Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202121190)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121190

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

20 June 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

This is about the landlord’s handling of a leak at the property.
The handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident lives in the property which is a 2-bedroom flat. She has an Assured Tenancy Agreement which began on 16 April 2007.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord has a repairs guide in which it says how long it will take to complete a repair. It says that:
1. Repairs that can be deferred without serious discomfort, inconvenience, or nuisance to the resident without a long-term deterioration of the building will be completed within 28 days.
2. Repairs which involve remedial work which are necessary for the property to remain habitable and includes structural repairs, such as work to roofs are aimed to be completed within 3 months.
3. Boiler replacements are considered in the landlord’s guide as a ‘major replacement’ for which a timescale would be agreed with the resident.
The landlord has a complaint policy dated May 2021 which has 2 complaint stages. The landlord says it will:
1. Acknowledge a complaint or an escalation request within 5 working days.
2. Respond at stage 1 within 10 days of acknowledging the complaint.
3. Respond at stage 2 within 20 days.
4. The resident would be notified of any extensions.
The landlord has a compensation policy which it can use to calculate redress. In events where it identifies there has been a failure of service, time and trouble caused to the resident, compensation offers for what it identifies as high failure can start from £151.

Summary of events

On 18 January 2021, following a report from the resident of a leak causing water damage to her kitchen ceiling the landlord appointed a contractor to investigate and undertake a repair to the roof.
On 8 February 2021 and 6 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report the leak was getting worse and that the water damage had now reached the light fixture on the ceiling. She said that she wanted the matter to be handled as a formal complaint and asked for the landlord’s complaints procedure to be sent.
The roofing contractor inspected the repair on 2 March 2021, and then, after organising a cherry picker to access the roof, they completed the repair on 11 March 2021. The landlord advised the resident that once the repair was completed and the area had dried out, the next actions to rectify internal damage would be agreed.
On 14 March 2021, the contractor contacted the landlord to confirm that it had accessed the loft area and found no faults with the roof itself. It had found a broken skylight and its view was that this was allowing water to enter the roof space and subsequently leak into the kitchen ceiling. The contractor had boarded the broken skylight up to prevent further water ingress.
On 15 March 2021, the landlord updated the resident that it would provide a timeline for the completion of internal works to remedy damage from the leak.
On 27 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord asking for an update on when repair works would be completed. She also raised that had not received any confirmation regarding her complaint.
On 30 March 2021, the landlord responded to confirm it:
1. Had notified the complaints department who would be in touch.
2. Had asked the repairs teams for an urgent update.
On 7 April 2021, the landlord sent its stage 1 response in which it:
1. Apologised for the delay in sending the stage 1 response.
2. It confirmed that the roofing contractor had attended on 30 March 2021. And identified and made a repair to the broken skylight.
3. The landlord had arranged for its repairs team to inspect the water damage to the kitchen on 8 April 2021. After this it would confirm what work was required and it would raise appointments for the work to take place.
4. Financial redress was offered to the resident as she had been required to chase the landlord and repeatedly update it on the repair itself, £150 was offered which consisted of:
  1. £100 for service failure.
  2. £50 for time and trouble.
On 13 April 2021, the resident requested her formal complaint be escalated to stage 2. She reported that this was because the skylight repair work had not solved the leak which had continued, causing more damage to the kitchen walls and ceiling.
On 14 April 2021, the landlord’s repairs team visited the property, it completed a further inspection as it had found the repairs completed so far had not resolved the leak. During its inspection it identified that there was a leak on the boiler flue for which it would need a specialist contractor to repair.
On 10 May 2021, the landlord queried with the contractor whether the skylight repair had been completed, who confirmed that it had and that this was not causing the leak. The contractor stated that its assessment was now that the leak was from the boiler flue.
On 2 July 2021, the landlord visited the property and found the newly plastered kitchen wall was continuing to suffer from water damage from the roof. The landlord confirmed that this would have been caused by the leaking boiler flue identified in April and which it had thought the contractor would have resolved.
At an unspecified date the contractor visited the property to inspect what work it would need to complete to the flue. They advised the resident that they would need to replace the boiler itself, due to its age, and this meant that it would need to resight the boiler to a different wall in the kitchen.
On 15 July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to express that she would prefer the existing boiler to be repaired rather than replaced. This was because she had fitted a new kitchen and replacing the boiler in a new location would result in the loss of a kitchen cupboard. The landlord’s position was that a new boiler would be required as the current boiler was 14 years old.
On 16 September 2021, an internal email from the landlord’s complaints team to its repairs department asked it to confirm what the plan would be for the resident. The email shows that there was concern that the stage 2 response was yet to be sent. The resident had queries that the landlord needed to consider:
1. The contractor had told the resident the current boiler was in perfect working order, despite its age, and it did not need to be replaced.
2. A visit would be needed to enter the roof and remove the leaking flue and fill the hole if the boiler was removed.
3. What would happen with the boxing and pipes for the new and old boiler.
On 22 September 2021, the landlord visited the property to discuss installing a new boiler with the resident and they agreed the following:
1. The existing boiler would be replaced with a new one in the same position.
2. A new flue would be installed following the same route as the existing flue.
3. This meant there would be very little disturbance to the kitchen units.
The contractor completed the boiler replacement and work to the flue on 11 October 2021.
On 20 October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report that since the boiler had been replaced the wall and ceiling were still wet and water continued to come through. She said that the contractor who installed the boiler had commented that there was ‘puddling on the roof’.
The landlord visited the property on 3 November 2021 and identified that the leak was still coming from the boiler flue and needed the contractor to resolve sealing around the flue correctly. Following discussions between the contractor and the landlord it was identified that there was second flue leaking in this roof space which came from a neighbour’s boiler. The landlord needed to contact the neighbour so that work could be organised.
The landlord found that the neighbouring property was a leaseholder which meant the repair to the flue was the responsibility of the neighbour, Due to this on 8 November 2021 the landlord wrote to the neighbour requesting contact and notifying them of the repair issue.
On 22 November 2021, the landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident which confirmed its response about a leak into the resident’s kitchen which had come from a boiler flue and affected the property walls. The landlord explained that:
1. A new boiler had been installed on 11 October 2021 in a position so not to disturb the existing kitchen layout.
2. It understood that the new boiler had not resolved the issue and the property’s wall and ceiling continued to be wet. A further inspection on 3 November 2021 found a separate issue coming from the property above and the landlord had contacted this leaseholder to ask them to rectify the issue in a timely manner.
3. The resident was signposted to log an insurance claim to assist with the property redecoration once the leak from the neighbour’s property had been solved.
4. It upheld the resident’s complaint that it had taken too long to repair the leak and that it was yet to be resolved. It said it understood that the delays had affected the resident due to the condition of her kitchen and apologised along with offering financial redress totalling £900 broken down as:
  1. £350 service failure.
  2. £350 time and trouble.
  3. £50 missed appointments.
  4. £150 for delays in providing complaints responses.
The resident responded to the landlord on 23 November 2021, she was unhappy that the final response had been issued and the case closed when the work itself had yet to be resolved.
On 27 November 2021, the resident emailed the complaint handling officer as she had not received a reply. She asked:
1. With the case closed, who would be her point of contact and support for next steps.
2. The landlord had passed the blame to the resident’s neighbour but had not solved the problem.
3. There had been several missed appointments, and this included the contractor visiting the wrong address.
4. The stress of the outstanding repair caused her anxiety as she liked to live in a well-maintained home.
On 8 December 2021, the landlord responded and explained to confirm the housing team would be the point of contact regarding the neighbour’s leak.
On 8 December 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to say:
1. The subject of her complaint remained unresolved and that she was not satisfied with how she had been treated.
2. She said that the landlord had been unhelpful, and this had caused her stress, worry and loss of earnings as this repair had ‘interrupted her ability to work’.
3. She asked the landlord to revisit her complaint and provide a further response.
On 28 January 2022, the landlord’s repairs team confirmed that the leaseholder had resolved the leak. The landlord then organised for the internal plastering and redecoration works at the resident’s property which were completed over multiple visits and were concluded by 11 July 2022.
On 27 June 2023, following correspondence between this Service and the landlord it assessed the events that occurred after its final response letter and offered the resident a further £700 for the delays that occurred in it completing the internal works to the kitchen and to fully resolve the repair. This amount was broken down into:
1. £350 for the time and trouble chasing the matter.
2. £350 for the failure to further deliver repair services in a timely way.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a leak at the property.

