Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202204996)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204996

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

23 November 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.             This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

  1. A leak into the resident’s property.
  2. The resident’s request for the landlord to pay the excess on its insurance policy.

Background

2.             The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a flat within a communal block. The landlord is the freeholder of the property.

3.             The resident informed the landlord of water ingress into the property from a heating pipe in the communal area ceiling void on 11 March 2022. The landlord sent out an operative to attend to the water ingress within 24 hours. The leak reoccurred on the 14 March 2022 and the landlord again sent out a contractor to resolve the leak. The resident contacted the landlord’s insurer on 17 March 2022, sending it a claim form and proof of damage. The landlord completed follow on works to complete its repair on 25 March 2022.

4.             The resident contacted the landlord on 26 March 2022, requesting proof of the leak being resolved and £250 for the excess fee on the insurance. The resident felt the landlord should pay this as it was liable for the damages. The landlord responded on 28 March 2022, informing the resident that leaseholders are responsible for the interior of the flat, and that she would have to pay for the excess as highlighted in the summary of cover.

5.             After discussions with the landlord, the resident attempted to raise a complaint on 7 April 2022. The landlord sent the resident an e-mail, advising her it would pay the £250 excess on 19 April 2022 when discussing a separate complaint about an unrelated issue. The landlord then sent the resident an e-mail on 22 April 2022, saying that it would not be paying the excess or raising a complaint for the resident as there was no service failure in its actions when handling the leak.

6.             Throughout April, May, and June 2022, the resident and the landlord exchanged several e-mails about the issue, with the landlord confirming that it would not raise a complaint about this matter.

7.             The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 1 August 2022, requesting that it investigate her complaint as she was still seeking reimbursement for the insurance excess. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord which responded, providing its explanation for why it felt the complaint was not in the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction on 20 September 2022. The Ombudsman called the landlord on 10 October 2022, advising that, based on the information it had provided, the complaint would be progressed for investigation.

Assessment and findings

The scope of our investigation

8.             The Ombudsman is unable to investigate the insurance claim or interpret the policy document to say who is responsible to pay the insurance excess. Matters relating to insurance contracts do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman Service.

The landlord’s handling of a leak into the resident’s property.

9.             The landlord’s repair policy states that emergency repairs will be attended to within 24 hours, with routine repairs being completed within 28 days.

10.        After first being notified of the water ingress, the landlord had its contractor attend within 24 hours to make an emergency repair. The leak then reoccurred on 14 March 2022 and the landlord again sent a contractor out within its 24-hour response time.

11.        The landlord completed its follow up works on 25 March 2022. This again was within the timelines set out in its repair guide, and a fair and reasonable time for the landlord to respond to the reports of water ingress.

12.        The landlord’s internal correspondence mentions the leak may have been caused by wider works. Had the leak reoccurred on multiple occasions, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to perform a wider investigation into the cause of the leak. However, as there was only one instance of this reoccurring, the landlord’s actions were proportionate in this instance.

13.        The lease agreement places the responsibility for any internal repairs, such as to plaster or wallpaper, on the leaseholder. The landlord therefore would not be expected to perform any remedial works in this situation. This would usually be dealt with through an insurance claim. The resident has claimed on the landlord’s insurance policy, demonstrating that the landlord had made her aware of the correct procedure for doing so.

14.        There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the water ingress into the resident’s property. The landlord responded in a reasonable timescale as per its repair policy, and its investigation into the matter was proportionate.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the landlord to pay the excess on her insurance claim.

15.        The resident requested the landlord pay the excess for her insurance claim due to damage being caused by a leak from part of the building which the landlord was responsible for maintaining. The landlord has stated that it would not pay the excess as it is the resident’s responsibility to do so. As this investigation has previously established, the damage that the leak caused to the interior of the leaseholder’s property would be the leaseholder’s responsibility.

16.        The resident has asked for proof that paying the excess on the insurance policy was her responsibility. The landlord provided the resident with a summary of cover, which stated this was her responsibility. The landlord also mentioned that the lease informed her she would be responsible for this and referred to policy documentation. The resident asked for the specific terms that referred to this matter, but the landlord did not provide her with this information. This was service failure on behalf of the landlord as it did not provide the information to the resident that would have fully detailed the basis of its decision on the excess.

17.        The landlord also provided conflicting information to the resident. At one stage, it offered to pay the £250 excess before advising her later that this offer was made in error. The resident had a concurrent complaint going on about a separate leak issue and the landlord confused the two. It offered to pay the excess due to its failures in handling that leak. When the landlord checked the details of the repair, it found that there had been no service failure in its handling of this leak. This again represented service failure by the landlord as it caused confusion to the resident by making an error in its communications at this point.

18.        The landlord refused to put the resident’s complaint through the complaint process based on its belief that there was no service failure on its behalf. Having considered the landlord’s complaint policy, this would not be an appropriate reason for it not to consider the complaint. The landlord outlines what is excluded from its complaint procedure in section 3.3 of its complaint policy. The landlord’s belief that it had not committed service failure does not correspond to any of the reasons listed in its policy. This represented a failure from the landlord to properly follow its complaint policy.

19.        The landlord’s policies and behaviours should always be subject to scrutiny and allow residents the ability to challenge these, where appropriate. The resident raised concerns about the length of time the landlord took to respond to the leak and its decision not to pay her excess and its failure to provide information about the excess payment. The complaint the resident made would meet the Housing Ombudsman’s definition of a complaint: ‘An expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents’. In the opinion of the Ombudsman, the issues the resident raised represented legitimate complaints and therefore should have been considered through the complaints procedure. 

20.        Even if the landlord initially felt that there was no service failure in its actions, it should still have allowed the resident to access the complaints procedure. This is particularly the case given the landlord was aware it had made an error in its communications by incorrectly advising the resident that it would pay an excess fee. It should have investigated her concerns and if it still felt this was the correct decision, it could have detailed the reasons for this in its formal complaint response.

21.        There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to pay the excess on her insurance claim. It provided her with incorrect advice, failed to provide the full details of information it was relying on when making the decision and did not consider the complaint through its complaint procedure despite these failures. The landlord should pay the resident £75 for its failings.

Determination

22.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak.

23.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to pay the insurance excess.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

24.        Within 4 weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord should:

  1. Pay the resident £75 for its failure to fairly handle her request for it to pay the excess on her insurance claim.
  2. Apologise to the resident for this failing.
  3. Provide evidence to this Service that it has done so.

Recommendations

25.        The landlord should also review its complaints procedure to consider when it would accept complaints in relation to its policies and procedures. Residents disputing whether the landlord acted correctly within these represent a legitimate concern and should not therefore be barred from its complaint procedure.