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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202325240)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325240

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

28 May 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 the resident’s:
    1. Reports of leaks into her property that have caused damage, damp and mould.
    2. Request for the landlord to buy back her property.
    3. Complaint and the level of compensation offered.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner of the landlord having bought her share of the property in May 2014. The property is a 1 bedroom flat on the fourth floor of a five storey block. The landlord is the freeholder of the building.
  2. The resident reported leaks into her home at various times from 2018. These have in the main affected her bedroom. The landlord has provided evidence of its responses to the resident’s reports of water leaks from October 2020, when its inspection found water staining to the right hand corner of the main bedroom. A further inspection carried out in March 2021 looked at the balcony of the flat above the resident’s home. It found this to be the source of the leak, and it arranged for a contractor to carry out remedial works in May 2021. Due to access issues these did not start until June 2021. On 16 September 2021 the landlord confirmed that it had completed the works to the balcony above. It arranged with its main contractor to carry out repairs to the damage caused within the resident’s home.
  3. Following the resident’s reports of further leaks the landlord carried out works in December 2021, February and March 2022. These included works to seal around the flue and a repair to the flat roof above. It recorded that it spoke with the resident in May 2022 and that she was happy with the works it had carried out.
  4. On 8 November 2022, the resident reported that the landlord’s contractor “had cut a hole in her ceiling and water was pouring in”. It completed works to the concealed flue that ran through her bedroom on 21 November 2022. It put up scaffolding on 11 January 2023 to repair the ‘flue terminal’ which was damaged. It had found this to be a source of the internal leak. In March 2023 the landlord carried out an inspection and found staining to the external wall and damage to the resident’s bedroom wall. In May 2023 it carried out testing of the balcony above and recommended further repair work.
  5. The resident made a complaint to the landlord about the ongoing leaks into her home on 16 July 2023. She gave a timeline of leaks into her home and the repairs carried out. She said that in October 2022 the landlord had removed part of her ceiling. Water continued to leak into her home and the landlord had not completed the repairs. This had caused mould and fungus to develop which she had to remove. She had buckets and towels in her bedroom to catch the water. This was causing her extreme stress and anxiety. She wanted the landlord to consider buying back her share of the property. She said that the condition of her flat was getting worse, and she could not move home. She also did not feel that she should be liable to pay the excess for an insurance claim.
  6. The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 19 July 2023 and called her to discuss it on 20 July 2023. It wrote to her on 1 August 2023 to extend its response time for her complaint.
  7. It provided its stage 1 response on 2 August 2023. It apologised for the delay in its response and set out the detail of her complaint. In reply it said:
    1. Its senior surveyor had said that earlier works had been successful and that there had been no sign of water leaks for several months. The current leak was from other sources. This had been ongoing for over 6 months.
    2. It had given the resident regular updates of the steps it was taking through ‘WhatsApp’ messages.
    3. It would be putting up scaffolding on 7 August 2023 to carry out further works to the balcony above. These were to the parapet and balcony covering to both neighbouring flats above her.
    4. It had previously carried out works, “applying aquapol over the top of the torched felt” to the balcony above her property and the one next to it. It had also renewed the defective ‘flue terminal’. It said that this was the leaseholder’s responsibility, but it had done this free of charge.
    5. She should make a new claim with its buildings insurer for the damage caused to her home as the leak was from a different source.
    6. It had spoken with its home ownership manager. It said that it would not buy back her property. It apologised for the misdirection of her enquiry about this and its delay in responding.
    7. It was partially upholding her complaint as the works were taking longer than expected, however it had kept her updated. It would continue to investigate if these works were unsuccessful.
    8. It offered her £200 compensation. This included £100 for the delay in completing the work to stop the leak and £100 for her time and trouble.
  8. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 6 August 2023. She said that it had not provided a satisfactory response to her complaint. She did not believe that it had resolved the issue and that it had only been dry over the summer months where there had been no rainfall. The damage was consistently in the same area, so she did not accept that this was a separate leak. She believed that the landlord had failed to adequately repair the source of the leaks. Further, she believed that the compensation was insulting. She had taken time off work and had to buy and use a dehumidifier to dry the flat out. She asked why the landlord would not buy back her property.
  9. On 8 August 2023 a leak detection specialist carried out an inspection of the resident’s home and the property above her. The specialist’s report made recommendations for works to the balcony above the resident’s flat to address areas identified as the cause of the leak. The landlord’s records show that it confirmed that these works were complete on 12 September 2023. The landlord then carried out further investigations and works within the resident’s home. With the resident reporting on 30 September 2023 that water was still leaking into her home, entering around the window and wall in her bedroom. The landlord confirmed a further appointment with the resident for 23 October 2023
  10. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 18 October 2023. In this it partially upheld the resident’s complaint due to its complaint handling. It acknowledged that her complaint had been open longer than its 20 day target. It restated its position from it stage 1 that it had repaired the original leak and that a new leak had occurred. It set out the steps it had taken to trace and remedy the leak and said that it would continue to follow this up. It told her to make a claim against its buildings policy and provided a link to its website to enable her to do so. It also told her that she could make a public liability claim for any damages. Its home ownership team had contacted the resident directly to explain that it was unable to buy back the property. It said that in responding to her complaint at stage 1 it had “done what was required to provide … the appropriate outcome at the time”. It found no service failure by its repairs department. It said that it had responded within its “service level agreement”. It acknowledged that there remained an underlying issue. It was investigating this to find the root cause. It offered the resident compensation of £525. It broke this down as:
    1. £75 for the delay in its complaint handling.
    2. £100 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident.
    3. £350 as reimbursement to the resident as she had to make a second insurance claim.

