Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202419735)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419735

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

11 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom flat.
On 17 February 2024, the resident reported a leak in her bathroom. She reported that water filled up her toilet, bath, and sink, which overflowed into her bathroom. The landlord advised the resident to isolate the water at the stopcock and attended within 4 hours. Its records note that it checked the manhole and found no sign of a blockage. It flushed the toilet multiple times and found no issue. It left the site safe and clean. The contractor recommended a CCTV survey of all lines in the manhole outside the property and reported damage to the flooring in the hallway.
On 19 February 2024, the resident called the landlord and reported that the blockage she reported had resolved by itself. However, the landlord had not followed up to check the main drain.
On 26 February 2024, the resident raised a complaint. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her reports of a leak. She said that the landlord’s initial advice to isolate to the stopcock was incorrect because it did not resolve the issue. She said that the landlord attended within 4 hours and said it would carry out an inspection of the drainage system but it failed to do this. The resident wanted the landlord to replace the damaged flooring.
On 6 March 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It said that it had advised the resident that isolating the stopcock may have helped with the issue until it attended. It said that it attended within 4 hours and confirmed that it needed a drainage contractor to inspect the drainage system which it carried out on 28 February 2024.
On 6 June 2024, the resident escalated her complaint. She was unhappy that the landlord failed to address her damaged flooring. She said that the floor was in a bad way and she was embarrassed to open her front door. As a resolution she wanted the landlord to replace her flooring.
On 24 July 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord acknowledged and apologised that it had failed to address the issue of her damaged flooring at stage 1. It confirmed that it had responded to the resident’s repair requests in line with its policies and procedures. It further acknowledged a delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response. It offered compensation compromising:
1. £100 for poor complaints handling in failing to address the damaged flooring
2. £50 for delay in providing a stage 2 complaint response
3. £150 gesture of goodwill for the cost of replacement flooring.
On 19 August 2024, the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She remained unhappy because she wanted the landlord to replace the flooring instead of offering compensation. She was also unhappy that it did not contact her before issuing the stage 2 complaint response.

Events after the internal complaints process

On 8 January 2025, the resident advised the Ombudsman that her flooring was still water damaged and she wanted the landlord to replace it.
On 14 February 2025, the landlord advised the Ombudsman that it had carried out a review of the complaint. It found that it:
1. Failed to signpost the resident to insurers for a potential claim for the damaged flooring.
2. Missed an opportunity to identify the financial implications of the damage for the resident.
3. Failed to advise the resident of the reason for the delay in providing a stage 2 complaint response.
4. Failed to discuss the gesture of goodwill offer to the resident.
As a resolution it offered:
1. A further £100 compensation for complaint handling failure to signpost the resident to insurers.
2. A further £25 for failing to communicate the delay at stage 2.
3. To replace the flooring in lieu of the goodwill gesture offered at stage 2.

It also implemented a number of improvements to its internal complaint handling process to reduce the likelihood of the same service failing reoccurring.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The evidence shows that after its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord has provided further consideration to its response to the resident’s issues and considered further redress. As such, the Ombudsman considers it fair to assess events up until 14 February 2025, when the landlord provided details of its case review.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak.

It is not disputed that there were service failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak. When the resident escalated her complaint, she accepted that the landlord had responded to the report of a leak within its timescales but remained unhappy with its response to the damaged flooring. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord accepted that it failed to address the flooring damage in its stage 1 complaint response. It its stage 2 complaint response it made an offer of compensation towards the replacement flooring.
When the landlord reviewed the case after the resident brought its complaint to the Ombudsman, it found that it failed to discuss with the resident its goodwill gesture offer before it provided its stage 2 complaint response. It found that the resident wanted the floor replaced instead of compensation and offered this alternative.
When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is the role of the Ombudsman to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman finds that there was service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak. While its final complaint response went some way to putting things right for the resident, it failed to address the issue for the resident. The landlord’s subsequent offer to replace the flooring was reasonable in these circumstances. This was the outcome the resident requested when she brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.
Although the landlord’s revised actions can be said to have put things right for the resident, the landlord failed to resolve the substantive issue of her complaint until several months after it had issued its final response. The Ombudsman’s outcomes guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot be determined under such circumstances.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of acknowledgement of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord accepted that it failed address the flooring damage through its complaint process. It apologised and offered £100 for this complaint handling failure. This was a reasonable offer of compensation in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
The landlord delayed in providing its stage 2 complaint response by 14 working days. It acknowledged this failing in its stage 2 complaint response and offered £50 for the delay. When it reviewed the case after the complaint was brought to the Ombudsman, it further considered that it had not explained the reason for the delay and offered a further £25 for this failing. This was a reasonable offer of compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
When the landlord reviewed the case after the complaint was brought to the Ombudsman, it considered that it had not signposted the resident to insurers for a potential claim for the flooring damage. It offered a further £100 for this complaint handling failure. This was a reasonable offer in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
The Ombudsman finds that there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling. Although its revised actions can be said to have put things right for the resident, the landlord failed to address the complaint handling issues until several months after its final response. The Ombudsman’s outcomes guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot be determined under such circumstances.
It is recognised that the landlord has put quality assurance measures in place, improved its feedback process, and improved its management oversight of complaints since its review of this complaint. These were positive steps to reduce the likelihood of the same complaint issue reoccurring. As such, no learning orders have been made in this case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

If it has not already done so, it is ordered for the landlord to contact the resident to arrange replacement of her flooring. It should provide a timescale for the repair and agree a communication plan with the resident.
If it has not already done so, it is ordered for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £275 offered on 14 February 2025, for its complaint handling failures, compromising:
1. £100 for its failure to address damaged flooring in its complaint.
2. £50 for delay in providing a stage 2 complaint response.
3. £100 for failing to signpost the resident to insurers.
4. £25 for failing to communicate the reason for the delay in providing the stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report.