We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202310369)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310369

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

19 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of intercom repairs.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 30 August 1999. The property is question is a one-bed flat.
  2. The landlord said that its records show that the resident has a vulnerability linked to his mental health.
  3. The resident reported an issue with his intercom system on 10 February 2023. A further works order was raised on 24 March 2023 as the repair remained outstanding.
  4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 12 April 2023 as the landlord had not repaired the intercom. The resident followed this up on 19 April 2023, as he had not received a response and the repair remained outstanding.
  5. During its investigation, the landlord identified that the method of contact it had used had contributed to the delays. It arranged a further appointment for 28 April 2023 but this did not go ahead.
  6. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 3 May 2023. The landlord upheld the complaint, offered a compensation payment of £60 and said that a further appointment had been arranged for 5 May 2023.
  7. The landlord also provided a stage 2 complaint response on the same day which it did not uphold. This response provided inconsistent information around dates and said that a new appointment had been arranged for 5 May 2023 and it increased the compensation offer to £80.
  8. Following further delays and missed appointments, the intercom was repaired on 27 June 2023. The resident remained unhappy with the outcome and brought it to this Service for review in June 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the intercom repairs

  1. The initial works order to repair the intercom, raised on 10 February 2023, was closed due to a lack of response from the resident. The landlord said the contractor attempted to call him on the number provided and when it was unsuccessful, it left a voicemail message and wrote to him. This Service has not had sight of a copy of this letter.
  2. It is understandable that a visit may not go ahead if the contractor was unable to contact the resident. However, if contact had been an issue, the landlord should have ensured it took steps to satisfy itself that reasonable contact attempts had been made, prior to closing the works order. The landlord could have tried using an alternative contact method itself, or obtained a copy of the letter sent by the contractor.
  3. When the landlord raised the second works order, dated 24 March 2023, it specified that an appointment should be arranged by email. However, the contractor failed to follow this instruction and attempted contact by calling an incorrect number. No appointment was arranged and the repair was not completed. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord as it failed to ensure that the correct contact method was used. This meant that the resident continued to experience the same issue with the intercom, which added to the inconvenience caused to him.
  4. After the resident raised a complaint on 12 April 2023, given the time since the initial report, the landlord should have ensured that the appointment was then treated as a priority. However, it took over 2 months after the complaint was raised before it completed the repair.
  5. During this time, there were another two failed appointments on 27 April 2023 and 5 May 2023. On each occasion, the resident was not made aware that the appointment would not be going ahead. The contractor explained that the appointment on 27 April 2023 did not go ahead due to other jobs taking priority on the day. It said that the engineer appointed to the visit on 5 May 2023 had to leave work on the day and was unable to attend.
  6. The landlord did raise concerns with the contractor around those missed visits and it was told that an appointment had then been booked for 12 May 2023. The contractor did not indicate whether the resident had been made aware of this appointment and it is evident that this did not go ahead. This is a further service failing as the resident was inconvenienced in having to wait for contractors that did not turn up and then having to contact the landlord again.
  7. Internal emails show that the landlord then struggled to obtain updates from the contractor after the failed appointment on 12 May 2023. It continued to email the contractor but did not receive a response until 2 June 2023. At this time, the contractor said they had been trying to call the resident but were unsuccessful. There were two further failed appointments on 5 June 2023 and 21 June 2023.
  8. It is clear from the evidence provided that the contractor failed to act on the information given by the landlord and this led to multiple failed appointments. Although the landlord provided that information, it remains responsible for ensuring that its contractor acts in line with its requests and in line with the terms of its repair policy. Therefore, these failings are seen as failures on the part of the landlord.
  9. The landlord missed an opportunity at several stages to take further ownership in arranging and managing the appointments, especially given the continued nature of the earlier failed appointments. When there had been at least five occasions when the contractors had failed to attend by 12 May 2023, the landlord could have sought alternative means by which to ensure that the repair was completed in a timely manner. Instead, it continued to just email the contractor, awaiting updates. This is understandable if they require that particular contractor to complete the works. However, it did not demonstrate any attempts to chase or escalate the matter, outside of similar continued emails requesting an update.
  10. When addressing the overall delays in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered a payment of £80, which it said was towards the missed appointment and the inconvenience caused. Given the multiple failings and the number of failed appointments, this offer was not proportionate when taking into account the landlord’s own compensation guidelines.
  11. Ultimately, the landlord took 94 working days to repair the intercom after it was first reported. This is significantly outside the 20 working day timeframe set out in its repair policy for non-emergency repairs. The delays in this case were due to a continued lack of adequate oversight around scheduling the required works.
  12. When there had been two instances of failings due to the contractor not using the correct contact method, the landlord should have taken further ownership of the management of the works. When the correct method of contact was used, the repair was completed on a single successful visit to the property. This demonstrates that had the landlord managed the works more effectively, the repair could have been completed much sooner. Having considered the landlord’s handling of the intercom repair, this Service makes a finding of maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s complaint in line with its own policy. Its stage 1 response was provided 15 working days after the complaint, rather than the 10 working days set out in the policy. Despite it being late, with the resident not being informed of the delay, it did acknowledge the issues raised in the complaint and provided a reasonable response.
  2. In the stage 2 response, the landlord demonstrates a lack of understanding of its own complaint policy. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 3 May 2023, the same day it had issued a stage 1 response. Within the response, it highlighted the escalation of the complaint as having been received on 19 April 2023. However, the correspondence from the resident on that date was a request for an update, as he had not received a response to his complaint and the works remained outstanding.
  3. Given that the resident had not received a stage 1 response on 19 April 2023, the correspondence could not be considered a request for a review of the complaint response. The stage 2 response then went on to reference that the escalation request was made due to a missed appointment on 28 April 2023, some 9 days after it received the escalation request. The letter says that the request does not meet the criteria for a review, and on that basis the complaint was not upheld.
  4. In providing this response, the landlord has overlooked that a stage 1 response had yet to be provided. Therefore, the resident’s correspondence could not be considered an escalation or review request. The information provided within the response is inconsistent and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the complaint process. Despite dismissing the complaint as not having met any of the criteria for a review, the landlord increased the compensation offer without acknowledging any further service failings or providing any other reason for it. 
  5. Overall, the landlord failed to manage the complaint in line with its policy. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord as it took away the resident’s opportunity to request a fair review of the initial complaint response. Instead, the complaint was closed prematurely and the resident was left with no further recourse but to continue chasing the landlord for completion of the outstanding works. Given the failings in its handling of the complaint process, this Service makes a finding of maladministration.  

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of intercom repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is required to provide a written apology to the resident.
  2. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to make a compensation payment of £300 to the resident, made up of:
    1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its management of the intercom repairs; and
    2. £100 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  3. The above amount is in addition to the £80 the landlord awarded through its complaints process which should also be paid to the resident, if it has not already been.
  4. The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.