Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202231282)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231282

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

25 April 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 a leak and the resulting damp and mould in the communal area. 
2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.  The property is a 2-bedroom flat in a block. The landlord has no record of any specific vulnerabilities relating to the resident.
4. The tenancy agreement states the landlord will take reasonable care to maintain common entrances, halls, stairways, and any other common parts, including their floor coverings. It will make sure they are fit for residents and visitors to use. The landlord is responsible for the pipework and valve between the water meter and the property. The water company are responsible for the meter and supply pipe.
5. On 3 February 2023 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She said that there had been an ongoing leak in the communal area on the first floor. She had to walk up the stairs as she lived on the third floor. The leak made the floor slippery as there was no carpet.  Her daughter had slipped previously and had been unharmed but that day she had slipped and suffered bruising. She was holding her daughter’s hand and was heavily pregnant with twins. She had concerns about the impact of the damp and mould on her health which was now present because of the leak.
6. On 14 February 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said the leak was identified as coming from the water meters and would need to be rectified by the local water company. Since being made aware in January it had approached the local water company to rectify the leak. It completed a further inspection in February in response to another report about damp and mould odours. It could not locate any water ingress in the communal area upon its inspection.
7. It would be attending again on 24 February 2023 to agree the specification of the carpets with the carpet contractors. It would repair and renew the relevant parts of the flooring. It would also complete the mould wash and decoration works in the cupboard. It partially upheld the complaint. It said it had notified the water company as soon as it was aware. It inspected the building and had raised the recommended works. It appreciated the impact this had had on the resident. It was sorry to hear that her daughter had been injured and suggested she raise this with the water company directly. It offered £30 redress for time and trouble.
8. On 17 February 2023 the resident escalated her complaint to a stage 2. She said that the water company had that day advised that the leak was coming from the pressure release valve, so it was the landlord’s responsibility. She considered the landlord should have known this from its inspections. She was unhappy that she had been reporting the leak for around 6 months and the matter remained unresolved.
9. On 3 April 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It upheld the complaint due to the length of time it had taken to refer the continuation of the leak back to the water company after it had fixed the pressure release valve. It had repaired the valve on 21 January 2023, but it noted that the water meter was still leaking. It needed to refer this leak back to the water company. It also failed to inform the resident that the repair had been completed and that she needed to contact the water company.
10. It confirmed that on 30 March 2023 it had referred the matter to the water company and a job had been raised by the water company to attend and repair. It offered a further £30 redress for time and trouble and a further £10 for its delay in sending its stage 2 response.

Post complaint.

11. The water company attended in April 2023 and completed the repair works to stop the leak. The resident contacted our Service as despite the leak being stopped, she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and the length of time it had taken to resolve the issue.

12. On 5 February 2024 the landlord reviewed the evidence and considered that further compensation was appropriate. It offered £500 redress. This was broken down as £100 for poor complaints handling. This was because it should have provided the resident with a public liability form in respect of her report about her child falling on the stairs in its complaint response. £150 for its service failure. £250 for time trouble and distress caused.

