Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202109537)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109537

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

26 September 2022


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:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports that the communal area of her property was in need of refurbishment.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat in a block of similar properties, which includes a communal entrance area.
  2. In 2018 and 2019, the resident reported to her landlord that the walls and carpet in the communal area were in poor condition. The Ombudsman has not been provided with the landlord’s responses to those reports. In June 2020 the resident raised a complaint as she said the communal area had not been refurbished since she moved in in 2009. She said the walls were dirty and the carpet was “worn and dirty and must be infected with all types of germs.” and that this was limiting her chances of securing a mutual exchange on another property and affecting her mental health. The landlord carried out a survey in July 2020 to assess what work was required and in its stage one complaint response in October 2020, it confirmed that the block had been “placed on the programme for cyclical redecorations in the next financial year.” (2021/2022) It advised the resident to contact the complaint handler directly if she felt the complaint had not been resolved.
  3. In July 2021 the resident emailed the landlord’s complaint handler to say “You advised me of work to be carried out April 2021 this is not done can you please update me of dates this should be completed?”. As she received no response from the landlord she contacted this Service in September 2021. The Ombudsman advised the resident to request that the landlord escalate the complaint. The resident contacted the landlord again in November 2021 for an update, but raised a complaint on 5 January 2022 saying the landlord told her in December 2021 that it would contact her about the refurbishment but that nobody had done so. She reiterated that the poor condition of the communal area was affecting her chances of securing a mutual exchange and affecting her mental health. She requested compensation for emotional distress, pain and suffering.
  4. In its stage one complaint response on 31 January 2022, the landlord apologised for any inconvenience caused and said its contractor was “waiting for the final programme to be issued due to some operational requirements” and that the resident’s block would be brought forward due to the complaint. It said work was expected to start week commencing the 21 March 2022, however it was likely to be sooner. It awarded £20 compensation for its complaint handling and said the case would be used as part of a case study in order to improve its services and understand root causes behind such failures.” On 1 February 2022 the resident escalated her complaint. However, on 7 February 2022 the landlord said confirmed that it would not escalate the complaint further through its complaints process.
  5. The refurbishment was completed in April 2022 and resident contacted this Service as the carpet had not been replaced and she felt the £20 compensation was not enough. The resident has since reported to the landlord that there is now a tear in the carpet.
  6. The landlord has told this Service that having reviewed the complaint it was prepared to increase the compensation awarded by a further £25 for its poor complaint handling and a further £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of the delay and the impact to the resident’s wellbeing. The Ombudsman contacted the resident about the increased award, however, she did not feel that the offer was enough as it did not reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the delayed repairs.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord has advised this Service that it considers the resident’s complaint from 2020 about the condition of the communal area to be outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider. However, this Service has discretion under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which governs our service to consider complaints about issues that were brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. Although this is normally within six months of the matters arising, in this case the resident’s new stage one complaint in 2022 followed consistent communications by her chasing the landlord about the same issue on the same timescale that it previously given her for this in its stage one response to her previous complaint in October 2020. Therefore, it is reasonable for this Service to begin our investigation at the same time that these communications began in June 2020, when the resident raised her original complaint. The landlord had the opportunity to complete its complaints process for the first complaint during this time, thus allowing the resident to bring that complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident made it clear that she remained dissatisfied and raised a further complaint because she had not been given referral rights to the Ombudsman. It would be unfair for the Ombudsman not to consider the complaint as far back as 2020 when the resident did not have the opportunity to bring that complaint to us sooner. The length of time between the two complaints is also not excessive, and we have been provided with sufficient records of the case for the intervening time period, to allow us to investigate it fully.
  2. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s failure to refurbish the communal area has impacted her mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health but it outside the role of our service to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is because we cannot establish whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and/or inaction and the resident’s health. However, consideration has been given to the distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her mental health.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the communal area was in need of refurbishment.

