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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202301021)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301021

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

8 August 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 handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of a fault to the ventilation system in the property.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property owned by the landlord. The property is a fifth floor flat in a block of similar properties. The leaseholder has been represented by his partner in some communications with the landlord and these will be referred to as having come from the leaseholder for the purposes of this report. 
  2. The block has a communal ventilation system. Each flat then has 2 fans (bathroom and kitchen) which are designed to extract air from the individual properties into the ducts of the communal system for removal. In September 2021 the landlord noted that it had been contacted by multiple residents chasing a repair to the system which had already been identified as necessary.
  3. On 16 December 2021 the landlord’s contractor attended this property and identified that the fans were not working. In addition, an unspecified service issue had arisen relating to the communal equipment. By June 2022, however, the situation had not been resolved. Both landlord and contractor were unclear as to where the plant room containing the communal equipment was located or how to access it.
  4. The resident made a complaint about the situation on 15 June 2022. He stated that the ventilation in his bathroom had not now been working for almost a year. This meant that condensation was building up and causing damage. He had reported the situation on at least 13 different occasions to no avail. He stated that the situation was having a detrimental effect on his wellbeing and that of his partner.
  5. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 12 July 2022, it accepted that there had been delays in its service in respect of a long-standing issue with the ventilation system. It had visited the resident’s property on 4 July 2022 and found the vent was operating but was blowing air into the property rather than extracting it – possibly due to the motor having been reversed. It reported that the contractor was still trying to gain access to the plant room, and this was being pursued. In respect of any damage to the bathroom it offered its insurance details. It also offered him compensation of £300 made up of £175 for service failure and £125 for “time and trouble”. Finally, the landlord apologised for the time taken to respond to the complaint.
  6. On 6 September 2022 the contractor gained access to the plant room, discovered that the motor was set to reverse thus air was being blown back into the flats instead of it being extracted, and carried out repairs. On 8 September 2022 the landlord then provided its stage 2 response. It increased its compensation offer to the resident based upon the additional time taken to effect the repair. Its total award was £500 made up of £275 for service failure and £225 for time and trouble.
  7. However, on the same day the resident discovered the system within the property was not working again and reported this to the landlord. Its contractor investigated and removed the motors to the fans in the property for repair.  However, this proved to be impossible, and the landlord decided to replace them. This work was not completed until early March 2023.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response and referred the matter to this Service as a permanent repair had still not been effected at that point. He considered the offer of compensation for time and trouble was not enough to reflect the inconvenience to him and his partner in dealing with the issues the condensation had caused. Assessment and findings

Assessment

The resident’s reports of a fault to the ventilation system in the property.

