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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202311940)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311940

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

16 December 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 complainant 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 complainant’s concerns around selling her property.
    2. Complaints handling.

Background

  1. Throughout the period of the complaint, the complainant was a shared ownership leaseholder of the property of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The complainant entered into the lease agreement in October 2017. The property was a new build. The complainant did not reside at the property.
  2. In or around July 2021, the landlord installed a new fire alarm system. It advised all residents that this new system ensured the building was compliant with relevant fire regulations.
  3. On or around 16 February 2022, the complainant noted that there was a leak coming from the adjoining property. She advised that she was trying to sell the property and so requested an update about when the leak would be addressed. The landlord attended on 17 February 2022 and made the electrics safe.
  4. On 23 February 2022, the landlord advised it was tracing the source of the leak and would keep the complainant updated. However, it is not evident that the landlord provided any further updates around this time.
  5. The complainant raised a formal complaint on 11 April 2023. She raised the following concerns:
    1. She had attempted to claim for the damage caused by the leak through her insurer; however, the insurer would not carry out repairs until the landlord confirmed the leak was solved. While the landlord had advised it had been fixed, a contractor had since requested access to her property for further works, which indicated it was not fixed.
    2. She had been attempting to sell the property for the past 2 years. The landlord has taken 18 months to obtain a necessary ‘EWS1’ certificate, which had impacted her ability to sell.
    3. The EWS1 certificate only gave the building a ‘B1’ rating. This was impacting the ability for potential buyers to get a mortgage, as lenders did not want to lend towards B1 rated properties.
    4. There was also an internal window within the property, which was also a barrier to obtaining a mortgage for potential buyers.
    5. As a resolution, she wanted the landlord to purchase her property from her.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 17 April 2023, and its complaint investigator introduced themselves to the complainant on 21 April 2023. It provided its stage 1 response on 12 May 2023, which included the following:
    1. It noted it had provided the complainant with its insurer’s details and that she had the option to pursue a claim for the water damage.
    2. It also noted it had provided advice regarding selling the property.
    3. It noted other properties had experienced difficulties with obtaining mortgages due to the internal windows. It also advised that she had the option of seeking a warranty claim through the NHBC if she considered there was a defect with the property. It provided the relevant details.
    4. It confirmed it would not purchase the property directly.
    5. It acknowledged its stage 1 response had been delayed and offered £30 to reflect the impact this had caused.
  7. The complainant requested an escalation of the complaint on the same date. She noted that the landlord’s stage 1 response did not address the delays to the EWS1 rating certificate or the B1 rating. It also did not address its delays in taking action following the leak.
  8. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 15 May 2023. The complainant chased updates on 21 and 24 May 2023, following which the landlord advised it would provide its stage 2 response by 14 June 2023.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 19 June 2023, which included the following:
    1. Regarding the B1 rating, it advised that RICS guidance stated it was a safe rating, with no further works required. The property had also been signed off by structural engineers and fire safety professionals.
    2. This rating did not fundamentally prevent lenders from issuing mortgages. It further noted that 7 properties with internal windows had recently been successfully granted mortgages.
    3. It noted it had given advice regarding the sale of the property, including advice about the list price and the options for auction.
  10. The property was sold in January 2024; however, the complainant has advised this Service that this resulted in a considerable financial loss.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout her complaint, the complainant noted that she wanted the landlord to compensate her for her financial loss, loss of opportunity, and losses in equity. The Ombudsman’s investigation is to determine whether the landlord acted reasonably in accordance with its policies and obligations. Compensation may be awarded for distress and inconvenience caused where it has not done so. However, an assessment of whether there should be damages for a loss of opportunity is more appropriate for a determination from the courts. The complainant has the option to seek legal advice should she wish to pursue this, and it is the Ombudsman’s understanding that she has already done so.

