Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202313697)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313697

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

16 May 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. Response to concerns that the cooker was damaged during refurbishment works.
    2. Handling of a loss of heating following a gas leak.
    3. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom flat, which the resident has lived in since 2004.
  2. The landlord refurbished the kitchen between 19 October and 2 November 2022. A gas network operator engineer attended on 2 November 2022. They identified a gas leak from the cooker. The engineer deemed the cooker to be a ‘dangerous gas fitting’. They applied a sealing disc to the meter outlet to prevent any further gas leak. The resident informed the landlord of the gas leak and the engineer’s actions.
  3. On 4 November 2022 the landlord arranged for a gas engineer to attend. They also noted that the cooker was leaking gas and the gas supply had been switched off. The gas supply was not restored. The engineer returned on 6 November 2022 to turn the gas supply back on.
  4. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 2 December 2022, stating the landlord’s contractor had damaged the cooker during refurbishment works and she was seeking repair and compensation. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 13 December 2022, it offered £40 compensation but did not explain why, or address the issues raised.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 15 December 2022 for this reason. The landlord said it was not responsible for the cooker, specifically the hose connecting it to the gas supply that was leaking, but had repaired it as a goodwill gesture on 21 December 2022.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 12 April 2023 it offered an additional £25 compensation for the delayed complaint response. It maintained that the repair was not its responsibility but found it had not kept sufficient records about its contact with the resident during the matter.
  7. The resident referred her to complaint to us on 7 August 2023, seeking additional compensation for the landlord leaving her without heating and cooking facilities.
  8. On 19 April 2024 the landlord contacted us to advise it had reviewed the case offered the resident £290 (£40 for loss of heating and £250 for complaint handling failures).

Assessment and findings

  1. Damage to the cooker during refurbishment works The visit record from the gas network operator confirms that a gas engineer attended on 2 November 2022. They identified a gas leak from the cooker. The engineer deemed the cooker to be a ‘dangerous gas fitting’. The form indicates that the engineer applied a sealing disc to the meter outlet to prevent any further gas leak.
  2. It is unclear what action, if any, was taken when the gas engineer visited on 4 November 2022. This visit was arranged by the landlord and the engineer’s job report appears to simply confirm the information from the engineer’s visit report 2 days earlier. The gas supply was not restored. The second engineer was aware of the previous visit as one of the photographs taken during their visit includes the previous visit record document on top of the cooker.
  3. Once the cooker was deemed unsafe, this Service would expect the landlord to offer to make arrangements to take this away and offer the resident a temporary replacement. In addition, as the gas supply was not restored, the landlord should have also offered temporary heaters. There are no records to indicate that the landlord took either of these steps at this time. The landlord has stated that it offered a baby belling (a small counter-top cooker), but it has not provided any evidence to support this and the resident denies that this offer was made.
  4. The landlord has explained that both the occupancy agreement and its repair policy confirms that it is not responsible for repairing anything it did not install itself. As the cooker belonged to the resident and did not come with the property, the landlord refused to repair or replace the cooker.
  5. Again, the landlord has failed to provide evidence to show that it clearly explained its position to the resident. Its poor communication on this matter led to delays as the resident understood that the landlord would reinstall the gas cooker. The resident has explained that she also struggled to pay for a replacement cooker (and hose). She notes that she eventually borrowed money and the landlord installed the new cooker 6 weeks later.
  6. The available evidence does not indicate that the refurbishment works caused damage to the gas cooker. However, it is acknowledged that the landlord has failed to show that it took appropriate steps to investigate if there was a link, particularly given that the boiler also had to be replaced. Nevertheless, without evidence of a connection between the refurbishment works and the gas cooker fault, it is not appropriate for the landlord to reimburse the resident for the cost of the gas cooker or the hose.
  7. Both gas engineers identified the gas cooker as unsafe. It is acknowledged that the landlord was not obligated to offer support. However, the landlord could have offered to take away the cooker, provided a temporary replacement or referred the resident to a money advice service to help her consider her options for paying for a new cooker. None of these actions are requirements of the landlord, but would have been gestures of goodwill as the resident had been left in a difficult position. The key failing was the landlord’s poor communication which meant it did not clearly inform the resident what its responsibilities were in relation to the gas cooker and what action it would and would not take – this led to delays in arranging a replacement cooker.
  8. Overall, the landlord’s response, (in particular its communication errors) to the resident’s concerns about the cooker reflect service failure. It is ordered that the landlord should provide an apology and compensation of £100 for the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced.

