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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202303703)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303703

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

4 June 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of works to replace the resident’s front entrance door.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord at the property, a 1 bedroom, 2-person ground floor flat. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 20 March 2023. She stated the following:
    1. The landlord told her in November 2022 it would be installing a new front door at her property and would talk to her about this in March 2023. She said she called the landlord, and it told her she was not entitled to a new front door until 2028 to 2029.
    2. She stated her current front door was “extremely old and damaged.” She asked the landlord to reconsider and install a new door that year “as promised.”
    3. She had “severe mental health” which was affected by seeing people through the glass panel in the front door. She said this was a “major problem.”
  3. The landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 complaint response on 31 March 2023. It told the resident her the renewal of her front door was scheduled for 2028 to 2029 and would be replaced “like for like”. It said it had inspected her door on 20 March 2023 and completed “temporary repairs and left the door locking securely.” It found the door was “cracked to the leading edge and in poor condition.” It recommended renewal of the front door. It agreed to fit a “half-glazed standard UPVC door” and once approved, it would raise it with its contractor to arrange the works. It expected the timeframe for completion to be 20 working days from it raising the order. It told her although she said it had “pushed back the renewal date for the door” it had agreed to replace the door following recommendations. It did not uphold her complaint.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 22 April 2023. She said it promised her in November 2022 she would have her choice of colour and frame for the new door. She said the landlord had not investigated contact with her in November 2022 and felt “nothing was done” and it “did not apologise.” She was concerned she was being “backed into a corner and lied to.” She said she would not get her choice of colour and frame of the door if the landlord replaced it as “like for like.”
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 28 April 2023. It said it stood by its stage 1 complaint decision as her escalation failed to meet its threshold for a stage 2 complaint investigation. It said she failed to demonstrate the following: its stage 1 response was factually incorrect; it had not considered important information and its response had not addressed her complaint. It did not uphold her complaint as it found no further service failings. The resident contacted the Ombudsman, and her complaint was accepted for investigation on 19 May 2023.
  6. The landlord raised a work order on 26 April 2023 and received a quote for the replacement door on 10 May. On 24 May the resident stated when the contractor attended they asked her what colour and frame she wanted. It’s believed this took place between 29 April and 24 May. The landlord believed it had not received the quote of 10 May and chased this with the contractor on 30 May. Following this there is no evidence of anything further taking place until 12 September when the resident chased the door renewal. The landlord reraised the work order to replace the door on 16 October. On 20 October, the landlord rejected a complaint from the resident about the delay in completing the door renewal. It said this was because it was “the same issue.” It directed the resident to the Ombudsman. The landlord’s contractor spoke to the resident on 23 October 2023. It apologised for the delay in completing the door renewal. It said the work would be due to take place soon, potentially over the Christmas period.
  7. The resident told the Ombudsman on 28 October 2023, the issue “was ongoing”. She said she had “severe mental health, felt unsafe and it was stressful calling and emailing” the landlord. In correspondence with the Ombudsman on 17 November the landlord stated its contractor was delayed in renewing the resident’s front door “due to issues with the supplier”. It “identified further compensation would be appropriate” and would like to award £100 to the resident “for the delay and inconvenience experienced.” In correspondence with the Ombudsman on 6 June 2024, the landlord confirmed it had completed renewal of the resident’s front entrance door on 1 December 2023. The resident stated to the Ombudsman on 10 June 2024, her door was renewed to “satisfactory standards” on 24 November 2023.

Scope of investigation.

  1. The Ombudsman will not normally consider events after the date the resident’s case was duly made to the Ombudsman. This was from 19 May 2023 onwards. However, in the interests of fairness and in order to fully resolve an issue it is sometimes appropriate to investigate events that occur following the end of the landlord’s complaints process or following a case having been brought within the Ombudsman’s remit. Following the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaints process on 28 April 2023, the landlord was delayed in completing the renewal of the resident’s front entrance door. The landlord’s management of the door renewal is key to the resident’s complaint and its complaint responses said that it would complete this. As such the renewal of the resident’s door has been considered in this report, to completion.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of works to replace the resident’s front entrance door.

