Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202322349)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322349

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

25 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of a leak in the loft, and damp and mould.
2. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the 3rd floor of a purpose-built block. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
On 14 January 2023 the resident reported a wet patch on the hallway ceiling of the property and mould on the bathroom ceiling. Some 11 days later the landlord noted that it should trace and repair the leak in the loft.
In mid-February 2023 the resident reported a leak from the loft and said the majority of her belongings in the loft were covered in mould. She added that she was expecting twins in 9 week’s time and most of the baby equipment was in the loft. The resident added that she was allergic to mould.
The repair log evidences that on 15 February 2023 the landlord noted that there was a containable leak coming from the pitched roof into the loft. The log notes that the landlord had completed the trace and repair of the leak in the loft on 20 February 2023. It noted that the operative had “overhauled the joints”. There is no further detail of that repair.
On 27 February 2023 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She said that a roofing appointment had been cancelled and the loft was not insulated properly which had made belongings in the loft mouldy. She added there were damp marks on the ceiling which had not been resolved. The resident also said that the tiles by the front door exposed pipes which were a potential fire hazard. The resident said that all that was making her depressed, anxious and stressed and she was heavily pregnant with twins.
On 14 March 2023 the landlord visited the resident. It noted that a plumber had also visited and said the problem was likely the pipes in the loft, however, he did not inspect them. The landlord noted that it should inspect these pipes and rectify any damage.
Three days later the landlord inspected the loft and found no leaks or leaking pipes. It noted there was a possible leak from the roof. It also noted that it should check the insulation to see if it needed replacing.
At the end of March 2023, the landlord noted that work should be undertaken to treat the damp and mould. The repair notes say that this work was cancelled at the end of April 2023 at the resident’s request. It said she would call back when she was ready to have the work done as she had just had twins.
On 3 May 2023 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It said its contractor did not find a leak in the attic and it had asked for an inspection to be raised. It said that work to treat the damp and mould had been cancelled and the resident would contact the contractors when she was ready for that work to be completed. The landlord noted that it had provided her with information as to how to make a claim through its insurers for her damaged belongings. It offered the resident compensation of £190 made up of £70 for service failure; £70 for time and trouble, and £50 for poor complaint handling.
On the same day the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on the grounds that the damp and mould remained unresolved. She said the landlord had not resolved the cause of the mould and she did not see why it would treat the damp and mould before doing so.
On 16 May 2023 the landlord noted it should treat the damp and mould even if it had to do a further treatment at a later date. Later that month it noted that its contractor had confirmed there was no damp in the loft, although there was some condensation. It noted further that it could install vent tiles to allow the loft area to breathe.
On 10 July 2023 the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response to the resident. In relation to the complaint brought to the Ombudsman, it said it had arranged for the following repairs to take place:
1. Treat the damp and mould.
2. Remove and replace the contaminated loft insulation.
3. Remove any mould from the timber joints/supports in the loft.
4. Supply and fit 4 roof tiles to allow ventilation of the loft.
The landlord also said it would monitor the mould and in October 2023 would review that to ensure the above measures had been effective.
The landlord increased the compensation offered in the stage one complaint response to £270 offering a further £30 for service failure, £30 for time and trouble, and £20 for delays in issuing the complaint responses.
The repair notes evidence that the landlord treated the damp and mould on 20 June 2023. The notes say that it inspected the loft insulation on 24 July 2023 and that the insulation looked new. It noted that there was mould on the roof lining and the loft did not appear to have ventilation. The evidence also suggests that the contractor installed 13 vents in the loft by the start of July 2023.
The landlord’s repair notes of 7 February 2024, some 7 months later, say that there should be a loft inspection following photos of mould throughout the loft and “sodden insulation”. The evidence shows that inspection took place in early March 2024 which identified a lack of ventilation in the loft from the roof or soffit; that the insulation showed signs of being soaked and that roof vents were required.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she said that, while the leak patches had not grown, the damp and mould were unresolved. She said there were very young children in the property and their health was impacted by this. She said the issue with the pipes outside the front door was also unresolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident mentions that the health of her children is being affected by the mould and damp in the property. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding their health, and we understand this has been a difficult time for her. However, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. However, we can consider any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s health concerns.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak in the loft, and damp and mould

