Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202411398)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202411398

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTVH)

9 July 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

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. a repair to the shower curtain pole.
    2. the conduct of a contractor’s operative.
    3. a missed appointment.
    4. outstanding repairs.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident lives with her 3 children. The resident advised one of her children has a lung condition. The landlord’s records show it was aware that one of the resident’s children had a health condition as it had received a letter from the child’s GP. The resident advised she moved to the property in an emergency as a victim of domestic abuse.
  2. Since the resident’s tenancy started on 7 July 2022, the resident had frequently chased the landlord to action some outstanding repairs. The resident raised her complaint on 1 March 2023. The complaint was about a repair to fix the shower curtain pole but instead when the operative arrived, he worked on the shower head. The resident was dissatisfied that the work had been raised incorrectly and about the conduct of the operative.
  3. On 5 April 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said due to the altercation between the resident and the operative that the internal contractor advised no further operatives would attend the property to complete any work. The landlord stated a meeting had taken place with the resident, the internal contractor, and the landlord to discuss repairs and acceptable behaviour. An appointment had been booked for an inspection of the resident’s property on 6 April 2023. The landlord said it was partially upholding the resident’s complaint and awarded £20 compensation. The resident escalated her complaint on 5 April 2023. She said the compensation was too low given the history of the issues she had experienced and how she had been affected.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 June 2023. It acknowledged the inspection on 6 April 2023 did not go ahead and said this was because the officer had a family emergency. The inspection had been rebooked for 27 April 2023 and works were raised after this visit. It said the works were booked in for 18 May 2023, but were not completed. This work was then rebooked in for 8 and 9 June 2023. The landlord said the compensation offered was in line with its policy but now there had been another missed appointment it awarded an extra £50 compensation.
  5. The resident contacted this Service on 31 July 2023. She felt the severity of her complaints had been dismissed and had not been dealt with appropriately. The resident requested the Ombudsman investigate her complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a repair to the shower curtain pole.

  1. The resident raised a complaint on 1 March 2023 when an appointment took place for work on her shower curtain pole. However, the operative who attended worked on the shower head instead of the shower curtain pole. The evidence showed the landlord stated, “looks like we have got the description wrong”. Work order notes stated the work order was for the shower curtain pole, but the operative was asked to attend for a leak. This was a mistake from the landlord which caused the resident frustration. It also caused the resident inconvenience as the repair was not completed that day and another appointment was needed. It is the Ombudsman’s view, that the landlord should have ensured the operative was correctly briefed for the job. Unnecessary work on the shower head could have been prevented if on arrival the operative had discussed the repair need with the resident.
  2. In its stage 1 response the landlord did not acknowledge its error regarding the appointment. This was inappropriate and unreasonable. The landlord should have identified what went wrong and why and acknowledged its failings. The landlord did acknowledge the time and trouble the resident experienced as it awarded the resident £20 compensation for time and trouble. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. The resident was unhappy with the level of compensation awarded. While the Ombudsman is mindful of the scale of the problems the resident had experienced, this award of compensation was specific to the one complaint she had made about the appointment regarding the shower curtain pole and not the wider problems. Considering the above, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress as there had been a mistake, but the landlord awarded compensation in line with its policy. The landlord has already applied this compensation to the resident’s rent account.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the conduct of a contractor’s operative.

