Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202316191)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316191

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

24 February 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 response to the resident’s concerns about staff behaviour.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling is also considered.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy that began on 12 May 2005. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. On 26 June 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about the behaviour of a staff member (‘the staff member’). The resident said the staff member had put his belongings in the bin and had sworn at him. The resident questioned why the staff member carried a camera. He said the staff member had told him the landlord had sent a letter about the items and the resident asked for proof of the correspondence.
  3. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 27 July 2023. The landlord said it had interviewed the staff member. It said that the staff memberhadasked the resident to removeitems from outside his property. The staff member said the resident was aggressive and used abusive language. He said there were witnesses to the resident’s behaviour. The staff member said he then removed the items and left the building. The landlord said it had written to residents on 14 April 2023 and 9 May 2023 about fire safety and items in communal areas. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
  4. On 28 July 2023 the resident asked for his complaint to be reviewed at stage 2.
  5. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 2 August 2023. The landlord said the stage 1 investigation had been thorough and had addressed the resident’s concerns. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
  6. The resident referred his complaint to this Service on 2 August 2023 as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff behaviour

  1. The resident has complained about the behaviour of a member of the landlord’s staff. Internal disciplinary processes are for the landlord to manage. The role of this Service is to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint made by the resident.
  2. The landlord has said that on 2 May 2023 it served a notice to residents in the building for the removal of items from communal areas. The landlord said it then wrote to residents on 9 May 2023 about the removal of these items.
  3. On 26 June 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about the staff member. The resident described an incident, which he said had occurred that day. The resident said the staff member had knocked on his door and asked him to remove some shoes from outside the property. He said he tried to ask about a parking issue and the staff member told him to send an email. The resident said the conversation then ended. He said that about 10 minutes later, he noticed the shoes were missing. The resident said his son asked the staff member where the shoes were and was told they were in the bin. The resident said the staff member swore and at him and his son. The resident said he felt targeted by the staff member due to a report he had made some years earlier. The resident questioned why the staff member carried a camera and asked for proof that the landlord had written to residents about the items.
  4. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 27 July 2023. The landlord said it had interviewed the staff member. The landlord said that on the day of the incident, the staff member was conducting an estate inspection. The staff member said he knocked at the resident’s door to ask for items left outside the property to be removed. The staff member said the resident had been served notice on these items previously. He said the resident was aggressive and used abusive language. He said the resident appeared to close the door on him and there were witnesses to the resident’s behaviour. The staff member said that as notice had been served and the landlord had written to say the items would be removed, he moved the items and then left the building.
  5. The landlord said it had written to all residents on 14 April 2023 and 9 May 2023 about fire safety and the removal of items from communal areas. The landlord said that staff did not have cameras, so it could not retrieve any recordings. The landlord said that because of the letters and the findings of its investigation, the resident’s complaint was not upheld.
  6. For staff conduct complaints, an investigation might include interviews and gathering evidence from all parties, to make an informed decision based on its findings.After receiving the resident’s complaint, the landlord interviewed the staff member. The landlord acted reasonably in conducting the interview and summarisingit in the complaint response.
  7. The interview summary referred to witnesses who saw the incident take place. It was reasonable to expect the landlord to have considered speaking with these witnesses as part of its investigation. The landlord acted unreasonably in not interviewing the witnesses or explaining why this had not formed part of its investigation.
  8. The resident had said the staff member referred to a letter the landlord had sent about communal areas. He asked for proof that a letter had been sent to residents. In its stage 1 response the landlord set out the dates when it communicated to residents about fire safety and items in communal areas. It referred to a letter that was dated 9 May 2023, however, it did not provide a copy of that letter. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to have provided a copy in response to the resident’s query.
  9. On 28 July 2023 the resident asked for his complaint to be reviewed at stage 2. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 2 August 2023. The landlord said the stage 1 investigation had been thorough and had addressed the resident’s concerns. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
  10. In summary, the landlord acted reasonably in interviewing the staff member involved and summarising the information obtained in its stage 1 response. The landlord did not, however, interview witnesses, nor explain why it had not spoken with these individuals. The landlord therefore missed the opportunity to demonstrate to the resident that it had conducted a robust investigation of his concerns. As a result, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the behaviour of a staff member. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay £50 compensation. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for a situation such as this, where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service provided.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1, the complaints policy states the landlord will acknowledge receipt of the complaint within 5 working days. The policy states a response will be provided within 10 days of the complaint acknowledgement. However, if further time is required the landlord will communicate this to the resident.
  2. At stage 2, the complaints policy states the landlord will acknowledge receipt of a request to escalate a complaint, within 5 working days and provide a response within 20 working days thereafter.
  3. On 26 June 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about the behaviour of a staff member. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 30 June 2023. On 14 July 2023 the landlord advised that it required additional time to investigate and told the resident it would respond by 28 July 2023. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 27 July 2023.
  4. On 28 July 2023 the resident asked for his complaint to be reviewed at stage 2. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint on the same day and provided a stage 2 complaint response on 2 August 2023.
  5. The landlord has evidenced that it acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint and escalation request within the timeline set out in its complaints policy. It has also evidenced that it provided complaint responses within the timelines set out in the policy. As a result, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about staff behaviour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £50 compensation for any distress and inconvenience that may have been incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings in its handling of concerns about the behaviour of a staff member.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service within the specified dates above.