Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202216921)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216921

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

18 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 the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of door replacement works.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, and the property is a three-bedroom house. The resident has mobility issues and use a wheelchair and mobility scooter.
3. The resident’s wooden back door was replaced on 20 October 2021, as it was in poor condition and was letting water in. The resident and repairs officer had requested a “like-for-like” door for mobility access. On 25 October 2021, the resident raised the issue that the new door’s threshold (bottom part of the door frame) was too high and impeding her access. The door’s threshold was then lowered sometime between 10 January 2022, and 9 February 2022. On 9 February 2022 the repairs officer confirmed during an inspection of the door that the resident could not use it with her wheelchair. He told the landlord that while the threshold had been lowered, it needed further alterations or renewal of the whole door.
4. On 18 May 2022, the resident called the landlord and stated that the door threshold was still too high and that she could not get in with her wheelchair. She then raised a complaint on 8 June 2022. She stated that for seventeen and a half years, she had wheelchair-friendly access to her back garden via the property’s backdoor. After reporting it was rotten, a new one was ordered. She had specifically requested a like-for-like door, and when the contractor came to measure it up, it stated it would be wheelchair friendly. However, the fitted door had a too-high threshold, and the resident fell over the next day. She then fell over again three days later. She stated that she had made the landlord aware of the falls and that she could not get in or out with her wheelchair or mobility scooter. She also stated she had been waiting for seven months for the issue to be resolved and that it had caused her a lot of stress, upset, pain and inconvenience.
5. The landlord responded on 24 June 2022. It apologised for the inconvenience and frustration caused, and explained that the contractor would remeasure and supply a wooden door with a lower threshold suitable for her wheelchair. A target date of 22 July 2022 had been set for the work, and the resident would be contacted closer to the time to arrange a day and time. The landlord upheld the complaint and offered £200 compensation for time and trouble and £50 compensation for service failure.
6. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 22 July 2022. She stated that a contractor came out on 1 July 2022, but she had not been contacted since, and the work was still outstanding.
7. The landlord provided its stage two response on 25 October 2022. It explained that delays had occurred due to finding a contractor who could replace the door to the correct specifications. It had found a specialist contractor, and the target date to get the new door fitted was 15 December 2022. It upheld the complaint that the door should have been similar to the previous one and that the correct door was now on order. It apologised for the time taken to rectify the issue and awarded an increased amount of compensation: £160 for failure of service, £200 for time and trouble and an added amount of £100 for poor complaint handling for stage two.
8. The resident brought her complaint to this Service because she was unhappy with how the landlord handled the door replacement works. She is seeking more compensation and a wooden door like she had before. On 6 March 2023, the landlord notified this Service that the door renewal was complete.

Assessment and findings

Handling of door replacement works

9. As per the landlord’s repairs policy, routine repairs are to be completed within 28 days. In this case, the landlord did not complete the repairs within the repairs policy’s timescale. The resident first raised her concerns about the threshold on 25 October 2021. The threshold was not lowered until sometime between 10 January 2022, and 9 February 2022, which was one to two months after it should have been rectified. With remedial work, there can be delays, and some delays are reasonable. In this case, the landlord had the door inspected on 18 November 2021 and explained to the resident that the manufacturer was sending a new threshold which would take approximately two weeks to arrive. This delay was unavoidable, because it was out of the landlord’s control. The landlord then chased the part on 8 December 2021, which was not fitted until January or February 2022. Again, this delay appears to have been outside of the landlord’s control.
10. When the repairs officer raised concern over the lowered threshold and told the landlord the door needed either further adaptations or a new door on 9 February 2022, the expected completion date should have been 21 March 2022. However, seven months later, at the end of the landlord’s complaints process, the issue had not been resolved. In this instance, the delay was due to waiting for a new door to be manufactured. It is not apparent why the door took so long to be made, but nothing in the evidence seen for this investigation indicates that the landlord could have taken steps to get the door issue resolved sooner, as the repair centred on the need for the new door.
11. While it is understandable that delays can happen that are outside a landlord’s control, any landlord would be expected to keep their tenants updated and manage their expectations in the meantime. In this case, the landlord’s communication and management of the resident’s expectations were poor. The resident had to chase the landlord on numerous occasions throughout the whole complaints process to get updates and, on most occasions, was not given one. Nothing in the evidence shows the landlord made the resident aware of why the delays were happening until its stage two complaints response on 25 October 2022. Given the length of the delay, it was essential for the landlord to keep the resident updated on progress. Not doing so was a significant failing, especially given the resident’s mobility circumstances.
12. The landlord attempted to put things right by acknowledging and apologising for the time taken to resolve the door issue.It offered £160 for service failure and £300 for time and trouble. Both amounts were at the top scale of the landlord’s compensation policy. However, it did not acknowledge its poor communication or its failure to manage the resident’s expectations, and made no attempt to put these right. This means that, at the time of its final complaint response, the landlord did not provide the full remedies needed to have reasonably remedied its failings.
13. In response to the Ombudsman’s request for information about the complaint, the landlord explained that it had further reviewed the case, and intended to increase the compensation it would offer to the resident to £1200. It said this was to reflect the time and trouble caused to the resident, and the overall delays resolving the issue. While this increased compensation exceeds what the Ombudsman would usually expect to see in service failures of this scale and nature, the landlord has not explained why this compensation was not originally offered as part of its investigation of the complaint, nearly six months previously. If it had made the offer at that stage the complaint may have been resolved to the resident’s satisfaction without the need for her to come to the Ombudsman. Accordingly, the landlord’s increased compensation is not sufficient to remedy the complaint on its own, and further actions have been ordered below.

Complaint handling

14. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond to an escalated complaint within twenty working days. In this case, the landlord did not respond within its policy’s timescale. The resident escalated her complaint on 22 July 2022. The landlord did not respond until 25 October 2022. While it did give an extension on 21 October 2022, there was still an unreasonable delay, well outside the landlord’s complaint policy, and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
15. The landlord put this right by acknowledging its poor complaint handling, apologising, and offered £100 compensation. In its response to our information request the landlord advised that it intended to increase this compensation to £250, to recognise the extent of the complaint delays. As above, it is not apparent why that increased level of compensation was not offered in the first place. It indicates that the landlord did not consider how it handled the resident’s complaint as robustly as it was expected to.

Determination

16. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of:
    1. Its handling of door replacement.
    2. Its complaint handling.

Orders

17. In light of the landlord’s failings in both its handling of the door repair, and the complaint, it is ordered to pay to the resident the total of its increased compensation, £1450. This is comprised of:
    1. £1200 for the door repair issue.
    2. £250 for its complaint handling delay.
18. The landlord must provide evidence of payment to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.
19. The landlord must also review its overall handling of this complaint to identify how it can improve its processes, so as to ensure fair and proportionate remedies (including compensation) are offered at the time of its complaint investigations, rather than months after its final complaint response. The outcome of this review must be shared with the resident and this Service within six weeks of this report.