Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202213899)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213899

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

6 June 2023

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint is about:

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of outstanding leaks into the resident’s living room from the shower.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a house owned by the landlord. She resides in the property with her children and her husband.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord, on 23 June 2022, about leaks from her shower into her living room. She advised that the shower room, which used to be a wet room, had leaked and caused a hole in the ceiling. She stated that this had been going on for a while and the landlord had tried different remedies including putting in shower tray and then a hatch, but the leaks continued intermittently. The bath and shower had been resealed and the shower door did not shut properly. The landlord’s repairs log records indicate that some repair work was carried out in relation to the issue in November 2021 and in January and February 2022.
  3. The landlord issued a stage one reply on 6 July 2022 in which it stated that a repair was raised for the shower door for 8 July 2022, the ceiling had already been repaired and all areas affected by the leak had been repainted. It added that it is not responsible for redecorating but, would make an appointment to come back for a post work inspection visit and if need be, would raise further repairs. The post-works inspection visit did not occur. The landlord issued its stage two response on 22 August 2022, in which it offered the resident £40 in compensation for its handling of the formal complaint.
  4. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. In referring the matter to this Service, she stated that her desired outcome was that the bathroom should be properly assessed and refitted.
  5. In January 2023, the landlord wrote to this Service and advised that it had carried out a review of its stage one and stage two complaints processes and reached the conclusion that although its responses were correct, the process could have been handled better. It stated that that all repairs and repainting works had been completed. The landlord acknowledged that mistakes had been made and increased the compensation to £400, comprising: £300 in relation to the repairs and £100 for the poor complaints handling.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. There is a historic element to the complaint referred by the resident to this Service as she has stated that the leaks from the shower go back to 2009. The Ombudsman requires complaints to be raised with a member landlord within a reasonable timeframe so that a landlord has the opportunity to investigate issues whilst they remain live. Investigating historical issues also presents difficulties from a record keeping perspective.
  2. This investigation will focus on the complaint that the resident raised with the landlord in June 2022 and events relating to that complaint.From the evidence provided to this Service, the earliest record of a non-historical report of the issues was made in November 2021. Any mention of past events in this report would be solely for contextual purposes.
  3. Our position is in accordance with Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.”