  1. When the resident raised her first formal complaint about the need for refurbishment of the communal area, in June 2020, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging to survey the block to confirm what work was needed. Once the block had been surveyed and the landlord had decided to add it to its cyclical redecoration programme for the next tax year (April 2021-April 2022), the landlord took appropriate steps to inform the resident of this in its stage one complaint response in October 2020. However, as the resident’s original complaint (and previous reports to the landlord) had specifically mentioned the worn condition of the carpets in her original complaint, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have informed the resident if the carpet was not going to be included in the redecoration programme, to manage her expectations.  As the landlord failed to do, and in the absence of anything indicating otherwise, the resident reasonably assumed that the carpet would be included in the redecoration process and did not discover that the carpet was not going to be replaced until the work was eventually carried out in April 2022.This was no doubt frustrating and disappointing for the resident and could have been avoided had the landlord confirmed during the original complaint whether the redecoration programme would include the carpets. Its failure to do so amounted to maladministration in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns that the communal area of her property was in need of refurbishment.
  2. When the resident contacted the landlord in July 2021 to ask for an update on the redecoration programme, although it was still within the next financial tax year and therefore within the timeframe quoted in its October 2020 complaint response, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have responded to her question, contacted the relevant team and advised her whether there was now an estimated date for the work to be carried out. However as the landlord failed to do so this resulted in the resident having to contact this Service for advice and having to contact the landlord again.
  3. When the resident contacted the landlord again in November 2021, it would have been appropriate for it to have contacted the relevant department and provided the resident with an update with an estimated timeframe for the redecoration programme to start. However, although the resident confirmed that she spoke to the landlord in December 2021, it did not provide an update and instead advised her that the relevant department would contact her to do so. The other department did not contact the resident with an update, which resulted in the resident making a second complaint in January 2022, causing her avoidable inconvenience.
  4. Once the resident raised her second formal complaint, in January 2021, the landlord acted appropriately by confirming that the work was due to start in March 2022 (which was still within the financial year previously quoted) and explaining why it had not been able to give a start date before then. It is noted that in this complaint the resident referred to the décor and lack of repairs in the communal area but did not specifically mention the carpet. However, as the landlord had access to the resident’s previous account contact notes, and said that it had reviewed those during the second complaint investigation, it would have been reasonable for it to check whether the proposed work was going to include the carpet, that the resident had previously complained about in 2020, and had also reported in 2018 and 2019. As the landlord failed to do so, the resident had to contact the landlord again following completion of the redecoration works in April 2022, as the carpet had not been replaced.
  5. It is noted that the landlord has agreed to add the carpet to the backup cyclical redecoration programme for the current 2022/2023 financial year, if budget allows, which is reasonable as the landlord has a limited budget that it has to use appropriately to the benefit of all its tenants and leaseholders. However, as the resident has since reported to the landlord that the carpet now has a tear in it and it is not clear whether the landlord has inspected or replaced the carpet in response to this report, this Service will be ordering the landlord to inspect the carpet and to confirm to the resident when it will be either replaced or replaced, if it has not already done so.
  6. It is noted that, having reviewed the case the landlord contacted this Service to increase its total compensation by £125, and that when this Service contacted the resident with this offer, the resident did not believe that that amount was reasonable.  This Service considers an amount of £130 to be reasonable compensation for the landlord’s maladministration in respect of its response to the resident’s reports that the communal area of her property was in need of refurbishment. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which suggests awards of £50-250 for failings by the landlord where the impact to the resident could include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. This amount replaces the landlord’s offer of increasing the compensation by £125 and is in addition to the £20 already awarded for poor complaint handling.

Complaint handling. 

  1. It is noted that the landlord’s original stage one response was not issued until October 2020, which was four months after the complaint was raised, and although some delay was reasonable due to a survey being carried out and the planning team making a decision as to what action it would take, it would also have been appropriate to have kept  the resident updated in the meantime and it is not clear if the landlord did so. As the resident had also complained about the impact the poor condition of the communal area was having on both her mental health and her ability to secure a mutual exchange, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have addressed this in its complaint response. However, it failed to do
  2. It would have been helpful if the landlord’s stage one complaint response had given clear information about how the complaint could be escalated and whether there was time limit in which to do so (particularly as the agreed actions in the October 2020 stage one complaint were not due to take place until the following financial year). However as both the stage one response issued in October 2020 and the one issued in February 2022 ended with “However, if you believe this does not resolve the matter, please contact me directly” this Service will be recommending that the landlord review this with a view to adding wording that explains the escalation process and any applicable time limits.
  3. When the resident raised her second complaint on 5 January 2022, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that its response may take longer than the usual ten working days and then issued its stage one complaint response on 31 January 2022, which was reasonable as it had warned of a possible delay and the overall timescale was not excessive. In its stage one response the landlord took appropriate steps to confirm the date that the redecoration programme was due to start, which was reasonable as it was still within the 2021/2022 financial year that it had advised of in its previous complaint response. However, it failed to address the points that the resident had made about the poor condition of the communal area affecting her mental health and her ability to secure a mutual exchange.
  4. When the resident requested to escalate her complaint on 1 February 2021, as she felt the landlord had not considered the inconvenience and distress the poor condition of the communal area had caused her or taken into account how long she had been reporting it, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have escalated the complaint, as it had not addressed this and the impact on her mental health, in its stage one complaint response.

As above, the landlord has since advised this Service that it will increase its overall compensation award to £145. However, this Service considers that further compensation of £100 would be appropriate for its complaint handling failure. This is in addition to the £20 already offered for poor complaint handling in the landlord’s stage one response in February 2022. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as set out above.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports that the communal area of her property was in need of refurbishment.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this letter the landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £230 compensation. This is comprised of:
    1. £130 for the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in respect of its response to the resident’s reports that the communal area of her property was in need of refurbishment.
    2. £100 for the errors in respect of its complaint handling.
  2. The compensation payment of £230 replaces the landlords offer of increasing the compensation by £125, and is in addition to the £20 compensation that the landlord has already awarded in its stage one complaint response in February 2022. To clarify, once this £230 is paid, the landlord will have paid a total of £250 compensation to the resident. If the landlord has not already paid the £20 it should pay that when it pays the additional £230.
  3. Within four weeks of the date of this letter the landlord is ordered to inspect the tear in the carpet, if has not already done so, and to confirm to the resident what remedial action it will be taking to address the tear and when this will be completed.
  4. The landlord is recommended to review the wording it uses on its stage one complaint responses and to consider replacing it with wording that clearly tells the complainant how they can escalate their complaint to stage two of the complaints process and any applicable timeframe in which to do so.