Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202316879)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316879

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

22 April 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property following a fire, including repairs relating to damp.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and lives with their brother. The property is a 3-bedroom maisonette located in the basement and ground floor of a house. The landlord is a housing association.
The evidence provided to this service shows the landlord was aware the resident’s brother is autistic and has learning difficulties.
On 19 December 2021 a fire broke out in the property. The resident’s father died from injuries sustained during the fire. The resident’s brother was present in the property at the time.
The resident temporarily moved out of the property and states the landlord told them they would be able to return before the end of January 2022.
On 22 March 2022 the resident submitted a stage 1 complaint. They stated that they had been unable to move back into their property as no repair work had taken place. They told the landlord this had affected them, and their brother, mentally, physically, and financially. They requested compensation and a promise the landlord would carry out repairs immediately.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 23 April 2022. It stated that repair works would commence on 19 April 2022 and take approximately 5 days to complete. It offered £700 in compensation, made up of £350 for time and trouble, and £350 for service failure.
The resident submitted further complaints about the delay in completing repairs on 7 July 2022 and 5 September 2022. They raised specific concerns about repairs to windows and damp. The landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage 2 of their complaint process or provide a formal response on either occasion.
On 21 December 2022 the resident submitted another complaint. They stated they had been out of the property for a year and the landlord had still not completed the repairs. They reiterated the impact the ongoing delay was having on them and their family. They requested the landlord complete the repairs immediately and compensate them for the treatment they had experienced.
The landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 of its complaint process. It issued its response on 31 July 2023. It stated there had been delays in getting replacement windows manufactured and that rectifying the damp issues had required extensive works. It further advised these works were still ongoing and that the landlord’s repair teams would be taking ownership of the next steps. It offered additional compensation of £500. This consisted of £150 for service failure, £150 for time and trouble, and £200 for poor complaints handling.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and requested this service investigate their complaint.

Events after the end of the complaints procedure

On 13 December 2023 the landlord advised this service that the works relating to the damp were complete. It further advised there were some minor works which it aimed to complete by 22 December 2023 and then the resident would be able to return home. It stated if it were to review the complaint now it would offer £2200 in compensation in place of the previous stage 2 offer of £500. This would consist of:
1. £475 for 19 months (£25 per month) delay in completing repairs.
2. £1425 for 19 months (£75 per month) distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and their family.
3. £300 for poor complaint handling.
The resident advised this service on 18 March 2023 that they had still not been able to move back into their property but was expecting to do so in the next few days.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has said the landlord’s handling of repairs had a negative impact on their, and their family’s, physical and mental health. The Ombudsman is not able to reach a decision on whether a landlord’s actions (or inactions) injured an individual’s physical or mental health. This type of personal injury claim is better suited to the courts, where the judge would benefit from an independent medical expert confirming the diagnosis, cause, and prognosis of the injury. It is usually only the courts that can say if legal liability arises.