Loss of heating

  1. The gas network operator engineer turned off the gas supply on 2 November 2022. When the second engineer attended on 4 November 2022 there was no consideration for the fact that the resident was without heating. The contractor returned 2 days later to turn the gas back on. There has been no explanation provided why the gas supply was not restored on 4 November 2022. This is a shortfall in service.
  2. The landlord’s gas safety policy says it should take steps to minimise risk to residents in the event of gas capping. There was no evidence this occurred here. The landlord’s gas safety procedure states that, where a resident’s appliance is deemed unsafe, the appliance will be disconnected. It does not say the gas supply should be turned off completely. Leaving the resident without heating in November, albeit returning 2 days later, was a failure on the landlord’s part. This added to the stress and inconvenience the resident was already experiencing through the loss of her cooker.
  3. The landlord ultimately offered the resident £40 compensation for being without gas for 4 days. While it is positive the landlord reviewed its position and offered an amount in line with its policy, this was only done in response to our formal investigation. It should have taken the opportunity of the formal complaint to identify the error and offer appropriate redress at an earlier stage. Nevertheless, this amount is appropriate for the loss of this amenity for 4 days .
  4. It is clear that the landlord’s poor handling of this matter and failing to provide temporary heaters also caused distress and inconvenience. This has not yet been adequately compensated. The first visit arranged by the landlord’s engineer on 4 November 2022 appears to have served no purpose. They simply reiterated what the previous engineer stated and failed to restore the gas supply with no explanation. I have therefore awarded an additional compensation amount of £50.

Complaint handling

22.    The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued within the landlord’s target of 10 working days. However the content of it did not make sense and did not provide the resident with sufficient                 information. It listed other outstanding repairs, unrelated to the complaint points of this investigation, and stated the resident’s complaint had been partially upheld. It did not explain the                   reasons for this and did not properly address the issues of the gas leak, the cooker or the loss of heating.

  1. 23.    The resident was given £40 compensation for time and trouble at this stage, which was applied to arrears on her account. There was no explanation of how this figure had been reached as            the landlord had not addressed all of the complaint points. This was not an appropriate resolution.
  3. 24.    The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 15 December 2022, correctly pointing out that the stage 1 response did not cover all of her concerns. The stage 2 response was then               unreasonably delayed and issued well in excess of the landlord’s target of 20 working days following the complaint. This period of delay amounts to maladministration.
  5. 25.    The landlord accepted its failure in record keeping by apologising for any miscommunication regarding the offer of alternative cooking equipment. While it stated its contractor said a baby             belling had been offered, it admitted it had no record of this. The landlord maintained its position regarding the leak being the fault of the resident’s cooker hose and not its responsibility,                 which was appropriate.
  7. 26.    Due to poor complaints handling the landlord offered £25 compensation. This was not proportionate to the lack of content in the stage 1 response or the long delay in providing the stage 2             response. This level of redress is not in line with our remedies guidance for such failings.
  9. 27.    In the landlord’s contact of April 2024, it clarified to the Ombudsman that it had now offered £100 for the lack of clarity in the stage 1 response and £150 for the delay in providing a                         response at stage 2. While the amounts are appropriate and in line with our guidance, this offer was prompted by our formal investigation. Again, a finding of reasonable redress is not                   appropriate in these circumstances. Instead, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and it is ordered to make the awarded £250 compensation payment, if it has             not done so already.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:

    1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to concerns that the cooker was damaged during refurbishment works.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the loss of heating following a gas leak.
    3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

 

29.  Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £440 compensation, as follows:

    1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor response to concerns that the cooker was damaged during refurbishment works.
    2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to restore the gas supply within a reasonable time.
    3. £40 for the loss of heating for 4 days (this amount reflects the £40 already offered by the landlord).
    4. £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.