Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202217168)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217168

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

15 February 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing application.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is not a tenant of the landlord. The resident applied for properties in an older persons ‘sheltered’ housing scheme which is owned by the landlord. At the time of applying for these properties, the resident was under 55 years old. The resident has mental health conditions which the landlord is aware of.
On 4 January 2022 the resident informed the landlord a property he had bid on was no longer available and requested an update. On 10 October 2022, the resident asked the landlord if it had received his application and added that his health was suffering where he was currently living. In response, the landlord told the resident that due to circumstances within this scheme it would not be able to offer him a property.
The same day the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. In summary, he said he was unhappy with the lettings process and the landlord’s communication with him. He felt like he had missed opportunities to bid on other properties and that the landlord was discriminating against him because of his disabilities. As an outcome, he wanted the landlord to give him the property he had bid on. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 1 November 2022.
On 3 November 2022 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process. It did not uphold the complaint. It said that the reason for its refusal had nothing to do with the resident’s disabilities. It explained that he was refused the property due to him being abusive to a member of its staff, his links to a ‘current problematic tenant’ at the scheme, and his actions when he was offered a property at the scheme in the past. It added that he would no longer be considered for properties in this scheme. The same day the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He disputed that he had been abusive to staff and that he had links to a problematic tenant. He asked the landlord for evidence of this, including call recordings.
On 6 December 2022 the landlord issued its final response. It partially upheld the complaint. In summary, it said:
1. It was satisfied with the way his complaint was handled at stage 1.
2. It was its understanding that the resident’s knowledge of the scheme was due to links to a tenant who lived there.
3. It had declined the property due to the resident being abusive to a staff member at a previous viewing of the scheme earlier in the year.
4. It did not have the date and time of the alleged verbal abuse and therefore could not locate any recording of this.
5. It had the right to decline nominations for properties based on known associations and its need to ensure a balance of needs within the scheme.
6. It acknowledged that this should have been made clearer to him and that it was happy to reassess his suitability for this scheme if he was shortlisted for a property in the future.
7. It would award £10 compensation for poor complaint handling.
The same day the resident referred his complaint to this Service. He disputed being abusive on calls to the landlord and felt that he had lost the opportunity of a property based on false accusations with no supporting evidence.
In August 2023 the landlord informed this Service that it had reviewed the resident’s complaint. It awarded a further £400 compensation comprised of £100 for poor complaint handling, £150 for the lack of evidence to substantiate the allegations of abuse towards staff and delays in communication, and £150 for time and trouble, which included inconvenience caused to the resident having to chase for updates. The review also identified learning and included service improvements to better manage contact with residents and an improved way of dealing with housing applications.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing application

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.

b. Put things right.

c. Learn from outcomes.

