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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202205078)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205078

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

28 March 2025


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.

  1. The complaint is about:

a.     The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about 3 communal lights connected to the property’s meter and the associated energy costs the resident incurred.

b.     The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about Japanese knotweed.

c.      The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about outstanding repairs to the front door.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The tenancy started in October 2024. The property is a converted bedsit flat, with an allocated garden.
  2. The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 24 July 2023. It issued the final stage 2 complaint response on 30 August 2023. The landlord identified during the stage 2 complaint investigation, that there had been a failure in its handling of the resident’s reports that the communal lighting was connected to the property, and the associated energy costs he had incurred. But it did not uphold the resident’s complaint concerning Japanese knotweed or repairs to the front door.
  3. The resident brought his complaint to us because he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint outcome. The resident told us on 13 March 2025, that the landlord had paid around £400 towards his electrical costs to date. But felt it should reimburse him for all of the years the communal lights had been wired to his electric meter. The resident said the landlord had still not replaced the front door.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions between July 2022 and August 2023. This being 12 months prior to the substantive complaint being made, through to when the landlord’s internal complaint procedure was exhausted. Events that happened after timeframe may be referenced but will not be assessed.
  2. We are aware that the landlord may have made additional payments towards the resident’s incurred energy costs, following the stage 2 complaint response. For clarity, any new offer of compensation or reimbursement made after the landlord’s internal complaint process ended, will not be considered as part of this investigation.

Obligations, policies, and procedures

  1. According to the tenancy agreement, the landlord was responsible for repairing the structure and outside of the property, including “outside doors”. The resident was responsible for registering with the electricity company and paying for services supplied to him while he was a tenant. A landlord is usually responsible for the communal electricity charges. The resident was also responsible for keeping the garden tidy and free from rubbish.
  2. According to the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord will complete emergency repairs in 24 hours, routine repairs in 28 calendar days, and major routine repairs within 3 months or as part of a planned programme of works.
  3. Japanese knotweed is an invasive, fast growing, non-native plant, which can cause ecological damage. It requires special measures to control it, prevent it from spreading, and remove it for good. There is no legal obligation on a landowner to remove Japanese knotweed from its land unless it is causing a nuisance. But there are several pieces of legislation, making it an offence to allow Japanese knotweed to spread to other gardens or into the wild.
  4. The landlord had a Japanese knotweed procedure, which set out its approach to dealing with reports of Japanese knotweed in a resident’s garden or in a communal area. According to its procedure, the landlord will arrange for its specialist contractor to carry out an inspection following reports of Japanese knotweed in a resident’s garden. The landlord will instruct its contractor to treat any confirmed Japanese knotweed on a cyclical basis, according to a 5-year treatment plan.
  5. The landlord had a compensation matrix which set its approach to compensation. The landlord may offer an apology where there has been service failure and up to £350 compensation, depending on impact to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about 3 communal lights connected to the property and the associated energy costs the resident had incurred

  1. There were 3 communal lights connected to the resident’s electricity meter, since the start of the tenancy. The landlord has clarified that when the building was converted into flats, no separate electricity supply and meter was installed to power these lights. The resident claims that he first raised concerns about this in December 2019. The landlord claims that the resident first reported the issue in 2021. It was not possible to verify either account from the evidence seen.
  2. The first communication we have seen concerning this issue was on 17 January 2023. This was an email from the resident’s elected Member of Parliament (MP), who was raising concerns on behalf of the resident, about the substantive matter of complaint.
  3. The landlord emailed the MP in a timely manner on 21 January 2023. The landlord accepted that the communal lights had been wired up to the resident’s meter. And that the resident had been paying the full cost of running these lights since the start of his tenancy. It said it had offered the resident £100 to top up his meter, was reviewing available options for a long-term solution, and was investigating the possible costs incurred by the resident “during the tenancy”. It committed to ensuring that “the resident was suitably reimbursed”. The landlord’s response shows that it was taking responsibility for the issue that had arisen and was trying to put things right for the resident.
  4. Following this, the landlord agreed to top up the resident’s meter, as and when required, until it had removed the communal lighting from it. This was a reasonable interim solution and would have mitigated further detriment to the resident.
  5. There is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident informed about the steps it was taking to resolve the matter, between responding to the MP and issue of the stage 1 response on 24 July 2023. Either the landlord did not keep the resident informed or it did not provide this information following our information request. However, the landlord did explain to the resident in the stage 1 complaint response, that it was taking longer than expected to replace the electricity supply to the lights. The landlord has since explained to us, that the project was quite complex, with many stakeholders involved.
  6. The landlord did not uphold the stage 1 complaint because it had already committed to a plan of action to separate the communal lighting from the resident’s meter. And it noted there had been a plan in place since January 2023, to top his meter, while it worked on delivering a long-term solution.
  7. But it did not explain its plan for reimbursing the resident’s electricity costs, prior to January 2023, as it had previously committed. It would have been reasonable for it to have acknowledged the length of time it was taking to remove the communal lighting from his meter, since becoming aware of the issue. It may have given the resident greater reassurance if the landlord had provided him with an action plan, setting out the steps it was taking to remove the communal lighting from his electricity supply, and an expected timescale for doing so.
  8. It was appropriate therefore, that the landlord identified on 30 August 2023, in the stage 2 complaint response, that there had been failings in its handling of the resident’s reports about the communal lighting and associated energy costs. The landlord’s response shows that it was taking responsibility for those failings and it was trying to put things right for the resident. In summary, the landlord:

