Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202336744)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom mid terraced house.  The resident is a leaseholder and has held the lease since 2023.  The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s request to install an electric vehicle (EV) charging point.
3. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to install an electric vehicle (EV) charging point.
5. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord knew of the resident’s request. But it did not take the early opportunity to inform the resident of all the reasons for refusal of the electric vehicle charging point at an early stage. But it acknowledged its failing, apologised and offered compensation.
7. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint did not address all the resident’s complaint points. The complaint response at stage 2 was delayed and this was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code or its own policies and procedures. But it acknowledged the delay and answered all the complaint points. It also offered compensation to recognise this.

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.

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. On 16 April 2023, the resident completed the landlord’s online enquiry form seeking guidance about how to get a car charger installed. On 21 April 2023 the landlord’s records show it emailed the resident to confirm his enquiry had been passed to the area property surveyor.
9. On 26 April 2023, the landlord’s records show it sent an email to the resident and informed him:
   1. “the car charger is unable to be affixed to the property wall therefore we would not allow excavation of public foot ways etc.
   2. these have been refused on other schemes also, especially if the parking bay is not at the front of the property and access around is solely for the use of that unit
   3. with regret on this occasion permission is declined”
10. On 14 July 2023, the resident told the landlord of his disappointment because before he purchased the house, the agent told him there “would be no issue to get a charger installed.”
11. On 6 October 2023, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response inaccurately claimed the team received a response on 25 April but failed to update the resident. However, the resident had stated he received no response since 14 July. The landlord also failed to address his concern about the pre-purchase information.
12. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the Head of After Sales found no notes on the resident’s file regarding EV charging. It said the allocated parking space for the resident was outside a neighbouring property. It also states the Council had a planning stipulation where they will not allow parking space numbering.
13. The landlord’s records also show that it does not own the entire estate and has no control over neighbouring streets with EV chargers.
14. Although the landlord sought information from relevant teams, it could have provided a more comprehensive explanation for the refusal at an earlier opportunity. This was a failure in the service provided to the resident. But the landlord did provide compensation to the resident in acknowledgement of the service failure and time and trouble. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
15. The landlord does not currently have any policies relating to EV car charging points available. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to consider this.

16. On 25 September 2023 the resident raised his stage 1 complaint through the landlord’s online form. The landlord acknowledged the complaint in 5 working days and said it looked to provide a response within 10 working days.
17. On 6 October 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It offered compensation for the service failure and for the resident’s time and trouble.
18. On 13 October 2023 the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. The landlord sent an acknowledgement on the same day.
19. On 17 November 2023, the resident submitted an online form and said he had not had a response within the 20 days, and no one had reached out to him within the 5 working days.
20. On 24 November 2023, the landlord’s records show it confirmed receipt to the resident of the stage 2 complaint and an initial response would be within 20 working days. This was 6 working days after the online form submission.
21. On 18 December 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. This was 47 working days.
22. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was unreasonable in the circumstances.  At stage 1 it did not address all the complaint points raised by the resident and its stage 2 complaint response was late. The resident was inconvenienced having to chase the landlord for a response. This was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code or its own policies and procedures.
23. But the landlord acknowledged the delays for the resident and offered further compensation for the poor complaint handling.  This was reasonable in the circumstances.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response said its investigation found the repairs team had received a response to the resident’s enquiry, but it did not contact the resident. This was inaccurate.
25. In the information provided to this Service there was a discrepancy in a date relating to the complaint procedure. The landlord told us that the resident’s escalation request was made on 17 November 2023, but it was made on 13 October 2023
26. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records, responses, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken. A failure to keep adequate records indicated that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.

Communication

27. Whilst there is evidence of communication between the landlord and the resident; there are opportunities for the landlord to be more proactive in providing comprehensive information to a resident to prevent issues being missed or escalated through the complaint procedure.