Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202229108)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229108

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

22 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to:
1. Repair a leak after a contractor’s visit to drain her heating system.
2. Investigate the contractor’s conduct when dealing with the repair.
3. Replace her damaged flooring.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord and lives with her 2 children.
The resident reported several issues with her heating between May and November 2022. On 28 November 2022 a contractor attended the resident’s property to drain down her heating system and install a new valve on the boiler. The contractor left the repair incomplete as they did not have enough time to complete the full repair.
The same day the resident contacted the landlord to report that a pipe was leaking. The contractor returned on 28 November 2022 and took pictures of the leak and booked a follow on job to complete the drain down, fit a new thermostat and replace a valve on the boiler.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 November 2022 to report that her floor in her downstairs hallway had been damaged by the leak. The landlord advised that a contractor would attend the following day to assess the damage and complete the appropriate repairs.
On 30 November 2022 the contractor completed the system drainage, replaced the thermostat and installed a new valve on the boiler. While at the property the contractor noticed a further leak on a radiator valve. Before the contractor was able to fix this, there was a disagreement between the resident and the contractor. The contractor left the property and reported that the resident had been left with no heating or hot water.
On 1 December 2022 the resident called the landlord to report her ongoing heating and hot water issues and told the landlord that she was unhappy with the contractor’s conduct.
The contractor returned on 2 December 2022 and completed the radiator repair and ensured the resident’s heating and hot water was working. Following this on 6 December 2022 the resident reported another leak from a different radiator. The next day, the contractor attended and fixed this leak.
On 14 December 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. She explained that the contractor had:
1. Failed to complete the repair on 28 November 2022 as they had run out of time.
2. Caused a leak to a pipe that had damaged her flooring.
3. Caused her distress and inconvenience.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 January 2023. This summarised the timeline between 28 November and 7 December 2022. The landlord did not uphold the complaint and explained that there:
1. Had been no service failure in the response time of the contractors.
2. Was no evidence of damage caused to the resident’s flooring by the contractors.
On 19 January 2023 the resident escalated her complaint as her view was that the contractor had damaged her flooring and that she should be compensated for this. The resident also advised she was unhappy with the contractor’s conduct during the repair on 30 November 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response letter on 31 January 2023. It explained that:
1. It had spoken with the contractor about their conduct and that appropriate action would be taken through the contractor’s own internal disciplinary processes.
2. If the resident wanted to be reimbursed for the floor damage, she should contact the contractor directly for their insurance details.
3. Its complaint handling at stage 1 was appropriate and the correct procedures had been followed.
After the landlord’s final response the resident contacted the contractor about the damaged flooring. The contractor did not provide their insurance information as they did not consider there was evidence of any damage caused by them.
The landlord issued a further response to the resident on 15 September 2023 after conducting an internal review following contact by this Service about the complaint. The landlord made the following offer in its response which was accepted by the resident:
1. An apology for the service failure.
2. £200 for delays completing earlier repairs dating back to May 2022.
3. £50 for poor complaint handling.
4. £50 for distress and inconvenience.
5. £10 for failing to complete the repair on 28 November 2022.
6. To review its complaint handling process and provide refresher training for staff.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repair policy states that routine repairs will be carried out within 28 calendar days and emergency repairs will be carried out within 24 hours. The policy says that a total loss of heating is an emergency repair and where requested by the resident temporary heating will be supplied within the 24 hour period.
The landlord’s compensation policy provides various levels of compensation ranging from an apology to payments of £151 or more depending on the type of service failing and whether the failing is assessed as a low, medium or high failure.
The compensation policy sets out that the landlord will “recognise that responsibility will be taken for any detriment or damage caused to an individual or their property and belongings by a third party (contractor) working on our behalf.”
The policy goes on to say that in the event of the landlord causing loss or damage, as part of any actions taken it can make a payment of up to £300 to reimburse the loss. The policy says that any loss greater than this will be considered by its insurance team.

The request to repair a leak after a contractor’s visit to drain the resident’s heating system

The resident reported a leak in her property after the contractor had attended on 28 November 2022. The landlord arranged for the contractor to return the same day and stop the leak. The action taken by the landlord was quick, proportionate and in line with its repairs policy.
The contractor then reattended on 30 November 2022 and left the property without heating and hot water after a disagreement with the resident. A follow on appointment to fix this was booked for 2 December 2022. This appointment was booked outside of the 24 hour timeframe set out in the landlord’s policy. There was also no offer to provide any temporary heating for the resident during this time. This action was unsatisfactory and caused the resident some inconvenience.
The contractor attended on 2 December 2022 and completed the relevant repairs. A further leak was discovered by the resident on 6 December 2022, which was repaired on 7 December 2022 by the contractor. The action taken by the landlord when dealing with this further leak was again prompt and in line with their repairs policy.
While there was a failure by the landlord to follow its policy on 1 of the 3 occasions described above, this failing did not cause any ongoing detriment as it lasted for a short period of time. The resident’s heating and hot water was repaired within 2 days and any inconvenience or distress she experienced due to this was short lived.
However, even though the resident was left without heating and hot water for a short period, there was still an adverse impact on her. There were children in the resident’s household, and it was at a time of year where temperatures were cold. The resident explained that her son had to take a cold shower during this time and that being without hot water and heating was inconvenient and upsetting. If the landlord had followed its own policy on emergency repairs and attended the property within 24 hours or offered temporary heating these impacts would likely have been lessened.
As there was an impact on the resident that caused a short lived detriment, this was a service failure. An appropriate remedy to recognise this impact is for the landlord to make a payment of compensation of £100. This is a proportionate and fair remedy to recognise the impact considering all the circumstances.