a.     Accepted that it had been aware of the issue with the communal lighting since December 2021. Apologised and offered £200 compensation, for the length of time it had taken for it to action the rewiring. Reassured the resident that it was progressing the works as a priority.

b.     Apologised for not confirming its intention concerning the reimbursement of electricity costs, in the stage 1 complaint response. Noted that it had already topped up the resident’s meter by £369 since January 2023. Said it would pay an additional £267.06, which it had calculated to be the cost of running the communal lights over the previous 6 years. It clarified that this was the maximum period it was able to consider, in line with “financial regulations”.

  1. It was likely to have been difficult for the landlord to accurately calculate how much to reimburse the resident towards his electricity costs, given the length of time that had passed, as well as fluctuating energy prices and tariffs. It was positive that the landlord said it had based its final calculation using a resource on a government website, to obtain the average electricity prices per kwh year by year. We note that the landlord also proactively approached an independent energy advisor to double check its calculations, although it is unclear if it received a response. The landlord’s actions show that it was taking reasonable steps to assess the likely costs incurred by the resident, which was fair.
  2. However, the landlord was not explicit within its final complaint response, about what government resource it had used to calculate the amount of reimbursement due to the resident. It also did not explain what it meant by financial regulations and why these limited its refund to 6 years. It would have been more transparent by demonstrating how it calculated the likely energy costs incurred by the resident for powering the communal lighting. Without this information, it would be difficult for the resident to evaluate if the landlord’s offer was fair.
  3. The landlord did not explicitly commit in its email to the MP in January 2023, to refunding the resident for the communal electricity costs from the start of his tenancy. But its email gives the impression that this is what it was going to consider doing, particularly as the resident was entitled to a reimbursement because he was not responsible for the communal electricity charges. Therefore, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations around what the outcome of its review was going to be.
  4. The landlord told us on 26 July 2024, that it had completed works to separate the communal lighting from the resident’s electricity supply. But it was still waiting for the energy provider to install an electricity meter. The resident wrote to us on 13 March 2025, with a position update. The resident gave no indication that there were any outstanding works related to the communal lighting.
  5. The landlord tried to put things right for the resident, by planning works to remove the communal lighting from his meter, by paying a refund for 6 years, and contributing to his ongoing costs.
  6. However, its offer of compensation does not fully reflect the failings identified by this investigation, in that the landlord did not properly explain why it was unable to back date its refund for more than 6 years, it failed to manage his expectations effectively, and it indicated in the stage 2 response that it would not pay for his ongoing costs. It is unclear why the landlord thought it no longer had any obligation to contribute to any ongoing costs by paying for a 6–year refund. Particularly when the works had not yet been completed.
  7. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about 3 communal lights connected to the property and the associated energy costs the resident had incurred.
  8. An order for compensation is made later, which has been determined in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about Japanese knotweed

