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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202307328)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307328

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

22 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:
    1. The resident’s reports of repairs required to the intercom system.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the property. She bought the lease in 2013. The property is a 2-bedroom flat located on the first floor of a block. The landlord is a housing association and the freeholder.
  2. On 17 March 2023 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. The resident provided a repair number and said it was raised in October 2022 after the landlord’s contractors had attended the property to complete a building washdown. The resident was dissatisfied as her intercom system had stopped working and she attributed this to the washdown. She said the landlord had not completed the repairs despite saying it would do so before 25 December 2022 and it continuously failed to take action. She said multiple flats were experiencing the same issue and it was causing inconvenience to her as postal services and other delivery services were unable to deliver. This meant she was travelling to delivery offices to obtain items and post.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 24 March 2023. It awarded £50 for the resident’s time and trouble and said it was waiting for parts to arrive to fix the intercom system. The estimated date for parts to arrive was 27 March 2023 and it aimed to repair the intercom system in a week. The resident replied on the same day and asked what would happen to the cost of the repair, that it should not be paid by leaseholders and to settle the matter via insurance. She also said the landlord would not conduct any repairs unless a complaint process was initiated.
  4. On 28 March 2023 the landlord told the resident the intercom power system was old and burnt out, not damaged from water ingress, so this would fall under wear and tear. Its contractors in October 2022 would not have jet washed external walls. It said there was a failure due to the time taken for the repair to be dealt with, in this case it was sourcing the parts. It apologised and said the resident should have been notified of the delays. It had spoken to the contractors, and the dates given would always be estimated as deliveries were not guaranteed. The parts were to be received on 3 April 2023, and the repair would be done shortly after that date.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She had an email from the contractors of 19 August 2022 which said they would carry out a washdown. She said she was disappointed that it made little effort in its investigation. As the contractor was fully insured, she did not want to pay for repairs. She accepted the £50 compensation but indicated she was going to escalate the complaint.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 12 May 2023 to the resident. The landlord said it was satisfied with the way the complaint was handled at stage 1 of its internal complaints procedure. It did not identify any service failures throughout stage 1. It told the resident the contractor had tried to rectify faults with the intercom system on multiple visits, but it had been faulty for too long. It said although the breakdown was caused by external parties, the repairs should have been completed quicker. A new panel was to be dispatched on 16 May 2023, and it said as soon as it received this, it would schedule the repairs.
  7. The landlord also said in its final response that it had implemented a new process to ensure it captures repairs that require multiple visits, or where it was taking longer than expected. The landlord noted it had not addressed all the resident’s concerns at stage 1 and the intercom system still did not have a date of completion. The landlord offered the resident a total of £140 in compensation, this was comprised of the following:
    1. £50 it offered at stage 1 for the time and trouble experienced.
    2. £50 for further time and trouble experienced by the resident that it identified at stage 2.
    3. £40 for complaint handling at stage 2.
  8. On 30 May 2023 the resident contacted this Service. She told us she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and wanted us to investigate her concerns. The intercom system remained faulty, and she was having to travel to delivery offices to retrieve her mail. When someone was at the door of the property, she was unable to see and hear them.
  9. Following the landlord’s final response, its contractors attended the property on 19 June 2023 to fit a panel required to the intercom system, but it did not resolve the issue. On 24 July 2023 it sent a section 20 notice to the resident to have the intercom system (door entry) upgraded, it gave the resident 33 days to send it any observations. The landlord confirmed to this Service it had installed a new system on 5 December 2023.
  10. On 5 April 2024 the landlord told this Service it had conducted a case review. It revised its compensation offer for the resident. It was awarding a total of £300 to the resident, made up of:
    1. £200 for time and trouble.
    2. £100 for its complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident was dissatisfied the landlord was not going through insurance to claim for damages caused by its contractor who was also insured. She said the cause of the issue was due to the contractors’ washdown of the building, and leaseholders should not have to pay towards repair costs for this issue. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish liability. Such decisions require an assessment of liability and are decided by a court or insurer, the resident may wish to seek independent advice. However, where the Ombudsman identifies a failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting detriment, including time, trouble, and inconvenience.
  2. Further, paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
  3. As such, this Service cannot consider elements of the resident’s complaint which relate to service charges that she feels are unjustified. These complaints are within the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal (FTT). However, this report will focus on the landlord’s communication around any charges potentially due.

