Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202220456)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220456

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

1 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 handling of:
1. Repairs to the resident’s front door.
2. Reports of rats in the garden.
3. A decant.
4. Complaints.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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.
After carefully considering all the evidence the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of rats in the garden is outside of jurisdiction under paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme because the complaint had not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. This issue was raised as a separate complaint and the resident has since made a request to escalate the complaint on 23 January 2023.
2. The landlord’s handling of a decant is outside of jurisdiction under paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme because this issue was never raised as part of a formal complaint to the landlord. The resident had contacted the landlord about the amount of compensation due to her following a decant in 2020, but she did this in September 2022. The resident may wish to raise a new complaint through the landlord’s internal complaints process, however due to the length of time which has passed the landlord may decide it cannot investigate the complaint under its policy.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, which is a house. The landlord is a housing association. The resident has children.
The resident says that she has mental health problems, and that she cannot read or write. She also says she has experienced domestic abuse. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded on its system. It has told this Service that the resident has told it she was vulnerable, but it has no supporting evidence of this.
The landlord’s repairs obligations are set out within the tenancy agreement and are in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985; these include to repair the outside doors. Under the tenancy agreement the resident also has a responsibility to report repairs to the landlord.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is available as an audio recording if requested. It confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairing external doors, however, also says that front door locks are the responsibility of the resident. The policy categorises repairs as either emergency, routine, or major repairs. Emergency repairs will be completed within 24 hours and include repairs to secure entrance doors or windows, or for forced entry and lock changes if a crime reference number is provided or the resident is vulnerable. Routine repairs will be completed within 28 days.
The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.” Under the policy, the landlord will not accept a complaint if:
1. The cause of the complaint occurred over six months ago.
2. Legal proceedings have started.
3. The complaint has already been handled under the landlord’s complaints process.
4. It is an insurance claim.
5. It is a complaint of antisocial behaviour.
6. It is a complaint about rent increases or service charges or their reasonableness.
7. It is about planned section 20 works.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. It will acknowledge stage one complaints within five working days and will respond within ten working days. If the landlord cannot meet this timeframe it will write to the resident to agree a new response date. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can ask for the complaint to be escalated to stage two. The policy says a complaint will only be investigated at stage two if:
1. The response received at stage one was factually incorrect.
2. The response received did not address the initial complaint.
3. Important information provided in the initial complaint had not been considered.
4. Actions agreed at stage one had not been completed.
The landlord will respond to stage two complaints within 20 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied the landlord will signpost them to this Service.
The landlord has a compensation policy and guidance document. It categorises compensation as either mandatory, quantifiable loss, or discretionary. Compensation for failure to meet service standards, temporary loss of amenity or poor complaints handling are discretionary. The policy contains a table with suggested starting amounts based on the seriousness of the failure and impact on the resident, for service failure, time and trouble, and complaints handling.

Summary of events

On 26 May 2020 the resident reported that her front door handle was broken. The landlord completed the repair the following day.
The resident reported the front and back doors as insecure on 16 February 2021 and the landlord’s records say that the doors were overhauled. The landlord further repaired the front door on 18 February 2021 and fitted a new multipoint locking system on 18 May 2021.
On 3 October 2021 the resident called the landlord to ask to speak to her new housing officer. She said that she was having a problem with her children’s father. The landlord’s record says that it had an open domestic abuse record.
The resident reported her front and back doors as loose in their frames on 2 November 2021 and the landlord overhauled both doors.
On 3 October 2022 the landlord’s records say a repair was raised for damaged front and back door frames as the result of a forced entry due to domestic abuse in May 2022. The landlord repaired the back door that day but had an incorrect part for the front door. On 25 October 2022 the landlord repaired the front door with the correct part.
The landlord’s record dated 3 October 2022 included a crime reference number dated 29 May 2022. It is not clear from the record whether the police or a third party forced entry. The resident has told this Service that she reported the doors on 29 May 2022 to the landlord’s out of hours service and they attended but did not repair the doors; the Ombudsman has not been provided with any record of this.
The resident used the landlord’s online complaints form to make a stage one complaint on 15 November 2022. Her complaint was about having had an unsafe front door for over two months that did not lock. The door had been repaired, but the resident said that it had impacted on her mental health and caused stress, anxiety and her not having been able to sleep. She said that she had suffered domestic abuse in the past and had been broken into twice before.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 21 November 2022 by email. Its records say that it tried to call the resident the next day on 22 November 2022 but there was no answer. It then provided its stage one response letter by email the same day. In its response it:
1. Said it had checked the records and agreed that it had taken over two months to repair the door, which was a service failure.
2. Apologised for the failure and inconvenience caused.
3. Offered compensation of £100 made up of £50 for time and trouble and £50 for service failure.
4. Gave details on how to escalate the complaint if the resident remained dissatisfied.
On 25 November 2022 the resident used the landlord’s online complaints form to ask to escalate the complaint. The landlord called the resident on 30 November 2022 to acknowledge the escalation. It offered to increase the compensation to £150 however the landlord’s notes say that the resident wanted a higher amount. The landlord also acknowledged the escalation by email the same day.
On 2 December 2022 the landlord provided its stage two response. In its response it:
1. Set out the reasons it would investigate a stage two complaint as set out in its complaints policy.
2. Said that the reason the resident had given for the escalation is that she disagreed with the compensation amount it had offered.
3. Did not uphold the complaint, as the escalation request did not come within one of the four categories.
4. Offered again £150 in compensation.
5. Gave details on how to contact this Service.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman the same day. The Ombudsman emailed the landlord on 19 December 2022 to ask it to clarify its stage two response. The landlord replied on 21 December 2022 to say that it did not reinvestigate the complaint at stage two because no further failure was raised, and all points raised initially were resolved and addressed at stage one.
The resident has told this Service that at the date of this report her doors need replacement as they allow drafts into the property. She also said that she is not sure if the landlord has provided a stage two response to her complaint about having rats in the garden.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s front door

