Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202210442)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210442

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

27 March 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of broken glass in her garden.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a house with a private garden.
  2. During an inspection of the property on 19 May 2022, the landlord identified that the garden had been left in an unsafe condition after the property had been empty following the departure of the previous tenant, and was littered with glass. The operative stated that in order to decide on the most appropriate resolution, the landlord would need to determine how deep the glass went into the soil.
  3. On 20 June 2022, the resident raised a complaint as she was dissatisfied with the lack of communication from the landlord, as she had not been updated since the inspection. She later added that she was seeking for the landlord to apply turf to the garden, and provided the landlord with three quotes for the works to be completed, which included re-soiling the garden and laying turf.
  4. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 28 June 2022, where it confirmed a work order had been raised to replace a large volume of soil in the resident’s garden, and that it had chased its contractor for a start date. It informed the resident that it would not turf over the soil, but would supply grass seed. It acknowledged that there had been poor communication, and apologised to the resident. It upheld her complaint due to these factors, and offered her £50 compensation for time and trouble.
  5. Between June and July 2022, the resident continued to chase the garden works. On 26 July 2022, the resident informed the landlord that she would be instructing a private contractor to complete the garden works, and that the landlord would need to pay for it. The landlord stated it had offered £110 towards the cost of the turf, as the resident had informed it that the price of the turf would be £220. The resident informed the landlord that she would not be using the landlord’s contractors, and asked for the appointments which had been booked for garden works to be cancelled.
  6. On 1 August 2022, the resident asked the landlord why the works had been cancelled. The resident provided the landlord with three quotes for the garden works, all of which were over £1000. The landlord advised the resident that the quotes were too high, and that she needed to let its contractors complete the works. However, the resident was unhappy for the contractors to carry out the works needed in the garden, and believed the landlord should pay the cost of the private contractors, who completed the works in August 2022.
  7. The landlord provided its stage two complaint response on 10 August 2022. It stated that the resolution it had offered within its stage one response was sufficient. Due to the quoted price of the works by a private contractor, the landlord recommended that the resident could submit a claim through its liability insurance.
  8. The resident subsequently escalated her complaint to this Service. She was dissatisfied that the landlord had not completed the works, as the garden had posed a health and safety risk. The resident is seeking to be reimbursed a portion of the cost of a private contractor she hired to complete the works, which included digging up soil, removing glass and laying turf, which had cost her £1002.20.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the resident should provide access to the landlord’s staff or contractors at all reasonable hours, to inspect or carry out repairs or other works.
  2. The landlord’s ‘A guide to repair responsibilities’ document states that routine repairs will be completed within 28 calendar days (20 working days).

