Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202410220)

Background

1. The resident has lived in the 2-bedroomed house since 2008. She reported 2 leaks from her bathroom which went through the living room ceiling.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks and associated repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to leaks and associated repairs.
5. The landlord offered reasonable redress for the complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. In summary, we found the landlord:
   1. did not complete the repairs in line with its policies.
   2. did not communicate effectively with the resident throughout.
   3. provided redress which was sufficient to put right the impact on the resident for its failings identified in its complaint handling.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. The resident reported a leak from the bathroom that was going through the living room ceiling. A contractor completed a temporary repair the same day and completed follow on work on 12 January 2024, 2 days later. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s repair policy which states it will either complete a repair or carry out a temporary “make safe” repair within 24 hours of the report.
8. On 28 March 2024 the resident reported a chip in the bath, and a leak from the toilet and basin. The landlord assigned the repair to a contractor, but a month later the resident had to chase the landlord for an update. The repair was cancelled as the contractor failed to attend. The landlord arranged an appointment for 2 May 2024, 2 months after the initial report. The contractor completed a temporary repair to the bath on 3 May 2024 and recommended a replacement. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the recommendation made. This was not reasonable as it did not try to provide a permanent resolution.
9. On 26 June 2024, following a transition to an in-house repair team, the landlord asked if a site visit was needed to inspect the leak under the bath, and from the toilet and basin and to inspect the living room ceiling. Its records confirm it repeatedly chased a response through to 11 July 2024. While it is noted the landlord was going through a period of change, the delay in internal communication was not reasonable and led to a continuation of the leak and distress and inconvenience to the resident.
10. An order was raised on 17 July 2024 to complete the repairs in the bathroom. The records state the contractor repaired the toilet and basin on 31 July 2024, and further repairs were raised to remove the bath to check for leaks, and the decoration of the living room ceiling. These repairs were due to be completed by 6 September 2024.
11. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord apologised for the delays in the repairs and the lack of communication throughout. It identified a lack of evidence which hindered its investigation and offered £375 compensation for the service failures associated with the repair. This was appropriate at the time and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for missed appointments and not following its repair timescales. Furthermore, the landlord asked the resident to provide evidence of her loss of earnings so it could consider a reimbursement. This was in line with its policy.
12. The resident escalated her complaint on 14 September 2024 as the bathroom repairs and decoration had not been completed by the date confirmed. The landlord raised a further order, and the bath was replaced on 17 October 2024, 5 months after it was first recommended. Furthermore, although the landlord confirmed the living room would be decorated after the bathroom repairs, this was not completed for a further 8 months.  This was not appropriate and not in line with its repair policy.
13. Considering the above, we find service failure. It is acknowledged the landlord increased its compensation offer to £475 in its final complaint response, however as the substantive issues of the decoration were not completed within a reasonable time, we are unable to find reasonable redress.
14. Following our request for evidence, the landlord advised it reviewed this case taking into consideration its changes to its complaints and remedy policy. As a result, it said it would like to increase the compensation offer to £735 for the repair failures. The landlord highlighted further failures in its management of the repairs and identified learning to prevent these happening again. These included reviewing the process for diagnosing leaks to improve detection quicker, implementing a new system to track cases more effectively, and an enhanced oversight into contractor service delivery.
15. Considering the additional delays in completing the repairs in full, we find the landlord’s reviewed offer of compensation to be fair and reasonable. While this will not change our overall finding, we have made an order for the landlord to pay this amount to the resident.

16. The resident complained to the landlord on 2 May 2024. It sent an initial email the same day advising it would contact her again by 9 May 2024, however it did not acknowledge the complaint until 16 May 2024 when it confirmed the reasons for the complaint and the resident’s desired outcome. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with its complaint policy which states it would acknowledge receipt of a complaint within 5 working days of receipt.
17. Between 29 May 2024 and 7 August 2024, the landlord extended the response deadline 6 times, each time by 10 working days stating it was waiting for the contractor to confirm the appointment date. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to escalate this issue internally to obtain a response sooner than it did so it could respond to the resident. There is no evidence it did this.
18. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 12 August 2024, 70 working days from the acknowledgement. This was not appropriate. It was not in line with the complaint policy which states it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. Furthermore, it was not in line with our Code which states an extension at stage 1 of the process must be no more than 10 working days.
19. The landlord recognised the delay in the response and offered £220 compensation. This was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy for a failure to follow policy and for time and trouble. Although the landlord’s acknowledgement confirmed all the complaint reasons, the response did not address or respond to the increase in water bills. Considering the time the resident waited for the response, this is likely to have caused further frustration.
20. The resident escalated her complaint on 14 September 2024. The landlord acknowledged it on 16 September 2024 and provided its final complaint response on 8 October 2024, 16 working days later. The landlord’s responses were appropriate and in line with its policy.
21. The landlord’s response focussed on the repair history and its actions moving forward. While this was reasonable, it missed a final opportunity to address the matter of the increased water bills and additional compensation that was requested by the resident. The landlord did not demonstrate a full understanding of the complaint and the impact the leak had on the resident. This was not reasonable.
22. In summary, the landlord acknowledged the delays and inconvenience to the resident and offered appropriate compensation. This was also in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where there was no permanent impact on the resident and where the landlord has acknowledged its failings and made an attempt to put things right. As such a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate.
23. As per the landlord’s review of the case, it said it would like to revise the compensation offer to £350 for the complaint handling. It said it would also consider the costs incurred for additional water usage and reimbursement for damages if the resident could provide evidence. The landlord provided us with the learning taken to improve its complaint handling. This includes improved communication channels between departments to expedite complaint resolution and minimise the need for extensions, implementing checklists for each complaint stage, improved guidance and staff training.
24. The landlord’s review will not change our finding, however we have made a recommendation for it to pay the resident the additional compensation suggested.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. We expect landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. The failure to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.

Communication

26. We expect landlords to complete repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, we expect landlords to be proactive in communicating the cause of delays to residents and explaining what it intends to do about the delays.