Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202319715)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319715

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

26 February 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 response to resident’s reports of a lack of heating and hot water.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives in a 2-bedroom, first floor flat.
On 27 September 2022 the resident’s boiler failed a gas safety check. A referral was made by the contractor for the landlord to consider replacing the boiler due to its age and condition a week later. A new boiler was fitted on 15 November 2022.
The resident complained on 12 December 2022. She said she had been without heating and hot water for almost 2 months during the time that she was without a working boiler. She also complained the landlord did not provide temporary heaters. The resident asked to be compensated for an increase in her energy costs and inconvenience caused.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 9 January 2023, it acknowledged it took longer than its published timescales to renew the boiler. The landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused and awarded £225 compensation. This included £25 for a delay in the complaint response.
Subsequently, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 11 March 2023. She said that the compensation was not enough because the landlord had not considered that she had incurred costs. She also said that she was still without a hot water supply to her kitchen tap.
The landlord confirmed its stage 2 decision on 2 August 2023. It acknowledged there had been further delays in resolving the hot water issue. It also said the initial response did not address all aspects of the complaint, but did not say what these were. The landlord apologised, said it had taken learning, and increased its compensation by £175 (making £400 in total, including £50 for complaint handling issues).
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman because she was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered. She also said the landlord had not acknowledged her requests to be compensated for her financial losses. The resident said she had been caused financial hardship. She wants the landlord to pay more compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

According to the resident, the delays in resolving the issues connected to her boiler and hot water supply caused her financial loss. She said this includes damage to her washing machine. It is not within our powers to establish if the landlord’s actions or inactions caused damage and/or led to the resident incurring costs she would not otherwise have incurred. A contents or liability insurer are better suited to deciding this. We have instead assessed how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint that she incurred costs directly as a result of its failings. We will decide if its response was appropriate using relevant policies, guidance, and best practice.

