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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202305913)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305913

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

26 November 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 and response to:
    1. Reports of a leak in the communal area causing damp.
    2. Reports of graffiti on the glass in the communal area.
    3. Reports of damage to the building and boundary fence.
    4. A request for an update on the communal maintenance programme.
  2. The Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a 1 bedroom flat on the third floor of a block of flats. The resident’s occupancy is covered by an under lease agreement which commenced on 2 October 2018. The landlord is party to a superior lease agreement and does not own the freehold of the building.
  2. On 30 September 2022 the local housing manager raised a request for its cleaning team to carry out carpet cleaning and graffiti removal within the communal area of the block. On the same date the landlord raised a works order for an inspection of a possible leak into the communal area of the block. This was described as “located close to the rear entrance door”. It carried out an inspection on 4 October 2022. It recorded that it had found no evidence of a leak. The landlord’s cleaning contractors carried out a deep clean of the communal carpets on 10 October 2022.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 17 October 2022. He said that he and neighbours had made several requests for works to the block. He asked to speak with the building manager to discuss his concerns as he was unhappy with the standard of service. He said that:
    1. there was an ongoing leak which was causing a smell of damp within the block.
    2. there was graffiti on the main window.
    3. following a car hitting the front of the building, the landlord had not completed the necessary repairs. The area was now deteriorating.
    4. he had received a letter about works to the communal areas of the building. This said that the landlord would be carrying out works as part of its 7 year cyclical programme. The works had not started. He said that the communal areas were of a poor standard.
  4. The landlord raised a new works order on 21 October 2022 to insect for a possible leak into the communal area. This referred to the leak as being close to a specific flat on the ground floor. It recorded that it had spoken with the resident of that flat and that they had said that a leak had occurred a few weeks before. The inspection found no evidence of an ongoing leak and noted that the carpet area was dry. On the same date the housing manager chased the cleaning contractor for an update on the graffiti removal. It advised that it would be carrying this out on 24 October 2022.
  5. On 16 November 2022 the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. It acknowledged the detail of the resident’s complaint and apologised for the delay in its reply. It said that:
    1. its contractor had inspected the block on 4 October 2022 and found no evidence of a leak.
    2. it had arranged for the communal carpets to be cleaned to address his reports of an unpleasant smell in the communal areas.
    3. it had made initial attempts to remove the graffiti on 24 September 2022. As it had been unable to remove the graffiti, its contractor had recommended the use of stronger chemicals. It would now complete the graffiti removal on 16 November 2022.
    4. it had inspected the damage to the external wall on 21 December 2021 and it had made the area safe. It had completed the necessary repairs on 27 October 2022. It apologised for the delay in it dealing with this issue.
    5. it had sent the letter about works to the communal areas of his block in error. It had identified that it was not responsible for the external works to the block. It apologised for its error and said that it would be writing to all residents to retract the letter. It would then contact residents again when it had resolved the issue with the head lease.
    6. it had failed to address the repairs to the damaged wall within its target time of 28 days. Further, its correspondence about the maintenance programme had been incorrect. It offered the resident £50 compensation. It broke this down as £30 for his time and trouble and £20 for its poor complaint handling.
  6. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 28 November 2022. He said that its stage 1 complaint response had been factually incorrect. He said that there was a leak in the communal area which was causing a smell of damp. He asked the landlord to speak with him and he could show it the leak. He said that this was causing damp and damage to the internal walls. Further, the graffiti remained on the main windows. As to the damage caused by the car, he said that the repairs carried out were of a poor standard. He said that the landlord had told residents that it would start the works to the communal areas in April 2022 as part of its 7 year maintenance programme, but it had not done so. He asked why the relevant department had not contacted residents further.
  7. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 1 December 2022. As it continued to conduct internal investigations about the resident’s complaint, the landlord wrote to the resident on 3 separate occasions to extend the target for its reply. During this period, it made a number of internal requests for updates on repairs to the building, covering the cyclical programme and the graffiti removal.
  8. The landlord provided its Stage 2 response on 1 April 2023. It apologised that the resident was unhappy with its stage 1 response. It said that in investigating his complaint, it had spoken with its repairs, estate, and planned works teams. It said that:
    1. it had carried out an inspection of the whole building on 21 October 2023 (sic). It had found neither a leak nor damage to the walls.
    2. its estate team had tried to clean the graffiti from the glass but had been unable to do so. It had found that the graffiti was ingrained or scratched into the glass. It had made a request for the glass be replaced. This had been completed on 23 March 2023. It had post inspected the works on 31 March 2023. It apologised for the delay in dealing with this issue.
    3. regarding the damage caused by the car which had hit the building, the boundary fence belonged to the proprietor of the neighbouring car repair shop. It said that it had written to it to request it make the necessary repairs and would follow this up.
    4. the 7 year maintenance programme had been due. It had identified an issue with the lease which meant that it was not responsible for the exterior of the building. It had now included the works to the internal communal areas into its programme for the financial year 2023 to 2024.
    5. it partially upheld his complaint. It said that it should have dealt with the replacement glass and chasing up repairs with the neighbouring business sooner. It did not accept that there had been service failure in respect of the other items. It said that it had acted appropriately in investigating his original complaint. It provided contact email addresses for its repairs and planned works teams should he wish to seek further updates.
    6. it made a revised offer of compensation of £150. This was based on £50 for his time and trouble in having to raise a complaint and £100 in recognition of the length of time taken to respond. This replaced its original offer of £50.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord on 12 April 2023. He expressed his disappointment in the lack of detail contained within its response despite the length of time his complaint had been open. He said that it had not replaced the glass and that the graffiti remained. He wanted to know when the landlord would complete these works. Further he did not feel that the response about the works to the communal area was good enough. He asked the landlord to provide a defined date as to when the works would begin. He requested a copy of his contract and asked to speak with the landlord to try to resolve his complaint before he contacted the Housing Ombudsman Service. In its response the landlord said that he had exhausted its complaints process and that his next step would be escalation to the Service. It confirmed that it had referred his communication on to its repairs service and said that it would contact him if “there is anything further to add”.  
  10. The resident brought his complaint to the Service on 17 May 2024 as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policy, and procedures

