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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202335707)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335707

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

11 April 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 response to the resident’s reports of draughts in the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has occupied the property, a 3-bedroom house, since 2008. The landlord confirmed it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the household.
  2. On 25 October 2023, the resident complained to the landlord. He said he was unhappy that it had not resolved a window repair he had first reported in March 2023. He said that despite contacting the landlord on numerous occasions about the windows that were causing cold draughts in the property, he had not received an update. As an outcome to the complaint, the resident asked the landlord to inspect the windows and confirm when they were due for replacement.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 November 2023. It said:
    1. It upheld the resident’s complaint. This was because it accepted he had made “repeated attempts” to make it aware of the issues with the windows, and the repairs it had undertaken had been ineffective in resolving the draughts.
    2. The windows were installed in 2007 and had a 30-year lifespan (so were due for renewal in 2037). It was for this reason that it had initially intended to exhaust all repair possibilities before replacing the units.
    3. A recent inspection on 31 October 2023 confirmed that the windows in the property needed to be replaced as the gaskets and seals had shrunk. The window replacement was now scheduled as a priority for the 2024/25 financial year, and the planned works team would contact the resident nearer the time to arrange the works.
    4. It acknowledged that the property had single convector radiators, and the loft insulation was also minimal. In the meantime, it had arranged for an external contractor to undertake a heat loss survey in the property to ensure it was warm during the winter months.
    5. It accepted that the delays to the window repairs had caused mould to form on the bathroom ceiling. As a result, it had arranged for insulated plasterboard to be installed in the bathroom.
    6. All outstanding repairs had a target completion date of 28 November 2023.
    7. It offered the resident £200 in compensation, calculated as follows:
      1. £75 for its failure to rectify the window repairs.
      2. £100 for time and trouble.
      3. £25 for its delayed complaint response.
  4. We have not had sight of the resident’s request to escalate his complaint to stage 2. However, within the landlord’s acknowledgement email on 29 November 2023, it said that it recognised the resident was unhappy that the remedial works promised within the stage 1 response had not been undertaken within the timescales it agreed with him.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 12 January 2024. It said:
    1. It apologised to the resident for falsely raising his expectations by giving an incorrect target date for the completion of the repairs (post stage 1). Due to the scope of the works required, the repairs should have been raised under a “planned priority”, with a 6-week target date for completion.
    2. With regard to the bathroom ceiling repair, a job was raised to install thermal boarding, undertake localised mould treatment and paint the bathroom ceiling. It post–inspected the work after 7 December 2023 and identified that the redecoration works had not been completed, and damage had been caused to the window board in the bathroom. Its records showed that the repair contractor reattended on 28 December 2023 to redecorate the ceiling, but the resident advised it was inconvenient to repair the window board on that date. This was then rescheduled for 16 January 2024, alongside the interim draught proofing works to the current windows.
    3. The full window renewal was still scheduled for the 2024/25 financial year.
    4. The heat loss survey undertaken on 28 November 2023 confirmed that:
      1. The level of loft insulation was low, and the required work was undertaken on 1 December 2023.
      2. 7 radiators in the property required an upgrade. The works were completed on 8 January 2024.
    5. It apologised for its delayed stage 2 complaint response.
    6. It offered the resident an additional £100 compensation (bringing the total to £300), calculated as follows:
      1. £25 for service failure.
      2. £50 for time and trouble.
      3. £25 for poor complaint handling.

Events after the end of the complaint process

  1. On 25 January 2024, the resident informed us that the draught proofing repairs scheduled for 16 January 2024 did not go ahead as the repair contractor did not attend. This was rearranged for completion on 30 January 2024. The resident contacted us again on 12 February 2023 to advise that the repairs were outstanding but were due to be completed on 14 February 2024.
  2. On 11 June 2024, the landlord informed us that it had reviewed the compensation offer it had made to the resident at stage 2. It said that it had subsequently offered him an additional £200 (making its total offer £500). The total was calculated as follows:
    1. £200 for the delayed repair works. It calculated this from March 2023 at £20 per month.
    2. £250 for time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience.
    3. £50 for complaint handling.
  3. The landlord informed us that the windows in the property were replaced via its planned works scheme on 12 August 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The landlord’s subsequent compensation award in June 2024 is both welcome and significant. However, as it was made 5 months after it had issued its stage 2 response, it cannot be fairly considered part of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure (ICP). This means we cannot use its offer to reach a reasonable redress finding in its handling of the resident’s reports of draughts in the property. We will, however, assess this within the complaint handling section of this report.