Repairs required to the intercom system

  1. The landlord has accepted that there were delays in repairing the intercom system and had offered compensation. The Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles and remedies guidance. The principles of effective dispute resolution are:
    1. Be fair, treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. The lease sets out that the landlord will maintain, repair, redecorate, and renew the structure of the building and all external parts which are not the responsibility of the resident. It is also responsible for machinery in, under, and upon the building, and the common parts.
  3. Under the landlord’s repairs responsibilities booklet, it also notes it will repair any intercoms or door entry buzzers and all connected components, both inside properties and in communal areas. It provides various timescales, but non-routine repairs are to be completed in 90 calendar days.
  4. This Service has received contrasting information as to when the landlord was put on notice of the issues. However, there is clear evidence on the landlord’s records that it was aware of the faulty intercom system effecting multiple flats as early as 13 October 2022. Therefore, under its policies it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have repaired the intercom system within 90 calendar days from 13 October 2022.
  5. Additionally, the landlord told this Service on 5 April 2024 that it was put on notice the resident was experiencing issues when she submitted her complaint in March 2023. However, there is evidence when the resident submitted her complaint, she provided a repairs reference number to the landlord. This corresponds with an entry on its records dated 10 November 2022 where the resident said she could not see or hear anyone, and the door release button did not work. This was a failing by the landlord, as it should have systems in place to maintain accurate records. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
  6. From the evidence provided, the landlord faced obstacles in sourcing parts. Ultimately, the landlord did not complete the repairs until 5 December 2023, nearly 11 months after it should have completed the repairs in line with its policy timescales (by 11 January 2023). This was inappropriate. The resident continued to expend time and trouble, and experienced inconvenience until the issue was resolved, 207 calendar days after she exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The landlord had reassured the resident in both its complaint responses it would repair the intercom system. For it to take this length of time, it did not manage her expectations and did not deliver on what it said it would do.
  7. This Service acknowledges the landlord said it was trying to mitigate any costs regarding the repairs levied to leaseholders of the block. However, its communication within its internal complaints procedure with the resident was poor. On 28 March 2023 it told the resident the intercom system was faulty from general wear and tear. It then said in its stage 2 complaint response that the damage was caused by external parties. It did not provide any reasoning as to why it changed its position on the matter, which was unreasonable in the circumstances.
  8. In the resident’s complaint submission and escalation, it was clear the resident challenged the landlord on its position of what caused the faulty intercom system. The landlord did not clearly communicate its position on liability insurance to the resident. When the resident said she did not feel that leaseholders should have to pay for the repairs, the landlord did not advise that she could potentially approach the FTT regarding what she felt was unjustified leaseholder charges. The landlord’s communication was poor and unreasonable.
  9. Under the landlord’s compensation policy, it can make compensation awards for time and trouble, as well as for failure of service. It says failure for service is when it does not complete repairs when it said it would. In the landlord’s final response £100 was proportioned for the time and trouble expended by the resident in pursuing the matter. It was then revised to £200 for time and trouble when it conducted a case review on 5 April 2024. The landlord had not offered this level of compensation in its final response or committed to re-assessing the level of compensation. It only did so after this Service’s intervention.
  10. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that while its revised offer does take into account the element of time and trouble within the landlord’s compensation policy, an award for failure of service should have been due. The landlord even acknowledged there was failure of service in its complaint responses. Therefore, it has not done enough to put things right. A proportionate amount suggested within the compensation policy is payment from £51. In consideration of this and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, the landlord is ordered to increase its compensation to a total of £300. This is comprised of the £200 it already offered for time and trouble, and £100 for failure of service.
  11. Overall, the landlord was not proactive in attempting to repair the issue at the outset, and it was not proactive in keeping the resident informed, and its records were not accurate. By its final response, it had not acknowledged all its errors. There was also a lack of learning demonstrated and its communication was not clear. While it attempted to put things right, it was not in line with its own compensation policy, and its revised offer was following this Service’s intervention. As such, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to the intercom system. Orders have been made in this regard, and to increase the level of compensation offered as above.

Handling of the associated complaint

  1. In terms of timeliness, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 within its 10-working day timescale set out in its complaints policy.
  2. In contrast, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response exceeded its 20-working day timescale by 10 working days. This was inappropriate.
  3. In its stage 2 complaint response it did however award £40 for its complaint handling. It later increased its offer to £100 on 5 April 2024. While this level of compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which suggests payment up to £100 for service failures, it was offered nearly 11 months after the resident exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. As assessed above, it had also provided a revised offer for its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the intercom system.
  4. This Service does encourage landlords to continue to work with residents to resolve matters. As the revised offer of compensation was made some months after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it was not in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code). The Code promotes the earliest resolution of complaints while the matters are still within the landlord’s own procedure. This can avoid issues escalating with potentially prolonged detriment to the resident, as well as requiring significantly more time and resource by the landlord to remedy. Further, there was no evidence in the complaint responses of any learning from the complaint to ensure errors are not repeated.
  5. In consideration of the above, a finding of service failure is made for the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. The landlord should consider how its own processes can offer appropriate resolutions to complaints without the need for intervention from this Service. The Code is now statutory, so no orders have been made regarding timeliness of responses. However, the revised compensation the landlord offered on 5 April 2024 has now become an order.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to the intercom system.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report, including its poor communication, and failings it identified in its own case review of 5 April 2024.
    2. Pay directly to the resident’s bank account a total of £400, this is comprised of:
      1. £300 for the landlord’s failings regarding the handling of repairs to the intercom system, as identified in this report. This sum does include the £200 for time and trouble experienced by the resident, re-offered by it in April 2024. It also factors the £100 for the failure of service in line with its compensation policy as detailed in this report.
      2. £100 for its complaint handling failings.
      3. If any of the £300 from its revised offer has been paid, it can be deducted from the total of £400. For the avoidance of doubt, this would mean £100 is due to the resident.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.