The request to investigate the contractor’s conduct when dealing with the repair

In a call on 1 December 2022 the resident told the landlord that the contractor had been rude before leaving her property without completing the repair. At this stage the resident did not raise a formal complaint and instead asked if a different contractor could be sent to complete any future repairs. The landlord explained that this was not possible. Its explanation as to why it was unable to send an alternative contractor was fair in the circumstances, as it had a contractual relationship with the contractor to carry out repairs on its behalf and no alternative contractor was available. However, the landlord could have considered whether it was appropriate to explore sending a different operative of the same contractor for any future repairs to avoid any potential distress to the resident. This may have been a reasonable compromise to show that the resident had been listened to.
The resident raised the contractor’s conduct on 19 January 2023 as part of her escalation of the formal complaint to stage 2. The landlord asked its contractor to investigate this issue and advise on any action taken. The contractor apologised for their behaviour and explained that feedback would be given to the relevant staff member. This was relayed to the resident as part of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, and it offered £30 for the time and trouble caused.
The action taken to investigate the conduct by the contractor as part of the complaint process was reasonable. The landlord took the resident’s report seriously and investigated this by contacting the contractor as part of their complaint handling. Once the landlord had sufficient information it acknowledged the service failing and offered redress to recognise the impact that this had caused on the resident. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s actions to amount to reasonable redress, as the landlord identified and acknowledged the service failing on its own initiative and took steps to put things right.

The request to replace the resident’s damaged flooring

The resident initially reported that the contractor had caused a leak that had damaged her flooring on 28 November 2022. Between 29 November and 7 December 2022 several contractors attended the resident’s property to complete repairs and were asked to take photos of the alleged damage for assessment. An internal email sent by the contractor on 4 December 2022 said that a lift could be felt at the joint of 2 boards under the drain off point where the leak had occurred. The contractor went on to say that the reported damage could have been there before they worked at the property and that they could only say that “to the naked eye it is fine”. This shows that the contractor had agreed there was some damage to the flooring, but that they were unsure if they had caused this damage.
There is no evidence to show that the resident was told that an assessment based on the images taken had been carried out until its stage 1 complaint response on 3 January 2023. This was 5 weeks after the initial report of damage and was an unreasonable delay in communicating the outcome of the contractor’s assessment that had been completed on 4 December 2022. This was an important issue for the resident and the lack of clear communication about the issue caused her some distress.
The resident maintained that the damaged flooring was caused by a leak due to the actions of the contractor and escalated her complaint on 19 January 2023. Following a call between the resident and the landlord on 24 January 2023, the landlord emailed the resident and said, “With your stage 2 complaint response I will provide the information you require to submit a claim on the liability insurance [the landlord] holds for the damage to your flooring.”
This initial response on 24 January 2023 was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, which sets out that it will take responsibility for any damage caused to a property or a resident’s belongings by a contractor working on its behalf and that it will provide its liability insurance if appropriate.
The landlord’s approach changed after some internal discussion on 31 January 2023 where it was decided that the resident should be referred to the contractor to claim on their insurance. This was relayed in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response where it provided the contractor’s contact details. This approach was at odds with the landlord’s compensation policy which says that “Reasonable costs incurred can be reimbursed in full up to the value of £300. Losses greater than £300 will need to be considered by our insurance team”. There is no explanation or evidence to show why its approach changed.
The resident did attempt to contact the contractor directly about the damaged flooring but was unable to obtain the relevant insurance information as the contractor refused to accept any responsibility for the damaged flooring. This caused the resident understandable frustration.
The landlord missed an opportunity to put things right by departing from its compensation policy as part of its complaint handling. The landlord put the resident to significant inconvenience and left her in a position where she was unable to make an insurance claim on either the landlord’s or the contractor’s liability insurance. The actions of the landlord meant that the resident was deprived of the opportunity to make an insurance claim and for a specialist, such as a loss adjuster, to investigate the alleged damage within a reasonable timeframe.
Due to the distress caused, the failure to follow its compensation policy and the lack of clear communication on where to obtain the appropriate insurance information, this amounts to maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to repair a leak after a contractor’s visit to drain her heating system.
2. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to replace her damaged flooring.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of its investigation into the contractor’s conduct when dealing with the repair.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified.
2. Pay the resident £300 compensation (in addition to any compensation already accepted by the resident). The compensation is made up of:
  1. £100 for the delayed leak repair.
  2. £200 for the distress caused due to the handling of the request to replace the damaged flooring.
The landlord is ordered to provide its liability insurance information to the resident and support her in making an insurance claim. It should contact the resident and confirm to this service that the information has been provided within 4 weeks. If an insurance claim cannot be made due to the time that has lapsed it should inform this service and contact the resident to agree to make a payment to repair or replace the affected area of damage on a like-for-like basis at the earliest opportunity.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its offer of training for staff involved in complaint handling and considers whether it should provide refresher training or additional guidance on compensation, specifically in relation to circumstances where damage is caused by third parties.