Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202317464)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317464

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

17 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 response to the resident’s reports of faulty communal stairway lighting.
2. The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

3. The resident lives in a one-bedroom second floor flat in a housing block that is owned by the landlord, which describes the property as being on the “ground floor”. The building is managed by a management company. The resident bought the shared ownership lease from former shared owner and took up occupation at the property on 11 February 2022. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
4. The resident reported faulty stairway lighting to the landlord between March 2023 and July 2023. She submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 20 June 2023, in which she said she had previously reported a stairwell lighting fault 4 months previously. The landlord had marked the repair as completed multiple times, but it had not been completed. Using the stairs in the dark was a safety hazard and using torches was not always convenient. She did not feel it was fair to charge a service charge when it had not provided safety services for a significant amount of time.
5. The landlord sent a stage 1 response to the resident on 9 July 2023. It said it was concerned to hear that the resident was unhappy with a service she had received, and it apologised for any inconvenience this had caused. It summarised 2 appointments it had completed to repair the communal lighting in March 2023 and in May 2023. It advised that it had closed a further recall order it had raised to repair the lights in June 2023 due to an administrative error. It had raised a new appointment to take place on 13 July 2023. It recognised that it had not raised a repair appointment within its repair timescales in March 2023, and that it had incorrectly cancelled an appointment in June 2023, which had caused delays in completing the repair. It upheld the complaint, and it awarded the resident £20 for time and trouble.
6. The resident sent a stage 2 escalation request to the landlord on 13 July 2023, in which she said:
   1. the £20 compensation it had offered was not fair compensation given it had taken 4 months to fix the lights.
   2. reporting the repairs, keeping track of them, and having to raise the matters as a complaint had taken up a lot of her time.
   3. she thought her service charges were already “incredibly high” and that basic safety regulations had not been followed.
7. The landlord sent a stage 2 response to the resident on 14 August 2023. In addition to the points it had made in its stage 1 response it said:
   1. it had reviewed the circumstances and had found that the communal lighting was managed by a managing agent. It apologised that it had led the resident to believe this was the landlord’s responsibility when it was not the case.
   2. it had contacted the managing agent, which confirmed that it had not received any reports of faulty lighting, and that it had not found any lighting concerns during its weekly inspections. However, it had found a fault on 27 July 2023, and it had arranged for an electrician to complete a repair. The resident should report any further concerns to the managing agent.
   3. it was not happy with the way it had handled the stage 1 response which it said was poor complaint handling.
   4. it had not contacted the relevant people, which had led to the resident being misled about who was responsible for the repair. It apologised for the misinformation and the delay this had caused.
   5. it partially upheld the complaint, and it had increased its offer of compensation to £60, which it broke down as £30 for poor complaint handling and £30 for time and trouble.
8. The resident reported the matter to the Ombudsman and has asked for her building’s stairwell lights to be fixed as soon as possible and a fairer amount of compensation. She thought the landlord’s increased compensation offer was still unreasonable given she paid it a £122 per month service charge and felt it was not providing basic safety in the building after receiving multiple repair reports from her about the lights. She explained this was because the stairwell lights not working meant the stairs had to be used in darkness at night, which was dangerous.

