Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202233381)

Background

1. The resident is a shared owner of a 1-bedroom ground floor flat; the lease is dated 7 June 2002. The landlord is the freeholder. At the time of her complaint, she lived at the property with her 12-year-old daughter. The property is within a mixed tenure block. The resident reported ongoing anti-social behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour, who was a tenant of the landlord. Evidence was provided for this investigation which detailed reports of ASB as early as 2016. The resident contacted the Ombudsman in November 2023 and said she was suffering from PTSD and other health issues which impacted on her ability to work. Due to this she had fallen into arrears and found the “constant” message to put her home on the market “extremely stressful”.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
3. We have also considered its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of ASB.
   2. Reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord acknowledged a failing in a request for information from September 2022 and appropriately apologised for its oversight in its stage 1 response. The landlord’s delivery of its service was in line with its policy expectations. Although the resident’s comments about her experience over a number of years is acknowledged, there is no evidence of ASB being reported to the landlord leading up to the formal complaint being made.
6. The landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. It recognised its failings and offered suitable redress to put things right. The compensation offered exceeds our remedies guidance, and the landlord apologised.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not looked at

7. It is acknowledged that the resident has reported experiencing ASB for a number of years and said that this has had a detrimental impact on her household’s wellbeing. It is beyond the authority of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the complaint and the resident’s physical or mental wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been adversely affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident reports that they experienced because of any errors by the landlord.
8. The resident has advised that she has experienced ASB over a number of years prior to the complaint. While the Ombudsman does not doubt this position, the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. The landlord responded to a complaint at stage 1 in November 2021 about how it had handled reports of ASB, this complaint was not escalated to this Service. Therefore, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s actions in the 12-month period prior to the formal complaint made in March 2024. This is also in accordance with the Ombudsman Scheme which says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period of the matter occurring.

What we have looked at

9. Having considered the information supplied to this investigation, it is important to note that it is not this Service’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it had received and whether it had followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking into account all of the circumstances of the case.
10. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it expects its residents to show consideration to their neighbours and their community, and not to commit, or allow their family or visitors to commit acts of ASB. This includes harassment, noise nuisance, annoyance or disturbance, to other residents, their visitors or other people in the area.
11. It is evident that the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the historical management of her reports of ASB to the landlord and this has led to continued frustration. As detailed above, the Ombudsman looks at events leading up to a complaint being made and it is expected that complaints are made within a reasonable timescale. The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 response that it had received 1 report of ASB from the resident in May 2023, which was within its scope of investigation. This report of ASB did not involve the neighbour who had previously been involved in the residents reports and was regarding youths congregating in a communal area. The landlord confirmed it liaised with the police who decided to take no further action. This was a reasonable response by the landlord to the resident’s report as it could not be reasonably expected to take action against unidentified individuals.
12. The landlord evidenced appropriate signposting to support services following concerns raised in conversations it had with the resident about her complaint. The landlord’s records provided to this investigation also demonstrated it provided relevant guidance in recording and reporting further incidents as they took place.
13. The landlord also appropriately offered guidance to the resident in how to initiate a community trigger as she had expressed experiencing ASB for a number of years. Although this case may not have met the threshold for a community trigger, the landlord recognised the resident’s dissatisfaction with the situation, and it was reasonable for it to give guidance on making such a request.
14. The landlord acknowledged a failing in a request for information from September 2022 and appropriately apologised for its oversight in its stage 1 response. This was reasonable as the failing had occurred outside of the timeframe for its complaint investigation and its policy.
15. Overall, although the resident’s comments about her experience over a number of years is acknowledged, there is no evidence of ASB being reported to the landlord leading up to the formal complaint being made. In addition, the resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that the ASB had ceased around early 2023. Taking into account the reasons given above and no evidence of current ASB to be investigated, there was no maladministration by the landlord.

16. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy states that it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days of receipt and respond within 10 working days. The landlord’s response time for stage 2 complaints is 20 working days. If it cannot respond within the policy timescales at either stage, it will keep the resident informed and agree new response times.
17. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 May 2024, 54 working days after the resident made her complaint on 6 March 2024, which was significantly over its 10-day target. It contacted the resident 4 times to request extensions.
18. The stage 2 response was issued after 24 working days, exceeding the 20-day target. The landlord contacted the resident however to request an extension within its 20-day target.
19. The delays at both stages caused further frustration for the resident. At stage 1, the landlord apologised and offered £150 compensation. At stage 2, it apologised again and offered £75. The landlord acknowledged the delays for the resident and offered further compensation for the poor complaint handling. This was reasonable in the circumstances. While there were no explicit commitments to learning from its delays the nature of the delays was self-evident, caused limited impact and as set out below, the landlord exercised its digression to look beyond its usual timeframe. Given this we are satisfied this amounted to reasonable redress.
20. It is noted that the landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the resident’s complaint excluded any complaint that related to matters that had occurred over 6 months prior to when a resident raised a complaint. It is noted that the landlord ultimately exercised its discretion in this case and considered the resident’s complaint further than 6 months prior.
21. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has since updated its policy to be in line with the Code.

Learning

22. The landlord’s response was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord’s records were clear and detailed and enabled an effective assessment of the complaint issue.

Communication

24. The landlord provided detailed system notes of its discussions with the resident following her complaint. Its actions following its discussions with the resident were appropriate and demonstrated it took her concerns about losing her home seriously.