Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202212438)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212438

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

30 May 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 time taken to repair a damaged drain in the resident’s garden.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a three-bedroom, end-of-terrace house that has a drain in close proximity to a tree and the property.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 7 January 2022 to state that the drain in her front garden had not been re-sleeved and the manhole cover had not been re-seated as per the operative’s recommendations from the year before. She stated that the drain liner was distorted due to tree roots and was an easy access for rats. The resident requested a repair on 16 January 2022, to re-sleeve the drain but the landlord cancelled the job. The resident queried on 21 January 2022, and 1 March 2022, as to why it was cancelled. However, the landlord did not respond.
  3. The resident then raised a formal complaint on 1 May 2022, because she had not had a response from the landlord. She also mentioned two previous blockages, one in 2020 and the other in 2021, along with the cause – the rat activity – and recommendation to re-sleeve the drain. On 13 May 2022, a job was raised to mark out excavation, break out existing manhole cover and surrounding using specialist equipment, and disposal of the existing manhole cover.
  4. The landlord provided its complaint response on 23 May 2022. It stated an operative would attend that day to carry out the works raised earlier in the month. It apologised for the delay, upheld the complaint and offered £80 for delaying fixing the issue, £30 for time and trouble and £50 for service failure.
  5. On 20 June 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to notify it that the operative had called to advise her that they would not be able to attend on 23 May 2022, and that they would attend on 27 May 2022 instead. As they did not attend that day either, she called the contractor on 8 June 2022, who were believed that the operative had attended on 23 May 2022. The landlord then apologised to the resident on 21 June 2022 for appointments being moved about and confirmed an appointment for 27 June 2022.
  6. On 27 June 2022, an operative attended to fit a new frame and cover but the work was not completed. However, the landlord called the resident to tell her the work was completed. The resident disputed that and after sending the landlord pictures the landlord stated there had been some confusion and that additional works would need to be re-costed and approved.
  7. On 20 July 2022, an operative attended the site to continue excavation for a new chamber. Works were put on hold because the roots had not been removed. A plastic cover was put over the open sewer and a barrier put up around the site. The resident reached out to the landlord the same day to notify it that an open sewer was one meter from her front door and queried if the tree could be completely removed due to the suitability of the tree in a small front garden close to a footpath, the public, the drain and her house. The same day, the contractor suggested to the landlord to get a tree surgeon to attend to the roots. The landlord then made an internal request for one to be arranged.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint on 10 August 2022. She stated that since she raised her complaint the work had not been done and that operatives could not complete the work due to tree roots, which she stated she previously made the landlord aware of. She also complained that there was an open sewer by her front door for three weeks. On 17 August 2022, a contractor attended to remove the tree. On 23 August 2022 theresident contacted the landlord and stated it had been five weeks since theoperative left, that there was a gap between the plastic board and drain, and the gap had grown due to rat activity.
  9. On 19 September 2022, an operative attended to continue work and found the roots had not been removed so the work was put on hold again. It is not known exactly when the roots were removed, but the landlord has said it was in September 2022. On 12 October 2022, the chamber was completed with no further rat activity reported.
  10. The landlord provided its final response on 2 November 2022. It stated that the work was completed on 12 October 2022. It apologised for the length of time taken to complete the repair and its delay in providing its stage two response, which it stated was due to high caseloads and staff sickness. It found issues with the lack of communication after its stage one response and upheld the complaint. The landlord said that the issues had been brought to the attention of the relevant heads of service so service levels could be reviewed in order to avoid such delays in future; it was reviewing the way it delivered services to its residents by looking at the working practices and structure of its complaints team; and it now had a more effective quality checking process in place which allowed management to closely monitor delivery of customer service. It also stated that now the work had been completed it had requested pest control make an appointment with the resident to attend and review the issue with the rats. The landlord also offered £400 in compensation: £100 for poor complaint handling, £150 for time and trouble and £150 for service failure.
  11. The resident brought her complaint to this Service because she was dissatisfied with how long it took the landlord to repair the damaged drain that she stated caused a rat infestation.
  12. On 6 March 2023, the landlord told this Service that:
    1. The resident had confirmed that there had been no further evidence of a rat infestation.
    2. It had reviewed the resident’s complaint again wanted to offer a further £350 for its failures and a missed appointment on 23 May 2022, binging the total offered to £750.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. It is the landlord’s responsibility to maintain the drains, gutters and external pipes as per the tenancy agreement.
  2. The landlord’s pest control responsibilities guidance states that rats are the landlord’s responsibility.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs will be completed within 20 working days and if the work needs to take longer the landlord will keep the resident updated.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy states that for a medium level service failure where a resident has received a poor or unreasonably delayed service compensation is from £51 to £150. For medium level time and trouble where there has been a long period of delay and the resident has had to chase the landlord several times compensation is from £51 to £150. For poor complaint handling compensation is up to £150 and for missed appointments compensation is £10 per appointment.