After the landlord’s complaints process

  1. It carried out the inspection planned for 23 October 2023. A section of the ceiling in the bedroom was opened up. It found that the sealant around the flue pipe was defective, and water was tracking down a steel beam. It carried out further repairs to the balcony above in November 2023. The leak detection specialist returned in December 2023 following completion of these works. Its report dated 8 December 2023 noted that the remedial works to the balcony had been done to a high standard. It found that the extensive water damage to the resident’s flat was due to defective seals to the windows of the flat above her. It found that water was entering the flat and then tracking into the cavity of the building. It recommended works to the windows of the upstairs flat. Its report recorded that the resident’s bedroom wall was “completely saturated” from the continuing leak. The resident continued to experience water leaking into her home throughout December.
  2. On 3 January 2024 the landlord confirmed to the resident the steps it would now be taking. It had arranged for a glazing specialist to inspect the windows of the upstairs flat. The landlord would also be inspecting the roof coverings. Further, it would check the internal and external drainage to the 2 upstairs properties for areas of possible water ingress. It said it would tell the resident when it would do this. No further updates have been provided to this service by the landlord.
  3. The resident confirmed on 13 May 2025 that she continues to experience water leaking into her home in the same location and that the landlord was arranging to carry out further leak detection testing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told the landlord and the Ombudsman that the leaks have affected her health. This has caused her stress and anxiety. She also told the landlord that the damp and mould in her property had affected her asthma. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether the resident has been caused distress and inconvenience because of any failings on behalf of the landlord.
  2. The resident has highlighted that the leak into her home has been ongoing for several years. Within the background section of this report, we have captured some of the information provided by the landlord about its actions since October 2020. This is to provide context to the resident’s complaint. However, we expect residents to raise complaints with their landlords within a reasonable timeframe, usually within 12 months of an issue first occurring. Where there had been a significant delay in a resident raising a complaint, it is possible that contemporaneous evidence may not be available given the time that has elapsed. As such our assessment has focused on the landlord’s action through the 12 months leading to the resident raising a formal complaint in July 2023.

Reports of leaks into the property that have caused damage, damp and mould.

