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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202321618)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321618

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

4 June 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.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports about the toilet overflowing and flooding the bathroom.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat.
  2. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 27 July 2023. She said that there were ongoing issues at her property with the toilet overflowing and asked for the repair to be completed.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 3 August 2023. It upheld the complaint and said it would arrange the attendance of a contractor. It offered £150 for service failures and time and trouble.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 24 August 2023. She said that the repair remained unresolved and that this was causing her distress.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 6 September 2023. It upheld the complaint and acknowledged that repairs remained incomplete. It offered an additional £350 in compensation for service failures and time and trouble.
  6. The resident escalated the complaint to the Ombudsman on 22 September 2023. She said the repairs remained unresolved.

     

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the repairs impacted her mental health. The Ombudsman cannot assess whether something caused an impact on the resident’s health and wellbeing. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health and wellbeing, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord and what it did when it was informed of health concerns. This includes any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of reports about the toilet

  1. The landlord’s repair policy says that emergency repairs are identified as ‘those required to avoid immediate danger to one’s health & safety’ and that these should be completed within 24 hours. It says a ‘blocked WC where it is the only one in the property’ and a ‘blocked drain causing waste water to surge into basin, bath, sink or WC (health and safety)’ should both be considered emergency repairs.
  2. The repair log provided by the landlord shows that there were 5 entries related to issues with the toilet between 13 June 2023 and 27 July 2023. The entries said the toilet was blocked and causing back surging, including waste products coming up into the resident’s toilet. However, only one entry in this period was logged as an emergency. The landlord should have considered each report of toilet blockage as an emergency as its policy says it will where there is a potential health and safety risk. The landlord has provided records to show that each repair was completed before its target date but only one within 24 hours. By not treating the repairs as emergencies as it ought to have, the resident would have been put to avoidable distress and inconvenience in the time taken for the landlord to respond.
  3. On 25 July 2023 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint about the toilet in her property. She said there was an ongoing issue with the toilet back surging and that she was regularly having to clean the floors as a result of the toilet overflowing into the property. The resident said she reported the issue in June and that the landlord sent contractors to inspect the issue 3 weeks later. She asked why a CCTV inspection of the pipes had not been conducted at any point since the issue first arose. She said that her suggestion for a letter to be sent to other residents of the building about what could and could not be flushed had been ignored on 2 occasions.
  4. In its stage 1 response on 3 August 2023 the landlord apologised for any inconvenience caused and said that it was requesting a CCTV inspection of the pipework in the building. It said that there had been delays in conducting a CCTV check as the contractor had not requested one. It said the contractor would be attending the property on 7 August 2023 to look at the issue again. It also said a request had been made for a letter to be sent to all residents of the building reminding them to only flush tissue down their toilets. It acknowledged that the resident was fed up and felt ignored.
  5. The landlord’s response did not demonstrate that it had sufficient oversight of the repair before it was raised as a complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord took appropriate steps to resolve the issue after it was first reported. It only identified further action, such as a CCTV inspection and a letter to residents, after the resident raised the complaint. In addition, there is evidence to show that the letter was not sent out to other residents until January 2024, which was not appropriate.
  6. There is no evidence that the landlord offered to support the resident with the cleaning of waste water from her toilet at any stage which would have been reasonable in the circumstances. It was unreasonable to expect the resident to manage this herself and showed a lack of consideration for any associated risks.
  7. The landlord’s compensation policy says that repairs not being completed on time and receipt of a poor service should be considered service failure. It also says that having to expend unnecessary effort communicating with the landlord should be considered time and trouble.
  8. The landlord offered £150 compensation in its stage 1 response, made up of £50 for service failure and £100 for time and trouble. It upheld the complaint and gave details of how to escalate the complaint. It was appropriate to offer compensation but the amount offered was not sufficient at this stage. The resident had been inconvenienced as the landlord failed to provide a lasting repair to an issue that had been reported unresolved over a 2 month period. This should have been considered a more severe failure by the landlord as it did not adhere to its policies or offer reassurance to the resident that her issue was being taken seriously.