  1. The landlord’s Planned Property Investment Policy confirms it will “take a planned approach to the maintenance of its homes and investment needed to maintain them.” It states it will comply with the Decent Homes Standard and this confirms homes “must be in a reasonable state of repair.” Its planned investment programme will be completed based on stock condition and the life cycle of components. In delivering work programmes the policy confirms it will work in partnership with contractors. It also confirms it will “consult customers when planning works programmes to make sure they meet the customer’s needs.”
  2. The landlord’s “Repairs, A guide for tenants” confirms it aims to carry out repairs “quickly and efficiently” and to provide the resident with “a quality repairs service at all times.” Its service standards of its and its “suppliers working on its behalf” include the following:
    1. To carry out work to a good standard that gives value for money.
    2. To be quick and reliable.
    3. To keep the resident informed.
    4. To be clear what the resident can expect from the landlord.
  3. The tenancy agreement and the landlord’s “Repairs, A guide for tenants” confirm the landlord is responsible for repairs to external doors. The guide confirms it will try to make an appointment to inspect a repair from when the resident first calls to report this. The landlord classifies routine repairs as “defects that can be deferred without serious discomfort, inconvenience or nuisance to the resident or third party without long-term deterioration of the building.” The guide confirms it will complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
  4. In her complaint of 20 March 2023, the resident stated the landlord spoke to her in November 2022. She said it confirmed at that time that it would speak to her in March 2023 about replacing her door in April 2023. The Ombudsman can find no evidence of communication between the resident and landlord between November 2022 and March 2023. It is unclear whether the landlord has failed to keep a record of this correspondence, or if it is the case that it has failed to provide it in response to our information request. However, there is evidence of the landlord raising an internal query on 24 November 2022. This asked whether the resident’s door was “on programme for 2028/2029”. The landlord would later confirm it was “uncertain what prompted this.” This suggests there was contact between it and the resident regarding the door at that time as she suggests. The landlord’s record keeping in this regard has impacted the Ombudsman’s ability to establish an accurate sequence of events and conduct a thorough investigation for the period November 2022 to March 2023.
  5. The resident raised concerns about the communication from the landlord in November 2022 in both her initial complaint of 20 March 2023 and her escalation request on 31 March 2023. There is no evidence of the landlord investigating the resident’s concerns about whether it contacted her in November 2022. It failed to respond to this concern in both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. As such it was unable to establish if there were any failings with its process or communication with the resident. It was unable to determine any impact on the resident and consider if any further remedies were relevant. Its failure to do this caused the resident to believe it was not treating her seriously, causing distress and inconvenience to her.
  6. The first evidence of the resident reporting an issue with her door was on 20 March 2023. She said her door was “extremely old and damaged.” The landlord took appropriate action in response to this report by arranging for a contractor to attend the same day. The contractor took remedial action during the visit to make the door safe. They also recommended the door “be renewed due to the condition of the door.”
  7. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said it had scheduled its original planned works for the door for 2028/2029 and any replacement would be “like for like”. It did not specify in its response the renewal due to the disrepair would be “like for like.” It stated it would “fit a half-glazed standard UPVC door” at the resident’s property. The resident was concerned about this as she believed in November 2022 it had told her she would be able to pick the door colour and frame. She raised this in her escalation of 22 April 2023 as she was concerned that “she would not ever get the option of choices if the landlord went ahead.” The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 complaint response the door renewal would be “like for like.” The landlord would later tell the Ombudsman on 17 November 2023 a like for like replacement was “in line with its repairs process for reactive works.” The Ombudsman can find no evidence in the landlord’s policies that the renewal of a door must be “like for like.” However, on balance its approach was fair as a “like for like” replacement ensured the door would be fit for purpose.
  8. The resident reported to the landlord on 24 May 2023 its contractor had offered her choices in the colour and frame of the door when it attended with her on an unknown date between 29 April and 24 May. The Ombudsman can find no evidence to suggest it had changed its stance on the door renewal being “like for like.” This caused uncertainty to the resident who was uncertain on how the landlord would progress with the details of the door. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s report leaving the situation unclear for her.
