Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202318063)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318063

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

25 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. Snagging issues at the property.
    2. Information given to the resident about the boarding of the loft.
    3. Repairs to the front and back doors.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner of the property. The landlord is the freeholder. The property is a 2 bedroom house. She lives at the property with her partner. The lease began in June 2022. It was a new build property and the resident is the first occupier.
  2. Between June and December 2022, the resident reported issues with the front and back doors. She said the doors and/or the locks were difficult to open/close. The landlord’s records show that it conducted repairs in response.
  3. On 14 April 2023 the front door locking mechanism broke, meaning the resident could not get into her home. She called an independent locksmith who was unable to enter using the front door, so they changed the locks on the back door. The locksmith charged her a total of £510 for the repair. She reported the incident to the landlord on 16 April 2023.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 13 June 2023. She raised concerns about snagging issues in the property, including with her cooker hob and the splashback. She said the landlord told her it would board the loft when she viewed the property and it had not. She wanted the landlord to replace the hob, board the loft, and repair locks/handles to the back door.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 12 July 2023. It apologised for the delay in its response. It partially upheld the complaint for the time taken to resolve the snagging and communication. It said:
    1. It told the resident before 21 May 2022 that it would not board the loft. It apologised for any miscommunication prior to this.
    2. The resident reported scratches on the hob on 22 June 2022. It had unsuccessfully attempted to repair the fault. Therefore, it would replace the hob.
    3. The landlord’s contractor repaired the defective door lock on 31 May 2022. It offered to reimburse £348 of the resident’s costs.
    4. It apologised for the damage done to the splashback. It agreed to replace the splash back once it resolved issues it had with its contractor. It planned to inspect on 29 June 2023.
    5. It apologised for any distress caused when its contractors attended without first contacting the resident.
    6. It offered £598 compensation, comprised of:
      1. £75 for time and trouble.
      2. £75 for service failure.
      3. £100 for miscommunication regarding the loft boarding.
      4. £348 for door and lock repairs.
  6. The resident sought to escalate her complaint on 14 July 2023. She described the landlord telling her, while viewing the property, that the loft would be at least partially boarded. She wanted the landlord to cover the additional cost of boarding the loft, which she estimated to be £700. She said the front door was unusable between 14 April and 21 May 2022. She felt the landlord had not compensated her for the inconvenience, nor for the full cost of the repair. She said the landlord’s offer of compensation for her time and trouble and the service failure was too low.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 August 2023. It did not uphold the complaint. It agreed with its assessment at stage 1.
  8. The landlord’s records show it ordered a new hob and splashback in August 2023.
  9. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and sought to escalate her complaint to the Ombudsman in September 2023.
  10. The landlord’s records show that on 22 January 2024, it offered to reimburse the resident’s costs of £510 for the locksmith. It repaired the back door locks on 24 January 2024. It planned to replace the splashback in May 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. During the defect period, the developer is responsible for all repairs and ‘snags’ – they are not a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. However, the resident’s contractual relationship is with the landlord and we would expect it to ensure the developer resolves all issues. The Ombudsman will therefore assess the landlord’s handling of reported repairs and its communication with the developer but cannot assess the actions of the developer.
  2. The resident raised concerns about the information provided to her at the point of sale. The Ombudsman will assess the landlord’s response to the concerns about the information given at the point of sale regarding the property specification. Matters related to the information provided to the resident by her conveyancer fall within the jurisdiction of the Legal Ombudsman. The resident may wish to raise the issue with her conveyancer or contact the Legal Ombudsman for further advice on these matters.

Snagging issues at the property

  1. The resident reported problems with the cooker hob and splashback to the landlord 12 days after the completion of the sale. When it passed these onto the developer, they refused to resolve the issue because it was cosmetic damage not covered by the warranty.
  2. The landlord did not record any problem with the cooker hob in its handover document from 17 June 2022. It was reasonable for the landlord to attempt its own repairs once it knew the developer would take no action. The landlord’s decision to attempt its own repair in November 2022 was reasonable.
  3. The landlord recognised that there were delays completing the works in its stage 1 response in July 2023. It noted that it damaged the splashback during its attempt to repair the hob in November 2022. Its decision to replace the splashback and hob was appropriate. It took ownership of the issue and made efforts to put things right for the resident.
  4. The landlord followed through with its commitment to replace the splashback. Its records show it ordered the replacement parts in August 2023. However, there were unreasonable delays to resolve the repair due to the quality of the works by its contractor. It took the landlord around 9 months to install the new splashback, which it completed in May 2024.
  5. The ombudsman finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of snagging issues at the property. The landlord recognised its failure and its offer of £75 for service failure and £75 for time and trouble were reasonable. Its compensation guidance lists circumstances such as broken fittings to have low impact on the resident.
  6. The landlord’s offer of compensation reflected a low-medium failure. It recognised that there was a service failure and acted to resolve the issue, which had no significant impact on the resident. The Ombudsman would recommend compensation in this range for a service failure that adversely affected a resident but had no permanent impact. However, there were considerable delays to install the new splashback causing inconvenience for the resident. The landlord should award a further £50 compensation for her time and trouble.

