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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202408102)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202408102

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

22 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s housing transfer application for a move on medical grounds.
    2. A safeguarding referral.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord under an agreement dated 15 February 2010. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 4-bedroom house. The resident and his wife have learning disabilities. His wife has a physical disability. The resident’s son also has a disability.
  2. The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 December 2023 concerning the resident’s housing application for a transfer. The letter explained that the resident had not been awarded additional priority following a medical assessment. The landlord said that it would only reassess if there was a change in medical needs. In a second letter the same date, also sent to the resident, the landlord said that the housing transfer application had been given a medium medical priority. This was due to the resident’s wife’s medical needs.
  3. The landlord completed a welfare concern report following the resident’s phone call on 11 December 2023. The landlord recorded that during the call the resident said he felt harassed and suicidal following the outcome of the medical assessment. The landlord made a referral to emergency services on 12 December due to its concern for the resident’s welfare.
  4. The resident raised a complaint on 13 December 2023. He said that the ambulance service had arrived at 5.00 am that day. He said the ambulance was not needed and that the landlord was wasting the ambulance service’s time. He also referred to similar instances previously. He said he had submitted a housing application and was not happy about the assessment that he would get no medical priority. As an outcome he requested all medical evidence to be destroyed along with his housing application account.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 6 February 2024. It apologised for the delay in responding which it said was due to staff sickness and its lack of communication. It said:
    1. That the welfare referral was made as the resident had threatened to self-harm whilst on the phone. It had a duty of care and followed the correct process. It would pass on internally the resident’s information that the ambulance service would treat further calls as a hoax. However, it would continue to follow its process.
    2. If the resident wished for his medical evidence to be destroyed, this would result in his housing application being cancelled. It understood that the resident wished to continue with his application.
    3. It partially upheld the complaint due to the complaint handling and awarded £75 compensation.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response and requested that the landlord escalate his complaint on 6 February 2024. He was also unhappy with the way that the landlord required him to claim the compensation due to his communication difficulties. He claimed that the landlord had broken the Equality Act 2010.
  7. The landlord sent its final response on 29 May 2024. It reiterated its response at stage 1. It awarded an additional £25 compensation regarding the delay in its response.
  8. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response and referred his complaint to us on 29 May 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In this case, the resident is seeking to be awarded increased priority for a home move. A decision to award priority increasing a resident’s banding or to approve a medical move, is outside of the scope of the Ombudsman’s powers. However, we have considered the landlord’s handling of the application.
  2. The resident disagrees with the landlord’s decision to make a safeguarding referral. The landlord has a duty to make safeguarding referrals, if it has concerns about the welfare of its residents. It is then the duty of the agency receiving the referral to decide what action it should take. The Ombudsman cannot decide on whether a referral was appropriate, however, we can investigate if the landlord followed its own policy and procedures when contacting the emergency services.
  3. The resident said that the landlord had breached the Equality Act 2010. The Ombudsman has no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act – this can only be done by the courts. However, we can decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties and followed its own related policies and procedures. Landlords may be able to show they have properly considered the Equality Act if they consider the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected.
  4. For the avoidance of doubt, this investigation concentrates on the period from December 2023 prior to the resident’s complaint to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response of 29 May 2024.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing transfer application for a move on medical grounds

