Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202400313)

Background

1. The resident has lived in the property since 1997. The property is part of a listed building with single-glazed sash windows. The resident said he has been reporting window repairs since 2021. He said his windows were in disrepair and it was affecting his health. The resident is vulnerable and has been represented in his complaint with the landlord. For clarity, this report will refer to him as “the resident” throughout.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs at the property.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs

4. The landlord inspected the property and completed repairs within its policy time frame. The resident reported problems with his windows and said they should be replaced. The landlord said it would repair the windows until they are replaced under a window programme between April 2025 and March 2026. At stage 2, the landlord raised a new repair for the kitchen window but delayed completing it. The landlord later told us it postponed the window replacement programme for the resident’s block until between April 2026 and March 2027. It has not told the resident about this change.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

5. The landlord delayed responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and 2. It offered compensation at each stage and later made a further offer after reviewing the case. This compensation resolved the issue for 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.

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.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident reported window repairs to the landlord since 2020. However, we have not seen evidence of a formal complaint exhausting the landlord’s complaints process until July 2024. In the interest of fairness our investigation will focus on events from December 2022, and the issues addressed in the complaints process.
7. The resident said the draughty windows had a detrimental impact on his health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is because independent medical experts can give evidence. While we can consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident, we cannot decide causation or liability for personal injury like a court can. If the resident wants to pursue a personal injury claim, he may wish to seek independent legal advice.

What we did investigate

8. On 9 December 2022, the resident reported a window repair. He said the windows were draughty and rainwater was entering his flat. The landlord completed window repairs on 22 December 2022, including replacing the draught excluders. It said it would carry out a follow-up inspection. The landlord did not provide us with a copy of this inspection. We asked for the April 2023 inspection mentioned in its stage 1 response, but it could not provide this.
9. On 31 August 2023, the resident arranged an independent heating survey. The survey said he was living in cold conditions and identified repairs.
10. It is unclear if the landlord received a copy of this survey. On 6 September 2023, the landlord inspected the property.  It said the resident’s windows were old, worn and letting wind and rain in. It raised repairs for electrics in the kitchen, kitchen unit repairs and for the windows in the property. The landlord told us it completed all repairs on 2 October 2023.
11. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete non-urgent repairs within 28 calendar days and bespoke repairs within 90 calendar days. The policy describes planned maintenance repairs as part of investment programmes but does not give a timescale.
12. The landlord’s compensation policy says the amount of compensation it can pay for different levels of failure.
13. At stage 1, the landlord completed the repairs raised on 6 September 2023 within its policy time frame. It said it delayed completing the kitchen window repair after inspecting the property 5 months earlier. The landlord offered compensation for the delay and for the time and trouble caused to the resident. The amount was within its policy for ahigh failure. This was reasonable.
14. On 12 July 2024, the landlord inspected the windows at the property. It raised a temporary repair to reseal the windows and said the windows were planned for renewal in 2025. The landlord also raised a repair for the kitchen window because it would not open.
15. At stage 2 the landlord said the issues the resident experienced were due to the style of the windows. It raised further repairs to help with this and told the resident the windows were due to be replaced. It offered further compensation for time and trouble. These were reasonable actions. However, we asked the landlord if it told the resident about its decision to defer the window replacement at the block for another year. The landlord said it did not communicate this.
16. At stage 2, the landlord raised a new repair for the kitchen window because it would not open. It tried to repair this window before, and the issue was raised around 15 months earlier. The landlord recognised the delay and tried to put things right with a further offer of compensation. However, after the stage 2 response it delayed completing the kitchen window repair by around 3 weeks. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
17. When a failure is identified our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We consider whether its offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. As well as our own guidance on remedies.
18. In summary, the landlord inspected the resident’s property and completed repairs within its policy time frame. It said it would keep repairing the windows until they were replaced under a window replacement programme. The landlord delayed completing the kitchen window repair and it offered compensation for this failure. These were reasonable actions by the landlord.
19. However, after its stage 2 response, the landlord delayed completing the kitchen window repair by around 3 weeks. It told us it postponed the window replacement programme at the resident’s property but said it had not communicated this to the resident.
20. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a further £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs to the resident’s property. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a failure the landlord acknowledged and made some attempts to put right. However, the offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings found in our investigation.

21. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. The landlord delayed its stage 1 response by around 41 working days. At stage 1, it recognised this failure and offered compensation to put things right for the resident.
22. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint escalation request. It only replied after our intervention which was a delay of around 60 working days. At stage 2, it offered further compensation to put things right.
23. After its stage 2 response, the landlord reviewed the case and offered the resident further compensation for the complaint handling delays. It offered a total of £400 for the delays in responding to the complaint.
24. In summary, the landlord delayed its complaint responses at stage 1 and 2. However, it recognised the delays and made 3 offers of compensation. In our opinion, the landlord made an offer of redress at stage 2 which put things right for the resident. It offered additional compensation after the complaints process which exceeded the amount for maladministration in our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord failed to send us copies of the inspection reports. This was poor record keeping. The landlord should have copies of the inspection reports available.

Communication

26. The landlord failed to update the resident about the postponed window replacement. It should consider how it communicates with residents about changes to planned work schedules.