Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202309979)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309979

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

29 August 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:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the kitchen.
2. The storage of the resident’s white goods
3. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the living room.
4. The resident’s complaint.
5. The resident’s vulnerabilities.

Background

The resident and his wife are joint tenants of a 4 bedroom house. The tenancy is managed by the landlord housing association. Their assured tenancy began in February 2010. The couple live with their adult children.
The resident and his wife live with learning disabilities. The records for the period of investigation show they raised their needs to the landlord. The resident also expressed adverse mental health including suicidal ideation.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord in June 2022 about damp. It replied on 19 July 2022, accepting delay and offered compensation.
The landlord issued the resident a stage 1 complaint response letter on 27 January 2023 that reviewed his concerns about mould in the kitchen. It denied service failing and referred to an upcoming inspection. This confirmed damp. Works were raised for removal of the units, renewal to plaster and repointing.
The resident expressed his dissatisfaction to the landlord between the end of January 2023 and March 2023 that it’s prior works had failed to stop the return of damp, causing ongoing unsuitable living conditions and disruption from further works. He raised to the landlord that due to his learning disability, he was ‘…struggling with this complaint and not understanding’.
The landlord responded on multiple occasions with a weblink in which he could escalate his concerns. It noted internal advice not to call the resident owing to what it described as ‘challenging’ behaviours. The resident raised a complaint on 13 March 2023 that he had been directed to webforms when the landlord was aware he was unable to read or write.
During March 2023 the landlord held conversations and or visits with the resident to discuss remedial works. On 3 March 2023 the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s attendance at his home on that date. It described anxiety caused by discussions about the removal of his belongings and disruption from works. The landlord’s internal emails noted a second hand account of the visit. This said that the resident refused to sign a disclaimer of liability for damage and the discission became ‘heated and confrontational’, leading to a police call. The landlord supplied an updated account to this Service for this investigation.
On 27 March 2023 the landlord issued a final complaint response to the resident. It said his reasons for escalation were unrelated to the complaint considered at stage 1. It considered the complaint process completed.
The resident submitted a complaint form to the landlord on 30 March 2023 about the handling of damp in the kitchen and the impact on his household. The landlord noted internally that it would not investigate the complaint as its previous works were over 6 months old and it was ‘still in timeframe’ to complete the ongoing works.
Remedial works took place to the kitchen during the week of 17 April 2023. The landlord arranged for the removal, storage and return of the resident’s white goods. The landlord’s internal communications noted removal of the kitchen units and completion of a mould wash to the walls.
On 26 May 2023 the resident raised a complaint that the landlord caused damage to his white goods and failed to complete effective damp remedial kitchen works, leading to disruption and personal distress. He also said the landlord did not act in line with its equality duties or return his contact.
The landlord replied on 30 May 2023 to advise he had exhausted the complaint process in March 2023. The resident responded on 8 June 2023, highlighting that works occurred after the response.
The landlord referred a concern about the resident’s welfare to the local authority in June 2023. This followed a call during which he raised damage to his white goods and difficulty understanding the refusal to progress his complaint. It noted the resident describing stress, self-harm and suicidal thoughts. The landlord noted offering support that was refused.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 11 August 2023 requiring a response to the resident’s complaint and highlighted his communication needs. The landlord said it had closed the complaint in July 2022 and it was time barred. This Service wrote to the landlord again on 22 September 2022 requiring a response. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint which it noted included a complaint about damp and mould in the kitchen and living room.
On 6 October 2023 the landlord emailed the resident seeking to arrange a call and apologised for delay. It advised its response deadline was extended to 16 October 2023. The landlord’s later complaint response referred to a call with the resident on 16 October 2023 in which he raised damage to his belongings from damp.
The landlord’s repairs officer attended the property on 12 October 2023. He found the living room ‘severely damp’ and noted mould growth.
On 20 October 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the delayed response. It did not investigate its handling of damp in the kitchen as this was addressed in its July 2022 response. Regarding ongoing damp, it said it had arranged for further inspection. It did not consider there had been any failure of service. In respect of mould damage to belongings, it said this was the resident’s responsibility but it would reimburse cleaning costs. It said that its staff had witnessed the handling of his white goods and denied any damage.
The resident raised concern about the landlord’s response in contact with it between 21 and 23 October 2023. The landlord said it would reply in 20 working days. The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 November 2023, stating that his concerns about living room damp should have been ‘a service request’. It advised the resident to pull out his furniture to clean the affected area.
The landlord completed a survey inspection on 13 November 2023. It found no damp in the kitchen. It noted mould growth in the living room and on furniture. It recommended remedial works including mould treatment, a ventilation unit, and investigation into the cause of damp. It noted possible rising damp and chimney defects. The landlord noted, ‘No evidence was found to suggest the occupants are allowing poor moisture management ….’
On 22 November 2023 the landlord apologised to the resident that its complaint response was delayed. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 1 December 2023. It said:
1. It resolved damp in the kitchen in April 2023.
2. Its recent inspection confirmed mould in the living room, due to restricted airflow and heating ‘caused by furniture being located too close to the wall’. It would complete a mould wash and outline other works separately.
3. While the correct process for storage of his white goods was followed, it accepted the possibility of cosmetic scratches and offered £100. It had learned all customers must sign a waiver of liability for accidental damage.
4. It acknowledged mould damage to furniture. It offered to pay up to £100 for cleaning in recognition that the resident may not have been aware of the need to keep a gap between furniture and the wall.
5. Its complaint responses were delayed and it failed to consider relevant evidence at stage 1. It offered £15.
6. It required an online form or letter of acceptance to process compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident informed this Service that the landlord’s handling of the matters under review had a negative impact on his health and wellbeing. This Service is unable to look into and make a decision about the cause of, or liability for, any impact on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the kitchen

