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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202232030)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232030

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTVH)

9 July 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to her property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident lives with her 3 children. The resident advised one of her children has a lung condition. The landlord’s records show it was aware that one of the resident’s children had a health condition as it had received a letter from the child’s GP. The resident advised she moved to the property in an emergency as a victim of domestic abuse.
  2. Since the resident’s tenancy started on 7 July 2022, the resident had frequently chased the landlord to action some outstanding repairs. The resident raised her complaint on 23 May 2023. She said the internal contractor had not attended appointments and repairs had still not been completed despite her previous complaints. The resident did not state in her complaint what repairs she was referring to. She said she had been shouted at and felt intimidated in her home when an operative had recently attended her property. The operative was meant to be carrying out work on a door and the toilet but had the wrong information on what job he was meant to be doing. The resident wanted the outstanding repairs completed.
  3. On 31 May 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it had attended the property on 4 dates and the outstanding repairs to the living room door and downstairs toilet were going to be completed on 8 June 2023. The landlord said the conduct of the operative was going to be dealt with by the internal contractor and apologised for the service the resident had received. It upheld the resident’s complaint and awarded the resident £50 compensation. The resident escalated her complaint on 31 May 2023. She stated the internal contractor did not adhere to the dates booked in for the repairs to be carried out. The resident was unhappy with the compensation awarded given how many times problems with appointments had occurred. She felt the landlord had not taken any responsibility for the problems.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 26 July 2023. It said the repairs to the living room door and toilet were completed on 20 May 2023, 8 June 2023 and 20 July 2023. The landlord advised that 2 operatives would carry out a post-work inspection on 28 July 2023 and a bathroom flooring inspection was booked for 3 August 2023. It awarded the resident £30 compensation for complaint handling delays.
  5. The resident contacted this Service on 31 July 2023. The resident felt the severity of the problems she had experienced had been dismissed and not been dealt with appropriately. She said the landlord’s responses included inaccurate details and that it stated repairs had been completed when they had not. The resident said her family had been left with a toilet that was not secured to the floor or back wall. She said her bathroom flooring had been ripped up to work on the toilet. There had been 3 appointments booked for replacing the bathroom flooring, but 3 times operatives attended to measure up and the flooring was still outstanding. The resident felt she had not been shown compassion or any attempt to reach a resolution, instead she felt she had been labelled a problem tenant. She said she had no choice but to accept the property in the condition it was in as she had moved due to domestic abuse.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to her property.

  1. The landlord’s repair obligations in the tenancy agreement include maintaining “any installations that we provide for space heating, water heating, sanitation and supplying water, gas and electricity. This includes basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems, waste pipes and water storage facilities; electric wiring, including sockets and switches, gas pipes and water pipes; and water heaters, fireplaces, fitted fires, and central heating installations”. The landlord also has repair obligations under section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  2. “A guide to repair responsibilities in your home” is issued to residents by the landlord and lists the landlord’s repair categories and response times. Emergency repairs are defined by the landlord as “any repair that may cause significant risk to the safety of our tenants, or significant damage to the property” and are addressed within 24 hours. Routine repairs are explained as “If a repair is not an emergency, it will generally be a routine appointment” and it states “every effort will be made to complete the repair within 28 calendar days (or 20 working days) of you contacting us”. Non-routine repairs are defined as a repair that “will take longer than the routine period due to complexity, materials needed, or considerations needed for the safety of our operatives (for example, if they will be working at heights). In this case, we will give the contractor a 90-day period instead of the routine period”.
  3. On 23 May 2023 the resident raised another complaint as despite her previous complaints she stated she was still experiencing problems with outstanding repairs, missed appointments, and aggressive operatives. The resident did not state in her complaint what outstanding repairs she was referring to. The resident had checked her online account and saw that some of the repair appointments she was waiting on said she had been out when operatives had tried to attend the property. The resident stated this was “false” and that the internal contractor was “now just blatantly lying”.
