Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202336410)

Background

1. On 24 February 2022 the resident signed paperwork to formally request permission from the landlord to erect an orangery extension to the property. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to that request, including delays and the decision to refuse it. The resident also asked the landlord for reimbursement of costs incurred.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to make alterations to their home.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to make alterations to their home.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to make alterations to their home.
   1. There was an unnecessary delay in the landlord making a decision on the application. Whilst it later reviewed its position after the end of its complaints procedure, this mean that it had failed to put matters right within a reasonable period of time.
6. The landlord’s complaints handling:
   1. There was an unnecessary delay in the landlord making an appropriate offer of redress in respect of the failings in its handling of the complaint.

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.

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.

Scope of investigation

7. Under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme we can only investigate complaints about landlords who are members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This means we cannot assess, or comment, if the landlord’s liability insurers’ decision to not compensate the resident was reasonable.

8. The landlord’s property and alterations policy sets out its process when a resident requests permission to make adaptations or alterations to a property. After logging an application, the landlord will check within 5 working days whether the proposed alterations are permitted under the lease. If the alterations are permissible, it will request a fee from the resident. Once payment is received, the landlord will review and determine the application within 10 working days.
9. The landlord’s compensation policy says it can reimburse residents for costs associated with loss or damage if the amount is under £300. If the claimed costs exceed £300, the request will be referred to the landlord’s liability insurers.
10. The resident is a leaseholder under a shared ownership scheme. The lease states the resident cannot make alterations to the exterior of the property without obtaining the landlord’s written permission. The landlord cannot unreasonably refuse a proposal.
11. On 24 February 2022 the resident submitted an application seeking permission to add an orangery to the rear of the property. The application included plans prepared by a professional building company, which the resident proposed would carry out the work if permission was granted. The resident said they paid the company a £3,000 deposit. The resident and the company agreed that if the landlord rejected the alteration within a fixed period of time it would refund the full £3,000. If the landlord did not meet this deadline, the company would take a £1,500 fee out of the deposit.
12. The landlord said that on 23 March 2022, it sent the resident’s application to its repairs team for consideration. Under its policy, the repairs team should have reviewed the lease within 5 working days and, if the alterations were permissible, then requested a fee from the resident. The landlord did not meet this target, which was a failure.
13. On 3 November 2022 the building company told the resident it was cancelling the works because the landlord had not granted permission. It said it would deduct a £1,500 fee from the deposit to cover costs incurred.
14. The landlord formally rejected the resident’s alteration application on 30 January 2023. It said the proposed orangery might reduce natural light and affect the property’s value. The resident believes that the landlord withheld permission because it thought they were being difficult by filing a complaint. We have seen no evidence to indicate this was the case. As the landlord has a financial interest in the property, the concerns around natural light were reasonable and it was entitled to take this into consideration. Therefore, its decision was permitted under the lease, which states the landlord can reject an application if its decision to do so is reasonable.
15. We note that the resident has told us she has since bought the property and has got planning permission for an extension. While this may be the case, the landlord was still within its rights to refuse the application on the basis outlined in January 2023.
16. However, it was a failing that it took 216 working days for the landlord to make a decision on the resident’s alteration application. The time taken to respond was unreasonable and fell significantly outside of its policy timescales.
17. In its stage two response the landlord acknowledged the delay, apologised, and said it was working to make improvements. It offered the resident £100 in compensation for the inconvenience caused. The resident asked to be compensated for the £1,500 they lost. The landlord explained its policy for claims over £300 and advised the resident to submit a claim to its liability insurers.
18. This explanation was reasonable and in line with its policy. It was appropriate as the resident was claiming for a financial loss which they considered the landlord to be responsible for. This required a decision as to whether the landlord was liable for the loss, so it was appropriate to refer the matter to the landlord’s insurers.
19. We consider that £100 that the landlord offered for inconvenience was insufficient given the significant delay. The landlord later reassessed its offer and said £400 was more appropriate. It is positive that the landlord recognised its initial offer was inadequate. However, this revised offer was made a significant period of time after the complaints process ended, and after the resident referred the matter to us. The time and effort involved in escalating the complaint may have been avoided if an appropriate offer had been made earlier.
20. The resident told us they want the landlord to reimburse the £1,500 they paid, as they believe it is responsible for this cost due to its delay. We note that the landlord’s insurers did not accept this claim, and our role is not to review the insurer’s decision. However, we have considered whether the landlord should have used any discretion under its compensation policy to offer some reimbursement.
21. Our view is that the landlord’s decision not to offer compensation was reasonable because:
    1. The resident chose to enter into a contract which included the clause about the deposit fee.
    2. The resident could have submitted the request to the landlord without paying a deposit.
    3. The resident could have cancelled the works within the timeframe specified in the contract to avoid the fee.
22. However, it was a failing that the landlord did not respond to the application within a reasonable timeframe. We consider its revised offer of £400, made on 15 August 2024, to be reasonable and it is positive that the landlord reconsidered its position. However, this offer was made a significant period of time after the complaints process concluded and after the matter was referred to us. Therefore, we have made a finding of service failure, as the landlord did not offer appropriate redress during the formal complaints process.
23. We have ordered the landlord to pay the £400 it previously offered to the resident. In addition, the landlord must pay £100 to reflect the time and effort the resident spent pursuing the complaint with us and the additional inconvenience caused by the delay in it making a reasonable offer.

24. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out its timeframe for responding to complaints. It will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days, and issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of that acknowledgement. If the resident asks for their complaint to be escalated to stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge the request within 5 working days, and provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of that acknowledgement.
25. On 15 November 2022 the resident asked the landlord to raise a complaint. The landlord did not do so, which was a failure. On 17 January 2023, a member of the landlord’s staff raised a complaint on the resident’s behalf. In its stage one response dated 25 January 2023, the landlord declined to investigate the complaint, citing the time that had elapsed. It said the issues occurred in November 2021 and that it could only investigate complaints made within 6 months of the issues arising. This response was factually incorrect because the matters occurred in 2022, and as a result of this mistake the resident was not provided with an adequate response to their complaint.
26. The resident escalated the complaint on 15 February 2023. The landlord issued its stage two response 77 working days later, which was outside the timescales set out in its policy. In that response, the landlord acknowledged shortcomings in its handling of the complaint and offered the resident £100 in compensation. On 15 August 2024, the landlord told us it would increase the offer to £200 after reviewing the complaint.
27. We consider the £200 offered by the landlord to be reasonable and appropriate. However, this offer should have been made during its internal complaints procedure. As such, we consider this delay to constitute a service failure. We have ordered the landlord to pay the £200 if it has not already done so.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord should consider if its current process for reviewing alteration requests is robust. It should consider its internal processes and how it communicates with resident’s about their applications and any anticipated delays in reviewing the application.
29. The landlord should ensure its staff are aware of the importance of fact checking matters referred to in its complaint responses if they are not going to accept a complaint.