Compensation

Needing to replace a boiler is sometimes unavoidable. In such circumstances, the landlord would be expected to do so within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord’s repair policy states the loss of heating and hot water is classed as an emergency that it would aim to attend within 24 hours. While it does not give a timescale for replacing a boiler, it is reasonable to expect it to take longer than 24 hours, due to the need to order a replacement. We would though still expect to see that it was given a degree of urgency, particularly given the time of year.
The resident’s boiler was condemned on 27 September 2022. She was then without access to a central system for her heating and hot water for almost 50 days. The landlord, appropriately, took accountability for the delays in its initial response in January 2023. It explained this was due to the boiler taking longer than expected. The landlord also offered £200 compensation, which was in line with the level its policy states it will pay for “medium failures”.
Had the delay been its only failing, this amount would have been reasonable. As this report goes on to explain, there were other issues that the resident complained about at both stages and which the landlord failed to address in either of its 2 responses. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to “address all points raised in the complaint”. So it is a failing that not all of the issues were addressed during the complaints process. We will go on to consider these issues, and new, related matters that occurred after the stage 1 was issued.
In her December 2022 complaint, the resident complained that she had to borrow heaters because the landlord offered none. She said she also had to chase updates herself.
According to the landlord’s temporary heating policy, it was required to provide temporary heaters between October and April. There is no evidence, that we have seen, that the resident was offered heaters. This was despite being without a boiler for all of October 2022. It was therefore left to the resident to arrange her own temporary heaters, which was inappropriate. We have not seen evidence that the landlord was keeping the resident updated on the status of the boiler renewal either. Rather, the contact records show she rang 5 times for updates between October and early November 2022. The landlord failed to take actions that may have improved the situation for the resident. The landlord, therefore, acted inappropriately and in not addressing these issues in the complaint responses it missed the opportunity to take actions to put things right.
The landlord also failed to address the resident’s complaint that she incurred higher energy bills from using temporary heaters and boiling hot water for bathing.
According to its compensation policy it may reimburse costs up to £300, that can be evidenced, where its failure has caused a tenant to be “financially disadvantaged”. Its approach, as explained in the policy, is to “restore our customers to the position they would have been in if the service failure did not occur.” This approach is encouraged in our guidance on financial remedies. There is no reason therefore, that we have seen, that the landlord could not have offered to consider reimbursing the resident for increased energy bills. Again, it missed the opportunity at both stages to follow its policy, which is a failing.
In her escalation request in mid-March 2023, the resident complained that her kitchen hot water tap was not fully functioning. She believed this to be linked to the original fault with her boiler.
According to the repair logs, it took from the first inspection in early January 2023 until early August 2023 to resolve the kitchen hot water tap. The landlord aims to complete routine repairs within 20 working days. The policy states that there may be issues that require further visits. In cases where the cause of an issue is unclear and require further investigation or work, it is usual for a landlord to start the clock again for each appointment.
It is apparent that, at first, the landlord suspected there to be a problem with the boiler but then found it to be related to blocked drains. The records show that the blockage was cleared but returned on two more occasions before the landlord started exploring other options. This included a CCTV survey of the drains. Clearly the issue was complex and required further specialist investigations. Therefore, the fact that it took almost 7 months longer than the routine timescale to restore the full functionality of the tap is not itself an indication of a failing.
In complex cases, we would expect the landlord to communicate well with the resident about the issues. We would also expect it to deal with all investigations within its routine timescale. Although there is some evidence in her emails that the resident was aware of what investigations were happening, there were times when she was unaware of the next steps. Records indicate this coincided with the CCTV investigation that was due to go ahead on 30 March 2023. We have seen this investigation had to be rescheduled twice. It was then completed on 4 July 2023, over 3 months after originally planned. Records indicate the first time it was rescheduled was due to the wrong instruction being raised. The second was due to not having operatives available to reinstate kitchen units that had been removed for access. In both of these cases, it seems that workmen had already attended the resident’s property. This likely caused the resident inconvenience and undoubtedly caused delays.
In the stage 2 response from August 2023, the landlord appropriately acknowledged there were some “unnecessary” delays in resolving the problem with the hot tap. It also increased its offer of compensation by £150, which was the highest amount its policy states it will pay for medium impact failures. It was appropriate to recognise the additional failings and the impact of them. The amount was a reasonable, in isolation, to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay of around 4 months.
The landlord explained it was due to a failure to coordinate multiple trades people. This is consistent with the records seen. It also confirmed that it had shared learning with its contractor manager to prevent the same issue arising in future. It is apparent, therefore, that the landlord reflected on what went wrong and has taken action to stop it from happening again. This approach of accountability and learning is one the Code encourages.
Prior to receiving the stage 2 response, the resident emailed the complaints team, in July 2023 stating that her washing machine had been damaged because of the issues relating to her boiler/hot water tap. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to address this concern in its final response, having accepted the problems were connected to her original complaint. This was a failing. In this respect, the landlord should have responded to the resident’s complaint that delays in the repair connected to the hot water had caused damaged her washing machine. The landlord is ordered to provide information about what evidence it needs to consider this further. Given the time that has elapsed, it may be appropriate for the landlord to make some concessions to its usual processes of considering a claim for costs under its compensation policy.
While the landlord took some appropriate actions and attempted to put things right, this investigation found further failings which have not been remedied. The Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure and orders it to take actions to put right the impact of its failure to:
1. Supply or offer to supply temporary heaters.
2. Keep the resident updated.
3. Consider her complaint that she had incurred costs and damage to her washing machine.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints timescales meet those specified in the Code. This is that it will acknowledge complaints and escalations within 5-working days. It then commits to responding within 10-working days at stage 1 and 20-working days at stage 2. At both stages it will agree an extended timescale where needed.
In both of the responses, the landlord apologised for delays and awarded compensation of £25 at each stage.
It was appropriate to acknowledge failings and take steps to put right the delays in its complaints process. There is no evidence, that we have seen, that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s initial complaint. It then took around 15-working days to respond, which exceeded its timescales without any clear reasons. At stage 2, it did acknowledge the complaint promptly, but then took around 80-working days longer than its published timescale. This was a significant delay. As such, the compensation awarded of £25 was not enough or in-line with the amount the landlord’s policy states it may make for more serious complaint handling failings.
The delay in the final response appears to have been due to the landlord waiting for the repairs to be completed. It was not in-line with standards of the Code to delay the final response until the landlord believed the original issues had been resolved. Had the landlord believed it was necessary to wait for the repairs to be completed, it was required under the Code to advise the resident of her right to complain to the Ombudsman. There is no evidence, that we have seen, that the landlord did this. It therefore failed to handle the complaint as it should have. In turn, this meant the resident was unaware that she could refer her concerns to this Service prior to receiving a stage 2 response.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it will only respond at stage 2 if certain criteria are met. This includes that the initial response has not considered important information and that actions agreed have not been completed. At stage 2, it also said the initial response missed parts of the resident’s complaint. This was correct because, as explained earlier, it did not address the resident’s requests to be compensated for specific financial losses. However, the final response did not explain what issues had been overlooked. It also repeated the failing, despite the resident stating in her escalation that this had not been considered as one of her main reasons for taking matters further. Both of the landlord’s complaint responses therefore failed to meet its own standards and the Code’s.
The landlord has acknowledged some of its failings and has taken some actions to put things right with its apology and compensation award. However, the stage 2 response was lacking in sufficient detail and failed to address all of the concerns that were raised. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. As such, the landlord is ordered to pay further compensation proportionate to the cumulative impact of its failings in the handling of the complaint.
The findings in this report are consistent with those identified in an earlier investigation (202011109). In that case, the landlord also failed to respond within appropriate timeframes and address all aspects of the complaint. We made a wider order for the landlord to review its complaints processes and procedures. As such, no orders had been made for the landlord to make service improvements. It is though encouraged to take learning from this case to use in the work it is doing following its review.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was service failure in the landlord’s response to resident’s reports of a lack of heating and hot water.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is required to provide evidence showing it has complied with our orders to:
1. Write to the resident apologising for failing to consider her requests to be compensated for specific costs.
2. Pay compensation of £650 (or £250 if the original award of £400 has been paid), made up of:
  1. £450 (or £100) for the impact from failings in the boiler and hot water repairs.
  2. £200 (or £150) for the impact from failings in the handling of the complaint.
3. Explain how the resident can make a claim for her financial losses. The landlord should also advise what supporting evidence is required, if making a claim through its compensation policy or public liability insurer.

Recommendation

The landlord should consider taking account of the Ombudsman’s guidance notes on insurance when responding to the resident’s claim for specific costs.