  1. The landlord’s records show that the resident submitted a housing transfer application on 1 December 2023. The landlord supported the resident in completing the application which was reasonable as the resident has communication issues that the landlord was aware of. The landlord required medical evidence to assess the medical priority to be awarded for the resident and his household. It uses a third-party provider, NowMedical.
  2. On 7 December 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that a medium medical priority had been given in respect of the resident’s housing transfer application. This was due to the resident’s wife’s medical needs. On the same day the landlord wrote a second letter to the resident to say that the resident had received no additional priority due to medical needs. This was understandably confusing to the resident, as the letters would appear to contain conflicting information.
  3. In communicating with the resident, the landlord needed to be mindful of its duties under the Equality Act 2010 around any reasonable adjustments required due to the resident’s disability. The landlord needed to consider and record what adjustments were required in its communication so that it could explain the apparent contradictory letters ensuring that the resident understood them. Whilst the landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response of 29 May 2024 that it had received no notification that the resident could not read or write, this was incorrect.
  4. The resident had already advised the landlord that he was unable to read and write in his separate complaint of 13 March 2023 that we determined on 29 August 2024 (case reference 202309979). We also notified the landlord on 11 August 2023 that the resident had communication difficulties. The fact that the landlord had not recorded this appropriately, indicates issues of poor record keeping.
  5. Our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023), highlights the importance of keeping accurate and up-to-dates records. This enables landlords to respond appropriately to its residents, especially when they have additional needs. It is recommended that the landlord should review its self-assessment of its records management in line with our recommendations, if it has not already done so.
  6. The resident’s frustration was evident when he phoned the landlord on 8 December 2023. He expressed frustration with his lack of understanding of the landlord’s position that led him to asking the landlord to destroy all his medical information. He also terminated the phone call. The landlord would have been unable to fully explain to the resident why 2 letters were sent due to this.  
  7. Before the resident terminated the phone call, the landlord said that it would phone him again within 2 days. When the landlord phoned the resident on 11 December 2023, within 2 working days, it explained what the letters meant. The evidence provided shows that the resident then understood their meaning. The landlord explained that one letter related to the medical assessment for the resident’s wife, while the other letter related to the resident’s medical assessment. Overall, with the impact on the housing application was that it had received a medium medical priority based on needs of the resident’s wife. It reasonably suggested that it could consider arranging a welfare panel to see if any further priority could be given to the resident on welfare grounds due to its welfare concerns. It also noted that the resident becomes agitated when he does not understand something and asked if he required further support which was reasonable.
  8. According to the landlord’s transfer policy, its allocations panel can decide on the grounds of safeguarding and welfare needs based on supporting evidence.  The transfer policy states that there is no right of appeal where a transfer application is made on medical grounds. However, a medical reassessment can be completed where additional evidence is supplied by a specialist healthcare professional. The landlord was correct to refer to its third-party medical assessor in line with its policy. However, there was no outcome recorded of a decision about setting up a welfare panel at this time which was inappropriate.
  9. The landlord clearly discussed the resident’s request in his complaint of 13 December 2024 to destroy all his medical information with the resident. It discussed the impact of this as it would lead to his housing application being cancelled. It provided a contact number in case the resident changed his mind about cancelling his application. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain the implications of destroying the resident’s medical information so that the resident could make an informed decision.
  10. The landlord said again in its final complaint response of 29 May 2024 that it could consider arranging a welfare panel to see if any priority could be awarded due to welfare concerns being raised. There are no records that any decision was made regarding the setting up of a welfare panel at this time and throughout the landlord’s internal complaints process which was unreasonable. The resident would have had a reasonable expectation that this would happen, given that the landlord first mentioned this on 11 December 2023 and it was at this point 5 months’ later. The landlord unreasonably delayed the panel, which was not actually set up until 9 October 2024, 10 months’ later. It is unclear from the evidence whether additional welfare priority was awarded. The landlord requested a further medical assessment at that time but again this resulted in no further priority in respect of the resident’s needs. The delay would have caused unnecessary distress and frustration to the resident, along with the time and trouble caused to the resident in pursuing his complaint.
  11. The landlord acted unreasonably as it failed to keep accurate records to document the resident’s needs and to consider its duties under the Equality Act 2010 in making reasonable adjustments in its communication with the resident. There was also unreasonable delay in its consideration of a welfare panel to review the resident’s housing transfer application. For these reasons, the Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration for which orders have been made. The landlord was ordered in the separate case mentioned above, to carry out a review of the resident’s vulnerabilities and required reasonable adjustments. It should review the resident’s required reasonable adjustments to ensure that they are kept up to date.
  12. Having carefully considered the guidance on remedies, a fair level of compensation would be £550. This comprises £350 in respect of the delays and failings identified and £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble caused to the resident recognising the greater impact on him due to his disability.

 

