Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202312081)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202312081
Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTVH)
20 February 2025
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
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
- A missed appointment.
- Kitchen units being in disrepair and pest concerns.
- Repairs to the resident’s front and back doors.
- The Ombudsman has also considered:
- The landlord’s record keeping.
- The landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
- The resident is an assured tenant, and the landlord is a housing association. The property is a two-bedroom home which the resident has occupied since 2011. The resident has told the landlord that they have dyslexia, depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder.
- On 12 October 2022 the resident told the landlord there were gaps in their front and back doors, and this was increasing their heating bill. During an in person visit from the landlord in December 2022 the resident said they raised additional concerns about broken kitchen cabinets and countertops, and about a suspected wasp infestation.
- On 6 March 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. The resident said they were unhappy with the way the landlord had handled their reported repairs, and pest concerns. The resident was also dissatisfied that the landlord had not followed up on their report that an electrician had failed to attend an appointment.
- On 29 March 2023 the landlord provided its stage one response, which said:
- an electrician had missed an appointment due to an admin error from a contractor, which the landlord apologised for
- the landlord had raised a repair for the resident’s doors on 12 October 2022, but a contractor had been unable to get in contact with the resident to book an appointment for this repair
- the landlord said it would not consider the resident’s complaints around the repairs in their kitchen or the concerns around pests, as the resident had not previously reported the issues to the landlord
- the landlord told the resident they should report the required repairs to the landlord’s repairs team
- the landlord offered the resident compensation of £10 for the missed appointment and £20 for the time and trouble the resident had experienced
- On 19 May 2023 the resident told the landlord that the repairs they had complained about had not been completed. The resident also raised concerns about additional repairs relating to the quality of, and drainage in their garden. On 30 May 2023 the resident contacted the landlord’s CEO to ask for assistance. The landlord escalated the complaint on 30 May 2023, and decided it would respond to the new complained of issues under a new complaint.
- On 4 July 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response, which said:
- it did not have any records of the resident reporting repairs relating to their kitchen within the previous 6 months, and said the resident needed to give it the opportunity to complete the repair before they filed a complaint
- there had been delays in progressing the repair to the resident’s front door as a new door needed to be manufactured
- the landlord offered an additional £25 in compensation for the time and trouble the resident experienced, this was in addition to the £30 previously offered at stage one
- On 4 July 2023 the resident contacted this Service. The resident said they were dissatisfied with how long it had taken the landlord to install a new front door, and they did not feel the compensation offered by the landlord was sufficient.
- When this Service decided it would investigate the resident’s complaint, the landlord conducted a review of its own complaint handling. As a result of this review the landlord said it would compensate the resident:
- £350 for the time and trouble the resident experienced
- £150 for the landlord’s complaint handling
- £300 for the resident’s increased gas costs
- The landlord’s review fell outside of its internal complaints procedure. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess a landlord’s complaint handling. When it is fair and reasonable to do so the Ombudsman will consider actions taken outside of a landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
Assessment and findings
The landlord’s handling of a missed appointment
- The landlord operates a complaints policy. On occasions where the landlord has failed to deliver a service, it can compensate a resident. For a failure which the landlord assesses to be low the starting point will be an apology, and for failures assessed as medium the compensation starting point should be £51. The landlord will compensate residents £10 for missed appointments.
- The resident said that on 16 February 2023 an electrician failed to attend a pre-booked appointment. The resident said they told the landlord over the phone that no one had attended the appointment, and they were told the landlord would call them back in 15 minutes, but no one called them back.
- Due to the landlord’s failure to supply this Service with requested records, it is unclear why an electrician was due to attend the resident’s home, how urgent the repair was or if the work was completed.
- The resident said they believed the appointment related to their lights. On the date of the appointment the resident said they saw a contractor’s van parked on their road, but no one left the van. The resident said they reported this to the landlord and the appointment was later re-scheduled.
- In its stage one response the landlord said the appointment had been missed due to an administrative error made by the landlord’s contractor. The landlord apologised for this and offered the resident £10 in compensation for the missed appointment, as well as £20 for the time and trouble the resident experienced. This was in-line with the landlord’s compensation policy as it reflected both the missed appointment and the landlord’s failure to call the resident back.
- As the landlord identified its own failings and offered appropriate compensation to the resident, the Ombudsman considers the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress in respect of the missed appointment.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs and pest issues
- The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will categorise repairs as emergency, routine and non-routine depending on the circumstances. The landlord aims to attend emergency repairs within 24 hours, and routine repairs within 20 working days via an appointment-based system. Non-routine repairs are matters which are classed as complex, they might not be completed within 20 working days.
- Under the landlord’s repairs guidance any repairs to kitchen cabinets and countertops will be classed as a routine repair. To report repairs residents are advised to contact the landlord’s repairs team over the phone or via email.
- The landlord said the first occasion where it learned of the resident’s concerns around pests, and that the kitchen was in disrepair was in the resident’s complaint. In its stage one and 2 responses the landlord declined to consider these issues or offer the resident any redress, as it said it had not had the opportunity to complete the repair prior to the resident’s complaint.
