Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202331910)

Background

1. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since July 2021. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. From February 2022 onwards the resident reported several times that whenever it rained water would leak into his living room from the flat roof above. The landlord carried out repairs to try and resolve the leak. However, in May 2023 the resident raised a complaint as the leak remained unresolved.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the:
   1. Leak from the roof and subsequent repairs.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its response to the leak from the roof and subsequent repairs.
4. There was service failure by the landlord in relation to its response to the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord failed to enact emergency repairs when it was appropriate. The landlord carried out multiple repairs but failed to enact a lasting repair to the leak. The landlord didn’t keep adequate records of the repairs. It also did not adequately communicate with the resident. The landlord revised the offer made during its complaints process, however as it made this offer a considerable amount of time after the complaints process and its actions have not led to a lasting resolution to the leak, we have made a finding of maladministration.
6. The landlord has made an appropriate offer of compensation for its complaint handling failures. However, as it made this offer a considerable amount of time after the complaints process, we have made a finding of service failure.

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.

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. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is, this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
8. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will carry out emergency repairs within 24 hours of being reported, routine repairs within 20 working days and non-routine repairs within 90 days. The policy also says roof and guttering works can be classed as ether routine or non-routine repairs depending on the particular circumstances of the issue.
9. In the resident’s correspondence he has made reference to historical issues of a leak into the living room since December 2021. We have also noted that when the resident reported the return of the leak on 23 April 2023 he said it had been over a year since his previous complaint about the issue had been closed. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the landlord’s attention within a reasonable period of the issue arising (usually 12 months). This means that, as part of this investigation, we will only consider the landlord’s handling of repairs from May 2022 (12 months before the resident’s complaint in May 2023), up to the point the resident’s complaint completed the landlord’s internal complaints process (21 July 2023). Any events before or after that timeframe may be referred to for context but will not form part of this investigation.
10. On 23 April 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that the leak from the flat above into the living room had returned. The landlord’s records indicate it treated the report as urgent and attended on the same day to carry out a repair to the leak. This was in-line with the landlord’s repairs policy timescales for urgent repairs. The landlord then contacted the resident on 24 April 2023 and said it would inspect the property on 26 April 2023. The records provided by the landlord indicate it did not inspect the property until 2 May 2023 and evidence has not been seen to show that it contacted the resident about the delay. This was unreasonable.
11. Following the inspection of the works on 2 May 2023 the landlord raised an order for the affected area to be plastered and decorated. Its notes also say this order would not have been raised if the leak had not been fixed by the repairs on 23 April 2023. However, the landlord’s stage 2 response and its submissions to this Service dated 10 January 2025 say that it raised a ‘recall of the repair’ following the inspection. The Ombudsman is aware that redecorating works raised around 2 May 2023 were later cancelled because it was found that the leak was still present. However, these 2 documents do not explain which repairs were recalled. As such, they appear to contradict each other with regard to the condition of the repairs found during the inspection. This indicates poor record keeping and information management by the landlord.
12. Clear record keeping is an essential part of providing a repairs service and responding to complaints. It allows a landlord to monitor outstanding works and contractor performance, as well as provide accurate information and an effective service to its residents. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on knowledge and information management sets out that landlords need to have systems in place to maintain accurate records including, but not limited to, resident repair reports, attendances by contractors, notes of inspections, actions taken because of the inspection, details of any complaints received, and its responses to complaints. It is imperative that records are accurate and maintained to keep both the property and the resident safe now and in the future.
13. The resident later reported on 10 May 2023 that the leak had returned in the same area of the living room. The landlord has not provided evidence of it acknowledging the resident’s report. However, its records show that on 16 May and 2 June 2023 it attended and carried out works to the exterior of the building to prevent water ingress. The landlord’s records do not explain why this instance of the reported leak was not treated as urgent and not attended to within 24 hours. Therefore, the Ombudsman can not reasonably conclude that it was appropriate for the landlord not to treat this report as urgent and carry out a temporary repair within 24 hours. That said, the repair works carried out later on were within the repairs policy’s timescales and the records indicate they resolved the leak at the time.
14. The resident made further reports of a leak on 12 and 14 June 2023. The landlord’s notes say that in this instance the leak was containable and therefore it did not treat it as urgent. The landlord’s stage 2 response says it inspected the leak on 7 July 2023 and found a solution. Similarly, the stage 2 response says the landlord had arranged an appointment with the resident on 27 July 2023 to attend with a cherry picker and carry out repairs. However, its records do not mention this inspection and its findings, or the works meant to be carried out on 27 July 2023. This is unreasonable and another instance of poor record keeping by the landlord.
15. Throughout the period considered in this report the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of a leak by carrying out various repairs. In themselves these were reasonable responses to the resident’s reports. The Ombudsman acknowledges that identifying the source of a leak can be highly complex and it can often take multiple visits and attempted repairs before a leak can be resolved.
16. However, the Ombudsman has also not seen evidence to show that the landlord carried out a structural survey of the building to try and identify the root cause of the leak. Given the resident had reported multiple times since December 2021 that the leak had returned in the exact same area despite the previous repairs, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have carried out such a survey. By failing to carry out a structural survey the landlord missed the opportunity to potentially uncover the root cause of the leak and then carry out a full and lasting repair to prevent it returning. As a result of this failing the resident was left in a property with regular leaks for an extended period of time. This caused them distress, inconvenience and impacted their full enjoyment of the property.
17. Overall the landlord’s failures, as set out above, can be summarised as a failing to:
    1. Carry out emergency repairs when appropriate.
    2. Enact a lasting repair to the leak.
    3. Carry out a structural survey of the building.
    4. Compile and retain adequate records.
    5. Adequately communicate with the resident.
18. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has used the complaints process to fully acknowledge any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
19. In the landlord’s complaint responses it acknowledged that there had been service failures with its handling of the repairs. In recognition of the time and trouble these caused it offered a total of £200 compensation. The landlord contacted this Service on 10 January 2025 and said it had conducted a review of the complaint. It said that following this review it felt that the poor record keeping of the repairs at the time warranted a further £75 compensation for the inconvenience experienced. This brings the total amount of compensation offered for this head of complaint to £275. Additionally, the landlord confirmed that since the end of the complaints process it has implemented a new repair recording programme which records each visit with notes and images to allow greater oversight of repairs.
20. This Service has noted that the landlord revised its offer of compensation when it reviewed the case due to our involvement. We accept that the new compensation offer is more appropriate in recognition of its failings, and it represented an attempt to put things right. However, it offered this a considerable time after the complaints process was exhausted. This should have been an outcome and offer of redress identified at the time of the complaints process. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress would not be appropriate. Instead a finding of maladministration has been found. We have ordered the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this report and pay the additional compensation offered in its email of 10 January 2025.
21. The Ombudsman is aware the landlord carried out several further repairs to the leak from December 2023 onwards. In August 2024 the resident updated us and said that while there was still a hole in his ceiling from the works, but there had not been a leak for 6 months. The landlord’s records also show that in December 2024 it tasked a specialist survey team to undertake a detailed inspection of the property to ensure a lasting resolution to the persistent leak. However, the landlord did not provide any information on when this survey would take place or, if it had already, what its finds were and what required works it had identified.
22. As such, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the survey findings and a timed action plan for any works identified. Additionally, if the landlord has not already done so, it must provide the resident and this Service with a timed action plan for the completion of any outstanding internal repair works.

23. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of it being logged. It also says the landlord will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days from the date of the escalation request. The policy says that should more time be needed at either stage, the landlord will inform the resident and an extension will not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 30 working days at stage 2.
24. The resident raised his complaint 2 May 2023 and the landlord acknowledged it on the same day. It then issued its stage 1 response on 16 May 2023. This was within the timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
25. The resident escalated his complaint on 12 June 2023 and the landlord acknowledged it the next day. The landlord contacted the resident on 10 July 2023 to request an extension of the deadline to 24 July 2023. It then issued its stage 2 response on 21 July 2023. This was within the timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
26. Additionally, the landlord’s complaint responses addressed the resident’s complaint about the leak and subsequent repairs. It explained who it had spoken to as part of the investigation, what it had discovered, and steps taken to try and resolve matters. It also addressed his request to be moved and provided information about who to contact and/or sign up with about this.
27. On the 10 January 2025 the updated this Service and said it had conducted a review of the complaint. It said that following this review it found that its stage 1 response failed to address the lack of an emergency repair being raised and the delay in the response being sent. It said that in recognition of this complaint handling failure it wanted to offer £75 compensation.
28. In terms of remedy, in cases like this, compensation of around £75 would be considered appropriate. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident but which did not have an impact on the outcome of the complaint nor a lasting impact on the resident. While the amount offered is in line with that, it was only offered after the Ombudsman’s involvement began. This indicates the landlord did not take the opportunity of the complaint process to properly investigate the circumstances of the complaint and make a suitable offer of redress as soon as it could. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress would not be appropriate. Instead a finding of service failure has been found. We have ordered the landlord to pay the compensation offered in its email of 10 January 2025.

Learning

Record keeping

29. Clear record keeping is an essential part of providing a repairs service and responding to complaints. It allows a landlord to monitor outstanding works and contractor performance, as well as provide accurate information and an effective service to its residents.
30. Therefore, it was also appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its record keeping failures and offer compensation for this. It was also positive that the landlord introduced a new repair record keeping system to prevent future instances of the failures which occurred in this complaint.

Communication

31. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords let residents know what to expect regarding repairs.
32. In this instance, the landlord failed to keep the resident adequately updated on the progress of repairs and the reasons for any delays. Had it done so it may have avoided the time, trouble and distress caused to the resident by having to regularly chase the landlord.