Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202231210)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231210

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

11 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:
1. Handling of a leak into the resident’s bathroom.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord and lives in a 1-bedroom flat.
The resident intermittently reported leaks affecting her property since 2017.
The resident reported leaks in March and April 2022 affecting her bathroom. The landlord completed repairs.
On 13 May 2022 the resident reported the leak recurring in her bathroom. It was suspected as stemming from the above neighbour’s central heating system.
On 28 June 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint. She was dissatisfied that she had experienced leaks from the above property for several years and the landlord had not completed repairs.
On 3 January 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. In summary it said:
1. The landlord completed a joint visit and identified the cause of the leak in the neighbour’s property.
2. It would complete repairs and redecoration works in her property.
3. It upheld the complaint noting that the leak should have been located and repaired in a timely manner.
4. The landlord offered £500 compensation comprised of £200 for service failure, £200 for time and trouble caused, and £100 for poor complaint handling.
On 3 January 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She was dissatisfied with the level of compensation and felt it was not reflective of the years of inconvenience experienced from leaks.
The landlord clarified to the resident that its complaints process only allowed it to investigate issues dating from 6 months prior to when the complaint was raised.
The landlord issued a stage 2 final complaint response on 9 March 2023. In summary it said:
1. The landlord experienced delays completing repairs due to no access to the neighbour’s property on 3 occasions. It completed the repair on 9 February 2023.
2. Follow on redecoration works were booked in for 23 March 2023.
3. It apologised for the time taken to resolve the leak and offered a further £80 comprised of £50 for time and trouble and £30 for poor complaint handling.
Following the final response, the landlord advised the Ombudsman that it increased its compensation offer by an additional £500. The total compensation offered amounts to £1,080 (£850 for its handling of the leak and £230 for its complaint handling).
The resident remains dissatisfied that the landlord has not completed works in her bathroom following the leak. To resolve the complaint, she wants the outstanding repairs to be completed and a higher award of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In accordance with paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. As the resident made a formal complaint on 28 June 2022, the investigation will not consider the landlord’s handling of leaks from 2017 to January 2022 as these did not occur within 6 months of the complaint. In addition, the previous leaks were separate to the leak complained about rather than a continuation of the same matter. However, the Ombudsman may make reference to leaks which have frequently affected the resident’s bathroom over the years.

The landlord’s handling of a leak into the resident’s bathroom.

