Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202208265)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208265

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

5 May 2023

 

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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler and heating system.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The landlord has not been able provide a full repair timeline to this Service for investigation, due to changing contractors in May 2022. However, it can be seen from the evidence that it began attending the resident’s home in March 2022, due to reports of a loss of heating and hot water. It found that a heating thermostatic valve needed replacing, which was approved on 10 March 2022. The landlord has stated that it replaced the valve (although the date has not been provided), yet this did not fix the issue.
  3. The resident has stated that he submitted a complaint on 21 April 2022. He explained that he had no hot water and heating and was unhappy that he had to wait weeks for an emergency appointment. The landlord raised an emergency repair on 4 May 2022, and attended the property on 10 May 2022. It concluded that the heating interface unit (HIU) needed replacing.
  4. The resident re-submitted his complaint on 1 June 2022, as he had not received a response. The landlord sent its stage one response on 19 June 2022. It acknowledged that there had been a delay in resolving the resident’s repairs and apologised for the inconvenience this had caused. The landlord stated that the HIU installation had now been approved and it would contact the resident to arrange installation. It offered the resident £100 in recognition of its service failure and £75 for his time and trouble. However, the landlord’s response did not include escalation rights for the resident if he remained dissatisfied with its complaint response.
  5. The landlord replaced the HIU on 28 June 2022. The resident escalated his complaint on 24 August 2022. He explained that although the boiler had been replaced, it had been installed in the wrong location. He was dissatisfied that the landlord had failed to contact him about moving the boiler, and that he had intermittently been without heating and hot water over several months.
  6. The landlord sent its stage two response on 31 October 2022. It acknowledged there had been a further delay and stated that it had booked an appointment for 4 October 2022 to move the HIU. It explained that it would then attend on 11 October 2022 to box in the pipes. In consideration of the delays to the HIU being relocated, the landlord offered a revised amount of £250 compensation. This was broken down as: £150 for service failure, £75 for the resident’s time and trouble and £25 for its complaint handling failures. The landlord attended on 15 October 2022 and lowered the HIU. It attended again on 8 November 2022 to complete the boxing in of the pipework. At this visit it discovered a leak from the HIU. It attended on 10 November 2022, but could not rectify the issue as the unit needed to be removed and drained. This was completed on 31 January 2023. The boxing in of the pipework remains outstanding.
  7. In his complaint to this Service, the resident has explained that the new HIU makes loud noises and he would like it to be replaced. He also remains dissatisfied at the delay he experienced in getting the repairs resolved and the length of time he was left without heating and hot water. The resident requested for the compensation to be increased.

Assessment

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler and heating system.