Repairs

The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the following timeframes:
1. Emergency repairs must be completed in 24 hours, with a further 7 days allowed if the landlord needs to order parts.
2. Routine repairs must be completed within 28 days.
3. Major routine repairs must be completed within 3 months, or as part of a planned programme of works.
The landlord did not meet any of these timescales during the repair work required at the resident’s property. There has been no evidence provided to this service to explain why it had been unable to do so or what actions it had taken to prioritise out-of-time repairs.
The resident stayed with family while the repairs were ongoing. This was the best option for supporting the resident and their brother’s wellbeing. The landlord also offered to make support referrals. This was a reasonable step for it to have taken.
However, after these initial actions, there is no evidence to demonstrate the landlord continued to consider the impact of the fire on the resident and their family, their brother’s vulnerabilities, or the ongoing impact of the delays when progressing the repairs. Even if it had not considered these matters to be a sufficient reason to prioritise the repairs initially, it should have reviewed this after missing its own timescales and the repeated complaints from the resident.
The landlord’s repair logs indicate that it was raising and completing works orders between 20 December 2021 and 15 November 2023. However, the log does not provide any insight into why there were delays either raising works orders or completing the required work. The included notes are brief and limited to a basic description of the required work. It is difficult to identify exactly when work was completed or what specific actions were taken.
The landlord has provided this service with several internal email exchanges. These demonstrate there was a lack of consistent ownership over the repairs. It also appears there was either no shared resource to allow different repair teams to effectively track what repairs the landlord had completed and what was outstanding, or if there was such a method, that it was not being used effectively. There are multiple examples of updates needing to be chased or additional information being asked for to clarify the ongoing situation.
It is reasonable to conclude the landlord had a significant issue with record keeping and knowledge management. This service expects landlords to maintain a robust record of repairs. Clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ abilities to identify and respond to problems when they arise. In the Ombudsman’s view it is likely this issue significantly impacted on the landlord’s ability to complete repairs within a reasonable time.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not explain to the resident why it had not started the repairs. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have identified why there had been a delay and determine if this indicated there was a wider or more significant issue. Had it done this it might have been able to take remedial steps at an early stage and prevent the additional delays faced by the resident.
The landlord offered £700 in compensation. The Ombudsman considers this was a reasonable offer and provided sufficient redress for the issues that had occurred up to that date.
Following the resident’s contact in July 2022 internal emails indicate the landlord had been aware of damage to the windows as well as damp issues since the repairs started. The emails detail the landlord only raised works orders to paint the inside of the windows and that it had decided it would further explore the damp issues once the resident was back in the property. There has been no evidence provided to explain why the landlord considered these were appropriate actions or in line with its repair obligations.
The landlord agreed on 7 July 2022 that the windows in the property required replacing but did not raise a works order to obtain a quote until 10 August 2022. An earlier works order to replace the windows was placed on the wrong system. This meant the planned visit would have been attended by a team who would not be able to progress the matter. It is concerning that, given the already avoidable delays in replacing the windows, the landlord needed to internally chase the approval of the quote on 6 September 2022. This is further evidence of the landlord’s issues with record keeping.
The provided repair log entries show the landlord had identified damp issues and raised a works order to investigate potential rising damp in May 2022. There are further entries in June 2022 to carry out a damp survey to find a leak coming from ground level. Notes from October 2022 indicate the damp was still an issue and that the landlord intended to get a damp specialist to survey the property. This did not take place until May 2023. There is no clear explanation for why it took 8 months to arrange this survey. This was an unreasonable delay.
There was a further delay in completing the repairs identified in the survey due to contractual issues between the landlord and the damp specialist. Internal emails provided to this service suggest the landlord had not considered any contingencies or alternative approaches to complete the required work. It instead placed jobs that were due to be completed by the contractor on hold while waiting for the contract to be resolved. The Ombudsman recognises that it may not always be possible or feasible to switch contractors, particularly when they have specialised skills, but it is expected that the landlord would be able to demonstrate that it considered other possible options to prevent undue delay.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response acknowledged the delays in completing repairs but did not provide any explanation for why these delays had happened. It also did not provide a time-specific action plan for how it intended to complete the outstanding repairs. It only advised that its repairs team would take ownership of the next steps and would communicate any further updates. This was not an appropriate response.
The landlord should have explored why the required repairs had not been completed and provided the resident with a detailed explanation about what had gone wrong in the handling of the repairs. It should have identified what further works were required and, if necessary, raised appropriate works orders before responding to the complaint. It would then have been able to give the resident an action plan which would have allowed them to promptly hold it to account if it failed to complete the required actions.
The landlord offered an additional £300 compensation, on top of the £700 offered at stage 1. The landlord states this was to cover the further 6 months (April 2022 to October 2022) it took to complete the fire damage repairs. The Ombudsman considers this was an insufficient offer to address the failings found by this service. As the repairs were still ongoing, the offer should also have covered the full period between the stage 1 and stage 2 responses.
The landlord has provided some evidence to demonstrate it provided updates to the resident about the damp issues. This covers a period from April 2023 to August 2023 and shows there was contact by phone approximately every 2 weeks. The landlord has not provided any records which document what information it gave to the resident during these calls. There is also no evidence to demonstrate the landlord updated the resident at reasonable intervals outside that period.
Having considered the findings above, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the repair because:
1. It unreasonably delayed in carrying out repairs. This includes carrying out investigations to assess the causes of disrepair and required remedial works.
2. It failed to identify the repairs required and act at the earliest opportunity.
3. It showed a consistent failure in record keeping.
4. It failed to appropriately consider the impact of ongoing delays on the resident and their family, including their brother’s known vulnerabilities.
5. It failed to keep the resident updated on the progress of the repairs at reasonable intervals.
