Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202210801)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210801

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

26 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about:
    1. Issues with his boiler and flooding
    2. Service charges
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a shared ownership, ground floor flat. The lease began in 2015.
  2. Another resident in the building contacted the landlord on 1 November 2022 reported having total loss of water. The landlord determined this had affected all residents in the block. The landlord provided bottled water and heaters to the resident on 4 November 2022.
  3. The resident reported to the landlord that when the flat above him turned their boiler on, the resident’s flat was flooded, and water dripped onto their boiler. The resident arranged for an independent boiler engineer to visit his property. The landlord provided bottled water and heaters to the resident on 4 November 2022.
  4. By 5 November 2022 the issue was determined by the landlord to be with the respective underground water pumping station and a fix was completed by the managing agent who had responsibility for its maintenance. On 10 November 2022 the resident reported his boiler was fully operational and he had heating and hot water.
  5. A joint formal complaint was made by the residents of the block to the landlord on 13 December 2021. A stage one complaint response was issued by the landlord on 15 February 2022. £100 compensation made up of £60 for its failure to identify who was responsible for the pump and £40 for time and trouble pursuing matters. This was declined by the resident.
  6. The resident told this Service he had escalated his complaint to the landlord in March 2022. He said the landlord had asked for a number of extensions to respond. The landlord provided a stage two complaint response on 5 September 2022. It apologised for the lack of communication and delay in this response. It increased the compensation offered to £450 made up of £100 for the service failure; £100 for time and trouble; £100 for poor complaints handling; and £150 to reimburse the cost of the plumber.

Assessment and findings

Issues with the boiler and flooding

  1. The tenancy agreement confirms the resident is responsible for keep in proper safe working order, the gas central heating system. The resident must also arrange for any such appliance to be serviced annually by a gas safe engineer and provide evidence to the landlord upon request. It is also stated the landlord is not liable for any damage suffered to the premises due to the bursting or overflowing of any tank, boiler, or service media in the building. This is because any such liability may be covered by insurance obtained by the landlord.
  2. The landlord was not responsible for repairs to the water pumping station which caused the total water loss for the resident; this was the responsibility of the managing agent. The landlord was also not responsible for the damage to the resident’s boiler or damage caused by another resident’s boiler. The boiler and any subsequent repairs are the responsibility of the appropriate resident.
  3. The landlord was not obligated to provide heaters or bottled water to the resident but used its discretion to provide these as a goodwill gesture in recognition of the difficult circumstances the resident was in. The landlord acted positively by raking a customer-focused approach here.
  4. The landlord has acknowledged its confusion over who was responsible for the water pumping station in its complaint response. It has also offered reimbursement of £150 for the resident’s gas engineer call out cost. These are both reasonable actions by the landlord and again it demonstrated a resolution-focused approach. The landlord also acted reasonably in agreeing to complete a survey of the resident’s flat relating to the boiler, which it was not obligated to do so.
  5. Overall, the landlord acknowledged where there had been a failing and took a customer-focused approach to support the resident. The landlord did not break down the compensation offered between failings identified for the boiler and service charges. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers the compensation offered at stage two (£100 for the service failing and £100 for time and trouble) was reasonable and reflects the evident inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by its failings relating to the boiler only.

Service charges

  1. In accordance with the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for grounds maintenance, including communal lawns, hedges and shrub beds, weeding, litter, and leaf clearance. The landlord is also responsible for keeping common parts of the building adequately clean and lit. Service provision includes all expenditure incurred by landlord, including repair management and maintenance and provision of services for the building.
  2. The resident confirmed to this Service that his end of year charges did not match with the charges he paid, and he did not receive a refund from 2020 or 2021. In the stage two response the landlord noted that the resident had been waiting for payment to be made to your regarding an overpayment of service charges. An order has been made, below, for the landlord to reimburse the resident for any overpayment of service charges.
  3. The original issues raised by the resident about bin storage and drip from the main entrance door have been resolved. The landlord confirmed in its stage two response it would consider removing problematic bushes. However, the resident has confirmed to this Service there are ongoing issues with maintenance of trees, bushes, and weeds in the communal areas still. An order has therefore been made, below, for the landlord to provide this Service with evidence that sufficient maintenance has taken place in the communal areas.
  4. The landlord has confirmed that a third-party contractor was responsible for provision of grounds maintenance, and it was unable to confirm its interaction with this contractor since the resident raised issues regarding grounds maintenance. The landlord has offered to refund two months of the elements of the service charge that were not delivered. An order has been made, below, for the landlord to make this refund, if it has not done so already.
  5. The landlord provided evidence on 27 October 2022 of the grounds being in good order. It confirmed to this Service that it has continued to monitor the site regularly and will raise any service failures with the appropriate delivery contractor.
  6. Additional compensation of £100 is appropriate here for the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings relating to service charges.

Complaint handling

  1. In accordance with its procedures and policies the landlord aims to acknowledge stage one complaints within five working days and provide a final response within ten working days. If this is not possible it will agree a new date, ideally with a maximum of a further ten days.
  2. In its stage one response the landlord said the complaint from the resident and other residents was received on 5 January 2022. The letter of complaint received from the resident and other residents was made to the landlord on 13 December 2021. The landlord’s acknowledgement of 6 January 2022 to the stage one complaint was therefore outside its timescale for acknowledgement and an inaccuracy recorded on its stage one response.
  3. The stage one complaint response only addressed the issues raised regarding the residents’ boiler and water pumping station, explaining who was responsible for maintenance of each and apologising for any confusion over this. The stage one response failed to address any issues raised by the resident regarding service charges or services provided.
  4. The landlord’s stage one complaint response was provided to the residents on 15 February 2022, which exceeded its timescale for response, including any additional allowance for delay. The landlord did however apologise for this delay in this response.
  5. In accordance with its procedures and policies the landlord aims to acknowledge stage two complaints within five working days and provide a final response within 20 days. If this is not possible it will agree a new date, with extension no longer than 30 days total.
  6. This Service can find no evidence of the stage two complaint being received by the landlord. However, in its stage two complaint response it confirms the stage two complaint was received on 10 March 2022 and the resident has confirmed that.
  7. This Service can find no evidence the landlord provided an acknowledgement to the stage two complaint. On the balance of probability this Service agrees this took place, as the resident has confirmed the landlord informed him on several occasions its response would be delayed.
  8. The stage two response from the landlord was made to the resident on 5 September 2022 which far exceeded its timescale for response, including any additional allowance for delay.
  9. The landlord offered compensation of £100 for its poor complaint handling. Additional financial compensation of £100 is appropriate here to recognise the full impact on the resident for the landlord’s failure to respond to all issues at stage one, its delays in responding and for confusion about ownership of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about his boiler and flooding.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about service charges.
    2. The failures identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman orders that within the next four weeks the landlord pay the resident compensation of £650 made up as follows:
    1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about service charges.
    2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble experienced by the resident as a result of the failures identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.
    3. The £450 previously offered if this has not already been paid.
  2. The landlord must reimburse the resident with any service charges overpaid.
  3. The landlord must provide this Service with evidence that sufficient maintenance has taken place in the communal areas.
  4. The landlord must refund the resident two months’ service charge elements for failure to deliver external grounds maintenance if it has not done so already.