  1. For context, the landlord first identified Japanese knotweed growing in the resident’s allocated garden in July 2020. It instructed its specialist contractor to treat the knotweed on a cyclical basis over the course of the next 5 years. However, the resident remained responsible for maintaining the other vegetation in the garden
  2. The landlord’s contact notes show that the resident raised concerns on 6 July 2023, about the garden at the back of the property. The resident reported that the garden was overgrown with 7ft or 8ft tall weeds. The landlord acted promptly the same day, by asking its housing team to confirm who was responsible for maintaining the garden. Its housing team clarified that the garden was not maintained by the landlord.
  3. The resident phoned the landlord again on 10 July 2023, asking for an update concerning the “Japanese knotweed growing in the garden”. The landlord fed back to the resident in a timely manner, on the same day, that the garden was his responsibility to maintain. But it did not address his query about Japanese knotweed, which would have been the landlord’s responsibility to manage. This is likely to have created some uncertainty for the resident.
  4. The landlord logged the stage 1 complaint in July 2023, concerning its handling of the resident’s reports about Japanese knotweed. The landlord established that the garden was in year 3 of a 5-year invasive plant treatment plan. It was positive that the landlord sought reassurance from its estates team and its specialist contractor, concerning the treatment plan. It would have been helpful if the landlord had provided us with the evidence it had relied upon, and which led it to conclude, that it was following the treatment plan appropriately.
  5. The landlord did not uphold the stage 1 complaint on 24 July 2023, because it considered that it had reacted to the resident’s reports about Japanese knotweed in a timely and appropriate manner. And had been managing a plan recommended by a remediation specialist for several years. The landlord said it recognised the resident’s concerns about Japanese knotweed. But it was satisfied that it had managed the plan well and it was progressing as expected. It remarked that the next site inspection was due on 28 July 2023.
  6. We do not seek to dispute that the landlord responded to initial reports about Japanese knotweed in 2020, in a timely and appropriate manner. Nor do we seek to dispute that there was a 5-year treatment plan in place. But the landlord did not acknowledge that it had not addressed the resident’s query about Japanese knotweed on 10 July 2023.
  7. The resident emailed the landlord on 24 July 2023, disputing that the landlord’s contractor had been out to do anything in the garden, since the matter was first reported in 2020. It is unclear from the available evidence, what frequency the landlord’s specialist contractor was supposed to attend the property. But we note that it did issue a number of site reports to the landlord in August 2021, November 2021, March 2022, May 2022, and September 2022, which suggests that the garden was being inspected regularly.
  8. The landlord’s specialist knotweed contractor sent a report to the landlord on 28 July 2023, after inspecting the garden. The landlord has not provided us with a copy of the report. However, according to the landlord’s internal communications, there was no evidence of any Japanese knotweed regrowth identified, at the time of this inspection. But asked the landlord to ensure that the garden was clear of any overgrown vegetation prior to its next attending.
  9. The landlord considered its next steps on 1 August 2023. The landlord could have insisted that the resident clear the garden himself, in line with his tenancy obligations. But made the pragmatic decision to clear the garden itself, as a one-off gesture, after noting the scale of the clearance required. This shows that the landlord was trying to be supportive and was going beyond its usual obligations.
  10. It was encouraging that the landlord’s grounds maintenance contractor attended the following day, to inspect the garden and provide the landlord with a quotation for works.
  11. It was also positive that the landlord emailed the resident on 11 August 2023 to provide him with an update, in advance of it issuing the stage 2 complaint response.
  12. The landlord reassured the resident again in the stage 2 complaint response on 30 August 2023, that it had a plan in place to manage the Japanese knotweed. And that its specialist contractor had identified no regrowth when it inspected the garden in July 2023. It reiterated its commitment to instruct a one-off garden clearance for the resident, once it was satisfied that its contractor could gain full access to the garden.
  13. It did not identify or acknowledge to the resident that it had not responded to his query on 10 July 2023, about Japanese knotweed, which gave rise to the initial complaint. However, we recognise the impact arising from this failing, was likely to have been minimal, of short duration, and was would not have affected the overall outcome for the resident.
  14. The landlord’s ground maintenance contractor completed the one-off garden clearance on 8 June 2024, after access to the garden was secured.
  15. On balance, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling the resident’s reports about Japanese knotweed.

