Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202402353)

Background

1. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of reports of damaged flooring in several rooms following a boiler leak. It is aware of her vulnerabilities, including, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and mental health.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damaged flooring following a leak.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damaged flooring following a leak.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of damaged flooring following a leak

4. The landlord failed to act in line with its policies. While it offered some redress it failed to acknowledge the resident’s vulnerabilities, its delays and poor communication.

The complaint

5. The landlord acknowledged delays in its handling of the complaint. It apologised and offered proportionate redress inline with its compensation policy.

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 said the situation caused her stress. The courts are best placed to deal with these types of disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

7. The landlord provided limited evidence in relation to this case which has affected our ability to accurately assess the timeline of events. This indicates a record keeping failure. Our investigation has relied on the available evidence.
8. The landlord instructed a contractor to attend the resident’s property on 16 January 2024, following reports of no hot water. It is unclear when the resident raised the issue. During works to replace the boiler element a leak occurred. The contractor said children had turned on the external water main. They repaired the boiler, made the property safe, and reported no visible damage. They noted a further visit was needed to reinstate a light fitting. The landlord accepted their account of events. While it was reasonable for it to rely on the professional opinion of its contractor, it could have raised an inspection to assess the situation at the time.
9. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord the next day. In contradiction to the contractors report, she said the carpets were wet and starting to smell and the ceilings were damp. She also said the situation was affecting her mental health. There is no evidence it took any action or responded. This was not in line with its responsive repairs policy which states it will arrange an inspection within 20 days of the initial report. There is also no indication it considered her vulnerabilities. It should have verified the contractor’s account to ensure it fully understood the cause of the leak and provided the resident with assurance.
10. A representative contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. They questioned the contractors account of the leak and said she received no contact. They reported she was still living in a damp home with stained carpets and bubbling vinyl. Her health concerns were repeated and chronic lung disorder reported. This was more than a month since her initial report and complaint. Given it was aware of her vulnerabilities, this delay was unreasonable.
11. The landlord carried out an inspection on 29 February 2024 and confirmed the resident’s carpet and vinyl were damp and damaged. This was 43 calendar days after the issue was first reported, and not in line with its responsive repairs policy timescale. In its stage 1 response, it apologised for delays addressing electrical works and said an appointment would be arranged. It is unclear what these works involved, as the complaint responses referred to a damaged light fitting but evidence also suggested possible fuse box damage. This indicates poor record keeping. It gave no timescales for the works and did not demonstrate that it considered if there were any electrical safety risks.
12. The landlord directed the resident to its own and her insurance. This was appropriate and in line with its customer remedies policy, which requires claims over £300 to be signposted to insurers. However, its records show the leak was caused by the contractor and her claim to its insurer was subsequently denied. It would have been appropriate for it to support her in claiming via its contractor’s insurance and for it to liaise with them on her behalf given she had no direct relationship with them.
13. The landlord failed to address the ceiling in its complaint response to the resident, and it is unclear whether this was resolved. It did not address all complaint points, which fell short of reasonable complaint handling standards. Its stage 1 response offered £100 compensation for the delays. Whilst this was appropriate in addressing the delays up until this point it then failed to apply any learning from its failures.
14. Following its complaint response to the resident, the landlord carried out another inspection. It confirmed that 3 months after the initial report, electrical works were still outstanding and the carpets and vinyl remained damaged. It recommended replacing them, but there was no confirmation that it would do so. It booked a repair for the hallway light fitting for 01 May 2024, but she said no one attended. This does not demonstrate that it was monitoring repairs to completion effectively. It is unclear if this repair has since been completed. Records show it offered to steam clean the carpets, she declined its offer, but there is no evidence of further action. It should have considered providing dehumidifiers to assist drying out the flooring.
15. In its stage 2 response to the resident, the landlord said it could not compensate for carpets or vinyl assist complaints policy did not cover contents. It did, however, offer £300 towards new carpets under its policy for damage to belongings. This was the maximum payment allowed under its policy, with any additional costs needing to be claimed through insurance. It acknowledged it could have supported her to claim through its contractor’s insurance and offered a further £100 compensation for this failure. While it was appropriate to offer further compensation, it did not offer to support her in making a claim via its contractor.
16. Following the landlords final response we have seen no evidence that it supported her to make an insurance claim with its contractor. It is unclear if the electrics and ceiling repairs have been completed.
17. In summary, the landlord failed to take timely action to ensure the property was safe and assess the damage. Communication was poor and it failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities. It delayed signposting her to insurance and did not support her to claim through its contractor, despite later acknowledging this failure.
18. The landlord’s compensation offer and contribution toward new carpets went some way to putting things right, but it did not reflect the lack of support and failure to consider her vulnerabilities. We have, therefore, ordered an additional £300 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance where a landlord has made an offer but it does not quite reflect the detriment to the resident or is not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. As it is unclear whether all repairs have been completed, we have ordered a reinspection and for any outstanding works to be completed, with assurance the free from hazards.

19. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2022). While its response timescales were aligned with the Code at the time, its policy did not give a timeframe for extensions. However, it refers to the landlord needing to inform the resident of any extension and agree a revised timescale where  required. We note that it has since amended its policy in line with the Code (April 2024).
20. The landlord sent its stage 1 response 22 working days later than its policy timescale of 10 working days. There is no evidence it agreed an extension with the resident.
21. There were inaccuracies in the landlord’s complaint responses, including the complaint date in its stage 1 reply. Landlords must ensure accuracy in complaint responses.
22. The landlord’s stage 2 response was 33 working days later than its 20 working day policy timescale. It requested 2 extensions of 20 days each. While the resident agreed to the second extension, there is no evidence that she agreed to the first.
23. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the delays and offered £150 compensation. This was in line with the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance and proportionate to the delays the resident experienced.

Learning

General learning

24. Landlords must ensure accuracy of information in complaint responses to avoid confusion.
25. Landlord’s should ensure insurance details are provided to residents on reports of damage to belongings to avoid delays with claims.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord’s lack of evidence made it challenging to assess the timeline of events. Accurate records must be kept and shared during investigations. It should view our spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Communication

27. Landlords must maintain clear communication with residents so they are aware of actions taken and the progression of queries or complaints.