  1. The landlord’s contractor’s site rules arrangements states “Any worker who acts in an insulting, aggressive, offensive or prejudicial manner toward client representatives, neighbours adjacent to the works, members of the public or other persons affected by the works will be immediately excluded from the site. If a complaint is received about behaviour of a contractor their staff or their sub-contractors, these will be investigated”.
  2. The resident complained about the behaviour and attitude of the operative that attended the property when she raised that he was working on the wrong item. This resulted in counter allegations against the resident from the operative and the internal contractor refused to send further operatives to the property to complete repairs. This was an unfair approach when the resident had experienced so many problems with repairs and it was one person’s word against another’s. On the 13 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to say she had downloaded the CCTV from the incident, but the landlord stated, “please do not worry about sending the CCTV footage through”. This was unfair as the resident told the landlord that the footage showed her as “nothing but calm and respectful”. This was also unreasonable as this would have been a key piece of evidence for the landlord’s investigation regarding the complaint.
  3. The resident advised in her email of 13 March 2023 that she had previously requested male operatives do not attend her property alone as she had been a victim of domestic abuse and had mental health problems. She said she had experienced “numerous issues of the exact same nature” with previous operatives’ conduct. The resident said it was agreed that operatives would attend in twos. She advised this only happened once. The landlord did not provide any evidence to this Service regarding accompanied appointments. Therefore, this Service was unable to establish if this was agreed. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Attitudes, Respect & Rights states “Landlords’ approach to vulnerabilities is vital, including the need to recognise, adjust and respond to their residents’ individual circumstances”, however. It is thus the Ombudsman’s view that sending operatives in twos to attend the resident’s property would have been a reasonable and appropriate customer-focused approach.
  4. On 31 March 2023 the landlord held a meeting with the resident and the internal contractor to address the issues which was reasonable, and resolution focused. However, this was a whole month after the incident which meant a further delay for the resident to get a resolution and her repairs progressed. The landlord advised in its stage 1 response that the meeting had addressed acceptable behaviour of residents and contractors and discussed the repairs that had been completed and those that were outstanding. The landlord said timing of the repairs were discussed and whether the local housing manager should attend repairs appointments. An inspection of the resident’s property was booked for 6 April 2023.
  5. This Service has not seen any notes from this meeting. Therefore, we have been unable to establish what was decided in the meeting about the repairs and accompanied appointments. The stage 1 response did not provide this information, it only advised what was spoken about and not the decisions made. It would have been appropriate for this information to have been included in the stage 1 response, so it was on record for both parties what had been decided.
  6. Considering the above, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the conduct of a contractor’s operative. This is because the landlord did not view the CCTV footage which may have been key evidence. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have documented the decisions from the meeting in its stage 1 response, but it did not do this. Therefore, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to award £100 in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a missed appointment.

  1. To establish the repairs that remained outstanding, an inspection of the resident’s property was arranged for 6 April 2023. However, this appointment did not go ahead, and the resident was not advised of the cancellation. The resident raised this with the landlord and expressed the inconvenience it caused. She felt things were “beyond a joke at this point”. In its stage 2 response the landlord stated the appointment was not attended because the operative had a family emergency. The appointment was rearranged for 27 April 2023. The Ombudsman appreciates unforeseen circumstances arise. However, this unfortunately resulted in a 3-week delay for the inspection and therefore further delays in the resident’s repairs being addressed.
  2. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for the missed appointment, and it awarded the resident £50 compensation. This was £10 for the missed appointment and £40 for time and trouble. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. While the evidence showed the resident had experienced several missed appointments, the Ombudsman notes this complaint was regarding the missed appointment on 6 April 2023. Considering the above, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress as there had been a failing, but the landlord apologised and awarded compensation in line with its policy. The landlord has already applied this compensation to the resident’s rent account.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs.

