Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202314074)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314074

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

18 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports that he was unable to access his garage and of damage caused by its contractors.
2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of a flat where the landlord is the freeholder. The lease commenced on 4 May 1992. The demised property in the lease includes the garage referred to in this report.
On 8 November 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to complain that he had been trying to get his garage returned to him by the landlord’s contractors, who he said had ‘illegally occupied it’ and ‘filled it with their rubbish’. The resident said that he had been asking the landlord to sort this out but ‘to no avail,’ noting that it ‘did not care.’
On 9 January 2023, the resident submitted a formal complaint on the landlord’s website. The resident said that he had had no access to his garage for 3 years. That his garage was broken and ‘full of rubbish’ and that under the lease this was the landlord’s responsibility. The resident said he wanted the landlord to fix his garage, remove all the rubbish and compensate him for the loss of use.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 March 2023. It acknowledged the resident’s request that his complaint now be escalated to stage 2, given the length of time he had had to wait at stage 1. The landlord confirmed that his complaint had been escalated and apologised that it had been unable to provide a response. The landlord explained that the reason for this was that it had been unable, at that time, to get a ‘definitive’ response as to which team was responsible for resolving the issue.
The complaint was escalated to stage 2 on 8 March 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 June 2023 in which it:
1. Confirmed that its surveyor had attended the garage on 2 March 2023 to assess the severity of the situation, following which the surveyor confirmed that the garage would be repaired by the landlord.
2. Explained that the garage first needed to be checked for any asbestos in the contractor waste, which had been ‘dumped’ there.
3. Said that its contractors attended on 5 May 2023 and carried out an ‘asbestos clear’, along with the rest of the contents of the garage. The landlord said that it had received confirmation that the garage was now clear.
4. Advised that a works order had been raised to provide a quote for ‘major works’ to repair the garage, which had a target date of 30 August 2023.
5. Offered the resident a total of £400 compensation made up of:
  1. £250 for time and trouble.
  2. £100 for failure of service.
  3. £50 for poor complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. When considering the landlord’s handling of the matter, the Ombudsman is guided by the landlord’s policies and procedures and our own Dispute Resolution Principles, which are:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress can be as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
The Ombudsman’s awards of compensation are not intended to be punitive, and we do not offer damages in the way that a court might. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, this Service takes account of a range of factors including any particular distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions.
In an email to this Service on 29 May 2024, the resident said that if the garage ‘was rented out privately, (he) would be getting rent of £30 per week’ and that the landlord had ‘admitted liability but (were) not offering (him) fair market rate compensation’. The Ombudsman is an alternative dispute resolution process to taking legal action. This means that we cannot make the same findings that a court would, including making binding decisions on matters such as negligence and liability. Therefore, if the resident believes that the landlord is liable to pay him compensation for a potential loss of rental income from the garage this a matter that would have to be considered by a court.

Response to the resident’s reports that he was unable to access his garage and of damage caused by its contractors.

Scope

It is also not disputed that the resident first contacted the landlord in early 2019 to report issues with accessing his garage due to its contractors using the site. However, as the resident did not raise a formal complaint with the landlord about this matter until 8 November 2022, this report will only consider matters that occurred in the 12 months prior to that complaint being made.
This is in accordance with the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider matters that were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.

Assessment

It is also not disputed that the garage formed part of the demised premises on the resident’s lease and that Section 5 (i) of the lease includes a covenant for the resident (the ‘lessee’) to keep the garage in good repair.
On 23 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to say that now COVID-19 was over he would like to sort his garage. The resident said that his garage had been damaged over the years by its contractors and needed to be repaired.
The resident contacted the landlord on a regular basis between 23 August 2022 and his complaint of 9 January 2023.
During this time, the resident was advised to liaise with the landlord’s repairs and asbestos teams about the garage and asked to provide evidence of his ownership of the garage, which he did on 14 September 2022. The resident asked when he would get full access to his garage and if it would be repaired as the landlord’s contractors were currently ‘dumping their things in it’ and had ‘badly damaged it’.
Having been advised of the resident’s concerns, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have carried out an investigation to establish if it had any responsibility for the issues being reported by the resident. However, there is no evidence it did so at that time.
Having had no response, the resident emailed the landlord on 8 November 2022 to complain about the lack of action being taken. The landlord responded on 14 November 2022, dismissing the resident’s concerns. They also referred to an email some years previously in which they said it was noted that the garage was in disrepair and the resident was looking into sorting it out. The resident responded on 16 November 2022 to say that, at the time of the email the landlord was referring to, it had ‘occupied his garage, dumped rubbish and put a fence around so (he) could not gain access to it’.
Again, no action was taken and on 9 January 2023, the resident submitted a formal complaint on the landlord’s website.
Again, by the time of the landlord’s stage 1 response on 6 March 2023, no meaningful investigation into the resident’s concerns had taken place.
It was then not until 16 March 2023, some 7 months after the resident’s contact on 23 August 2022, that he was contacted by the landlord’s surveyor who arranged to meet him at his garage on 20 March 2023.
Following their inspection of the garage, the landlord’s surveyor sent an internal email on 20 March 2023 which said:
1. The resident had been referred to his responsibility to repair the garage under the terms of his lease. However, he had refused to accept this on the grounds that the landlord damaged his garage.
2. The garage required significant work for it to be usable and that just clearing it was not enough.
3. The garage would require a replacement door and frame, and replacement timber/ felted roof and fascia boards. There was also minor brickwork repairs below the roof.
4. As the resident’s view was that the work was needed to the garage because the access was ‘gated off’ and that the garage had been damaged by contractors using the area, this should be looked into.
Whilst the surveyor said in his email of 20 March 2023 that he could not identify any asbestos containing material when he visited the garage, it was appropriate for the landlord to ensure that this was indeed the case. This it did by engaging an asbestos team to remove the contents of the garage. However, there was a delay in this happening, with the removal not taking place until 5 May 2023.
Following the clearance of the garage on 5 May 2023, the landlord’s surveyor promptly raised a works order for the rebuilding of the garage, doing so on 9 May 2023.
The reason for the landlord covering the full cost of the repairs to the garage, which the resident owned, was confirmed in an internal email on 15 June 2023. This explained that:
1. The landlord was going to repair the garage because it was being used for building contractor purposes which led to damage by the contractor.
2. There was a gate which had been locked for a period of time but after that was left shut. It was also noted that the location was ‘a very overcrowded and busy location for contractor vehicles.’
3. The costs of the works to the garage were £17,149.44, which was not covered by insurance.
On 12 July 2023, the landlord advised this Service that the works to the garage had been post inspected on that day and the issue resolved.
Having accepted that the damage reported by the resident to his garage was caused by its contractors, it was both fair and reasonable for the landlord to agree to cover the full cost of clearing and repairing his garage. There were initial delays in the landlord carrying out an investigation into the reports made by the resident in August 2023. However, overall, it is the view of this Service that the steps taken by the landlord to put right the damage caused to the resident’s garage represents reasonable redress.
With regards to the resident’s complaint about being unable to access his garage, and his request to be compensated for the period of time he was unable to do so. As explained previously, this Service can only consider complaints that were raised within 12 months of the matter occurring.
Whilst it is not clear exactly when the resident was able to access his garage, it is evident that he was unable to use it between 23 August 2022 and the works being completed on 12 July 2023.
As that was the case, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged this, and the inconvenience this may have caused the resident, in its final response and to have paid him some compensation for this.
Whilst it did offer £250 for the resident’s time and trouble and £100 for service failure, it made no reference to the resident’s lack of access to his garage in its final response.
The landlord’s failure to do so has resulted in a finding of maladministration. This is because the Ombudsman expects landlords to address all points raised in the complaint. This Service also expects landlords to acknowledge where its actions or inaction have caused any unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident, which was evidently the case here.
As explained previously, this Service cannot consider the entire 4 years referred to by the resident. Nevertheless, it is the view of this Service that the resident should be compensated £720 for the 12 months, between him contacting the landlord in August 2022 and the works being completed on 12 July 2023, that he was unable to use his garage. This figure being based on 50% of the amount the resident suggested he would have received were he to have been able to rent his garage out privately.