  1. Looking at the 12 month period leading to the resident’s formal complaint, the landlord’s main contractor was appointed to carry out works within the resident’s home. This followed her confirmation that all was okay in May 2022. The contractor removed a section of her ceiling in November 2022 due to a significant leak. The landlord completed repairs to the flue in January 2023. Further inspections in March and May 2023 confirmed a continuing leak. The landlord carried out a series of interventions over that time to trace the source of the leak and carry out repairs. These continued beyond the resident raising her complaint. Its records show that it repaired the flue pipe and ‘terminal’, carried out works to the balcony of the flat above hers and that of a neighbouring flat and completed a repair to the flat roof. The landlord also engaged a leak detection specialist to help it in finding the source of the leak and confirming the effectiveness of the repairs once complete. These actions were appropriate.
  2. However, the resident’s frustrations at the continued leak into her bedroom is understood. The landlord said within its complaint response that the leak had not been continuous. It is however difficult to determine if this is the case. The resident has experienced water entering her home in the same location over an extended period of time. The repairs completed by the landlord do appear to have provided periods when the leak stopped, but through the period prior to her formal complaint it does appear to have originated from the same source.
  3. The leak caused damp in her bedroom which led to the growth of fungus on her wall and ceiling. There was also damage to the window reveals where further water entered her home. The resident’s formal complaint to the landlord did not provide her with a satisfactory outcome as the leak continued beyond the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint process. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have set out within its complaint response the steps it intended to take to trace and repair the leak. Further given the extent of the damage to her home and the growth of mould and fungus, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have carried out mould treatments to her home. That it did not do so was a failure by the landlord.
  4. It is acknowledged that it can be extremely difficult to trace a leak that is concealed within the fabric of a building. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have shared with the resident details of the actions it was taking to trace the leak, the repairs that it would be carrying out and setting out what its next steps would be. By doing so and including time for providing her with regular updates would have ensured that she was fully aware of its actions. While it was not able to deliver a resolution to the leak through the time of her complaint to put in place a programme of regular updates would have been a positive step in rebuilding the relationship with the resident and reassuring her of its commitment to find a resolution. That it did not do so was a failure in the service of the landlord that amounted to maladministration.
  5. The resident has said that the actions taken at the beginning of 2024 did not address the leak and this remains ongoing. An order has been made for the landlord to carry out an inspection of the resident’s home and record the detail of the damage that has occurred. It should then provide a detailed action plan for tracing and remedying the leak. This should include clear timescales. Further the landlord should agree with the resident a frequency with which it will update her on its progress. This will enable her to be engaged in the process and see the steps being taken.

Request for the landlord to buy back her property.

  1. On 5 July 2023 the resident asked the landlord’s senior surveyor if it would consider buying back her share of her home. He told her to contact the landlord’s home ownership team, which she did via email. The landlord did not reply to her enquiry. The resident then raised this issue as part of her complaint on 16 July 2023.
  2. As part of the investigation of her complaint, the landlord’s home ownership team confirmed that it had misdirected her enquiry internally and it had failed to respond. The landlord apologised to her for its error. It told her through its complaint response that it would not buy back her property. Its home ownership team was to contact her directly on this issue. When she asked for further information on this point in her stage 2 complaint, the landlord again referred to correspondence from its home ownership team. It did not give the resident an explanation as to why it would not consider her request. The landlord has provided no evidence of correspondence from its home ownership team with the resident. That it did not respond directly to her request or provide a more detailed explanation of its position through its complaint response was a service failure.
  3. The impact of the leaks into the resident’s home are clearly a source of frustration and have affected her ability to sell her property. There is no legal obligation on the landlord to buy back its shared ownership homes and it has no policy to do so. The Ombudsman does not have the power to order the landlord to buy back her property. We have ordered the landlord to revisit the resident’s request and provide her with a detailed explanation as to why it will not consider buying back her property.  

Complaint and the level of compensation offered.