The landlord was responsible, by operation of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure the resident’s home was fit for human habitation. The existence of any hazard as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is one of the factors that may be considered when assessing fitness. Hazards arise from faults or deficiencies that could cause harm to occupants, including damp and mould growth.
The landlord arranged for inspection of the kitchen within a reasonable timeframe of the resident’s January 2023 report of recurrence. It provided timely assurance of its intention to resolve the matter. However, while it raised works in early February 2023, no remedial work was carried out until mid-April. It is evident discussions to agree a schedule of works slowed progress across March 2023. It was reasonable that the landlord dedicated time to these discussions. However, the delay across February 2023 has no apparent explanation. As this concerned recurrent damp living conditions, the lack of evident prioritisation across February 2023 was unreasonable and contributed to the overall delay to works. The landlord failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure the habitability of the resident’s living conditions in line with its legal obligations.
As noted within this Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould, damp living conditions can lead to adverse health and wellbeing. There is no record showing that the landlord had regard to any particular potential risks presenting to the household to inform its handling. There is no evidence the landlord had processes in place to support a risk-based approach. This is of particular concern in view of the known vulnerabilities of the household and is inconsistent with the early recognition of risks recommended by the spotlight report.
The resident raised an issue with the conduct of an attending employee of the landlord. The landlord failed to record any contemporaneous or direct note of its conversation with the resident. This Service cannot be satisfied in this absence of any contrary record that such conduct did not occur. The limited nature of the landlord’s records prevented fuller assessment by this Service of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
It is unclear whether the works completed in April 2023 were in accordance with the more detailed specification arising from the January 2023 inspection. The landlord’s post-summary of works noted a mould wash or treatment to the walls, whereas the inspection required more involved remedial action to the plasterwork and external repointing aimed at preventing water ingress. The landlord’s records are not clear. While various target dates for this work are noted, no completed date was evident and there is no associated record of the post-inspection said to have been conducted by the landlord.
It is noted that the landlord’s subsequent inspections tested and found no evidence of ongoing kitchen damp and mould. However, the resident reports continued damp living conditions and stored food spoiling due to rapid mould growth. Considering the disparity between the work specified in January 2023 and the post-work summary of work carried out, this Service cannot be satisfied that the appropriate remedial damp works were completed.
The landlord’s complaint responses did not identify delay to works or reasonably assess the potential harm to its vulnerable occupants from damp living conditions. The resident was adversely impacted by the landlord’s failings. He continued to experience damp. He was placed at time and trouble repeatedly raising his concerns as to risks to his household; these should reasonably have been at the forefront of the landlord’s approach. This caused apparent distress to a resident who had previously pursued a complaint process seeking earlier resolution of the same issue.
The landlord is responsible for maladministration for its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the kitchen.
The landlord is ordered to pay compensation to the resident of £250. This sum is within the range of awards set out in this Service’s remedies guidance to reflect the level of detriment to the resident as a result of failings that the landlord failed to acknowledge or put right. It is further ordered to obtain an independent expert opinion as to the efficacy of its remedial works.