Information given to the resident about the boarding of the loft

  1. There were no records available to the Ombudsman regarding the property specification given to the resident at the point of sale.
  2. The resident has shown that she first raised her concerns that the landlord had not boarded the loft by email on 1 December 2022. The Ombudsman has not seen any response to this report from the landlord.
  3. The landlord’s internal records from 5 August 2023 say that it discussed the boarding of the loft during a viewing on 22 March 2022. It then clarified its position on 21 May 2022 at a meeting with the resident that it would not board the loft. The landlord made these notes more than 12 months after the meetings with the resident. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate contemporaneous records. Where it has discussed and agreed specification, it should retain copies of those agreements.
  4. In this case, the Ombudsman has been unable to decide if the landlord told the resident that it would board the loft at the point of sale. However, it was clear in its complaint handling responses that the landlord would not ordinarily provide loft boarding. Nevertheless, the landlord’s fault meant that the resident’s expectations were unnecessarily raised. The landlord appropriately apologised for the poor communication and its offer of £100 recognised the detriment.
  5. The Ombudsman finds the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress in its handling of information given to the resident about the boarding of the loft. It should have maintained clear contemporaneous records when making these decisions. However, it recognised there were problems with its communication and it appropriately apologised to the resident. Its offer of £100 was reflective of its own guidance on compensation and was within a range that the Ombudsman would recommend where there was a failure that adversely affected a resident.

Repairs to the front and back doors

  1. As the property was a newly built home, it had a 12-month warranty period where the developer will resolve any defects. Following this 12-month period, the warranty provider will take over and will assist with any further defects. The shared owners handover form signed by the resident on 17 June 2022 shows that the defects period began on 17 December 2021. Therefore, snagging issues or defects raised up to 17 December 2022 were the responsibility of the developer.
  2. The resident and landlord reported defects with the front door handle and easements to the front and back doors in August and September 2022. The records show the developer completed these repairs in September, October, and December 2022. The landlord shared the faults with the developer in the defect period and confirmed that the doors were in working order. Its actions early in the timeline were reasonable, and in accordance with its policy and procedures.
  3. The resident’s report of further issues with the front door locks on 17 April 2023 was outside of the defects period. There are no records from the landlord showing its decision making at the time. However, it attended and repaired the front door on 31 May 2023. During this period, the resident was unable to use her front door. Although the repair took an unreasonable 30 working days to resolve, the landlord had no duty to repair the lock. It could have directed the resident to the warranty provider. Therefore, its decision to complete the repair and reimburse some of the resident’s costs in its stage 1 response on 12 July 2023 was reasonable.
  4. The landlord clarified its decision about the compensation offered in its emails to the resident in May and June 2023. It could have included these reasons in its stage 1 response. Although it missed the opportunity to clarify its decision making in its complaint responses, it was clear with her outside its complaint responses. Its decision to request the developer repair the door as a goodwill gesture was reasonable, as the incident occurred after the defect period. It believed the damage done to the doors in the attempt to gain access was excessive. Its decision to cover some of the costs of the callout and entry was reasonable.
  5. It is positive that the landlord reconsidered its position and agreed to pay the resident’s full costs on 22 January 2024. The Ombudsman welcomes and encourages landlords to learn from complaints. In this case, the landlord appears to have reconsidered its position following the resident’s referral of this complaint to the Ombudsman.
  6. The Ombudsman finds there was a reasonable offer of redress made in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the front and back doors. Its offer of £348 towards the costs incurred by the resident in accessing the property was reasonable. The property was no longer in the 12 month warranty, therefore its decision to conduct the repair was positive. The landlord also reconsidered its offer and agreed to pay the resident’s full costs in January 2024. The landlord should re-offer the full costs incurred by the resident (£510).

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of snagging issues at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was an offer of reasonable address made in respect of the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Information given to the resident about the boarding of the loft.
    2. Repairs to the front and back doors.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the service failure identified.
    2. Pay the resident £50 compensation for her time and trouble.
    3. Provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should re-offer the £250 compensation from its stage 1 response in July 2023. It should also re-offer to pay the resident the £510 costs she incurred due to the April 2023 lock change. The Ombudsman has made its reasonable redress decisions on the basis that the landlord pays this amount.