  1. The landlord has provided a copy of its complaints policy. This was effective from May 2021. It sets out a 2 stage process for handling complaints. It says that it will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. It says that if it cannot meet these timescales, it will notify the resident and agree a later date for its reply. The landlord has also provided a copy of its compensation policy. This sets out the basis on which it will consider an award of compensation. It says that it will make an offer of compensation to “restore our customers to the position they would have been in if the service failure did not occur”. The policy sets a tariff for compensation based on the severity of the defined failure, considered to be low, medium or high.
  2. When investigating a case, 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.
  3. At stage 1 the landlord correctly acknowledged the resident’s complaint and called her to discuss it with her. Further, it wrote to her to say that there may be a delay in its response. It provided its reply on 2 August 2023 which met its 10 working day target. Its response provided details of the works that it had previously carried out and what it was now doing. It gave advice to the resident about making a claim against its buildings insurance and apologised for the delay in the reply from its home ownership team.
  4. The stage 1 acknowledged that the leak had been ongoing for over 6 months but only partly upheld her complaint. It gave the regular contact from its surveyor with the resident as the reason for this. The evidence provided shows regular contact with the resident about the leak and the planned repairs between 1 June to 14 July 2024. While the level of communication was positive, it is not evidenced that this continued outside of this period. The nature of and the extended time over which the leak had been ongoing was an understandable frustration to the resident. It would have been right for the landlord to have acknowledged this in its response and its offer of compensation. That it did not do so was a failure within its complaint handling.
  5. There were complaint handling delays at stage 2 of the landlord’s process.  The resident escalated her complaint on 6 August 2023, but the landlord only sent its stage 2 reply on 18 October 2023, 53 working days later. It did write to the resident on 1 September 2023 to tell her that it would need longer to reply to her complaint as “it was still working on a resolution”. There is no evidence that it agreed this extension with the resident. It took a further 33 days to provide its response.
  6. This delay was a failure by the landlord. This service’s complaint handling code (the Code) says that “a complaint response must be provided to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed”. The landlord should have responded to the issues within the resident’s escalated complaint within its published timescale. It should have provided her with an action plan for the steps it intended to take to address the leak to her home. It could then have monitored the progress of these to ensure that they were actioned promptly and that she was kept informed on progress.
  7. The landlord’s response lacked empathy for the resident and the impact of the ongoing leak into her home. Further it referenced that it had carried out a repair to the boiler flue, which was the leaseholder’s responsibility, without charging her. The service notes that the landlord completed work to the flue on at least 3 occasions over the period, as it said this was a source of the leak. In such circumstances it was entirely right for the landlord to have done so at its own expense.
  8. Despite its delayed response it said that there was still an underlying issue and that it was investigating the route course. It did not provide the resident with any clear detail as to what action it intended to take to put things right. The landlord’s failure to follow its complaints policy timescales and significant delay in responding to the resident’s escalated complaint amounts to maladministration.
  9. The landlord offered a total of £725 compensation across both stages of the resident’s complaint. This included an award of £350 as reimbursement against her having to make a further insurance claim and £100 for the impact of the leak. Further it included £75 for its poor complaint handling, together with a total of £200 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident. Considering the failures found within this report the landlord’s offer was not proportionate and an order for additional compensation has been made below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks into her property which caused damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to buy back her property
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and the level of compensation offered.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the identified failings. This should be in line with the Service’s guidance on remedies.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £650 compensation, calculated as follows:
      1. £200 for failures in its complaints handling. This is in addition to the £75 it awarded at stage 2 of its process.
      2. £450 in recognition of the impact on the resident of the continued leak into her home.
      3. This is in addition to the £725 awarded by the landlord across its stage 1 and 2 responses to the resident. It should ensure that it has paid this.
      4. The landlord must provide evidence that its payments to the resident to demonstrate its compliance with this order.
    3. Provide the resident with a written reply to her request that the landlord buy back her home. This should tell her why it will not consider her request and set out what options are open to her to help her should she wish to pursue a move.
    4. Conduct a further inspection of the resident’s home to assess the leak and the extent of damage to her flat. The landlord should provide the resident with an action plan, setting clear timescales for the next steps it will take to find a resolution. This should include agreement for the landlord to provide the resident with regular updates. A copy should be shared with us as evidence of the landlord’s compliance.
    5. The landlord should support the resident in making a claim against the building’s insurance for the internal repairs needed to her home. It is noted that within its compensation award the landlord offered an amount to cover the excess the resident would incur in making a claim. The landlord should meet any difference between this, and the excess applied when a claim is made.