Assessment and findings

Communal stairway lighting repairs

9. Under clause 5(3) of the resident’s lease, the landlord is required to maintain and repair the main structure of the building and the common parts. The landlord also refers specifically to its responsibility to repair communal lighting in the information it publishes on its website. The landlord asks shared owners and other leaseholders to call it on a stated telephone number if they are not sure about the responsibility of a repair. It was appropriate for the landlord to communicate this to the resident by publishing information about its repairing obligations on its website, so that residents are clear about how to report repairs and any other occupancy related matters.
10. The landlord’s repairing obligations to the resident’s building have been taken over by management company that provides these services on behalf of the landlord. However, there is no information contained on the landlord’s website that clarifies the relationship between the landlord and the managing agent. Furthermore, the website does not mention, nor provide any contact details for the managing agent. It was therefore a failing that the landlord did not give this information to the resident either directly or via another method such as its website, and this resulted in the resident reporting the repairs to the landlord in line with its published advice. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to update the information it publishes and tell residents as and when significant changes that affect how its housing services are provided, such as the appointment of a managing agent, have taken place.
11. The resident reported the communal stairway lighting repair to the landlord on 7 March 2023. The landlord raised a works order on 9 March 2023 to repair the lighting on 15 March 2023. The landlord failed to recognise that the responsibility for the repair belonged to a managing agent, and it did not signpost the resident to the managing agent nor report the matter to it on her behalf. This was inappropriate under the circumstances.
12. Aside from this, the landlord’s responsive repairs policy considers circumstances where the entire stairwell lighting is not working to be an emergency repair. The policy further states that the landlord would address emergency repairs within 24 hours. It attended to the first March 2023 repair 5 working days later than its emergency repair policy timescale, which was inappropriate.
13. The landlord raised a recall of the works on 21 March 2023, when it was told that the communal lighting fault had still not been repaired. There is no evidence that the landlord completed a further repair until 4 May 2023, 30 working days later. This was inappropriate under the circumstances and not in keeping with its 28-working-day responsive repairs policy timescale for a routine repair. Furthermore, this caused distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident, which she expressed in her stage 1 complaint on 20 June 2023.
14. The resident reported that the lighting repair had still not be effectively resolved to the landlord in her stage 1 complaint. The landlord subsequently arranged for a further repair to take place on 27 June 2023. However, it cancelled the works order, which it later explained to the resident was due to an administrative error. This was inappropriate and was likely to have caused further inconvenience to the resident, who had been accessing the building in the dark and using torches for 3 months. The landlord’s failure to accurately diagnose, resolve, and track the completion of the repair it had committed to address was a further failing.
15. The resident reported that a lighting repair the landlord had completed on 13 July 2023 had still not been effective in her stage 2 complaint, which she sent to the landlord on the same day. The landlord subsequently identified that it was not responsible for the lighting repair. It received confirmation of this from the managing agent on 26 July 2023. The managing agent subsequently inspected the building, and it arranged for a lighting repair to be completed on a date after the landlord had provided its final stage 2 response on 18 August 2023.
16. The landlord considered its handling of the lighting repair in its complaint responses, in which it recognised failings. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord had put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in all the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology, acknowledgement of service failure, and compensation) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
17. It was appropriate for the landlord to have reviewed its handling of the repairs and for it to have apologised to the resident for the failings it had identified. Additionally, it was appropriate for it to have explained that the responsibility for the repair belonged to the management company, and for it to offer an apology for misleading the resident by arranging a repair it was not responsible for. However, the landlord failed to provide evidence that it had put these matters right, such as by setting out how it would ensure similar matters do not happen in the future, and/or reassuring the resident it would make sure the lighting repair was addressed. The landlord has subsequently raised repair works orders for the same lighting repairs in October 2023 and November 2023. Clearly, it has not satisfied itself that the repair has been resolved. Nor has it learned from the complaint by putting in place arrangements to make sure that it does not itself raise repairs that are the responsibility of a management company.
18. The landlord offered the resident £20 as compensation for time and trouble in its stage 1 response, which it increased to £30 in its final response. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident compensation in recognition of the time and trouble she had incurred pursuing the repair. However, the landlord’s offer was very low and not proportionate to the likely time and trouble caused to her under the circumstances. This is including because the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommends a minimum of £50 compensation to recognise less serious failures. Furthermore, it failed to consider the distress and inconvenience that was likely to have been caused to the resident when using the stairs in the dark for an unreasonable amount of time.
19. Taking all matters into account, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of faulty communal stairway lighting.
20. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £250 below. This is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for cases such as this where a landlord has acknowledged its failings and made some attempt to put things right but failed to fully address the likely inconvenience, distress, time, and trouble caused to the resident. Furthermore, such compensation is recommended where the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to the likely effect of the failings identified by our investigation.
21. In addition, we have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident for the failings this investigation report has identified, inspect her communal lighting to make sure this is working, and review and update its website’s information about management company responsibilities. We have also recommended it consider agreements for it to oversee management companies’ repairs and maintenance in its buildings.

