Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202120157)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120157

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

3 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of disrepair in relation to:
1. Front and balcony doors.
2. The lift.
3. The communal window being left open.
Lack of heating.

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord with the tenancy beginning December 2015.The property is a one-bedroom flat located on the second floor which she occupies with her young son who has health vulnerabilities. The resident has various vulnerabilities and is supported by mental health services.
Between June 2019 and March 2022 there were 43 reports made by various residents in relation to the broken-down lift.
The lift repair log shows the lift was broken down eleven times between 18 October 2021 and 16 January 2022.
The call log shows that there was a history of reports from the resident in relation to repairs to her doors dating back to December 2017. Eight works orders were raised between September 2017 and March 2021. This included overhauling the balcony door and adjusting the lock mechanism and hinges.
It is worth noting that the repair log does not include a completion date for work, simply a target date and status to say if the work was completed.

Summary of events

On 25 October 2021 the resident reported that the storage heaters in her property were “not working properly”. There is no evidence to suggest that this report was responded to, until one month later when oil filled radiators were supplied to the resident (detailed further in the timeline).
On 1 November 2021 the lift engineer attended and repaired the panel and push buttons.
On 10 November 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that the balcony doors were draughty and let in the cold.
On 11 November 2021 the lift engineer attended “due to vandalism of the lift buttons”.
On 15 November 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to advise she would need to change the appointment in relation to the repair for the balcony doors. The call log shows this was changed to 19 November 2021.
The repair log shows that on 19 November 2021, the landlord attended the property in relation to the balcony door but did not get access.
The call log shows the resident contacted the landlord the same day explaining that she was unhappy that a no-access card was left as she says “no one knocked on her door” and the mobile number for the operative left on the card was incorrect.
On 22 November 2021 the resident contacted the landlord explaining that her property was not “liveable” and that the outstanding repairs and other personal issues were “contributing to a decline in her mental health”.
The same day the landlord raised an order for oil heaters to be delivered to the resident.
An internal email was sent on 23 November 2021 saying that:
1. Oil radiators were delivered to the resident the day before
2. The resident was bipolar and had a premature baby with health problems
3. The resident was distressed and the operative felt the need to highlight the issue as a duty of care
4. The lifts were not working
5. The property only had patio doors which “at some point may cause a risk as there was a gap under the safety glass”.
A lift engineer visited on 23 November 2021 and noted that the push buttons were missing.
On 25 November 2021 the landlord raised repairs for
1. the installation of 1kw panel heaters
2. the wooden front door as it was draughty with a large gap underneath.
On 30 November 2021 the resident contacted the landlord in relation to the communal window “still being open”. She said she had reported it over a week ago.
On 1 December 2021 the resident contacted the landlord in relation to ongoing repair issues in her property. The call log says “tenant didn’t elaborate any further, stated she only wished to discuss with HSO”.
The same day the resident’s mother-in-law contacted the landlord saying that:
1. the issues of disrepair were affecting the resident’s mental health
2. the oil-filled radiators that were provided to the resident were costing £25 per day to run
3. there were gaps under the doors and the windows did not close properly.
The lift repair logs notes dated 1 December 2021 said that “lift push buttons were required”.
The resident sent her stage one complaint on 2 December 2021 saying that:
1. the lift was “constantly out of use”
2. the communal smoke vent window had been open for two weeks
3. the balcony doors did not shut completely and were draughty
4. there were no balcony door keys
5. she had no heating only storage heaters
6. the front door had a large gap at the bottom and was causing a draught
7. she had previously reported issues with the storage heaters and condensation through the flat
8. she gave details of her medical condition and that of her young son and highlighted the need to be rehoused.
An engineer report dated 3 December 2021 said that the contractor had reset and tested the communal window vents and also checked all other window vents, which were shut.
On 7 December 2021 the lift engineer attended and recommended the lift be monitored for positioning errors. Furthermore, it is not disputed that the landlord installed new heaters the same day.
On 15 December 2021 a works order in relation to the front door was cancelled.
Following the resident’s complaint in relation to the front door an inspection was carried out on 19 December 2021. The same day a works order was raised to install a pull handle and chain lock to the front door.
On 29 December 2021 the lift engineer attended as “the lift lost position”.
On 4 January 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to apologise for not contacting her over the festive period and explained it would provide a stage one response by 13 January 2022.
The resident responded on 7 January 2022, saying she would like reimbursement for the money she paid for the heaters and the electricity bill. She went on to explain that the lift was not working and her physical and mental health was affected.
On 11 January 2022, the lift engineer attended as “the lift lost position”.
The repair log shows that on 12 January 2022, the landlord attended to install the draught excluders and chain lock to the doors, however, there was no access and a card was left.
On 13 January 2022, the landlord sent its stage one response saying:
