Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202335724)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335724

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

30 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 response to the resident’s reports of repairs relating to:
    1. Damp and mould in his kitchen.
    2. A leak from his shower.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
    1. complaint handling.
    2. record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. He lives in the 3-bedroom property with his family.
  2. According to the landlord’s repair logs, the resident reported a problem with his electric shower tripping when in use. The date this was reported is unclear. The landlord raised a repair in mid-July 2023 and both it and the resident confirmed the shower unit was replaced soon after. This was then followed by a damp and mould inspection on 1 September 2023. This identified “minor damp” in the kitchen, lounge, and a bedroom. It also recommended a further survey and repairs. This included replacing sealant around some windows and mould treatments to be applied to effected rooms.
  3. Unhappy with the standard of repairs and that a previous email had not been dealt with, the resident made a complaint on 13 October 2023. He further clarified and added issues in correspondence with the landlord. His concerns were that:
    1. There were unresolved repairs relating to the damp problem, including that the treatment was not applied.
    2. The showerhead holder had not been replaced along with the unit, causing it to fall and flood the bathroom. He said water had leaked through his kitchen ceiling causing it to bow and damaging the light fitting, and that nothing had been done to resolve it.
    3. A window contractor turned up at an inconvenient time without making an appointment. He also said the resealing around the windows was not done properly.
    4. The kitchen was due for renewal and there were cracks on the walls.

He said he wanted an inspection of the issues and a new window appointment to resolve his complaint.

  1. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 30 October 2023 said that all the damp and mould repairs were completed around a month prior. It said that:
    1. There had been no reported issues from the resident about the shower unit after it was replaced in August 2023. It was also unable to see he had made a report of a bowed kitchen ceiling, before now.
    2. It failed to make a follow up appointment after an emergency repair for the kitchen light.
    3. It was a failing that the window contractor did not make an appointment with the resident.
    4. The resident’s request to renew his kitchen had not been raised before. However, the repairs officer had reported there was no need to bring forward the kitchen renewal date from 2028 or works required for the cracks.
    5. It was sorry an inspection did not go ahead when planned and confirmed it had been rescheduled to early November 2023.

In resolution, it offered £120 compensation. This was comprised of £50 for its service failure, £60 for the time and trouble caused, and £10 for the missed appointment.

  1. After the landlord’s second inspection, the resident escalated his complaint on 11 November 2023. He said the landlord’s initial response was factually incorrect regarding him not reporting problems with the shower or the kitchen, including his request for it to be renewed. He also complained that the stage 1 did not address all issues, including that the window seals had not been done properly. The resident was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered for the failed appointment because he had lost income.
  2. In the stage 2 response of 19 December 2023, the landlord acknowledged failings about:
    1. The resident having previously requested his kitchen be renewed, but reiterated there was no reason to bring forward the renewal date.
    2. Contractors not ensuring the new shower head fit the runner.
    3. The windows not having been resealed properly.
    4. Mould treatment not being applied properly. However, it said there was no external cause of the damp found, but it would carry out a CCTV survey of the drains as a precaution.

It confirmed all outstanding repairs were due to be completed by the date of the response and that learning had been shared with staff and its contractors. As the resident had not provided evidence of loss of earnings, it said it was not increasing the £10 compensation for the missed inspection made in line with its policy. The overall compensation was increased to £235, including redress for additional failings found, including £25 for poor complaint handling.

  1. Following the end of the complaints process, contractors replaced the shower runner and applied some mould treatment on 19 December 2023. They requested follow on works for the kitchen cupboards to be removed to enable the wall to be fully treated. The resident made further complaints to the landlord, although the content of these have not been seen. He was advised he had completed the complaints process and that his reports had been passed to its repairs team.
  2. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman because he said the landlord had not treated the mould fully in his kitchen. He also said it had not repaired his kitchen ceiling. The resident said his family’s health has been affected, his belongings have been damaged by mould, and they have not been able to use all the kitchen cupboards. He is seeking the landlord to treat the mould in his kitchen and for further compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. As set out in the background to this investigation, the resident originally complained to the landlord about a number of repairs he said were outstanding or needed. However, he complained to this Service because he is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of mould treatment and damaged ceiling in his kitchen. Any reference to the other issues the resident raised is for context only.
  2. The resident advised that he has experienced new issues in the bathroom. He said this was that water runs along the bath when the shower is in use. According to the resident, the landlord has inspected this and recommended a shower screen. He said this has not been done. This is a new issue and did not form part of his original complaint. In the interest of fairness, we will not be looking at this aspect. The resident may though wish to complain to the landlord about this and, if he remains unhappy, refer it to this Service.
  3. The resident has explained that his family’s health has been affected by the damp and mould. He also said his belongings have been damaged. It is though outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there is a direct link between the actions or inaction of the landlord and the effect on the resident’s health. Matters of liability for personal injury are better suited to a court or liability insurer to determine. Claims for damage to personal belongings are also best determined by an insurer, either through a resident’s contents cover or via the landlord’s liability insurance. Consideration has though been given to the landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns and to any distress and inconvenience arising from any service failings on the part of the landlord.

