Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202212019)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212019

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

30 July 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:
   1. response to the resident’s reports about a pest infestation;
   2. response to the resident’s request for a key to the mailbox;
   3. complaints handling.

Scope of investigation

2. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were made prior to having exhausted a member landlord’s complaints procedure.
3. It is noted that the resident experienced a second pest infestation after the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. This will not be considered in this investigation as the landlord must be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the subsequent infestation. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the outcome of this, she retains the right to bring the new complaint to the Ombudsman.
4. Paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
5. The resident reported experiencing ill-health as a result of the mouse infestation in her property. It is outside the remit of the Ombudsman to determine whether any detriment to resident’s health was the direct result of the mouse infestation in the property. If the resident considers that she had experienced ill-health through any action or lack of action by the landlord, this is more suited for consideration through a personal injury insurance claim or legal action. Therefore, the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this concern.
6. This investigation will, however, consider whether the landlord responded appropriately, in accordance with its obligations, to the resident’s report of mice and whether its actions were reasonable, as well as the overall distress and inconvenience caused by any service failures.

Background

7. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 29 April 2022. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
8. The resident contacted the landlord on 9 May 2022, to enquire about the key to her mailbox, which she said was not provided to her when she moved in. It is not evident that the landlord responded.
9. On 20 May 2022, she reported that she had mice in the property. The landlord carried out three pest control visits and on its final inspection on 9 June 2022, it found that there was no evidence of mouse activity.
10. The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 12 July 2022. She noted she was yet to receive a key for her mailbox and wanted compensation for the distress and inconvenience she experienced from the mouse infestation. She said she had been told that she would receive a rent rebate for this.
11. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 10 August 2022. It acknowledged that it had delayed in providing her with a mailbox key. It offered her £25 compensation for its handling of the complaint and £90 compensation for its delay in providing her with the key. The landlord confirmed that it had now raised a job for the replacement of the mailbox lock, following which it would provide a new key.
12. The resident escalated her complaint to the final stage on 11 August 2022. She was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the pest infestation and that it had not responded about this in its stage one response.
13. The landlord provided its final stage response on 25 August 2022. It partially upheld the complaint. The landlord acknowledged that it had not addressed the pest issue in its earlier response. However, it asserted that it had attended the resident’s report of mice within correct timeframes and therefore no compensation was payable. The landlord reiterated its original compensation offer of £115 in total.
14. On 4 May 2023, the landlord informed the Ombudsman that it had increased its offer of compensation to the resident to £300.

Assessment and findings

Pest infestation

15. The landlord’s repair policy confirms that pest infestations within individual properties are a resident’s responsibility to tackle. The landlord therefore acted beyond its obligations to assist the resident. This demonstrated a desire to help the resident resolve the issue and maintain the landlord/tenant relationship.
16. The resident reported the mouse infestation on 20 May 2022. The landlord carried out its first inspection and treatment on 25 May 2022, completed a second treatment on 30 May 2022, completed mouse-proofing work on 31 May 2022, and a final inspection on 9 June 2022. This was a total of four visits and treatments within 12 working days of the resident’s first report. This demonstrated that the landlord acted promptly to address the mouse infestation, despite this being in excess of its obligation.
17. The resident held that she had been informed by the landlord that she would receive a refund of rent during the time that the infestation was present in the property. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s position, there is no evidence in the landlord’s policies or tenancy agreement to suggest a rent rebate would be offered in this circumstance. Given that this conversation was not recorded, and that the landlord’s position opposes that of the resident, based on the available evidence the Ombudsman is unable to make a finding that the landlord made this promise.
18. The resident said that she had been unable to stay in the property and had missed time from work because of the infestation. While this was undoubtedly unpleasant for her, for the landlord to consider compensation or further action, it would need to carry out a thorough investigation to determine if the property is deemed to be uninhabitable. The existence of a pest infestation would not automatically mean a property was uninhabitable. Given that the landlord completed works to address the pest infestation within a short period of time, it was reasonable that it did not carry out such an investigation, and, in the absence of any other evidence, considered the property to be habitable throughout this period.
19. When the Ombudsman considers awarding compensation, this is to ‘put right’ any detriment experienced by the resident resulting from a failure by the landlord. This may be to reimburse any evidenced financial loss experienced by the resident which was a direct result of the landlord’s failure. It should be clarified that, unless it was evidenced that the infestation arose as a result of the landlord’s actions or lack of action, a pest infestation is not, in itself, evidence of a failing by the landlord.
20. Given that the property was not deemed uninhabitable, there was no evidence of an agreement to refund rent to the resident, and that there was no failure by the landlord to address the infestation, there was no obligation on its part to pay compensation to the resident.

Mailbox

21. The resident first reported the absence of a key to her mailbox on 9 May 2022. She chased wan update on 20 May 2022. The landlord’s records indicated that it did not arrange for the mailbox lock to be replaced until 29 June 2022. The landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman that this was completed in September 2022.
22. The lack of access to the mailbox was essentially a repair issue, being an element of the property for the resident’s use, which was inaccessible to her. Therefore, the landlord should have restored access to the mailbox within 20 working days, as per its repair policy.
23. The landlord, therefore, delayed unreasonably in completing the work to restore access to the resident’s mailbox. It was not disputed that this was resolved in September 2022; this represents a period of approximately four months since the resident’s first report before the work was completed. This was an unreasonable delay. This would have caused inconvenience to the resident and prevented her from accessing her post.
24. If the resolution of a repair is likely to exceed a landlord’s standard timeframes, then it would be expected to explain why to the resident and provide an updated timeframe. There was no evidence that it did so in this case and this was a failure by the landlord to communicate with her and manage her expectations. This was likely to have contributed to further distress and inconvenience for her.
25. While the landlord appropriately recognised this failure and offered some compensation, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the £90 originally offered was not sufficient to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord later revisited this issue and made an increased offer of compensation. While the Ombudsman welcomes instances where landlord’s reflect on their actions, in this instance, this only came after the resident referred her complaint to this service. This further offer is therefore not considered to have been made as part of the landlord’s complaints procedure, and it has not been considered as part of this investigation.
26. Given the landlord’s delays, there was service failure by the landlord. This would have been a finding of maladministration had the landlord not made some attempt at recognising and compensation the failures at stage two. In the circumstances, an amount of £200 compensation has been ordered to reflect the impact caused to the resident, being £50 for each month the works were delayed.

Complaints handling

27. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage internal complaints procedure. At stage one, it should respond to the resident within 10 working days; at the final stage it should respond within 20 working days. If the landlord is unable to meet either of these timeframes, the policy states that it should inform the resident and agree a new deadline.
28. The resident raised her stage one complaint with the landlord on 12 July 2022. It then provided its response to her on 10 August 2022. This was 21 working days later and was a failure by the landlord to handle the stage one complaint in accordance with its policy. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise this in its response and to offer compensation of £25 to recognise the delay.
29. The landlord’s stage one response was not a full response to the complaint. All member landlords are required to adhere to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Paragraph 5.6 of the Code states that, when responding to a complaint, “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.”
30. The landlord’s stage one complaint response to the resident only addressed her dissatisfaction with the delay in providing her with a key to the mailbox. However, her complaint stated that, in addition to requiring a key for the mailbox, she wanted a refund of rent during the time that she experienced the mouse infestation.
31. The landlord’s stage one response did not address the compensation request, which it only acknowledged in its final stage response. It acknowledged that the mouse infestation was “overlooked” during the stage one investigation, which led to the escalation of the complaint. Given that it acknowledged that this error led to the expenditure of time and effort by the resident to progress her complaint, it was unreasonable that it did not specifically apologise for this, or offer any form of compensation.
32. In consideration of the above, the Ombudsman considers that a compensation award of £100 to the resident for its failures in the handling of the complaint is appropriate. This is inclusive of the £25 it already offered her at stage one and is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view online.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. No maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a pest infestation in the resident’s property.
    2. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s mailbox.
    3. Service failure by the landlord for its complaints handling.

Orders

34. Within four weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £200 compensation for its handling of repairs to the mailbox.
    2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for its complaints handling.
    3. Provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with these orders.