Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202318568)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318568

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

27 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 a kitchen installation.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant. The tenancy started on 14 January 2002. The property is described as a 4-bedroom house.
4. The replacement of the resident’s kitchen started in January 2023. On 3 April 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to say the replacement was incomplete.
5. The resident complained to the landlord on 18 June 2023. In summary, she said:

a.     She was told the kitchen replacement would take 10 working days.

b.     Care had not been taken when the kitchen was removed. Fitted units and tiles had been installed to walls without holes filled.

c.      She had not received a response despite contact with the planned team and the senior planned works manager (SPWM) about her concerns.

d.     She had complained to SPWM on 16 May 2023 requesting compensation for: her financial losses, impact on her mental health and the stress of being without water, electrics and cooking facilities. The complaint was not answered despite her traumatic experience.

e.     The contractor had asked to do an annual gas check even though the previous gas check was carried out on 22 October 2022.

f.        The contractor said the kitchen needed a full electrical installation after they  completed the kitchen works. She did not want the contractors to return as they had made mistakes. Some of the mistakes were dangerous.

g.     Her daughter, son in law and granddaughter lived in the property. For months, she did not have a kitchen or useable kitchen facilities. She had to celebrate her granddaughter’s birthday in the hall with sandwiches.

h.     She had undergone 2 surgeries for cancer and was feeling her life return to normal.

i.        Her preferred outcome was for her landlord to explain what had happened and why it had not found a resolution. It should also apologise and reimburse her for the extra costs she had incurred. This included a replacement oven (following damage by the contractors) and payment for takeaway meals.

6. The landlord provided its initial complaint response on 28 June 2023. It said the resident should contact its contractor directly regarding the requested compensation payment and recognised she did not want them to return to the property. It acknowledged that the kitchen replacement had taken longer than 10 working days and apologised for the inconvenience experienced. The landlord concluded by upholding the complaint and made a compensation award of £50 in addition to compensation agreed by its contractor.
7. On 1 July 2023, the resident provided the cooker receipt for a single electric oven for £154.17. The landlord’s records show that on 14 July 2023 the resident refused a kitchen electrical rewire.
8. The resident escalated her complaint on 14 August 2023. She advised that the landlord needed to get its contractor to provide a more acceptable response to her compensation request.
9. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 23 August 2023. It said:

a.     The kitchen refurbishment started on 26 January 2023. The contractor experienced delays with its supply chain and delays in receiving the necessary units for installation.

b.     The contractor was unable to supply the necessary electrical certification to confirm the installation met regulatory standards.

c.      Its contractor had been unable to agree a convenient time to access the kitchen to undertake the necessary electrical work. Any further delays would not be a service failure by the landlord or its contractor.

d.     It was satisfied in the way it had managed the complaint and had not identified any complaint handling failures. The complaint was not upheld.

e.     However, its planned works team had advised its contractor would make a compensation payment of £200 plus reimbursement of £185 for the replacement cooker.

f.        It had awarded £50 at its initial complaint stage and this would not be increased.

g.     Its contractor required access to the property to complete the kitchen rewire. It would inspect the kitchen once the work was completed to ensure it met regulatory standards.

10. The landlord’s records show that the electrical installation condition report was carried out on 7 March 2024.
11. The landlord told this Service it is no longer using the contractor involved in this case. It confirmed that the kitchen refurbishment delays were caused by its contractor experiencing a labour shortage and the resident’s refusal of the rewire. It has assessed that a further compensation award of £125 was required for its complaint handling failures.
12. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

13. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions, or lack of action, have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the kitchen installation