In its stage one response on 22 November 2022, the landlord accepted that it had taken over two months to repair the resident’s front door. After reviewing the evidence provided to this Service, there is no record of the resident having reported the front door as insecure or needing repair on or after 29 May 2022, until her repair was logged on 3 October 2022. The resident has told this Service that she did report the doors at the time. There had been other prior repairs raised and completed for the front and back door in May 2020, February 2021, and May 2021. There are also records of the resident having contacted the landlord to raise other unrelated repairs and issues, however no records of the resident chasing up the door repair. It is not clear from the evidence on what basis the landlord accepted responsibility for the delay to the repair however it did. This showed it took responsibility for the resident’s dissatisfaction and wanted to put things right.
The landlord confirmed that the repair had been completed prior to its stage one response and apologised for the service failure. It also confirmed that the outcome the resident sought was financial compensation and offered £50 for the service failure and £50 for time and trouble, which were both within its low failure category under its compensation policy guidance.
At stage two the resident said that the only issue she wanted to escalate was the level of compensation the landlord had offered, and the landlord had increased its offer to £150 when it spoke to her, which she rejected. In its stage two response it declined to reinvestigate her complaint, in line with its complaint’s policy, which was reasonable as no issues remained outstanding. In offering to increase its compensation offer to £100 for service failure and £50 for time and trouble, it again showed it was trying to put things right. The offer for service failure was escalated into the medium failure category under the compensation policy.
In relation to the failure identified and accepted by the landlord, 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 as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord had resolved the issue prior to the complaint being made. It apologised for the failure and its offer of £150 in compensation was in line with its compensation guidance. In the absence of evidence that the resident was more severely affected this was a reasonable offer and that was reasonable redress.

The landlord’s handling of complaints

Within its stage one response on 22 November 2022, the landlord set out three reasons it would agree to escalate a complaint to stage two of its process. It however failed to include the fourth reasons stated within its complaints policy: if actions agreed at stage one have not been completed as agreed.
The landlord refused to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two of its process, which was inline with its policy. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code) states, at paragraph 5.9 that “if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage one it must be progressed to stage two of the landlord’s procedure, unless an exclusion ground now applies.” Paragraph 4.14 states “a landlord must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure and must have clear and valid reasons for taking that course of action. Reasons for declining to escalate a complaint must be clearly set out in a landlord’s complaints policy and must be the same as the reasons for not accepting a complaint.”
Within its policy the landlord’s reasons not to accept a complaint are different to its reasons not to escalate a complaint, as the resident must satisfy one of the reasons to escalate. Relying on this is not compliant with the Code. Narrowing the reasons why a resident can escalate their complaint denies the resident the opportunity to challenge the landlord’s assessment of compensation. The landlord’s policy not being compliant with the Code amounted to a service failure for complaints handling, which would have caused the resident further frustration and inconvenience. An order has been made that the landlord pay £50 in compensation to reflect this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure for the landlord’s complaints handling.
In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s front door.
In accordance with Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of reports of rats in the garden is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of a decant is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

There was service failure as the landlord’s complaints policy is not compliant with paragraphs 4.14 and 5.9 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code.
There was reasonable redress as the landlord accepted responsibility for the failure, apologised and offered reasonable compensation. When the resident requested to escalate the complaint due to the level of compensation offered, the landlord offered to increase this further to a higher but still reasonable amount.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay direct to the resident compensation of £50 for the frustration and inconvenience caused by the service failure.
2. Review its complaints policy and consider amendments to be compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code.
3. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Re-offer compensation of £150 previously offered to the resident.
2. Respond to the resident’s complaint about its handling of rats in the garden at stage two, if it has not already done so by the date of this report.
3. Re-inspect the front and back doors, and make any repairs needed to prevent drafts from entering the property.