Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202415087)

Background

1. The resident viewed the property, a 3-bedroom maisonette, on 30 April 2024 and signed the tenancy on 13 May 2024. She said there were several outstanding jobs which the landlord told her it would resolve before she moved in. She is unhappy as it did not resolve these issues before she moved in, and there was a further delay once she was in the property. The resident lives with her children, one of whom has asthma. The resident has mobility issues which she told the landlord about before she signed the tenancy.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The condition of the property upon letting and the landlord’s handling of the associated repairs.
   2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was:
   1. Reasonable redress in relation to the condition of the property upon letting and the landlord’s handling of the associated repairs.
   2. Reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord but we have made recommendations.

Summary of reasons

The condition of the property upon letting and the landlord’s handling of the associated repairs

• The property was not up to lettable standard when the resident signed the tenancy as it did not have heating and hot water. The landlord reconnected the gas supply within a few days but it should have done so as an emergency.
• The resident had to repeatedly chase for repairs, some of which the landlord never completed.
• The landlord’s communication was poor at times and this increased confusion and inconvenience for the resident.
• The landlord considered the household vulnerabilities when assessing compensation for repair delays. It offered a suitable level of compensation for both complaint and repair delays.
• Some repairs were routine rather than urgent, and the longer timescale for repair was reasonable in the circumstances.

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.

4. The landlord’s voids policy states that properties must be clean, secure, and in a reasonable state of repair before letting. They should have essential services in working order, including hot and cold water, heating, and a safe electrical system. The property must include a usable kitchen with sink, a bathroom with wash basin and bath or shower, and a functioning toilet. Doors, floors, and plaster should be safe and secure.
5. The void management policy states that the landlord aims to complete all repairs during the void period. However, it may complete non-urgent repairs after the tenant moves in.
6. There is no record of a conversation confirming that the landlord would complete all works before the move-in date. Both the resident and landlord refer to such a discussion, but the landlord’s policy does allow it to complete works after the tenancy begins. If the landlord planned to do repairs later, it should have clearly communicated this with the resident, so she knew what to expect. Its failure to do so added to her distress.
7. It is not disputed there was no gas supply when the resident moved in, and so the property was not at a lettable standard. Additionally, the resident did not have heating or hot water for approximately 3 days after the move-in date. This led to her decision not to move in. Communication during this 3-day period was also poor and understandably caused added frustration. The landlord’s records show this was due to poor communication between departments. The landlord should review how it can improve communication in future.
8. It is also clear there was an outstanding radiator installation. The landlord installed the new bedroom radiator within 28 days of the resident moving in. As this was between May and October, the timeframe was reasonable because the radiator was less essential than in winter.
9. The landlord’s repair records are incomplete, making it difficult to confirm when it completed some of the repairs. In its complaint response, the landlord said that by 24 October 2024 it had completed all repairs except the concrete floor and a leaking sink. However, this is inconsistent with the records it has been able to provide, which show that it replaced the wire trunking in the hallway as late as November 2024. The landlord has not confirmed when it repaired the chip in the bath, and there is no evidence it did this before the stage 2 response. This shows the landlord’s poor record keeping in relation to repairs, which has affected the resident’s experience.
10. In its stage 1 response on 22 July 2024, the landlord said there were no issues with the floorboards. It is unclear whether this was its final position, as the resident raised concerns on 29 July 2024 and there is no evidence it addressed the matter again. It is also unclear whether the landlord or the resident replaced the floorboards. It should have clearly confirmed its final position to the resident and updated its records accordingly.
11. When the landlord attended in November 2024, it noted that the resident had paid a contractor to level the downstairs concrete floor because she was concerned her daughter might fall again. There is no evidence the landlord had planned to repair the floor, so it is understandable the resident felt she needed to act.
12. When the resident reported her daughter’s fall the landlord provided details of its public liability insurer so the resident could make a claim if she wished. This was right under the circumstances as insurers would be best placed to decide if the landlord was responsible for any personal injury.
13. However, the landlord should have completed a risk assessment as soon as the resident reported the fall. It should have considered whether there were any remaining hazards and made them safe as was its responsibility under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
14. In both complaint responses the landlord acknowledged the household vulnerabilities and how the situation may have had an impact. The resident told it that the issues in the property had made the moving process more stressful and caused disruption for her and her family. The landlord acknowledged this, and it was reflected in the compensation offer. This shows that it recognised its contribution to the situation, and that it was committed to putting things right.
15. For the reasons above, we found reasonable redress in relation to the condition of the property at letting and the landlord’s handling of the associated repairs. However, the evidence also shows shortcomings in the landlord’s approach, including poor communication, inadequate record keeping, and not ensuring the property was ready for the resident’s occupation. Despite these shortcomings, the landlord addressed the impact through its compensation offer.
16. The landlord offered compensation totalling £450 for repair-related distress, inconvenience, and delays. This was reasonable because, despite its failings, some of the repairs were routine, such as the radiator, and several appointments were rescheduled due to availability on both sides.

17. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2024 requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. They must also issue a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of an escalation acknowledgement. The landlord acknowledges these expectations within its complaints policy.
18. The landlord did not send its stage 1 and 2 responses on time. However, it kept the resident updated on delays and extended its response period several times. This was consistent with the Code.
19. In general, its responses were thorough and provided updates on outstanding repairs. However, the information in the complaint responses did not always match the repair logs. It is not clear whether this is due to incomplete repair logs or issues with the complaint investigation itself.
20. The landlord awarded £230 compensation at stage 1 and £150 at stage 2 for poor complaint handling. This amount was proportional to the level of impact on the resident and consistent with our remedies guidance. There is evidence that delays with information from other teams affected the complaint response times and the complaint handler was proactive in chasing for information.
21. For the reasons above, although there were delays in the complaint process, the landlord offered compensation which we consider to be reasonable redress.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. Record keeping in relation to repairs added confusion to this case. Miscommunications between void teams and contractors led to the property not being a lettable standard, and inevitably delaying the resident’s move in.
23. When new tenants move into a property the landlord should document any agreements about repair timelines and standards. Where it will complete repairs after move-in, it should confirm this in writing so residents know what to expect.

Communication

24. Communication was not always effective in this case. The resident had to chase for repair updates, and at times had to chase for complaint responses. We acknowledge that the complaint delays were partially due to staff absence, but the landlord should have had a contingency.
25. That said, the landlord did contact the resident to explain the reasons for complaint delays, and to ask for extensions in line with its policy.