14. The landlord’s planned investment policy says it is committed to maintaining its properties in line with the Decent Homes Standard (DHS). The planned investment programme is for kitchen, bathroom and windows works. The landlord’s planned kitchen works to the resident’s property was in line with its policy to refurbish kitchens every 20 years to meet the DHS.
15. It is not disputed the resident was told the kitchen replacement would be completed within 10 working days and the installation took around 4 months to complete. The landlord does not know the actual completion date. This is not reasonable. This Service’s Spotlight Report on Repairs (March 2019) sets out that landlords remain responsible for repairs where using contractors to deliver its services. The landlord should have accurate and complete records of the time taken to complete the work carried out to its properties. Had its record keeping been better, the landlord may have reduced the unacceptable delay experienced by the resident.
16. The landlord is responsible for ensuring that its contractor acted in line with the terms of its repairs policy and in line with any specific contractual arrangements. Where a resident raises concern about the actions of a contractor, the landlord is expected to investigate their concerns and monitor any ongoing actions. While the delays in this case were largely the result of its contractor’s actions, the landlord had overall responsibility for delivering its property condition services and any delay as a result of its contractor’s actions were the landlord’s responsibility to put right.
17. The landlord provided contradictory information about the reason for the delay in completing the kitchen installation. Its final complaint response advised that the delay resulted from its contractor experiencing challenges in its supply chain and in obtaining the kitchen units. The resident says the kitchen units were delivered to the property. The landlord later told us that its contractor experienced labour shortages. It is not reasonable that the landlord has been unable to evidence the specific reason for the resident being left without a fully functioning kitchen for at least 4 months. This demonstrates poor oversight of its contractors which likely contributed to the delay.
18. Once the landlord was aware of the delays, it should have satisfied itself that the resident was being kept updated. The failure to do so likely caused confusion and distress for the resident. When it became apparent that the kitchen would not be replaced within a reasonable timeframe, the landlord should have arranged for temporary repairs to be carried out so the resident had a functional kitchen until the full replacement was completed. The landlord did not do this. The failing added to the inconvenience experienced by the resident and her family.
19. Another communication error was the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s dissatisfaction with its contractor. The landlord has acknowledged that it did not respond to the resident’s communication as it expected its contractor to act. This is not reasonable and resulted in the resident chasing updates. This is likely to have harmed the resident’s relationship with the landlord.
20. Landlords should ensure that works are done to an appropriate standard and completed right first time where possible. This is vital to building trust between residents and landlords. It is not reasonable that the landlord did not address the resident’s request for an explanation on what went wrong with the kitchen installation workmanship. The resident described careless kitchen removal, units being installed on walls with unfilled holes, poor tiling and a gas leak.
21. It is not reasonable that there is no evidence that the landlord took steps to investigate the allegations made by the resident or sought to reassure her that it would consider her specific reports. Furthermore, the landlord’s complaint response did not comment on the quality of the kitchen installation which was a missed opportunity to provide an answer to the resident and consider whether it needed to improve its service.
22. The landlord’s final complaint response informed the resident that, as she had refused the electrical rewire, neither it or its contractor would be responsible for any further delays. This was not reasonable given it did not demonstrate that it considered the reasons for the resident’s request for an alternative contractor. It should have listened to the resident’s concerns, assessed the quality of the work previously carried out and given assurance to the resident that it met an acceptable standard. It is also not evident that the landlord fully explained why it had to schedule a full electrical kitchen rewire shortly after the kitchen installation. The landlord missed an opportunity to inform the resident of the totality of the works to be undertaken. Had it done so, the resident would have known the expected schedule of works with projected timings.
23. The failures by the landlord had an adverse affect and caused detriment to the resident. In line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, the landlord was obliged to put things right for the resident and to learn from outcomes.
24. The resident’s oven was damaged during the kitchen installation. The contractor initially denied liability for the cost of the replacement oven but later agreed to reimburse the resident. This was reasonable as the landlord’s compensation policy says that responsibility will be taken for detriment or damage caused to an individual, their property and belongings by a contractor working on its behalf. The resident provided a receipt to the landlord’s contractor for the cost of a replacement oven. The reimbursement for the oven has not been paid as the resident refused the contractor’s separate compensation award of £200.
25. The landlord’s compensation policy advises that consideration should be given to service failure and any time and trouble experienced by a resident. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for time and trouble caused to the resident by poor workmanship. This was in addition to the £200 offered by its contractor. The landlord’s compensation policy says that payments between £161 to £350 will be paid to recognise high level service failure.
26. Given the disruption experienced by the resident and the limited kitchen facilities over a 4-month period (plus the alleged poor workmanship), the £250 compensation award was insufficient. It did not recognise the full impact on the resident and her family. Further, the landlord did not demonstrate that it took enough steps to learn from the failings in this case and improve its service delivery.
27. In summary, where a resident raises concern to the landlord about the actions of a contractor, the landlord is expected to investigate their concerns and monitor any ongoing actions. While the delays in this case were largely the result of its contractor’s actions, the landlord had overall responsibility for ensuring the kitchen was properly installed in a timely fashion.
28. Therefore, any delay as a result of its contractor’s actions were the landlord’s responsibility to put right. The compensation awarded through the complaints process was insufficient given the circumstances of the case.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling

29. The landlord’s complaint procedure says that it will respond to complaints within 10 working days at its first stage and within 20 working days at its final stage.
30. The resident said that she had made a complaint to the SPWM in May 2023. The landlord’s records show that the SPWM treated this as a compensation request. However, the landlord’s complaint procedure says that it will treat reports of dissatisfaction as complaints and will respond to such within 10 working days. The resident’s expression of dissatisfaction was not registered as a complaint. This is not reasonable. The landlord failed to act in line with its complaints policy and caused further delay and inconvenience to the resident.
31. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code (2022) tells landlords that all points raised in complaints should be addressed, giving reasons for decisions made. The landlord’s initial complaint response was poor as it did not fully address the dissatisfaction with the kitchen installation and directed the resident to its contractors. There is no evidence that the landlord took ownership of the resident’s concerns. This is not reasonable.
32. The landlord’s final complaint response did not uphold the resident’s complaint and failed to demonstrate it investigated the difficulties the resident reported. This was a failing as it denied the resident a comprehensive response to all the matters she had raised regarding the installation of the kitchen. It instead focused on the outstanding electrical works.
33. The landlord concluded in its complaints review that it did not identify any failing in its complaint handling. However, after the complaint process ended, the landlord informed this Service it decided a further compensation award of £125 was appropriate for its complaint handling failures. It is not known whether the landlord has informed the resident of the compensation award. The £125 compensation offered is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and this Service’s Remedies Guidance for failings which adversely affected a resident.
34. Although the landlord eventually offered compensation within a range that the Ombudsman would recommend for occasions where a failure has adversely impacted a resident, this was not achieved through the complaints process. It took the landlord over 10 months to appropriately review its offer of redress. This meant that it missed the opportunity to do so within the complaints process and without the Ombudsman’s involvement. Given the above, a finding of maladministration has been made.

Determination

35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a kitchen installation.
36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

37. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:

a.     Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.

b.     Pay the resident total compensation of £810, broken down as:

1. £685 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its failings in the handling of the kitchen installation. (This includes the £185 for the reimbursement of the replacement cooker and the £250 it agreed to pay in its complaint responses).
2. £125 it agreed to pay for its complaint handling failures.

38. The landlord is to reply to this Service to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.