The landlord’s handling of a safeguarding referral

  1. The Landlord’s internal email of 8 December 2023 described a phone call that day with the resident. This detailed that the resident said that he felt that the landlord was putting him in a situation where he would take his own life. The landlord raised a referral to its in-house assessment and support team. It requested a further phone call be made with the resident to assist and allay his concerns. This was in line with its additional customer requirements (ACR) policy that says a referral should be made within 1 working day. The referral was closed with no further action required. It is unclear, from the landlord’s records why no further action was required.
  2. The landlord completed another referral on 11 December 2023 under its ACR policy following its phone call with the resident that day. It recorded this as a ‘level 3’ for complex needs but stated that no further action was required.
  3. The landlord’s additional customer requirements policy (ACR) states it will make referrals to its in-house team within 1 working day. It will triage a referral to identify if there is a single need, complex need or a high-risk including safeguarding. A high risk is identified as an immediate risk such as a threat to life. As the 11 December 2023 referral was made within 1 working day this was reasonable as it was in line with its associated policy.
  4. The landlord’s safeguarding policy says that it will contact emergency services immediately if it believes that someone needs urgent assistance. It will inform a manager and safeguarding support manager. Though the landlord explained in its complaint responses that it followed its ACR policy, the policy is not totally clear as to when its safeguarding policy should apply. It references this could apply where there is a high risk. The policy does not give a specific timeframe as to how long a risk assessment should take to triage the internal referrals. The landlord could consider amending its policies so that it offers further clarity on these issues.
  5. The landlord’s records evidence that it triaged the 11 December 2023 referral on 12 December 2023. The landlord’s risk assessment led it to call the emergency services. Its records evidence that it initially sought clarification internally. This was understandable given that the referral form reported that the resident may be suicidal but went on to say that no action was required. However, the landlord’s colleagues who had spoken to the resident were on leave. This meant that the landlord had to risk assess the information without having a full understanding of the phone call. The ambulance service attended the resident’s property on 13 December 2023 at 5.00 am.
  6. It is understandable that the resident would be alarmed at the ambulance arriving early that morning, when the resident and members of his household were likely to have been asleep. The resident told us that he only said to the landlord that it was making him feel like committing suicide, as opposed to him intending to do this. He said that the landlord was wasting the ambulance service’s time. As mentioned above, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine the appropriateness of the ambulance being called. Rather we would consider the landlord’s policies and procedures to determine whether it had acted fairly and reasonably in all the circumstances.
  7. Although the landlord’s records were unclear as to which policy it was applying to its actions, its actions were understandable. It would need to respond appropriately, when the resident suggested that he may self-harm or commit suicide. This is because it would be deemed to be a high risk and threat to life.
  8. In considering all the circumstances of this case, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s response was therefore reasonable and in line with its policies. There was therefore no maladministration for the landlord’s handling of a safeguarding referral.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The resident raised his stage 1 complaint on 13 December 2023. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was delayed as it was not sent until 6 February 2024. This was 37 working days, or 7 weeks after the resident’s complaint was submitted and there is no evidence that an acknowledgement was sent which was inappropriate.
  2. The resident requested an escalation of his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process on 6 February 2024. This time, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint escalation request on 7 February 2024. However, it stage 2 complaint response was also unreasonably delayed. It was not sent until 29 May 2024.This was 78 working days, or 15 weeks from the acknowledgement being sent.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond at stage 1 and stage 2 within the “requirements of the appropriate Ombudsman”. This may be the case, but it would be appropriate for the landlord to be specific about what the response requirements are within its policy. The Code requires a response to be sent at stage 1 within 10 working days of an acknowledgement being sent. It requires a response to be sent at stage 2 within 20 working days of an acknowledgement being sent. The Code allows for an extension of time, but that this should be agreed with the resident and should not exceed 10 working days at stage 1, or a further 20 working days at stage 2 of the complaints process.
  4. The landlord explained that the delay at stage 1 was due to staff sickness. Though, it is understood that this could impact on a response, there is no record that the landlord communicated or agreed any extension with the resident which was inappropriate. The landlord also needed to ensure that it had good record and information management so that a complaint response at stage 1 could be actioned appropriately during staff sickness.
  5. A delayed response and lack of communication with the resident would make the resident feel frustrated and ignored. It would cause greater detriment due to the resident’s disabilities that the landlord was previously aware of.
  6. The complaint response at stage 2 also contained incorrect information, as described above, with the landlord stating that it had not been notified that the resident was unable to read or write. Furthermore, the landlord wrote the stage 2 complaint response to the resident’s wife, stating that it had not received authority to share information with the resident about the account. This was an inappropriate statement, given that the tenancy was a joint tenancy. It is not known why the landlord responded in this way, or whether it had checked the tenancy details prior to its response.
  7. The resident also reported difficulties in accessing the compensation offered at stage 1 of the landlord’s internal complaints process. He said that he needed a reasonable adjustment to be able to follow the correct process. This highlighted the need for a more person-centred approach in the landlord’s complaint handling which was not evident during this investigation.
  8. The Code requires that landlords should make reasonable adjustments for residents where appropriate under the Equality Act in its complaint handling. Landlords must record any agreed reasonable adjustments as well as a record of any disabilities. Any reasonable adjustments must be kept under active review. It is unclear whether the landlord has reviewed the resident’s reasonable adjustments following our previous determination in August 2024. The landlord should therefore review this with the resident to ensure it is accurate.
  9. The landlord awarded £75 compensation at stage 1 and £25 at stage 2 of its complaints process for poor complaints handling. The landlord’s remedies policy states that the landlord can award up to £100 for distress, inconvenience and time and trouble where this is a low impact. It can award up to £200 compensation for a medium impact and it can award up to £500 for a high impact. The landlord’s compensation awards were low in comparison to its policy, particularly when considering that a lower amount was offered at stage 2 when the delay was longer. It needed to properly consider the increased detriment caused to the resident due to its errors, poor communication and delays in its complaint handling. This was inappropriate.
  10. The Ombudsman would have found maladministration in respect of the delayed response, failure to consider any required reasonable adjustments and lack of appropriate communication. However, the landlord has suitably recognised and offered compensation for the delays in its complaints handling during its internal complaints process. The Ombudsman considers that there were additional failings that were identified. This includes the errors and the poor communication, along with the lack of consideration of any reasonable adjustments required by the resident. The Ombudsman has therefore found service failure for which orders have been made.
  11. After careful consideration of our remedy’s guidance above, an appropriate level of compensation is £200 (inclusive of the £100 previously offered). This appropriately recognises the impact on the resident of the service failings identified. This includes the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing transfer application for a move on medical grounds.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a safeguarding referral.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to issue a written apology from a senior leader to the resident for the failings identified in this report. This should be provided in a compatible format for the resident’s text to speech software.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident directly £550 in compensation for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing transfer application for a move on medical grounds. This appropriately recognises the unnecessary distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings.
  3. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident directly £200 (inclusive of the £100 previously offered) in compensation for the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
  4. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident to update its records on the resident’s required reasonable adjustments.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord should review its self-assessment of its knowledge and information management in line with the recommendations within our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023) if it has not already done so, to improve its record keeping practice.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord should review of its ACR policy to ensure clarity as to when its safeguarding policy should apply, and to the timescales that it should complete the triage process.