Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202441167)

Background

1. The resident lived in the property since 2023 since 2023. In March 2024 he contacted the landlord about damp, mould and excessive condensation on the windows in the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and defective glazing.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould and defective glazing.
   2. Complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord responded to the resident’s original service request appropriately. However, its communication following this was inadequate. It then realised it was not responsible for the identified repairs, apologised and offered reasonable compensation in the circumstances.
6. The landlord communicated appropriately with the resident about the delayed complaint response at stage 1, apologised and provided reasonable compensation. No other complaint handling issues were identified.

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. The resident notified the landlord of his concerns about damp and mould in his property on 22 March 2024. It responded on 26 March 2024 advising the resident that it had arranged for an inspection of his property. The inspection took place on 4 April 2024. The response and inspection were appropriate and in line with the landlord’s published timescales.
8. During the inspection the surveyor noted that a number of the double glazed panels had deteriorated allowing condensation to build up between the panes and on the internal surface. The surveyor informed the resident that they would begin the process of obtaining quotes to replace the glass.
9. On 10 April 2024, the landlord raised an order to replace the double glazed units. On 9 May 2024, the resident raised a further service request. He said that on 4 April 2024, he had been informed that he would be kept updated and that a contractor would be in touch within 3-4 weeks. He advised neither had happened. The landlord’s poor communication and failure to adhere to its timeframes was inappropriate and frustrating for the resident.
10. On 18 May 2024, the contractor recorded that it had cancelled the work order because it could not get access. However, the landlord has not shown that an appointment was arranged with the resident.
11. The landlord raised a further repair with another contractor on 30 May 2024. This contractor did visit but advised it could not do the work. Again, there is no evidence that the landlord communicated this to the resident. The ongoing poor communication and failure to provide updates on its actions led to the resident making a formal complaint. This caused him further time and trouble. Residents should not have to complain to obtain information related to their service requests.
12. Once it had received the resident’s complaint the landlord began to pursue the matter internally and with its contractors. While the delays in arranging the work continued, the complaints team did communicate with the resident about the matter, which was appropriate.
13. On 15 October 2024, the quotation for the works was sent to a senior manager to approve. They stated that they could not authorise the work as it was the resident’s responsibility under the lease. The resident’s lease specifically states that he is responsible for repairs inside his flat including the glass in the windows as well as the internal faces of walls and ceilings.
14. It is evident that the surveyor had made an error in not consulting the lease before or after the inspection. This was an unfortunate oversight that led to time, trouble and frustration for the resident. However, the lease is a formal contract between the resident and landlord. It is our view that it is reasonable for both parties to be aware of their responsibilities.
15. The landlord notified the resident of its decision not to conduct the work in its complaint response on 16 October 2024. It apologised for the error and acknowledged that it had unfairly raised his expectations. The surveyor also contacted the resident personally and apologised, which was positive. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for time and trouble as well as £50 for the error. The amount was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy.

16. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It aims to respond within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. At stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and aims to provide its final response within 20 working days. This is in line with the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).
17. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within the required timescales. On 12 September 2024 it contacted the resident to inform him of a 10 day extension until 26 September 2024. On 26 September 2024, it notified the resident that it required additional time to respond. In the extension request the landlord gave a brief update and reasons why it required the further time. It then provided the complaint response before the extension had expired, which was appropriate.
18. The stage 2 response was issued within the required timescales.
19. We find the £50 compensation offered by the landlord for the delays at stage 1 reasonable in the circumstances.

Learning

20. The landlord contacted the resident to request a second extension to respond to his stage 1 complaint on the day the complaint response was due. It would be good practice to discuss any required extensions in advance of the due date to ensure a residents expectations can be managed.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

21. It is important for repair handlers and surveyors to be aware of tenure and specific repairing obligations so that residents are aware of the process from the outset. The landlord should look to how it could improve in this area.
22. The landlord’s inspection report from 4 April 2024, mainly referred to the defective windows. However, the resident advised that heating and ventilation were also discussed at that time. It is important that landlord’s keep comprehensive records of conversations and observations during inspections. Such information provides a benchmark as well as an evidence base for any decisions a landlord may make.
23. The landlord could look to improve how it evidences no access appointments such as providing a calling card or photograph of the door or block, which is good practice.

Communication

24. There was a lack of effective communication from the landlord to the resident. In the main its communication was reactive and only in response to contact from the resident.