The landlord’s handling of the storage of the resident’s white goods

The landlord retained no direct contemporaneous record of the conversations held with the resident about storing his belongings. It is apparent from the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s noted summary that the discussions provoked anxiety and challenge. Considering this, a timely, clear and detailed record of the concerns explored, any advice given and action points agreed was essential. The absence of any contemporaneous or direct note was an unreasonable failure to maintain appropriate records. This failing prevented this Service being able to assess all elements of its storage handling.
There is no evidence that a full clear process or procedure was in operation or followed. The only indicative process was the request for completion of a disclaimer. Other reasonable steps were lacking, for example an agreed and signed full inventory of items, record of condition and confirmation of the procedure given to the resident. While the landlord’s contractor took photographs of certain items on return, these were incomplete. It took a single photograph of a small area of one appliance on collection. This was an incomplete record of the white goods’ pre and post condition. Without an appropriate process, the landlord was unable to reasonably demonstrate that the condition of the resident’s white goods had not deteriorated or become damaged linked to their storage.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged to the resident in its final complaint response that its earlier response failed to review relevant evidence of the items’ condition. Its compensation offer of £100 was consistent with the evidence of cosmetic damage. However, it failed to accept and apologise for any shortcomings in its storage process, including its record keeping. This prevented it identifying available learning. It is of particular concern that the scant records did not provide evidence of sensitive handing of its related discussions with a vulnerable resident.
The landlord is responsible for service failure in its handling of the storage of the resident’s white goods. Further compensation of £50 is ordered in line with this Service’s remedies guidance to reflect the detriment caused by the landlord’s failure to fully account for its failings and show learning.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the living room

