Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202208632)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208632

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

7 July 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
   2. The landlord’s handling of its decision to place a caution alert on the resident’s record.
   3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

2. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 (m) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
4. The resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman includes her dissatisfaction with her treatment by a member of its staff. Under paragraph 42 (m) of the Scheme, however, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: “seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon”.
5. The Ombudsman previously considered and issued a determination in response to the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her concerns about staff conduct, including her treatment by a member of its staff mentioned in her present complaint to us. We did so on 18 July 2022 under complaint reference 202112817, and our findings were issued to both the resident and the landlord. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to investigate this element of the resident’s complaint again.

Background

6. The resident previously held a tenancy with the landlord of a flat from 2019 to 2022. It lists her as having a mental health-related disability.
7. On 10 June 2020, the landlord placed a caution alert on the resident’s file, which remained there until 2022. It stated that this was done following complaints about the resident’s behaviour from its contractors, for which a previous alert had also been in place in the past. The latest alert suggested that the contractors only visit her in pairs, and that all of her non-emergency repairs be raised on weekdays via an on site housing manager.
8. On approximately 18 July 2022, the resident attempted to make a stage one complaint directly to the landlord about the caution alert placed on her, and that she was not made aware of this, which she felt was not fair and wanted an explanation for. On 24 August 2022, the resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord via the Ombudsman. She felt that the caution alert that she had just been made aware of meant that she had been “bullied” by its three housing managers, “discriminated” against, and wanted to know who had put her on the caution alert register and why.
9. After informing the resident on 8 September 2022 that it had extended its response time to get more information, on 14 September 2022, the landlord issued its stage one response. It said all three housing managers denied the accusations of “bullying” and “discrimination”. It also said that its own process for the caution alert had been followed correctly, based on a number of reports about her behaviour from its contractors, and that a meeting had been held and the resident had been spoken to and sent a letter telling her why the alert had been placed on her file. It also noted that, following a review by the current housing manager, the alert had now been removed. Finally, the landlord offered the resident £20 compensation to recognise a failure in the handling of her complaint, as it did not respond to her within 10 working days as per its own complaints policy.
10. On 15 September 2022, the resident responded to say she disagreed with the landlord’s findings. She stated she was not made aware a caution alert had been placed against her and no one had written to her. The resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage two.
11. On 28 September 2022, the landlord issued its stage two response. It reiterated what it said in its stage one response, and re-offered the resident £20 compensation for its poor complaint handling. The resident remained unhappy with the response, and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman, where it was duly made on 7 November 2022.
12. On 8 December 2022, the landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman that, after further investigation, it was offering a further £100 compensation to the resident because it had failed to review the caution alert on her file within its own policy timescales of one review every six months. It also found that it had not kept sufficient records of this at the time, and so it had no evidence to support the reasons for which the alert had been put in place, or that she had been spoken to or written to about this at that time either. The landlord therefore additionally confirmed that it had put an emphasis on record keeping and scheduled caution alert reviews, with reporting for this implemented by one of its directors, to stop this occurring again in the future.

Assessment and findings

13. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, Put things right, and Learn from outcomes.

Caution alert

14. The landlord’s caution alerts guidance states that it should notify customers, where appropriate, of the alert. The landlord has not provided any information to show that the resident was written to about this, or notified. However, there is no obligation on the landlord to do so, unless it is appropriate. The caution alert was placed on the resident’s file after issues raised by the landlord’s contractors. This meant that when a contractor visited the property, it had to send operatives in pairs. Even if the resident had been made aware of the alert, this would still have been the case, although the landlord should have considered the effect that doing so without notice might have had on her mental-health related disability.
15. According to the landlord’s caution alerts guidance, caution alerts should be reviewed every six months. Since the resident’s complaint was raised with the Ombudsman, the landlord has found that a review of the resident’s caution alert was not completed within its own guidance, and that it has kept no evidence to support the reasons for which the alert had been put in place. It has therefore recognised this as a failure, and awarded the resident £100 compensation, as well as emphasising its record keeping and scheduling caution alert reviews, with reporting implemented by one of its directors, to stop this occurring again in the future.
16. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will award compensation of over £50 for cases where there is a failure over a considerable period to act in accordance with its policy. The amount it has offered to the resident of £100 for its above failings is therefore in line with its own policy, and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which recommends compensation from £50 for distress, inconvenience, loss of confidence and delays in getting matters resolved.
17. While the Ombudsman understands the resident’s concerns about the caution alert being recorded against her without her knowledge, the landlord’s policy may have permitted this. Contractors still attended the property when needed, and there was no adverse impact in terms of service for the resident.
18. Additionally, the landlord has offered appropriate compensation to recognise its failure in not reviewing the caution alert within its published timescales, or evidencing the reasons for this or that she had been informed about it, from which it has taken suitable learning and implemented measures to stop this happening again.
19. Nevertheless, the landlord’s delay in only offering the resident compensation for and taking learning from its poor handling of her caution alert after she complained to the Ombudsman was inappropriate, and this was a further failing on its part. It has therefore been ordered below to write to her to acknowledge, apologise for and explain all of its failures in respect of her caution alert, as well as to pay her the £100 compensation that it has awarded her for this and implement measures to stop this occurring again in the future, if it has not done so already.

Complaint Handling

20. The landlord’s complaints policy is a two-stage process.
21. The policy states that stage one complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days, and responded to within 10 working days.
22. The policy also states stage two complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days, and responded to within 20 working days.
23. The resident raised her stage one complaint to the landlord on approximately 18 July 2022, before doing so again via the Ombudsman on 24 August 2022. The landlord then told her that it had extended its response timescale on 8 September 2022, in order to get further information, before it responded to the complaint on 14 September 2022. This was outside its complaints policy’s 10-working-day stage one response timescale, being issued 31 working days late, as well as only occurring after a request from the Ombudsman, and so was a failure by the landlord.
24. The resident raised a stage two complaint to the landlord on 15 September 2022. It responded on 28 September 2022. This was within its complaints policy’s 20-working-day stage two response timescales.
25. In both its stage one and stage two responses, the landlord recognised it had failed to respond to the resident’s stage one complaint within 10 working days as it should have done. It therefore awarded the resident £20 to recognise its poor complaint handling.
26. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will award an apology or up to £50 compensation for instances of failure which had an impact on the resident but was for a short duration, including for time and trouble from its poor complaint handling. The amount of £20 it has offered is therefore in line with its own policy, and, while the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommends that such compensation be from £50 and above, the delay in providing a response was not overly excessive, and so the compensation offered by the landlord to recognise this was appropriate.
27. The landlord has therefore been recommended below to pay the resident the £20 compensation that it previously awarded her, if she has not received this already, and to review its staff’s training needs with regard to their application of its complaints policy, in order to ensure that its issues timely complaint responses in every case.

Determination (decision)

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of its decision to place a caution alert on the resident’s record.
29. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its complaint handling satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

30. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident within four weeks to acknowledge, apologise for and explain all of its failures in respect of her caution alert.
    2. Pay the resident the £100 compensation that it previously awarded her in recognition of its caution alert failures within four weeks, if she has not received this already.
    3. Emphasise its record keeping and schedule caution alert reviews, with reporting implemented by one of its directors, to stop its failings in respect of this from this occurring again in the future, if it has not done so already.
31. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident the £20 compensation that it previously awarded her for its poor complaint handling, if she has not received this already.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs with regard to their application of its complaints policy, in order to ensure that its issues timely complaint responses in every case.
32. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders, and whether it will follow the above recommendations.