Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202219573)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219573

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

15 November 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. Handling of reports of a faulty smoke ventilation system.
    2. Handling of reports of a faulty relay system.
    3. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner of a 2-bedroom flat with a shared communal entrance.
  2. The resident has raised several concerns regarding fire safety in his block of flats. The complaint under investigation relates specifically to the landlord’s handling of a faulty smoke ventilation system and the landlord’s handling of reports of a faulty alarm receiving centre (ARC) relay system. The resident has been reporting issues with the ventilation system and the relay system to the landlord since January 2021.
  3. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 19 May 2022. The complaint response was issued on 23 June 2022. In its response the landlord acknowledged that the resident had reported issues with the fire alarm system. The landlord confirmed that the resident had an issue with the sounder for his property. The landlord confirmed the sounder was moved in May 2022 and apologised for the delay, as this had been outstanding since 2019. The landlord stated that the smoke ventilation system had taken longer to fix as it could only be fixed by a specific contractor. It confirmed this was fixed as of 19 May 2022. The landlord offered an apology. It offered £50 for time and trouble and £200 for failure of service. It also confirmed that a joint visit with the local housing manager and fire safety surveyor would take place on 23 June 2022 to address other fire safety concerns.
  4. The resident was happy with the landlord’s response at stage 1. However, on 14 August 2022 the resident reported that a minor fire had occurred in his block of flats. He stated the smoke ventilation system did not activate as it should have. Further, the relay system that should alert the fire alarm did not work. The complaint was escalated to stage 2.
  5. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 25 October 2022. The landlord was satisfied with the complaint handling at stage 1. The landlord stated that it became aware of a fault with the relay system on 23 August 2022. It confirmed it was awaiting a quote to fix this. The landlord subsequently stated this had been fixed in the week beginning 26 September 2022. The landlord stated the smoke ventilation system was fixed on 4 October 2022. It confirmed that the system will only activate when certain detectors are activated. The landlord partially upheld the complaint. It offered the £250 from the stage 1 complaint and a further £30 for poor complaint handling and £20 for time and trouble. It also advised the resident that it had given further details to the residents’ committee chairman on how the system worked.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the response. He stated that the landlord was aware of the relay system being faulty for many months prior to 23 August 2022. The resident stated that he was the residents’ committee chairman. The resident told us that he had not been provided with further details on how the system worked. He felt the compensation was too low. The resident has ongoing fire safety concerns.
  7. The landlord advised us that it revisited the complaint following completion of its internal complaint procedure. It was prepared to award a further £500 compensation, taking the total to £800. The landlord stated it had learnt lessons and would improve in the future. It is not clear to the Ombudsman if the resident has been provided this information.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The Service is aware that the resident has raised multiple concerns regarding fire safety over several years. On 15 July 2022 the landlord received a letter of fire safety matters from Derbyshire Fire and Rescue service. This was not an enforcement action as the landlord had provided assurances that it would rectify all concerns. There were 4 areas of concern highlighted in the letter. It stated that some residents were at risk of fire. The landlord advised the Housing Ombudsman that the letter did not contain any concerns of risk to life. It is the opinion of the Service that any risk of fire can lead to risk to life.
  2. Under paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Service cannot investigate any matters which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. Only the smoke ventilation system and relay system went through the full internal complaints process. The Service can only investigate in relation to these complaints. However, we recommend that the landlord revisit all fire safety concerns and provide reassurance to the resident that these have been resolved.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a faulty smoke ventilation system.