Damp and mould

  1. Damp and mould are potentially a risk to health, as defined in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced under the Housing Act 2004. Under this legislation the landlord has an obligation to assess and mitigate the potential risk of the problem when reported by one of its tenants.
  2. According to the landlord’s ‘Damp and mould process map’ a tenant’s property would be inspected by a repairs officer or specialist. In cases where the repairs officer inspected and a cause of the problem identified, the landlord would carry out repairs. It would then check with the resident that the problem was resolved. If not, the damp process said it would refer the matter to a damp specialist.
  3. The landlord also had a damp procedure. This said that “Clear and regular communication is an essential part of damp and mould case management.” The damp procedure said the landlord committed to keeping residents updated regularly about actions it was undertaking to resolve the problem. It also stressed the importance of keeping its case management system updated for all the landlord’s staff to be able to see.
  4. An inspection of the resident’s property took place on 1 September 2023. The primary purpose of this appears to have been to assess it for damp and mould. Though requested, records of the resident’s reports about the damp and mould problem have not been provided by the landlord. It has not then been possible to determine when the resident got in touch about this issue. Therefore, we cannot say if the landlord met its repairs timescales. This is a failure in itself because the landlord’s damp policy states it will keep clear records. It is also a basic expectation. Clear and accurate record keeping a core function of a repairs service. The landlord should ensure that it has details of what was reported and when, what action it took and when, and whether any follow-on works were required. That the landlord has not maintained such an audit trail is a record keeping failure.
  5. The landlord’s repairs officer recorded finding a minor mould problem in a few rooms, including the kitchen. They indicated a further inspection of the downstairs by a damp specialist was needed. However, they also indicated a possible cause was from the resident having a number of plant pots against the external wall and windows not being open. Some internal repairs were identified, including the need for renewal of sealant around 5 windows, replacing the kitchen extractor fan, and mould treatments. There was no reference to the cupboards requiring treatment in the inspection report. Nor was there in the works orders raised on 7 September 2023. It is not possible to say if this was due to a failing or because the landlord did not think the cupboards needed mould treatment.
  6. The resident complained in mid-October 2023 that the damp and mould repairs had not been completed by the contractor. The resident appears to have clarified in a telephone discussion about his complaint that not all of the affected areas were treated, including the kitchen cupboards.
  7. In the stage 1 response from late October 2023, the landlord said most of the damp and mould repairs were completed on 22 September 2023. None of the records provided show what the repairs were, or when they were completed. As such, further information relating to this is unknown. While this is a record-keeping failing, it is not disputed by the resident that the repairs went ahead. While it is noted that the resident was unhappy with the standard of the works carried out, it is apparent that the repairs were undertaken in a timely manner after the inspection.
  8. The landlord advised that to resolve the issues a further inspection by a repair officer would take place on 1 November 2023. The repair officer had though recommended a damp specialist to inspect. This was in line with the landlord’s damp procedure for cases where the cause of damp was unclear or unresolved. Based on the complaints file, the reason for the change in approach was that the landlord had intended to carry out a further inspection and had asked the resident to move the items to aid this. Records do not show whether the resident was advised of the need to inspect again. Nor is there any indication in the resident’s communication that he was expecting this. Had the landlord followed its damp procedure, this Service would have expected to see evidence of it updating the resident by telephone and in writing. We have not been provided with such evidence. This is either an indication of a communication failure or a further record-keeping failing- or both.
  9. Where service failure is identified, the landlord’s compensation policy stated that it aimed to take actions “to restore our customers to the position they would have been in if” it had not occurred. This approach is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  10. The landlord’s compensation set out the types of impacts it may remedy and a range of payments it makes depending on the severity. This included where the landlord did not complete a repair when it said it would, which would include poor standard of repairs. The remedies started at an apology for low impact failures and to payments above £151 for high impact failings. There was no ceiling for payments under the landlord’s policy. For missed appointments, it would pay between £10 and £50. The policy said quantifiable losses would be considered but that evidence may be required.