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

  1. According to the landlord’s internal communications, it raised 2 repair orders in November 2022, “for a lock on the door and issues with the door being insecure”. The landlord noted that its contractor completed both of these jobs in April 2023, which was 5 months later. The records do not confirm which door these jobs related to, the priority the jobs were assigned, or exactly what repairs were required. In the absence of evidence, we cannot assess whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable and whether this had any impact on the resident.
  2. The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 24 July 2023, which noted that the resident had raised “an issue” with the front door on 18 April 2023. It is unclear from the available evidence, if the resident had been dissatisfied with the previous repair carried out or was reporting a new issue. The landlord identified that its contractor had attended in a timely manner, on the same day, and had completed repairs. The job notes indicate that its contractor renewed the yale lock on the front door. Its contractor made no recommendation for follow-on work.
  3. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s stage 1 complaint because it identified that it had completed repairs to the front door as a priority. And had received no further communication to indicate there was a continued issue with the door. The landlord’s decision was reasonable based on the findings from its own investigation. However, it recognised that the resident still felt there were issues with the front door and committed to reinspecting it “when possible”. While this was positive, it may have created more certainty for the resident if it had provided him with an expected timescale for doing this.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord later the same day, explaining that its contractor had “only filled the empty deadbolt key lock”, and “attached a piece of wood where the door was broken”. He said the front door was never replaced, despite security concerns. He added that the door only just about locked and stayed closed. He suggested that the landlord’s records were inaccurate and it was paying for jobs that were incomplete.
  5. The landlord noted that it had a scheduled appointment to inspect the resident’s kitchen and bathroom on 3 August 2023. So committed to inspecting the front door at the same time, which was reasonable. However, the resident was unavailable when the landlord attended. According to the landlord’s internal records, the landlord left a calling card and tried to phone the resident to rearrange the appointment which was good practice.
  6. The resident made contact with the landlord on 10 August 2023, which allowed it to reschedule the door inspection for 21 August 2023.
  7. The landlord attended the property on 21 August 2023, as it had committed. The landlord found that the front door was in a “serviceable” condition and the mortice and yale locks were in working order. It noted that the hinge side of the front door was secured with the timber door and was not suffering from any rot or decay. It was positive that the landlord committed to renewing the door stop, renewing the draft proofing, and redecorating the door and frame, if it felt these additional works were necessary.
  8. The landlord recognised in its stage 2 complaint response on 30 August 2023, that the resident felt the front door ought to have been renewed. It reassured the resident that a replacement door was not required, having inspected the door itself. But confirmed its intention to reattend the property on 20 September 2023, to change the door stop, renew the draft proofing, and to redecorate the door. The landlord’s decision not to uphold the complaint at stage 2 was reasonable, based on the findings from its own investigation.
  9. The landlord has confirmed to the Ombudsman, that its contractor did complete the additional repairs that it identified. And has received no further repair requests or concerns from the resident about the front door. We note the resident’s view, that the front door ought to have been replaced. But the landlord was under no obligation to replace the door if it could be repaired.
  10. On balance, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about outstanding repairs to the front door.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about 3 communal lights connected to the property and the associated energy costs the resident had incurred.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was no maladministration in:

a.     The landlord’s handling the resident’s reports about Japanese knotweed.

b.     The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about outstanding repairs to the front door.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must pay £617.06 compensation directly to the resident, which may be reduced to £150, if the landlord has already paid the compensation mentioned at paragraph 53.a and 59.b below. This compensation is made in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is broken down as follows:

a.     £267.06 to reimburse the resident for the likely energy costs he incurred over 6 years, when running the communal lighting off his own electricity meter. This is consistent with the compensation previously offered by the landlord at stage 2.

b.     £200 compensation, in recognition of the time it had taken for the landlord to action the rewiring, after it became aware of the issue. This is consistent with the compensation previously offered by the landlord at stage 2.

c.      £150 compensation, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, by the landlord’s failure to adequately manage the resident’s expectations in relation to the reimbursement of incurred energy costs. And for failing to adequately explain how it arrived at its final figure for reimbursement.

  1. The landlord must write to the resident to fully explain its decision to limit the reimbursement of incurred energy costs to 6 years, identify which regulations it is relying on, and explain why.
  2. The landlord must also review if it is able to increase its previous offer of reimbursement and then fully explain its decision to the resident.
  3. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.