outstanding.
The landlord informed the Service that the resident would not allow access for the works. However, there is no evidence that it attempted to arrange the necessary appointments or that the resident had refused access. Furthermore, if the resident refuses access, the landlord should attempt to understand the reasons and assess whether it can make any reasonable adjustments to ensure it can gain access for the repairs. Again, there is no evidence to confirm it took such steps.
Given the available evidence, the landlord has not taken appropriate steps to complete the necessary repairs to resolve the damp and mould issue or to decant the resident. It is of concern that over a year after the landlord determined a permanent decant was necessary, the resident is still living in the property and there is no evidence the landlord has completed works to resolve the damp and mould. It is positive to note that the landlord has arranged a meeting with the resident on 16 January 2024 to encourage her to move into temporary accommodation so it can complete the works. Following the meeting the landlord should confirm in writing to the resident a clear schedule of works, confirmation of whether she will be decanted, and details of the decant arrangements if relevant.
Compensation is also warranted due to the distress and inconvenience to the resident. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, as the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings or attempt to put things right, it is ordered to pay the resident £400 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct

In her complaint, the resident said she had doorbell camera footage of the landlord’s staff member and repairs officer stating they would get an injunction to complete the required repair works. It was unreasonable for the landlord to discuss matters relating to the resident’s tenancy in public areas.
In its complaint response, the landlord said it had reviewed the footage and apologised for the inconvenience caused. It said the staff member no longer worked for the landlord. It was appropriate that the landlord investigated the resident’s report, recognised its failing, and apologised. It was also reasonable that the landlord demonstrated it had taken steps to prevent a recurrence of the issue as it said it had reminded staff members “to be more mindful of when discussing cases”.
The landlord offered £100 compensation for time and trouble for the failings identified. This amount was in line with the Service’s remedies guidance, so the landlord has reasonably redressed this element of the complaint.
The resident has also raised concerns that staff members had treated her unfairly and have a hostile attitude towards her. While the resident’s experience is acknowledged and specific failings have been identified within this report, there is no evidence to confirm that the landlord has consistently treated the resident unfairly or in a hostile manner. The resident also said she did not want to engage with the landlord without an advocate. Where reasonable to do so, the landlord should ensure that it accommodates the resident’s request.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s concerns regarding the balcony in the property above.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the repairs to resolve damp and mould in the property and its offer of a permanent decant.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
1. £300 due to its failings in handling the resident’s concerns regarding the balcony in the property above.
2. £400 for its failings in handling the repairs to resolve damp and mould in the property and its offer of a permanent decant.
The landlord should write to the resident and the Service to confirm an action plan to investigate her reports of her neighbour causing a nuisance by feeding birds. It should also confirm whether her neighbour is permitted to feed the birds or not and the reasons for its decisions.
The landlord should provide written confirmation to the resident and the Service of how it satisfied the neighbour’s balcony was safe to use, including relevant contractor’s findings. If it cannot provide appropriate reasons, it should inspect the balcony to ensure it is safe to use.
The landlord should confirm in writing to the resident and the Service a clear schedule of works to resolve the damp and mould in the property, confirmation of whether she will be decanted, and details of the decant arrangements if relevant. It should ensure it addresses any of the resident’s outstanding concerns before proceeding with the works.
The landlord should provide evidence to the Service that it has complied with the orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure it provides the resident with any relevant updates relating to the balcony planning permission application.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record keeping practices, to ensure it keeps clear records of its actions, repairs, and correspondence.