  11. As the landlord had not yet reached a view on the resident’s concerns about the standard of the damp and mould repairs, it was reasonable to inspect them in the first instance. The landlord did however apologise and offered £10 for a missed appointment. This was the second inspection that was due to go ahead on 27 October 2023. It was appropriate to recognise the impact of the missed appointment on the resident and the remedies were aligned with the landlord’s policy. While it is recognised the resident said he had lost wages, this Service has seen that he was given the opportunity to provide evidence for the landlord to consider. This was reasonable because it was in line with the landlord’s approach set out in its compensation policy.
  12. The inspection report from 1 November 2023 recorded that neither the window sealant nor the mould treatment had been applied correctly. The repair officer recommended that a CCTV survey of the drains be done, which they indicated was a possible cause of the damp. If the resident was updated on the landlord’s findings and next steps by the time he escalated his complaint in mid-November 2023, no records have been provided. It is unclear if this is due to a communication or record-keeping failing. Either way, the landlord did not follow its damp procedure.
  13. In the 19 December 2023 stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged failings to complete the window repairs and mould treatments. This was appropriate because it had by this point exceeded its repair timescales by around 2 months. The landlord apologised for these failings and advised that learning had been shared with its contractors. It also said repairs had been reraised and were due to be completed on or by the day of the final response. These outcomes are in line with the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code in seeking to put things right and taking learning.
  14. Section 6.5 of the Code (2022) said that “[a]ny remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.” Although not referenced in the stage 2, the landlord’s repair management system shows its operative completed the window repairs on 7 December 2023. They also confirm that an operative attended on 19 December 2023 to carry out a mould treatment. The repair management system shows the works were confirmed as completed, but at the same time the operative recorded that the units needed to be removed.
  15. The resident advised this Service that the landlord’s operative was unable to complete the mould treatment to the kitchen wall and units. This is partially supported by the evidence. The repair log does not reference the need to treat the kitchen cupboards. However, it does state a need to treat and paint the external kitchen wall. As previously mentioned, the operative reported that the treatment could not be completed because of the kitchen cupboards. There is also evidence of the resident reporting this himself to the landlord. It has not provided evidence that it completed the follow on works its operative requested or any further mould treatments since December 2023. It is therefore more likely than not that the mould treatment has not been completed. This is a failing and the landlord will then be ordered to take action to put things right. This includes stating its position on the resident’s reports of mould in his cupboards.
  16. According to the resident, the landlord completed a repair to external pipework. He believes this has resolved the cause of the damp in his kitchen and that likely all that remains is the mould treatment. This was not confirmed in the records provided. However, this Service sees no reason to doubt the resident’s account. Even so, the landlord’s damp process and procedure indicates it may be reasonable for a further inspection to assure both the resident, itself, and the Ombudsman that this is the case. A recommendation for the landlord to carry out an inspection once the mould treatments have been completed has been made.
  17. The landlord also appropriately made an offer of compensation. However, given the additional failings that have been identified through our investigation, we do not consider the offer to be proportionate. We have therefore ordered it to pay £200, which replaces the landlord’s original offer.
  18. In this investigation, failures have been identified in the landlord’s handling of its repairs and record-keeping which are similar to those identified in a previous case (202011109). In this case, we made a wider order under 54.f. of the Scheme for the landlord to review its repairs and record-keeping practices. It has since complied with this. We have not then made any further orders for the landlord to improve in these areas. However, we expect the landlord to take forward the lessons and improvements it shared with this Service following the wider order and will monitor the progress of this.