The landlord’s records covering the period of investigation do not provide evidence of any report or awareness of damp in the living room prior to request for action by this Service in late September 2023. The landlord took timely steps in early October 2023 to gain an understanding of the resident’s concerns and booked to inspect the property within a reasonable period.
The inspection of 12 October 2023 concluded that the living room was ‘severely damp’. The landlord informed this Service that its inspection was conducted by an officer very new to the role and that this lead to the landlord booking a further inspection, carried out 13 November 2023.
It was unreasonable that the landlord allocated an inspection to a person in whose findings it demonstrated a lack of confidence. At this stage, there was a history of damp reports, interventions by the landlord and severe distress being experienced by a vulnerable household who found works and visits challenging. These factors reasonably pointed to the importance of an efficient and accurate response and mitigation against reasonable risks of further delay or unnecessary attendance. The reassignment of the task caused unreasonable delay by its re-inspection.
The landlord’s interim update of 11 October 2023 and complaint response suggested responsibility for damp and mould damage lay with the resident’s cleaning regime or placement of items. This was not supported by its recorded inspection findings. Indeed, its notes form its inspection shortly after in November 2023 explicitly commented that the resident’s behaviours were not contributory factors and identified potential causes of damp linked to defects that were the responsibility of the landlord. This diversion of responsibility was unreasonable and caused distress to the resident and further strain to the landlord tenant relationship.
The landlord provided advice to the resident that was legally incorrect. It suggested the resident was under responsibility to clean mould growth as part of the tenancy obligation to ensure the property was maintained to a reasonable standard. This was ill-informed advice and a misapplication of the tenancy obligations. Liability for impacts to the resident arising from the landlord’s failure to comply with its obligations regarding repairs or habitability of the home fell on the landlord.
While the landlord’s final complaint response offered £100 compensation linked to mould on the resident’s belongings, it qualified this offer as being made in recognition of the resident’s potential ignorance to how to manage risk factors. This figure did not have the impact of putting right the matters identified above or the resident’s experience living in mouldy conditions. It did not acknowledge any failing on its part and provide accountability. Rather, it continued a pattern of the landlord failing to accept ownership and placing unreasonable onus on the resident. This response exacerbated its failings.
While the response suggested works would be conducted to resolve the damp in the living room, no timescale was outlined. This was to be set out in a separate letter, not produced to this Service. This Service cannot be satisfied that the remedial works necessary have been completed to date. This Service noted works were raised in late November 2023, however there is no record of the date of completion. The resident reports ongoing damp.
The accumulation of failings caused the resident delay and distress and the resident’s vulnerabilities made this impact particularly heightened.
The landlord is found responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the living room.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a further £250. This amount is proportionate to its failings in line with the range of awards outlined in this Service’s remedies guidance. The landlord did not reasonably acknowledge or put right its failings. Its unfair diversion of responsibility aggravated the distress it caused to the resident, a known vulnerable person.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord repeatedly failed to investigate the resident’s expressed complaint about damp in his kitchen and the impact of works. The resident raised concern that its prior works and investigations had been shown ineffective by recurring mould. The landlord provided numerous reasons excluding this from its complaint investigation.
This Service’s then in force Complaint Handling Code (the Code) permitted the landlord to exclude from review complaints where the issue giving rise to concerns occurred over 6 months prior and where matters were previously considered.
The landlord incorrectly stated that the issue was not within the matters he raised, despite the resident’s express complaint and its own response referring to kitchen damp.
The landlord later decided his concerns were time-barred and already reviewed. By the very nature of the issue, unless or until the point when mould returned, the resident could not have been aware of concerns as to the effectiveness of its action only months prior. These were new concerns based on an up to date position. The resident raised concerns about the impact of works that fell after its response and therefore the landlord could not have considered this issue already. It was contrary to the Code and therefore inappropriate that the landlord said it was excluding the complaint about the damp and mould in the kitchen from its consideration of the complaint.
As a result of the refusals, the landlord failed to consider whether any failing in its 2022 response lead to the recurrence of damp in early 2023. The resident was put repeatedly to unnecessary time and trouble trying to raise his complaint and referral to this Service for intervention. This was distressing for the resident, who expressed confusion, frustration and severe upset as a result of the refusal, exacerbated by his vulnerabilities.
The landlord identified failings in its complaint handling of delayed responses and of its investigation. It was appropriate that the landlord self-reflected and provided acknowledgement to the resident. However, the offer of £15 was disproportionate to the detriment caused. It failed to reflect the impact of delays at both stages, causing the resident distress and trouble chasing responses. It did not reflect the upset caused by its failure to show it took his concerns seriously by reviewing available relevant evidence.
The landlord is therefore responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It is ordered to pay compensation of £275. This award is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance to reflect the adverse impact on a resident caused by the landlord’s failure to fully acknowledge or put right its failings, as in this case..

