Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202127578)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127578

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

29 July 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.

background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repairs to the guttering at the property.

Background

  1. The resident, who is an assured tenant of the landlord, originally raised an issue regarding the rear gutter of her property in December 2020. The resident said that a contractor attended the property to replace part of the guttering (date not given) though this had not resolved the issue. The resident chased up the repair and on 15 October 2021, she submitted a formal complaint. The complaint outlined the issue with the leaking gutter and the subsequent damage from the leak, which included potential damp, and damaged carpet in the living room.
  2. The landlord gave its final response on 5 January 2022, in which it explained that during a visit to take damp readings, the surveyor found no signs of damp or excessive moisture and that the readings were normal. The landlord maintained that the response time for the repair of the gutter was reasonable but could have been prioritised. It also stated that the repair to the guttering had been completed. The landlord offered a total of £210 compensation. This included £85 that had been offered as part of its stage one response (£50 for time and trouble, £10 for a missed appointment, and £25 for service failure). The remainder of the compensation was broken down to £100 for reimbursement of carpet cleaning, and £30 for time and trouble.
  3. The resident continued to report leak issues from the gutter following the landlord’s final response. After further failed attempts at rectifying the issue, the landlord managed to complete the repair on 28 February 2022. On 27 June 2022, during correspondence with this service, the landlord offered the resident a further £185 in compensation. This was broken down as, £70 for time and trouble, £65 for service failure and delays, and £50 for poor complaint handling in terms of original compensation being miscalculated. This brought the total offer of compensation to £400.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

  1. The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that routine repairs are to be made within ’28 calendar days and by appointment’.
  2. The landlord’s Compensation Guidance states that payments of £51 to £160 are to be made where there has been ‘considerable service failure. but there may be no permanent impact on the [resident]’.
  3. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that time and trouble payments relating to medium service failure would be between £51 to £151.
  4. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that missed appointment payments are to be between £10 to £50.

Scope of Investigation

  1. Following the landlord’s final response, the resident raised issues relating to the repair of a new door, and the installation of a new radiator in the living room. The resident confirmed to this Service that these outstanding issues had now been completed. In any case, this Service is unable to investigate these issues as part of this report. This is because they were not brought to the landlord’s attention as part of the formal complaints process under investigation. The landlord must have an opportunity to formally to respond to any issues relating to its service delivery, and therefore, if the resident remains unsatisfied with how the landlord had handled these additional issues, the resident should submit a new complaint to the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repairs to the guttering at the property

