Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202326319)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326319

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

20 June 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:
1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about security issues, including the use of CCTV and the attendance of the landlord’s security contractors.
2. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of communal repairs and maintenance.
3. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries.
4. the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a 2 bedroom flat. Part of the building is connected to another which is managed by a different housing provider. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident however it has noted that she has brought to its attention the impact the situation has had on her mental health.
In March 2022, the resident asked that the landlord provide an explanation of her service charges particularly in relation to the “waking watch”, night patrol service. The landlord did not respond to her query. On 7 September 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She explained she was unhappy paying charges for services which she felt were inadequate. In particular, she said that:
1. external cleaning was insufficient. She had seen vomit left on the side of the building which had not been cleaned by visiting contractors.
2. repairs were completed to a poor standard and there appeared to be no quality controls in place. She provided examples of where she felt the landlord’s attempts to remove graffiti had been poor.
3. there were issues with anti social behaviour (ASB) and trespass in the building. She said she had reported an issue via the ASB section of the landlord’s website but had not had a response.
4. the door closers for the fire doors were incorrect in size, causing extensive damage to the walls. Communal carpets were also in a poor condition.
5. she did not believe that the CCTV was working, and wanted to know why it had been included within her service charge.
6. she believed that its security contractors who were on night patrols were falsifying visit logs and she had collated evidence to demonstrate this.
On 26 October 2023 the landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 response. It apologised for the delay in responding to her, and broke down all of her concerns into 22 points. It said it was partially upholding her complaint as there were aspects which demonstrated a shortfall in its service. This included that there had been a failure of its night patrol security contractors to evidence compliance with their contract, and as a result she could expect a reduction in her service charges. The landlord advised that all repair works she had raised in her complaint had been scheduled for completion, although it recognised some had gone past the expected 28 day response time. It offered the resident £100 for the time she had spent chasing a response to her queries, and £50 for its complaint handling failures.
The resident responded to the landlord on 10 November 2023 and said the response it had provided was “factually incorrect”. For example, it had assured her that remedial works had started but they hadn’t, and the frequency of the night patrol visits had not improved. The landlord acknowledged her request for an escalation to her complaint on 23 November 2023.
In its final response on 14 February 2024, the landlord said it upheld her complaint. It acknowledged that there were some aspects of the Stage 1 response that were incorrect and its communication could have been better. It reassured her that a meeting with security contractors was due to take place on 22 February 2024 and a walkaround with the local safer neighbourhood team (SNT) had been scheduled for 27 February 2024. It apologised that it had failed to complete all of the outstanding remedial works and said it recognised there were “areas for improvement”. It offered her a further £150 in compensation for time and trouble, and £150 for poor complaint handling.
The resident approached the Ombudsman in March 2024. She explained that there were several elements of her complaint she felt remained outstanding, including ongoing concerns about the security contractor. She also said that despite assurances made by the landlord, repair works to the internal doors were yet to be completed. As a resolution, she wanted a full reimbursement of her service charges related to CCTV and security patrols, and compensation for the physical and mental distress she had experienced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has stated that, if the landlord cannot provide evidence of the security contractor meeting its obligations, or that the CCTV had been operational since 2016, she wants the landlord to fully reimburse her service charges. While the Ombudsman can order a landlord to pay compensation for the standard of service that residents are being charged for, we cannot consider the reasonableness of variable service charges themselves, nor order a landlord to directly reimburse a resident their service charges. If the resident wishes for the reasonableness of her service charges to be considered, she is recommended to approach the First Tier Tribunal service (FTT).
The resident has expressed the impact the situation has had on her physical and mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the impact the situation has had on the resident. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, the impact on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury, or damage to health, their investigation and requests for compensation are not part of the complaints process and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts, via the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. We can however consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about security issues, including the use of CCTV and the attendance of the landlord’s security contractors.

The resident has advised that she first notified the landlord of issues related to youths congregating and concerns about trespassers via the ASB section of the landlord’s website around 29 August 2023. In accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy, the resident could have expected a response from the landlord within 5 working days. However, there is no evidence that it contacted the resident about her concerns, which caused her to complain on 7 September 2023. In responding to her complaint, there is no evidence that the landlord explored whether there was a technical issue with the ASB section of the website which was inappropriate.
