Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202316428)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316428

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

8 October 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 a leak from the resident’s boiler shortly after her tenancy began.
  2. This Service has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started on 17 April 2023. The property is a 2 bedroom house.
  2. Before moving into the property, the resident stored a suitcase full of her personal belongings in the boiler cupboard. The belongings were damaged beyond repair following a leak from the boiler.
  3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 1 June 2023. She said the landlord had uncapped her gas on 26 April 2023 and on 2 May 2023 she discovered a leak in her boiler cupboard. The resident said she thought the leak may have been caused by the gas engineer who attended.
  4. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 14 June 2023. However, the response referred to a separate leak reported by the resident on 17 May 2023, not the leak she reported on 2 May 2023. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £30 for her time and trouble.
  5. Following the resident’s escalation of her case, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 3 August 2023. It apologised for the confusion in its stage 1 response and confirmed that there was no link between the gas meter being uncapped and the leak. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. However, it offered the resident an additional £25 compensation for complaint handling failures.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a leak from the resident’s boiler shortly after her tenancy began

  1. The landlord’s records show that the gas meter was capped on 24 February 2023, shortly before the void inspection took place on 28 February 2023. There is no evidence to suggest that there was a leak from the boiler at the time of the void inspection.
  2. The resident’s tenancy began on 17 April 2023. She did not move in immediately as she was waiting for her furniture to be delivered from storage and for carpets to be fitted. However, she stored a large suitcase of her personal belongings in the boiler cupboard ready for when she had fully moved in. The landlord’s gas contractors uncapped and reconnected the gas supply on 26 April 2023. They also carried out a gas safety test, which included testing the boiler. There is no evidence to suggest that the gas engineer encountered any difficulties or found any faults or leaks whilst completing the gas safety test.
  3. The resident discovered a leak from the boiler on 2 May 2023 at around midday, whilst she was having her carpet fitted. She reported the leak to the landlord. Both the landlord’s and the resident’s account of when the gas engineer attended differ. The landlord said a gas engineer attended during the early hours of 3 May 2023. However, the resident said the gas engineer attended within around an hour of her report on 2 May 2023. The engineer reported that he had fixed the leak. He said the leak was from the condensate pipe, which would only occur whilst the boiler was functioning.
  4. The landlord’s repair responsibilities guide says that a contractor will visit within 24 hours of the repair being reported. Certain contractors may be able to attend within 4 hours, depending on the agreement with the landlord. Further visits may need to be scheduled in with the resident to fully complete the repair.
  5. As the landlord’s contractors attended the resident’s property within 24 hours of the report, and there is evidence to suggest it did so within 1 hour of the report, the landlord acted in accordance with its repair responsibilities guide. Therefore, its actions following the immediate report of the leak were appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances.
  6. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 1 June 2023. She said the landlord’s gas contractor attended her property on 26 April 2023 to uncap the gas supply to her property. She then noticed a leak form her boiler on 2 May 2023. She told the landlord that she had a suitcase of her personal belongings stored in the cupboard whilst she awaited delivery of her furniture. When she opened her suitcase on 19 May 2023, she found that the leak had damaged all her personal belongings as everything was mouldy and had to be thrown away. She said she was not sure when the leak started but she thought it may have been on 26 April 2023 when the gas engineer attended.
  7. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 14 June 2023. However, there was some confusion as to the date of the leak. The landlord responded in respect of a separate leak that had occurred on 17 May 2023, and not the leak that was reported on 2 May 2023. It did not find any service failure, however, it offered the resident £30 compensation for time and trouble. It also advised the resident to claim on her own home contents insurance or to make a public liability claim through its insurers.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint on 14 June 2023 as she was unhappy with the amount of compensation awarded. She said she believed the leak was caused by the gas engineer who uncapped the gas supply. She told the landlord that she did not have home insurance. However, when she had spoken to the landlord, she was told that as she was not a leaseholder, she could not make a public liability claim. She also said the dates mentioned in the stage 1 response were incorrect.
  9. The landlord responded on the same day and confirmed that the resident could make a public liability claim. It apologised for the incorrect information she had been given. It said submitting a claim would be the only way to claim back the costs, as the insurer would look at whether the landlord was at fault. The landlord sent the resident details of how she could submit a claim. This was a reasonable course of action in the circumstances. Although the landlord could have been clearer as to the circumstances when its insurer would award compensation to manage the resident’s expectations.