After the landlord’s initial attempt to resolve the leak was unsuccessful and it was notified by the resident of a continued issue on 13 April 2021, it acted quickly to inspect the following day identifying the boiler flue as being the cause. From here, the landlord did not effectively coordinate with its contractors to ensure they had undertaken work required of them. Despite being aware that the flue was causing a leak from 14 April 2021, it was not until 2 July 2021 that it was recognised that the relevant contractor had not done any work on the flue and that further action was required. The landlord did not provide appropriate oversight of the repair to ensure that works were ordered and then completed, resulting in delays for the resident in having this leak resolved.
Whilst delays were caused by the landlord and its contractors not progressing repair work, it was reasonable for the contractor to carry out a series of different tasks to diagnose what repairs would be required. Roof repairs can be difficult to diagnose resulting in repeated attempts to solve the issue some of which might not fully resolve the leak. It would be reasonable to find that a broken skylight was letting in water and that its repair would solve the problem. After this, when the leak remained, it was necessary to reinspect and organise for alternative works to the flue after it was identified as causing a leak and for which the resolution required a new boiler. In progressing this work the landlord accepted its responsibility to resolve the leak and followed its contractor’s recommendations as was appropriate.
After the decision was made that a new boiler would be required there was a lengthy lead time to beginning work. This was primarily caused by the resident’s understandable concern that the work to install the new boiler could damage her newly fitted kitchen. She raised this concern with the landlord on 15 July 2021 and it then did not visit to discuss this with the resident until 22 September 2021. The timeframe to visit the resident to negotiate the completion of the repair was excessive and represented a failure of the landlord to resolve this issue with any urgency, prolonging the resident’s experience of having to live with disrepair.
When it was discovered that replacing the boiler had not resolved the leak, the landlord acted quickly to conduct a further inspection. It identified the source of the leak as now coming from a neighbour’s boiler flue. As the neighbour was a leaseholder the responsibility for completing the repair became theirs. From here the landlord’s role was to ensure the need for the repair was communicated to the leaseholder, ensuring that they completed the work in a timely manner and then organising any follow-on remedial work.
The landlord wrote to the leaseholder on 8 November 2021 and completed a follow up inspection confirming the leak was resolved on 28 January 2022, which was reasonable.
In its stage 2 response dated 24 November 2021, the landlord offered £900 total compensation to the resident. Within this amount, compensation relating to the leak included £350 for repairs service failure, £350 for time and trouble and £50 for missed appointments. This placed the award in the landlord’s compensation policy range for a high failure. The compensation offered was also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, (published on our website) which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident but there was no permanent impact. The landlord has used its compensation policy to acknowledge the delays experienced and the time and trouble caused having the leak resolved. At stage 2, the compensation awarded suitably reflected the impact of the delays in getting the leak resolved.
Following on from the Stage 2 response, the landlord continued to have an obligation to complete the work in a timely way. This included liaising with the leaseholder and resident over the completion of the boiler flue leak and then communicating with the resident to complete internal work to repair water damage in her property.
Once the leak had been identified as coming from the neighbour’s boiler flue on 3rd November 2021 the work in the resident’s property to repair water damage was not resolved until 11 July 2021. The Ombudsman does not consider this to be a reasonable timeframe for the full completion of the works involved in rectifying the issue that had caused the complaint.