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep in good repair, maintain and ensure the proper working order of any installations, where necessary, which it has provided or adopted for space heating, water heating and sanitation. This includes water heaters, boilers and radiators. In return, the resident must allow the landlord access to inspect or repair the property.
  2. According to the landlord’s repair policy, a routine repair will be completed within 28 days. It states that if the work takes longer, the landlord will keep the resident updated. An emergency repair will be attended to within 24 hours. Further visits may need to be scheduled to fully complete the repair.
  3. The landlord’s repair’s policy classifies issues impacting the supply of heating and hot water differently, depending on the severity of the issue and time of year. If there is an interruption or failure to the resident’s home of both heating and hot water, it will be attended to as an emergency. During warmer months (April – Sept), heating failure where the hot water supply remains will be classed as a routine repair. If there’s no heating in the colder months (Oct-Mar) this will be classed as an emergency repair. If there is no hot water and the resident is without an alternative form of hot water for bathing, this is an emergency repair.
  4. The landlord has not disputed that the resident’s repairs have been delayed in this case. The landlord changed contractors in May 2022, and have not kept a detailed repair record of the steps it took prior to that date. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
  5. The landlord has stated that it began to attend the property in March 2022, although it is not clear from the evidence when the resident first reported the issue. According to its repair policy, the landlord should have attended as an emergency within 24 hours, as the repair was still within the colder months. It cannot be deduced it if did or not, due to the lack of records. This in itself is not appropriate, as it cannot be said that the landlord abided by its policies and procedures, without the evidence to support it. In his complaint in April 2022, the resident reported again that he had neither hot water nor heating, which according to the same policy should also have been attended to as an emergency repair. The evidence indicates that the landlord did not attend the property until 10 May 2022, 19 days rather than 24 hours after the resident’s report. This was not appropriate.
  6. The landlord concluded on 10 May 2022 that the HIU, (which is essentially the resident’s boiler) needed replacing. This would be expected to be completed within the landlord’s routine repair timescales of 28 days. However, it was installed on 28 June 2022, almost a month later than expected. The landlord has stated that this was because it had to order the HIU and was waiting for it to be delivered. Not all delays are seen as service failure if the landlord continued to communicate with the resident and manage their expectations. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord updated the resident on his repairs. Additionally, the resident has confirmed that it failed to contact him. This was inappropriate and is a failing in the circumstances.
  7. The HIU was installed incorrectly on 28 June 2022, meaning that the resident could not access his intercom properly. The resident complained about the positioning of the new HIU in his escalation request in August 2022. The landlord did not lower the HIU until 15 October 2022, four months after it had been installed incorrectly. The landlord attended to box in the pipes but found that the HIU was leaking on 8 November 2022. Although it attended to inspect the leak several days later, it did not undertake works to rectify the leak until 31 January 2023. This meant that the resident was left with a slow leak for three months. The landlord has not provided any information to explain this delay. This was not appropriate and is a further failing.
  8. Although the evidence suggests that the leak is now fixed, the resident has stated to this Service that he believes that the boiler is still not working, as it is making loud noises. He has reported this to the landlord, who acted appropriately by attending on 14 February 2023. It could not identify the noises that were causing concern. The resident has continued to report the noises, however the landlord has not identified any issues with the boiler. It asked the resident to record the noises, however the resident has declined.
  9. According to its repair policies, the landlord will only undertake necessary repairs and renewals. It acted appropriately by assessing that if the boiler did have a fault, it would need to find an issue to be able to justify replacing the boiler. It was reasonable of the landlord to ask the resident to record the noises, as this may help to identify the issue if the problem is intermittent. The resident must ensure not to restrict the landlord’s access to the property, as his tenancy agreement places a contractual obligation on him to allow it to access the property to undertake works and inspections.
  10. The majority of the content of the landlord’s complaint responses was reasonable, as it identified that it had been delayed in fixing the resident’s repairs. It acknowledged the impact this had on the resident, and offered redress in the form of an apology, further works and some compensation in order to recognise the resident’s inconvenience. However, as the resident was intermittently without heating and hot water throughout several months between March 2022 and June 2022 when the boiler was replaced, the compensation amount does not appear to be sufficient. Additionally, there had been further failings and delays, due to the landlord installing the boiler in the wrong place, and then failing to fix the slow leak within the correct timescales. It is the opinion of the Ombudsman that the amount offered does not offer sufficient redress to the resident and fails to recognise the full extent of the impact and inconvenience its service failure has had on him.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling in this case was not appropriate, as its complaint policy states that it will respond to a complaint within 10 working days. If the resident escalates their complaint, the landlord will then respond within 20 days. The resident submitted a stage one complaint on 21 April 2022, as the landlord did not respond, he submitted another complaint on 1 June 2022. The landlord responded on 19 June 2022, two months after his initial complaint. The resident escalated his complaint on 24 August 2022. The landlord responded on 21 October 2022, again two months after his escalation. These responses were both outside of the landlord’s timescales stated above, which was not appropriate.
  2. Additionally, according to this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the code), the landlord is expected to add certain information to its complaint responses. The landlord must inform the resident of which stage they are at in the procedure, and how they can escalate their complaint. The landlord labelled its stage one response as a ‘stage one final response’. This was misleading, as it gave the impression that there were no further stages to the procedure. The landlord also did not include escalation rights in its stage one response, which again was misleading, and contrary to the code.
  3. The code also states that landlord’s must follow any promised resolution from its complaint response through to fruition. The resident has informed this Service that the landlord has not paid the compensation it offered him in either its stage one response from June 2022, or from its final response in October 2022. This is not appropriate, as it cannot be said that the landlord has resolved the complaint satisfactorily. The landlord has stated to this Service that it also reviewed its compensation amount and would offer the resident a further £105. However, again the resident has stated that it has not offered this amount to him. The landlord needs to ensure that it delivers on any promises to the resident, as failing to do so can damage the landlord/resident relationship further. The fact that the landlord did not provide the promised compensation to the resident is a failing in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the boiler and heating system.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord should write to the resident and apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
  2. The landlord should pay the resident an overall compensation award of £905. This amount includes the £355 it has already agreed to pay in its complaint responses and subsequent communication. This is broken down as:

a. £400 in recognition of the impact its delays in repairing his heating system had on him.

b. £150 in recognition of its poor complaint handling.

26. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

27. The landlord should review if its staff require further training in complaint handling. The review should include whether the use of the term ‘stage one final response’ is appropriate and in–line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code.

28. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance to this Service within six weeks of the date of this report.