  4. The landlord did not address this concern in its stage 1 response issued on 31 May 2023. It stated the internal contractor had attended the property on 16, 18, 19 and 26 May 2023. The landlord did not state what repairs had been completed on these dates and there was no evidence provided to this Service to establish this. In its stage 2 response the landlord stated the contractor had attended on 20 May 2023, but this was not a date that had been previously referenced in the stage 1 response. The landlord’s complaint responses lacked detail and clarity on what repairs had occurred and why so many appointments were listed.
  5. In her complaint the resident said an operative had attended an appointment on 18 May 2023. The operative thought he was working on a different job to what the resident expected which was work on a door and the toilet. The resident asked the operative to call the planner to get confirmation. After the planner had confirmed to the operative that the job was as the resident had stated, the resident said the operative became aggressive. The resident said she rang the landlord to report this. The landlord rang the operative and asked him to leave. The resident said she felt intimidated by the operative. She said her mental health was suffering and she now felt scared and did not “know where else to turn for help”. In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for the operative’s conduct and said the information had been passed over to the internal contractor to manage internally. It stated this was not the level of service the landlord expected its residents to receive. The apology was appropriate.
  6. However, this was not the first time the resident had reported the conduct of an operative. In a previous complaint the landlord had apologised to the resident for an operative’s behaviour. The resident had also previously raised a complaint about an operative attending her property with the wrong job information. Therefore, it appeared the landlord did not “learn from outcomes” from a previous complaint which is one of the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. The same problems reoccurring had distressed and frustrated the resident to the point where she said she did not “know where else to turn for help”. When these problems arose previously the landlord should have identified the failings, learned lessons, and taken action to improve service delivery.
  7. In its stage 1 response the landlord identified 2 outstanding repairs which were to replace the living room door and its draught proof and replace the downstairs toilet. It stated these repairs had been booked in for 8 June 2023. The evidence showed the resident had repeatedly chased the landlord about the toilet since her tenancy started on 7 July 2022.
  8. When the new toilet was installed on 8 June 2023 the resident experienced further problems. The new toilet had not been secured to the floor properly and the resident said there was a leak. The resident rang the landlord and was advised the operative did not have time to return and this would be allocated to the out of hours team. A plumber attended the following day. When the plumber arrived, he stated a carpenter was needed to secure the toilet to the wall boxing to stabilise it and a part was needed to address the leak. The job was booked in for 23 June 2023 which meant the toilet within the property was not secure for a further 15 calendar days. This was not appropriate or reasonable when the resident had 3 young children. The resident told this Service that due to the toilet not being secured one of her children tipped off the toilet and hit his head on the concrete floor as some of the flooring had been removed to fit the new toilet.
  9. On 23 June 2023 the landlord attended the property, but all the work was not completed. The evidence showed a very unorganised and confused approach to this job. In an internal email on 23 June 2023 the landlord stated, “The works today did not get completed – first the engineer attended and was unable to complete the works and called through to the planner who arranged for a plumber to attend. When the second engineer attended, he too was unable to carry out the works due to time frame and [internal contractor] again sent another engineer to which by the time of arrival the second engineer had left, and the third engineer was unable to do any works”. The landlord also stated the correct amount of time had not been allocated to the job and an operative that the resident had previously made a complaint against had been sent for the appointment. The organisation of this appointment was unacceptable. In the Ombudsman’s view this fell considerably short of the service the resident should have received.
  10. The appointment was rebooked for 10 July 2023. However, the resident emailed the landlord on 10 July 2023 advising that the operative had arrived and said he could not complete the work as other work needed to be done first. This meant the resident needed to take another day off work for another appointment. The evidence showed the work was completed on 20 July 2023. Despite the problems the resident experienced with the installation of the new toilet, the landlord stated in its stage 2 response dated 26 July 2023 that the work on the toilet was completed on 8 June 2023. This was inaccurate. The stage 2 response made no reference to the problems the resident had experienced with the new toilet. Either the stage 2 complaint was not thoroughly investigated, or the landlord chose not to address its failings. This was inappropriate and unacceptable.
