Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202323586)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323586

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

14 April 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:
   1. Handling of repairs to the building’s communal windows and doors.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroomn flat within a building with shared communal entrance doors. The landlord is a housing association and freeholder of the property. The resident’s tenancy started in March 2023. The landlord was aware of the resident’s health vulnerabilities at the time of his move.
3. The resident complained on the 18 July 2023. He said repairs remained outstanding from his tenancy start date on 26 March 2023. These included missing or broken glass to the property’s communal front and rear doors and communal windows. He expressed concern that uninvited people could access the communal areas. He also reminded the landlord of his mental health difficulties and how he felt nervous and unsafe.
4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 7 August 2023. It said the glazing cassettes for the doors were now obsolete. As such, it was trying to source replacement glass units. If it could not achieve this, it would install entirely new doors. It said when ordering new doors, a repair would take longer than its routine repair timescales. It offered £20 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble and wished him well with his health.
5. The resident escalated his complaint on 23 August 2023. He said the repairs remained outstanding. He also repeated the impact the issues were having on his mental health. He explained he had not received a response to a call to his tenancy management officer on 11 August 2023. He described feeling ignored by the landlord.
6. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 10 October 2023. It said it:
   1. Was satisfied with how it handled the stage 1 response and did not identify any service failure.
   2. Had been unable to source the required parts and took steps to complete a full replacement.
   3. Completed the door replacements at the end of September 2023.
   4. Would complete the glass replacement for the internal communal door on 16 October 2023.
   5. Considered the time taken for the repair and offered the resident an additional £40 for his time and trouble. Increasing the total compensation to £60.
7. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to us. He said the landlord took too long to resolve the repair and gave no consideration for the effects on his mental health. He said his mental health suffered further as a resident from another block would enter the communal areas and smoke drugs. He described not feeling safe and considered the landlord’s communication poor. He wanted it to learn from his complaint, so it would not happen again.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. Within the resident’s correspondence he said the landlord’s repair delays had caused stress which affected his mental health conditions.
9. Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability. Nor award damages. Whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health requires a decision by an insurance claim or through the courts. Our role is to investigate if the landlord acted fairly, reasonably, and in line with its policies and procedures. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue a claim for damages.
10. Our decision considers whether the landlord kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. If we find failure by a landlord, we can consider any distress and inconvenience caused.

Handling of repairs to the building’s communal windows and doors

11. The landlord’s guide to its repair responsibilities explains that it will attend within:
    1. 24 hours for an emergency repair.
    2. 28 calendar days for a routine repair.
    3. 90 calendar days for a non-routine or bespoke repair.
12. The same guide says the landlord may experience delays completing repairs which are beyond its control. In these situations, it states it will “always advise customers in advance” of the reason why a repair may not take place within its published timescales.
13. The resident describes viewing the property in March 2023. He says the landlord assured him that it would repair the broken glass door panels and windows before he moved in. While neither party has provided evidence of these discussions, the resident states his online repair account showed the repairs as complete while they remained outstanding. It is therefore unclear if the landlord effectively raised and monitored these issues.
14. The landlord has not disputed that the repair need existed at the time of the resident’s tenancy start date on 26 March 2023. It is therefore unclear why it did not provide him with an explanation in advance of the repair delays at this stage. By not doing so, it did not meet the expectations of its repairs guide.
15. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 on 7 August 2023. There had therefore been 134 calendar days between his tenancy start date and the complaint response where it made no progress with the repairs. There is no evidence the landlord provided any update to the resident during this time. This was not appropriate and caused him time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience having to complain to get the matter resolved.
16. The landlord’s stage 1 response explained what it hoped to achieve to resolve the repair. While this was reasonable, it should not have taken the resident’s complaint for it to provide an update. This did not demonstrate the landlord had effectively monitored the repair need or considered the importance of advanced communication regarding the delays. This was not consistent with the landlord’s repairs guide.
17. Furthermore, the landlord’s stage 1 response upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £20 compensation for the identified service failure. While it was appropriate for the landlord to take steps to put things right, it made no commitment to keep the resident informed. This did not demonstrate the landlord had learned from the complaint.
18. The landlord’s stage 2 response followed a similar approach to its stage 1. It acknowledged it was considering options due to obsolete parts. And said it was experiencing difficulties sourcing materials. Although these may have been factual statements, its response again demonstrated no learning. While it gave an anticipated completion date of 16 October 2023, the landlord had opportunity to apologise, explain why it had need to change its repair timescales, and demonstrate how it would improve its communication to prevent similar situations happening again. That it did not, did nothing to rebuild the resident’s confidence in its services.
19. The landlord’s records show it had made safe the damages to the doors and windows within its emergency response times. However, there is no evidence of communication, other than its complaint responses, that it sent to update the resident while they remained damaged throughout March to October 2023. Although the landlord has provided evidence of ongoing discussions internally about the obsolete materials, which increased the repair timeframe, it has demonstrated no effort to relay this information to the resident. This was not consistent with the landlord’s repairs guide.
20. Furthermore, given his repeated comments about feeling unsafe, the landlord has not demonstrated any effort to call or visit him to offer any assistance. Simply wishing the resident well in its stage 1 response did not go far enough. This did not demonstrate the landlord gave due regard for the resident, who had previously declared health vulnerabilities to it.
21. In contact with us, the landlord acknowledged that its responsive repair times moved from a routine repair to a bespoke repair. Therefore, increasing its response times in line with its policy. However, it accepted that its communication to the resident regarding these delays was “particularly poor.”
22. When there has been an admission of failure, as is the case here, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our remedies guidance.
23. The landlord accepted its communication fell short. It offered £60 compensation during its internal complaints process (ICP) for the resident’s time and trouble.
24. While this went someway to put things right, it failed to offer redress to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused between March to October 2023 waiting for it to resolve the repair. The landlord failed to achieve its extended responsive repair time and repeatedly missed opportunities to improve its communication. Therefore, its offer did not go far enough to put right the detriment caused to the resident.
25. Based on our findings, we find maladministration. We order the landlord to pay the total sum of £150 compensation for this complaint point.

