Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202311399)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311399

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

29 November 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s arrears dispute.
2. The resident’s reports of incorrect sales information.
3. The resident’s defects liability period (DLP).
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered.

Background

The resident is a shared owner of the property, the landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2 bedroom new build house and the resident is the first to occupy it. The resident purchased the property on 12 October 2022. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 October 2022 to complain that his account was showing an arrears of £262.39 which was not correct. The landlord responded on the same day to say it would ask the appropriate department to contact the resident with an explanation. The landlord made internal enquires and it was noted that the resident should contact the service charges directly with his query. The landlord also determined it did not consider the resident’s contact to be a complaint. This message was not relayed to the resident himself.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 26 November 2022 to complain he had not received a response to his previous complaint about the arrears on his account. The resident states he was given a complaint reference but also received no response to this complaint.
On 28 December 2022, the resident phoned the landlord to chase a response to his complaints. The resident expressed frustration that he could not contact a complaints handler directly unless his complaint had been allocated. The landlord reported that it did not have a record of the resident’s previous complaints and that the resident would need to log his complaint again via its website.
On 5 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to complain that he had not received a response from the landlord. The resident also stated that he had been advised that his property would be supplied with a washer-dryer but it had not.
The resident also stated that there had been a 2 month delay from the property being passed to the landlord by the builder, to the landlord completing the sale to the resident. The resident stated that he had lost 2 months of the DLP.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 January 2023. It stated:
1. The sales literature states that only apartments came with a washer dryer, the resident had purchased a house so had been provided with a washing machine only. It apologised if this was not clear to the resident at the time.
2. The sales process is complex which means properties cannot be completed on as soon as they are handed over by the builders. There had been delays from Homes England in getting the correct paperwork completed.
3. The resident was still benefiting from the DLP. At the end of the DLP, a defects inspection will be arranged with the resident.
The resident requested that his complaint be escalated on 20 March 2023. The resident stated that several elements of his complaint had not been addressed in the landlord’s stage 1 response and he had not been offered any resolution.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 24 June 2023.
1. It apologised that it had not responded directly to the resident regarding his dispute of the arrears. It had not considered the matter a complaint so did not log it as such.
2. It accepted that it did not respond to the resident subsequent complaints. These had been chased internally but was not followed up with the resident.
3. Its complaint team do not have direct lines and are not contactable for general contact. Complaint coordinators can be contacted once a complaint has been made and allocated. When the resident had called to chase his complaint, it had not been allocated to a complaint coordinator which is why he could not contact them directly.
4. The resident had viewed the property twice before completing the sale and it would have been evident there was no washer dryer. The sales literature does not state that houses come with a washer dryer.
5. The transfer of ownership process is complex and takes time. The landlord took handover of the property on 11 August 2022 and the completion of transfer took place on 21 September 2022. After this date, the resident’s solicitors would have needed to complete the transfer. The landlord does not accept responsibility for the time taken to complete the process.
6. The resident still has the benefit of the DLP and is able to report any issues to the landlord.
7. It offered the resident £110 compensation, broken down as £60 for poor complaint handling and £50 for the time and trouble experience by the resident.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and referred the matter to this service.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s arrears dispute

The resident stated that he had been contacted by the landlord 8 days after purchasing the property and told he had arrears of £262.39. The resident states this was not correct and his completion statement said he was up to date on all payments. When resident reported this to the landlord, he was advised it had contacted the relevant department and he would receive a response within 5 working days.
The evidence provided shows that the landlord did make enquiries internally and was told the resident needed to contact the service charges team directly. This information was not passed to the resident which was an inappropriate response by the landlord. The resident was inconvenienced by needing to chase the landlord for a response.
The landlord also concluded that it did not consider the resident’s contact to be a complaint because there was no service failure to investigate. This information was also not passed on to the resident until he made a further complaint.
When the resident contacted the landlord to seek an update, he did not receive a response or was told to resubmit his complaint online. This was inappropriate and the landlord missed the opportunity to address the resident’s concerns or demonstrate it was taking the matter seriously.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s arrears dispute amounts to maladministration. It demonstrated a pattern of inappropriate communication which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. It did not provide the resident with any assurances that it had reflected on the matter and taken steps to ensure the same issue did not happen again. The Ombudsman awards £250 compensation to acknowledge and redress the failures identified. This is in line with the remedies guidance available on our website.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of incorrect sales information

The resident states that during the sales process, he had been told that the property would come with all white goods fitted, including a washer dryer. When the purchase was completed, the resident was provided with a washing machine instead of a combined washer dryer.
The landlord explained that the sales literature states that only apartments are provided with washer dryers because they do not have outside space. The landlord stated that it could have been clearer that houses are provided with a washing machine only, but that the resident was not entitled to a washer dryer instead.
The interview form completed and signed by the landlord and resident states “all apartments are provided with washer dryers.” The sales brochure for the development states it will provide “A rated Zanussi washing machine for houses, integrated washer / dryer for apartments.” The floor plan provided for 2 bedroom houses in the development shows a washing machine, not a washer dryer.
The information provided to the resident shows that houses in the development are provided with a washing machine only. The landlord acted appropriately by providing the resident’s property with a washing machine and there was no maladministration. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to consider including the specifications for houses on its interview form, as well as that for apartments.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s DLP

