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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202302935)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302935

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

14 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:
    1. Handling of reports of overflowing bins and fly tipping.
    2. Handling of reports of a missing bin store lock.
    3. Handling of repairs to the car park gate.
    4. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat within an estate managed by the landlord. The landlord is a housing association and it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.

Landlord’s obligations

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for communal repairs. It explains it conducts regular fire safety checks and asks residents to contact the council if they need to dispose of large items. The landlord’s repairs service standard are to be quick and reliable and to carry out work to a good standard, amongst other things.
  2. The landlord’s fly tipping process map explains its process following an enquiry. If it finds waste it will instruct its contractor to clear it within 5 working days.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy explains it will issue a stage 1 response with 10 working days and 20 working days for a stage 2 response. It explains that it can exclude a complaint if the cause of the complaint occurred over 6 months ago.

Summary of events

  1. The resident raised his complaint on 25 September 2022. He raised concerns about overflowing bins, fly tipping, a missing lock to the bin storage and issues with the lighting and car park gate. He said he had spent time and effort trying to resolve the issues with the landlord but felt it could not be “bothered”. 
  2. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 October 2022. It apologised for the resident’s experience and the delay in its response. It said:
    1. Overflowing bins and fly tipping. Its contractor had cleared excess rubbish/fly-tipping in the past. It explained that it was unable to identify the perpetrators and this meant it was difficult to take actions. It said letters had been sent to residents and it said it was an ongoing issue that was extremely difficult to manage. It told the resident how to request a repair of the lock to the bin store.
    2. For the car park lighting, it said the issue was raised in January 2022 and completed in March 2022. It explained that as per its complaints policy it could not look at issues that occurred more than 6 months ago.
    3. Car park gate. It said multiple repairs had been raised about the car park gates and following a repair in September 2022 it showed residents how to manually release the gate to exit should an issue happen again.
    4. It found no service failure and said it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint.
  3. On 15 January 2023 the resident escalated his complaint. He said the landlord’s stage 1 response was inaccurate and lacked attention to detail.
  4. The landlord issued its final response on 21 April 2023, dated 19 April 2023. The landlord apologised and upheld the resident’s complaint as it found there were some delays in its response. In response to the complaint points it said:
    1. Overflowing bins and fly tipping. It said the issue was a mixture of fly tipping and some bin users not disposing of refuse correctly. It said it would check the bin stores during its weekly visits and arrange for excess waste to be disposed of correctly. It said its service standard was 5 working days for fly tipping removal. It explained how it had written to residents about the use of the bin store. It said it would do this again and review the signs within the bin store.
    2. It offered the resident an option of accompanying it during an estate inspection to discuss issues and potential solutions.
    3. Its repair team was in the process of resolving the bin store lock issue. It explained that the metal gate required a specific lock and the timeframe for this was 3 months.
    4. It confirmed the electric gates had been repaired in September 2022. It said it would attend gate repairs within 24 hours and completes the work within 20 working days as per its service level agreement.
    5. It upheld the complaint as it found miscommunication and delays in repairs. It offered the resident £115 compensation in total and said this was made up of £15 for its delayed stage 1 response, £50 for its poor complaint handling and £50 for the time and trouble caused.
  5. Following the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process it wrote to this Service on 21 March 2024 explaining what it got wrong as part of its complaints process. It is unclear whether it has shared this with the resident. However, it increased its compensation offer to £300 and said this was made up of £270 for complaint handling failings and £30 reimbursement of costs for when the gate failed in September 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. In communication with the landlord the resident raised concerns about issues with the car park lighting. It is not disputed that the issue with the car park light was reported in January 2022 (the landlord resolved the issue on 16 March 2022) and the complaint was not raised until September 2022. In such circumstances the Ombudsman would expect the resident to have raised the issues as a complaint within a reasonable time, usually 6 months of the issue arising. As per paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, issues that were not raised as a complaint within a reasonable time have not been considered within this report.

Handling of reports of overflowing bins and fly tipping

  1. It is unclear when the resident first made reports about overflowing bins and fly tipping at the estate. Within the resident’s complaint he said issues had been ongoing for a number of years. The landlord’s stage 1 response also refers to previous claims, as such, the landlord would have been aware of reports of overflowing bins and fly tipping by no later than 25 September 2022.
  2. Within its complaint response, the landlord acted appropriately in confirming it had removed refuse in the past. It explained it would write to all residents about refuse disposal, add notice signs and would conduct weekly visits to remove refuse. The landlord’s approach here was appropriate. The evidence shows it continued to remove waste after its complaints process (a further 10 times), demonstrating it continued to conduct regular checks and take appropriate action as per its policy. With the evidence available, the landlord’s handling of reports of overflowing bins and fly tipping was appropriate and there was no maladministration.
  3. While the evidence available shows the landlord’s actions were in line with its policy in removing refuse, it has said that the estate has “significant” issues with fly tipping, as such the Ombudsman has made a recommendation for the landlord to explore other avenues in attempts to manage the issue.