The landlord’s guide to repair responsibilities says that it is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property safe, secure and weatherproof and to ensure that all fixtures and fittings for the supply of water, gas, electricity, heating and sanitation are working. This reflects the landlord’s obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The landlord has different response times to reports of repairs including:
1. Routine: If a repair is not an emergency, it will generally be a routine appointment. At times it may need an initial appointment to assess the repair further. Every effort will be made to complete the repair within 28 calendar days (or 20 working days). If further visits are needed to complete the repair, these will be scheduled with the resident. If the work will take longer than this, it will keep the resident updated on the status of the repair.
2. Inspections: Where a repair is more complicated, it may decide to complete an inspection at the property before any repairs are made. This helps diagnose the right works needed to complete the repair.
The landlord’s website says that it will monitor any work it has done relating to damp and mould over a 12-month period. This is to make sure that the issue has been resolved and does not reoccur, across all seasons.
The landlord acted appropriately by arranging an inspection when the resident reported a leak in January 2023. The evidence suggests that a “contained leak” was identified and work subsequently carried out to resolve it. The landlord took over one month to arrange an inspection. The timeline suggests it did so after further contact from the resident. In total it took 25 working days to resolve this matter from the date of the resident reporting it, which was outside the time given for a routine repair in its repair guidance. That was a service failure.
When the resident complained at the end of February 2023, she said the damp mark on the ceiling had not been resolved; that her belongings in the loft were mouldy; and there were exposed pipes by the front door which were a potential fire hazard.
The landlord acted appropriately by carrying out an inspection of the loft in March 2023, which identified no leaks from the pipes but noted there could be a leak from the roof. It noted the loft insulation should be checked to see if it needed replacement. It is not clear why that was not checked at that time. While the landlord subsequently re-inspected the loft and carried out fire-stopping works (which did not form part of the complaint brought to this Service), we have seen no evidence that the landlord subsequently checked the roof for leaks. That was a failing.
The evidence suggests that the landlord acted reasonably in putting on hold the mould treatment at the resident’s request at about this time. We note the resident disputes that by saying she did not understand why the landlord would treat the mould without first fixing the issue that was causing it.
In May 2023 the landlord noted that it had not identified any damp in the loft but there was condensation, and the repairs manager recommended that it install vents. This was a reasonable approach as a preventative measure. The landlord told us that its operative “eventually” installed the vents; however, there is no evidence of when it did so. Recent evidence suggests that the landlord did not install these vents before March 2024 because a loft inspection at that time identified that there was “very little ventilation from the roof or soffit” and the insulation showed signs of soaking. It noted it presumed “in winter spells roof vents would be required front and rear and side of property at considerable cost”. On the basis of that evidence, we have concluded that the landlord did not install the vents before that inspection. The delay in doing so was a significant failing and meant that the resident continued to live in a property where the attic was unventilated and, as a result, continued to live in a property that was affected by condensation which resulted in damp and mould in the attic.
When we spoke to the resident, she was unsure that these vents had been installed. We have made an order for an independent contractor to inspect the loft to check that the vents have been installed (and in a correct manner); and to check the condition of the loft insulation and replace it, if appropriate.
The landlord carried out the damp treatment in June 2023, following the stage 2 complaint response. The repair notes do not give details of the area(s) it treated. The landlord also agreed to look to replace the loft insulation but, on inspection, found that it was in good condition and did not do so. That was reasonable. However, we note that there was a suggestion in February 2024 that the damp stains remained on the hall ceiling. We have included action to remedy this as an order, below.
There is no evidence that the landlord has completed two of the action points which it set out in its stage 2 response namely removing the mould from the joints/supports in the loft or monitoring the mould. That was a further failing. We have included the removal of the mould in the order for action for the independent contractor to take. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to monitor the mould in the loft over a 12-month period in line with its procedures.
The landlord’s record keeping in this case was not accurate at times. It was not always clear from the evidence when events took place, and the repairs notes referred to the same repair (the loft inspection of 17 March 2023) also being on 17 March 2024.
The landlord’s communication with the resident was not reasonable. There was very little in writing to the resident to explain what it issues it had identified and the action it was taking to resolve matters. Landlord should ensure that they communicate clearly with residents about repairs and gives updates. They should also keep accurate records.