  9. In its stage 1 complaint response of 31 March 2023 the landlord stated it would complete the repair to the door “20 working days from raising the work order”. The landlord raised the work order on 26 April. The landlord was aware of the recommendation to repair the door on 20 March 2023. It is uncertain why it took 37 calendar days to raise the work order. This prolonged resolution of the issue for the resident.
  10. The landlord should have completed the repair by 22 May 2023, given the 20-day working day timescale it stated in its stage 1 response. By 22 May, no work had begun, and the landlord began to chase a quote from its contractor it had previously received on 10 May. This suggests further errors in its record keeping. The landlord also failed to meet the schedule it stated in its stage 2 complaint response. There is no evidence during this period it kept the resident updated or provided a new timescale for completion. In doing this the landlord failed to adhere to its service standards of “being quick and reliable,” “managing the resident’s expectations” and “keeping her informed.” This caused uncertainty to her on what action the landlord was taking.
  11. The resident chased the door renewal on 12 September 2023. At this point, 97 working days had passed. This far exceeded the 20 working days promised by the landlord. It is of concern the landlord failed to communicate with the resident between its stage 2 complaint response of 28 April and the resident chasing the door renewal on 12 September. The Ombudsman can also find no evidence of any action or contact in this same period. The failure to progress the repair and communicate with the resident suggests a number of failures:
    1. Poor record keeping.
    2. Failure to effectively manage an outstanding repair.
    3. Failure to maintain up-to-date communication with its contractor.
  12. The landlord responded to the resident’s chase email of 12 September 2023 on 15 September. It told her it was awaiting a quote from its contractor. This was inaccurate as it had received this information on 10 May. This inaccuracy was further confirmed by the landlord in contact with the Ombudsman on 17 November. It told the Ombudsman the delay was due to “long lead times from the supplier.” On 23 October, the landlord asked its contractor to speak to the resident about the issue. It did this on the same day. It said it explained the “reasons” for the delay but did not state what it believed these to be at the time. By this time 126 working days had passed since the landlord had raised the work order. Furthermore, it took the landlord 30 calendar days from the resident chasing the issue on 12 September to furnish her with a response. Each aspect of the delay caused uncertainty, inconvenience, and distress to the resident, on whether it was taking her concerns seriously or if it would take any action.
  13. On 13 October 2023, the contractor asked for approval for the front door renewal to be a fire door. It said it “should be a fire door due to building regulations.” The landlord agreed this on 16 October 2023, raising a new work order on the same day. It is of concern that the landlord had not raised this as a requirement when raising the work order on 26 April 2023. In previously failing to consider this the landlord failed to recognise its obligations under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 to ensure fire doors are required in all doorways leading to escape routes.
  14. The landlord completed the renewal of the resident’s front entrance on 1 December 2023. There is some uncertainty regarding the landlord’s record keeping as the resident states this was completed on 24 November 2023. However, with either date all aspects of completing the renewal was excessive. These delays were responsible for causing inconvenience and distress to the resident. Evidence of the scale of the delays is shown as follows:
    1. From 20 March 2023 when its contractor recommended renewal this was equivalent to 181 working days or 257 calendar days.
    2. From the date of it raising the first work order on 26 April 2023 this was equivalent to 155 working days and 220 calendar days.
    3. From the date of raising its further work order on 16 October 2023 this was equivalent to 35 working days and 47 calendar days.
  15. In correspondence with the Ombudsman on 17 November 2023 the landlord said it was “not aware of any disabilities, vulnerabilities or support referrals for the household during the tenancy.” It asked the Ombudsman to make it aware of the resident raising any vulnerabilities during this investigation. In her stage 1 complaint of 20 March, the resident said she had “severe mental health”. There is no evidence following this the landlord acknowledged or investigated this point. It also failed to consider if it was necessary to complete a risk assessment or offer support or signposting for support to the resident. The resident raised concerns about her health to the Ombudsman on 28 October. This suggests the issue was ongoing. There was no further evidence up to 28 October of the landlord supporting the resident with her health. The landlord’s failure to address this or support the resident was not in accordance with its “commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion” noted in its policies.