The landlord’s repairs handbook outlines that it is responsible for plumbing, repairs, and leaks. It categorises repairs into the following categories: emergency and routine. Emergency repairs include those required to avoid immediate danger to health and safety, or serious damage to the resident’s home or adjacent buildings. This includes major water leaks where the leak cannot be contained. Such repairs should be attended to within 24 hours.
The landlord attends to routine repairs within 28 calendar days and by appointment. Such repairs include those which can be deferred without serious discomfort, inconvenience, or nuisance.
The landlord’s initial response to the leak was appropriate. It logged the report of water ‘pouring’ into the resident’s bathroom as an emergency repair on 8 March 2022.The landlord attended and completed repairs within 24 hours.
The resident subsequently reported a further uncontainable leak in her bathroom on 13 April 2022. The landlord attended on the following day and identified that the leak was coming from the neighbour’s heating pipes. It logged repairs with a heating engineer to rectify the leak. However, repairs were not carried out until 28 April 2022. The work was logged with an incorrect priority, which likely contributed towards delays. Its handling of the emergency was unreasonable, and the lack of immediate action would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
From 13 May 2022, the resident reported that the leak had recurred and was causing significant damage to her property. This was only a month after previous repairs had been completed. Records show that repairs had not been fully completed by the heating response team. This was unsatisfactory. The matter was exacerbated by the resident not being updated on what action the landlord was taking to address the leak.
The landlord identified in its stage 2 complaint response that repairs to address the leak were completed on 9 February 2023. It explained that the delays were caused by the landlord failing to initially identify the source of the leak until a joint visit was arranged, and access issues to the neighbour’s property.
Whilst this explanation is accepted, the Ombudsman identified further shortcomings by the landlord. There were unexplained gaps where it appeared to take no action. It was unacceptable that in November 2022, the leak was still recorded as present and extensive. The landlord evidenced a lack of urgency to address the leak, and this would have caused significant inconvenience to the resident. The landlord should be able to evidence clearly how the leak reports were considered and actioned.
During the complaints process, the landlord offered the resident £450 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble incurred by the resident, the landlord’s failure in service to respond to the leak, and the time taken to complete repairs. This amount is not considered reflective of the detriment caused to the resident.
The landlord contacted the Ombudsman on 13 October 2023 and said it amended its compensation award to a total of £850 for its failures in handling the leak. When the landlord reopened the complaint, it advised the Ombudsman that the increased offer was made to further reflect its failure in service from June 2022 until February 2023. It added that the resident had not raised further concerns since the repairs in February 2023.
However, this is not consistent with the evidence. Internal landlord correspondence confirmed on 28 April 2023 that a further engineer attended the resident’s property, and the bathroom ceiling was still leaking. The resident advised the Ombudsman that the leak was not stopped until the end of 2023. The landlord failed to acknowledge the full extent of the delays when it reopened the complaint.
Having said this, the landlord’s final compensation offer of £850 is considered proportionate to reflect the landlord’s failings in its handling of the leak. It acknowledged the significant impact caused to the resident over a protracted period and is in line with the landlord’s compensation guidance to reflect a high failure in service.
The resident advised that although the leak has stopped, the bathroom ceiling remains wet and there are outstanding redecoration works to the bathroom. She said that the bathroom ceiling was cut into, and this has not been rectified. The landlord advised the Ombudsman it would inspect both the resident’s and neighbour’s properties and agree any further works. It added that it would upgrade the plumbing in the bathroom of the above property. However, there is no confirmation that this happened.
As the matter is not fully resolved and the landlord did not acknowledge the extent of the delays when it reopened the complaint, the Ombudsman has identified service failure.
To put things right, the landlord is ordered to complete a survey of the resident’s and neighbour’s bathroom to identify whether there is any further water ingress affecting the resident’s bathroom (as the ceiling remains wet). It is concerning that the resident experienced several leaks over the years from the neighbour’s property to her bathroom. The landlord should investigate whether there is a wider issue. Following this, it should act on survey recommendations to prevent reoccurrence of leaks. Once the landlord is satisfied there is no water ingress to the bathroom, it must complete redecoration works to keep its commitment in its stage 2 response.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord uses a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1, it aims to respond to a complaint within 10 days of acknowledgement, and at stage 2, within 20 working days after the escalation request is received.
The landlord’s complaints policy outlines that if it is not possible for the landlord to meet its timescales, it will agree a new timescale with the resident. This should not exceed a further 10 days.
The resident experienced lengthy delays to receive both complaint responses and the landlord failed to adhere to its complaints process. It was unacceptable that the resident waited 7 months before receiving a stage 1 complaint response. Although the landlord issued complaint extension letters, the prolonged extensions were not agreed with the resident.
Further, the reasons for the delays at both stages of the complaints process were unacceptable. The landlord delayed issuing its responses until repairs were identified and completed. The Ombudsman considers that a complaint response should not be unreasonably delayed until outstanding actions to address the issue are completed. Outstanding actions should be tracked and actioned with appropriate updates provided to the resident.
The landlord reopened the complaint and amended its compensation offer 7 months after its final response. It advised the Ombudsman that it decided to award the resident additional compensation. In limited circumstances, the landlord may need to reopen a complaint after a final response has been issued. However, there needs to be transparency as to why the landlord decided to reopen the case. By offering an additional £500 compensation (£400 for its handling of the leak and £100 for complaint handling) after the final response, this can be seen to undermine the quality and consistency of the landlord’s decision making.
The resident informed the Ombudsman that she had not been contacted by the landlord about the increased compensation offer after the final response. It is unacceptable that the landlord did not communicate its amended offer to the resident as it said it would. As such, the landlord is ordered to compensate the resident the full £1,080 and apologise for its failure to communicate the amended offer to her.
Overall, when considering the above, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s compensation offer of £230 is reflective of the landlord’s complaint handling failures. The landlord apologised to the resident for the delays at both stages of the complaints process and the compensation is reasonable to put things right for the resident.
However, it was unacceptable for the landlord to not update the resident on the amended compensation offer when it reopened the complaint in October 2023. As such, the Ombudsman identified service failure in its handling of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of a leak into the resident’s bathroom.
2. service failure regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for failing to offer her the additional compensation when it reviewed the complaint and amended the compensation on 13 October 2023.
The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident a total of £1,080 (if it has not already been paid) comprised of:
1. £850 for the landlord’s failure of service and time and trouble caused to the resident when responding to the leak (£450 offered through the complaints process and £400 as increased on 13 October 2023).
2. £230 compensation for its complaint handling failings (£130 offered through the complaints process and £100 as increased on 13 October 2023).
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within the next 4 weeks.
The landlord is ordered to complete a survey of the resident’s and her neighbour’s bathrooms. As part of this, it should investigate whether there is a wider issue causing recurring leaks in the bathroom. Following this, the landlord should act on survey recommendations and complete redecoration works as per its commitment in its complaint responses. The landlord should share the outcome of this with the resident and Ombudsman within 8 weeks.