  1. The landlord has a planned property investment policy which sets out its approach towards the maintenance and investment into its homes. It has a regular cyclical programme which includes painting of internal and external surfaces of its buildings. It will use the section 20 process to consult with its leaseholders.
  2. Its guide to repair responsibilities says that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of its homes safe, secure and weatherproof. Further, it is to maintain the communal areas and shared spaces, allowing for reasonable wear and tear. The guide gives details of the timescales it sets for the completion of repairs. It is to complete routine repairs within 28 days. Where a repair is more complex it will set its contractor a target of 90 working days. This may include repairs that require working at height.
  3. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. This sets a target of 10 working days for it to respond to a complaint at stage 1 and 20 working days for a response at stage 2. Where it is unable to complete its investigations within these timescales it may agree an extension with the resident. Its policy sets no time limit on the extension of time.

A leak in the communal area causing damp.

  1. Following reports of a leak into the communal areas of the block the landlord carried out an initial inspection on 4 October 2022. It completed a further inspection on 21 October 2022, as reported back to the resident in its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord’s records show that subsequent inspections were completed on 15 November 2022 and 16 December 2022. These inspections found no evidence of an ongoing leak. There is no record that the landlord made attempts to speak directly with the resident during these inspections or to arrange to meet with him in order that he could show it his area of concern. To have done so would have acted to reassure the resident of the landlord’s intentions to deal with the issues he had raised and enabled it to bring the complaint to a quick conclusion. That it did not do so was not reasonable in the circumstances and allowed this aspect of his complaint to remain outstanding for a number of months.
  2. To address the reports of an unpleasant smell in the communal areas the landlord completed a deep clean of the communal carpets on 10 October 2022. It made a request to its cleaning contractors on 31 October 2022 for further cleaning of specific areas. It is unclear from the evidence provided if its contractors completed this second clean. There is no evidence that this was followed up by the landlord’s housing or complaints staff. As this was an aspect of the resident’s complaint it would have been appropriate for it to have done so.
  3. The landlord responded appropriately in carrying out inspections of the block in response to the resident’s concerns. However, that it did not arrange to meet the resident as part of its inspection was a failing for the reasons outlined above. Overall, this amounts to a service failure by the landlord in dealing with this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

 

 

Graffiti on the glass in the communal area.

  1. From the evidence presented by the landlord, it first raised the presence of graffiti on the glass by the front door on 30 September 2022. Its cleaning contractor tried to remove this on 24 October 2022. When it was unable to do so, it said that it would reattend with further chemicals to remove the graffiti. This was scheduled for 16 November 2022. The landlord recorded on 1 December 2022 that the graffiti was etched into the glass and could not be removed. This was 2 months after it was first identified. It is unclear why it was not immediately obvious that the graffiti was etched into the glass. The delay in the graffiti removal was understandably frustrating to the resident. The graffiti, though not offensive, was very visible and located by the main entrance to the building, making it unsightly. The dates contained within the landlord’s stage 1 reply do not correspond with this timeline and appear incorrect.
  2. Having identified that the graffiti could not be removed from the glass, a works order was to be raised for the glass to be replaced. Through its investigation of the resident’s escalated complaint there is a record of internal chases for its repairs team to raise this necessary works order. It also asked for confirmation of when it had replaced the glass. In its stage 2 complaint reply, the landlord told the resident that the works had been completed on 23 March 2023. He challenged this, emailing the landlord on 12 April 2023 to say that the glass had not been changed and that the graffiti remained. The landlord failed to respond to this statement, informing him that he had exhausted its complaints process. Leaving this element outstanding was a significant failure. It also leads to a lack of clarity as to when it finally installed the replacement glass. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have taken the time to verify the works it said that it had carried out and to have checked the outcome of the post works inspection completed on 31 March 2023. That it did not do was a failure in its handling of repairs to the communal areas of the resident’s block and a failure to meet the target time for repairs as set within its repairs policy.
  3. It is noted that the photographs provided to confirm the completion of the communal decorating works on 23 January 2024 show that the graffiti is no longer present. It is not clear when the landlord replaced the glass. The issue was outstanding for a minimum of 6 months which was not reasonable in the circumstances. There was a significant delay in the landlord dealing with the reported graffiti. This combined with the lack of clarity as to when the work was completed amount to a service failure by the landlord.