- This Service has produced the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which outlines the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should operate their complaint handling. Under the Code the Ombudsman notes a new service request from a resident should not be considered a complaint. As such, if the resident’s complaint was the first instance where these issues were flagged, then the landlord’s decision not to consider the matter as a complaint would have been reasonable.
- However, the resident said in December 2023 an operative attended the property and inspected the kitchen. The resident said the operative took photographs of the damaged kitchen and said a pest company would attend, and it would bring forward planned cyclical repairs for the kitchen. It appears that the resident’s reports of repairs and pest issues were not escalated or recorded after this in-person visit occurred.
- The landlord has shared with this Service it has had issues with the contractors it used at the time, noting the contractor conducted poor record keeping and residents reported poor customer service. This adds weight to the resident’s account that they raised concerns about pests and the kitchen in person, and their concerns were not progressed.
- The resident said in their complaint they had reported the repair to the landlord in December, as such it should have considered the resident’s concerns in its complaint responses. If the landlord had no available records of the resident’s concerns, it could have contacted the resident to clarify this. On this occasion it appears the landlord’s issues with record keeping have compounded its ability to adequately progress the repairs, and to adequately assess its own actions during its complaints handling process.
- While the concerns the resident raised would have caused them inconvenience, their concerns would not have had a significant impact on their ability to enjoy the use of their own home. Therefore, the detriment the resident experienced would have been limited.
- The Ombudsman finds maladministration occurred after considering:
- the landlord declined to consider the resident’s complaints about the kitchen repairs, and their pest concerns, citing that the resident had not previously reported these
- the resident said they raised the issues during an in person visit
- after the in person visit the landlord did not take steps to action the repair
- the landlord did not produce records of the resident’s concerns
- The Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to pay £150 compensation for its failure to action the resident’s concerns. This is consistent with this Service’s remedies guidelines, and reflects the detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s delays in addressing the repairs.
The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s doors
- The landlord’s repairs policy is summarised in paragraph 18 of this report.
- The landlord’s repairs guidance includes that it is responsible for repairs to external doors. It will treat repairs to external doors as a routine repair, unless there are concerns about a door being structurally sound.
- On 12 October 2022 the resident reported that there were gaps in their front and back doors. The landlord logged the matter as a repair with a target completion date of 9 November 2022.
- The landlord outsourced the work to a contractor. When the landlord instructed the contractor, it should have ensured the contractor knew the standard of work the landlord expected it to conduct. The landlord should have also ensured the contractor kept adequate records and would progress the repair in a timely manner.
- The landlord’s records note an inspection was arranged for 18 October 2022, but the inspection was later rescheduled to 20 December 2022. This appointment was later cancelled. Due to the landlord’s poor record keeping there is no explanation for why the appointment was rescheduled and then cancelled. The resident recalled two inspections occurred in December 2022, but the landlord has no records relating to what occurred during these inspections.
- The resident said during one of the inspections they were told a new front door would be installed, and new sealant would be installed around the back door. The resident said they later chased the landlord about this repair, and the landlord said it had no records of the required work. The landlord’s lack of communication with the resident, and its lack of records relating to the repair was inappropriate.
- In its stage one and stage 2 complaint responses the landlord said it cancelled the repair as its contractor had been unable to contact the resident. This does not appear to be consistent with the resident’s account that inspections occurred in December 2022.
- The landlord’s repair logs only contain details of one occasion where the contractor logged an attempt to contact the resident. This occurred on 10 January 2023 when the contractor said it had left the resident a voicemail. On 11 January 2023 the contractor requested that the landlord close the repair due to a lack of communication with the resident. The landlord accepted this request.
- It was inappropriate for the landlord to close the repair, as records suggested the contractor had only attempted to call the resident on one occasion. Furthermore, the contractor only gave the resident one day to respond before it asked the landlord to close the repair, which was unreasonable. Before agreeing to close the repair, the landlord should have attempted to speak with the resident to obtain a fuller picture of what was occurring.
- After the resident complained the landlord began to action the repairs to both doors. On 30 March 2023 the landlord fitted new sealant around the resident’s back door. It took the landlord 119 working days to complete this repair. The resident’s front door was replaced on 4 July 2023, after the landlord ordered a new door from an external company. It took the landlord 183 working days to install a new front door.
- The resident told the landlord their gas bill had significantly increased when the repairs to the doors were outstanding as they were unable to heat the property effectively. This would have caused the resident distress and concern, which could have been mitigated had the landlord dealt with the repair in a timely manner.
- After the resident’s complaint was referred to this Service the landlord reviewed its complaint responses and offered to compensate the resident for their increased gas bill. The landlord said it would cover this cost if the resident was able to supply relevant gas bills. After speaking with the resident, the landlord later offered to pay the resident a lump sum of £300 to cover the resident’s increased gas bills. This offer was appropriate considering the landlord’s actions had contributed to delays in the doors being repaired. The landlord should have made this offer during its complaints procedure. However, the landlord did show flexibility in providing a lump sum rather than requiring the resident collate evidence of their gas payments, which was reasonable.