Reports of draughts in the property

  1. The landlord’s repair guide for tenants states that it is responsible for repairing windows (except window locks). It further stipulates that it will undertake “routine repairs” within 28 calendar days and “major routine repairs” within 3 months or as part of its planned programme of works.
  2. The resident first reported a repair in relation to the windows of the property on 23 January 2023. He told the landlord that all the window frames in the property were causing draughts, especially those in the bedroom and living room. The landlord’s repair contractor attended on 13 February 2023. It replaced “faulty” friction hinges to the bedroom window opener, adjusted the “bowed” living room window frame, and sealed around both windows. It also checked all the other windows in the property and “no draughts were found”. We find that the landlord acted reasonably and attended in line with the repair timescales outlined in its repair guide.
  3. Within the resident’s request to make a formal complaint on 25 October 2023, he told the landlord that he had raised the issue with draughts in the property on 13 March 2023. Also, in later correspondence the resident asked the landlord to provide him with an update following the inspection that was undertaken “in March 2023”. The evidence shows that an inspection was undertaken on 28 March 2023, however it is unclear what the inspection was in relation to. This is because a work order was raised for damp and mould, but not for the windows. Following an inspection, we would expect to see detailed notes about the visit, including any proposed works and discussions with the resident. The landlord’s failure to do so amounts to a record keeping failure and has meant that we have been unable to fully assess its actions at this point of the case.
  4. On 17 March 2023, a repair was raised for a specialist glazing contractor to rectify an issue with condensation between 3 windowpanes in the property. From the evidence provided, it is unclear if this issue impacted the performance of the windows (and contributed towards draughts in the property), or whether it was cosmetic only. Nevertheless, 2 of the windows were replaced on 5 May 2023, and the other on 23 May 2023. The landlord exceeded the 28-day timeframe but fell within the 3-month timeframe outlined in its repair guide. As it is not apparent what priority this repair was given, we are unable to comment on the reasonableness of the timescale to complete the repair. This is a record keeping failure in the landlord’s handling of the issue. However, we acknowledge the national glass shortage during this period, and it is positive that the repair contractor kept the resident informed of the appointments throughout the 2-month period.
  5. The landlord’s repair guide for tenants states that its repairs service will be quick and reliable, and it will keep its residents informed. Between 4 May 2023 and 25 October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord on 9 occasions about the windows in the property. He requested an update about the window repairs following an inspection earlier in the year and wanted the landlord to confirm when the windows were due for renewal. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to any of the resident’s contacts, which was inappropriate. It also did not demonstrate that it took a suitably empathetic and supportive approach in response to the resident’s obvious frustration.
  6. It was appropriate that the landlord inspected the windows in the property on 31 October 2023 and produced comprehensive records, which identified issues with 7 windows in the property. Based on its findings, it was reasonable that it then approved the window renewal via its planned work scheme. However, given that the resident had been reporting the issue for 8 months, we find that the landlord should have come to these conclusions sooner.
  7. It was positive that following the stage 1 complaint, the landlord arranged interim works to make the property warmer until the windows could be replaced. However, it was inappropriate that it raised the repairs under the incorrect repair priority which falsely raised the resident’s expectations and caused him further inconvenience in chasing appointments.
  8. The landlord informed us in July 2024 that following the stage 2 complaint, all draught proofing works were completed “as advised”. However, the resident contacted us in January and February 2024 to notify us that the works had been delayed. While we do not dispute the resident’s comments, we have not received any documentary evidence to support either party’s assertion, and we are therefore unable to make an assessment on this matter.
  9. The landlord informed us that it replaced the windows in the property in August 2024. This was reasonable, as the landlord had informed the resident in its stage 2 response that it would replace the windows in the 2024/25 financial year. As we have not received any contact from the resident since 23 February 2024, it is reasonable to assume that the windows were replaced satisfactorily.
  10. Taking all the above into account, we find that the landlord’s combined stage 1 and stage 2 offer of £250 (not including the £50 for complaint handling) was low and failed to take the impact on the resident and length of delays into account.
  11. Overall, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of draughts in the property because:
    1. Its communication with the resident was inadequate.
    2. It failed to comply with its repair timescales and took 12 months to rectify the draughts in the property.
    3. Its record keeping was poor.
    4. While it made some attempt to put things right, its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified.
  12. As such, the revised amount of compensation the landlord offered the resident in June 2024 – which is considered reasonable – has been ordered.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are also to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days. If an extension is required at either stage of the complaints process, the landlord will notify the resident and agree a new timescale. The applicable version of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) allowed for a further 10-day extension at both stages. If an extension exceeded 10 days, it should be for good reason and agreed by both parties.