Property sale

  1. The complainant’s formal complaint included several barriers to her selling her property, one of which being the leak. Following her reports in February 2022, the landlord appropriately attended to make the electrics safe, as per its policy requirements for an emergency repair.
  2. Having made the property safe, the Ombudsman would then expect the landlord to conduct a reasonable investigation to determine if the leak was its repair responsibility. The landlord appropriately informed the complainant on 23 February 2022 that it was beginning this process. The Ombudsman understands that it can take time to trace the source of a leak, and so it was also appropriate that it advised the complainant that it would keep her informed throughout this process.
  3. However, it is not evident that the landlord kept the complainant informed, which led her to expend time and trouble chasing updates. There is also evidence that the landlord did not have robust records of its actions, as it informed the complainant that the leak was fixed and then subsequently sought to arrange access for further works. The landlord’s internal communications from this period further demonstrate a lack of understanding as to whether the issue had actually been fixed. This was particularly distressing for the complainant, as her insurer would not undertake redecoration works until the leak was confirmed to be fixed.
  4. While the landlord appropriately provided the resident with its insurer’s details to make a claim for any damage caused by the leak, it missed the opportunity to provide a history of the issue in its formal response and demonstrate that its repair actions were reasonable. This would have been frustrating for the resident, as its response did not fully address her complaint.
  5. Similarly, the complainant’s formal complaint raised concerns about the length of time taken to obtain an ESW1 certificate. It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that this can be a lengthy process, and the landlord has provided letters sent to all residents at the time of its inspections notifying them of required works, which demonstrated it kept residents informed at the time. However, the landlord once again missed the opportunity to use its formal response to fully explain this process to the complainant. This was especially concerning as the complainant specifically noted in her escalation request that it had failed to respond to this point. Instead, it simply focused on the fact that the certificate had now been obtained, but this would have left the complainant frustrated as she remained unclear about why it took so long.
  6. While the landlord initially failed to provide a position on the B1 rating for the property, it appropriately provided appropriate detail in its stage 2 response that the rating was considered safe according to RICS guidance and that it had relied on the assessment of expert engineers. It also provided appropriate guidance to refer a claim to the NHBC should the complainant have concerns there was a fundamental defect with the property. Additionally, it provided a clear position on the internal windows and provided relevant information about other sales which had been successful.
  7. Finally, it addressed the complainant’s request regarding a buyback at the earliest opportunity and confirmed that it would not buy back her property. It also provided detailed information and guidance relating to sales and also offered assistance with the auction process. It further agreed to share various losses and costs with the complainant if she chose to sell at a loss and also provided guidance relating to letting the property. It is also evident that it continued to have such discussions with the complainant outside of the complaints procedure, which demonstrated its commitment to providing a resolution to the complainant’s concerns.
  8. In summary, the landlord’s responses included an appropriate level of advice regarding the sales process and the assistance it could offer. It also provided relevant information relating to its experience with the sales of similar properties and how the complainant could pursue claims with its insurer and the NHBC. However, it failed to provide a clear explanation surrounding the repairs to the leak and the process of obtaining an ESW1 certificate, despite having multiple opportunities to do so. While the Ombudsman cannot make conclusions about whether the complainant was caused financial loss as a result of the ESW1 process, it is nevertheless evident that the lack of a clear explanation would have caused her distress and inconvenience. A finding of maladministration has therefore been made. An order has also been made for £200 compensation, being £100 for the failure to fully explain the ESW1 process and £100 for the failure to provide an explanation about its repairs to the leak. This amount is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for instances where there has been a failure which has adversely affected the complainant and where the landlord has failed to acknowledge this.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days. Where this may be delayed, it will keep the complainant informed and agree on a new timeframe. If a complaint is escalated, it will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
  2. Following the complainant’s formal complaint on 11 April 2023, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint on 17 April 2023 and introduced her to the complaint investigator for a discussion about her concerns. However, following this, it did not provide its stage one response until 12 May 2023. This was 21 working days after the complaint. The landlord’s policy and this Service’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code) require that the landlord keep a complainant informed where it will not meet the timeframes for a response. It is not evident that the landlord did this, which would have caused frustration for the complainant.
  3. In its stage one response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that its complaint response had been delayed and offered £30 to reflect the impact this had caused. This approach was in line with this Service’s dispute resolution principles of being fair and seeking to put things right.
  4. The complainant escalated her complaint on 12 May 2023, and the landlord acknowledged the escalation on 15 May 2023, which was also appropriate and in line with its policy. The complainant later noted that, on this occasion, the landlord’s complaint investigator had not reached out to her for a discussion. While this step was not required by the landlord’s policy, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have provided its position as to why it was not discussing the complaint prior to its response.
  5. The complainant had to chase an update twice, and the landlord did not reply until 24 May 2023. At this point, it advised it would provide its stage 2 response by 14 June 2023. This would have been 22 working days after her escalation request and so was outside of the requirements of its policy. While this short delay would not have caused significant detriment, the landlord did not provide its stage 2 response until 19 June 2023, a further 3 working days, which meant its response was delayed by a total of 5 working days. It is not evident that the landlord advised the complainant of the delay or provided an explanation for it. Nor did it acknowledge or apologise for the delay in its formal response.
  6. While the delays at both stage 1 and 2 of the complaint procedure did not ultimately impact the outcome of the complaint, they nevertheless would have been distressing for the complainant and led her to expend time and trouble chasing updates. While the landlord appropriately remedied the delay at stage 1, it failed to do so at stage 2. A finding of service failure has therefore been made. An order for £60 compensation has also been made to reflect the impact caused to the resident in the circumstances. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £30 and is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for instances where there has been a minor failure by the landlord, and it did not appropriately acknowledge this and take steps to put it right.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the complainant’s concerns around selling her property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £260, comprising:
    1. £200 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the complainant by the failings identified with its response to her concerns around selling her property.
    2. £60 for its ineffective complaints handling.
  2. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £30. This amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within 6 weeks of the date of this determination.