- During its review of the resident’s complaint the landlord offered the resident £350 for the time and trouble they experienced. The Ombudsman considers this offer to be fair. However, the landlord did not make this offer during its complaints process. This was unreasonable, had the landlord made this offer at an earlier stage it could have mitigated the distress the resident experienced. If the landlord made this offer during its internal complaints procedure then the Ombudsman would have considered a finding of reasonable redress or a service failure.
- The Ombudsman finds maladministration occurred after considering:
- the time it took for the landlord to repair the doors
- the landlord failed to conduct follow up actions after it inspected the doors
- the landlord did not make sufficient records relating to this repair
- the landlord closed the repair after the resident missed a phone call and did not respond within a day
- the landlord did not contact the resident prior to closing the repair
- the landlord offered to compensate the resident after its internal complaints procedure had concluded
- The Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to pay compensation of £100 for the time in which the landlord took to address the repairs, and for its inadequate communication with the resident.
The landlord’s record keeping
- The evidence supplied to this service indicates there were failings in the landlord’s record keeping. The Ombudsman requested for the landlord to supply:
- the residents full repair logs
- records of occasions where the landlord’s contractor attempted to contact the resident
- records relating to the missed appointment on 16 February 2023
- clarification on what work the landlord was due to complete on 16 February 2023
- The landlord said it had issues with its contractor, which meant it could not supply the material this Service requested. The landlord said due to various issues with the contractor and because of customer feedback, it had already terminated its business relationship with the contractor.
- The landlord told this Service it recognised its record keeping in this instance was poor, and it has since implemented a new records management system which would prevent similar failings from happening in the future.
- Accurate and clear record keeping is a core function of a landlord’s repairs service. A clear audit trail allows the landlord to ensure that repairs are appropriately managed and that residents are kept updated. It also allows for landlords to monitor their own performance, and to identify any delays which are outside of its control.
- The inaccuracy of the landlord’s record keeping means that the Ombudsman is unable to assess actions the landlord took in relation to reported repairs. This has impacted the Ombudsman’s ability to investigate the resident’s concerns. The landlord’s failures are mitigated by its own acknowledgement of its poor record keeping, and steps it has taken to improve its services.
- The Ombudsman has determined there was a service failure by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.
The landlord’s complaints handling
- The landlord operates a complaints policy which outlines the timescales in which it will respond to a complaint. The landlord commits to acknowledging complaints within 5 working days, and to provide its stage one response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. If the resident wishes for their complaint to be escalated to a stage 2 complaint, the landlord will provide this within 20 working days.
- The landlord’s complaints policy says it is committed to considering a resident’s vulnerability throughout the complaints process.
- The resident complained on 6 March 2023. The landlord sent its stage one response on 29 March 2023, which was 17 working days later. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy.
- The resident escalated their complaint on 30 May 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 4 July 2023, which was 25 working days later. The landlord did not acknowledge, or apologise for, both of its complaint responses being late. This was inappropriate, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy.
- After the resident contacted this Service the landlord conducted a review of its complaint handling and said it had recognised shortcomings during this review. It is positive to note that the landlord acknowledged that it did not address the resident’s request for their gas bill to be reimbursed, and it instructed the resident to raise their own repair when it could have done this on the resident’s behalf. This demonstrates our dispute resolution principles of being fair, putting things right, and learning from outcomes.
- The landlord said it would offer the resident £150 in redress for its complaints handling failures. The landlord said it considered this figure to be appropriate as the resident was vulnerable at the time as they were experiencing poor mental health. The Ombudsman considers the offer of £150 to be appropriate when considering the circumstances.
- The landlord identified its own failings and offered the resident appropriate compensation. However, it only offered the compensation and recognised that its actions would have caused the resident distress after the resident contacted this Service. Had the landlord made its compensation offer during its internal complaints procedure then the Ombudsman would have made a determination of reasonable redress. As the landlord did not do this the Ombudsman considers a service failure occurred.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress in respect of the missed appointment.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of repairs and pests.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s doors.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £1,050 to the resident, the £25 previously offered can be deducted if already paid. This figure is comprised of:
- £150 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of pest control issues and repairs to the kitchen
- £100 for the landlord’s handling of repairs to the doors
- £350 the landlord previously offered regarding the resident’s time and trouble, if it has not already paid the resident this amount
- £300 the landlord previously offered in relation to the resident’s gas costs, if it has not already paid the resident this amount
- £150 the landlord previously offered in relation to its complaints handling, if it has not already paid the resident this amount
- Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is to provide this Service with evidence of compliance with this order.
Recommendations
- The Ombudsman’s determination of reasonable redress for the missed appointment is made on the understanding that the compensation previously offered of £30 is paid to the resident within 4 weeks of this determination, if it has not already been paid.
- The landlord should provide the resident with a stage one complaint response in relation to the resident’s concerns around pests and kitchen defects, if these issues have not already been resolved.