Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202400358)

Background

1. The resident lives in the property with her daughter. The resident’s daughter made this complaint on behalf of the resident. The resident’s daughter has medical issues, and the landlord installed a new shower in the property in 2023 to meet her needs. She reported that the shower repeatedly cut out, fluctuated in temperature and had low pressure. For ease of reading, both parties will be referred to as ‘the resident’ throughout this report.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of shower repairs.
3. We will also investigate the associated complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found the landlord responsible for service failure regarding its handling of shower repairs.
5. We have found the landlord responsible for no maladministration regarding its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of shower repairs.

6. The landlord conducted repairs on several occasions during 2023, but a failure to identify the root cause meant the issues persisted for an extended period. The landlord reviewed the complaint several months after its stage 2 response and identified failures. It offered additional compensation which was sufficient to remedy the impact of the complaint. However, we have found service failure as the landlord should have used its complaints process to offer suitable redress.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord responded to the complaint within, or marginally outside, required timeframes. While we did not identify a failure, the landlord offered the resident £25 compensation for delays at stage 2.

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. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will resolve routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
9. The resident reported shower repairs on several occasions during 2023, including the shower repeatedly cutting out while in use, fluctuating temperature and low water pressure. The landlord provided records of the reports received and repairs it conducted. In accordance with our Spotlight report on repairs complaints, landlords should keep clear, accurate and accessible records that provide an audit trail of events. This is to enable it to explain what has happened and to ensure decisions are taken based on good quality information. The records were not always clear in this case.
10. The evidence indicates that the landlord conducted works to the shower in May, August, November and December 2023. It said it replaced the shower on 3 of these occasions. The evidence also indicates that its contractor conducted repairs to the pipework in November 2023 and that an electrician assessed the shower but did not identify electrical issues.
11. While this indicates that the landlord took actions to resolve the issue, the same problem continued to occur over a prolonged period, indicating that the repairs did not address the root cause of the issue.
12. The landlord conducted a further inspection on 9 January 2024 after the resident reported ongoing issues in December 2023. The repairs notes states that the operative could not find an issue with the shower. The resident continued to report that the shower was not working during January 2024 and said she was without proper bathing facilities. The resident told us that she provided videos to the landlord of the shower cutting out, but she felt it did not take her reports seriously.
13. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said an inspection was conducted on 21 February 2025, which found no issues and that there were no concerns regarding water pressure. The landlord did not provide records of this visit to us. As such, it did not evidence its inspection and decision making regarding the repair report.
14. The resident continued to report issues with the shower following the stage 2 response and the evidence indicates repairs appointments took place which did not identify any repairs. However, in September 2024 the landlord identified required repairs, and it replaced the shower again. The repairs notes of this visit state that there was low water pressure, which was possibly causing the water to cut out. It said it would refer the issues to the water provider. It is unclear why the landlord had not identified this as a possible cause of the issues sooner, particularly given the resident had reported concerns about water pressure several times during 2023.
15. The landlord reviewed the complaint again in January 2025. It found that it had failed to identify the root cause of the issues with the shower, did not achieve a timely resolution and had delayed making the referral to the water provider. These were appropriate findings. The landlord referred the matter to the water provider on 14 January 2025. There is no indication that the landlord followed up with the resident to establish whether the issues had been resolved after the water provider’s inspection, which would have been good practice.
16. Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has offered suitable remedies in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
17. In its January 2025 review, the landlord offered additional compensation of £1,350 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble incurred. In assessing the level of compensation offered, we have considered the impact on the household. The resident and her daughter experienced distress and inconvenience due to the shower issues, which were ongoing for a prolonged period. The resident was required to shower elsewhere, and her daughter said her health was affected as she was unable to keep wounds clean. The resident spent time repeatedly raising the issue to the landlord.
18. We have concluded that the overall amount of £1,450 offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the shower repairs was sufficient to remedy the distress and inconvenience caused and took into account the resident’s daughter’s vulnerabilities. The amount is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which suggests amounts of over £1,000 for failures that have had a long-term impact on a resident. We have therefore not ordered the landlord to pay any additional compensation.
19. While it is positive that the landlord reconsidered its position and made an offer of redress, the Ombudsman does not consider the landlord’s offer as reasonable redress because it was made after we accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation. This is because our investigation is focused on the landlord’s handling of the complaint through its complaints process and whether it did enough to resolve the complaint through its complaints process.
20. The landlord did not utilise its internal complaints process to address these matters and it remains unclear as to whether the revised award of compensation would have been offered had the complaint not been referred to us for investigation. We have therefore found service failure. However, we have not ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation.

21. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue stage 1 responses within a further 10 working days. The policy states it will respond to escalation requests in 5 working days and issue stage 2 responses in 20 working days of its acknowledgment.
22. The resident complained on 8 January 2024 and the landlord acknowledged this on 11 January 2024. It issued the stage 1 response on 25 January 2024, which was a minor delay of 1 working day outside the required timeframe, and was therefore not a failure.
23. The landlord did not provide a copy of the resident’s escalation request to us and so we can not confirm the date she made the escalation. However, in its stage 2 response, the landlord said she escalated the complaint on 31 January 2024. The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 27 February 2024, which was within 20 working days. We have therefore not found a complaint handling failure.
24. However, the landlord identified a delay in issuing the stage 2 response and offered £25 compensation. As the landlord did not provide a copy of the resident’s escalation request, it is possible that there was a delay that we have been unable to identify.

Learning

25. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on repairs complaints recommends that landlord’s should identify what went wrong, for example poor initial diagnosis, and make changes to prevent it from happening again. The landlord should explore why the root cause of the issue was not identified during the repairs appointments and consider what changes can be made to ensure timely resolution of such repairs.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord kept records of repairs reports and appointments. However, the records were often unclear regarding the dates certain repairs were completed and the defects identified when it decided to replace the shower. The landlord also failed to provide some relevant documents, such as the resident’s complaint escalation. The landlord should review and improve its record keeping practices.

Communication

27. The resident said the landlord did not explain what the root cause of the shower issues were and she is still unclear about this. The landlord also did not contact the resident after the water provider had visited to obtain an update from her on whether the issue was resolved. The landlord should ensure it maintains clear and regular communication with residents about ongoing repairs.