Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202222895)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222895

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

24 May 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 resident’s complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handing of requests for repairs to windows and doors at the resident’s property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of requests for repairs to a fence and streetlight on the resident’s estate.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident has a shared ownership lease for a ground floor flat with the landlord, currently owning a 50% share of the property. The landlord has told this Service that it is not aware of any vulnerabilities or additional support needs for the resident.
  2. The resident has told this Service that there were issues with the condition of the windows from the date he moved in 7 years ago, including blown double glazing, rotten window frames, large gaps in the windows at the back of the property, and some windows not opening properly. He states that he tried to raised concerns about this with the landlord, but he was told that he needed to fix them himself.
  3. On 14 April 2022, the resident and his mother chased the landlord for a response to a request for information made earlier that month. They also asked for confirmation of receipt of a third party authorisation form to allow the mother to discuss the resident’s housing affairs with the landlord. A copy of the authorisation form was forwarded to the landlord at the same time for the avoidance of doubt. The resident’s mother told the landlord that she believed consent to share information had now been arranged and asked it for the following:
    1. Information on any rent or housing related charges arrears.
    2. Plans for common areas and the wider estate that the resident’s flat is located in. The resident’s mother explained that there was no copy of this plan in the official title deeds.
    3. Confirmation of the remaining term of the lease.
    4. Clarification over the landlord’s repairing obligations for a fence at the front of the resident’s property, and for the landlord to repair this if it did have a repairing obligation as it had recently blown down.
    5. Confirmation on when repairs and redecoration would be done to window frames and the front door at the resident’s property.
    6. Confirmation on when repairs to a streetlight over a communal car park would be carried out.
    7. A copy of the cleaning schedule for the estate.
    8. Details for how service charges were apportioned between block specific and estate specific aspects.
    9. Details of the sinking fund and how much was currently being held in the fund.
    10. A full copy of the seventh schedule in the resident’s lease.
  4. On the same day, the resident’s mother raised a formal complaint on behalf of the resident about the landlord’s lack of responsiveness to queries from the resident and his mother. The landlord responded a few days later, asking for more detail. The resident’s mother then forwarded email correspondence between her and the landlord to support the complaint.
  5. On 26 May 2022, the resident’s mother chased the landlord for a complaint response. The landlord responded, stating that it could not share information with the resident’s mother as it did not have a copy of the third party authorisation form, and invited her to resend the form so it could be added to the resident’s records. This form was sent promptly to the landlord and it responded to the points in the email sent on 14 April 2022 as follows:
    1. The rent account was in credit.
    2. Service charges were calculated according to terms in the lease and were not contained in the title plans.
    3. Apportionment of the service charge was 33.33% for block specified work and 16.67% for estate specific work. It asked the resident to contact the leasehold and service charge team for more information.
    4. Repairs for the fence and to the streetlight above the car park would be arranged. It asked the resident to contact the repairs team directly in future.
    5. The landlord agreed to contact its planned works team to make queries about replacing the windows.
    6. Information about the cleaning schedule was on a communal noticeboard.
    7. A copy of the original lease was forwarded.
    8. The resident was advised to speak to the service charge team about the sinking fund.
  6. The resident’s mother responded to the landlord, expressing upset about delays in responses. She forwarded the original information request made in April 2022 and pointed out the following:
    1. The consent form had been sent in March 2022 and the landlord had acknowledged receipt. The resident’s mother asserted that the resident had given verbal permission to share information prior to this point.
    2. The landlord had not confirmed when the fence would be repaired or whether the windows would be replaced. Repairs to the streetlight were still outstanding.
    3. There was no communal noticeboard on the estate.
    4. She believed that the Land Registry had not been updated with the resident’s details of ownership.
    5. That the information request about the service charge should be passed onto the right team as soon as possible.
  7. On 4 June 2022, the landlord confirmed that the consent form had been processed and a note had been added to the resident’s records. It told the resident that his building was included in a window replacement scheme due to the condition of his windows, and that approval of the works was pending a consultation under section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. A request to repair fencing and street lighting had been raised.
  8. The landlord gave a Stage 1 complaint response on 16 June 2022. It apologised for confusion over the consent form and told the resident that his mother’s details would now be added to his records. The response stated that a job had been raised internally to investigate the fence and streetlight, and that this job would be fixed within 20 working days. It shared a copy of the lease and highlighted the section which discussed the apportionment of the service charge, and reiterated its commitment to window replacement works pending consultation. It acknowledged there was no communal notice board and that there was no schedule for internal cleaning on the estate. Apologies were given for the delay in the complaint response. £80 compensation was offered – £25 for complaints handling failures, £25 for service failure, £30 for the time and trouble caused to the resident.
  9. In early July 2022, the resident’s windows were replaced although not his front door. The resident told the landlord that the contractors did not clean up after themselves and left the property in a poor state. He also expressed concerns over the quality of the finish on the windows. The landlord responded, promising to discuss this with the planned works team and get back to the resident.
  10. In late July 2022 and early August 2022, the resident’s mother chased the landlord for an update on remedial works to the windows and explained that the resident was still waiting for a new front door. In mid September 2022, the resident’s mother expressed concerns that the landlord was not responding to her or the resident, that snagging works were required to resolve issues with the newly installed windows, and that the resident still needed a new front door. Just over a week later, the landlord apologised for the delay in its response and agreed to escalate the complaint to Stage 2.
  11. On 21 October 2022, the landlord told the resident that it was still investigating the Stage 2 complaint and that ‘I regret that I will be extending the investigation’ for a further 10 working days. The message told the resident that ‘I thank you for your patience in advance.’ A few days later, the resident’s mother asked the landlord to copy her into all emails to the resident regarding the complaint and explained that the landlord held a consent form on file which allowed this. She rejected the landlord extending the deadline for the Stage 2 response and asked for a copy of the complaints policy.
  12. On 7 November 2022, the landlord emailed the resident and his mother, apologising for the delay in providing a Stage 2 response, said that a lack of cooperation with other internal teams had contributed towards this, and acknowledged that the delay in providing a response was itself a service failure. It forwarded a copy of the landlord’s complaints policy and told the resident that it was ‘escalating your complaint for a further 10 days’. On 17 November 2022, the landlord told the resident that it was waiting for a response from another team and told the resident it was extending the Stage 2 deadline by another 10 days.
  13. The resident chased the landlord again for an update on works to the front door in late November 2022. He explained that it was insecure as part of the door handle had fallen off, and asked how his complaint could be escalated. The landlord replied a few days later, apologising for delays in its investigation and told the resident that works (including snagging and to the front door) were in progress.
  14. A Stage 2 complaint response was given on 30 January 2023. This acknowledged delays in the Stage 1 response and that there had been issues with the landlord’s contractor. The landlord believed that some delays had been caused by the resident not responding to messages asking to arrange appointments for the outstanding works, although these works were arranged for 31 January 2023 once the landlord got hold of the resident’s mother. £230 compensation was offered – £75 for failings in complaints handling, £55 for ‘service failure’, and £100 for time and trouble caused to the resident.
  15. The landlord has told this Service that it struggled to get in touch with the resident to arrange access in order to carry out the remaining works, only managing to arrange access in mid February 2023 after speaking with the resident’s mother, and completed works in early March 2023. It states that contractors attended on 31 January 2023 to replace the front door and intended to carry out the remaining snagging. The contractors have alleged that the resident went back to bed shortly after letting them in, making them feel uncomfortable and reluctant to do the remaining works after successfully installing the new front door.
  16. On 9 October 2023, the landlord told this Service that there had been delays in installing the new front door as the resident did not select his preferred option despite the landlord and contractor chasing him about this. There had also been delays in carrying out snagging works. A further £150 compensation was offered for service failure.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told this Service that there continue to be issues with the landlord carrying out various repairs, which are not the subject matter of this complaint, and that the landlord does not engage well with the residents on his estate. Although these concerns are not considered further within this report, we have made recommendations to the landlord to help it find an effective resolution to these points.
  2. The landlord has submitted very few records in relation to this case and it has proved challenging to assemble a full evidence-based chronology of events. No inspection reports, repairs logs, telephone contact notes, or internal correspondence has been provided by the landlord. It is unsatisfactory that the landlord has only provided a limited summary of events and contact with the resident without any supporting evidence, and that it has referred to evidence and records in its own complaint responses which have not been shared with the Ombudsman. Our assessment has therefore been based on what limited evidence has been provided by the landlord and the resident.

The landlord’s handing of requests for repairs to windows and doors at the resident’s property.

  1. The terms of the resident’s lease states that the landlord has a contractual obligation to carry out repairs to the external windows and doors of the resident’s property.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out 3 categories of repairs:
    1. Emergency repairs – to be carried out within 24 hours.
    2. Routine repairs – within 28 calendar days.
    3. Major routine repairs – within 3 months or as part of a planned works programme.
  3. It is difficult to say when the resident first made a request for repairs to the windows and front door of his property. This is because the resident has not been able to provide us with this information, and the landlord states that it does not hold records on repairs classed as renewals. As the resident’s mother first raised queries about this in correspondence on 14 April 2022, this Service has taken this date as when repairs were requested.
  4. Records of correspondence between all parties indicate that the landlord agreed to do these works under a planned works programme. There is no evidence on what inspections or assessments the landlord may have done to decide on necessary repairs or why it ultimately decided to replace the window frames.
  5. The resident was told on 26 May 2022 about the landlord’s plan to replace the windows and front door entirely, 28 working days after the initial query and only after his mother chased the landlord for a response. The landlord’s lack of responsiveness and failure to keep the resident informed about the progress of repairs would have been frustrating for the resident, given him the impression that the landlord was not willing to carry out repairs in a timely manner, and had a detrimental effect on the leaseholder/landlord relationship.
  6. Although the landlord’s contractor did attend on 7 July 2022 and replaced the window frames at the resident’s property, it did not replace the front door as this had not been requested on the schedule of works. This would have been given the resident the impression that the landlord had been careless in commissioning these works and that it did not take its repairing obligations seriously.
  7. The landlord has told this Service, but not provided records or supporting evidence, that full repairs to the windows to remedy faults identified with the works done on 7 July were carried out on 6 March 2023, 167 working days after the windows were replaced and 223 working days after the initial enquiry. This Service has not been provided with evidence that the landlord considered any temporary measures, such as patch repairs or temporary window coverings, pending the replacement of the windows. The delays in carrying out full and effective repairs would have been frustrating for the resident, led to time wasted in chasing the status of repairs and remedial works, and inconvenienced the resident by having to live in a property in a state of disrepair for a considerable period of time.
  8. The resident’s front door was replaced on 31 January 2023, 144 working days after the date which the resident had expected this work to be done and 200 working days after the initial enquiry. The severity of this delay was compounded by the fact that the resident raised concerns about the security of his property due to defects with the front door. As the landlord has stated that it does not hold records on repairs which are classed as renewals, it has not been able to provide this Service with evidence of any steps it took to resolve defects with the front door. This is a failure of the landlord to take the resident’s concerns seriously and to act in a timely manner to resolve repairs.
  9. The landlord has told this Service that there were delays to replacing the front door due to the resident failing to pick a replacement door, and delays to snagging works due to the resident’s behaviour around contractors on 31 January 2023. Although this Service has repeatedly requested that the landlord provides evidence to support these claims (such as copies of internal and external correspondence, reports, notes from telephone calls between contractor, resident, and landlord) to assess this claim, the landlord has not been able to provide this and has told this Service that it has provided all the evidence it has available to it. This means that there is no evidence to support the landlord’s claims that the resident contributed towards delays in carrying out works. As the landlord was aware that the resident’s mother was an authorised third party for the resident, it should have been liaising with her anyway if there were concerns about delays due to a lack of contact.
  10. The landlord has also told this Service that there were delays to these works due to the resident failing to respond to contact from contractors and the landlord, with access only arranged once the landlord made contact with the resident’s mother. As the resident’s mother had arranged for her to be an authorised person to handle the resident’s lease on 14 April 2022, with an acknowledgement of this authorisation given by the landlord on 26 May 2022, the landlord should have contacted the resident’s mother promptly if there were contact issues with the resident. Any responsibility for delays incurred by a lack of contact in this case are therefore, on the balance of probabilities, more likely to be the fault of the landlord by not getting in touch with the resident’s mother in a timely manner when the resident was unavailable.
  11. Due to the landlord’s failure to carry out repairs to the window frames and front door within a reasonable period of time, failure to prioritise repairs to the front door despite the resident’s concerns about security, failure to adequately communicate with the resident and his mother about the progress of works and the course of action which the landlord had decided to take, failure to adequately install the window frames at the first attempt and substantial delays to works to remedy defects in the installation, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of requests for repairs to windows and doors at the resident’s property.

The landlord’s handling of requests for repairs to a fence and a streetlight on the resident’s estate.

  1. Due to a lack of information from the resident and the landlord, it is difficult to say when requests for repairs were first raised for the fence and the streetlight. This Service has assumed that this request was first made via the resident’s mother on 14 April 2022.
  2. As no repairs records have been provided to this Service, it is difficult to say what category these repairs were given by the landlord, if any, and when the landlord expected to complete these works. The landlord told the resident’s mother on 26 May 2022 that it had now raised a job to carry out these repairs, so this Service has assumed that the report on 14 April 2022 had not been logged or acted upon. This amounts to a delay of 42 days in logging these repairs. This delay would have been frustrating for the resident and led to time wasted in chasing the landlord for repairs to be completed.
  3. The Stage 1 response on 16 June 2022 stated that repairs would be arranged for the fence and streetlight within 20 working days. Due to the limited evidence available, and as the resident and his mother do not appear to have raised issues with these repairs in the escalation request, this Service has assumed that these repairs were completed within the timescales set out in the Stage 1 response – no later than 14 July 2022. This is a delay of 91 days from the initial report in April 2022. It is positive that this issue was eventually resolved in the Stage 1 response, but the landlord should have acted on the initial report and responded appropriately. Failing to do this led to delays in carrying out repairs. However, as the repairs were required to items outside the resident’s home, the impact of these delays would be limited to the time and effort put into chasing the landlord for a response and concerns about safety.
  4. Due to the landlord’s failure to log requests for repairs and carry out repairs within timescales published in its repairs policy, this Service has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of requests for repairs to a fence and a streetlight on the resident’s estate.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.’ There is no restriction on a third party making a complaint on behalf of a resident.
  2. The policy sets out a 2 stage approach to complaints. The landlord will first look to resolve complaints quickly with a local resolution, raising a formal complaint if local resolution is not suitable. Acknowledgement of a Stage 1 complaint will be provided within 5 working days of receipt and a complaint response given within 10 working days. Escalation requests will be acknowledged, although the policy does not set out a timescale for this, and only accepted if the Stage 1 response is factually inaccurate, the response does not address the initial complaint, the response does not consider information provided in the initial complaint, or actions agreed at Stage 1 have not been carried out. Stage 2 responses are provided within 20 working days. Any extensions to response times at Stage 1 or Stage 2 are to be agreed with the complainant. This is not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in place at the time of this complaint as it does not specify a response time for acknowledgement of escalation requests.
  3. Both Stage 1 and Stage 2 complaint responses were provided late. A Stage 1 complaint was opened on 12 May 2022 by the landlord and acknowledged on the same day, 18 working days after the initial complaint, and the Stage 1 response was provided on 16 June 2022, 41 working days after the initial complaint made by the resident’s mother. The complaint was escalated on 23 September 2022 and acknowledged on the same day, with a Stage 2 response provided on 30 January 2023, 88 working days after escalation. Records show that the landlord contacted the resident about delays in its Stage 1 and Stage 2 responses but no extensions were agreed by the resident or the resident’s mother. This is a breach of the timescales for complaint responses and for extending deadlines for responses set out in the landlord’s policy and in the Complaints Handling Code in operation at the time of the complaint. The significant delays in complaint responses would have been confusing for the resident, led the resident and his mother to chase for updates, and contributed to a lack of clarity over what actions the landlord was taking to resolve the issues raised in the complaint.
  4. Both complaint responses do not make it clear why compensation was offered by the landlord. The Stage 1 response offers £80 and makes it clear that £25 of this was for complaint handling failures. However, of the remaining £55, £25 was offered for service failure and time and trouble caused to the resident without explanation as to which failings this recognised. The Stage 2 response offers £230 and makes it clear that £75 is for failings in complaints handling, but it does not make it clear for which failings the remainder of this sum is linked, other than for overall service failure and time and trouble caused to the resident. The landlord should have provided an adequate explanation of why compensation had been offered and what failings this was supposed to correct.
  5. It is positive that the Stage 2 response acknowledges delays in the Stage 1 response and offers compensation connected to this. However, it does not acknowledge the significant delays in the Stage 2 response or offer compensation for these delays. The landlord should have acknowledged this delay in the Stage 2 response itself and offered compensation for this failing.
  6. Records show that the underlying reasons for delays in the Stage 2 response were because the complaint handler was trying to arrange for the outstanding works to the resident’s property to be completed and as there had been delays in communication and coordination between teams responsible for these works. The complaint handler should be commended for their efforts to make sure that these works were arranged and completed. This shows a determination to put things right for the resident. However, a Stage 2 response could still have been given to the resident within timescale or with an agreed extension before works were completed, with the completion of works monitored by the complaints team.
  7. The landlord has reviewed this complaint after the resident referred it to this Service and has offered a further £150 compensation for service failure. Although the Ombudsman does not discourage landlords from review complaints if new information or facts come to light after the conclusion of the initial complaints procedure, there is still an expectation that complaints will be fully addressed by the time of the conclusion. This further offer of compensation is not enough to put things right for the resident.
  8. Due to the landlord’s failure to log and acknowledge the initial complaint, significant delays in providing complaints responses, extending deadlines for complaint responses without agreement with the resident, and failing to make it clear why it was awarding compensation, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s record keeping.