Assessment and findings

1. The landlord has a responsibility under Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy.
2. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
   1. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
   2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution.
   3. Ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
   4. Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
3. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. It will aim to complete routine repairs within 28 days. 
4. The resident said in her stage 1 request that she put the landlord on notice in respect of the leak around October 2022. The landlord’s records show that reports had been made in respect of a leak in April, May, and December 2022.  Then again in January 2023. The records do not show who made the reports or what action the landlord took when it attended. The repairs were raised as routine repairs and responded to within its own timeframes. It is not clear however what records the landlord relied upon to explain what it had done within its complaint responses. The lack of clear records explain why the landlord’s version in its stage 1 response differed to its stage 2 response.
5. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it had referred the issue on to the water company and that when it attended in February 2023 and inspected it had found no trace of a leak. The landlord was unable to provide any records to evidence its communication with the water company or that it had followed up the repair to ensure that it was done.  Furthermore, this Service has not seen records showing that the landlord had completed an inspection in February 2023 which had concluded the leak had been resolved.
6. Record keeping is a core function of a housing service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its obligations, furthermore it enables the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents. 
7. The landlord upheld the complaint in its stage 2 response. It said it had delayed in referring the continuation of the leak back to the water company. The landlord informed this Service that there had been a typo in its stage 2 response as it had attended on 21 February 2023 not 21 January 2023.  It is unknown whether it communicated this error to the resident as this typo would have certainly caused further confusion for the resident.
8. The landlord acknowledged that not only had it delayed in referring the matter back to the water company the second time, but it had failed to communicate with the resident.  The resident was therefore left with the distress and inconvenience of the leak and the uncertainty of when it would be resolved which was unreasonable.
9. The landlord said it took 37 days for it to refer the matter back to the water company which it agreed had caused unnecessary delays. It is acknowledged that there was clearly several issues in respect of the leak which were both the responsibility of the water company and the landlord.  However, the lack of clear records shows that the repair was not being monitored by the landlord to ensure that the leak was resolved at the earliest point. 
10. The lack of records showing what it had done and how it communicated with the water company and the resident means that this service cannot fully assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the communal area. The landlord acknowledged that its communication with the resident had been poor, and it had itself caused unnecessary delays. The failing in its record keeping however has also caused the resident further time and inconvenience in having to pursue her matter further. This failing has been considered in the order below.
11. While it is acknowledged that the damp and mould was in the communal area it is concerning to note the landlord’s lack of urgency to get the issues resolved. This issue would have impacted all resident’s using the communal area on a daily basis. Given the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on damp and mould was published in October 2021. The landlord’s delays and lack of clear communication was unreasonable and did not demonstrate the “proactive interventions” called for in the Spotlight report on damp and mould.
12. The landlord offered a total amount of £70 redress for time and trouble and complaint handling failures during the complaint process. This however did not reflect the impact on the resident. The resident had to continue to live with her concerns about her health and the impact on her child for a period of at least 5 months. The landlord failed to show that it had monitored the repairs to ensure resolution at the earliest point. Its record keeping was inadequate. Its communication with the resident was poor and did not show it had taken her concerns seriously. In summary it failed to show that it had done all that it could to get the issue resolved.
13. This Service welcomes the landlord recognising the need to revisit the complaint. It offered a further £400 in addition to the £60 it had already offered during the complaints process for its handling of the matter. While the landlord did this, these actions cannot be considered reasonable redress. This is because they took place after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and only after the involvement of this Service. The revised financial offer was, however, reasonable and this Service will not be making a further order of compensation in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of a leak and the resulting damp and mould in the communal area.

Handling of the complaint.

14. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, the complaint will be responded to within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two, where it will be responded to, within 20 working days.
15. It is unclear what records the landlord relied upon to establish its findings in its stage 1 response. It acknowledged after the complaint process that it should have offered a public liability form in relation to the resident’s report of her child’s fall on the stairs. It was appropriate to acknowledge this failing and try to offer some resolve for the resident albeit nearly 10 months after its original response. The landlord said it partially upheld the resident’s complaint for the reasons it had set out. It was not clear however what those reasons were.  This would have been confusing for the resident and meant that the landlord missed an opportunity to explain its position and resolve matters at an earlier stage. The resident was then put to the inconvenience of having to escalate the matter further as a result.
16. The landlord provided its stage 2 response 30 days after the resident’s request.  This was not in accordance with its own policy or the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It said it upheld the resident’s complaint within its stage 2 response. It acknowledged that it had failed to communicate with the resident about its recent findings and the need for the repair to be referred back to the water company.
17. Both complaint responses lacked any evidence of learning, and both were silent on what it would do to prevent similar happening again. This was a further shortcoming in its handling of the issue. The resident experienced an inconvenience of raising concerns about the landlord’s handling of the repairs, without receiving a detailed response.
18. The landlord offered £10 for its complaint handling delays during the complaint process.  Then when it revisited the matter, it offered a further £100 in recognition of its failing to provide details of its public liability claim form. Given the additional failings this Service considers that the redress offered does not reflect the inconvenience caused to the resident.
19. The landlord’s responses lacked clarity about why the landlord had failed. There were errors in the dates provided which would have been confusing. There was no evidence of what records the landlord had relied upon to provide its response.  Furthermore, there were no learning outcomes provided to offer reassurance that it would not happen again. This has resulted in a finding of maladministration. This Service has applied the Housing Ombudsman Remedies guidance to determine suitable redress.

Determination (decision)

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the resulting damp and mould in the communal area. 
21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord, within 4 weeks:

22. Provides a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
23. Pays the resident £710 compensation broken down as follows:
    1.        £460 for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak and the resulting damp and mould.
    2.        £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
    3.         The landlord may deduct £570 if this has been paid.
    4.        Evidence to show that the landlord has completed the above should be sent to this Service also within 4 weeks.
24. Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1.        Complete a review of its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs and identify key points of learning to improve its service, with a particular focus on:
       1. Its poor record keeping.
       2. Its poor communication with the resident.
       3. The lack of oversight and coordination with the water company.
       4. The recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports on knowledge and information management (KIM).
       5. A copy of the outcome of this review should be provided to this Service also within 8 weeks.

Recommendations

25. The landlord should carry out complaint handling refresher training with its staff team to include the Housing Ombudsman’s new Complaint Handling Code released in April 2024.