  1. The resident stated in her formal complaint (15 October 2021) that she had first reported the issue with the gutter to the landlord in December 2020. She also stated that a contractor had attended to replace part of the guttering, but this did not fix the issue. However, in an email to this Service on 27 June 2022, the landlord stated that the matter was first reported in May 2021. No correspondence from this period has been provided and it has therefore not been possible to confirm the exact date that the issue was first raised with the landlord.
  2. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet as mentioned, evidence from the initial report has not been provided. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. 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.
  3. The earliest piece of evidence that has been provided is a worksheet from a visit to the property on 11 June 2021. The worksheet states that contractors attended and found a blocked and leaking gutter. It also acknowledged that the leak was overflowing onto the patio below. The contractors cleared the gutter but also advised that the neighbouring gutters were also blocked, and therefore the issue would repeat.
  4. This worksheet suggests that it had identified an issue relating to the repair and a potential solution to the issue. The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that routine repairs are to be made within ‘28 calendar days and by appointment’, however no follow-up appointment was made to clear the neighbours’ guttering. It has not been made clear whether the resident’s neighbours are tenants of the landlord, but correspondence suggests that it would be reasonable to conclude that this was the case due to the landlord’s ability to contact them and provide work to their gutters. With this in mind, the landlord would be expected to make a follow up appointment to clear the neighbours’ guttering sooner than it did, as it had identified this as being an issue that would likely cause the resident’s problem to persist. By identifying this issue and not rectifying it, the landlord failed to adequately complete its repair/maintenance obligations to the resident.
  5. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord arranged a new appointment (10 November 2021) for contractors to attend both the resident’s and her neighbours’ properties, in order to clear the guttering. However, the resident, nor her neighbours were notified of the appointment. It is vital for the landlord to provide updates to the resident regarding any developments or planned appointments relating to the resident’s complaint. By doing so, the landlord can manage the resident’s expectations, which is an important aspect of handling a complaint. However, not doing so is a failure to follow its procedures. This failure makes it more likely that appointments will not proceed.
  6. This communication issue between the landlord and its resident was further exacerbated by internal communication issues that contributed to the failed appointment on 10 November 2021. The landlord had not specified that it was the rear guttering that needed unblocking/repairing. Consequently, when the contractors attended the properties only the front guttering was cleared, leaving the substantive issue with the rear guttering in place.
  7. The landlord’s failure to provide the correct information to its contractors, and also to notify the residents of the date of the appointment, led to an unnecessary delay in resolution for the resident. However, the landlord did recognise this in its stage one response, by categorising it as a missed appointment and including a £10 payment for it in its overall offer of compensation. This offer of £10 for a missed appointment was in line with its Compensation Policy which states that missed appointment payments are to be between £10 to £50. Additionally, as well as apologising for this miscommunication in its stage one response, the landlord apologised multiple times during email correspondence with the resident.
  8. As well as apologising, the landlord assured the resident that any training needs that had been identified as a result of the communication error, were being acted upon. Additionally, the landlord informed the resident that it would be using her complaint as part of a case study to improve its services, and to better understand the root causes behind failures. This is in line with this Services dispute resolution principles, which encourages landlords to not only resolve issues, but to look beyond the individual complaint by implementing improvements that would prevent such mistakes from repeating in the future.
  9. As part of the stage one response, the landlord informed the resident that a new appointment had been booked for 10 December 2021, however, in an email to the landlord on 30 November 2021, the resident informed that she had been told over the phone that there was no record of that appointment. Additionally, the landlord had told her that it could not confirm whether the neighbours had been informed of the appointment. This was important as access was needed to the back gardens in order to carry out the repair. The repair was eventually booked for 21 December 2021. The contractors attended, and the landlord confirmed in its final response (5 January 2021) that the repair had been completed.
  10. On 11 January 2022, the resident informed the landlord that the guttering was still leaking. Following this report, there were several occasions in which contractors attended the property without appointment, or without adequate notice. In an email to the resident on 14 February 2022, the landlord advised that it had stressed its concern to the contractor regarding arriving at the property without appointments. It confirmed that a discussion would be had with the relevant agents, and also confirmed that the contractor did have all the necessary details in order to arrange appointments with the residents.
  11. Arriving to the resident’s property without prior arrangement can lead to several issues. Firstly, it can lead to further delays, as the resident may not be present for the visit, therefore pushing the repair date further back. Additionally, contractors arriving unannounced can be perceived as intrusive by the resident. Although the issue was that the contractor had not booked appointments, the landlord ultimately oversees all repair responsibilities, and therefore must ensure that its contractors are maintaining appropriate standards in regard to visiting the resident’s property.
  12. As well as the issue with the leak itself, as part of her formal complaint the resident raised concerns that it had been causing damp within her property. The presence of damp in a property can be a serious issue, as if left untreated, it has the potential to spread mould which could eventually lead to severe health issues for the resident and her family. As part of this Service’s Spotlight on Damp & Mould (October 2021), this Service looks for landlord to take a proactive stance on the issue. An email on 20 October stated that the landlord had arranged works for a dehumidifier to help dry the hallway floor in the property. However, no further action was taken, and the resident raised the issue of the wet living room floor again on 10 November 2021, and 23 November 2021 as part of her stage two escalation request.
  13. Following this, there was an inspection during the week commencing 6 December 2021. The inspection found that there were no signs of damp, and that the readings from the moisture detector had come back normal. However, the resident insisted that there was still the smell of damp, and that the floor would become wet to the touch following rain. The surveyor also suggested that the placement of the sofa in front of the heater prevented air circulation around the room. This is constructive advice from the surveyor, and given that the moisture readings from the property came back normal, it was reasonable for the surveyor to recommend steps for the resident to take to minimise the issue.
  14. Although the landlord had said there were no signs of damp during the inspection, there were emails that suggested there was possible water ingress on the exterior walls of the living room following the leak. This would suggest that the landlord had identified the leak as the cause of potential ingress within the property. In its final response, the landlord offered £100 for the reimbursement of carpet cleaning that had resulted from the ingress. Additionally, it installed a new heater in April in an attempt to help remedy the issue also. The main source of the ingress however, was from the leak from the gutter, and fixing this was the main aim to prevent the issue persisting.
  15. The landlord confirmed that the work was completed on 28 February 2022 following a failed attempt at the work on 23 February 2022, in which the contractors could not gain access to the rear of all properties. In an internal email dated 21 June 2022, the landlord noted that following the repair on 28 February 2022, it had advised the resident to contact again should the issue reoccur, but noted that the resident had not made further contact. Following this, the landlord wrote to this Service and offered a total of £400 compensation to the resident. This was a £185 increase from the offer in its final response. This was broken down to £150 for time and trouble, £10 for the missed appointment, £90 for service failure (including £10 per month of the issue not being resolved), £100 for carpet cleaning, and £50 for initially offering the wrong amount of compensation.
  16. This offer of compensation was above and beyond the guidelines of its Compensation Guidance which states that payments of £51 to £160 are to be made where there has been ‘considerable service failure… but there may be no permanent impact on the [resident]’. This is also in line with this Services’ remedies guidance which suggests that payments of £250 to £700 are reasonable for instances where ‘the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the [resident]’. With this in mind, it is the opinion of this Service that the landlord’s offer of redress, including its apologies to the resident, was reasonable and appropriate in regard to the circumstances and delays.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews the case to identify any learning it can from a communication and record keeping perspective. This should include ensuring that its contractor notifies tenants of upcoming appointments.