The resident’s complaint

22. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints, as the landlord:
    1. did not acknowledge the stage 1 complaint in keeping with its complaints policy and paragraph 4.1 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time of this complaint, which says a complaint should be acknowledged and logged within 5 days of receipt.
    2. did not issue its response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 20 June 2023 until 13 July 2023. This was 7 working days later that the 10–working–day policy target timescale, contrary to the Code.
    3. incorrectly dated the stage 1 response year as 2024 instead of 2023.
    4. said that the stage 1 response was its final response both on the letter and in its email of 13 July 2023. The landlord operates a 2–stage complaint procedure in keeping with the Code, therefore this was misleading.
    5. did not make reference to the Housing Ombudsman Service in the stage 1 response. This was not in keeping with Paragraph 2.6 of the Code, which says landlord must provide residents with contact information for the Ombudsman as part of its regular correspondence with residents.
    6. did not issue its response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 13 July 2023 until 14 August 2023, which was 2 working days later that its 20–working–day target timescale in its policy and the Code.
    7. advised the resident to report any ongoing concerns with the communal lighting to the managing agent. However, it did not provide the resident with the contact information for her to do so. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to have taken a resolution focused approach to the matter.
    8. did not fully address the resident’s complaint, such as by addressing her view that her service charges were “incredibly high” and basic safety regulations had not been followed. This was not in keeping with paragraphs 5.6 and 5.16 of the Code, which says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. Under her lease, the resident is required to pay a specified proportion of its service provision to the landlord as a service charge. However, it would have been reasonable for it to have explained this to the resident as the reason why it would not consider a refund of the service charge.
23. The landlord offered the resident £30 as compensation for the complaint handling failings it had identified in its stage 2 complaint response. It was appropriate for the landlord to have reviewed its handling of the complaint under the circumstances. Additionally, it was reasonable for it to have offered compensation for its recognised complaint handling failings in keeping with its guidance on awarding compensation. However, the landlord’s guidance categorises the provision of incorrect, inadequate, or incorrect information as a ‘medium failure,’ yet its compensation award was within the range of awards for a ‘low level failure.’ This was a further failing.
24. This meant the compensation the landlord offered was not proportionate to the time and trouble the resident may have incurred in pursuing a response to the complaint. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay a further £100 to the resident for its complaint handling failings. This award is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which suggests this range of awards for matters where service failure is found that was likely to have caused time and trouble to a resident over a short duration.

Determination (decision)

25. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme there was:
    1. maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to resident’s reports of repairs to the communal stairway lighting.
    2. service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendation

26. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the communal lighting repair and complaint handling failings this report has identified.
    2. Pay the resident the £60 compensation offered in the stage 2 response if it has not already done so.
    3. Pay the resident an additional £350 total compensation made up of:
       1. £250 for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident associated with its handling of faulty communal stairway lighting.
       2. £100 for time and trouble that may have been caused to the resident related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

The compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.

4. Arrange for an inspection of the communal lighting, so as to satisfy itself that the lighting and the sensors are working, and that the issues the resident reported are no longer a concern. The landlord should provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a timeline for the completion of any repairs that are required within 2 weeks of the inspection.
5. Review and update the information it publishes online in its website and any other relevant publications, so as to correctly signpost residents to management companies where these arrangements are in place. The landlord should send the resident and the Ombudsman a copy of the amended publications, and/or a link to where the information is published on its website.

Recommendation

27. The landlord is recommended to consider putting in place a service level agreement with management companies where they provided housing related services to its residents, so as to gain oversight about the repairs and maintenance completed in the buildings the landlord owns.