Within its weekly complaint update to the resident on 16 October 2023, the landlord told the resident that “all ASB concerns were being managed” however it provided no reassurance of what specific steps it was taking to address the issue, including whether it was working in partnership with the local police to tackle the issue. Given that the resident had reported “living in fear” it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered completing a risk assessment and formulating an action plan, so that it could manage the resident’s expectations about how it intended to address the issue.
The resident explained that her “primary concern” was the wider building security which she felt was encouraging the ASB. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to her concerns that the CCTV was “fake” and not functioning. The landlord provided the Ombudsman with evidence of the CCTV being tested during a routine inspection from a specialist contractor on 12 September 2022. The report indicated that there were no issues or faults identified with the system. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the CCTV system was fully functional, until it was later found to have been vandalised in August 2023.
The landlord was first notified that the CCTV was vandalised on 1 September 2023. It is not disputed that the landlord’s communication with the resident about what had happened to the CCTV was inconsistent, first advising her within its stage 1 response that it had been “stolen from the office” before clarifying it had been vandalised in a cupboard housing the equipment. The landlord made an apology for the confusion it had caused which was reasonable.
The landlord’s policy does not specify an expected timeframe for repairs required to CCTV, and it is accepted that the landlord needed to consider the viability of the equipment given its age and overall condition. In addition, the landlord needed to take into consideration the repair to the broken door which housed the CCTV equipment which was reasonable. However the landlord’s records demonstrate that there were considerable delays in sourcing a suitable door which delayed the repair by approximately 5 months, and the CCTV itself was not reinstalled until 22 April 2024. The delay was unreasonable and contributed to the resident’s feeling of insecurity during the time the CCTV was unavailable.
Although there is evidence that the resident requested a breakdown of her service charges for night patrols in March 2022, no records were seen that she brought her specific concerns about the behaviour of landlord’s contractors until she made her complaint on 7 September 2023. The landlord has a specific document entitled the “control of contractors procedures”. Within this document it explains that it will promote good communication with its contractors through formal contract meetings with minutes and actions. Evidence provided by the landlord demonstrates it had been holding quarterly meetings with the contractor throughout 2023 which was appropriate.
Once it had been alleged by the resident that the visit documents were falsified, the landlord took prompt steps to escalate its concerns to the contractor which was appropriate. In October 2023 the landlord requested that the contractor supply more robust evidence of visits through use of a digital device which required physical activation at various points throughout the building. It also requested photographic evidence of the contractor on each floor of the building at various points throughout the night. This was a reasonable suggestion and evidenced that the landlord was committed to ensuring that its contractors were attending the building in accordance with their obligations.
Records show that between November 2023 and April 2024 the landlord has been in more regular monthly contact with its contractor about their performance and the functionality of the digital devices. It is appropriate that the landlord has allowed the contractor the opportunity to evidence its attendance and improve its service before it considers taking more robust steps in reviewing the long term contract. It is evidenced in recent meetings that the landlord is holding the contractor to account for the alleged non-attendances and has confirmed to the resident that it will not pass on service charges where attendance cannot be evidenced which is appropriate.
Since the conclusion of the resident’s complaint, the landlord held a residents’ meeting on 18 April 2024. It provided updates with regards to the use of the digital device and the periods of time that payments have been withheld due to lack of evidence of contractor attendance, reassuring residents they would not be recharged. It has also demonstrated partnership working with the local police who have agreed to daily patrols in the area and encouraged reporting of ASB. The Ombudsman welcomes open communication with the residents about security and recommends that these residents meetings continue with regularity until such time it is confident of the performance of its contractors.
When responding to a resident’s complaint, it is important that any actions a landlord agrees to as part of its redress are realistic and actioned as promised. In this case, the landlord’s final complaint response said that it had opened a new ASB case for the resident and she could expect fortnightly contact about her concerns. It is noted that in recent correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident has expressed that the fortnightly contact the landlord promised has not been maintained. The landlord has not provided any evidence of recent contact with the resident, which is unreasonable.