6. It failed to consider the duration of the avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident, as well as the total loss of enjoyment of their home.
The Ombudsman notes the resident was required to keep making weekly rent payments while not being able to live in the property. However, the landlord did provide a decant payment of:
1. £50 per day from 19 December 2021, consisting of £25 for the resident and £25 for their brother.
2. £55 per day from 30 September 2022. The additional £5 was provided for the resident’s newborn child.
The Ombudsman considers, where a resident has been decanted temporarily, that the resident should not end up in a worse off position than if they had been able to stay in their property. This could be achieved by a rent discount/refund or providing a payment to cover reasonable additional costs incurred by the resident. As the landlord has provided the latter option the Ombudsman is satisfied it was reasonable for the resident to continue paying the required rent.
The landlord acted appropriately by offering decant payments as well as recognising there were errors and offering compensation. However, the Ombudsman does not consider that fairly recognised the impact on the resident overall.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process with the following timeframes:
1. It must acknowledge stage 1 complaints and stage 2 escalation requests within 5 working days.
2. It must issue its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. If it requires further time this must be agreed with the resident, and it must provide weekly updates.
3. It must issue its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. If it requires further time an extension up to 30 days (in total) must be agreed with the resident.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s stage 1 complaint was in line with its process. However, this did not remain the case with its stage 2 handling.
The resident’s complaints of 7 July 2022 and 5 September 2022 were requests for escalation to stage 2. After the landlord received these complaints, internal discussions asked for the resident to be contacted with an update on the repairs. It stated it was trying to prevent the complaint from escalating to stage 2. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied the landlord was aware the resident was attempting to escalate their complaint.
The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) is clear that landlords must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint. Any refusal must have clear and valid reasons which must be set out in its complaint policy. It must write to the resident to tell them why it has not escalated the complaint and that they can approach the Ombudsman about its decision.
There is no evidence that the landlord had any valid reasons to refuse to escalate the resident’s complaint (on either date) to stage 2. There is also no evidence that the landlord wrote to the resident as required by the Code. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s actions were a serious failure. It frustrated the resident’s use of the complaints process, delaying the resolution of the issues they were facing and their right to bring their complaint to the Ombudsman.
The landlord initially treated the resident’s complaint of 21 December 2022 in a similar manner. On receipt it passed the complaint to its repair teams with a request that someone takes ownership of the issue. It also indicated it would consider whether it needed to escalate the complaint to stage 2. It is reasonable, considering the landlord’s previous actions, to conclude that it was likely to have again been attempting to avoid escalation of the complaint.
The landlord did escalate the complaint to stage 2 and sent an acknowledgement on 10 January 2023. This was 12 working days after the resident had made their complaint. This was not in line with its policy.
The landlord’s complaint log records that it updated the resident every 2 to 3 weeks between 10 January 2023 and 13 April 2023. There was then only one further recorded update on 22 May 2023 before the final response was issued. There is no clear explanation for the change in updates. The landlord should have, as required by the Code, continued providing regular updates throughout the complaint process.
The Ombudsman notes the landlord’s complaint log indicates that an extension to the response timeframe was agreed 7 times but there is no evidence to demonstrate the resident was included in these decisions. This is not in line with the landlord’s policy or the Code.
The stage 2 complaint response was issued on 31 July 2023. This was 141 days after it had acknowledged the escalation request. This was significantly outside the landlord’s policy and the provisions of the Code.
The lack of clear ownership of the repair issue and good knowledge management appears to have significantly impacted on the landlord’s ability to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. The complaint log details several unsuccessful attempts by the complaint handler to identify what repairs had taken place and what was outstanding as well as timeframes for completion of the outstanding work.
The landlord did not explain why there was a delay in issuing its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for the delay and offered £200 compensation for poor complaints handling. This was not an appropriate outcome as the landlord did not recognise the serious failings in its complaint handling or identify how it intended to ensure similar failings would not occur in the future.
There is no evidence the landlord used its complaint process to acknowledge its failings with the substantive complaint issue or take steps to assess the root cause of them. This meant that it did not look beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint and consider whether anything needed to be ‘put right’ in terms of process or systems to the benefit of all residents.
The landlord has advised the Ombudsman that it now considers it should have dealt with the resident’s complaint as 2 separate matters:
1. A complaint dealing with repairs to damage caused by the fire.
2. A complaint dealing with repairs needed to resolve the damp and mould issues.
The Ombudsman does not agree with this assessment. The substantive complaint issue was the delay in completing repairs which were preventing the resident moving back into the property. It would be unfair to return the resident to stage 1 of the complaint process simply because the landlord had identified other sources of disrepair it would need to fix before the resident could move back in.
The Ombudsman considers that the culmination of failures noted in the landlord’s complaint handling amounts to severe maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been severe maladministration with regard to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Issue a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The apology must come from the landlord’s Chief Executive.
2. Pay the resident £3,300 compensation. This consists of:
  1. £700 as offered in its stage 1 complaint response. This is for the impact of the handling of repairs to the property between December 2021 to April 2022.
  2. An additional £2,300 compensation for the impact of the handling of repairs to the property between April 2022 and March 2024. This is based on the landlord’s revised compensation offer (as outlined in paragraph 12), adjusted to cover the remaining period during which the resident was unable to return home.
  3. £300 for the time and trouble of having to raise a complaint together with the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays and failings in complaint handling.
3. This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. The landlord must make payments directly to the resident and not credit it to their rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.
Confirm it has included this case in its comprehensive review of its practices in relation to responding to requests for repairs, record keeping, and complaint handling. This review was ordered as part of case 202011109 and is to be carried out within 12 weeks of 31 January 2024.