A leak from a shower

  1. The repairs policy stated that following an emergency repair it may need to schedule a further visit to fully complete works. Where a repair is deemed “complicated”, the landlord’s repairs policy said it may decide to complete an inspection before undertaking repairs. The policy said the landlord is responsible for replacing electric showers it has fitted. It was also responsible for repairing plaster on walls and ceilings, except where they are “small hairline cracks”.
  2. Limited repair records for the shower issue were shared, which means the Ombudsman has been unable to establish what happened and when. The only information available is in the landlord’s complaint responses. We also have the resident’s recollection. Based on these, it is apparent that the landlord replaced the resident’s shower unit in August 2023. He subsequently reported in early September a leak through the kitchen light fitting and the landlord’s contractor made this safe.
  3. One of the reasons for the resident’s complaint was that he said nothing had been done to resolve the problem that caused the leak- the new shower head not fitting on the old runner. Nor had there been any repairs of the damage this caused- damage to the kitchen ceiling and light fitting.
  4. The landlord acknowledged a failing in respect of not making a follow up appointment to fix the kitchen light. This was appropriate because it did not adhere to its policy. However, the landlord said it did not accept a failing in respect to the shower head, which it said was replaced with the unit. It advised there was also no evidence that the resident had raised a service request for the shower head, nor had it seen that he had reported a problem with his kitchen ceiling. This response was inappropriate because it did not address the issue raised about the runner. The damage to the kitchen ceiling was also not separate to the issue with the light. The landlord therefore missed an opportunity to recognise the extent of its failure in its handling of the leak.
  5. While the landlord’s initial response was wrong, as the resident had pointed out in his escalation to stage 2, it did acknowledge this in the final response. It agreed that it would have been “beneficial” for its contractors to make sure the new shower head fit the old runner. The landlord’s response was reasonable in the circumstances. To resolve this, it said the runner would be replaced and that learning would be shared with its contractors to prevent the issue from reoccurring. The actions it took to put right this issue were also in line with its policies and the Code.
  6. At the November 2023 inspection, both the kitchen ceiling and light were photographed. The report indicates that landlord was considering alternative reasons for the cause of the damage to the ceiling. There were, however, no recommendations made for repairs to the ceiling in the report. We have also seen no evidence of works being raised. The stage 2 was silent on its position on the repairs to the kitchen ceiling and light. As these were reported to be caused by the issue with the shower runner, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide a position on these repairs. That it did not is a failing.
  7. According to the resident, the landlord has not repaired the kitchen ceiling. It is unclear if this is also the case with the light fitting. The lack of evidence has made it difficult for the Ombudsman to see what happened. This itself is a failing. There is sufficient evidence for us to determine that the landlord has not appropriately responded to the resident’s reports of the water damaged ceiling. We have therefore found maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of this complaint. The landlord is ordered to confirm to the resident and this Service the position on the ceiling repairs.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will follow the Code’s timescales. This means it committed to responding to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2.
  2. There was no set amount that the landlord would pay for failings in complaint handling in its compensation policy. It would, though, start with an apology.
  3. According to the resident, he first complained on 26 September 2023, and it was not escalated. While the Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence of the complaint, the landlord has not disputed the resident’s account. It is noted that it also apologised for failing to respond to the complaint in a timely manner when it issued its stage 1 response. The apology was appropriate given that it took the landlord 13 working days longer to respond to the complaint. An apology was acceptable, as per the landlord’s policy, in view of the fact the impact of the delay was not significant because the landlord was keeping the resident updated during the process.
  4. It also took 7 working days longer to share the stage 2 response. The landlord awarded £25 for delays in the complaint responses. This amount was appropriate for the cumulative impact of the delays the resident experienced throughout the complaints process. The impact of this was reduced by the landlord’s communication, which set the resident’s expectations.
  5. As previously mentioned, the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about its response to his reports of mould in his kitchen cupboards. It also failed to address his concern about water damage to his kitchen ceiling. This was a failure to meet the requirements of section 5.6. of the Code which required a landlord to “address all points raised…and provide clear reasons for any decisions”. Not responding to this has left an aspect of the resident’s complaint unresolved, which is not in the spirit of the landlord’s complaints process and the Code.
  6. The landlord has acknowledged some of its failings and has taken some actions to put things right with its apology and compensation. However, the stage 2 response was lacking in sufficient detail and failed to address all of the concerns that have been raised. We have therefore found service failure 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.
  7. The findings in this investigation are consistent with those identified in the investigation referred to earlier. 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

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs relating to:
    1. Damp and mould in his kitchen.
    2. A leak from his shower.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident apologising for the failures identified in this report for not completing mould treatments, stating a position on the ceiling repairs, and not addressing all of the complaint aspects.
    2. Pay the resident £375 comprised of:
      1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident from its failings in the handling of the damp and mould repairs.
      2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience from the failings in the handling of the leak from the shower.
      3. £75 for the inconvenience caused from failing to address the resident’s complaint in full (in place of the £25 awarded).
    3. Complete the mould treatment to the resident’s kitchen wall, giving consideration to the follow-on works advised by its operative to remove the cupboards.
    4. Confirm its position on the resident’s reports of mould in his cupboards and damage to the kitchen ceiling.
  2. The landlord should share evidence with this Service that it has complied with the above orders.

 Recommendations

  1. Following the completion of the mould treatment, the landlord should consider carrying out a further damp and mould inspection.