Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202402190)

Background

1. In December 2023 the resident reported a roof leak to the landlord and then complained when it failed to treat the issue as an emergency. The landlord said the repair was non-routine and that it had completed it within the 90-day timescale committed to in its repairs policy.

What the complaint is about

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

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak.
4. There was service failure by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s reports of a roof leak

5. The landlord failed to adequately communicate with the resident about the repair and the reasons for its classification of the leak are not apparent.

The resident’s complaint

6. The landlord provided information in its complaint responses which it later accepted was inaccurate.

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. The resident reported the leak to the landlord on 12 December 2023. Rainwater was dripping through his bedroom ceiling, although he was able to contain it with a bowl in the loft space once it had become apparent. This had to be emptied weekly. The landlord arranged for its contractor to attend on 15 December 2023, but nobody turned up. The resident then made multiple attempts to find out what was going on, by telephone, email or by online enquiry. However, the landlord did not provide a further appointment date until 23 January 2024. At that point the repair was scheduled for, and then completed on, 6 February 2024, 56 days after the initial report.
8. There is no dispute that it was for the landlord to carry out this repair. However, the resident challenged how quickly it should have been done. The landlord’s guide to repair responsibilities sets out its response times. For emergencies, it commits to attending within 24 hours to make a property safe pending full repair. Otherwise, works are classed as routine and are expected to take up to 28 calendar days, or non-routine with a 90-day turnaround.
9. The landlord’s records are sparse. There is no suggestion within them that this was an emergency (which would usually entail some element of immediate risk to health and safety or to the building). However, neither is there any evidence that the landlord carried out an inspection to check what was required or to confirm that the leak was containable (the resident told us he did not tell the landlord this until he made his complaint, but the limited evidence does not confirm this either way).
10. Nor is there any evidence explaining how the landlord concluded this was non-routine rather than routine. In the absence of such information, it is not possible to determine whether the landlord’s categorisation of the repair was a reasonable one and there is no evidence that it was communicated to the resident to manage his expectations anyway.
11. After the resident’s referral of the complaint to us, the landlord altered its view in October 2024 and told us the repair should have been treated as routine with a 28-day completion target. On that basis it accepted the repair was delayed after all and represented a failing in its service. It offered increased compensation of £150.The landlord did not explain, however, why it had changed its mind and it is not clear if the £150 was in addition to the £100 previously offered or a new total.
12. Where a landlord has recognised its failings and offered a fair resolution for them, a finding of reasonable redress is usually appropriate. In this case, the £100 compensation offered to the resident as part of the landlord’s complaint responses did not adequately compensate him for his inconvenience in chasing this repair. Neither did it reflect a proper acknowledgement of the frustration he felt at the level of communication, and which is evident from his contacts with the landlord and in the complaint itself. Because of that, its remedies were not enough to resolve the complaint.
13. The landlord subsequently offered increased compensation of £150. However, this was not made to the resident but to us and it was put forward 6 months after completion of its complaints procedure. Given that the background and circumstances of the complaint had not changed, it is not clear why the landlord did not identify its error originally and offer the increased compensation at that time. The landlord has not explained why this offer could not have been made within its complaint process, and this represents further unreasonable handling of the issue.

14. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a 2-stage process for handling complaints. The first stage involves an initial investigation with the 2nd stage operating as a review. Complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days. The policy says that stage 1 and stage 2 replies should be given in 10 working days and 20 working days respectively. The policy complies with our Complaints Handling Code.
15. The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses were given on time. The initial acknowledgment of the complaint was 2 working days late, but the landlord says it did not receive the complaint until a week after it was sent which accounts for the delay. The landlord’s complaint handling was appropriate in terms of timescale.
16. Nonetheless, as discussed above, the landlord’s subsequent change of position several months after the end of the complaints process was not appropriate, as it should ensure its complaint responses are sound at the time they’re issued (in line with the fundamental principles of the Code). That means its complaint handling, overall, cannot be held to be reasonable.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. The landlord reports that following this complaint it implemented a new system to improve its repair management by offering improved and centralised tracking of repairs requests with automated notifications and progress updates.

Communication

18. The landlord’s overall communication was inadequate, and this has been referred to above. The landlord should consider reviewing the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaint handling. The report explains that delays, poor communication, and lack of ownership can escalate issues unnecessarily. It recommends clear accountability, timely responses, and proactive engagement to resolve problems early and maintain trust.