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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202311061)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311061

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

30 October 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. Response to the resident’s requests for windows repairs.
    2. Associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of a 2-bedroom 1st floor flat. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. On 31 January 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that the windows in her flat were rotten.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint on 19 March 2023, stating that she had made various complaints about the 4 rotten and draughty windows in her flat. She said she was unable to open the 2 rear skylights because both window catches were broken. She was unhappy about the landlord’s complaints process and said the situation had caused her a great amount of stress, severe coldness, and increased gas bills. She requested for the landlord to take ownership of the windows and to fix or replace them immediately.
  4. In its stage 1 response of 5 April 2023, the landlord stated that the property is a grade 2 listed building, so it required a specialist joiner to attend. It booked an appointment with the joiner for Wednesday 19 April 2023. It said after the visit it would issue a report and contact the resident to book repair dates for any required repairs. It apologised for its poor communication and for any inconvenience caused. It upheld her complaint and offered her £50 compensation broken down as £25 time and trouble and £25 service failure.
  5. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 15 June 2023. She said she had not heard back from the landlord after the joiner attended on 19 April 2023. She said the cost to heat her apartment over the winter had increased. She was unhappy with the £50 compensation the landlord offered. She requested for the landlord to install 4 new sash windows and 2 Velux windows.
  6. In its stage 2 response of 27 June 2023, the landlord stated that it had referred the window repairs to its planned works team for consideration. It planned to complete cyclical works in the block of flat for April 2023/ March 2024 fiscal year and it would include the window repairs (not renewal) in these works. It said there would be a Section 20 process, and it would send a Notice of Intention to her. It partially upheld the complaint due to the lack of communication with her. It offered additional compensation of £65, which it broke down as £25 service failure and £40 for time and trouble.
  7. The resident brought her complaint to this Service as she was unhappy with the level of compensation offered and that the window repairs remained outstanding. Upon receiving contact from this Service, the landlord completed a review of the resident’s case on 19 March 2024. It said that due to budget constraints, it had moved the works to the windows to 2024/2025 fiscal year. It apologised for not informing the resident of this change in date. It increased the compensation offered from £115 to £200. In addition, it awarded an additional £50 for poor complaint handling, bringing the total compensation offered to £250.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident stated that her health has been negatively affected by the cold temperatures in the property. While this Service does not doubt her comments, it is outside our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme. This Service has considered the general distress and inconvenience that the situation may have caused her.