  16. The resident had also stated in her complaint of 20 March 2023 build of her front door was affecting her mental health. She said as the “door was glass she could see people through it,” she said this was a “major problem.” The landlord also did not address this particularly when it told her the renewal of her door “was like for like.” The landlord could have considered removing the glass panel in the new door as a “reasonable adjustment” under the Equality Act 2012. This was because the resident had made it clear the impact it was having on her health. Its failure to consider this was not in accordance with its “commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion” which states “where necessary reasonable adjustments will be made.” Its failure to consider her mental health, caused distress and inconvenience to her and raised questions about whether it was treating her fairly.
  17. The landlord chose not to investigate the complaint again at stage 2 as it believed there were no issues with its stage 1 response. This will be considered further in ‘complaint handling’ later in this report. There were a number of issues that both the stage 1 and stage 2 complaints failed to acknowledge and investigate. The stage 1 response failed to consider the resident’s reports about her health. It also failed to investigate her reports of communication with her from November 2022. The stage 2 complaint response also failed to investigate these points and that it had not investigated the concerns at stage 1. By the time of the stage 2 response, the landlord had only raised the work order to complete the door renewal two days prior. This delayed work commencing and meant it had not completed the work it promised at stage 1.
  18. In correspondence with the Ombudsman on 17 November 2023 the landlord recognised the delay in completing the door renewal. It said it wanted to award the resident £100 compensation for the delay and inconvenience caused. It is uncertain if the landlord has paid this to the resident. The Ombudsman commends the landlord carrying out a review of the case following the end of its internal complaints process. It must be stated however that any offers of compensation made after the landlord’s complaints process and after the involvement of the Ombudsman are less likely to be determined by the Ombudsman as ‘reasonable redress’. This is because for redress to be reasonable it should take place prior to the Ombudsman’s formal investigation and on the landlord’s own initiative. Actions made following the landlord being made aware of an investigation cannot be described to be on the landlord’s initiative as it was the initiative of the resident to escalate the complaint.
  19. The £100 compensation awarded by the landlord on 17 November 2023 falls within the landlord’s “medium failure” within its Compensation Policy, which suggests amounts between £51 and £160. The policy states this is when there has been “considerable service failure without permanent impact on the complainant”. The Ombudsman agrees on the reasoning for the award, but the amount offered was not proportionate with the amount suggested in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. This suggests awards of £100 to £600 for cases where there has been service failure which has adversely affected the resident, with no permanent impact. An award of £100 would suggest the low end of this scale. However, in all the circumstances of this case, the detriment experienced by the resident due to the delay and lack of communication means a more significant award would have been more appropriate in this case.
  20. In summary the landlord failed to investigate the resident’s concerns about it promising her it would install a new door in April 2023. It also failed to consider the resident’s health or consider the possibility of a reasonable adjustment to its process for her. This was not in accordance with its commitment to equality and diversity. The landlord did not raise a work order in an appropriate timescale and failed to arrange for this to be a fire door. It therefore failed to evidence it having considered its fire safety obligations from the outset. The landlord failed to update the resident with progress on the door from 29 April until she chased it 27 September, equivalent to 153 calendar days. When it did, the information it provided was inaccurate. The delay in renewing the door and its poor communication meant it did not adhere to its “service standards.” The failure to complete or manage the door renewal over a prolonged period has highlighted discrepancies in the landlord’s record keeping and communication and contact with its contractor.
  21. The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration of the landlord’s handling of works to replace the resident’s front entrance door. An order will be made for the landlord to provide and compensation of £350 will be awarded. This is in accordance with the remedies guidance where there has been a failure with moderate impact on the resident. The compensation awarded will include the £100 previously awarded by the landlord. An order will also be made for the landlord to review its fire safety procedure and report back to the Ombudsman on the outcome.

The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Policy confirms it is committed to using customer complaints to “improve its service and focus on their needs.” It requests all complaints to be made by telephone. It will then use the complainant’s preferred method of contact following this. It aims to resolve complaints with a local resolution. Where this is not suitable it will log a stage 1 complaint. It will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days of receipt. It will respond to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days. If it cannot respond in 10 working days, it will keep the complainant informed and agree on a new response time.