  1. There was a residents’ meeting on 2 August 2021. Fire safety concerns were raised, including the vent system not working. The landlord committed at this meeting for the fire safety officer to conduct a site visit. The landlord emailed the resident on 13 August 2021 stating that a fire officer and the local fire brigade had recently visited the site. The landlord did not state the date of the visit. No notable concerns were found; however, a recommendation was made that an automatic operating vent system (AOV) be installed. The resident advised that there was already an AOV installed and had been put in at cost to the residents. The resident advised it had not been working for some time.
  2. The Service has seen an engineer’s report for the property, dated 5 February 2019, in which maintenance work was done on the AOV system, confirming the system was in place on that date. Although the landlord gave assurance that there were no notable issues, it suggested that the system the resident was complaining about did not exist. The resident was not given any confidence that the inspection was correctly completed, and that the fire systems were working correctly.
  3. An engineer certificate confirmed on 11 January 2022 that the vent system was not working and had failed its inspection. This was due to multiple dampers not working. An engineer certificate confirmed this was repaired on 19 May 2022. It is unclear from the evidence why the repair took 4 months to complete. The landlord’s policy gives 28 days as the response time for standard repairs, and 7 days for priority 2 repairs. It has failed to meet either of these timescales, and no explanation has been given.
  4. The landlord completed a site visit on 23 June 2022 with the fire safety surveyor. It found that the AOV was working but that an auto-extract switch did not activate when changed to extract. The landlord was unsure if this was a safety feature or if this was a fault. It instructed the contractor to check this and repair if necessary. The landlord did not mention the further possible fault in its stage 1 response. The landlord’s internal communications are not clear as to whether the AOV was fully fixed, or whether there was a further fault. In failing to be transparent with the resident and keeping accurate records of any faults, the landlord has not demonstrated to the resident that the system was fully functional.
  5. The resident reported on 14 August 2022 that there had been a minor fire. The AOV had not activated. In its stage 2 response, the landlord suggested that there was a misunderstanding in how the vent systems were activated. The landlord did not describe any fault but stated that the AOV was fully fixed on 4 October 2022. The landlord should have clearly explained to the resident what needed to be fixed and how this impacted on the functioning of the system. In stating that there was no fault, but also mentioning a repair with no further details, the landlord has provided a confusing message to the resident. It is understandable that the resident may continue to have concerns as to whether the system is fully working.
  6. There was poor record keeping in relation to the venting system and any relevant faults. There is also evidence of confusion amongst the landlord’s staff as to the correct function of the system, how the system works and what system is in place. The resident has repeatedly raised concerns regarding the venting system and fire safety. The landlord has tried to provide some information on how the system works and when it is activated. The landlord has missed several opportunities to provide assurance to the resident that the system is in full working order and does not compromise fire safety. The landlord has also not provided sufficient explanation of faults arising with the vent system, or what repairs have been done. As such, there is maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of a faulty ventilation system.

The Landlord’s handling of reports of a faulty relay system.

