Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202322638)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322638

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

19 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

The resident held an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, and lived in a 1-bedroom flat.
In October 2021 the resident raised concerns about noise coming from a neighbouring flat. After some initial action from the landlord, the resident raised further reports between October and December 2022. Following these reports, she raised a complaint on 19 December 2022. The complaint was about the lack of contact from the landlord and its handling of her reports of ASB.
On 19 January 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the resident’s complaint due to the lack of communication. It confirmed it had an open ASB case and was awaiting information from the local council and its Tenancy Enforcement Team. It offered the resident £25 for the inconvenience caused.
The resident escalated her complaint on 27 March 2023 highlighting the lack of action taken by the landlord and its failure to keep her updated. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 13 June 2023. It said:
1. An action plan had been put in place for the ASB case on 19 May 2023.
2. It had communicated regularly with the resident about the case since the action plan was put in place.
3. It had arranged to meet with the neighbour to discuss the ongoing noise issue.
4. The complaint was upheld due to a lack of communication and compensation of £105 (inclusive of the £25 already offered) broken down as:
  1. £25 for a failure of service.
  2. £30 for time and trouble caused.
  3. £50 for poor complaint handling.
After the stage 2 complaint response the resident continued to provide the landlord with reports of ASB due to noise. The landlord took action which included meeting with and writing warning letters to the neighbour. A formal warning letter was sent to the neighbour on 16 November 2023.
The resident moved out of the property in March 2024 after agreeing to a mutual exchange. She referred her complaint to us on 6 November 2023. As a resolution the resident is requesting a higher amount of compensation that recognises the full impact of the case.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident has told us that her initial reports of ASB date back to 2021. However, this investigation has focussed on the landlord’s handling of ASB reports from October 2022 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s complaint responses. This is because complaints need to be raised promptly, so the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issue while it is still ‘live’.
We have considered the actions of the landlord after the stage 2 complaint response was issued. This is because these are directly linked to the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB. The investigation will focus on whether the steps set out in the stage 2 complaint response to resolve the complaint were actioned.

Reports of ASB

The landlord’s policy says it will respond “in a timely manner” to reports of ASB based on risk. However, when the resident reported ASB in late 2022, the landlord did not follow this policy. The resident contacted the landlord twice, in October and December 2022, before complaining about the lack of action on 19 December 2022. Even after receiving the complaint there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident until 19 January 2023 when it issued its stage 1 complaint response.
The landlord took too long to respond to the resident’s initial ASB reports, causing distress and inconvenience. Despite apologising for the lack of contact, the landlord did not learn from this. It’s ASB policy says that it will stay in contact with victims, keeping them informed of progress. However, the landlord’s actions did not align with this commitment. On 27 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord again, saying she had not received an update. She said that she had requested call backs several times, but none were made. She asked for her complaint to be escalated. This added to the resident’s distress and caused unnecessary time and trouble.
An action plan was not put in place for the resident’s ASB concerns until 19 May 2023. After the landlord met the resident, it agreed that it would:
1. Review diary sheets and noise app recordings.
2. Invite the neighbour to its office to discuss the ASB reports.
3. Contact the local council about the case and ask for any evidence or letters they had issued to the neighbour about loud noise.
4. Update the resident every 2 weeks on a Monday, Wednesday or Friday.
Although the action plan was helpful, it took 7 months to create, which was an unreasonable delay. This did not follow the landlord’s ASB policy to respond to reports promptly. The time taken to create an action plan caused the resident some further distress and inconvenience at an already distressing time.
After the action plan was set, communication between the resident and landlord briefly improved. The landlord’s actions aligned with its policy for several months as it kept the resident informed and worked with partner agencies. It arranged a meeting with the neighbour to discuss the concerns for 14 June 2023, provided updates every 2 weeks and provided its stage 2 complaint response on 13 June 2023. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had:
1. Worked with the local council’s Environmental Health and Noise Nuisance teams.
2. Reviewed the noise app recordings and diary sheets.
3. Contacted its own Tenancy Enforcement team and arranged to meet the neighbour on 14 June 2023.
4. Upheld the complaint due to poor communication and offered £105 in compensation including the £25 offered from its stage 1 complaint response.
On 20 June 2023 the landlord updated the resident about the meeting with the neighbour. It said that it had explained about the impact the noise was having and advised on potential action it may take in relation to a breach of tenancy if the neighbour’s behaviour did not improve.
The landlord continued to take reasonable and proportionate action with the neighbour. It wrote to the neighbour on 27 June 2023 reminding them of their obligations and warning of possible enforcement action if noise complaints persisted.
Despite the positive actions from 19 May to 27 June 2023, the landlord reverted to its earlier failings. Between 10 July and 2 October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord at least 5 times without a reply. She provided evidence of loud noise via diary sheets and noise app recordings. However, the landlord did not respond until 2 October 2023. The landlord did not follow its action plan which committed to providing an update every 2 weeks. It also did not follow its own ASB policy. These failings caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
On 2 October 2023, the landlord apologised for the delay in contacting the resident and said it had arranged a meeting with the neighbour which was due to take place on 6 October 2023. It said that it would update the resident on the outcome of the meeting. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord provided any updates to the resident in October 2023. This again showed that its communication was poor and caused added distress to the resident.
Following further ASB reports on 1 and 15 November 2023, the landlord issued a warning letter to the neighbour on 16 November 2023. This letter explained that continued noise complaints could lead to legal action due to a breach of tenancy. It told the resident about the actions it had taken. These actions were proportionate and reasonable, and followed its ASB policy which says that it would “be clear with customers on the range of interventions and solutions available”.
In summary, while the landlord took some reasonable actions like creating an action plan and working with the local council, the time taken was unreasonable. The investigation showed that the landlord’s communication was generally poor, failing to act promptly or update the resident regularly. These failings amount to maladministration.
The evidence provided to us by the landlord was limited in terms of detail and there appears to be significant gaps in its records. These gaps have meant that the landlord has not been able to clearly show what steps it took to resolve the resident’s concerns and its overall management of the issue.
The landlord has said that this may be because the person who managed the case has since left the business. While we understand that staff can leave a business it is important to keep robust records and log each contact in a way that can be shared and accessed when needed. The lack of clear and detailed records has contributed to the finding of maladministration in this case.
We have considered whether the landlord’s offer of compensation is reasonable and sufficiently acknowledges the failures identified in this investigation. The landlord’s compensation policy says that where there has been a “low failure” it would offer an apology and may offer compensation up to £51. However, there is no definition of what a “low failure” looks like.
The amount offered by the landlord is within this “low failure” range as it offered:
1. £25 for a failure of service.
2. £30 for time and trouble caused.
3. £50 for poor complaint handling.
It is good that the landlord recognised the delay in its complaint handling and suitably recognised this in its compensation offer. However, the amounts offered for the time and trouble caused, and the failure in service do not sufficiently recognise the impact to the resident. Even after the landlord had identified through its complaint procedure that its communication was poor, the failings were repeated. It does not appear that the landlord took learning from the case and applied this which increased the resident’s distress.
Our remedies guidance says that where there has been an adverse, but no permanent impact to the resident a payment of between £100 and £600 is appropriate. In this instance, the landlord’s poor communication increased the resident’s distress, and the failings happened consistently over a period of time.
Therefore, a payment of £400 in addition to the £105 already offered is fair in all the circumstances. This accounts for the impact to the resident over a sustained period and considers that the impact ended when the resident moved out in March 2024.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write an apology to the resident for the identified failings.
2. Pay compensation of £400 to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Recommendation

If it has not already done so pay the resident £105 compensation it offered in its stage 2 complaint response.