The resident expressed frustration that it had taken the landlord 2 months from the property being transferred from the builder to the sale being complete. The resident felt he had been disadvantaged as the DLP had been running since the property was transferred to the landlord and this meant he could not use the full 12 months while living in the property.
The landlord explained it was acquiring the development that included the resident’s property from Homes England and that it needed to follow the transfer process. This process involved several steps including executing documents and the property being logged with land registry so that the buyer’s solicitors can conduct their searches. The landlord took handover on 11 August 2022 and the completion of the transfer took place on 21 September 2022. The landlord explained it had no control over the process as it is handled by its solicitors and several third parties.
The landlord’s warranty for new builds states that the DLP runs from when the building is handed to the landlord from the building contractor. It can be reasonably expected that the landlord will require time to complete the sale to the resident after it has taken handover from the builder.
Correspondence between the landlord and the relevant third parties has been provided to this service. The landlord was proactive in chasing the third parties to complete the process and there were delays in third parties completing the relevant documents. The transfer of ownership of a property is a complex process and the landlord took steps to ensure that this was completed in a reasonable time frame.
While the landlord did not provide regular updates to the resident in order to manage their expectations, it was the responsibility of the resident’s solicitors to keep the resident up to date on the progress of the sale.
The resident was still able to benefit from the DLP and had the opportunity to report any issues to the landlord during this period. The landlord stated it could arrange a defects inspection at the end of this period if the resident wanted it. This was an appropriate response.
The landlord did not unreasonably delay the transfer process in this case and took steps to liaise with the relevant third parties to ensure that the sale progressed in a reasonable time frame. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s DLP.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord’s complaint process lacked customer focus, failed to recognise the complaint, and took too long.
The landlord’s complaint policy outlines that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. Where it requires more than 10 working days, it will communicate this to the resident. Stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days. Where more time is needed, the landlord will let the resident know why and when a response will be provided.
The Code defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents. Residents do not need to use the word “complaint” for it to be treated as such. A landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so.
The resident first stated he wanted to complain on 20 October 2022. He received a complaint reference number but the landlord concluded that the resident’s contact was not a complaint because it did not consider there was any service failure. This was inappropriate and in breach of the Code. The resident had made an expression of dissatisfaction and was clear he wanted to make a complaint.
The landlord did not communicate its decision to not consider the complaint to the resident which was also inappropriate. The resident had called the landlord to speak to a complaints handler but was told he could not because his complaint had not been allocated. The landlord missed the opportunity to identify that the complaint had not been processed in line with its policy and rectify the matter for the resident. The resident expressed frustration that he complaints were not being progressed.
When the resident contacted the landlord on 28 December 2022 to ask when he would receive a response to his complaint, the landlord stated it could not find his complaint and directed him to make the compliant again via its website. This was inappropriate. The landlord should have recorded the resident’s complaint over the phone when it was clear he wanted to make a complaint. That it did not, was a failure.
The landlord first responded to the resident’s complaint on 17 January 2023, this is 60 days after the resident’s initial complaint and outside of the landlord’s advertised time frames. Its response did not address the resident’s complaint about the arrears or the landlord’s failure to respond to his previous complaints. It did not acknowledge the delay in its complaint handling or offer any redress. The resident was inconvenienced by not having all elements of his complaint responded to.
The resident requested his complaint be escalated on 20 March 2023 and the landlord responded on 24 June 2023. This was a period of 65 days and outside of the landlord’s time frames for a stage 2 response.
Failure to adhere to timeframes for responses is a failure of service. This Service acknowledges that on occasions there will be circumstances that mean a complaint response cannot be provided by the initial time given by the landlord. In these cases, it would be reasonable to expect that a landlord would contact the resident to explain in detail the reasons for the delay. The landlord is also expected to provide a new timeframe whereby the resident would expect to receive a response.
The landlord contacted the resident on 19 April 2023 to request more time to respond to the complaint and asked the resident to explain what he felt was missing from the stage 1 response. The landlord contacted the resident again on 15 May 2023 and 25 May 2023 to extend the deadline for response. The landlord did not provide reasonable explanations for the delays or tell the resident when he could expect a response. The landlord failed to assure the resident that it understood his complaint and was taking the matter seriously. The resident was evidently frustrated by not receiving a complaint response on time.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint delays in its stage 2 response. It outlined its understanding of the complaint, addressed the resident’s concerns in turn, and provided its position clearly. The landlord awarded the resident £50 compensation for its complaint handling failures and a further £60 in recognition of the time and trouble experienced by the resident.
The landlord’s complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. While this Service recognises the landlord’s attempts to rectify the matter for the resident, it does not go far enough to redress the failures identified. The landlord has not demonstrated any learning or reflection to prevent the same failures happening again. The Ombudsman awards £150 compensation in recognition of the complaint handling failures identified, this is in line with the remedies guidance available on our website.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s arrears dispute.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of incorrect sales information.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration the landlord’s handling of the resident’s defects liability period.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must apologise to the resident in writing for the failures noted in this determination. A copy should also be provided to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of this determination.
Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total compensation of £400. £110 of the landlord’s previous compensation offer can be deducted from this total, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £250 to acknowledge and redress the failures identified in the handling of the resident’s arrears dispute.
2. £150 to acknowledge and redress the complaint handling failures identified.

Recommendations

The landlord should update the wording on its potential buyer interview form to make the specification for a new build house clear.