  2. The Complaints Policy confirms if dissatisfied with a stage 1 response a complainant can raise an escalation. The landlord will acknowledge complaint escalations and respond in 20 working days. It will inform complainants of a new response time if it is unable to respond in 20 working days. However, it will only “reinvestigate a stage complaint” if an escalation request meets its threshold for investigation for the following reasons:
    1. The stage 1 response is factually incorrect. The complaint must detail any inaccuracies.
    2. The stage 1 response did not address the initial complaint.
    3. Information provided in the initial complaint has not been considered.
    4. Actions agreed at stage 1 have not been completed as agreed.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 20 March 2023 on the same day. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 31 March. This was equivalent to 9 working days and within the 10-working day timescale in its Complaints Policy.
  4. As previously stated in the assessment of the substantive issue the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to address some issues. This caused uncertainty to the resident as to whether the landlord was listening to her. It failed to investigate or address the following:
    1. The resident’s concerns about her health and the impact the door was having on her mental health.
    2. The resident’s concerns about the landlord’s contact with her in November 2022 and whether it promised to renew her door in April 2023.
  5. On 28 April 2023, the landlord decided it would not investigate the resident’s escalation request of 22 April. It said it stood by its decision at stage 1 and the resident had not demonstrated her escalation met its threshold of 3 different reasons. This is not in accordance with its Complaints Policy which states there are 4 different reasons. In its response, it missed off “actions agreed at stage 1 had not been completed.” This was apt as at the time of its stage 2 complaint response it had only raised the work order two days prior. This delayed work on the renewal and should have been addressed by the landlord. Thus, the landlord had not effectively completed actions agreed at stage 1.
  6. Furthermore, the landlord failed to recognise it had not investigated the resident’s concerns about her health or about its reported contact in November 2022. Therefore, the resident’s escalation met the threshold for escalation as the landlord had not considered all “information provided at stage 1”. Overall, it was inappropriate for the landlord not to investigate the resident’s escalation request. It’s failure to do so caused her concerns to remain outstanding, causing distress and inconvenience to her.
  7. On 17 October 2023, the resident raised a new complaint regarding the delay in completing the door renewal. The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 19 October. However, on 20 October it rejected the complaint. It stated, “as it was the same issue it could not take the complaint further.” This was inappropriate as the landlord’s complaints process up to 28 April was not able to consider the following period of delay. The landlord should have investigated the resident’s complaint and provided a stage 1 complaint response in accordance with its Complaints Policy. Its failure to do this left the resident with no ability to challenge its management of the door renewal and the delays caused in accordance with its process. The landlord caused further confusion to the resident on 23 October, telling her she could raise a complaint about the delay. She told it she had done this, and the landlord had closed the complaint which she “found strange.” This suggests either the landlord failed to record its complaint refusal correctly on 20 October or there is uncertainty internally about the process the landlord should follow.
  8. A landlord’s complaint process enables it to learn from issues and identify trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to adhere to its own Complaints Policy in failing to consider all the resident’s concerns at stage 1. It did not adhere to its policy in deciding not to investigate the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It failed to allow the resident the opportunity to have a complaint about delays to the renewal of her door. A determination of service failure has therefore been determined. To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures, £200 compensation has been ordered. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where service failure has occurred over a protracted period with some impact on the resident throughout that period.
  9. The Ombudsman has previously made orders relating to the landlord’s complaint handling. This was on 31 January 2024 in case 202011109 and on 29 February 2024 in case 202201502. In both cases, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to review its complaint-handling processes and record keeping. As such these orders will not be reordered in this report.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of works to replace the resident’s front entrance door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. A senior staff member from the landlord to provide a written apology to the resident for the impact of the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £550 compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
      1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inefficient handling of work to replace her front entrance door.
      2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inappropriate complaint handling.
      3. The amounts above include the £100 awarded to the resident by the landlord after completion of its internal complaint’s procedure.
    3. Review this case from a fire safety perspective and report back to the Ombudsman on the outcome of this review, including any procedural changes it will implement as a result.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should complete a risk assessment for the resident and her property. It must take any further appropriate action and update its records, as necessary.