Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202435803)

Background

1. On 16 October 2024, the resident reported a loss of heating and hot water in the property. The landlord attended the same day, isolated a leak, and restored the heating. The resident remained without hot water for 7 days while the landlord sourced and fitted new parts for the boiler.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a loss of hot water.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord has offered the resident reasonable redress for its handling of a loss of hot water.

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

Reasons

4. On receiving the resident’s report of a loss of hot water, the landlord attended the same day. It found a leak and isolated part of the boiler to stop this. This restored the resident’s heating, but the property still had no hot water. The boiler required new parts to restore the hot water. The landlord advised the resident it would return with the new parts.
5. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours of them being reported. It also states that it will either complete the repair or carry out a temporary repair to make the situation safe. As the landlord attended on the same day the resident reported having no heating and hot water, it treated the issue as an emergency repair, responded within the timescale set out in its policy, and carried out a temporary fix which restored heating. This was appropriate.
6. On 17 October 2024, the resident contacted the landlord’s out‑of‑hours (OOH) service. He said that the landlord had attended to the boiler but needed new parts to complete the repair. He was advised that sourcing the new parts could take a few days. The resident was told by the OOH team that there was nothing further it could do at that point and that he should contact the landlord during normal working hours. This was reasonable.
7. The responsive repairs policy also explains that some repairs may be delayed due to factors outside the landlord’s control. In such cases, it says it will explain the reason for the delay and the expected resolution time. At the first visit, the landlord explained that the boiler required a new part, meaning the repair depended on sourcing this. The landlord contacted the resident on 18 October 2024 to confirm it would attend on the afternoon of 22 October 2024 to fit the new part. The landlord returned on 22 October 2024 and completed the repair. This response time was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrates the landlord handled the repair of the boiler appropriately and in line with its responsive repairs policy.
8. On 22 October 2024, the resident sent the landlord a breakdown of the compensation requested. The resident said that he appreciated the £35 gas voucher it had already provided but confirmed that he was seeking a total of £1,217. This amount included £1,000 for mental distress, £20 for increased electricity costs, £47 for costs incurred using leisure centre bathing facilities, and £150 for time and effort.
9. In its stage 1 complaint response dated 5 November 2024, the landlord set out the actions it took to restore the resident’s hot water. It acknowledged that the resident was without hot water for seven days. However, it said it had met its repairs timescales and identified no service failure in how it handled the repair. The landlord also said the advice given by its OOH team was correct. It offered the resident £50 compensation to recognise the inconvenience and the impact on the resident’s wellbeing from having no hot water for seven days. It also offered £20 for its delay in acknowledging his complaint.
10. The resident escalated the complaint later the same day. He said the compensation offered was too low and that he found it unacceptable to be without hot water for seven days. He said the landlord had not addressed the provided breakdown of costs incurred by him in its stage 1 complaint response. He said he had to boil a kettle to obtain hot water and considered the landlord’s overall response to be inadequate.
11. In its stage 2 response dated 4 December 2024, the landlord explained that the resident had sent the compensation breakdown to its property desk. This was forwarded to the complaints team on 25 October 2024, which was after the landlord had issued its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord accepted a service failure in complaint handling because it did not pass the correspondence to the correct team in a timely manner. It apologised and confirmed that it had provided feedback to the relevant team.
12. The landlord maintained it attended the repair and completed it within a reasonable timescale. However, it reviewed its offer of compensation and awarded £67 to reimburse service costs, comprising £47 for leisure centre costs and £20 for increased electricity costs. The total compensation offered for the repair issue was therefore £117. This was in addition to the £35 gas voucher already issued to the resident, which was provided outside of the complaints process. The landlord also offered £120 compensation for its failures in complaint handling. The landlord advised that it would revisit the level of compensation if the resident provided further evidence in support of the medical concerns he had raised.
13. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for reimbursement of costs of up to £300 but states that residents must provide proof of the costs incurred. In this case, there were no failings in the landlord’s handling of the repair of the boiler, however, it was reasonable for it to reimburse the resident’s costs which were incurred due to it being unable to provide him with hot water. We have not seen that the landlord asked the resident for additional proof and instead paid £67, which was the full amount the resident claimed to cover those costs. This was a reasonable approach which avoided causing the resident further inconvenience.
14. The landlord also appropriately recognised the distress and inconvenience the situation caused the resident. Its £50 offer for time and trouble aligns with our compensation guidance, which suggests awards of £8 per day for loss of hot water. When removing the initial policy repair period of 24 hours, this equates to six days, giving a figure of £48. Therefore, the compensation offered for loss of hot water was not only in line with the landlord’s policy, but also our compensation guidance.
15. In summary, there were no failings in the landlord’s handling of the loss of hot water. It responded to the repair within its timescales and completed it at the earliest opportunity – after ordering required parts. However, it appropriately recognised the distress and inconvenience the situation caused the resident and made an offer of compensation to reflect this. The landlord also reasonably agreed to reimburse the costs incurred by the resident due to the lack of hot water. Taken together, these actions represent a reasonable offer of redress for the matters within the scope of this investigation.

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.