Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202339139)

Background

1. The resident lives in a ground‑floor flat owned by the landlord. She has a progressive chronic illness and mobility issues. In 2020 she exchanged into the property believing that the front garden was for her sole use. However, the landlord later provided conflicting information and, in its final complaint response, advised her that the front garden is for shared use with the occupier of the upper flat. The resident remained dissatisfied with this decision and referred the matter to us.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the use of the front garden.
3. We have also considered the complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found service failure with the landlord’s handling of the front garden.
5. We have found reasonable redress with the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord recognised its failures in handling the front garden issues however its increased level of compensation was not until 10 months after the landlord’s final complaint response.
7. The landlord recognised its complaint handling failures and put things right in its apology and compensation offer.

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. In May 2023, the resident made a stage 1 complaint, partly about inconsistent communications relating to the front of the building and small front garden area. She had asked the landlord for permission to put up hanging baskets at the front of the property, but the landlord refused permission on the basis that the building was for communal use. The resident accepted the landlord’s position however she took exception to the landlord’s statement that “it had agreed a number of requests – it wanted to avoid making other residents feel as though preferential treatment is given to anyone in particular.” Given the building was communal the landlord’s response was reasonable.
9. In its stage 1 response in mid-June 2023, the landlord referred to the front area that it described as a shared space. The resident escalated the complaint in mid July 2023 on this basis stating that its earlier communications (March 2023) clarified the front outside area was for the resident’s sole use.
10. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 30 January 2024. It explained that the information previously provided at stage 2 in March 2023 was incorrect and had caused confusion. It enclosed what it described as the correct tenancy agreement and asked the resident to destroy an earlier “altered” copy. It is unclear from the records whether this is the same tenancy agreement that we have on file dated 1996. This tenancy agreement (1996) describes the premises referring to – shared/sole use of front/rear garden*. This indicates that at sign up the description should have been updated to reflect the resident’s right of usage of the garden areas to avoid unnecessary confusion.
11. The landlord confirmed that the front garden was a shared space for use by both the resident on the ground floor and upper flat. It offered £50 compensation in recognition of its poor customer service, the confusion caused, and the resident’s time and trouble.
12. In conclusion, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its inconsistent and confusing position relating to the front garden. It offered the resident £50 compensation during its complaints procedure. These were all positive resolution focused steps forward. However, given the resident had been adversely impacted by the landlord’s inconsistent decisions, the level of compensation falls short of what we would expect.
13. In November 2024 after the resident had brought her complaint to us the landlord reviewed its position and increased its compensation offer to £100. This level of compensation is reasonable and in line with our compensation guidance for failures causing adverse impact on the resident. However, its increased compensation was 10 months after the final complaint response which was inappropriate. For these reasons we have found service failure with the landlord’s handling of the front garden. However, we have not increased the compensation offered by the landlord. For clarity we have ordered the landlord to provide us with evidence that it has reviewed the tenancy agreements for the ground floor and upper flat and confirmed its final position relating to the front outside area with both parties.

14. The resident raised a complaint on 22 May 2023. It is unclear whether the landlord acknowledged the complaint. On 15 June 2023, the landlord sent its stage 1 response. The landlord responded 17 working days later and slightly outside the 10-working day Code timeframe. It recognised its delay and offered the resident £25 compensation. The landlord’s response was resolution focused and reasonable in the circumstances.
15. On 18 July 2023, the resident escalated the complaint. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 11 August 2023 and responded at stage 2 on 30 January 2024 – 6 months later which was inappropriate and did not comply with the Code’s 20 working day time- frame. The landlord recognised its delays, apologised and increased its compensation to £100 for its poor complaint handling. The landlord’s response was resolution focused and aimed to put things right for the resident. This level of compensation is aligned to our compensation guidance where there has been maladministration that has adversely impacted the resident.
16. In November 2024, the landlord reviewed the complaint and increased the level of compensation to £200. Given the landlord had already recognised its failures within its complaint responses and its level of compensation was reasonable, we have found reasonable redress in its complaint handling. The level of compensation it offered is aligned to our compensation guidance for failures causing an adverse impact on the resident.

Learning

17. Part of effective complaint management is learning from complaints. Given the landlord’s complaint handling and communications were poor it should use this insight to improve its service. Our Centre for learning resources can be referred to for best practice.