  11. Some of the bathroom flooring had been removed when work was done on the toilet which then meant the bathroom flooring needed to be replaced. An appointment was booked for 5 July 2023. However, the evidence showed the resident chased this up on 13 July 2023 and was advised the job had been rebooked for 3 August 2023. This appointment was confirmed in the stage 2 response issued on 26 July 2023. The resident has advised of multiple appointments where operatives came to measure up for the bathroom flooring. It is unclear when the work on the bathroom flooring was completed.
  12. The replacement living door was another outstanding repair that was addressed in the landlord’s stage 1 response and was scheduled to be completed on 8 June 2023. However, when the new door was fitted the operative removed the flooring connector and was unable to put it back on. The resident said the operative advised her to contact the landlord. It was unclear from the evidence if this further issue got resolved.
  13. Communications between the landlord and internal contractor showed an unsympathetic and heavy-handed approach towards the resident. On 26 June 2023 the resident was described as “a serial complainer and is abusive to all staff who attend the property”. This was inappropriate and unreasonable. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Attitudes, Respect & Rights states, “Internal communications about residents should be factual, respectful and avoid opinion or judgements. Where a culture exists which permits residents being described in such personal and emotive ways, that will undoubtedly be reflected in their direct communication, and subsequently their relationship, with residents”. This was evident in the way the resident was treated.
  14. Internal communication at the landlord stated that the property “was not in a decent state of repair” when the resident moved in, and a staff member stated they felt the resident had been “treated unfairly”. However, rather than acknowledging that the property had a lot of void work outstanding when the resident moved in, the landlord adopted an accusatory approach towards the resident. The evidence showed the resident was subject to a lot of inspections and visits from staff to verify the need for the repairs she reported. On 23 June 2023 the internal contractor stated, “Can we get an [repairs officer] here to confirm [work orders] are needed rather than what the resident would like”. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Attitudes, Respect & Rights states, “where the resident is not afforded respect, neither are their concerns”. This problem became evident throughout the communications regarding the resident.
  15. The resident was not treated fairly in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of “Be fair” requires “A constructive approach that applies consistent principles to all complaints while ensuring each complaint is considered on the facts of the individual case. Treating each complaint justly and without favour or discrimination.” This approach was not evident from the landlord’s communication and records.
  16. In its stage 1 complaint the landlord awarded the resident £50 compensation which comprised of £20 for time and trouble, £20 for a missed appointment and £10 for service failure. The landlord did not award any additional compensation at stage 2 for the ongoing and additional repair problems the resident experienced. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s offer of compensation did not go far enough. It did not adequately reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and the failings in the handling of her repairs.
  17. The landlord contacted the Ombudsman on 26 March 2024 following a review of the complaint after the resident brought her case to this Service. It stated there had been a lack of information and empathy within its complaint responses. The landlord said the resident expressed how the situation had caused her distress and showed frustration with how the repairs had been handled but it had not fully acknowledged this throughout the complaint process. The landlord identified that it advised in the stage 1 response that its internal contractor had attended the resident’s property on 4 different dates, but it did not provide any further information as to what happened during these visits, and why the repairs had not been completed. It acknowledged there was some confusion when appointments were arranged, incorrect time slots allocated, and incorrect operatives attended. The landlord also acknowledged there was a problem with the new toilet when it was fitted which required further appointments.
  18. The landlord has now offered the resident another £30 compensation for missed appointments to acknowledge the unproductive appointments caused by incorrect operatives attending or the correct appointment times not being allocated. The landlord has also offered an additional £50 compensation for service failure for the time it took for the toilet repair to be fully completed. This Service expects the landlord to undertake a sufficient investigation and review all circumstances of the case at stage 2. Had this been done, the landlord would have identified its failings at an earlier time and had the opportunity to put things right at an earlier stage. It appeared to this Service that the landlord only undertook a further review after the complaint had been brought to the Ombudsman for investigation.