It is not disputed that the landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident about her initial concerns of ASB and the functionality of the CCTV system. Although the landlord did not specify within its complaint responses which particular aspect of her complaint it attributed a total of £250 in compensation for time and trouble, if applied in the context of how it responded to the resident’s concerns about security, the amount offered was consistent with its compensation policy. The Ombudsman considers this was a reasonable and sufficient offer of compensation for this specific element of her complaint at the time of its final response.
Overall, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about security issues, including the use of CCTV and the attendance of the landlord’s security contractors. Although it is recognised that the landlord has taken sufficient steps to address the resident’s concerns about CCTV and its security patrols, it has not evidenced that it has fully addressed her ASB report concerns. For example, it has not explained how it has investigated her concerns about the ASB section of its website and it has not maintained fortnightly contact, despite promising to do when concluding her complaint. An order has been made for the landlord to test the ASB webpage functionality and make contact the resident to discuss her more recent concerns.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of communal repairs and maintenance

The evidence does not demonstrate that the resident brought to the landlord’s attention her concerns about communal repairs, prior to making her complaint. As a result, the landlord considered 13 items to be “service requests” before focussing its complaint response on the more prominent of the resident’s concerns about works relating to the communal fire safety doors and cleaning. This was an appropriate approach for the landlord to take, as it was reasonable for it to have the opportunity to resolve the majority of the resident’s initial repair requests in line with its repair policy.
Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to her dissatisfaction that she had seen vomit on the outside brickwork of the building. The landlord responded swiftly to the resident’s concerns, and contacted its cleaning contractor in a timely manner. It explained to the resident that despite there being no specific clause in the contract about cleaning the brickwork, its contractors had agreed to do so and monitor the area on their subsequent visits. This was reasonable approach and demonstrated a willingness to put matters right for the resident.
It is clear that between being notified of and responding to the resident’s complaint, its complaint officer liaised with the repairs department about the progress of repairs and the resident was provided with weekly updates, which was appropriate. Among concerns raised by the resident were issues relating to the interconnecting doors which connected one building to another. She alleged that the doors were allowing “trespassers” to move freely between the buildings, causing her to be concerned about fire safety. The landlord updated the resident that it upon investigating her concerns, it had identified that the doors had been vandalised and had arranged for the first safety team to visit within 5 working days, which was appropriate.
In the event that there are two housing providers who have responsibility for specific areas of the building, as was the situation in this instance, the landlord should maintain accurate and easily accessible records which make it clear to its staff which party is responsible for what area of the building. In this case, the landlord’s communication was unclear. In its stage 1 response, it informed the resident that the “fault lies with [the landlord]”. However records show that 3 working days after its response, it had established that aspects relating to the fire alarm triggering system which was connected to the doors, was the responsibility of the other housing provider. The landlord failed to update the resident of its error in a timely manner. As a result the original information it had provided mismanaged her expectations, causing the resident frustration and confusion.
Once the landlord had established that the fire alarm triggering system was the responsibility of the other housing provider to repair, internal records from its repair logs show that it was proactive in liaising with the other provider to discuss its concerns. It arranged for a joint walk around of the building on 31 October 2023, and included the local authority ASB team because of the associated concerns about trespassing. This action was appropriate and demonstrated good partnership working. Records show the landlord continued to contact the other housing provider regularly for an update on the repair, which was appropriate. The landlord kept the resident updated of its actions within its stage 2 response, which was appropriate.
With the exception of the fire alarm triggering system, the responsibility for fixing the interconnecting fire doors was with the landlord. The landlord’s repair policy does not stipulate a specific timeframe for which it will repair communal doors or entry systems. However, the landlord’s responsibilities under the landlord and tenant act 1985 are to carry out repairs within a reasonable timeframe of having been notified of the problem. In this instance, the repair to the interconnecting door was not resolved until 9 April 2024, approximately 7 months after it first became aware of the issue. The delay was unreasonable and contributed to the resident’s feeling of worry and distress.