1. its repairs records confirmed that the lift had broken down on multiple occasions. The landlord acknowledged that this would have been “a great source of frustration” for the resident
2. each time a repair had been raised the contractors attended within the correct time frame and put the lift back into service.
3. there had also been several occasions where the engineer had attended and had been unable to find any faults as the lift was working on arrival
4. with regards to the communal window, which was left open, it confirmed that a repair was reported as an out-of-hours repair on 30 November 2021, and the engineer completed work on 03 December 2021. All windows and vents were reset and tested and were left in full working order
5. it had received a repair on 25 October 2021 to report that the storage heaters in the resident’s home were not working properly. It said the resident had purchased her own temporary heaters as she had no other means of heating, and its contractors had supplied the resident with oil-filled electric heaters on 22 November 2021
6. it’s not disputed that three storage heaters were fitted on 07 December 2021 and the works had now been completed
7. it acknowledged that these works were not completed within the correct time frame and because of this the resident incurred additional electricity costs, for which it offered its “sincere apologies for any inconvenience caused”
8. it was happy to review the costs of the usage the resident incurred during this period, however, the bills supplied showed the annual consumption. The landlord, therefore, requested details of usage from October 2020- December 2020 and October 2021- December 2021.
9. furthermore, it requested the invoices for the temporary heaters that the resident purchased
10. a repair order was raised on 25 November 2021 in relation to a large gap under the resident’s door which was causing a draught. The landlord said a visit was arranged to install a draft excluder on 07 December 2021, however, the resident refused and requested a new door
11. it arranged to visit on 14 December 2021 and explained that the excluders would be the most efficient way to prevent warm air escaping and cold air coming inside the property. In turn, this would help alleviate the issue of condensation
12. an engineer attended on 10 January 2022 but was unable to gain access. The resident said she would rearrange this repair for a suitable date
13. it said that the resident’s complaint was partially upheld and it was sorry for the distress caused
14. it offered the resident compensation made up of:
  1. £100 Time and Trouble
  2. £50 Failure of service.
On 17 January 2022, the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage two. She said that:
1. The dates in relation to the window being open was incorrect and it was open for four weeks
2. Her reports regarding the window repair were not logged, which contributed to her “struggling to heat her home”
3. She explained that the lift break downs affected her pregnancy and no compensation could resolve that
4. She felt she was unfairly treated and not listened to.
On 21 January 2021 an inspection was carried out in relation to the storage heaters in the hallway.
On 31 January 2022 the repair log shows that the landlord attended to install the draught excluders and chain lock, however, there was no access and a card was left. This was evidenced as completed on 4 February 2022.
The repair log shows that on 14 February 2021, the landlord attended to install a 3kw panel heater in the hallway.
On 17 February 2022 the landlord sent its stage two response saying that:
1. the communal window was reported on 30 November 2021 and the works were completed on, 23 December and not the 3 December 2021, as advised at Stage One. The landlord apologised for the “oversight”.
2. upon arranging a repair to the front door in December 2021 and January 2022, the balcony door was missed. However, this was carried out on 4 February 2022.
3. it agreed to install a storage heater in the hallway to address any concerns with the heating in the resident’s home
4. although a repair was carried out on 16 January 2022 and the lift was left in service, it had been identified that parts were required on previous visits. An order was placed in November 2021, however, there was “a huge delay in receiving the parts from Germany”
5. repairs to the lift were carried out on 14 February 2022, the engineer visited the site and confirmed that the lift was left in service on 15 February 2022. There were no further reports of the lift breakdown, however, it would continue to monitor and was sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused
6. it accepted there have been subsequent failings and increased the offer to £200 made up of:
  1. £75 for service failure
  2. £125 for time and trouble
The resident requested to escalate her complaint further on 25 February 2022. The landlord responded, explaining that the complaint process had been exhausted and to therefore contact this service.
On 28 February and 2 March 2022 works orders were raised in relation to the draught excluders on the balcony doors as the resident reported “they had not worked”.
On 4 April 2022 the resident contacted this service requesting we review her complaint.
An internal email was sent on 30 May 2022 saying that:
1. an operative that specialises in UPVC windows and doors should inspect the property to see what faults and possible repairs may be needed
2. the resident “always puts a duvet/sheet over the windows in the winter”. It said it explained to the resident that this would cause dampness and mould around the window reveals leading her to believe the doors were faulty.
On 13 June 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident saying that it had compiled information for this service and in doing so identified further compensation was due to the resident. It said there were some areas that were not given consideration as part of the compensation offer. Therefore, it revised its compensation offer to £800, made up of:
1. £200 for the time and trouble in chasing this matter
2. £200 to recognise its failure to deliver repair services in a timely fashion and the distress and inconvenience this caused
3. £300 to consider the costs the resident incurred during the time the complaint was ongoing
4. £100 to recognise poor complaint handling on its part in not meeting its advertised timeframes at either stage of its process.

