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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202300164)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300164

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

26 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 handling of:
    1. Repairs to the communal door entry system.
    2. The associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The property is a 2 bedroom flat and the resident shares ownership with the landlord, a housing association. The building has communal entrance doors with an intercom and fob entry system.
  2. From December 2021 and throughout 2022 the entry doors were broken and the building was not secure. The resident repeatedly chased the landlord for updates on the repairs. The landlord in turn chased its contractors and there is evidence of miscommunication about timescales for repairs. The landlord completed numerous short term repairs but the doors repeatedly broke again.
  3. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 16 June 2022 and the landlord responded the same day. It said new doors would be installed the following month and it offered the resident £40 for her time and trouble.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 25 August 2022 when the new doors had not been installed as promised. A lack of internal communication contributed to the stage 2 response not being issued until 9 January 2023. The landlord said the doors kept breaking as it tried to repair them rather than replacing them due to the expense. It said the intercom system would be replaced later that month and it would cover the costs. It offered a further £40 for time and trouble and £150 compensation for the delay in issuing the stage 2 response.
  5. The intercom system was replaced in February 2023 and the doors worked for a short time. However they became unsecure again in March 2023, with the landlord accepting in October 2023 that they needed to be replaced. New doors were fitted in April 2024 and the building remained secure. The resident referred her complaint to us due to the delays and poor communication. She seeks more compensation than offered for the inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

