Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202315322)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315322

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

30 May 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat located on the third floor of the block and is a tenant of the landlord.
The resident reported damp and mould in his property to the landlord on 9 March 2023, the landlord then contacted him and arranged for an inspection to take place on 27 March 2023 with the landlord’s records stating the reports were of damp and mould in all rooms in the property including corridor, on the walls and ceiling.
On 20 April 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding him making a request for a permanent move as the resident felt the reported damp and mould in his property was affecting his and his family’s health. The landlord stated it was aware the resident had not been happy with the inspection it had recently carried out, so to provide further assurance, it would engage a specialist damp and mould contractor who would carry out a survey and provide a full report of its findings. The landlord’s letter stated the contractor would be in touch with the resident to arrange an appointment.  
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 2 June 2023, the resident stated:
1. Staff and managers that were supposed to deal with his situation were not taking it seriously, they were ignoring and making excuses by insulting his intelligence and were not keeping their promises. They were wasting his time and putting him in a lot of stress.
2. There were laws and regulations that the landlord needed to meet and they were not fulfilling their duties, the management was disgraceful and not acceptable, they did not respond at all unless he called them numerous times and waited on the phone line for hours, even though the internal staff wrote an email to the relevant managers to call back to get feedback, they did not respond.
3. The landlord had logged the report about the mould on 10 March 2023 and since that date it had been 3 months and no actions taken to do the appropriate investigation about the mould.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 9 June 2023. From reading his complaint it noted the issues were that the resident was unhappy with the conduct of the landlord’s staff and lack of assistance regarding damp and mould issues in his home. 
The landlord issued its stage one response on 13 June 2023. The landlord stated:
1. It confirmed that an inspection was completed when the resident had first raised the issue, however, the resident was unsatisfied with that, so contact was made by a manager on the 20 April 2023. That contact stated that in order to provide him with assurances of the works to be carried out, it was engaging a specialist damp and mould contractor to complete a survey and provide it with a report with recommendations. The contractor was to liaise with the resident directly to arrange for an appointment.  
2. It was advised that the resident would not allow the landlord access to his address unless it could provide him with assurances that once the damp and mould was treated, it would agree to permanently move him, as he had previously had damp and mould treatment completed, and this did not work.
3. After reviewing its system, it found the last work relating to damp and mould took place in 2015.   An inspection had been raised with a specialist damp and mould contractor and the target date for that to be completed was 22 June 2023. He would be contacted by the contractor directly to book in a suitable appointment date, however, should he need any updates from the landlord to contact it.   
4. It could not be agreed that the resident had experienced a service failure, and it was unable to uphold his complaint. 
On 14 June 2023 the resident stated he was unhappy with the stage one response and wished to escalate the complaint. The landlord acknowledged the request on 15 June 2023 and informed the resident a response would be issued within 20 working days.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 26 June 2023. The landlord said the second stage of its complaints process was to fully review the response given at stage one if the following could be demonstrated by the complainant.
1. The response received at Stage One was factually incorrect – details of the inaccuracies to be provided by the complainant. 
2. The response received did not address the initial complaint – complainant to confirm the detail it had missed.  
3. Important information provided in the initial complaint had not been considered – complainant to confirm what those were.  
The landlord stated the reason provided by the resident was that he was unhappy with the response given despite him not reading the response. As his request to raise the complaint to stage two had not met either of the three valid reasons to further investigate his complaint, it stood by its initial decision given at stage one. The specialist contractor had been trying to get hold of the resident in addition to one of its planners to try and book the works in with him. There would be no change in the response issued at stage one as the inspection needed to take place prior to any works. It confirmed the resident’s complaint had not been upheld and no redress had been offered.

Events after complaints process

The inspection took place on 11 July 2023 which found no external building defects were noted to inspected areas, but did find evidence of mould located on the wall surfaces within the flat. This mould growth was consistent with high humidity levels being present within the property and there was evidence of extractor fans in the bathroom and in the kitchen, but their effectiveness was questionable. The surveyor recommended that it applied its Mould Control Surface Disinfectant directly onto the affected areas and clean as necessary to remove the mould growth, install a wall mounted positive input ventilation system (PIV), including an integral heater to temper the incoming air, delivered directly from the outside to a central location to control the condensation and mould problems being experienced within the property, provide and install ducting to the wall unit through the living room, install a cyclone filter less extract fan in the kitchen and in the bathroom, carry out work relating to thermal insulation and cold bridging.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. Within the resident’s communication with this Service after the landlord’s stage two response, the resident contacted the landlord after the inspection had taken place regarding further issues including the landlord’s response to his enquiries and requests for a copy of its inspection reports, for details of remedial work it would be undertaking, the dates those were scheduled to begin and be completed and if the landlord would redecorate after completing remedial works. However, this investigation report cannot consider the issues which have arisen after the date of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. This is because the landlord has not had an opportunity to investigate and respond to any complaint which may be raised by the resident in respect of those events. Any such issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint by the resident can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. The landlord needs to be given the opportunity to formally respond. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get those matters investigated.