Handling of reports of a missing bin store lock

  1. The landlord’s repairs log shows it completed work to the lock on the bin store in May 2022. The resident reported a missing lock to the bin store in September 2022. It took the landlord 7 months (21 April 2023) to tell the resident that the lock repair would take 3 months. This timeframe of 7 months was not appropriate.
  2. It took the landlord a further 11 months, until March 2024, to notice that the lock repair was raised incorrectly. This was not appropriate.
  3. In total the landlord took 18 months to correctly raise a repair for the lock to the bin store and despite this length of time, and the resident’s contact, it remains unclear whether it has completed this work. The landlord significantly exceeded the 3 month timeframe it gave for the repair and there is no evidence to show it updated the resident on the issue, a lack of update would have added to the resident’s frustration with its service. This landlord’s handling of repost of the missing lock to the bin store was not appropriate and amounts to a service failure.

Handling of repairs to the car park gate

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy does not give a timeframe for communal repairs but it does say its repairs service will be quick. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response it explains its service level agreement for work to the car park gates as attending to the repair within 24 hours and completing the work within 20 working days.
  2. It seems that around September 2022 there was a fault with the car park gate which meant the resident’s vehicle could not leave the car park. The resident has said he had to get a taxi to take his child to school that day. It is accepted that this would have been frustrating for the resident. However, it is not disputed that the repair was resolved with 24 hours. This timeframe was appropriate.
  3. The landlord has said a further repair to the car park gate was reported in October 2022 but it took 4 months to resolve this issue, this was despite the resident telling it of this. This timeframe of 4 months was not appropriate.
  4. It is not disputed that the landlord showed residents how to manually open the car park gates in September 2022 to help access the car park. It is accepted that this would have meant the car park was usable during this time. However, there may have been some concerns about safety which would have added to the resident’s frustration with the landlord’s service. There is also no evidence to show the landlord kept the resident updated on the repair during the 4 month timeframe which would have added to his feelings of it not being “bothered” to resolve the issue.
  5. The landlord’s handling of reports of issues with the car park gate were not appropriate and amounts to a service failure.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord took 14 working days to issue its stage 1 response, this exceeded the timeframe set within its complaints policy by 4 workings days. This was not appropriate.
  2. The resident escalated his complaint on 15 January 2023 and again on 19 February 2023. On 20 February 2023 the landlord said it would respond within 20 working days, however, it took the landlord until 21 April 2023 to respond and it did not keep the resident updated during this time. The landlord took over 3 months to issue its stage 2 response, this timeframe was not appropriate.
  3. In the landlord’s contact with this Service on 21 March 2024, almost a year after the end of its internal complaints process, it identified a number of errors/omissions from its complaint responses. These included:
    1. Its confusion about invoice payments, which meant bins were not emptied for a few weeks.
    2. The bin store lock repair being raised incorrectly at the time of the stage 2 response.
    3. A repair reported in October 2022 for the car park gate took 4 months to complete.
  4. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, applicable at that time, explains the complaint handling principles that landlord’s should adopt. It includes, amongst other things, the landlord must consider all information and evidence carefully. The evidence shows the landlord did not do this. This was not appropriate.
  5. It is acknowledged that it was reasonable for the landlord to revisit the complaint, accepting where things went wrong, explaining its learning and increasing its compensation offer in light of this. However, this was after its complaint process ended, it remains unclear why it did not identify the issues sooner and whether it shared this with the resident. The landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate and amounts to maladministration.
  6. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response it offered the resident £115 compensation for its complaint handling delays and the inconvenience caused. The landlord’s response from March 2024 increased the compensation for its complaint handling failings to £270 in total.
  7. When considering an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered, alongside what the landlord has offered and the circumstances of the case. The compensation amount of £270 falls within the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance and this amount has been considered as appropriate in the circumstances. As such no further compensation amount has been ordered for the landlord’s complaint handling failings.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of repairs to the car park gate.
    2. Handling of reports of a missing bin store lock.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of overflowing bins and fly tipping.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders a senior manager at the landlord to apologies to the resident for the failings identified within this report. This should be within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
  2. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £445 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this report. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears:
    1. £75 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused in its handling of the missing bin store lock.
    2. £100 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of the car park gate repairs. This amount includes the £30 it previously offered for expenses if it has not paid this already.
    3. £270 it previously offered for its complaint handling failings, if it has not paid this already.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord considers the other options available to it to manage the ongoing issues with fly tipping. It might be helpful for it to provide feedback to the resident following this.