Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202303780)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303780

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

1 November 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 handling of the resident’s reports of a squirrel infestation, and the associated repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder, and the landlord is the freeholder of the building. The resident purchased the lease to her property in July 2016. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. The resident reported a squirrel infestation in March 2022. The notes from the visits indicate the contractor identified “roofing defects” and recommended the landlord seal a hole in the roof. The works did not go ahead at that time. The landlord’s pest control contractor attended on 4 occasions to lay bait throughout 2022.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint on 19 January 2023. She said the squirrel issue was ongoing for “nearly a year”. She claimed that the proofing works it identified were never completed.
  4. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 30 January 2023. It gave a history of the issue, and its actions up to that point. It advised that further treatment would be “ineffective” unless it resolved the access points on the roof. Due to the presence of asbestos, it needed a specialist contractor to inspect before it could progress with the repair. It advised the contractor would inspect on 1 February 2023, and it would book a follow up repair. It upheld the resident’s complaint, apologised, and offered £75 in compensation for its “lack of communication”.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on the 27 February 2023. She said the issue was still unresolved, and there was “no progress”. The landlord opened a stage 2 complaint investigation.
  6. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 29 March 2023. It gave a breakdown of its actions since issuing its stage 1 response. It also explained that it still needed to inspect the loft space above the resident’s property. It said it would do this on 30 March 2023, and send the findings would to the repairs team “urgently”. It apologised for the further delay and a “breakdown in communication” about the inspections. It made an increased offer of £150 in compensation.

Events after the complaint

  1. The resident contacted this Service on 5 July 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said that the issue was still outstanding, the landlord was “ignoring” her concerns, and the situation was getting “worse”.
  2. The evidence shows the landlord completed to works on the roof to block access holes on 25 July 2023.
  3. The landlord contacted the resident in March 2024 to make an increased offer of £425 compensation, broken down as follows:
    1. £200 for time and trouble.
    2. £200 for a failure to implement a “lasting solution”.
    3. £25 for complaint handling delays at stage 2.

