Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202321847)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202321847
Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)
29 October 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs needed to the intercom system.
- The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
- The resident is a leaseholder through a shared ownership scheme and has held the lease since November 2020. The landlord does not hold a record of the resident having any vulnerabilities
- The property is a ground floor flat within a wider block, the block has communal areas and facilities. The communal facilities are managed by the landlord.
- On 13 April 2023 the resident told the landlord the communal intercom system was broken, the resident said the system would not ring the ground floor flats. The resident said this had led to him missing important deliveries, including medication and items relating to his employment.
- Repair records from the property showed there had been previous reports about the intercom system in December 2022 and January 2023. Records from inspections relating to these reports noted a contractor with specialised software was needed to repair the intercom system.
- The landlord arranged for contractors to attend the property to repair the intercom system on multiple occasions between May 2023 and July 2023. The contractors were unable to repair the intercom system as they did not have the specialist software required.
- On 27 April 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint about the intercom system. The resident told the landlord he expected to be supplied with a comprehensive action plan to resolve the matter, and for the repairs to be completed within 2 weeks.
- The landlord provided its stage one response on 28 June 2023, the response included the following:
- The landlord apologised to the resident for:
- The inconvenience caused by the intercom system not working.
- The time the resident had spent reporting the intercom system.
- The landlord’s contractors not being proactive in updating the resident or producing action plans.
- The landlord committed to completing the repairs to the intercom system would be completed by 7 July 2023.
- The landlord agreed to pay compensation of:
- £50 for its poor complaint handling.
- £200 for the time, trouble and personal impact caused to the resident.
- The landlord apologised to the resident for:
- On 18 July 2023 the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to his complaint, and told the landlord the situation with the intercom had gotten worse.
- The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 12 August 2023, which included the following:
- There had been delays in repairing the intercom as the system required a specialised contractor, and the landlord had not initially identified this.
- The landlord had arranged for the specialist contractor to repair the intercom system by 4 September 2023.
- The landlord had signed a contract with the specialist contractor to prevent any future delays from occurring.
- The compensation offered in the stage one response was sufficient in the circumstances.
- On 25 September 2023 the resident brought their complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s planned course of action to rectify the repairs. The resident said he was also unhappy as he felt the communication he had received from the landlord was insufficient, and as he had not been provided with an action plan of how the landlord aimed to repair the intercom.
- The landlord told HOS the intercom system was repaired on 10 October 2023.
Assessment and findings
Policies and procedures
- The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy notes it is the landlord’s responsibility to maintain communal areas and facilities, which includes the communal intercom system. The policy outlines repairs to the intercom system will be classed as a routine repair. The landlord aims to complete routine repairs, or conduct an inspection for more challenging repairs, within 20 working days.
- The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints policy which is in compliance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The policy outlines the landlord will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and will formally respond to a complaint within 10 working days of their acknowledgement. If the resident is dissatisfied with the stage one response the landlord will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of an acknowledgement of an escalation request.
- The landlord operates a compensation policy. The policy outlines circumstances where they might offer compensation to a resident, the level of monetary compensation is assessed against the impact on the resident, any delays and the efforts of the resident. Circumstances which might warrant compensation include:
- Failure of service.
- Time and trouble.
- Poor complaint handling.
The landlord’s handling of repairs
- On 27 April 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about the communal intercom system still being broken after he had raised a repair request with the landlord on 13 April 2023. As per the landlord’s repairs policy, it should have aimed to complete the repairs, or instructed a specialist to inspect the system, within 20 working days.
- Communication records shared with this Service show the first occasion where the landlord arranged for a contractor to inspect the intercom system was 19 May 2023. On this date a booking was made for a contractor to conduct an inspection on the system on 31 May 2023, this inspection date was later cancelled due to the contractor being unwell. Had this inspection gone ahead as planned, it would have occurred 22 working days after the resident made a complaint, and 32 days after he had initially reported the repair. The landlord did not act reasonably in this regard, as in accordance with its own policies the inspection should have occurred within 20 working days of the repair being reported.
- Repair records from previous repairs to the intercom system in December 2022 and January 2023 contained notes to say a specialist contractor was required to repair the intercom system. However, the landlord did not instruct a specialist contractor to conduct the repairs reported by the resident. Given this information was available to the landlord, its actions in not instructing a specialised contractor were inappropriate as it prevented the repair from occurring in a timely manner.
- On 6 June 2023 and 30 June 2023, the landlord instructed contractors to inspect the intercom system. On both occasions the contractors reported the system was not working and only a contractor who had access to specialist software, which they did not have, could conduct the repair. It is not clear why the landlord arranged for the second inspection to occur, given the feedback from the initial inspection, as well as the previous repair records noting only a specialist could conduct the repair. Again, the landlord’s actions in this regard were inappropriate and prevented the repair from occurring in a timely manner.
- On 22 June 2023 internal emails from the landlord acknowledged they needed to contact the manufacturer to obtain a quote to complete the repair. The time it took for the landlord to identify this requirement was unreasonable, and it’s actions prolonged the period in which the intercom system did not work. The repairs remaining outstanding would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
- Under Section 11 of the Housing Act 1985 landlords have a duty to complete repairs to an appropriate standard a reasonable timeframe. On this occasion the landlord did not meet this standard.
