Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202209895)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209895

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

9 February 2024

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 roof repairs.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a flat.
3. The roof of the building was damaged by a storm sometime around 20 February 2022.
4. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 4 April 2022. The resident said that the landlord had not repaired the roof, she had been left in unfit living conditions, and without lights. The resident said that this had affected her day to day living and mental wellbeing. To remedy her complaint, she wanted the roof fixed and a date when her home would be repaired. She said that she would like to live in a property with lights, wanted a manager to contact her, and the landlord to pay compensation.
5. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint on 14 April 2022 and apologised. As redress, the landlord offered £150 compensation, in recognition of service failings and the resident’s time and trouble. The resident told the landlord on 20 April 2022, that she was unhappy with the level of compensation offered. She requested a refund of 2 months service charges (£265.44) and £500 in recognition of inconvenience, stress and anxiety caused.
6. The resident told the landlord on 22 April 2022, that she intended to escalate her complaint to stage 2 after seeking further advice. On 3 May 2022, the resident asked the landlord a series of questions, to confirm:
   1. When the roof would be fixed.
   2. When the landlord would arrange to turn the mains lights back on.
   3. If she would receive any documentation evidencing completion of the roof repair and would she get a copy of the guarantee.
   4. Why it had asked the resident to contact its insurers to progress internal repairs to the property. The resident asked the landlord to estimate how long this would take.
7. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 9 May 2022. The resident stated that the ground she was relying upon to seek a review at stage 2, was that the landlord had provided incorrect information in its stage 1 response. In particular, the resident disagreed that an urgent roof repair was completed on 22 March 2022. The resident also disagreed that scaffolding was erected on 18 March 2022 as had been suggested. The resident stated that she still had no lights and the landlord had not provided any information to verify that the roof no longer had an uncontainable leak.
8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 6 June 2022. The landlord:
   1. Did not uphold the resident’s complaint that repairs to the roof remained outstanding. It stated the roofing work was completed on 21 April 2022 and was post inspected on 29 April 2022.
   2. Responded to the resident’s question about documentation and warranties. The landlord clarified that the faulty roof was replaced with an appropriate system of roof cover (ply and membrane). The roof had a 15-year warranty for workmanship and materials used. These details had been recorded on its property file for future use. If the resident needed any further information, it would put her in touch with its senior surveyor. The landlord said it found no evidence of service failure.
   3. Accepted that delays experienced with the roof had affected the resident’s electric supply. Therefore, it upheld the resident’s complaint about lighting. The landlord noted that its contractor had isolated the lighting in the property due to the leak on 21 February 2022. It had arranged to reinstate the lighting on 23 May 2022. The landlord offered the resident an additional £150 compensation in recognition of service failure, time, and trouble.
   4. Responded to the resident’s question about its insurance process. The landlord had explained that such damage was managed through its insurance process. It said that it had not identified any service failing. It said it had made arrangements for its insurers to contact the resident directly.
9. It is understood that the landlord’s insurers settled an insurance claim on 1 March 2023, in respect of the damage caused to interior to the property from the roof leak. The landlord agreed to cover the £250 excess payment charge due under the policy.
10. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman because she remained dissatisfied with the length of time that it had taken the landlord to complete the roof repairs and reinstate her lighting. The resident felt that the landlord’s offer of compensation did not fully reflect the delay and consequent stress and inconvenience caused.
11. The landlord told the Ombudsman on 15 August 2023, that it had reviewed its complaint handling on this case. It had identified some confusion following issue of the stage 2 response, over the amount of compensation offered to the resident via an online link. The landlord had inadvertently offered the resident £400 compensation, rather than the £300 previously stated. Although the resident had not accepted its offer of compensation, the landlord was willing to honour the elevated compensation offer. It had sent a new link to the resident offering £650 compensation to resolve the complaint, which included £250 to cover the excess insurance policy charge.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of roof repairs.