Assessment and findings

Reports of a squirrel infestation

  1. The landlord’s pest control policy states that squirrels within a loft space are usually the resident’s responsibility to resolve. The policy states that it will consider whether a roof repair is necessary to prevent access for vermin.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy for leaseholders states it accepts responsibility for repairs to roofs. The policy states that for routine repairs it aims to complete them within 28 calendar days. For “major routine repairs” it states that it aims to complete them within 3 months.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 29 March 2023. This Service has received correspondence between the landlord and the resident about the complaint, and substantive issue. The evidence shows that some of the substantive issue was outstanding beyond the final complaint response. For fairness, this Service has increased the scope of the investigation beyond the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response.
  4. The evidence shows that when the landlord’s pest control contractor attended in March 2022 it identified the roof as a likely point of access for the squirrels. The notes stated that a “defect” in the roof (a hole) needed to be filled before pest control visits would be effective. There is no evidence that the landlord took any action on the repair at the time. This was a failing in its handling of the matter. The landlord’s failure to adhere to the advice of its expert contractor inconvenienced the resident. The landlord failed to appropriately apply its pest control policy by not attending to a repair it was responsible for, that was a possible cause of the issue.
  5. It is noted that the landlord’s pest control contractor attended throughout 2022, which is evidence the landlord took the issue seriously. However, despite being on notice about the roof repair, it did not progress with it during 2022. The resident was cost time and trouble by repeatedly needing to raise the issue of the squirrel infestation. The landlord failed to address the identified root cause of the issue, this increased the inconvenience she experienced.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of 30 January 2023, appropriately apologised and offered redress for its handling of the issue. However, its response set out that it was on notice about the issue with roof access from December 2022. This was inaccurate. In fact, it was on notice from March 2022, as evidenced by its contractor notes supplied for this investigation. This supports the conclusion that its complaint investigation lacked appropriate thoroughness, and the redress it offered did not reflect the detriment the resident experienced.
  7. The stage 1 response set out its latest position on the issue, and its progress with the repair, which was appropriate. However, the landlord did not learn from the outcomes of its handling of the issue. There is no evidence to show the landlord was proactive in giving updates. This was inappropriate. The resident had to chase to get an update in February 2023, this caused a further inconvenience. This cost her time and trouble, as the landlord continued to make similar mistakes in its poor communication with the resident.
  8. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of March 2023, went some way to putting right its poor communication up to that point. The landlord gave a detailed explanation of the actions it had taken since issuing its stage 1 response. This gave the resident clarity on its latest position. The landlord’s stage 2 response also apologised for the further failings, and made an increased offer of compensation, which was appropriate. The stage 2 response lacked an appropriate level of learning. It is noted the landlord said it addressed the issue “internally”. However, it did not set out what learning it had done, and what it would do to prevent similar failings happening again. This was inappropriate, and lacked learning. The landlord missed an opportunity to provide the resident with a transparent account of how it would improve its service, which would have helped build trust with the resident.
  9. At the time of its stage 2 complaint response the issue was still outstanding. Therefore, its offer of £150 in compensation did not fully put things right. The resident was inconvenienced by chasing the landlord for updates in April and May 2023. There is no evidence to indicate the landlord was proactive in providing updates during this time, which caused a further inconvenience.
  10. The landlord resolved the issue in July 2023. This was 16 months after the landlord was on notice. The repair was done outside of the timeframes set out in its repairs policy. It is noted that some of the delay was outside the landlord’s control, as the resident was on holiday in March 2023. It is also noted that it had to complete an asbestos survey which also increased the delay. However, 16 months to complete the repair amounts to an unreasonable delay. The squirrel infestation in the building caused the resident distress. The delays caused by landlord’s handling of the matter increased the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced.
  11. This Service welcomes the landlord’s decision to revisit its offer of compensation in order to try and put right its evident failings. It is concerning that after the resident exhausted its complaints procedure, it continued to make similar failings.
  12. The landlord did not revisit its offer of compensation until a year after its final complaint response, and 6 months after it resolved the issue. This means that this Service does not consider it an offer of compensation made as part of the complaint. It is recognised that a later offer of compensation was made. However, considering it was made a year after the resident exhausted its complaint procedure, this has impacted on the degree to which the offer put right the evident failings.
  13. We have determined that, considering all the circumstances in the case, the offer of £400 in compensation, made in March 2024, was reasonable in the circumstances. Considering the evident failings, and lack of learning shown, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter, and have made a series of orders below. Considering the amount of compensation the landlord offered, we have not made orders for additional compensation.

 

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its policy states that it will send stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response in line with the timeframes set out in its complaints policy, which was reasonable in the circumstances. When the resident was evidently unhappy with its stage 1 response, it opened a stage 2 investigation. This was appropriate and evidence the landlord sought to adhere to the complaint handling principles set out in our Complaint handling Code (the Code).
  3. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response 22 working days after it was made. This was outside of the timeframes set out in its policy, and the Code. While not an excessive delay, that it did not apologise for the delay was inappropriate.
  4. It is noted that the landlord revisited its offer of compensation in March 2024, and offered the resident £25 for its complaint handling. Considering it made the offer a year after the resident exhausted its complaint procedure, this has impacted on the degree to which the offers put right the complaint handling shortcomings. We have also seen no evidence to indicate the landlord showed appropriate learning about its complaint handling. As such we have determined there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. Considering the compensation the landlord for the 2 working day delay, we have not ordered additional compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a squirrel infestation, and the associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £425 in compensation. Its offer of £425 in compensation should be deducted from this total if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
      1. £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the squirrel infestation, and the associated repairs.
      2. £25 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
  2. Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to complete a review into its handling of the squirrel infestation, and identify points of learning to prevent similar failings happening again. The outcome of the review must be shared with the resident, and this Service.