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities

There was little evidence the landlord had appropriate regard to the resident’s learning disabilities by engaging with its obligations in line with the Equality Act 2010. Where on notice of a disability, the landlord was required to consider when making decisions and providing service whether its decision making and actions could place the person at a particular disadvantage due to their vulnerabilities and if reasonable adjustments were required.
There is no evidence the landlord explored with the resident, either proactively or in response to notice of his needs, whether there were adjustments it might make to meet them. There is no record it considered the reading, writing or comprehension challenges he raised directly to inform its contact or service. Instead, the landlord provided standardised written format responses and referred the resident to written and online forms to complete. The landlord provided written responses that were not accessible when refusing to explore his concerns, including the use of complaint handling terminology and processes that would not be readily understood. The landlord took no apparent steps to take the resident’s needs into account to support understanding.
This represented failure by the landlord to have due regard to the resident’s needs and was contrary to its equality obligations and its own vulnerable persons arrangements that required it to take account of any vulnerability or particular customer needs. This failure placed an additional burden on the resident to repeat his needs and seek understanding. The resident reported feeling unheard and his needs disregarded, adding to his distress. The strain felt by the resident was evident in his call to the landlord in June 2023 during which he expressed suicidal ideation linked to difficulty understanding the landlord’s position.
The resident raised mental health concerns with the landlord. It is noted that the landlord completed a welfare referral on receipt of his expressed suicidal ideation. As an immediate response, the landlord was evidently conscious of its safeguarding duties. It was reasonable in response to serious concerns for his welfare that the landlord referred him for assistance and offered support. This showed an immediate effort to have regard to any potential mental health needs and his wellbeing. However, there is no evidence that the landlord’s awareness informed its subsequent substantive handling of the complaint and other communications.
This Service noted the landlord’s internal concerns about the manner of the resident’s communications. It was further noted that some of the resident’s correspondence contained comments of an insulting nature aimed at the landlord and its staff, for example reference to ‘bigheads’ and the landlord as ‘evil’. The landlord reasonably considered the need to safeguard its staff welfare and noted the potential need for contact management. However, there is no evidence that the landlord followed any process or policy it had in place to formally consider or put into practice any suitable measures. There is no record of the resident being informed of any restrictions upon his contact or update to the service he could expect.
Despite this, there is evidence the landlord received requests for calls but noted internal advice not to return his contact. It considered repeatedly whether or not it would decide to lodge his complaints, noting their repeat nature. The records reviewed of the relevant period indicate that informal restrictions were in place, however these do not appear to have been made in line with process, communicated appropriately or with any regard to the resident’s vulnerabilities. This was unreasonable and gave the resident no fair opportunity to engage with the landlord’s concerns. It aggravated the distress experienced by the resident as his contact was at times deliberately ignored.
There was therefore maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities. The compensation ordered below (£600) reflects the serious distress to which the vulnerable resident was placed by the landlord’s repeated failure to appropriately engage with his learning needs.
There is no evidence the landlord had sufficiently detailed policies or procedures to guide consistent identification, assessment and response to customer vulnerabilities across its services. The landlord is required to conduct a detailed assessment of the resident’s needs and the suitability if its own framework and training to meet its equality obligations.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the kitchen.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the storage of the resident’s white goods.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the living room.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
5. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for an apology in writing to the resident from a senior member of the landlord’s staff for the failings identified in this report. The documents is to be provided in a format compatible with the resident’s text to speech software.
2. Pay the resident £1,425 compensation. It is comprised of:
  1. £250 for the inconvenience, distress and time and trouble relating to handling of his reports of damp and mould in the kitchen.
  2. £50 for the distress, time and trouble relating to the landlord’s handling of the storage of the resident’s white goods
  3. £250 for the distress relating to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the living room.
  4. £275 for the distress, time and trouble relating to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  5. £600 for the distress relating to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities.

The above ordered compensation should be paid direct to the resident and not be offset against any outstanding arrears.

Pay the sum of £215 previously offered in its correspondence of 1 December 2023 unless this has already been paid to him.
Contact the resident to arrange for an inspection of the property at a time mutually agreed to assess any ongoing health or safety hazards in the kitchen or living room relating to damp and identify any associated repairs or improvements required to treat or manage any such issue found. The inspection must be completed by a qualified surveyor independent of the landlord and their findings detailed within a written inspection report.
Carry out an assessment of the resident’s needs and vulnerabilities and ensure the proper recording of any outcomes or reasonable adjustments on its systems.

The landlord is ordered to carry out the following steps within 2 weeks of completion of the inspection at paragraph 62.d. above:
1. Provide a copy of the inspection report and agreed schedule to the resident and to this Service.
2. Agree a schedule of works for any identified repair or improvements with the resident.
3. Agree with the resident how often and how it will communicate regular updates of progress against the schedule of works.
Within 10 weeks of the date of this decision and in accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its identified failings and determine what action it should take to prevent reoccurrence. This must include but not be limited to the suitability of its framework and staff training for handling customer vulnerabilities. The review should be conducted by a senior manager independent of the service areas responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. A copy of the above ordered review and any associated updated policies, procedures or plans should be provided to the Ombudsman.