  19. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration. To reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the reports of outstanding repairs to her property, the landlord should award the resident £600 in compensation. This is because of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident especially as the landlord did not learn from outcomes when she had raised the same concerns previously and the heavy-handed approach taken towards the resident. This award also acknowledges the time and trouble of the resident due to the landlord having poorly coordinated the work which led to delays. This amount is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which indicates that the Ombudsman may require the landlord to award such an amount where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states there are 2 internal stages to its complaints process. The policy states the landlord will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The resident escalated her complaint on 31 May 2023 which the landlord acknowledged on the same day. It advised a response would be issued within 20 working days. This was in line with the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code. However, the landlord did not provide a response within this time. On 29 June 2023 this Service prompted the landlord to issue its stage 2 response.
  3. On 30 June 2023, 22 working days after the resident escalated her complaint the landlord contacted the resident to advise it needed a 10-working day extension and provided the reasons why. This was in line with the Code which allows landlords to extend the deadline for a stage 2 response if the landlord provides “an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received”. The Code states “This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason”. However, the landlord should have contacted the resident within the initial 20 working days to advise of the need of the extension, not after this time had passed.
  4. On 18 July 2023 the landlord contacted the resident and advised of a further extension. The Code allows an extension beyond 10 working days to enable landlords to respond to the complaint fully if this is agreed with both parties. However, again the landlord contacted the resident after the previous 10 working days had been exceeded. The landlord should have contacted the resident within this period if it had identified the need to extend the timeframe further. The Code also states the landlord should provide a clear timeframe for when the response will be received but the landlord did not provide this. It just stated it would be “extending” the case and “I will be contacting you soon to provide you with any further updates and hopefully be able to provide you with a final resolution”. This was inappropriate and not in line with the Code.
  5. The landlord also did not comply with the Code as the extension was not agreed by both parties. The Code states “If an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties”. The landlord should have discussed the matters with the resident and should have sought her agreement for the extension. It did not do this which was inappropriate.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 26 July 2023 which was 40 working days after the resident’s escalation. The evidence showed this response had not provided accurate information and had not addressed all the points the resident had raised in her escalation. This was not in line with the Code which states “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate”. The landlord’s stage 1 response had also lacked detail and not addressed all the points the resident had made in her complaints. In its response it awarded the resident £30 compensation for delays in processing her complaint. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s offer of compensation did not go far enough. It did not adequately reflect the length of time the resident waited for a stage 2 response, the landlord’s breaches of the Code and the lack of detail within the responses.
  7. The landlord contacted the Ombudsman on 26 March 2024 following a review of the complaint after the resident brought her case to this Service. It stated it would like to offer the resident a further £70 in compensation for poor complaints handling. This was to acknowledge the lack of detail provided in the responses and the resident’s concerns not being fully addressed. This Service expects the landlord to undertake a sufficient investigation and review all circumstances of the case at stage 2. Had this been done, the landlord would have identified its failings at an earlier time and had the opportunity to put things right at an earlier stage. Had the landlord made this additional offer of redress during the complaints process it would have been satisfactory in putting things right.
  8. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. This was because the landlord breached the Code on several occasions. It had not responded to the resident within the appropriate timescales, it had not agreed the second extension with the resident and the responses were of a poor quality, lacked detail and had not addressed all the points raised by the resident. Therefore, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to award £150 for its complaints handling failures in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £750. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to her rent account. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with this order within 4 weeks of the date of this report by submitting a copy of the remittance advice, or equivalent document, to this Service. The compensation is comprised of:
    1. £600 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about outstanding repairs.
    2. £150 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should carry out training with its staff based on the findings of the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Attitudes, Respect & Rights. This is to ensure that all staff treat residents with respect and that internal communications about residents are factual, respectful and avoid opinion or judgements.
  2. The landlord should carry out complaint handling refresher training with its staff to include the importance of detailed, accurate responses, addressing all the complainant’s points and timescales in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.