12. The landlord had a statutory obligation under Section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This included the roof. Under the Act, repairs must be conducted within a reasonable time.
13. The lease places a contractual obligation on the landlord to maintain, renew, or improve the roof and any part of the building that is not the responsibility of the leaseholder or other leaseholders in the block. The landlord is also obliged to keep the building insured against loss or damage by fire and other such risks.
14. The landlord’s expected response times are stated in its repair’s guide:
    1. Emergency repairs are any repair that may cause significant risk to the safety of its resident, or significant damage to the property. Its contractor will attend within 24 hours to make safe. Further visits may be needed to fully complete the repair, which will be scheduled with the resident.
    2. Routine repairs are completed within 28 days. If the landlord finds that works will take longer than this, it will keep the resident updated. The guide states that if a repair is not an emergency it will generally be classed as a routine repair.
    3. Non-routine repairs are repairs which take longer to complete due to complexity, materials needed, or considerations needed for the safety of its operatives (for example, working at height). In this case, the landlord expects works to be completed in 90 days.
15. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out the compensation it will award in recognition of service failures, time, and trouble. The amount of compensation awarded is dependent upon the impact or inconvenience to the resident and the level of effort the resident has had to expend to resolve an issue. It will offer an apology and £50 where there has been “low failure”, £51 to £150 for “medium failure”, and £151 to £350 for “high failure”.
16. The landlord’s contractor responded to the roof leak as an emergency on 21 February 2022, which was within expected timescales under its repair policy. The contractor was able to make the electrics safe by isolating the mains lights in the property. It is reasonable to assume that as an interim measure, however inconvenient, the resident was able to light the property by free standing lights powered by wall sockets. But it is unclear from the evidence seen if its contractor was able to stop the “uncontainable leak”. It is noted that a temporary roof covering was not fitted until 25 February 2022.Between 20 February 2022 and 25 February 2022, the property was at risk of further damage from water ingress.
17. Given that the landlord was unable to make the roof watertight for several days, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have kept the resident informed of the actions that it was taking. However, no evidence has been seen to suggest that this happened. This was unreasonable and contributed to the resident’s overall distress.
18. The evidence suggests that the roofing works were post inspected and signed off as completed on 27 April 2022, although in its stage 2 response this is referenced as 29 April 2022. The landlord has explained that delays completing works arose because its usual contractor was unable to carry out works on the specialist roof. However, it had worked with several contractors throughout February and March 2022 to appoint an accredited contractor. It said that the works would have been completed sooner had it not been interrupted by storms, which prevented the safe installation of scaffold between 19 March 2022 and 19 April 2022. To further complicate matters, there was also a regional shortage of scaffolding company availability at this time. The Ombudsman has been able to verify the landlord’s account in respect of the delays from the evidence seen.
19. It is reasonable to assume that since the roof was of non-standard construction and required scaffolding, the repair fell under the landlord’s non-routine repair category. While the landlord does not dispute that it took longer than it expected to fully repair the roof, the roofing repair was completed within the maximum timescales set out under its policy. However, there is limited evidence to suggest that the landlord kept the resident adequately updated in the period between the temporary roof repair and roof replacement. There is also no evidence that the landlord informed the resident when the work had been completed. This was unreasonable since it left the resident uncertain of how the matter was being resolved and unable to progress repairs to the interior of the property caused by water damage.
20. There is no evidence that the landlord evaluated whether it was safe for the resident to turn the mains lighting back on following completion of the temporary repair. It has not been possible to determine from the evidence seen, if the mains lighting could have been turned back on prior to the roof being replaced and signed off on 27 April 2022. However, had the landlord endeavoured to provide regular updates to the resident in line with its repairs policy, it might have realised sooner that the resident was still waiting for confirmation that the mains lighting could be turned back on.
21. After the resident told the landlord on 3 May 2022, that she was expecting the landlord to reinstate the mains lighting, the landlord raised an enquiry with its repairs team on the same day. Although the landlord considered that it was the resident’s responsibility to switch the mains lighting back on, it accepted that it had not clearly communicated this to the resident at the time. The resident continued to be inconvenienced and without mains lighting for a further 20 days before this matter was resolved, which could have been avoided.
22. Having recognised that there had been failings, the landlord sought to put things right by apologising and offering compensation, in line with its compensation policy. Prior to this investigation starting, the landlord’s offer of compensation was enhanced. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s later offer of redress resolves the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances of the case.
23. Overall, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in regard to the landlord’s handling of roof repairs.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

24. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. The landlord will acknowledge stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 5 working days. It will provide a full complaint response within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2. These timescales are in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
25. A complaint can be escalated to stage 2 if it meets one or more of the following grounds:
    1. The response received at stage 1 is factually incorrect.
    2. The response received does not address the initial complaint.
    3. Important information provided in the initial complaint has not been considered.
    4. Actions agreed at Stage 1 have not been completed as agreed.
26. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 4 April 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 response within expected timescales. While there is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint, there is no evidence that the resident was disadvantaged by the landlord not doing so.
27. The resident told the landlord that she was dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered. The landlord explained that its offer of compensation had been made in accordance with its policy. It included a link to its policy for transparency. It also explained the grounds for escalating the complaint to stage 2 if the resident remained dissatisfied.
28. The resident told the landlord on 22 April 2022, that she would be escalating the complaint to stage 2 once she had sought further advice. The landlord reminded the resident that to escalate the complaint, she needed to explain the grounds for her dissatisfaction.
29. The resident indicated to the landlord on 3 May 2022, that she was not ready to escalate the complaint yet but wanted the landlord to answer several questions related to completion of the roof, warranties, and the insurance process. She also stated that once the roof had been repaired, the landlord would need to send someone to switch the lights back on at the mains. Having not heard from the landlord 4 working days later, the resident chased the landlord for a response. The resident also asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 because she considered some of the information provided by the landlord in its stage 1 response was incorrect.
30. The landlord suggested to the resident on 9 May 2022, that she had misunderstood its stage 1 response. It said that while it could escalate the complaint, it was unsure what more it could add since the information it had provided in the stage 1 complaint was correct. Following this, the resident expressed a view that the complaint should be escalated, which the landlord accepted. The Ombudsman makes the observation, that if the landlord felt that the complaint did not meet its grounds for escalation, it could have declined to escalate the complaint and informed the resident of her right to approach the Ombudsman about its decision. However, it is accepted that the resident was not disadvantaged by the landlord agreeing to review the complaint at stage 2, even if it did so outside of its usual complaint process.
31. The landlord provided its stage 2 response within expected timescales under its policy. The landlord said that it had investigated the resident’s complaint about outstanding roof repairs. It also provided responses to several questions that the resident had posed subsequent to issue of the landlord’s stage 1 response. However, since the purpose of the landlord’s complaint process was to investigate dissatisfaction, the landlord should have considered whether it was appropriate for some or all of those questions to be addressed by the relevant service area, outside of its complaint process. Taking this approach, if the resident was dissatisfied with any aspect of the service area’s response, she could have raised a separate complaint dealing specifically with any new complaint elements. Nevertheless, since the resident was not disadvantaged by the landlord’s adopted approach, the Ombudsman does not find service failure.
32. Although the Ombudsman identified some minor failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, since there was no detriment to the resident as a result of the landlord’s actions, the Ombudsman makes a finding of no maladministration.

 Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in regard to the landlord’s handling of roof repairs.
34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

35. The landlord should reoffer the £400 compensation it previously offered to the resident if it has not already paid it. This compensation is in respect of service failings identified by the landlord and the resident’s time and trouble in relation to the landlord’s handling of roof repairs and delays turning the mains lighting back on.
36. The landlord should reoffer the £250 it previously offered to the resident, if the landlord has not already paid it, covering the excess on the insurance claim.