Handling of the associated complaint.

In accordance with both the landlord’s complaints policy and this Service’s complaint handling code, the landlord should have recognised the difference between a service request and a complaint and logged the resident’s email of 8 November 2022 as such. This is because he clearly expressed his dissatisfaction with how the landlord had been responding to his concerns about his garage.
It did not do so. Instead, the landlord responded to him on 14 December 2022 to say that ‘as far as (it) understood nothing should be holding (him) back from utilising (his) garage or fixing it how (he) wanted’. The landlord went on to say that it was ‘certain’ its contractors would not dump rubbish into the resident’s garage as they had skips that they used. The resident was directed to contact its customer services if he wanted to raise a complaint, which he did on 9 January 2023.
Whilst this was a relatively short delay in the complaint being logged it would have been understandably frustrating to the resident. This was not only because his concerns had been dismissed in that way but also because of the unnecessary inconvenience to him in having to then log his complaint again.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint within the 5 working days set out in its complaints policy, doing so on 16 January 2023. However, it did not then issue its stage 1 response until 6 March 2023, some 40 working days after the complaint was submitted. This was an excessive amount of time for the resident to have to wait for the landlord to provide its response.
It is acknowledged that the landlord’s complaints policy states that if it cannot respond within the timeframe stated, it will keep the resident informed and agree new response times. It is also acknowledged that the landlord’s complaint co-ordinator did email the resident on 7 and 20 February 2023 to advise that they would need to extend the deadline.
However, despite this delay the stage 1 response provided no meaningful response to the complaint. It is also evident that the stage 1 response was only issued following the resident repeatedly expressing his frustration at the landlord’s lack of response. It is acknowledged that the landlord apologised to the resident for this, however, this still represented a failure on its part.
Given that the complaint was escalated on 6 March 2023, the landlord would have been expected, in accordance with its complaints policy, to have issued its stage 2 response by 3 April 2023, this being within 20 working days. However, this was not issued until 19 June 2023, 55 working days outside of the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
This represents a significant failure by the landlord. Further, on this occasion, this Service has also seen no evidence of the landlord keeping the resident informed or of it agreeing new response times with respect of its stage 2 response.
Overall, the significant failures by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint represents maladministration in this case. This is because, whilst the landlord offered the resident £50 for its poor complaint handling, this was not proportionate to the level of failure. It also failed to either apologise for, or to explain why, its responses were so delayed and for its stage 1 response lacking any meaningful response.
To put this right, the landlord has been ordered to apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report and pay him an additional £300. This is made up of:
1. £100 for its failure to recognise and respond to his email of 8 November 2022 as a formal complaint.
2. £100 for the excessive delay in it providing its stage 1 response.
3. £100 for the excessive delay in its providing its stage 2 response.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s reports that he was unable to access his garage and of damage caused by its contractors.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

That within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1,320 compensation. This being made up of:
  1. £720 for the lack of access to his garage for a period of time between 23 August 2022 and the works being completed on 12 July 2023.
  2. £350 for its complaint handling failures. This is inclusive of the £50 offered by the landlord in its stage 1 response if this has not already been paid.
  3. The £250 offered by the landlord in its final response for the resident’s time and trouble and £100 for service failure, if this has not already been paid.
3. Confirm compliance with the above orders.
It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears.