Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202227392)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227392

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

28 March 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of no heating and hot water.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is understood to be a flat in a block. The landlord provides information that it is aware the resident has vulnerabilities.
  2. On 7 December 2022, the resident reported no heating and hot water, after which a contractor attended the same evening and identified that parts were required to complete the repair. On 8 December, a further repair was raised which noted that the parts were in stock. The same day, the landlord’s contractor attempted to call the resident to book an appointment, and noted a letter was sent out after being unable to reach him.
  3. On 9 December 2022, the resident and the contractor exchanged emails. The resident queried when the boiler would be fixed. The contractor noted it had tried to contact him and asked him to call to book the repair. The resident responded that he did not currently have access to a phone, he only had email, and queried again when the boiler would be fixed. The contractor then responded that they could not confirm an appointment for the repair until a contract manager returned from annual leave on 12 December.
  4. On 13 December 2022, the resident emailed the contractor and queried if parts were in stock and when the boiler could be repaired. On 14 December, the contractor emailed the resident to inform him of an appointment on 16 December. On 16 December, the boiler was repaired, which involved changing of a pump.
  5. The resident complained on both 9 and 14 December 2022. He initially complained that his boiler was not working and he was freezing but he had received an email that an appointment could not be confirmed until 12 December. He later raised concern that the boiler had broken down 12 times in 5 years, it often broke down, and would take 4 to 8 weeks to repair. In both complaints he said he had lung pain.
  6. The landlord provide a stage 1 response on 9 January 2023. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and awarded £10 for this. It detailed the repairs history and noted that the contractor had emailed the resident on 9 December 2022 asking him to contact them. It said that the contractor eventually confirmed an appointment with him for 16 December, due to the contact issues and the lead time on the parts required to complete the repair. It apologised for any delays in getting the boiler repaired and awarded £20 in recognition that this had caused concern and inconvenience.
  7. The resident requested escalation of the complaint the following day. He did not feel the landlord had investigated the complaint properly or taken account of his concerns. He disputed that the repair involved replacement of the pump, and said that the boiler could have been fixed the night it was reported. He said that being without heating had made him ill and restated that he had lung pain.
  8. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 5 February 2023. It said the resident did not demonstrate that the response was factually incorrect; did not demonstrate the response did not address the complaint; and did not confirm what important info had not been considered. However, it said that after checking with its heating team it had established the repair could not have been completed on the first visit, as a new pump and pressure sensor were needed and other repairs were required. In December 2023, it reviewed the complaint and provided a further response where it acknowledged that while it responded in time at stage 2, there was an escalation delay, which it awarded £50 for.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident reported no heating and hot water on 7 December 2022, which was attended the same day. The boiler was then fully repaired on 16 December 2022. The landlord’s policies say that loss of heating and hot water and full loss of a boiler are emergency repairs, and the attendance the same day the issue was reported was in line with this. The landlord says that the subsequent timeframe was due to the lead time for the parts and issues contacting the resident.
  2. The resident contended that the repair could have been done the same day it was reported. The landlord provided reasonable explanation about why it was not possible to complete the repair the same day. The resident contended that a replacement pump was not actually fitted, which the landlord said it was. It is not possible based on the evidence, including video footage the resident supplies, for the Ombudsman to decide who is right and who is wrong for this aspect. It is unclear that this aspect has caused any significant detriment as it does not seem disputed the boiler was repaired on 16 December. The resident also raised concern about frequency of issues and the length of time repairs took. It is evident that the landlord considered this aspect and its approach seems reasonable, as landlords are normally expected to investigate complaints about recent service rather than service going back several years. However, aspects of the landlord’s response was not satisfactory.
  3. On 8 December 2022, the contractor raised a follow up repair which noted that parts were in stock, so any lead time for parts does not seem to have been lengthy. The landlord said there were issues contacting the resident, however on 9 December, he emailed the contractor that he did not have a phone and asked when the repair would be done. This provided a clear opportunity for the contractor to book the repair in, however they told the resident that the repair could not be booked in until 12 December when staff returned. This gives the impression that the contractor would book the repair in on 12 December, however their eventual booking of the repair on 14 December seems to have been prompted by the resident’s email on 13 December. The lead time and issues contacting the resident being reasonable reasons for the delay is therefore unclear.
  4. The complaint would have benefited from more investigation by the landlord. It does not seem reasonable for an emergency repair to not be able to be booked in for 3 days because certain staff are on leave. The contractor’s email about it not being possible to book the repair in until 12 December also meant they were aware that the resident would be without heating for at least a further 3 days. It is therefore not satisfactory that he was not offered a temporary heater, in line with the landlord’s policy to provide temporary heaters, particularly as the loss of heating was in a winter month and the resident reported on 9 December that he was freezing.
  5. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the handling of the case. The evidence shows that from 9 December 2022 there was an unreasonable 7 day delay. The landlord did not demonstrate it adequately reviewed the contact history between the resident and its contractor; did not identify that the resident should reasonably have been offered a temporary heater; and did not address potential areas of concern such as the contractor declining to book the repair in until certain staff returned. The Ombudsman does not make definitive decisions about liability and the impact on health, but it is noted that the resident said he was freezing and raised health issues, so will have been caused distress and inconvenience. The landlord’s ‘tariff of discretionary compensation payments’ is not clear how it awards compensation for no heating and hot water, however it is common to award £10 plus £2 per day each issue is unreasonably delayed (in line with the ‘Right to Repair’ regulations). This confirms an award of £48 would have been reasonable, which the £20 for delays fell below. In addition to what it previously offered, the landlord should therefore compensate the resident £48 for the loss of heating and hot water, plus £180 for the failings identified and the distress and inconvenience these will have caused.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of no heating and hot water.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord to, within 4 weeks pay the resident £308. This comprises £48 in recognition of the delay repairing the boiler; £180 for the distress and inconvenience caused the resident; and the £80 it previously offered. If any of the £80 has already been paid this can be deducted from the above amount.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to take steps to ensure that relevant staff and contractors are reminded about its policy to offer temporary heaters.
  2. The landlord to review the 3 day delay booking the repair due to contractor staff being on leave, and consider whether it needs to discuss this with its contractor to ensure there is suitable cover in place to avoid similar circumstances occurring again.
  3. The landlord to liaise with the resident to confirm his communication preferences, in order to avoid his being contacted by phone to book repairs appointments if he does not have one.