Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202219881)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219881

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

16 April 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlords handling of the resident’s request for her windows to be replaced.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 19 June 1989. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a one bedroom flat. The resident lives with her partner.
  2. A contractor attended the resident’s property on 7 December 2021 to undertake a repair to her kitchen window. During that appointment, the resident advised that she would like double glazing installed throughout her property. The contractor advised they would arrange for the landlord to attend to inspect the property; this never took place.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint on 24 October 2022. She stated that she had received no communication from the landlord with regards to her windows. She also said that they were paying “more than double” for energy bills over winter as the windows were singled glazed. She asked for double glazing to be installed.
  4. The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 28 October 2022. It gave a chronology of the issue and noted that the inspection request was never followed up. It also noted that the resident’s further requests for inspections made in August and September 2022, had been missed by the landlord. It advised that an inspection was scheduled for 8 November 2022. It further advised that if the windows were deemed beyond repair, a request for a planned replacement would be made; however, it advised that this was not a guarantee they would be replaced.
  5. The landlord apologised for the lack of communication and upheld the complaint. It offered compensation to the resident of £175. This was made up of the following:
    1. £100 for the service failure.
    2. £75 for time and trouble.
  6. The inspection took place on 8 November 2022, which confirmed the windows were in a “fair” condition but needed some repair work. They were not due for replacement until 2028/29. The repairs were completed on 22 November 2022.
  7. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 on 5 December 2022. The landlord contacted the resident 3 separate times about the stage 2 response and repeatedly advised it would not be able to respond in the given time. On each occasion, it extended the deadline for its reply by a further 10 days.
  8. The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 11 February 2023. It reiterated the chronology of the complaint and confirmed the points made at stage 1. It partially upheld the complaint at stage 2 due to the delayed complaint response. It awarded a further £50 compensation for that delay.
  9. In referring the complaint to this Service, the resident said she wanted her windows to be replaced with double glazing. This Service understands that following a further stock condition survey, the windows are due to be replaced this year.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will maintain the structure and outside of the property including window frames.
  2. The landlord’s planned property investment policy states that planned works, including for windows, will be completed based on stock condition surveys and life cycles of the components.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the following repairs response times:
    1. Routine repair within 28 calendar days.
    2. Major routine works within 3 months or as part of planned programme of works.
  4. The landlord’s complaint policy states that stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged and responded to within 20 working days. Residents should be kept informed if there is likely to be a delay in issuing a complaint response.

Windows

  1. A stock condition survey was undertaken at the resident’s block in 2018, which determined the windows were due for a planned replacement in 2028/29.
  2. Following a visit by the contractor on 7 December 2021, the promised inspection of the windows at the resident’s property was not undertaken. The landlord acknowledged that further requests to raise an inspection in August and September 2022 had also not been actioned. Landlords need to ensure they have robust and effective systems in place to track and monitor outstanding requests. Not doing so led to the resident expending time chasing a response and being left for nearly a year with inefficient window seals. Furthermore, this timeline was far outside of its own repairs policy.
  3. In the resident’s complaint, she expressed her preference to have double glazing. The landlord appropriately responded and advised it would raise an inspection and if the results of that showed the windows were deemed beyond repair, it would submit a request for a planned replacement of the windows. This was a reasonable response and in line with its planned property investment policy.
  4. Furthermore, it advised the resident that a submission to its planned replacement team would not be a guarantee that the windows would be replaced, or that they would be replaced with double glazing. This was appropriate and showed a commitment from the landlord to manage the expectations of the resident correctly.
  5. The inspection took place on 8 November 2022, which confirmed the windows could be repaired. While the Ombudsman understands the resident hoped for her windows to be replaced, it was appropriate of the landlord to rely on its qualified inspectors to make an informed decision. In addition, landlords must carefully manage and account for the spending of their budgets. Therefore, the Ombudsman recognises that window replacements would not usually be carried out prematurely and works must be prioritised as the available funds are limited.
  6. The window repair was completed by 22 November 2022; 20 working days after the landlord became aware of the issue. This was an appropriate response and in line with its policy. Furthermore, it would have demonstrated to the resident that it was addressing her concerns.
  7. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 and expressed her dissatisfaction with the window replacement timeline. Internal emails indicate that the resident’s block was scheduled for a stock condition survey in 2023/24. However, there is no evidence that this information was communicated to the resident. While a stock condition survey does not guarantee window replacement, sharing this information would have assured the resident the matter would be reconsidered and could have eased her concerns about the condition of her windows being assessed.
  8. Overall, the landlord initially delayed inspecting the resident’s windows unnecessarily. However, once the inspection took place, it proceeded promptly, and the repairs were completed in accordance with its policy. Throughout the process, the landlord managed the resident’s expectations and communicated clearly that the situation would only change if the windows were irreparable. The landlord acknowledged the delays and apologised. Furthermore, it provided reasonable redress by awarding £175 in compensation. Considering its acknowledgment of the delay and the subsequent clear communication, the offered amount aligns with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
  9. As such, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s identified failings and offer of redress in its handling of the resident’s request for her windows to be replaced, amounts to a finding of reasonable redress.

Complaint Handling

  1. The resident made a formal complaint on 24 October 2022 and the landlord responded, in line with its policy, on 28 October 2022.
  2. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 on 5 December 2022, which was acknowledged the same day, in line with its policy.
  3. The landlord contacted the resident on 14 January 2023 to explain its complaint handler had gone on long term leave and that it would provide a response by 30 January 2023. It was not appropriate that the landlord contacted the resident after the response was due. This was not line with its policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out the expectations of landlords with regards to complaint responses and the need to provide clear timeframes for responding.
  4. The landlord contacted the resident again on 10 February 2023; 9 working days after the response was due. It advised the resident it had extended the time to respond by a further 10 days. While it failed to apologise at this time, it appropriately provided the resident with an explanation for the delay. However, its communication again came after the response was due. This was unsatisfactory and would have frustrated the resident who was awaiting a resolution and explanation in relation to the issues she had raised.
  5. In its stage 2 response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that the response at stage 2 should have reached the resident much sooner. It suitably offered the resident compensation of £50.
  6. Overall, while the landlord’s stage 2 response was delayed, it did communicate with the resident throughout, albeit not in a timely manner. The resident accepted the delays. Furthermore, it made a reasonable effort to offer redress with its £50 compensation award.
  7. As such, considering all the circumstances in the case and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, it is the view of the Ombudsman, that the landlord’s offer of £50 compensation amounted to reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Request for her windows to be replaced.
    2. Complaint.

Recommendations

  1. As the finding of reasonable redress was made based on the landlord’s offer of £225 compensation, it is recommended that this is now paid to the resident if the landlord has yet to do so.