Complaint Handling

The resident experienced delays accessing the complaints process which required her to repeatedly contact the landlord for updates. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 13 April 2021 and did not receive the stage 2 reply for 8 months. As per the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, Landlords must respond to the stage two complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. The code also says, if an extension beyond 20 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties. This service has seen no evidence that the resident was communicated with about extending the stage 2 response time or about delays in the response being sent.
The landlord recognised its delays in responding to the resident and then appropriately awarded £150 from its high failure rate based on its complaints policy.
However, the stage 2 response itself provides little information on how the outstanding matter would be put right or give details on outstanding actions. After the stage 2 response, the resident expressed her concern that the landlord had passed the responsibility for the repair to the neighbour and had not offered further support. She asked the landlord to revisit her complaint and provide a further response regarding how it would resolve the leak. It is understandable for the resident to have been concerned about what was going to happen next with the repair. The leak was still taking place and her kitchen continued to be damaged. The response did not provide suitable reassurance to the resident such as by providing details on when the internal remedial work would be completed, what would happen if the leaseholder did not resolve the leak and who the point of contact would be for future updates. As such the response failed to answer the resident’s primary concern, which was when would the leak be repaired and when would the landlord put things right with the walls and decoration in the kitchen.
Following contact from this Service as part of our investigation, on 28 June 2023 the landlord informed us that it had reviewed its complaint response and identified further failings in the delivery of remedial work in the resident’s kitchen. It is important that the landlord did recognise the impact of further failings on the resident by reviewing the circumstances and offering a further payment.
Whilst it is important that the landlord undertook this review it occurred almost 12 months after the completion of internal work at the resident’s property. This is a considerable delay in conducting a review and demonstrates a lack of follow up in an appropriate timeframe to ensure all elements of complaint were resolved to a satisfactory standard for the resident.
In addition, it is of concern that there is a theme of delayed delivery of the repairs service across the timespan of this complaint. Despite this being identified at stage 1 and stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint handling, the service failure persisted into the delivery of remedial works after the formal complaint process finished. The landlord did not demonstrate that it learnt from the resident’s complaint by putting things right through an improved repairs service at the earliest possible time.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of a leak at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord recognised its delays in resolving the leak and sought to put this right by making a financial offer of redress at stage 2. However, the landlord did not evidence any learning by ensuring it delivered an effective repairs service after the stage 2 response was issued. After the response had been issued there remained a 7-month period to fully resolve the leak and complete the internal repair work which is an unreasonable amount of time.
The landlord did not respond to the complaints effectively using timescales in line with its policy commitments and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. Whilst it offered suitable redress for the delays the landlord did not provide a quality stage 2 response by not giving sufficient detail on what the next steps for the repair would be or monitoring its completion. After the response was sent and the complaint was closed there were further delays in the delivery of outstanding actions which demonstrate a failure to learn from the resident’s complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Within 28 days of receipt of this report, Pay the resident the £700 compensation offered as part of its complaint review if it has not already done so. This should be paid within four weeks.
The landlord reviews its repairs and contract managing process to ensure effective monitoring of its repairs, particularly where work has been given to a contractor, so that it can be sure that works have been completed. The landlord should advise the Ombudsman of its intentions within 8 weeks of the receipt of this order.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its staff’s training needs in relation to handling complaints in line with its policies, and the expectations of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.