Complaint handling

26. The landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process. It would acknowledge complaints at stage 1 and 2 of its ICP within 5 working days. At stage 1, it would respond to complaints within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. This was appropriate and in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), 1 April 2022.
27. The landlord’s discretionary compensation document states that it will offer an apology and or compensation up to £150 for poor complaint handling. This is based on the severity of the failure. And it may include consideration for any failure to respond in line with the timeframes set out in its complaints policy.
28. The Code states landlords must respond to a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. There are exceptions when landlords may provide an explanation to the resident having a clear timeframe for when they will receive a response. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. If the landlord requires an extension beyond 10 working days to enable it to respond to the complaint fully, it should agree this with the resident.
29. The resident complained on 18 July 2023. It was therefore reasonable for him to expect an acknowledgement by 25 July 2023 and a stage 1 response by 1 August 2023. We have been unable to identify from the evidence supplied how or when the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint, if at all. We have therefore been unable to accurately assess how the landlord initially communicated with the resident.
30. The landlord’s stage 1 response refers to the resident complaining on 21 July 2023. This was inaccurate and did not demonstrate effective record keeping of the resident’s communications.
31. Furthermore, its stage 1 response was 4 working days late. This was not appropriate and not consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code.
32. The resident escalated his complaint on 23 August 2023. He should therefore have received an acknowledgement by 30 August 2023 and a stage 2 response no later than 20 September 2023. We have again been unable to identify how or when the landlord acknowledged this request. This was not appropriate.
33. Furthermore, the landlord sent its stage 2 response 14 working days late. There is no evidence the landlord discussed or agreed an extension date with the resident in advance. Therefore, the landlord’s complaint handling was not consistent with its complaints policy or the expectations of the Code.
34. At stage 1, the landlord apologised for its late response. It was therefore aware of its failure to meet its policy response times. Furthermore, even though the landlord remained satisfied with its handling of the resident’s complaint, it also sent its stage 2 response 14 working days late. It offered no apology for this service failure. This did not demonstrate any learning by the landlord. It is therefore reasonable that the resident describes experiencing distress and inconvenience waiting for a response.
35. While the detriment of the delays may have been minimal, the resident had informed the landlord at each stage of the effects the matter was having on his mental health. The landlord had opportunity to restore the resident’s confidence in its service. By not acknowledging these failures it did not achieve this.
36. Based on our findings, we find maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. We order it to pay £100 compensation. This is consistent with our remedies guidance when we do not consider an apology alone proportionate redress.

Determination

37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the building’s communal windows and doors.
38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

39. We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 working weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £250 compensation. This is made up of:
       1. £150 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the building’s communal windows and doors. The landlord may deduct £60 offered during its ICP, if already paid.
       2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

40. We recommend that the landlord contacts the resident to ensure that its health and vulnerability records accurately reflect the resident’s current circumstances.