The resident said the lack of action taken by the landlord in resolving the damp and mould has had a negative effect on the health of the inhabitants of the property. The Ombudsman does not doubt his comments. However, as this Service is an informal alternative to the courts, it is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to decide on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and any ill-health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which is normally within 12 months of the matters arising. Therefore, although it is acknowledged that the resident had stated he reported issues to the landlord in the previous 17 years, this investigation will only consider the events in this case from his reports made in March 2023 onwards.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The landlord’s repairs policy states it should complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 28 calendar days and by appointment. Major routine repairs should be completed within three months or as part of its planned programme of works. The landlord’s repairs guide confirms that reports of damp and mould are the landlord’s responsibility to investigate and repair.
The evidence provided indicates that the resident was not happy with the findings of the landlord following the inspection that took place after his reports of damp and mould in March 2023. The landlord has not provided evidence of that inspection to this Service. Once it was aware however that the resident was dissatisfied with the inspection by its repairs officer, it took an appropriate step of informing the resident it would use a specialist damp and mould contractor.
The landlord issued a letter to the resident on 20 April 2023 and in that letter, it stated a specialist contractor would be in contact directly with the resident to arrange an appointment. This letter made it clear the contractor would make contact with the resident and for the resident to ensure access was provided for the survey to take place. There was no further evidence provided by the landlord of its contractor’s attempts to make contact with the resident or of it’s monitoring of the outstanding damp and mould inspection.
In the landlord’s stage one response, the landlord stated that it was advised the resident would not provide access. The landlord has provided no evidence of this between the resident’s first report of damp and mould in March 2023 and the stage one response. There were no repairs records that stated access was refused, no phone call records that showed the resident made contact and refused access and there is no correspondence either from the resident, the specialist contractor or the landlord relating to access being refused. This Service therefore cannot determine that the resident had refused access for the inspection to be completed as stated in the landlord’s stage one response.
The letter that was issued to the resident on 20 April 2023 clearly stated the contractor was to contact the resident and it would therefore be reasonable for the resident to assume he needed to wait to be contacted. There is however no evidence provided that the contractor tried to contact the resident to arrange for the inspection to take place. Equally there appeared to be no monitoring of the situation by the landlord and no evidence it was liaising with either the contractor or resident during that time to ensure there were no issues with it getting the survey completed. There was however evidence the resident called the landlord on 31 May 2023 and 1 June 2023 requesting an update but no evidence of the landlord responding.
In internal correspondence on 12 June 2023 the landlord stated the resident was not allowing access for it to address the damp and mould saying the reason the resident gave was he required assurances that once the damp and mould was treated the landlord would agree to a permanent move. As previously stated in this report there was no evidence of this being the case for the period covered in this investigation.
When the stage one response was issued on 13 June 2023, the resident’s report of damp and mould had been reported to the landlord 97 calendar days earlier. In the stage one response the landlord informed the resident it had raised an inspection with a specialist damp and mould contractor and a target date for that to be completed was 22 June 2023. This target date was 64 calendar days after the landlord first stated to the resident a specialist contractor would be sent to the property. At this stage the landlord had already exceeded the 28-calendar day timescale set out in its repairs policy for a routine repair.
The evidence provided showed a lack of communication from the landlord to the resident or its contractor. There was very little evidence of the landlord providing updates to the resident regarding the status of the requested inspection or responding to the resident’s request for an update. There was also no evidence provided of when the landlord actually raised the works for the specialist damp and mould survey to take place, which restricted this Service’s ability to establish when the specialist damp and mould inspection was first requested by the landlord and the subsequent timescales involved.
Although the landlord stated the contractor was to contact the resident directly, the damp and mould repairs were ultimately the responsibility of the landlord and it had a duty to monitor the inspection was taking place, to ensure contact was made and if there were any issues to liaise between the contractor and the resident, however the landlord has not evidenced it was monitoring the status of the inspection and in the stage one response failed to provide any explanation of the actions it had taken since it agreed to engage a specialist damp and mould contractor on 20 April 2023.
The landlord failed to acknowledge in the stage one response that the letter it had issued to the resident on 20 April 2022 clearly stated the resident would be contacted by the contractor. It also failed to provide any evidence that the contractor attempted to contact the resident since then or offer any form of redress to the resident for the inspection not yet taking place.
At the time the stage 2 response was issued, the specialist damp and mould inspection was still outstanding. The landlord did not resolve the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his property within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. During the time covered in this investigation the landlord failed to evidence the inspection that it had completed and failed to ensure the specialist inspection it informed the resident of in April 2023 was able to take place. Although the landlord has stated this was due to the resident refusing access, the landlord has not provided evidence of this. This is maladministration by the landlord. For its failings throughout this complaint, the landlord should pay the resident £250.