Assessment and findings

Although it is noted the resident had been reporting the repair issues since 2017, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from October 2021 onwards. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live,’ and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

Front and balcony doors

The landlord’s repair policy says that routine repairs will be carried out within 20 working days.Non-routine repairs, if complex may require an inspection and therefore up to 90 days is given instead of the routine repair period.
There is evidence to show that the resident had been complaining about issues with the balcony doors since December 2017 and although some works were carried out the resident continued to report issues.
Repair appointments were scheduled, however, it is disputed as to why they were missed. The landlord had evidenced that calling cards were left with the resident and the resident had confirmed receiving them. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s contractors attended the appointments as arranged.
On 10 November 2021, the resident reported further issues with the balcony doors. The landlord attended on 19 November, however, could not get access and left a calling card. The landlord acted within its policy by attending to the report within 20 working days.
An internal email was sent in November 2021 in relation to concerns regarding the doors, highlighting there were large gaps which were causing a draught. The member of staff was concerned due to the resident’s health issue and that of her young son. By sending the email, it demonstrated that the staff member took their duty of care seriously. This was followed up internally to ensure that the resident had appropriate support.
Following this, a repair order was raised on 25 November 2021 to attend to the front door, in relation to a large gap at the bottom. This was also appropriate and in line with its policy.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 2 December 2021 in relation to both the balcony doors and the wooden front door. As a result, an inspection was carried out on 19 December 2021. This was appropriate and in line with its repair policy, which says an inspection may need to be carried out if a repair is more complicated than a routine repair. This was reasonable given the number of reports made by the resident in relation to the doors being draughty.
Following the inspection, it was evidenced that the landlord attended the property on 12 and 31 January 2022 to install draught excluders and chain locks to the doors, however no access was provided. By attending on 12 and 31 January 2021 the landlord followed the timescale set within its repair policy. The landlord says these were later installed on 4 February 2022.
The resident raised further complaints on 28 February and 2 March 2022 explaining that the draught excluders were not working. She contacted this service in April 2022 requesting we review her complaint.
An internal email was sent on 30 May 2022 highlighting the need for an operative that specialises in UPVC windows and doors to inspect the property to see what faults and possible repairs may be needed.
In addition to this, comments were made in relation to the resident “always” putting a sheet over the windows in the winter and that “this would cause dampness and mould around the window reveals”. This implied that the resident’s belief that the doors were faulty was wrong. This was not appropriate and did not give consideration to this Service’s spotlight report outlines that landlords should take a proactive, zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. The landlord should investigate and discount everything else first, before blaming tenant behaviour. A recommendation has been made in relation to this.
In summary, the evidence shows the landlord followed its policy and timescale when responding to the resident’s reports. Therefore there is no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of disrepair in relation to the balcony doors.
Having said that, a recommendation has been made to ensure the landlord follows up on its suggestion to have an operative that specialises in UPVC windows and doors inspect the property.