  10. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 3 August 2023. It acknowledged the confusion between the dates of the leaks within the stage 1 response. It said the resident reported a leak on 2 May 2023. This was repaired on 3 May 2023 by its gas contractors at the time of the visit. It said the leak was found to be from the condensate pipe and this meant the leak would only occur whilst the boiler was working.
  11. The landlord said there was no link between the gas meter being uncapped and the leak from the condensate pipe. It said the damage to the resident’s belongings was not caused by any service delivery failure as its contractors attended and resolved the leak within 24 hours of the first report. Therefore, it could not uphold the resident’s complaint or consider any reimbursement for the damage caused to her personal possessions. The landlord said it encouraged its customers to take out contents insurance to cover personal items and decoration against accidental damage, loss, fire, or flood. It said a colleague had provided the resident with its public liability insurer’s details should she wish to consider making a claim. The landlord confirmed the compensation of £30 for time and trouble awarded at stage 1.
  12. Residents are usually responsible for arranging contents insurance to insure against damage to household goods and possessions following incidents such as leaks. This is for situations where the landlord is not liable for the damage caused. The resident’s tenancy agreement says at paragraph 1.5(c) that she is responsible for insuring the contents of the property against theft, loss, damage by fire, or accidental damage. Therefore, the landlord’s suggestion within the stage 2 response that the resident should claim on her own contents insurance, should she have it, was reasonable in the circumstances as it was represented within the terms set out in her tenancy.
  13. Within the stage 2 response the landlord also suggested that the resident claim on its public liability insurance, if she felt that the landlord was liable for the damage caused. This was reasonable in the circumstances. However, it should have been made clearer to the resident that the insurer would only pay out where the landlord was found to be responsible for the losses incurred, for example, through negligence.
  14. In summary, although there was a leak from the resident’s boiler, which caused damage to the resident’s belongings, there is no evidence of service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the leak. There is no evidence to suggest the leak was caused by the landlord’s contractors, or that the leak was apparent prior to the resident signing for the tenancy. The landlord responded within the timeframes set out in its repair responsibilities guide.
  15. Although the landlord’s actions were appropriate and reasonable in this case, it should be acknowledged that the resident has lost a number of sentimental possessions shortly after moving into her home. This situation has had a detrimental effect on the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are responded to within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 1 June 2023. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 14 June 2023. This was within the landlord’s timeframe of 10 working days for stage 1 complaints. However, the landlord investigated and referred to the wrong repair within its stage 1 response.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 14 June 2023. The landlord contacted the resident on 28 July 2023 to inform her that it had extended the timeframe for response by 10 working days to allow time for the draft response to be approved. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (April 2022) says that landlords must respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. However, the stage 2 response was already overdue by this point and there is no evidence to suggest that the reason for the extension was exceptional.
  4. The landlord sent the resident the stage 2 complaint response on 3 August 2023. This was 36 working days from the date of escalation and outside of the landlord’s timeframe of 20 working days for stage 2 complaints. It was also outside of the timeframe of 30 working days when including the extension period. In its stage 2 response the landlord offered the resident £25 compensation in relation to its failure to investigate the correct leak at stage 1. However, it did not acknowledge the delay in the stage 2 response.
  5. The landlord contacted the resident on 1 March 2024, as it had undertaken a formal review of her complaint. It is unclear from the information provided what prompted the review. The landlord said it had highlighted an element of poor complaint handling within the management of the stage 2 complaint. It said the date of the stage 2 response was recorded incorrectly as 27 July 2023, when the correct date was 3 August 2023. It apologised for the error and offered the resident compensation of £50. This increased the overall compensation for complaint handling failures to £75.
  6. In summary, the landlord investigated the wrong leak within its stage 1 response. It failed to comply with the timeframes set within its own complaints policy, and the Code, and delayed unreasonably in providing a stage 2 response. The landlord did complete a formal review of the resident’s complaint on 1 March 2024. It recognised that the date of the stage 2 response had been recorded incorrectly and it increased its offer of compensation. However, the landlord did not utilise its internal complaints process to address these matters at the time the complaint was made. Had the landlord made the current offer at the time of the final response, this Service would have likely determined that its offer was satisfactory in resolving the complaint.
  7. As a result of this failure, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure by the landlord in this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a leak from the resident’s boiler shortly after her tenancy began.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £75 (the landlord can deduct from the total any amount of compensation it has already paid) in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord should, if it has not already done so, pay the resident the £30 compensation it offered for time and trouble awarded at stage 1.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to advise of its intentions in regard to the above recommendation.