- During the complaints process the landlord provided the resident with timescales for completion of the repairs. In its stage one response the landlord told the resident the repairs would be completed by 7 July 2023. In its stage 2 response the landlord told the resident the repairs would be completed on 4 September 2023, when a specialist contractor had been booked in to conduct the repair. The landlord said they had identified the need for a specialist contractor to conduct the repairs, and this was why the timescale of 7 July 2023 had not been met.
- In its stage one response the landlord offered the resident £200 in compensation to reflect the time, trouble and personal impact to the resident. In its stage 2 response the landlord deemed the compensation offered in its stage 1 response to be sufficient, despite the repair still being outstanding.
- The landlord told the Ombudsman the repair was completed on 10 October 2023, some 180 days after the resident initially reported the repair. Therefore, the repair was not completed within the landlord’s policy guidelines of 20 days, nor was the repair completed in-line with the timescales outlined in the landlord’s responses.
- It is fair and reasonable for the resident to expect to receive regular communication and updates from their landlord when repairs are outstanding. When repair work is overdue, as is the case in this instance, residents should receive regular updates clearly explaining the reasons for delay and the expected date of completion. The landlord acted in an inappropriate manner in this regard, as it did not provide the resident with information or updates about the outstanding repairs.
- In this instance the resident asked the landlord to keep him informed of the progress of the repairs. The resident also asked the landlord to produce and share with him a comprehensive action plan outlining how it planned to complete the repair. The Ombudsman holds no evidence to suggest an action plan was produced or shared with the resident.
- Evidence suggests outside of its stage one and 2 responses the landlord and its contractor did not communicate with the resident about how they planned to resolve the issue with the intercom system. They also did not communicate with the resident about how the repairs were progressing. The landlord’s actions in this regard were unreasonable as the resident was inconvenienced by the lack of communication as he did not know how the landlord planned to resolve the issue, or when the repair would take place.
- In its stage one response the landlord apologised for their contractor’s lack of communication with the resident. The landlord’s actions in this regard were unreasonable as the contractor was working on behalf of the landlord. Meaning it was the landlord’s responsibility to appropriately manage the contractor, and to ensure the contractor provided timely updates to the resident.
- In his complaint the resident told the landlord the outstanding repairs with the intercom system had led to him missing postal deliveries, noting specifically he had issues with a delivery of medication which he had been prescribed. The landlord did not respond directly to the resident about the issue he had raised regarding his medication, nor did it come up with an action plan to resolve this matter. The landlord’s lack of action in this regard suggests it acted unreasonably and did not consider that the resident might be vulnerable. Or that the outstanding repairs might be negatively affecting the resident’s health.
- When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In this case, although the landlord apologised for the delay in repairing the intercom and offered compensation of £200 at stage one, it then took a further 75 working days to repair the intercom.
- Therefore, the view of this Service is that although the landlord’s offer went some way to address the failings identified in this report, it did not adequately reflect the level of detriment to the resident.
- This Service finds maladministration on behalf of the landlord after considering:
- The length of time the landlord took to complete the repair.
- The lack of meaningful updates provided to the resident by the landlord and its contractor.
- The landlord’s failure to consider the resident could be vulnerable.
- The landlord’s failure to consider the outstanding repairs might be having an impact on the resident’s health.
- In light of the finding of maladministration by this service, the redress offered to the resident by the landlord has been assessed as insufficient. An order of redress which is in line with this Service’s remedies guidelines will be made in the orders and recommendations section of this report.
The landlord’s complaint handling
- The Code states landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case, the landlord’s complaint handling was not timely and lacked customer focus.
- It was reasonable that within its stage 2 response the landlord described how they had learnt from this incident, and that the landlord did acknowledge failures in their complaints handling process in their stage one response.
- The landlord’s complaint policy operates in compliance with the Code.
- The landlord acted unreasonably as it did not send the resident an acknowledgement of his complaint, as is required within the Code and the landlord’s own policy.
- The landlord sent their stage one response to the resident on 28 June 2023, 41 days after the resident made his complaint. The time it took for the landlord to respond to the resident was unreasonable as it this significantly outside of the timescale of 10 days set out within its policy and the Code.
- Within the landlord’s stage one response it offered the resident £50 as compensation for its poor complaint handling. The landlord did acknowledge failings in its complaint handling which was appropriate.
- The landlord’s stage 2 response was sent to the resident within the timescales set out in the landlord’s policies and the Code, which was reasonable.
- The contents of the landlord’s stage 2 response were inaccurate. The landlord said they were satisfied with the way the complaint had been handled, and they did not identify any failure of service within the stage one complaint. Considering the landlord had already identified a complaint handling failure in its stage one response, it was inappropriate for the landlord to say there had been no service failures in this regard within its stage 2 response.
- This Service has found there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling process after considering:
- The landlord did not adequately explain within its stage one response why they felt their complaint handling was poor.
- In its stage 2 response the landlord said it did not identify any complaint handling failures at stage one, despite it already conceding a complaint handling failure and offering the resident compensation within its stage one response.
- In light of the finding of service failure by this service, the redress offered to the resident by the landlord has been assessed as insufficient. An order of redress which is in line with this Service’s remedies guidelines will be made in the orders and recommendations section of this report.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the communal intercom system.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.
Orders and recommendations
- The landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £600 to the resident. The landlord’s previous compensation offered during its stage one process of £250 can be deducted from this total, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
- £400 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures to repair the intercom system within the timeframe outlined in its repairs policy.
- £100 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s poor communication.
- £100 for the landlord’s ineffective complaints handling.
- This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.