Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202313359)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313359

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

26 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

1. Repairs to the heating system.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom apartment. There are 4 young children living at the property, one of whom has a physical health vulnerability which is known to the landlord.
3. The resident telephoned the landlord on 15 December 2022 and reported a problem with their heating. The landlord transferred the resident to a heating contractor, but it then turned out it was the wrong one.
4. The resident raised a complaint by email later the same day. They said:
   1. they had telephoned the landlord and it told them to call back due to a staff meeting.
   2. they telephoned back and the landlord transferred them to a contractor who said an engineer would attend within 24 hours.
   3. they telephoned the landlord back and asked for temporary heating and the landlord transferred them back to the same contractor.
   4. they explained the health vulnerabilities of the children on each call with the landlord and contractor.
   5. an engineer then telephoned them and said they did not cover their location and referred them back to the landlord.
   6. they had to telephone the landlord’s out of hours service and request a priority repair and temporary heating.
5. Following further issues and delays trying to arrange a repair, the landlord’s heating contractor attended the property in the evening of 19 December 2022 and repaired the heating.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 28 December 2022 and said:
   1. it apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint.
   2. it apologised its property desk asked the resident to call back due to a meeting and said that issue had been fed back.
   3. it apologised it did not correctly assess the heating issue and that it wasted time by referring the resident to the wrong contractor.
   4. it apologised its heating contractor did not attend to fix the issue until 19 December 2022 and that the resident was left without heating and hot water for 4 days.
   5. it offered £90 compensation, which was made up of £50 for service failure and £40 for time and trouble.
7. The resident emailed the landlord on 6 January 2023 and told it they were not happy with the amount of compensation awarded. The asked the landlord to review the amount of compensation and, if it did not agree to increase it, they wanted to escalate their complaint to stage 2.
8. The landlord issued its final stage 2 complaint response on 20 January 2023. It said the stage 1 response was correct and it would not increase the compensation. The resident then complained to the Ombudsman that the landlord delayed repairing their total loss of heating for 4 days in very cold winter temperatures without providing alternative heating. They said their vulnerable young children were severely affected by this, so the family had to leave their home, and that the landlord communicated about it poorly. The resident asked for all these failings and their distress and inconvenience to be addressed and acknowledged, and for more compensation to reflect this.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the heating system

