Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202335305)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat within a block. During the complaint process, she had a small baby and was pregnant with a high-risk pregnancy. The landlord is not the freeholder of the building and a managing agent is responsible for completing repairs in the communal areas. The resident complained to the landlord following a leak from a communal pipe which caused damage to the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a leak.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak.
5. The landlord has provided reasonable redress to the resident which resolved the failings in its handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Leak

6. The landlord did not initially tell the resident that she should report communal repairs to the managing agent. It provided incorrect information about making an insurance claim. There was a long delay in it providing a promised rent refund and we have seen no evidence that it proactively liaised with the managing agent on her behalf when delays occurred.

Complaint handling

7. There was a delay in providing the stage 1 complaint response and the landlord did not address all points raised by the resident. However, it apologised and offered compensation which we consider to be reasonable redress in the circumstances of the case.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. Our investigation will focus on this leak rather than previous leaks that occurred in 2021. Due to the length of time that passed between the leaks we cannot conclude definitively that they were linked, based on the evidence provided.
9. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. Therefore, we cannot determine whether the delays to complete repairs impacted the resident’s health. However, we can consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to health or loss of earnings is more appropriate for the courts and the resident may wish to pursue this in a legal setting.
10. The resident’s relationship is with the landlord, not the managing agent. However, the managing agent was responsible for carrying out repairs to the communal areas, not the landlord. The landlord’s responsibility was to ensure that the managing agent was aware of any communal repair issues affecting its tenants and to chase them for updates, if required, in a timely manner.
11. The resident informed the landlord by email on 10 July 2023 that a leak had caused major damage to the property, and that the fire brigade had attended and isolated the electric power supply. She informed the landlord because the home user guide that it issued to her told her to do so. However, the landlord later told her that she should have informed the managing agent. This communication error caused confusion and a delay of approximately 2 days at an already distressing time for the resident. The landlord has since updated all affected residents.
12. It is apparent from internal emails provided, that officers were not clear about who was responsible for completing communal repairs in the building. The landlord’s records should have clearly shown this information so that staff could signpost the resident to the correct organisation without delay.
13. This was also the reason that the landlord gave the resident the wrong insurance details. It advised her of its own insurance details when the managing agent’s insurers details should have been provided. This error caused a delay of approximately 3 weeks in the claim being logged and cost the resident time and trouble providing information to 2 different companies. It also caused an issue in the provision of temporary accommodation and the resident informed us that she had to source her own accommodation for approximately 1 week.
14. On 20 September 2023 the resident requested a rent refund and suspension of further rent charges until she was able to occupy the property again. On 17 November 2023 the landlord agreed to this, which was an appropriate action to take and in accordance with the lease. However, despite it taking almost 2 months to communicate this decision to the resident, there was a further delay and it did not provide the refund until May 2024. This unacceptable delay of 8 months caused the resident distress and inconvenience and cost her time and trouble chasing the landlord for updates.
15. The resident expressed her concern about the actions of the managing agent including the length of time taken to complete the work, and the temporary accommodation provided. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to liaise with the managing agent on her behalf to make sure that they were doing everything possible to ensure that she returned to the property as soon as possible. However, we have seen no evidence that it did so at the time. There is evidence, however, that it contacted the managing agent retrospectively to find out what actions it took so that it could provide evidence for our investigation.
16. It took 5 months for repairs to be sufficiently complete for the resident to return to the property. While we cannot guarantee that chasing the agent at the time would have made a difference to this timescale, the resident would have felt more supported by the landlord had it done so. This was particularly important as she had a young child and was pregnant with a high-risk pregnancy at the time.
17. The landlord offered the resident £275 compensation for the time and trouble caused by its failures in handling the leak. Our compensation guidance says that compensation of up to £600 is appropriate to put right failings where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the detriment identified by our investigation. In ordering £600 we have considered the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its communications errors, delay in providing a refund, and failure to engage effectively with the managing agent at the time to ensure the best outcome possible.

18. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days.
19. In this case the landlord took 24 working days to provide a stage 1 complaint response. This delay and failure to follow its policy meant that the resident was waiting longer for a resolution which caused her distress and inconvenience. It also delayed her access to an investigation by this Service.
20. The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code in place at the time of the complaint (the Code) said that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
21. In this case, however, the landlord did not address her request for a rent refund at stage 1 of the complaints process and did not answer her query about taking accountability for its failure to put right leaks during the defects period. This left her with unanswered questions and cost her time and trouble escalating the complaint.
22. Our compensation guidance recommends that payments of up to £100 are appropriate to put things right in such circumstances. Therefore, we consider that the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident for this element of the complaint. We have made a recommendation for it to pay the £100 compensation offered if it has not already done so.

Learning

23. The landlord should ensure that it liaises with managing agents on behalf of residents when issues occur.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord’s systems did not show who was responsible for communal repairs for this block. It should ensure that it has rectified this and consider how it will ensure that a similar situation does not occur with other new-build flats that it acquires.

Communication

25. As detailed above, the communication provided by the landlord about reporting repairs to the managing agent was poor.