  9. Following the stage 1 response, evidence provided shows the landlord completed the CCTV check. It requested an inspection but was unable to conduct one as they did not have a member of staff available to do so. It did not provide evidence to this investigation of the outcome of the check. It also recorded a further report from the resident of issues with the drainage and raised works to address these. It attempted to clear the drainage system on 22 August 2023 but was unable to guarantee the works because of the need for repairs to the building’s pump. The landlord’s response lacked the urgency required for the severity of the problem, given the resident was unable to use her toilet for extended periods.
  10. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 23 August 2023. It was acknowledged by the landlord the same day. The resident confirmed that the repair remained incomplete and that her toilet continued to overflow into the property. She said that communication had been poor throughout the process and that nothing had happened following the stage 1 response. She said having to clean up sewage and not having use of her toilet while it overflowed had a ‘profound effect’ on her mental health. She said she felt let down by the landlord.
  11. While investigating the stage 2 complaint, evidence provided shows that the landlord took steps to chase the contractor for updates on the progress of any repair works at the property. This shows that the landlord took the matter seriously and was proactive in response to the complaint. It updated the resident via email during this time and identified work that was needed, including the replacement of a pump in the building. The landlord was faced with delays in responses from the contractor during this period. It failed to consider the impact of these delays on the resident and whether more robust contract management would have helped it to respond to the issues more efficiently.
  12. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 September 2023. It confirmed that following the attempt to repair on 22 August 2023 works had been raised for a new pump to rectify the problem on 11 September 2023. This was a reasonable timeframe for planning major works but there were no steps taken to support the resident with her toilet in the meantime. It was unreasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to continue cleaning up waste water regularly while waiting for the repair. It did not consider the potential risk to her health and wellbeing and offered no alternatives to her, which added to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
  13. In the stage 2 response, it upheld the complaint and offered additional compensation of £350, made up of £250 for time and trouble and £100 for service failure. This compensation acknowledged that the time and trouble experienced by the resident at this stage was substantial, which was appropriate.
  14. However, its offer of £100 for service failure was insufficient in the circumstances. It acknowledged the impact on the resident’s mental health but did not offer an apology for this. This was not an appropriate response considering the severity of the issue. The landlord should have taken further steps to apologise for the severity of the ongoing issue and should have considered a higher level of compensation as it failed to provide a lasting repair for an issue that had been reported unresolved for over 2 months. It failed to identify the impact of the situation and missed opportunities to take steps to resolve the matter sooner.
  15. The Ombudsman has been informed that the repair work remained incomplete at the point that the resident chose to terminate her tenancy in March 2024.
  16. In summary, the landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s reports of issues with her toilet. While its responses to complaints were timely and proactive, the actions resulting from its responses were ineffective and caused distress and inconvenience. The landlord failed to adhere to its repairs policy by not treating the matter as an emergency throughout and working to the appropriate timescales. It did not show that it considered the impact of the issue on the resident in its decision making, despite what it knew from the resident. Its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified over a prolonged period. The resident was inconvenienced throughout, having to chase the landlord for responses and having to clean up sewage on a regular basis without any assistance from the landlord or its proper consideration of the associated risks. For these reasons, a finding of maladministration has been made.
  17. In considering compensation, an amount of £700 inclusive of the amounts already offered is reasonable for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident over an extended period. This amount has considered the Ombudsman remedies guidance along with the landlord’s compensation guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration for the landlord’s handling of reports about the toilet overflowing and flooding the bathroom.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay compensation to the resident of £700 inclusive of the amounts already offered for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused in the landlord’s handling of the toilet repair.
    3. Provide evidence to this Service of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider reviewing the effectiveness of its communication with its contractors to prevent delays in its response times.