Lift breakdown

The repair policy says that lift breakdowns will be considered an emergency and attended to within 24 hours.
The lift maintenance log evidenced a significant number of breakdowns in relation to the lift. Most recently between October 2021 and January 2022, where there were eleven visits.
The log shows that the breakdowns were responded to within 24 hours with the exception of two. Although two fell outside of the policy timeframe, on the whole, the landlord acted in line with its policy.
It is not disputed that there was a significant delay in sourcing the push buttons for the lift which was outside of the landlord’s control. The landlord also accepted that there were a significant number of breakdowns within the recent six-month period. It apologised and said it would continue to monitor the issue as per its engineer’s recommendation. This was reasonable.
In conclusion, the landlord had followed its policy, mainly responding the same day and therefore there is no maladministration in its response to the resident’s reports of the lift breakdown. Nevertheless, it is clear given the number of breakdowns that there is an underlying issue with the lift. Therefore a recommendation has been made.

Communal window

The landlord said that it received a report from the resident in relation to the communal window being left open on 30 November 2021. However, as evidenced in her email from that date, she used the words “still open”. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that she had previously reported the issue, as explained in her escalation complaint.
It has been evidenced via an engineer report dated 3 December 2021, that the windows were reset and closed. So it is unclear why the landlord said in their stage two response that the windows were not addressed until 23 December 2021.
The landlord apologised and its stage two response would suggest it awarded £50 compensation as it accepted there had been “subsequent failings” and increased the offer to £200 from £150.
Therefore there had been reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident report of the communal window being left open.

Heating

While the Ombudsman is unable to evaluate medical evidence, we will take this into account when considering the resident’s circumstances. The Ombudsman recognises that some of our residents’ circumstances mean that they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability. Consideration of any aggravating factors such as a resident’s health condition could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
The landlord’s repair policy says:
1. individual storage heaters are routine repairs, but it will consider it an emergency if all heating in the property fails
2. Colder months (Oct-Mar) are emergency appointments.
3. Warmer months (Apr-Sep) are routine appointments. However, if there are babies or more elderly residents above the age of 70 and/or occupants with a vulnerability, disability, or illness then this will be allocated as an emergency repair
The resident reported the storage heaters were not working properly in her property on 25 October 2021. Following this the resident contacted the landlord on 22 November 2022 explaining that the property was “not liveable”. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord responded to the resident report of 25 October 2021 which is not appropriate.
In response, the landlord provided oil-filled radiators on 22 November 2021, this was only following the resident’s further report. This was 20 working days after the initial report. This was not appropriate or in line with its repair policy which says lack of heating will be considered an emergency and responded to within 24 hours.
Furthermore, the landlord was aware that the resident had had to purchase her own temporary heaters as there was no heating in her property. Also, the landlord would have been aware that the resident was vulnerable and had a baby at the property, providing even more reason for it to be treated as an emergency.
Following the landlord’s stage one response, it was reasonable for the landlord to request receipts for the storage heaters and utilities bill in order to reimburse the resident.
Nevertheless, the landlord should have been proactive in offering to reimburse the resident. It was aware she had purchased heaters and was advised on 1 December 2021 how significant the cost was to her. The resident again asked to be reimbursed on 7 January 2022. Yet it took the landlord until 13 January 2022, 43 days to request proof. The delay was unnecessary and unfair to the resident, especially as this occurred during the winter months.
The landlord says in its stage one response that the new storage heaters were installed on 7 December 2021 although it did not appear to be evidenced in the repairs log. This was 43 days from when the resident reported the repair on 25 October 2021 and was not appropriate or treated as an emergency in line with its policy.
In its stage two response the landlord said it agreed to install an additional heater in the hallway. The repair log evidenced that an additional heater was installed on 14 February 2022. This was appropriate and resolution-focused.
The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation at stage one and increased this offer to £200 at stage two. It then increased the offer further on 13 June 2022, after its final response as it said that following this service’s involvement, it had “identified further compensation due to the resident”. It said there were “some areas that were not given consideration as part of the compensation offer”. As a result it increased its offer to £800.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
A total award of £800 was offered to the resident for the length of time it took to resolve the heating issues and for the resident’s time and effort in getting the landlord to resolve the problem. As this was offered in June 2022, nearly four months after the landlord’s stage two final complaint response, it cannot fairly be considered to be redress offered during the internal complaint procedure.
Whilst the landlord’s later efforts are recognised and the additional offer is resolution focused, it should not required intervention from this service. The landlord should ensure that fair and proportionate compensation is always offered for all complaints within its internal complaints procedure. Furthermore, it should not require involvement from this service in order to review a case and revisit any offer of redress.
In the absence of a full breakdown of this calculation by the landlord, this service was unable to determine what proportion had been attributed to each issue and over what period of time consideration had been given. Nevertheless, as the landlord accepted its failure in relation to the heating, it’s reasonable to conclude most of the compensation was awarded for this.
Nevertheless, this amount does not reflect the impact, the delays and the lack of heating the resident experienced over a prolonged period of time. The property being without fixed heating for six weeks during winter would have caused significant distress and inconvenience for the resident, especially considering her health issues and that of her young son.
Therefore in recognition of the distress and prolonged inconvenience experienced by the resident, the Ombudsman will award increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen.
Our order will include a rent-related element based on a refund of around 50% for the 6-week delay period. The delay period being 25 October 2021 to 7 December 2021. The rent figures have been used as a guideline only and are not intended to amount to an exact refund.
As a result, a total of £425.76 has been awarded to reflect the impact on the resident. This equates to 50% of the weekly rent (£141.92) at 6 weeks. 50% because 2 rooms were affected, the living room and bedroom £525 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delay in dealing with the heating.