The length of time to repair the drain

  1. On 16 January 2022, the resident raised a repair with the landlord for her drain to be re-sleeved and for the manhole cover to be re-seated. The landlord cancelled the work order and did not explain to the resident why it had been cancelled. This was unreasonable because the landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations. It was also not in line with its repairs policy to complete routine repairs within twenty working days.
  2. The landlord told the resident, on 23 May 2022, that an operative would attend that day. The operative called the resident and advised her they would not be able to make the appointment but would attend on 27 May 2022 instead, which they did not do. After the resident reached out to the landlord it apologised and stated an operative would attend on 27 June 2022. The operative was unable to complete the work due to reasons that have not been made clear to this Service by the landlord. However, the resident has stated it was due to the operative attending to only change the manhole cover. While it was reasonable that the landlord apologised for appointments getting moved around, it had taken five months from when the resident had raised the repair order until an operative attended the property. The operative had also stated they would attend on 27 May 2022 but did not do so, and the resident had been provided with no explanation as to why the appointment did not go ahead. This was unreasonable because it was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy and the landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations nor keep her updated.
  3. An operative did then not attend again until 20 July 2022. At that time the operative was unable to complete the work due to tree roots and recommended that the landlord get a tree surgeon as they could not cut the roots as the roots were too thick.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 5 August 2022 for an update. The landlord responded the same day and stated it was waiting to hear back about an appointment. An operative attended on 17 August 2022 to remove the tree. The landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations during this two week period as it did not update her any further before the appointment.
  5. The operative attended again on 19 September 2022, where they found the roots from the tree that should have been removed in August were still there. Only the tree above ground had been removed and not the roots.
  6. At some point between 19 September 2022 and the end of September 2022, the roots were removed. The exact date is unknown. The chamber was replaced, and the work completed on 12 October 2022. Overall it took the landlord nine months to complete the work which was significantly longer that the 20 working days set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. Moreover, during those nine months the landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations, keep her updated or explain the delays.
  7. In response to its handling of the repairs to the drain, the landlord acknowledged there was a significant delay, a lack of communication and apologised to the resident. It also offered £400 to the resident in recognition of this. It also showed it had learnt from its failures as it had introduced a more effective quality checking process to closely monitor delivery of its customer service as well as bringing the failures to the attention of the relevant heads of service.
  8. On 6 March 2023, the landlord told this Service that it had reviewed the resident’s complaint again wanted to increase its offer of compensation to £750, which included a further £350 for its failures and a missed appointment on 23 May 2022.
  9. It is clear that there was an impact on the resident as she had stated to the landlord, and this Service, on several occasions that the open sewer was extremely smelly. However, there is no evidence that there was any long term or severe impact on the resident. With this and the landlord’s compensation policy taken into consideration, the increased offer of £750 compensation is reasonable.
  10. It should be noted that thelevel of failure by the landlord in this case would have resulted in a finding of maladministration but for the landlord acknowledging its failures, learning lessons by making internal structural changes and offering the resident reasonable compensation. Provided the £750 compensation is paid this Service is satisfied the issues have been reasonable resolved, and a finding of reasonable redress has made.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendation.

  1. It is recommended that the landlord now pay the resident the £750 offered, if it has not done so already, the finding of reasonable redress being based on the landlord doing so. The landlord is also to confirm to this service that these monies have now been paid to the resident.