Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202315924)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315924

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

14 January 2025

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 the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy that commenced on 17 April 2023. The resident is a tenant of the housing association. The property is described as a 2-bedroom house.
The resident said that she has post traumatic stress disorder as a result of being a domestic abuse survivor. In addition, she has agoraphobia, anxiety, depression and panic attacks.
The landlord received a complaint on 3 May 2023 from a non-resident. The landlord was informed that the resident had left rubbish which obstructed an access road. In a further conversation on 12 May 2023, the non-resident contacted the landlord to request that it take action to stop the resident blocking her drive and shouting abuse at her husband when she was asked to move.
The local housing manager (LHM) spoke to the resident on 17 May 2023 about the concerns raised by the non-resident.
After the telephone call, the resident complained to the landlord. She said that:
1. The LHM had called her at 11.18am to complain about the bulk rubbish located by the bins at the rear of the property.
2. Weeks earlier she had contacted the local council to arrange a collection of the bulk rubbish and had chased the council that day. On informing the LHM of this, the LHM appeared disinterested.
3. The LHM told her to move the bulk rubbish and the resident described her behaviour as rude.
4. The LHM attended the property and took pictures. As the resident had not been informed of the visit, this made her feel uncomfortable.
5. There was a lack of clarity around the number of complaints received. First the LHM said multiple complaints had been received about the bulk rubbish, then they said that only a single complaint had been received.
6. During the sign-up for the tenancy, the LHM spoke to her about the landlord’s approach to complaints and how this could lead to eviction. This made her feel scared.
7. She believed that she was being penalised for the local council’s inaction.
8. She has post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression. The situation made her feel tearful, triggered and to believe she could lose her home.
9. Her preferred outcome was for the LHM to be changed.
The landlord provided its initial complaint response on 6 June 2023. In summary, it said:
1. The housing operations manager would be addressing the resident’s concerns with the LHM.
2. It had received several complaints from neighbours that rubbish was blocking the road. The LHM had acknowledged that the resident had taken steps to contact the local council. However, the bulk rubbish was causing an obstruction to vehicles.
3. The LHM had contacted the resident to allow her to take the appropriate action. This included a suggestion that the resident could store the bulk rubbish in the garden until the collection day.
4. LHMs cover a geographical area so the LHM would not be changed.
5. The resident could use the customer hub as an alternative means to access services.
6. The complaint was not upheld as the investigation had not identified a service failure.
Later that day, the resident escalated her complaint to the next stage of the landlord’s complaint procedure. She set out the upset the landlord’s complaint response had caused her as she believed that lies had been told about her. The resident went on to say that during the telephone conversation, the LHM initially said that multiple complaints had been received about the bulk rubbish. In addition, she had said “don’t lie to me.” The resident also disputed that the bulk rubbish caused an obstruction as it had been stacked against her fence on her side of the road. The resident also maintained:
1. She had contacted the landlord on 29 May 2023 and was told that it had not received any complaints about the bulk rubbish.
2. Neighbours had not contacted her to request that the bulk rubbish be removed. She was unaware that this was a problem until the landlord contacted her on 17 May 2023.
3. She had a good relationship with her neighbours and the property next door was empty.
4. After speaking with the LHM, she moved the bulk rubbish into her garden. Therefore, she disputed that she did not act once she had been contacted.
5. She had provided pictures dated 6 May 2023 and 17 May 2023 and from a chat with the local council. The resident stated that the pictures showed the bulk rubbish stacked near the bins. She disputed that there was an obstruction of the road or vehicles.
6. She was living in fear and had not spoken to her neighbours apart from her next-door neighbour.
7. Her preferred outcome was for the LHM to be changed following her choice of words and threat to her.
The landlord provided its final stage complaint response on 1 August 2023. The landlord upheld the decision reached in its stage 1 complaint response. It repeated that the LHM was responding to numerous complaints in relation to the bulk rubbish and had communicated with the resident about this. The landlord acknowledged that the resident was waiting for the local council to collect the rubbish. It determined that a misunderstanding had occurred between the resident and the LHM. The LHM was professional, trained to treat residents with respect and worked to a geographical patch. For those reasons, the LHM would not be changed. The majority of customer service interactions were undertaken through its customer hub and it provided the resident with the contact details.
After the complaint process was exhausted, the landlord informed this Service on 28 May 2024 that it had subsequently identified complaint handling failures. It decided to make a compensation award of £150 to the resident for this. It had identified delays in responding and escalating the complaint which caused frustration to the resident. Since the complaint, to improve its complaint handling, it carried out regular training and monthly catch ups with departments.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. be fair;
2. put things right;
3. learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
It is clear from the resident’s submissions that she has been distressed by the actions of the landlord’s staff. The resident’s feelings are acknowledged. However, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider how the landlord assessed her concerns and to determine whether its approach was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct

Shortly after the resident moved into the property, the landlord received complaints on 3 May 2023 and 10 May 2023 about the bulk rubbish. As the landlord was informed by the non-resident that the bulk rubbish remained in place, it was responsible for assessing under its anti-social behaviour policy whether the complaint met the threshold to be considered anti-social behaviour.
It is not disputed that the resident had bulk rubbish and that she was responsible for keeping it safe and tidy until it was collected by the local council.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the conduct of the LHM following a telephone conversation on 17 May 2023. The resident said that, during the telephone call, the LHM had said “do not lie” and she expressed her disappointment with the tone and manner of the LHM. It was appropriate that the landlord investigated by speaking to the LHM and reviewing their account of what had occurred. It is noted that the LHM disputed that she used the form of words “do not lie” when speaking with the resident.
There is no evidence that the landlord’s complaint investigation extended to enquiring whether a copy of the call was available between the resident and the LHM. There is also no evidence that it considered listening to the call. This was a failing. Had it done so, it would have heard the actual conversation between the resident and LHM, established what was said during the phone call and satisfied itself whether the conversation met its customer service standards. This would have also given reassurance to the resident that her concerns had been taken seriously. In addition, the complaint response would have addressed the specific concerns raised by the resident regarding the language and tone used by the LHM.
Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, it was reasonable that the LHM contacted the resident’s previous housing officer to find out whether there were any additional requirements. The LHM is responsible for helping the resident to maintain her tenancy and the information would potentially assist in the provision of any support required.
A key aspect of the resident’s complaint was her concern that there was a discrepancy over how many reports the landlord received about the rubbish. Both of the landlord’s complaint responses said that multiple reports were made. However, the Ombudsman has only seen evidence of a report from a single third-party address. Nevertheless, the landlord was obliged to speak to the resident about the presence of rubbish regardless of the number of reports it received.
The resident requested for a change of LHM as she believed that they did not like her. Reason given by the resident were the conversation on 17 May 2023 and the information given during the earlier sign-up process. The resident explained that the LHM said that complaints could lead to eviction and this made her feel scared. The sign-up process for a new tenant is the landlord’s opportunity to explain to the resident the tenancy terms, including the obligations for both parties. It was reasonable that the landlord explained these to the resident. It is noted that the resident did not raise any concerns to the landlord in April 2023 about the conduct of the LHM.
In its final complaint response, the landlord explained that it could not agree to the resident’s request for a change of LHM. The landlord explained that the role of the LHM required coverage of a geographical area and it had not found evidence to support a change of officer. This was an appropriate explanation. It was also reasonable that the landlord acknowledged that the resident may not be comfortable with direct contact with the LHM so provided alternative contact arrangements for the resident to use to make contact with the landlord.
In summary, the resident was responsible for the correct storage of the rubbish before it was collected by the local council. The landlord was required to act to resolve the reports it had received about the bulk rubbish and to let the resident know such a complaint had been received. However, the landlord failed to takes steps to listen to the telephone call between the LHM and the resident which would have enabled it to say with certainty whether the call met its customer service levels. For this reason, a finding of service failure has been made.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint procedure says that complaints will be answered within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at its final stage.
The resident made an online complaint on 17 May 2023 regarding the conduct of the LHM. The landlord provided its initial complaint response on 6 June 2023, taking 13 working days. This was just outside its complaint handling timescale of 10 working days.
The resident escalated her complaint the same day, giving reasons for her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s complaint response. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 1 August 2023, taking 40 working days. This was not reasonable as it exceeded the landlord’s complaint handling target timescale of 20 working days.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out that where a landlord is unable to meet its published complaint handling timescale, it should agree an extension with the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord did so, which was likely to cause uncertainty and frustration to the resident.
The landlord informed this Service that on review of its handling of the resident’s complaint, it had identified complaint handling delays. It stated that it was going to make direct contact with the resident to make a compensation award of £150. The £150 compensation offered is in line with both the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident, but which may not significantly affect the overall outcome.
Had the landlord offered the payment as part of its final complaint response, this would have represented reasonable redress for its complaint handling failings. As it did not do so through the complaints process, the Ombudsman has concluded that there was a service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination, the landlord should:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £225 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced by her, made up of:
  1. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failure in its handling of her concerns about staff conduct;
  2. £150 for the time and trouble caused to her by its complaint handling failure (this includes the £150 it agreed to pay the resident in its submission to this Service on 28 May 2024).
The landlord is to reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure that call recordings are kept for a reasonable period in future so it may use them to investigate such complaints.