  1. The resident’s tenancy states the landlord’s repair obligations include maintaining “the structure and outside of the property”. This includes walls and doors. The landlord’s repair obligations in the tenancy agreement also includes maintaining “any installations that we provide for space heating, water heating, sanitation and supplying water, gas and electricity”. This includes toilets. The landlord also has repair obligations under section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  2. “A guide to repair responsibilities in your home” is issued to residents by the landlord and lists the landlord’s repair categories and response times. Emergency repairs are defined by the landlord as “any repair that may cause significant risk to the safety of our tenants, or significant damage to the property” and are addressed within 24 hours. Routine repairs are explained as “If a repair is not an emergency, it will generally be a routine appointment” and it states “every effort will be made to complete the repair within 28 calendar days (or 20 working days) of you contacting us”. Non-routine repairs are defined as a repair that “will take longer than the routine period due to complexity, materials needed, or considerations needed for the safety of our operatives (for example, if they will be working at heights). In this case, we will give the contractor a 90-day period instead of the routine period”.
  3. The landlord advised in its stage 2 response that an inspection of the resident’s property took place on 27 April 2023. After this inspection the landlord raised work orders for a mould wash in 2 rooms, the front door to be repaired and a new toilet to be installed. However, these were issues that the resident had reported many months prior, but the landlord had not progressed them. The resident should not have needed to have raised multiple complaints and have repeatedly contacted the landlord to get these progressed. This was unfair and unreasonable.
  4. In its stage 2 response the landlord advised that the work should have taken place on 18 May 2023, but it was “unable to complete the necessary work on that day”. The landlord did not clarify why the work was not completed as planned on 18 May 2023. It should have explained the reason why in its response. The work was then booked in for 8 and 9 June 2023 which meant the resident experienced a further delay of 15 working days.
  5. The landlord said the mould wash would take place on 8 and 9 June 2023. This was 98 working days after the resident had reported damp and mould in the property on 17 January 2023. When the resident raised her concerns about damp and mould in the property on this date, the landlord booked an inspection for 19 January 2023. This was appropriate and in line with its publicised response to damp and mould as referenced on its website which advised of a response within 5 working days. However, this inspection did not take place. The evidence did not show why this inspection was cancelled but showed that the resident chased the landlord about this on 17 February and 23 February 2023. The resident said the operative who was due to attend had told her they would rebook with her but had not.
  6. The delay in contacting the resident to rebook the damp and mould inspection was not appropriate. This is because damp and mould is classed as a hazard under The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and the resident had already advised of her child’s breathing problems. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould states “Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue”.
  7. The landlord advised in its stage 2 complaint that a new toilet would be fitted on 8 and 9 June 2023. The evidence showed the resident had repeatedly chased the landlord about this since her tenancy started on 7 July 2022. The front door repairs were also booked in for 8 and 9 June 2023. This was 167 working days after records showed the resident had chased the landlord regarding repairs to the front door. This was an inappropriate and unreasonable length of time for the resident to have waited for the repair to be raised and actioned by the landlord.
  8. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration. To reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the reports of outstanding repairs to her property, the landlord should award the resident £600 in compensation. This is because of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and the length of time it took for the landlord to address the repairs. This amount is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which indicates that the Ombudsman may require the landlord to award such an amount where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident. The landlord is ordered to issue an apology to the resident and carry out a review of its approach towards victims of domestic abuse in relation to repairs visits.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of a repair to the shower curtain pole, the landlord made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of the conduct of a contractor’s operative.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of a missed appointment, the landlord made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports about outstanding repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £700. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to her rent account. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with this order within 4 weeks of the date of this report by submitting a copy of the remittance advice, or equivalent document, to this Service. The compensation is comprised of:
    1. £100 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the conduct of a contractor’s operative.
    2. £600 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about outstanding repairs.
  2. The landlord is ordered to send a written apology to the resident from a senior manager for the failings she has experienced as identified in this report. The letter must acknowledge the detriment and inconvenience experienced. The landlord must provide this Service with a copy of the letter it has sent within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
  3. The landlord is ordered to review its approach towards victims of domestic abuse in relation to repair visits. The review should include an assessment of any reasonable adjustments that the landlord could put in place for those affected by domestic abuse and whether it has existing policies and/or procedures in place that cover domestic abuse. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must provide a report to this Service regarding the above matters to demonstrate that action has been taken to reduce the likelihood of similar failings for victims of domestic abuse.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should assess its internal procedures against the findings of the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Attitudes, Respect & Rights.
  2. The landlord should assess its internal procedures against the recommendations in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould.