Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202214345)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214345

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

25 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of moths in the carpet.
    2. The landlord’s response to a request for a dog.

Determination (decision)

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

How the complaint was resolved

  1. The resident raised concerns about moths in his property. He states that he raised this several times due to them being in his food, drink, and damaging his carpet. The landlord stated that moths were not covered by its pest control policy and advised the resident that it would be his responsibility to manage the issue. The resident was also not happy that his request to have a dog had been declined, as he believed other residents within the block had pets.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 4 October 2022. It explained that it had not given permission for other residents to have pets and that it would address this with any resident directly if they had homed pets without permission. The landlord advised that its pest control policy does not cover moths and it would be the resident’s responsibility to manage this. It apologised if the issues were causing the resident any stress and advised the resident that if he required any support, it could refer him to the support team.
  3. The resident brought his complaint to this service on 3 December 2022. He was not happy with how the landlord handled his complaint about the moths in his carpet, or that he had been refused permission to have a ‘confidence dog’.
  4. There is no evidence to show that the resident made a formal request for permission to home a dog. As a result of this, the landlord has not been given the opportunity to consider the request under its policy and make a formal decision on it. Therefore, the correct process would be for the resident to formally apply for permission to home a pet together with any evidence to demonstrate his needs. The landlord should then consider this.
  5. The landlord offered to pay the resident £350 as a good will gesture. It stated that although the decision not to treat the moths was made in line with its policy at the time, on reflection, it appreciated that further action could have been taken given the distress this caused the resident. It also said that there has been discussion around the handling of cases like this one, where a larger scale infestation may be occurring It said it has taken this as an opportunity to improve the quality of advice it gives to residents.
  6. The resident was only made aware of the offer on 19 June 2023 as part of the introductory phone call. The landlord advised that the offer had not been made directly to the resident but made to this service to be reviewed ahead of any determination being made on the matter. The resident has confirmed that he feels this is a reasonable offer under the circumstances and would like to accept it.
  7. Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that:

“The Ombudsman may determine the investigation of a complaint immediately if satisfied that the member has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.”

  1. The Ombudsman expects landlords to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In this case, the landlord has demonstrated learning by agreeing it could have done things differently. It has taken the time to review its handling of infestations by pests. Secondly, it has offered the resident £350 to recognise the upset caused. I am therefore satisfied that once the landlord has paid the £350 to the resident as offered, that the landlord has taken actions to remedy the matters raised which resolve the complaint satisfactorily. This is because the resident agrees that the compensation resolves the issue.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £350 offered within 28 days of the date of this determination. The landlord should provide evidence of payment to this service for completeness.
  2. The landlord should fully consider the resident’s request for permission for a pet once it receives it. It should fairly consider his circumstances, the nature of the property, including the government’s advice and guidance on permission for pets.