  1. There has been no dispute that the landlord is responsible for the ventilation system in both this property and the wider building it is situated in. The landlord’s records show reports of faults in late 2020 and during 2021. As stated above, by September 2021 a number of residents in the same block were reporting issues and chasing repairs too.
  2. The landlord’s “Guide to Repair Responsibilities in your home” sets out its approach to repairs. It aims to resolve non-emergency situations within 28 calendar days. However, this is subject to further visits where a repair cannot be resolved straightaway or when an assessment needs to be completed to determine what is required. The landlord’s guide further states that where repairs are more complex or parts/materials are needed, up to 90 days may be needed.
  3. The landlord’s records are imprecise as to when its contractor attended the block but show activity in approximately October and December 2021, and in March, April, May, July and September 2022. At this point issues with the communal ventilation system were resolved but, as set out above, the resident continued to experience problems with the extractor fans within his own property. The landlord’s contractor re-attended in October 2022 and when it was unable to repair the motors, new ones were ordered. However, these were not installed for approximately 4 months as there was a 90 day wait for them to become available.
  4. As narrated above, there were substantial delays in the landlord’s service in effecting the repairs even allowing for diagnosis and the purchase of parts and materials. It did not achieve the timescales set out in its policy.
  5. In the landlord’s complaint responses, it accepted that there had been delays and was apologetic. It was important that it acknowledged this as its records confirm that had been the case. When it gave its stage 2 response on 8 September 2022, the landlord was under the impression that all had been resolved and offered compensation on that basis for the inconvenience and time/trouble the resident had been put to in chasing the situation.
  6. In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  7. On the face of it the landlord had offered reasonable redress at this point. It had completed the outstanding repairs and nothing more was required. It had offered compensation of £275 for the service failure and £225 for the resident’s inconvenience – his time and trouble in pressing the issues. The landlord operates a Compensation Policy which categorises failings into low, medium or high impact. The amounts offered demonstrate that the landlord assessed the effect on the resident as high. This was appropriate given the length of time this situation went on for and the amount of inconvenience the leaseholder was put to in chasing for a response.
  8. However, it is apparent that not all had been resolved – in which case the landlord had not offered a final resolution to the complaint after all. As stated above, the resident reported on the same day as the receipt of the stage 2 decision that the problems were continuing. The landlord’s contractor attended and if the 90-day lead time for the new motors is discounted, it is arguable that the landlord’s handling of the ongoing repairs was appropriate. It has been considered that an assessment was necessary, and parts/materials required.
  9. This can only be the case, however, if the ongoing problem had only arisen at that point as a new fault and could not have been foreseen beforehand. On the resident’s part, he was reliant on the landlord to identify what was at fault and to determine whether it was the communal system, the individual system or a combination of both. This discovery of further fault after the stage 2 decision would be considered as not amounting to a new repair and a fresh report because it was all part of the same issue and there had been no lapse of time. The landlord might reasonably have identified all and any faults with both individual and communal system during its visits and investigations before this point. It is reasonable to conclude that it failed to do so from the timing of this report. 
  10. On this basis, this report concludes that this fault might reasonably have been identified and dealt with before this point and the landlord’s failure to do so amounted to a further delay in its repairs service.
  11. When it became apparent to the landlord that its resolution had been incomplete it might reasonably have been expected to revisit its complaint response and consider whether further compensation was payable for this additional inconvenience to the resident. It failed to do so and an order for compensation has been made below which reflects this ongoing service failing.
  12. For the sake of completeness, it is noted that this complaint was initially categorised by this Service as relating to damp and mould. The resident did complain that increased condensation in the bathroom was causing damage. The records do not contain any more precise information than that and no reports of damp and mould are reflected in the landlord’s records before the complaint was made. The landlord makes the point that under the lease, the leaseholder is responsible for such an issue. This Service cannot offer a binding determination on the correct interpretation of that legal document. However, the landlord referred the resident to its insurers and did so within a reasonable time of the complaint being made. It acted reasonably in this regard.
  13. Finally, it is noted that the fault experienced by this resident also affected other residents in this block. A recommendation will be made below that the landlord contact all potentially affected residents to check whether any are still experiencing any issues. That contact might also remind residents how any ongoing faults can be reported. 

The resident’s complaint.

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints handling procedure which is set out in its Complaints Policy. In that document the landlord commits to offering responses to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days and stage 2 complaints in 20 working days. These deadlines are subject to extension with the agreement of the resident (leaseholder).
  2. It is noted that the responses at stage 1 and stage 2 were both 10 working days late in being given. The landlord’s records do not reflect any agreed time extensions for these replies. These delays are inappropriate. Further the stage 1 response provided no guidance to the resident on how to escalate the complaint.
  3. Initially the landlord offered an apology in respect of the initial delay. Its Compensation Policy sets out that this should be its starting point where it has not met the terms of its Complaints Policy. After referral to this Service the landlord indicated to us that it wished to offer £50 compensation to reflect the issues in its complaint handling.
  4. There were service failings here and the landlord’s offer is made too late to be accepted as reasonable redress. This is because it is reasonable to conclude that this offer would not have been made had the resident not escalated his complaint to this Service. An order for compensation has been made below. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of a fault to the ventilation system in the property.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the total sum of compensation of £750. This figure includes the £500 already offered by the landlord and comprises:
    1. £275 for service failure (previously offered).
    2. £225 for inconvenience, time and trouble (previously offered).
    3. A further £150 for the later delays.
    4. £100 for the complaints handling failures.
  2. It should confirm with this Service that it has complied with the Order within 4 weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to contact all potentially affected residents in this block to check whether any are still experiencing issues with the ventilation system. That contact might also remind residents how any ongoing faults can be reported.