Complaint handling

This services’ complaint handling code states responses to stage one complaints should be provided within 10 working days of receipt and stage two responses provided within 20 working days from the day it was requested to be escalated.
The resident raised her stage one complaint on 2 December 2021 and the landlord responded at stage one on 13 January 2022, 26 working days later. This was not appropriate or within the timeframe set out in the complaint handling code.
On 17 January 2022 the resident requested to escalate her complaint. The landlord responded at stage two on 17 February 2022, 23 days later. This was not appropriate or in line with the complaint handling code.
Stage one was 16 days out of its timeframe and although stage two was only three days late, this meant that both complaint responses were delayed which was not appropriate. Therefore there was service failure for complaint handling and £100 compensation has been awarded to the resident for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
Whilst it is recognised that the landlord offered £100 for its delay failure, this was serval months after its final response and only after intervention from this service.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of disrepair to the:
1. Front and balcony doors
2. Lift
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord offered reasonable redress in its response to the resident’s reports of the communal window being left open.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of lack of heating.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure for its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord followed its repairs policy and responded within the timescale specified in relation to the door repairs. Although appointments were missed, as already explained, it’s reasonable to conclude that the landlord attended the appointments as scheduled.
The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of a broken-down lift within 24 hours of the reports. This was within the timescale specified in its repair policy.
The landlord apologised, accepted its failures in relation to its response to the open window, and awarded compensation. The landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s reports of lack of heating within the timescale specified in its repair policy. Furthermore, it failed to consider the resident’s and her son’s vulnerabilities and the lack of heating occurring in the winter months as specified in its repair policy.
There was a delay of 16 days at stage one and a delay of three days at stage two, meaning both complaint responses were delayed.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
1. The landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report in relation to its response to the lack of heating.
Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £1050.76 made up of:
1. £425.76 compensation to reflect the impact on the resident in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of lack of heating
2. £525 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to her in relation to the landlord’s delay in dealing with the lack of heating.
3. £100 compensation in recognition for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
This can be reduced by any compensation already paid.

Recommendations

The landlord is to instruct a suitably qualified person to review the maintenance history, function, and usage of the lift, in order to make a recommendation for the minimum maintenance and inspection requirements.
The landlord to ensure (if not already done so) to follow up on its own suggestion to have an operative that specialises in UPVC windows and doors inspect the property, to see if a repair or replacement is required.
The landlord to review the handling of reports of damp and mould and consider whether it would be appropriate to review or introduce a policy in relation to how it responds to reports of damp and mould. The landlord to refer to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould for further detail and recommendations.