The evidence provided by the landlord and resident shows inspections have taken place after the landlord’s stage two complaint response and repairs have been raised to address the damp and mould. For the avoidance of any doubt a recommendation is made that the landlord should contact the resident and provide him with an update.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy states the landlord has a two stage complaints process with a stage one response being issued within 10 working days and stage two responses within 20 working days.
The stage one response was issued after 8 working days which was in line with the landlord’s complaint policy timescales of 10 working days.
The stage one response acknowledged the reasons for the complaint being made and it acknowledged the complaint was regarding the resident being unhappy with the staff members that had been involved with addressing the damp and mould in his property and that he had stated that he had been ignored by all except for a manager.
However, the landlord in its stage one response failed to offer an explanation to the resident regarding the complaint of him being unhappy with the staff members involved in his case or the lack of communication he had complained about. There was a failure by the landlord to address that part of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord also failed to offer an explanation to the resident why the specialist damp and mould contractor inspection had not taken place despite it being agreed on 20 April 2023 for one to take place, which was almost two months before the stage one response was issued and the landlord in the stage one response stated no service failure had occurred. This Service cannot agree with that conclusion as the inspection had not been fulfilled at the time the stage one response was issued and there was no evidence of any reasonable reasons for any delays.
As the landlord found no service failure, it did not offer any redress, show any learning about what caused the delay, or what it would do to prevent delays happening again. This was a failure to appropriately apply this Service’s dispute resolution principles of learning from outcomes and putting things right.
Section 3.2 of the landlord’s complaint policy states a complaint would be escalated to stage two if the following criteria were met.
1. The response received at stage one is factually incorrect (details of the inaccuracies to be provided by the customer).
2. The response received does not address the initial complaint.
3. Important information provided in the initial complaint has not been considered.
4. Actions agreed at stage one have not been completed as agreed.
In the landlord’s stage one and stage two responses, the escalation reasons provided only included three of these four criteria. The complaint responses failed to include the criteria of “actions agreed at stage one have not been completed as agreed”. It is unclear why the landlord did not provide this escalation reason to the resident in either of the stage one or stage two responses.
It is noted by this Service that the landlord has produced a new complaints policy from April 2024 which appears to no longer specify the resident needing to fulfil an escalation criterion.
However, given that at the date the stage two response was issued on 26 June 2023 the landlord had failed to complete the inspection it stated in the stage one response it targeted to be completed by 22 June 2023, the landlord had failed to complete the actions it committed to at stage one.
This, under the criteria for escalation to stage two, would have entitled the resident’s complaint to be escalated. Although not raised by the resident himself, the landlord also did not identify this in its stage two investigation despite informing the resident in the stage two response that the inspection remained outstanding.
Under section 5 of its internal complaint process the landlord would be required to investigate the sequence of events end to end regarding the complaint inclusive of when the organisation was made aware of the issue, what action the organisation had taken from the point of being aware of the issue to present and if the actions taken by the organisation were in line with internal and external policies, procedures and guidance.
The landlord’s records indicate that the stage one response letter was issued by post to the resident on 13 June 2023. It spoke to him the next day and it stated he had called to escalate the complaint before receiving the stage one response. Although the landlord progressed the complaint to stage two and issued an acknowledgement to the resident on 15 June 2023, other then an attempt to call the resident the same day but receiving no answer, there was no further evidence provided of the landlord discussing the escalation request with the resident prior to issuing the stage two response.
Although the landlord’s stage one response did make it clear what the criteria for escalating the complaint would be and how and when the resident should make his escalation request, the fact that there was an error in the escalation criteria provided to the resident and after noting the resident may have called before receiving the stage one response, it would have been proactive and reasonable of the landlord to recontact the resident to discuss the stage one response and escalation request with the resident.
In failing to provide the correct escalation criteria of the resident’s complaint at stage one or stage two, failure to demonstrate it conducted a thorough investigation at stage two and failure to respond to the resident’s complaint about the actions of its staff and communication at stage one, the landlord is unable to demonstrate that its actions were fair in all the circumstances, which undermines the purpose of the landlord’s internal complaints process. This led to the resident having to bring his complaint to the Ombudsman, causing further inconvenience, time and trouble to him. In recognition of this, an order has been made that the landlord pay £150 compensation to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident and apologise to him for its handling of his reports of damp and mould in his property.
2. Pay the resident £250 for its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his property.
3. Pay the resident £150 for its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord contacts the resident and provides him with an update of the works identified from the specialist damp and mould inspection, what works have been completed and what works are to be undertaken including proposed timescales for those works to be completed.