Requests for window replacement

  1. The landlord’s website states that it is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property and the resident is responsible for repairs to the glass in windows, window catches, locks, hinges, and sash cords.
  2. The lease agreement states that the resident is to repair and keep in good and tenantable repair and condition the interior of the premises including all windows, window frames and the glass in the windows the doors of the premises, and the interior faces. It also states that the resident should not make any alterations or additions to the exterior of the premises or any structural alterations or structural additions to the premises.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy states it would attend routine repair appointments within 28 days. According to the landlord’s repair records, the resident contacted it on 31 January 2023. She reported that her windows were rotten. Although the lease states that the resident is responsible for repairing the windows, her notification to the landlord that the windows were rotten was an indication that structural works may have been required. In such cases where structural repairs are required, the repairs would be completed by the landlord but charged to the resident.
  4. On receiving this report of the rotten window, this Service would have expected the landlord to attend and inspect the property within a reasonable timeframe to consider if the windows were safe and to clarify to the resident if it would complete the repairs to the windows.
  5. There is no evidence to show that the landlord arranged an inspection of the windows or exchanged any communication with the resident prior to her formal complaint on 19 March 2023. This was a period of 47 days without any communication from the landlord regarding her windows repairs. This was not reasonable and not in line with its repairs policy time limit or acceptable service standards.
  6. In its stage 1 response of 5 April 2023, the landlord acknowledged its poor communication and informed the resident that a specialist joiner would attend the property to complete an inspection on 19 April 2023. It said it would issue a report after this visit and contact the resident to book repair appointments if required. It also offered £50 compensation for time and trouble and service failure. This was an appropriate response, and a reasonable attempt to put things right for the resident.
  7. The joiner completed an inspection of the windows on 19 April 2023. He stated that all four windows were in poor condition and the sill of the frames was rotten. He recommended that the windows should be replaced with prefinished traditional sashes with hardwood sills. He said it would be more economical to replace rather than repair the windows.
  8. Following on from the joiner’s visit on 19 April 2023, there is no evidence of any communication between the landlord and the resident from 19 April 2023 until 15 June 2023 when she made an escalation request. This was a period of 1 month and 26 days. This was not reasonable and would have understandably led her to believe that it was not taking her complaints seriously thereby causing unnecessary distress and inconvenience. Furthermore, considering the landlord had already acknowledged communication failures in its stage 1 complaint response, it would have been appropriate for it to have been more proactive in its communication with her. It should have shared the inspection report and any plans for the windows repairs with her. This lack of learning from its poor communication in its stage 1 response was a failure.
  9. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by it (including an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  10. In its stage 2 response of 27 June 2023, the landlord explained that it would include the window repairs in its cyclical works for the 2023/ 2024 fiscal year and it offered increased compensation of £115. In its initial stage 2 response of 27 June 2023, it did not clarify why it was planning to repair instead of replacing the windowsill as recommended by the joiner. However, in its subsequent stage 2 review, it clarified why it was completing a repair instead of replacing the affected area. It said its consultant reviewed the joiner’s inspection report and recommended a timber repair system for the rot-affected components within the window and associated repairs. This was reasonable as the landlord is entitled to rely on the advice of its expert contractors.
  11. In its stage 2 review it stated that due to budget constraints, it had moved the cyclical works to the 2024/2025 fiscal year. It said it would need to inspect the whole block to get accurate pricing for the works. After it obtained prices for the works, it would issue a Section 20 notice (Notice of Intention). It said the whole process of the Section 20 might take 4-6 months to complete before it could start repairs onsite. It said the cyclical painting and decoration and the associated window repair work were on its programme for 2024/2025 and it aimed to complete the works by March 2025 subject to access and consultation observations.
  12. The landlord apologised for not informing the resident early about the change in date from 2023/2024 to 2024/2025, it explained what process it would need to follow and gave a date for when the works be completed. It also offered increased compensation of £200. The landlord’s actions in apologising and offering compensation were appropriate. However, this does not amount to reasonable redress.
  13. Throughout its complaints process, it has not demonstrated any learning with regards to improving its communication with the resident. Furthermore, it would have been reasonable to have considered if there were any actions it could have taken to improve the situation with the windows for the resident such as fixing the broken window latches before the cyclical repairs. Also, it is unclear if the landlord would have considered the matter further if the resident had not referred her complaint to this Service.
  14. In summary, although it remains unclear whether the landlord was wholly responsible for the resident’s window frames under the lease agreement, it did not manage the resident’s reports appropriately. In this case, the landlord did not communicate effectively, did not respond to the resident’s reports of rot in a timely manner, did not inform her of the outcome of the surveyor’s visits, and did not inform her of the change in the date of repairs from 2024 to 2025. The resident had to constantly chase the landlord for information regarding its next actions in relation to her window repairs.  For these reasons, this Service finds there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s requests for window repairs.

The landlord’s associated complaint handling

  1. In her complaint to the landlord, the resident stated that she made several complaints which the landlord did not respond to. The landlord’s records show that the resident made a formal complaint on 19 March 2023, and she requested an escalation to stage 2 on 15 June 2023. The landlord’s complaint response on both occasions was within its complaint’s policy time limit of 15 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. 
  2. In its stage 2 response, the landlord reviewed how it managed the resident’s complaint and stated that it had responded to her complaints within its complaints policy time frame and did not find any service failure in relation to its complaint handling. Furthermore, in its stage 2 review, it clarified that it had checked its records and found details only relating to the resident’s complaint of 19 March 2023. This was reasonable and it showed willingness in identifying and resolving any missed complaints from the resident.
  3. In her stage 1 complaint and her stage 2 escalation request, the resident reported that her heating bills had increased due to the issues she was experiencing with her windows not functioning properly.
  4. Paragraph 5.6 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the code) states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. The landlord did not initially address the resident’s concerns regarding her increased heating bill.
  5. In its revised stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that it failed to respond to this element of the complaint, and it offered additional £50 compensation for this failure. Although it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have clarified its position in relation to its obligation regarding paying for the resident’s increased heating bill, this Service finds the apology and compensation offered amount to sufficient redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s requests for window repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves its complaint handling satisfactorily.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £350. This amount is comprised as follows:
      1. £250 it previously offered in its stage 2 review.
      2. An additional £100 in relation to its communication failures.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.