The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
The landlord’s local lettings plan for ‘sheltered’ housing states that these schemes are reserved for residents aged 65 and over. It states that where there is insufficient demand from residents in this age group, priority will be cascaded as follows: to applicants aged 60 and over, applicants aged 55 and over who receive certain disabilities benefits, and finally applicants under the age of 55 will be assessed on an individual basis to determine suitability for this type of property.
On 4 January 2022 the resident requested an update from the landlord on the status of his housing application. However, the landlord failed to respond to him. This led to the resident chasing it for an update in October 2022. The landlord responded to him on 10 October 2022, over 8 months later. This was an unacceptable and avoidable delay that would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord’s internal records showed that one of the properties the resident had bid on was shortlisted in May 2022 and that following an assessment of the applicants in early June 2022 it concluded that he was not suitable for the scheme. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that the lettings advisor was trying to ascertain the reasons for the refusal from their manager, this was a missed opportunity to provide an outcome to the resident on his application.
In July 2022 the manager informed the lettings advisor of the reasons why the landlord would not consider the resident for the scheme. It stated that he was under 55, had links to an alleged perpetrator of crime who lived there, and was previously rejected for the scheme after being abusive towards a member of staff on the phone. This was another opportunity to update the resident on the outcome of his application, yet the landlord failed to do so. Furthermore, when the landlord finally informed the resident in October 2022 that he would not be offered a property at the scheme, it provided no meaningful explanation as to why. This would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have been unclear as to why his application was rejected.
In the resident’s complaint to the landlord and this Service, he disputed that he was abusive towards a member of staff and added that he had lost the opportunity of a property based on false accusations. While this Service cannot determine whether the allegations were accurate, we can assess the landlord’s response to this and whether it followed its policy and acted fairly in the circumstances.
The landlord’s final response confirmed that it did not have the time and date of the alleged verbal abuse and was therefore unable to locate any recording of it. It is concerning that the landlord did not have any evidence such as file notes to substantiate these claims and this may indicate issues with the landlord’s record keeping. A recommendation has been made below in respect of this. However, its internal records indicated that the landlord relied on information it reasonably believed to be accurate.
Furthermore, the landlord acted fairly by assessing the resident’s application and applying its policy. Its assessment considered the resident’s age and suitability for the scheme as well as the potential health and safety concerns of other residents who lived there. Its records showed that based on the resident’s age and the information it had been told, it did not believe the resident was suitable for the scheme. Although the landlord should have been much clearer about this in its responses, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord was entitled to refuse his application. In addition, the landlord acted in line with its policy which allows it to undertake an individual assessment of an applicant’s suitability if they are under the age of 55, which it did in this case.
Nonetheless, this report has identified failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing application. The landlord failed to adequately evidence the allegations of verbal abuse and its communication with the resident was poor. It failed to keep him updated on the progress of his application and there were delays in confirming the reasons for the refusal. Moreover, considering the landlord was aware of the resident’s mental health at the time, the adverse effects caused by these failures were likely to be exacerbated and it should have been mindful of this.
The Ombudsman notes that in the landlord’s August 2023 review of the complaint, it acknowledged these failings, demonstrated learning, and offered further redress. However, the Ombudsman expects landlords to undertake a sufficient investigation and review all circumstances of the case at stage 2. Had this been done, the landlord would have identified its failings sooner and had the opportunity to put things right at an earlier stage. It appears to this Service that the landlord only undertook a further review after the issue had been brought to the Ombudsman for investigation. Had the landlord made its offer of compensation during its complaints process, this may have been satisfactory in putting things right.
As it did not, however, this Service has determined that there was maladministration. Furthermore, the resident has recently informed this Service that he was unaware that the landlord had reviewed his complaint and had subsequently revised its offer of compensation. In view of this, orders are made below for remedy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days. It took the landlord over 2 weeks to formally acknowledge the resident’s complaint and over 3 weeks to respond at stage 1. The landlord failed to act in accordance with its policy timescale. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
In addition, the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses lacked clarity and were of poor quality. Its stage 1 response should have been much clearer on why it was refusing the resident’s application and did not refer to its lettings policy. Its stage 2 response stated that it did not identify any ‘actual failure of service’. This demonstrated that the landlord failed to adequately review its findings at stage 1. Had it done so it would have likely identified clear failings in its handling of the resident’s housing application.
Furthermore, its stage 2 response was confusing. It said that it did not feel there was poor complaint handling on its part. However, in the same response, it awarded compensation for poor complaint handling. This was a contradiction that would have confused the resident. Moreover, this Service considers that its award of £10 compensation was inadequate, and it should have considered a higher award given the failures identified and the overall effect on the resident.
The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord’s review of the complaint identified failures in its complaint handling and has offered a total of £100 redress to put things right. While this offer is broadly in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, the Ombudsman must establish what initiated the landlord to review the case in August 2023. The evidence shows it was only the intervention of this Service that prompted it to do so. In addition, it appears the resident was unaware that his complaint was reviewed and even though the landlord offered more appropriate redress, it is unclear if the resident has received this compensation to date. Furthermore, it did not negate the fact that the revised redress could have been offered sooner, and within the landlord’s internal process. As such, it is not considered sufficient to avoid a finding of service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s housing application.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must do the following within the next four weeks:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £410 made up of:
  1. £400 as offered in its August 2023 review of the complaint.
  2. £10 as offered in its December 2022 stage 2 final response.
The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider any new applications for housing from the resident in line with its policies and procedures.
The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report of Knowledge and Information Management (available at: KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).