  1. The resident raised concerns to the landlord about the Alarm Receiving Centre (ARC) relay on 6 April 2021. The landlord confirmed that the ARC should call the fire brigade when the fire alarm is activated. The resident raised concerns that on the last 2 alarms, the fire brigade did not attend. The Service has not seen evidence that the landlord addressed this concern at the time. The landlord should have taken these concerns seriously as they posed a risk should a fire occur.
  2. On 12 July 2021 the resident advised the landlord that he had been informed by an engineer that the relay system was not working. During a residents meeting on 2 August 2021 the landlord made the resident aware that the ARC had been checked that Monday and was working. The landlord confirmed that the ARC should respond if a fire alarm goes off. However, if they don’t answer, the message will go through to the property desk.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 May 2022 as the relay system did not work following an alarm in the block of flats. There are internal emails from the landlord on the same day, in which the fire safety officer has made it clear residents should be calling 999 in the event of a fire. The housing manager and the complaints officer were unaware this was a requirement. The resident had been told that the ARC would call the fire brigade. The internal emails indicate that different members of the landlord’s team were unsure about the fire procedures. The landlord should have ensured that all staff dealing with the block of flats were aware of the fire procedures. As members of staff were not fully aware of the fire procedures, misleading information regarding calling 999 had been given to the resident in the past.
  4. The landlord acknowledged that it needed to update all residents on the fire procedures. It agreed to issue a letter to all residents. The Service has seen an undated letter issued to all residents regarding fire safety. The letter confirms that the ARC will call the fire brigade. In a later paragraph, the letter also stated that the residents should call 999 in the event of a fire. Whilst it is positive that the landlord issued this letter confirming fire procedures, there was an opportunity to emphasise the need for residents to call 999 at the start of the letter. This is important given previous incorrect communication from the landlord and confusion within its team.
  5. The landlord did not address the ARC concerns in its stage 1 response despite the resident having raised this in his complaint. Although the landlord had issued a letter to all residents, it should have made specific reference to the ARC system in its complaint response. It failed to provide reassurance that the system was working.
  6. The minutes of a meeting between the contractors and the landlord on 19 July 2022 mentioned that the relay system was not dialling out. It was noted that an operative from the contractor needed to visit. There was an engineer report dated 21 July 2022 which confirms an operative did go out, and a quote was given to repair the relay system. Throughout August, the minutes from the weekly contractor meetings were not updated to show a quote had been obtained. The landlord should have been keeping on top of the repair.
  7. The fire policy states that a standard appointment repair should be completed within 28 days, and for priority 2 repairs the landlord should attend and fix within 7 days. As this involved fire safety equipment, the landlord should have been ensuring the fix was completed as soon as possible. It is unclear why there was a delay in repairing the system. The landlord emailed the resident on 31 August 2022 stating it would chase up the repairs. The contractor meeting notes stated that the parts should be delivered the week commencing 31 August 2022. This message was repeated on 6 September 2022. In a meeting on 20 September 2022 the contractor was unable to give an update to the landlord on what was happening with the repair. The Service has seen no evidence that the landlord was proactively chasing the repairs.
  8. In its stage 2 response, issued on 25 October 2022, the landlord confirmed that it was awaiting a quote to repair the ARC. In a later paragraph the landlord said the ARC was fully fixed on 4 October 2022. The landlord should have clearly communicated what the fault was, why the repair was delayed, and that the system was fixed. The landlord did not communicate this and has failed to give assurance that the system is working as it should.
  9. The landlord was made aware of a faulty relay system on multiple occasions. Although there is some evidence to suggest the landlord acted when faults were reported, the landlord has not always been proactive. The landlord provided misinformation to its residents regarding the need for a 999 call. There was evidence of confusion as to how the system worked amongst the landlord’s staff. Repairs were not completed in a timely manner and the resident has not been given sufficient information as to what the faults have been and how they have been fixed. The Service finds maladministration in response to the landlord’s handling of reports of a faulty relay system.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage 1 complaint should be responded to within 10 working days unless the landlord needs an extension. The resident raised a complaint on 19 May 2022. The landlord informed the resident on 9 June 2022 that it required an extension as it needed further information from the housing team and fire safety team. On 23 June 2022 it provided its full response. It took 24 working days which was not in line with its policy because it was 14 working days before it informed the resident of the need to extend.
  2. The resident told the landlord that there was a fault with the ARC relay. The landlord did not mention this in its stage 1 response. The landlord failed to fully address the resident’s complaint at stage 1.
  3. In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for the delay in repairing the vent system. It did not provide any details of the fault, or what actions it took. It stated the delay was due to only one contractor being able to complete the work. Although it is positive that the landlord acknowledged the delay in the repair, the landlord has provided minimal details on what went wrong. Given how many times the resident had contacted the landlord with his concerns, it was important to give the resident absolute reassurance that the matter was resolved. The landlord failed to take this action.
  4. The landlord acknowledged that there were 2 failures in its service. The first was a delay in correctly installing sounders in the residents flat. This was not escalated to stage 2 and is not part of this investigation. The second issue was the delay in repairing the vent system. The landlord offered a total of £50 for time and trouble and £200 for failure of service. It did not specify how much of the compensation was for each issue.
  5. The stage 2 response was issued on 25 October 2022. This was 50 working days after the complaint was made. The landlord’s policy states that a response should be issued within 20 working days unless an extension is requested. The Service has not seen any evidence of an extension request. There is evidence the landlord was investigating the complaint during this time. The landlord failed to provide regular updates to the resident, which left the resident unclear of the status of the complaint and the repairs.
  6. The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that it was satisfied with the complaint handling. In the same response, the landlord then offered £30 compensation at stage 2 for poor complaint handling. In offering compensation for complaint handling, the landlord has sent a conflicting message to the resident.
  7. The landlord revisited the complaint after the resident had asked the Housing Ombudsman to investigate. The landlord should not be revisiting complaints after the internal complaints policy has completed. This is not in line with its complaints policy, and it does not provide a fair and consistent approach to all residents. The Service is aware that the landlord is reviewing its complaints handling procedures and as such no further order or recommendation will be made at this time.
  8. In revisiting the complaint, the landlord stated it had learnt lessons from the case. The landlord said it has taken steps to ensure repairs do not take longer than they need to. It also stated that it has tried to be more consistent in its contact with residents. The landlord did not give any specifics on what actions it was going to take. Whilst it is positive that the landlord is learning from complaints, it is important that it is clear in what actions it will be taking moving forward.
  9. There have been delays in the complaint handling without a proper explanation. There has also been conflicting information in the complaints responses which could cause confusion to the resident. The landlord revisited the complaint after the internal complaints process had completed. The Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
    1. Handling of reports of a faulty smoke ventilation system.
    2. Handling of reports of a faulty relay system.
    3. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the full amount of compensation offered to the resident if it has not already been paid. This includes the £250 offered at stage 1, the £50 offered at stage 2 and the further £500 offered in its review to the Housing Ombudsman. The total compensation payable is £800.
  2. The landlord is ordered to secure an independent survey to satisfy itself and the resident as to the fire safety of the block. This should include a check of the AOV and the ARC relay. This should be completed within 3 months of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord provide training to all relevant staff relating to the fire procedures and systems within the resident’s block of flats.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord review its record keeping procedures for repairs. This will ensure it can give clear and concise information to residents who have repairs concerns.