In its complaint responses, the landlord offered the resident compensation totalling £200 for the inconvenience and time and trouble in its handling of the resident’s reported repairs.
Where the landlord has accepted it has made errors, it is the Ombudsman’s role to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The compensation offered by the landlord does not fully reflect the full extent of the impact on the resident by its failings. We note the resident’s comment that her social worker had recently tried to intervene with the landlord in relation to the strong smell of damp in the property in which young babies have been living for at least 18 months. Additional compensation of £400 (bringing the total to £600) is appropriate for the impact on the resident and her family. This sum takes into account the length of time this issue has been ongoing as well as the vulnerabilities of the resident’s household which meant the delays in fully addressing the damp and mould in the loft would have had a more severe effect on them compared to others in the same position without their vulnerabilities.
In response to the resident’s request for compensation for damaged belongings, the landlord provided details of its public liability insurer. That was reasonable because the insurer can decide on whether the landlord had acted negligently and, if appropriate, the amount that should be paid to the resident. Landlords are entitled to use liability insurance to manage the cost of such claims as the landlord was not obliged to consider a claim outside the insurance process. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to provide details of the insurer to the resident again for her to make a claim, should she wish to do so. However, this is only a recommendation by this Service, and we cannot guarantee any success in any liability or insurance claim the resident may submit.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond within 10 working days at stage one and within 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate. There were significant delays in sending complaint responses at both stages of the complaint process (delays of 7 and 4 weeks respectively).
The landlord also did not address all of the resident’s complaint because it omitted to address her concerns about the landlord’s response to her reports of a fire safety hazard directly outside the front door. The resident recently told the Ombudsman that this was ongoing. The resident had brought up this matter as a complaint, so she had a right to expect the landlord to respond to it. By not investigating this issue, the landlord missed a chance to identify and fix issues at an earlier stage. We have made an order for the landlord to consider a fresh complaint about the resident’s concerns about its response to the exposed pipes outside the front door. We have also made an order for the landlord to visit the property to investigate the report of exposed pipes and write to the resident setting out what steps it will take to resolve this matter (with timescales), if appropriate.
In its complaint handling the landlord offered the resident compensation totalling £70 for its complaint handling delays. In June 2024, the landlord told this Service that it would increase its compensation for its poor complaint handling to £300. It added that it now held regular team meetings to share best practices and highlight the importance of recognising delays in complaint handling and meeting adequate levels of communication with its customers. We welcome the learning that the landlord has taken from reviewing its handling of this complaint.
We have found service failing in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. This is because the landlord missed an opportunity to provide suitable redress and identify points of learning from the complaint within its internal complaints process and before the case was accepted by the Ombudsman for formal investigation. It remains unclear as to what prompted the landlord to review the compensation it had previously offered to the resident. However, it is evident that the landlord was aware that the Ombudsman was due to provide a formal determination at the time of its response in June 2024. The landlord did not use its internal complaints process to address these matters, and it remains unclear as to whether the revised award of compensation would have been offered, and points of learning would have been established, had the complaint not been referred to this Service for investigation. Had the landlord made the current offer at the time of the final response, we would have likely determined that its offer was satisfactory in resolving this aspect of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of a leak in the loft, and damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman:
1. A senior manager to apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £900 (minus any sums previously paid) made up of:
  1. £600 for the impact of its handling of the reports of a leak, damp and mould.
  2. £300 for the impact of its complaint handling failures.

These sums should be paid direct to the resident.

Engage an independent contractor to take the following action:
1. If vents have not been installed to arrange to do so.
2. Check the condition of the loft insulation and replace it, if appropriate.
3. Remove any mould from the joints/supports in the loft.
4. Ensure that all damp stains have been removed from the interior of the property.
Consider a fresh complaint about the resident’s concerns about its response to the exposed pipes outside the front door.
Visit the property to assess the problem with these exposed pipes and write to the resident setting out what the problem is and what steps it will take to resolve it (with timescales).

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord takes the following action:
1. Monitors the loft to check for mould in line with its policy for 12 months.
2. Provides details of its public liability insurer to the resident for her to make a claim for damaged belongings, should she wish to do so.