  1. The Ombudsman has issued guidance about record keeping, Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management (available via this link: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf). This stresses the importance of good record keeping, describing it as ‘the closest thing the sector could get to a silver bullet’ enabling landlords to provide a better service.
  2. The landlord has told this Service that it cannot provide repairs records, records of the planned works, records of contact with the resident or his mother (other than email correspondence), or details of inspections and works done to the resident’s property. Gaps and omissions in the evidence provided have meant that the landlord has not been able to clearly demonstrate what steps it has taken to resolve the resident’s concerns, as well as its overall management of the issues raised by the landlord.
  3. It is also of concern that the resident and his mother repeatedly provided written confirmation that his mother could act for him regarding the property, with the landlord acknowledging receipt of this more than once, but that the resident’s records were not updated with this information. As the resident’s mother often contacted the landlord about issues which are the subject matter of his complaint, this led to delays as some of the landlord’s staff were not aware that permission had been granted to share information.
  4. This investigation has therefore highlighted issues with the landlord’s record keeping, the impact on its ability to ensure that repairs were completed on time and to an appropriate standard, and the missed opportunity to fully review the history of the case when investigating the resident’s complaint. This has restricted the landlord’s ability to put things right and to learn from its mistakes in this case. The Ombudsman therefore considers it appropriate to make a separate finding about the landlord’s record keeping.
  5. Due to the landlord’s failure to keep adequate records on repairs, planned works, contact with the resident and other parties, and for repeatedly failing to update his records with permission for the landlord to speak with his mother, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handing of requests for repairs to windows and doors at the resident’s property.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of requests for repairs to a fence and streetlight on the resident’s estate.
    3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
    4. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Arrange for a senior member of the landlord’s housing management team to apologise to the resident and his mother for the failings identified in this report. A copy of this apology must be provided to this Service.
    2. Contact the resident and ask if he would like his records updated to reflect any vulnerabilities he may have. If the resident asks for his records to be updated, this must be done within a week. The landlord must provide confirmation to the resident when this has been done along with what information has been placed on the resident’s records. This Service must be informed when this order has been completed in full.
    3. Arrange for an inspection of the resident’s property to identify if there are any remaining remedial works related to the installation of the window frames and front door, as well as any other outstanding repairs. If there are remaining works, including other repairs unrelated to the window frames and doors, the landlord must arrange a schedule of works and commit to carrying out these works in a reasonable period of time. A copy of this schedule must be provided to the resident and this Service.
    4. Pay the resident £1,090 directly, less any compensation already paid to the resident, comprising of:
      1. £460 for inconvenience, time and trouble, and distressed caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows. This is calculated at £10 per week from the assumed date that the issue was first reported to when repairs were satisfactorily completed.
      2. £205 for inconvenience, time and trouble, and distress caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the front door. This is calculated at £5 per week from the assumed date that the issue was first reported to when repairs were satisfactorily completed.
      3. £25 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the fence and streetlight.
      4. £200 for inconvenience, time and trouble, and distress caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
      5. £200 for inconvenience, time and trouble, and distress caused by the landlord’s record keeping.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its record keeping procedures, taking account of recommendations from Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management (available via this link: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf). This review should look specifically at concerns around record keeping in connection to repairs and planned maintenance highlighted in this report and ensure there is an audit trail of decision making on repairs and renewals. This recommendation should be regarded in line with orders relating to record keeping in cases 202011109 and 202201502.
  2. The landlord should self assess against the recommendations within the Ombudsman’s report titled Spotlight on attitudes, respect and rights – relationship of equals (available via this link: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/ARRRoE-22012024-FINAL.pdf).
  3. The landlord should ensure that its staff are clear on processes for recording third party authorisation on a resident’s housing file.
  4. The landlord should commit to arranging regular meetings with residents on the estate where the resident’s property is located.

 

 

 

Chat to us