9. The landlord’s repairs policy says a loss of heating in the colder months (October to March) requires an emergency appointment. It also says it will provide temporary heating if the heating fails in the colder months. The landlord’s repairs policy says an emergency repair requires a contractor to visit the property within the first 24 hours after a resident reports an issue.
10. The landlord’s compensation policy says a low failure would justify compensation up to £50, a medium failure between £51 to £160, and a high failure between £161 to £350. The landlord defines a medium failure as where there is considerable service failure or total lack of ownership, but there may be no permanent effect. It goes on to say examples include a resident being repeatedly passed between staff, with no one officer or department taking overall responsibility, or the landlord not taking responsibility for subcontracted services. It also says it could be a failure over a considerable period to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs.
11. In addition, the compensation policy says the landlord should use discretion when deciding on compensation amounts for individual cases. It says worsening factors could justify an increased award, such as young children in the property, those who have dependants with vulnerabilities, or residents who have had previous complaint issues with the landlord.
12. The resident reported a total loss of heating on 15 December 2022 at approximately 3pm. The landlord was therefore required to attend the property within 24 hours as an emergency repair (by 3pm on 16 December 2022). If it was not possible to repair the issue, it should have offered temporary heaters.
13. The landlord initially told the resident on 15 December 2022 they would have to call it back, which added a delay and was inappropriate. When the resident did call back, the landlord incorrectly transferred them to the wrong contractor, which again caused further delays and was inappropriate. When the resident called a further time to ask for temporary heating, the landlord again incorrectly transferred them to the wrong contractor. This demonstrates the landlord did not correctly assess the circumstances of the case or sufficiently consider the needs of the household or the recorded vulnerabilities, which is a failure.
14. The resident emailed the landlord in the evening of 15 December 2022 and again the following day to explain the issue. The landlord replied on 16 December 2022 and gave them the details of the correct contractor. The resident then telephoned the landlord the same day and told it they could not get in touch with the contractor. The landlord then emailed a referral to the contractor for a total loss of heating repair. There is no evidence any action was taken in response to that referral within the appropriate timescales, which is inappropriate.
15. The landlord should make sure that it employs contractors which have sufficient capacity to respond to the landlord’s repair requirements. It should keep residents updated and clearly explain if repair appointments are going to take longer than usual. There is no evidence the landlord kept the resident up to date to explain the delays or provide an estimate of when the repair would happen. This was inappropriate.
16. The resident complained further by email on 17 and 19 December 2022 about receiving no contact from the contractor and no temporary heating. A contractor then attended the property in the evening of 19 December 2022 and fixed the heating. The delay of 4 days (more than 100 hours) from the first point of contact to the landlord attending the property was a failure and not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
17. In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the heating system. The landlord did not appropriately assess the circumstances of the case at the earliest opportunity. It delayed arranging and completing the appropriate repair works with the correct contractor. There is also no evidence it provided appropriate updates to the resident. We understand the effect and detriment this had on the resident at a time when it was very cold, with young children in the property with vulnerabilities.
18. According to the landlord’s compensation policy, it should consider worsening factors that could justify an increased award, such as young children in the property, those who have dependants with vulnerabilities, or residents who have had previous complaint issues with the landlord. In addition to the young children living at the property, one of whom with physical health vulnerabilities, our system shows the resident has had at least 2 other complaint cases with the Ombudsman that have been upheld. There is no evidence the landlord considered these factors when it offered the resident £90 compensation for a medium failure, contrary to its compensation policy.
19. Therefore, we are ordering the landlord to apologise to and pay the resident £250 compensation in line with its higher failure bracket for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused. This takes into consideration the repeated failure to contact the correct contractor, delays booking the appropriate work, not providing updates to the resident and poor communication. This is also within the bracket the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance would award for failures of this nature resulting in maladministration that adversely affected the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

20. Under the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) landlords must ensure they acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. They must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the acknowledgment at stage 1. They must also acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledging the escalation request.
21. The landlord’s complaints policy follows the above requirements of the Code.
22. The resident raised a complaint on 15 December 2022 and the landlord acknowledged it the next day. That was reasonable and in line with the Code and the landlord’s own policy.
23. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 December 2022 which was within 10 working days and compliant with the Code and the landlord’s own policy.
24. The resident asked the landlord to review the compensation offered on 6 January 2023 and to escalate the complaint if it would not increase the compensation. The landlord reviewed the compensation and decided not to increase it. It then acknowledged the request to escalate to stage 2 on 17 January 2023 and issued its final response on 20 January 2023, which was reasonable. Although the acknowledgement of the escalation request was outside of normal timescales, the resident had asked for a review of compensation to take place first, and to only escalate if the landlord would not increase it. The landlord’s timescales were therefore reasonable.
25. The landlord reflected on its actions and increased its offer of compensation to £180 after the involvement of the Ombudsman on 5 April 2024. There is no evidence the landlord would have made this offer had we not contacted it about the complaint. The Ombudsman expects landlords to undertake a sufficient investigation and review all circumstances of the case at stage 2 of its complaints process. Had this been done, the landlord may have identified its failings sooner and had the opportunity to put things right at an earlier stage. This was inappropriate.
26. In summary, landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to its residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes, and build good relationships with residents. In this case, the landlord dealt with the complaint within expected timescales. However, it did not make its final offer of compensation until over 14 months after it had issued its stage 2 response, which is inappropriate. It had the opportunity to review and increase its offer of compensation when the resident responded to its stage 1 complaint response but chose not to do so. The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and requests for compensation.
27. Therefore, we are ordering the landlord to apologise to and pay the resident £50 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policies and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommendations of compensation in this bracket for such failings resulting in service failure that delayed getting matters resolved.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the heating system.
29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

30. The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failings outlined in this report.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £300, which is made up of:
       1. £250 in recognition of the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its failures to appropriately handle repairs to the heating system.
       2. £50 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
    3. This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.