  1. The external doors to the building broke in December 2021 and the resident logged a repair request on the landlord’s portal. In January 2022 the front entrance door was fixed, which showed some action by the landlord. However, the door broke again on 16 March 2022, evidencing that the repair only proved temporary. The resident reported it again on the portal. At a residents’ meeting on 7 February 2022 the landlord had said it was investigating the issue but any big fixes would need to wait until the next financial year. It was positive the landlord addressed it with the residents at that point, but ongoing communication was less effective.
  2. The doors remained broken from 16 March and throughout April 2022. The building being unsecure had a negative impact, with the resident reporting trespassing, anti-social behaviour and criminality. When she asked for information, she was told different things by different members of landlord staff. She was told there was a wider project ongoing to fix the doors but on other occasions was told there had been no repairs raised. This miscommunication was not acceptable and added to the resident’s frustration.
  3. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 3 May 2022, stating the doors had been permanently open since March 2022 and there was no security for the building. The landlord acknowledged this on 12 May 2022 and liaised with the contractors about the repairs the same day. This was appropriate that the landlord sought relevant information to answer the resident’s complaint.
  4. The landlord chased the contractor for updates on 17, 23 and 26 May 2022. This shows action on the landlord’s part in trying to progress the matter, but it is concerning it did not receive timely information from its own contractors. The resident contacted the landlord for an update on 6 June 2022 and did not receive a reply. While it was evident the landlord was trying to resolve the situation, communicating this to the resident would have provided some reassurance.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 16 June 2022. It said the contractors were trying to obtain the correct colour doors and they were being manufactured week commencing 18 July 2022. It estimated the installation would be week commencing 25 July 2022. The staff member responding to the complaint received this information internally before writing to the resident. It was useful that an accurate update was obtained to give the resident a meaningful response. However the response was 30 working days after the complaint was made and not in accordance with the landlord’s policy of 10 days. The landlord offered the resident £40 for time and trouble, due to the delay in getting the information and, at this stage, the amount was reasonable.
  6. The resident said she appreciated the response but, due to the ongoing security concerns, she wanted to keep the complaint open until the new doors were installed. The landlord advised the complaint could be kept open until the repair completed in July 2022.
  7. The new doors were not fitted in July 2022 as the landlord had advised and the resident requested an update on 2 August 2022. This was disappointing and not acceptable for the resident to be given a date in the stage 1 response that the landlord did not meet. Internal communication showed the landlord asking the contractor why the repair had not occurred and why the completion dates had been moved to November 2022 when it was scheduled for July 2022. While it was positive the landlord was chasing this up and questioning it, it was concerning that the repairs were moved without the relevant staff members being aware. The delay between July and November 2022 was also lengthy given the lack of security and the ongoing impact on residents.
  8. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 25 August 2022, as the issue remained outstanding and the repairs had not been completed as promised. Her frustration was understandable, given the delay and the fact the doors had not been working properly for 6 months. There were security concerns in the building and the resident was not happy with the lack of communication from the landlord. The fact the resident had to chase and complain to obtain any repair updates from the landlord amounts to maladministration in the landlord’s communication. Delays in repairs may be unavoidable in some circumstances, but residents should receive proactive updates where this is the case.
  9. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation the following day and the complaint was allocated to a staff member who contacted the resident on 31 August 2022 to introduce themselves. This was positive, so the resident had a named contact and to show the complaint was in progress.
  10. During September 2022, the complaint handler sent 6 internal requests for updates with the maintenance and electrical team who were dealing with the repairs. While these were all landlord staff, it is relevant to distinguish the complaint handler who was evidently trying to obtain information for the resident, without success. This shows that, if landlord staff struggle to get updates, there is little chance for residents to do the same. The lack of internal updates meant a delayed response to the resident. This is unacceptable and further evidence of the landlord’s failure in communication. The complaint handler informed the resident on 27 September 2022 that they would update her as soon as they had more information.
  11. On 3 October 2022 the complaint handler contacted the contractors for an update and passed it on to the resident. This was that there was no date for the door replacement but the engineer was attending the following day.
  12. The complaint handler told the resident they needed to extend the stage 2 response by 10 days, to keep the complaint open to ensure the repairs went ahead. This was an appropriate decision as there was no benefit to issuing a complaint response that was not going to give the resident any resolution. As work had not started by 25 October 2022, the complaint response was extended by a further 10 days. Again, this was sensible to ensure the complaint response would be as meaningful as possible. However, the ongoing delay in the repairs was unacceptable.
  13. Two out of 4 doors were replaced on 3 November 2022 but they were not secured and left constantly open. While we cannot comment on specific repair complications or engineering matters, this showed that the attempted repairs were not successful. The result was that the building was still insecure and the resident was understandably frustrated with the lack of progress.
  14. The complaint handler asked the resident on 8 November 2022 whether the main door was working as repairs were ongoing. The resident replied that only 2 doors had been replaced but they were not secure. This demonstrates the internal confusion and miscommunication that was occurring within the landlord. It is not acceptable to have to rely on resident information because the landlord’s own staff do not know what is happening. This diminishes trust and confidence between the landlord and residents and amounts to maladministration regarding communication about the substantive issue.
  15. Throughout November and December 2022 there was evidence of numerous attempts by the complaint handler to chase updates with the repairs team. The complaint handler did stay in regular contact with the resident, stating they were trying to obtain information and would update as soon as possible. It was positive that this individual was trying their best to get the information and offered assurances to the resident, but the fact it was repeatedly unsuccessful was a failure on the landlord’s part to maintain open channels of communication. Again this amounts to maladministration.
  16. An internal email of 16 December 2022 showed the landlord had identified that several attempts to repair the doors had only lasted a short time. As there was a re-structure occurring within the landlord, nobody had been in post to make the decision to replace the whole door entry system. As the process had taken much longer than expected, the landlord decided to fund the replacement system (rather than go through the consultation process to obtain payment from leaseholders). This was a sensible decision which saved each leaseholder approximately £353. The delays were disappointing but the landlord acted fairly in response to the circumstances.
  17. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 9 January 2023. Its complaint policy states it should issue a response within 20 days, with the ability to extend to up to 30 days in total. The delay in issuing the response was 3 times that timescale and not in accordance with policy. The service failure regarding the stage 2 response was a direct consequence of the maladministration regarding communication about the substantive issue.
  18. The landlord stated that it had liaised with the contractor and it was important to exhaust all options before spending leaseholders’ money. It said its policy was to consider all possible repairs before installing a brand new entry system. Several attempts were made to repair the existing system but these efforts only lasted a short time. This was a reasonable and understandable position for the landlord to take, in an effort to make the most effective use of its limited resources.
  19. The landlord admitted there was miscommunication between itself and the contractor about exactly what works were required. At the same time, the compliance team was going through a restructure so this contributed to delays. The contractor advised work would start at the end of January 2023.
  20. On 2 February 2023 the resident received new entry fobs with a letter stating that a new intercom system would be fitted on 6 and 7 February 2023. This date was then put back to 27 and 28 February 2023. The reason for the delay was not explained and is not known. While it may have been valid and unavoidable, it further prolonged the issue for the resident. The system was fitted and all doors were working on 28 February 2023.
  21. The resident reported on 3 March 2023 that the front door was not secure and opened with a gentle push. While that particular issue appeared to rectify itself, the front door completely broke again on 24 March 2023. This resulted in it being permanently unlocked and the building was insecure, resulting in anti-social behaviour. It appeared the old door remained faulty despite the new intercom system. The landlord informed the resident the issue had been passed to specialists and a repair was expected on 24 April 2023. However, it was not repaired on this date and the resident received no further updates until October 2023 when the landlord advised there were plans to replace the main doors. It recognised the current doors had faults and had not worked properly since December 2021 despite numerous attempts at repairs.
  22. The fact the resident did not receive a meaningful update for 6 months was unreasonable and further evidence of maladministration. The landlord had made efforts to address the issue by replacing the intercom system but the lack of communication once the complaint handler was no longer involved was unacceptable.
  23. The new doors were fitted in April 2024 and the building has since remained secure. This is a positive outcome but it is disappointing the issue was ongoing for over 2 years. It has cost the resident a lot of frustration and inconvenience. The landlord did try to rectify it with a lot of repairs and its initial reluctance to replace the doors and entire intercom system was understandable due to the costs. However it failed in its communication with the resident and internal communication failures contributed to the delays.
  24. In light of the failings identified in this report, in relation to both the substantive issue and the associated complaint handling, we have considered whether the landlord’s response was sufficient to put things right (in line with our dispute resolution principles). Alongside resolving the problem itself and absorbing some of the costs, the landlord offered the resident a total of £230 compensation (£80 for time and trouble and £150 for poor complaint handling at stage 2).
  25. With regard to the complaint handling failures, the £150 offered by the landlord is in line with our remedies guidance for low level maladministration. We find that this sum is proportionate to the identified failings, so a finding of reasonable redress is made on that point.
  26. However, the £80 offered for the resident’s time and trouble in relation to the door repairs is not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by her due to the delays and poor communication. We consider that £200 is more appropriate and in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration. An order is therefore made for the landlord to pay this sum (less the £80 if already paid to the resident).

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal door entry system.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord offered reasonable redress in relation to its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has paid the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in the communal door repairs (less the £80 previously offered if this has already been paid).

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £150 offered for complaint handling failures at stage 2, if not already paid. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.