Assessment

  1. Following the inspection on 19 May 2022, the landlord identified that the garden had been left in an unsafe condition following void works. Although no evidence was provided to show how the landlord categorised the repair, the resident had raised concerns with the landlord during July 2022 about the repair being categorised as routine, as she felt it was more urgent. The landlord did not dispute that the repair had been categorised as routine. When considering this, the garden works should have been completed within 28 calendar days, as per the landlord’s repairs timeframes for routine repairs. Whilst the garden clearly needed to be cleared, this would not be considered as an emergency repair. This is because although the glass posed a health and safety risk, the risk was not immediate as the resident would have been able to use the rest of the property safely although she could not use the garden until it was cleared.
  2. On 20 June 2022, the resident chased the landlord as she had received no updates following the inspection. At this point, the works should have already been completed as it had been 33 calendar days. Where delays are likely to occur, a landlord would be expected to contact the resident, provide reasoning for the delay and a new date for the completion of the works, which did not happen in this case. This is evidence of poor communication by the landlord, which impacted the resident and resulted in distress and inconvenience due to her concerns of the garden posing a health and safety issue, and that she had to spend time and trouble chasing the matter.
  3. In addition, although the landlord had stated in its stage one response on 28 June 2022 that works had been raised to replace soil and supply grass seed, it still failed to provide the resident with a date in which it expected the works to be completed. The resident continued to chase the works, which is further evidence of poor communication by the landlord. It is therefore recommended that the landlord reviews its staff’s training needs to ensure that it is communicating effectively with residents and managing their expectations.
  4. This Service recognises that, following this, there was a dispute concerning the works that the landlord stated it would complete. Although the resident had requested turf, the landlord stated it would not provide turf, but would provide grass seed, or provide the resident with £110 towards the cost of the turf, once the garden had been re-soiled. Whilst it is understandable that the resident wanted the area to be returfed, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer grass seed as an alternative. It is important to note that social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to choose a less expensive option to restore the garden.
  5. As the resident was dissatisfied with the scope of works the landlord was willing to complete, she asked for the works due to be completed by the landlord on 9 August 2022 to be cancelled, and opted to hire a private contractor who completed the works in August 2022. Whilst the resident is entitled to hire an independent contractor to complete the works, the landlord would not be obliged to reimburse the resident for the full cost of the private contractor (£1002.20), especially when considering that the works raised by the landlord were appropriate, in line with its repair responsibilities. As the resident was dissatisfied by the scope of works offered by the landlord, she refused to let its contractors attend to complete the works. The Ombudsman is not questioning the resident’s reasons for deciding not to allow access. However, residents are obliged to provide access to the landlord’s staff and contractors, as per the tenancy agreement and therefore the landlord cannot be held responsible for any delays the lack of access caused to the garden works.
  6. Nevertheless, the landlord did not dispute that, at times, its communication had been poor, which had been frustrating for the resident. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  7. In this case, the landlord had attempted to put things right by offering to complete the works for the resident, and trying to accommodate her preferences. In addition, it attempted to put things right by offering the resident £230 compensation (£50 for time and trouble and £170 towards the cost of the turf). The landlord also recommended that the resident could submit a claim through its liability insurance for the total cost, which was reasonable in the circumstances. Landlords are entitled to use liability insurance policies as a means of managing the costs of negligence claims such as this and the landlord would not be expected to reimburse the resident for the full cost of the repairs outside the insurance process. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to investigate or comment on insurance claims and therefore we cannot comment on this aspect of the complaint any further.
  8. On 23 February 2023, the landlord informed this Service that it had completed a review of the complaint and would be willing to increase its offer of compensation to £250, which it had not yet offered to the resident. Whilst it is acknowledged that the landlord was attempting to resolve the complaint, this is a significantly delayed offer, and there was no evidence provided to suggest that the landlord could not have reached this decision at an earlier stage. In addition, the landlord’s offers of compensation did not adequately reflect the delays experienced by the resident.
  9. Moreover, it should be noted that the evidence in this case has not been comprehensive. Some evidence was provided by the landlord, which includes that work orders had been raised and email communications which took place between the landlord and the resident and between the landlord’s staff internally. However, this Service also requested repair logs as evidence of any inspections or works, and call logs as evidence of any further communication which took place between the resident and the landlord. In response to this request, the landlord stated that it had no further evidence to provide. Although the Ombudsman has been able to investigate the complaint using the information provided, this lack of information suggests poor record keeping by the landlord as it should keep accurate and comprehensive repair records and be able to provide these to the Ombudsman upon request.
  10. The landlord has said that no repairs were raised as the resident had declined the works; however, during its stage one complaint response, it had confirmed that repair works had been raised. Furthermore, it should have been able to provide a repair record for the inspection which took place. In addition, the landlord provided no call logs, and no evidence of any communication taking place prior to 30 June 2022, other than that the resident had raised a complaint and the date of the inspection.
  11. 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. Therefore, the landlord is recommended to review its record-keeping processes to ensure it is maintaining accurate and accessible records of any communications which take place with residents, and any repairs information.
  12. In conclusion, whilst the landlord would not be expected to reimburse the resident for work that was completed by a private contractor, and, at times, the delay experienced by the resident was outside of its control, further compensation is due when considering the failings identified above. In view of this, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, compensation of £350 should be paid to the resident, this is inclusive of the £230 the landlord offered previously, if it has not yet been paid. This is in line with the remedies guidance provided by the Ombudsman for cases where the has been a failure which adversely affected the resident but there may be no permanent impact.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of broken glass in the garden.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £350 compensation, which is made up of:
      1. £120 in view of the landlord’s poor record-keeping and delays,
      2. £230 previously offered to the resident in view of the poor communication on the landlord’s behalf, and as a gesture towards the cost of the turf.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its staff’s training needs to ensure that it is communicating effectively with residents, and managing their expectations.
  2. Review its record-keeping processes, ensuring that it has a system of record-keeping to record and retain any information about repairs, inspections or communication from and to residents, so that it can be provided to this Service upon request.