The resident had additional concerns about the communal repairs which she brought to the landlord’s attention as part of her complaint. These included issues with the fire door closing mechanisms, a broken lock on the bin stores and making good the communal areas following the leak. It is not disputed that the landlord was delayed in completing these repairs within the expected 28 day timeframe in accordance with its repairs policy. The landlord acknowledged its shortcomings within its final complaint response and accepted that the resident had experienced time and trouble chasing it between complaint responses.
However, as referenced in paragraph 20 of this report, it was not clear which aspect of the resident’s complaint the landlord offered to compensate for time and trouble. This investigation has assumed that the total of £250 was fair and reasonable for its failures in relation to how it handled the resident’s security concerns. This being the case, the landlord did not go far enough to compensate the resident for the time and trouble she experienced in chasing concerns with regards to communal repairs and maintenance. Therefore further compensation has been ordered in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which better reflects the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced during the time the landlord was delayed in completing the communal repairs.
In responding to a complaint, landlords should adopt the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In this case whilst the landlord acknowledged its service failure, it failed to make an appropriate offer of compensation to the resident in recognition of the time and trouble she had experienced in bringing the repairs to the landlord’s attention. Furthermore, whilst its complaint responses were comprehensive, it is not clear what learning it took from the resident’s complaint to ensure that it was proactive in monitoring overdue repairs in the future. As a result, a finding of service failure has been found in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of communal repairs and maintenance.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries.

Records show that the resident first queried the level of her service charges with the landlord on 17 March 2022. Although the landlord acknowledged her query, it failed to provide her with a response to her concerns. As a result, she had to chase it’s service charge team for a response on approximately 4 further occasions causing her time, trouble and inconvenience.
In her complaint, the resident explained that she remained unhappy with the service she was paying for and asked for a breakdown of her charges again, requesting that it detailed each one under each service heading. Landlords should have appropriate mechanisms in place to record contact with residents across a number of departments. The landlord’s assertion that she had not yet approached the service charge team caused the resident evident frustration which was further compounded when she was asked to evidence when she had contacted them. The onus should not have been on the resident to have evidenced her initial communication with the landlord. Its failure to take ownership was unreasonable and contributed to the her feeling that it was not taking her concerns seriously.
Aspects of the resident’s concerns about her service charge relate to whether she would be charged for the period of time the CCTV was not in use, or where it was evidenced that the security patrol did not attend the building in line with their contractual obligations. The resident was given suitable advice by the landlord in respect of both failures in service. Although the landlord does not have a specific service charge policy which sets out what it will do in these circumstances, the resident was assured she would not be charged for the period of time it failed to provide evidence of its service, which was appropriate. As explained in paragraph 8 of this investigation, the resident is advised to approach the FTT if she remains dissatisfied with the charges.
In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. In this case, the landlord acknowledged that it had not responded to her earlier communication and apologised for its oversight. It provided her with assurance that the matter had been escalated to the appropriate team. It gave her a specific timeframe for the next steps which was reasonable.
Overall, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries. There was a delay between March 2022 and February 2024 in fully to the resident. Whilst the landlord recognised this delay in its stage 2 response, it failed to compensate her for the time and trouble she experienced in chasing an outcome to her concerns. It was not until its final response that the landlord managed the resident’s expectations with regards to a reduction in her service charge and it was delayed in signposting her to the FTT and Leasehold Advisory Service. It is noted from recent correspondence with the landlord that it is currently in the process of designing a service charge policy. It is anticipated that this will help improve services to residents in the future.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Records show that in the weeks prior to responding to her complaint at stage 1, the landlord was in regular contact with the resident and explained that it required an extension in order to respond to her complaint. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time explained that a landlord was able to extend its complaint response time beyond 20 working days, so long as the extension was fully agreed by both parties, as was in this case. Evidence demonstrates that the landlord was open in its communication with the resident about the delays, and provided her with the Ombudsman’s details if she had concerns about the timeless of its response, which was appropriate.
