Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202339747)

Background

1. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since July 2008. The property is a one‑bedroom top‑floor flat, and the resident has not reported any additional needs. In August 2023, she raised a complaint about the outstanding kitchen renewal works, stating that the renewal had not taken place. She asked the landlord to explain the delays and confirm when the works would be completed. As she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses, she brought her complaint to this Service.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests to replace the kitchen.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests to replace the kitchen.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of the resident’s requests to replace the kitchen.

5. The landlord acted in line with its Planned Property Investment Policy by scheduling the kitchen renewal subject to budget. It correctly treated the installation of washing machine plumbing as an improvement rather than a repair. Overall, the landlord’s responses were consistent with its policies and obligations. Although the situation was frustrating for the resident, the evidence does not show service failure.

The complaint handling.

6. It is positive that the landlord handled the complaint in line with its complaint policy. Although the landlord did not address the resident’s repeated request for a spigot at stage 1, it acknowledged this minor oversight at stage 2, and the compensation it offered was proportionate to the identified failure and the limited impact on the resident.

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.

7. Under the landlord’s Planned Property Investment Policy, it should operate a planned investment programme for major components such as kitchens. The policy also says the landlord should use the Decent Homes Standard and the recommended maximum lifecycles for each component to plan its annual maintenance programmes, taking account of both the available budget and the condition of the property.
8. In line with the Decent Homes Standard, the landlord should ensure that homes meet the statutory minimum standard for housing, are in a reasonable state of repair, have reasonable facilities and services, and provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort. Under the Standard, a kitchen in a flat is generally considered to be reasonably modern for up to 20 years. There is no statutory requirement for the landlord to undertake discretionary improvement works. Social landlords operate within limited budgets, and this can affect the timing of improvement programmes.
9. The resident complained that during a recent bathroom refit she learned that another flat had both its kitchen and bathroom refurbished at the same time. She was not able to obtain a clear timeframe for when her own kitchen would be renewed, and she also questioned whether her kitchen was in a “decent state of repair.”
10. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said the kitchen renewal was scheduled for the 2024/2025 financial year, subject to budget. No evidence has been seen by this Service that the landlord had identified any repair issues in the kitchen for which it was responsible but had been unable to resolve. Under the landlord’s repair policy, when a repair need is reported it commits to assessing the priority and completing any repairs for which it is responsible within the relevant timescales. The policy requires the landlord to continue to meet its repairing obligations and carry out any necessary responsive repairs to the kitchen.
11. The landlord relied on its Planned Property Investment Policy and Repairs Policy when responding to the resident, in explaining when the kitchen was rescheduled subject to the available budget at the time. This approach was consistent with its statutory repairing responsibilities and its policy requirements to ensure the kitchen remained in a reasonable state of repair under the Decent Homes Standard until it is renewed. Although this would have naturally disappointed the resident, the landlord was entitled to take this position and its explanation was reasonable. It also appropriately provided the resident with a new expected timeframe for the kitchen replacement.
12. The resident also asked the landlord to install plumbing so she could have her own washing machine. The evidence shows that the property was designed with communal laundry facilities, as confirmed by Schedule 1 of the lease, which lists “laundry equipment” as part of the communal area services provided to residents. The landlord therefore treated the installation of washing machine plumbing inside the property as an improvement rather than a repair responsibility. This was consistent with the tenancy agreement, which states that residents must not improve or add to the property without the landlord’s written consent and that any such improvements must be carried out at the resident’s own cost. In line with this, the landlord gave the resident permission to arrange installation through her own qualified contractor but explained that it would not fund the works.
13. The landlord was entitled to place its kitchen replacement programme on hold due to its financial capacity at the time, even though this fell outside its usual planned‑maintenance policy. Based on the evidence, we are satisfied that the landlord acted in line with its policies and obligations when responding to the resident’s requests to replace the kitchen. This leads to a determination of no maladministration.

14. The landlord’s complaint policy is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 and 2 complaints within the timescales of its policy.
15. The resident said she had repeatedly asked the landlord to install a spigot. The landlord did not address this concern in its stage 1 response. However, it responded to the issue at stage 2, acknowledged its oversight, and offered £25 compensation for poor complaint handling. The impact of this failure was minimal, short in duration, and did not affect the overall outcome for the resident, though it caused some delay and may have reduced her confidence in the landlord’s ability to resolve matters promptly. The compensation offered was proportionate to the identified failure and its limited impact.
16. Based on the evidence, we are satisfied that the landlord acted in line with its complaint policy and the Code when handling this complaint. This leads to a determination of no maladministration.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. In this case, the landlord did not address all aspects of the complaint in its stage 1 response.
18. The landlord did not demonstrate clear evidence of learning in its complaint handling, including how it would prevent similar issues from occurring in future.