Assessment

  1. The landlord’s repair handbook provides that routine repairs should be carried out within 28 calendar days and major repairs within three months.
  2. An entry in the landlord repair logs, dated 14 January 2022, refers to plastering works being required to the property’s living room ceiling. The works were noted to have been completed on 24 January 2022. There were no further reports of the shower leaks before the resident’s stage one complaint on 23 June 2022, which was about leaks from the shower into the living room.
  3. The landlord followed up the resident’s complaint up on 27 June 2022, discussed the complaint with her, and she stated that she was not sure if the leak was fully fixed. She also advised that the ceiling had not been decorated, and the shower door did not shut properly. The landlord arranged to attend by 25 July 2022 to “refix or repair the shower cubicle.” Its records indicate that it attended on 8 July 2022 and the works undertaken was the cleaning of limescale from the shower door and frame only.
  4. From the foregoing, the landlord attended to the issue within its requisite timescale for a routine repair. This was appropriate in the circumstances as the evidence indicates that the issue did not constitute an emergency. However, it did not indicate in it notes whether it found, on 8 July 2022, that there were no leaks occurring.
  5. In its stage one response to the formal complaint, on 6 July 2022, the landlord advised that the resident’s complaint was not upheld. Its reasons were that the resident had not made a previous request for the repair of the shower door, the ceiling had been repaired and areas affected by the leak had been repainted.
  6. The landlord’s position was reasonable with respect to the lapse of time between the resident’s reports. Although there had been a leak which it repaired six months prior to the resident’s complaint, the evidence indicates that there had been no further reports by the resident in the intervening period. The issueto be determined by this report is whether, having been timely inattending to the recent report, the landlord then took appropriate action to ensure that the leaks had been resolved.
  7. This Service acknowledges that the property had experienced other leaks in the past, as noted in the repairs log. Nonetheless, as stated in the earlier paragraphs, these are historical occurrences, and this Service is unable to ascertain clear links to the more recent leak.
  8. While the landlord advised that it was not responsible for redecorating the property, it stated that it would return to undertake post-works inspection visit and raise further repairs if required. This was a reasonable response which should have ensured that it could ascertain whether the leaks had been resolved. However, the evidence indicates that the post-works inspection did not take place.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint on 4 August 2022 as she was not happy with the outcome at stage one. She followed this up with a request, on 5 August 2022, for the ceiling in the property to be repainted where it had been affected by the leak. The landlord, in its response, advised that the resident had made no further reports of leaks since November 2021 when it completed repairs to the bath and shower tray of the property. It stated that it now considered the resident’s previous reports to be historical.
  10. On 15 August 2022, the landlord offered to send her a decoration pack to undertake the ceiling redecoration herself. However, if she preferred, it would send its contractor to do this, but the entire ceiling would not be painted. The resident advised the landlord, by the following day, that she would opt for its contractor redecorate the ceiling. She also stated that the shower leak was still unresolved. The landlord’s internal communications indicate that it discussed the situation with the property and considered that it was needful to ensure that the leak was no longer occurring before redecorating the ceiling.
  11. In its stage two response, on 22 August 2022, the landlord stated that the resident had not advised it that the leaks were continuing. It added that, under its policy, “complaint must be raised within 6 months”, thus it would consider the issue raised by the resident as a service request. The landlord also advised that once the repairs were fully completed, the area would be repainted. It apologised for not considering the resident’s stage one complaint about the quality of the work. The landlord in the stage two response offered £40, £20 for time and trouble, plus £20 for poor complaints handling.
  12. This Service finds that the landlord failed to utilise the opportunity of the stage two escalation to address all the resident’s complaints thoroughly and fairly. Although the resident had not advised it that the leaks were ongoing, the landlord failed to acknowledge that it had not undertaken the specified work which had been due to take place by 25 July 2022. It had attended sooner, but merely cleaned the limescale in the shower room. The landlord also failed to arrange the post repair inspection which it had promised at stage one.
  13. Following the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process, the repairs log indicates that the shower door fell off on 29 September 2022 and the landlord installed a new cubicle door on 23 November 2022.
  14. The resident contacted this Service, on 7 November 2022, as she was not happy with the complaint response. Following this, the landlord advised this Service on 21 January 2023 that it had reviewed its complaints responses. The landlord, in the review, accepted that mistakes were made and confirmed that post repair inspection was not carried out as stipulated in the stage one response.  It apologised for not acknowledging the resident’s concerns about the quality of work in its responses.
  15. The landlord also noted that it was only after it was contacted by this Service, that it reviewed its previous responses and concluded that the complaint could have been managed more effectively. Further, it acknowledged that it should have responded between January to June 2022 and reviewed the outstanding issues sooner. It confirmed that all repairs were completed, and the property repainted in November 2022, and this was a significant delay.  The landlord increased its compensation offer from £40 to £400: £100 for poor complaints handling, £150 for the resident’s time and trouble in chasing the matter and £150 for time taken to resolve the leak and inconvenience.
  16. The landlord’s policy on repairs advises that routine repairs should be carried out within 28 calendar days and major repairs within three months. These repairs took 10 months. Had the resident not pursued this matter assiduously, it is unlikely that the landlord would have recognised its failures and increased its offer of compensation. This Service also considers that her efforts may not have resulted in further action by the landlord, nor the increased offer, if the shower door had not fallen off.
  17. In considering the landlord’s response to the leaks from the resident’s shower, this Service concludes that there were multiple failures. Some of these were identified through its complaint process and some belatedly through the review of the complaints process. It is evident, as acknowledged by the landlord, that it failed to arrange the post repair inspection at stage one and to follow up the resident’s complaints thoroughly. It was aware of the ongoing problems with the leak from the resident’s complaint but did not investigate until escalation. At stage two and at the review stages, it is apparent that the landlord has taken some steps to “put things right” by apologising, booking in repairs and offering compensation but the problem with offering resolutions at such a late stage is that it is no longer considered a satisfactory response.
  18. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for payment in the range of £600 to £1000 for cases where “there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. The circumstances for maladministration apply and the redress needed put things right is substantial.”
  19. Although the landlord increased its compensation offer in acknowledgment of its failures, the delays to doing so will only have added to the resident’s distress and dissatisfaction overall. The landlord’s review was after this Service was involved which was after a considerable amount of time had passed. The further offer, therefore, did not go far enough to resolve the issues and an order for an additional amount within the range stated above is warranted in this case.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints about the leaks from the shower.

Orders

  1. The landlord to, within four weeks of the date of this report, pay the resident the total sum of £700 in compensation for the failings in its handling of the resident’s complaints about the leaks from the shower. This includes the £400 previously offered if this has not already been paid.