In addition to communicating that there was likely to be a delay in responding to her complaint at stage 1, the landlord agreed to provide the resident with weekly updates to her concerns. Evidence demonstrates that it largely did so, however it missed a communication on the week commencing 16 October 2023. In responding to the resident with its formal stage 1 response on 26 October 2023, the landlord made an appropriate apology for the delay she had experienced. It offered her £50 in compensation for its service failure in accordance with its compensation policy. The amount offered was reasonable to its complaint handling failures at that time.
It is understood that there were several aspects to the resident’s complaint which required the input from a number of different departments. Records show that the landlord’s complaint officer was in contact with the resident to establish the full extent of her concerns before communicating regularly with colleagues in the respective teams. To demonstrate that it had fully understood all aspects of the resident’s complaint, the landlord broke her complaint response down into 22 points. Its response was comprehensive and demonstrated a commitment to ensure that each of the resident’s concerns were addressed in detail.
The landlord acknowledged that the situation was having an effect on the resident’s mental health. In its formal response, the landlord demonstrated empathy towards the resident. It apologised for the impact the situation was having on her and provided reassurance that it was willing to refer her to its assessment and support team, should she feel that she needed it. This was a proactive response which demonstrated compassion towards the resident.
It is accepted by the landlord that aspects of the stage 1 response contained some factual inaccuracies. This caused the resident evident frustration and prompted her to request an escalation of her complaint on 10 November 2023. The landlord failed to promptly acknowledge this request, and its final response was significantly delayed. A stage 2 complaint response did not follow until 14 February 2024, approximately 46 working days outside of the timescale expected in accordance with its complaint policy.
The delay was unreasonable and caused the resident inconvenience and distress. The landlord acknowledged that its communication was insufficient and made an apology for the delay which was appropriate. The £150 it offered the resident as compensation for its service failures was reasonable and in accordance with its compensation policy.
When the resident requested an escalation to her complaint, she made it clear to the landlord that she had 9 specific points she was dissatisfied with and required detail responses to. Whilst the landlord responded to the majority of her points, it listed only 7 points of response. As a result, it failed to address each point the resident had raised in full, leaving her feeling as though it had not understood the full extent of her concerns. Given the amount of time that had passed between her request for an escalation and responding to the resident, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have referred back to her to clarify these points. By failing to do so, it missed an opportunity to ensure it had fully concluded the resident’s concerns.
Overall, there was a service failure within the landlord’s complaints handling. The resident experienced delays throughout the complaint process, which the landlord acknowledged and appropriately compensated her for. However it missed an opportunity to fully respond to each of her highlighted points of dissatisfaction in its final response. In doing so, it failed to conclude her complaint and as a result did not take sufficient learning from her experience to improve its complaint handling service in the future.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about security issues, including the use of CCTV and the attendance of the landlord’s security contractors.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of communal repairs and maintenance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failures noted within this report, within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £750. The amount is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears, within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The amount is comprised of:
1. a total of £450 in compensation that it offered the resident during its complaint process, if not already paid.
2. An additional £50 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in the landlord’s handling of her ASB concerns.
3. An additional £100 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident in the landlord’s handling of her reports of communal repairs and maintenance.
4. An additional £100 in recognition of the time and trouble caused the resident in the landlord’s handling of her service charge queries.
5. An additional £50 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in the landlord’s handing of her associated complaint.
The landlord is ordered to investigate and confirm that the ASB reporting section of its website is functioning correctly. An update to be provided to both the resident and the Ombudsman, within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord is ordered to contact the resident to discuss her most recent concerns about ASB. In doing so, it should conduct a RAM and action plan, within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord is ordered to provide an explanation to both the resident and the Ombudsman how it will monitor outstanding repairs to ensure that they are seen through to conclusion. The explanation to be provided within 4 week of the date of this report.
The landlord is ordered to update the resident and the Ombudsman of its progress with regards to publishing its service charge policy, within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord is ordered to report back on its intention with regards to the recommendation below, within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

As referenced in paragraph 18 of this report, it is recommended that the landlord maintain regular resident’s meetings until such time it is confident of the performance of its night patrol contractors.