Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202419575)

Background

1. In January 2024, the resident reported a broken external water pipe outside the communal front entrance. As the leak originated from the mains supply, the water company was responsible for the repair. During the repair period, the resident raised the matter several times, requested a repair timeline, and reported inconvenience, distress, and safety concerns. She is dissatisfied with the delay and the level of compensation offered.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of a leak.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak.
4. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
5. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. While the repair was undertaken by the water company, the landlord was responsible for responding to the resident’s reports and safety concerns and proactively communicating with her as to its plan. It fell short in this responsibility.
7. Regarding complaints handling, the landlord made a reasonable offer to put things right and this was consistent with our dispute resolution principles.

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.

8. In January 2024, the resident reported a broken external water pipe outside the communal front entrance of the property. While the landlord is responsible for communal areas, given the location of the leak, it was not initially clear who was responsible for repairing it. According to the complaint, a technician attended and acknowledged the problem, but no further action was taken. Regardless of who was responsible, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided and update following its inspection. Its failure to do so would have caused the resident distress.
9. The pipe continued to leak, causing substantial water loss, flooding, and mud accumulation at the entrance. The landlord raised a job on 1 February 2024, which was completed on 29 February 2024. As the evidence did not show the exact date of the resident’s reports, we cannot know if the landlord responded within its routine repairs timeframe of 28 calendar days; however, its response time was likely broadly in line with this response time. This nevertheless demonstrates that the landlord’s repair records are lacking in detail.
10. On 28 June 2024, in its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord confirmed that the leak was in the shrub beds and originated from the mains water supply, making it the responsibility of the water company. Subsequently, engineers from both the landlord and the water company investigated the leak and established responsibility. A survey report dated September 2024 states that the water company investigated the source of the leak. The leak was found in the underground supply pipework at the front of the property, and the water company would need to carry out the repair. Although there was a delay in repairing this, the evidence shows the delay was due to the water company and so beyond the landlord’s control.
11. The resident reported the issue seven times and requested a timeline for repair and clarity regarding responsibility. We were unable to see within the evidence what happened in response to these reports or when the matter was first reported to the water company. Even if the water company was responsible for the repair, the landlord should have reported it at the earliest opportunity, monitored the repair, and kept the resident updated. This was particularly important once the resident began reporting safety concerns.
12. We have not seen any risk assessment or consideration of the reported safety hazards. This would have been reasonable, particularly after 22 May 2024 when the resident reported that she saw a child slip.
13. The resident reported inconvenience, distress, and safety issues affecting multiple residents. Communication could have been more proactive, given the ongoing leak in a communal area. We have not seen any evidence of communication provided to residents about the repair plan. This would have been reasonable and may have addressed the resident’s concerns about the lack of repair. This amounts to a failing.
14. The resident was not satisfied with the compensation offered. Given the impact and poor communication, £25 compensation for time and trouble in recognition of the resident’s efforts to chase updates was not proportionate. The resident had to chase multiple times, and proactive, meaningful updates could have avoided this. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay £100 compensation. This replaces any previous offers.

15. The resident submitted the initial complaint on 22 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged it on 10 June 2024. This was outside the complaint handling policy requirement of 5 working days. The resident had to expend time and trouble chasing a response.
16. The landlord issued the stage 1 response late, on 28 June 2024, 14 working days after the acknowledgment and 27 working days after the initial complaint. This was not in accordance with the timescales set out in the complaint handling code.
17. At stage 1, landlord acknowledged its complaints handling failures and offered £25 compensation for time and trouble, £20 for delay in logging the complaint, £20 for lack of updates, and £25 for delays in responding. The total of £90 compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and proportionate for the failures identified in this report. Therefore, the landlord made a reasonable offer to put things right.

Learning

18. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to proactively collaborate with the water company to ensure swift repair and undertake a risk assessment when it received safety concerns.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord should keep sufficient records to inform its decision making. In this case, we could not establish the matter was first reported. This indicates that improvements can be made to its record keeping practises.

Communication

20. The landlord’s communication with the resident could have been better. It missed opportunities to provide proactive communication to residents about the repair.