Damage to the building and boundary fence.

  1. The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns around the repairs to the front of the building following the impact of a car within its stage 1 reply. It acknowledged that having carried out initial works to make the area safe, there had been a significant delay in it completing the final repairs. In this it appropriately acknowledged its failure to deal with the repair promptly and provided an apology. This was appropriate in the circumstances of the resident’s complaint.
  2. At stage 2 the landlord highlighted a secondary issue with damage caused to fencing adjoining the resident’s block. It explained that this belonged to a neighbouring business and that it had written to them to ask that they carry out the necessary repairs. While it could have taken this action at an earlier stage, it had no control over the actions of this third party in repairing the damaged fencing. It is considered that the landlord acted appropriately, if belatedly in dealing with this issue. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this element of the resident’s complaint.

Update on the communal maintenance programme.

  1. The landlord began consultation with residents, issuing a notice of intention to carry out internal and external redecoration works, in April 2021. It then served a ‘notice of estimates’ in March 2022. In its internal correspondence, following the resident’s complaint, the landlord noted that it had come to light that there was a head lease in place. Under the terms of this lease, the landlord was not responsible for the exterior of the building. It is not clear why this information was not known to the landlord when it first started the consultation. There is also a lack of clarity as to why it did not immediately notify residents that it would be stopping the consultation while it undertook further investigations. It should not have needed the resident to raise a formal complaint for the landlord to take steps to retract its initial consultation. It was understandably frustrating to the resident for the communal redecoration works to have been put on hold. His complaint highlights his concern about the condition of the communal areas, and this was reconfirmed by its cleaning contractors in follow up around the carpet cleaning.
  2. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord was only able to provide information that the cyclical works would be included within its 2023 to 2024 programme. This was understandably unsatisfactory to the resident who had expected these works to have begun in April 2022, based on the landlord’s initial consultation with residents. Furthermore, as his complaint had been held open for 4 months while the landlord completed its investigation, he could have reasonably expected a more detailed response which provided a clearer time frame for the works to start.
  3. The landlord has provided confirmation that the works began in December 2023 and were completed in January 2024.
  4. Considering the incorrect information provided to the resident and the subsequent delay in carrying out the cyclical redecoration there was a service failure by the landlord.

Complaint handling

  1. There were significant delays in the landlord’s responses at both stages of the resident’s complaint. Although it informed him of its intention to extend its response time, this led to his complaint taking 6 months to complete both stages of the landlord complaints procedure.
  2. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) requires a landlord “to provide a complaint response to a resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed”. Furthermore, it is expected that the landlord will track any outstanding actions and provide appropriate updates to the resident. The landlord should have provided its complaint response setting out when each element of his complaint would be actioned. It could then have provided supplemental updates as these actions were progressed. Instead, it kept the complaint open while it collated information from colleagues internally to provide a definitive outcome to each element of his complaint. Despite the lengthy delay the final complaint response did not provide the clear outcomes that the resident was looking for. He challenged the accuracy of the information provided around the replacement glass to remove the graffiti and was unhappy that it had not provided a clear time when the communal redecorations would be carried out.
  3. There is also little evidence of direct engagement with the resident about his complaint. The landlord missed an opportunity to resolve the complaint with the resident ahead of him raising it with the Service. That it did not contact the resident in follow up on its stage 2 complaint response was a significant failure in its complaint handling and not in the spirit of dispute resolution. The ombudsman considers 3 principles for dispute resolution: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. With no evidence of engagement with the resident the landlord did not take steps to put things right for him and to learn from his complaint. This can only have left the resident further frustrated. This amounts to maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  4. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s increased offer, made in its stage 2 response of £150 compensation in respect of the delay in its response and the time and trouble caused to the resident in having to bring his complaint. Given the extended time over which the resident was raising his concerns and the landlord’s failure to effectively address all these issues in a timely manner, this offer was not proportionate. An order has been made, in line with the Service’s guidance on remedies for an additional amount of compensation in recognition of the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak in the communal area causing damp.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of graffiti on the glass in the communal area.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damage to the building and boundary fence.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to a request for an update on the communal maintenance programme.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the identified failings. This should be in line with the Service’s guidance on remedies.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £440 compensation. This includes the £150 offered by the landlord in its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord may deduct this amount from the total if it has already paid this to the resident. The compensation is broken down as follows:
      1. £50 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to engage with him directly about his reports of a water leak.
      2. £80 for the inconvenience caused by the significant delay in dealing with the graffiti in his block.
      3. £60 for the delay to the communal redecoration programme and the frustration this caused to the resident.
      4. £100 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident through bringing his complaint to the landlord.

 

Recommendations

A wider order was issued to the landlord on 31 January 2024 as part of case 202011109, in which it was to review its complaint handling. The landlord should include the learning and action points arising from this determination.