  2. On 25 October 2023, the resident made a complaint. In line with the landlord’s complaint policy, it appropriately acknowledged the complaint 2 working days later (on 27 October 2023).
  3. On 9 November 2023, the landlord informed the resident that it needed to extend the deadline to 22 November 2023 for answering his stage 1 complaint. It then issued its stage 1 response on 20 November 2023. This was 16 working days from the date of acknowledgement, and therefore within the extended timescales permitted by the Code. The landlord was right to inform the resident in advance of its anticipated delay in responding and acted in line with its policy.
  4. When it responded, it was positive that the landlord acknowledged it had provided a poor service to the resident and “upheld” his complaint. However, although not obligated to do so, it is good practice for landlords to provide a timeline of events for the substantive issue within formal complaint responses. This allows them to demonstrate that they have undertaken a comprehensive investigation and considered all the facts within the case. As the landlord did not do so within its stage 1 response, we find that it overlooked some important facts and ultimately failed to offer an appropriate amount of compensation for its handling of the repairs.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 response stated that the resident’s complaint was received on 27 October 2023. This was inaccurate, as he first made the complaint on 25 October 2023. Although this error is likely to have had minimal impact on the resident, we expect landlords to ensure accurate records of complaints are maintained.
  6. The Code stipulates that all records of correspondence with the resident regarding the complaint must be kept. The landlord did not provide us with any records which showed the date and content of the resident’s request to escalate his complaint to stage 2. If the request was made verbally, the landlord should have made a contemporaneous record. This is a record keeping failure in its handling of the complaint. As we have not had sight of the resident’s reasons for escalation, we have also been unable to assess if the landlord appropriately responded to his concerns.
  7. The landlord’s complaint handler was in communication with the resident about the outstanding repairs between 24 and 28 November 2023. It is therefore reasonable to assume that he requested to escalate his complaint between 28 and 29 November 2023. The landlord’s acknowledgement of the escalation on 29 November 2023 would therefore be appropriate and in line with its complaint policy timescales.
  8. The landlord informed the resident on 27 December 2023 that it would need to extend its stage 2 response date to 12 January 2024. As mentioned earlier, the Code allowed for such extensions. Taking into account the bank holidays, the landlord provided its stage 2 response in 29 working days, which was reasonable. However, it would have been good practice for the landlord to consider the likelihood of delays over the Christmas period and (if possible) to inform the resident of its need for an extension sooner.
  9. The Ombudsman encourages landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery. Given that the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint, we would expect to see that it was learning from the failures it had identified. It would have been appropriate for it to explain within its complaint responses what action it proposed to take, to prevent the issues from reoccurring in the future.
  10. The landlord offered £50 compensation (£25 at each stage) for its delays in issuing the complaint responses. Given that the responses were issued within the extended timescales permitted by the Code and its complaints policy, it was not obligated to pay compensation. However, its most recent customer remedies policy (2024) states that it may consider financial redress where it has caused unnecessary complaint extensions within its control. Therefore, its offer is welcome and shows that it recognised the delays had impacted the resident.
  11. As mentioned earlier in the report, the landlord awarded the resident further compensation in June 2024 (in relation to the repairs). It told us that it had considered recent feedback from our Service and said that had the complaint been investigated more recently, it would have likely reached a higher award. The landlord’s proactive approach is welcomed, and it is positive to see that it is learning from its complaints. However, the Ombudsman’s current stance is that we expect landlords to aim to put things right for their residents during their formal complaint process. When a landlord increases its offer following our intervention, with the apparent aim of avoiding investigation and/or a more serious finding of failure, this cannot be considered reasonable redress even if the increased award is proportionate.
  12. Overall, we consider that the amount of compensation offered for complaint handling was low and failed to account for all the failings identified within this report. It is for this reason that we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. An additional order of compensation has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s financial redress tariff and our own remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of draughts in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
    2. Pay the resident £550 compensation. This must be paid directly to him and is made up as follows:
      1. £450 for its handling of his reports of draughts in the property.
      2. £100 for its handling of his complaint. This includes the £50 previously offered by the landlord at stage 2, plus an additional £50 in recognition of the failures identified in this report.
      3. If any of the £500 from its revised offer has been paid, it can be deducted from the total of £550. For the avoidance of doubt, this would mean £50 is due to the resident.