Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202229887)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229887

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

16 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of a leak in her bathroom and the associated damage to her flooring.
2. the complaint and record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant, and her tenancy began on 22 October 2001. The property is a one-bedroom, ground floor flat.
On 31 August 2022 the resident reported that her bathroom was flooded by a leak from the toilet. When the landlord attended it said that the mixer taps around the edge of the bath were leaking when the shower was in use. And the bath was “rotten” around the edge. It passed on the follow on work to a third party contractor. Details about the work which was identified as being required are unclear.
On 12 October 2022 the resident reported a further leak from the toilet. The landlord arranged for a plumber to attend on 25 October 2022. The plumber could not find a leak from the toilet. However, they did note the basin was damaged, so they applied mastic to it.
The resident made a complaint on 7 November 2022 because:
1. she felt the bath had been incorrectly installed in 2015. And this had caused a recent ongoing leak for 7 days.
2. her flooring in the living room and bathroom had been damaged, causing it to rot and come apart.
To put things right, she asked the landlord to compensate her for the flooring.
The landlord emailed the resident on 9 November 2022. It said it could not accept the resident’s complaint because there was a “lack of contact details to enable further discussion”. It asked her to provide photographs of the reported damage. But it did not receive a response. The landlord’s internal communications indicated that it intended to renew the bathroom during mid November 2022, including the flooring. It is unclear why this decision was made. Although it is evident that the resident was also experiencing a leak in her bathroom and hallway during November 2022 from her neighbour’s property.
The landlord completed the follow on work raised in August 2022 on 28 December 2022. But there was no evidence indicating that the resident made further report or the landlord took further action between December 2022 and August 2023.
On 17 August 2023, we asked the landlord to log a complaint for the resident. We relayed that the resident had told us that:
1. she had made a complaint in September 2022 that the landlord had not progressed.
2. the landlord’s handling of reports of an ongoing bath leak that had damaged the laminate flooring.
3. she wanted it to compensate her for the damaged flooring.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 25 August 2023. It said:
1. the resident had reported a leak on 19 October 2022 and it had been resolved on 25 October 2022. It said during the visit it could not find a leak but the mastic around the basin was damaged. However, a recommendation had been made to replace the bath to prevent long term issues.
2. it had requested evidence of the damage to the flooring on 9 November 2022. And also clarified it could not raise a complaint about this because it needed the pictures to determine if it fell under the complaint procedure or an insurance claim needed to be made.
3. since November 2022, neither the resident nor the operatives had indicated there was an issue with the flooring.
4. it could not find any evidence of the resident trying to raise a complaint before November 2022. And as it had no reply from the resident at this time, it took no further action.
5. it had delayed acknowledging the resident’s complaint in August 2023. And this was a failure to follow its complaint policy, it apologised and offered £25 in acknowledgement of this. It also explained it was implementing a new system at the end of the year that would enable it to monitor outstanding complaint tasks more efficiently.
On 31 October 2022, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint because:
1. she did not receive her stage 1 response, and landlord had to resend it.
2. she did not agree with the landlord’s findings because:
  1. there was an inspection during June 2022 confirming the laminate flooring had water damage.
  2. she had made emergency reports between March and September 2022 about the bathroom.
  3. the bath was replaced in 2015 and required an emergency plumber to attend in August 2017 because of poor installation.
3. because of this, she felt the major leak was not rectified until September 2022, and this had not been considered.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 15 November 2023. It said:
1. it had reached out to the resident to discuss the damage to the flooring. But had not received a response from her. It had also contacted its insurer and found she had not contacted them to make a claim.
2. it had written to the resident on 9 September 2022 to confirm that the damage to the flooring was “indistinguishable from general wear and tear”. And would not accept liability for it on this basis.
3. It noted that a member of the complaints team had been involved in the correspondence on 9 September 2022. Therefore, it ought to have reasonably logged a complaint at this time. It apologised for this and offered £50 to put this right.
The resident referred her complaint to us on 28 November 2023 because she felt there were several “inaccuracies” in the stage 2 response. And she was unhappy with how the complaint was handled.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident explained to the landlord during her escalation request that she believed there had been a leak following a bath replacement in 2015.
We understand that the resident considers the issue with the bathroom began as early as 2015. However, this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from October 2021 onwards. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, usually within 12 months of the issue arising, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
Part of the resident’s complaint was about reported damage to her flooring. She explained that she thought the landlord was responsible for this because it was the result of a leak it delayed in rectifying.
We are unable to determine legal liability for the reported damage to the flooring. However, our investigation will assess whether the landlord acted reasonably in response to the resident’s concerns about this matter.

Record keeping

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
Our approach to record keeping is set out in our Spotlight Report ‘Knowledge and Information Management’ (KIM). Throughout this report we frequently refer to the landlord’s poor record keeping. Good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission. If information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information. It further states that a landlord’s failure to create and record information accurately results in it not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
The landlord’s records in this case failed to capture important information, including:
1. the remedial work and details about what they were.
2. the recommendations from its specialist and why they were required.
3. the reason for its delays/unsuccessful appointments.
4. advice provided to the resident during and after visits.
This contributed to the landlord’s poor management of repairs. And its failure to respond to the resident’s reports in a timely manner and complete the required outstanding repairs within a reasonable amount of time. The Ombudsman has taken this into account when reaching the overall finding that there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
The landlord must conduct a review of its record keeping in this case. This is to ensure its management of repairs and associated communications are robust and up to date. It must identify what went wrong, why, and how it can prevent this from happening in future. We strongly recommend that the landlord consider the recommendations in our KIM report when it completes its review.

The leak

The resident reported the leak in the bathroom on 31 August 2022. The repair records note that the landlord appropriately attended on 1 September 2022. It found the leak was coming from the mixer taps when the shower was in use. It also found that the edge of the bath was rotten. We consider that the landlord attended in a timely manner to assess the resident’s report. This is because it attended within the 28-day timescale set out in its repairs policy.
The records indicate follow on works were required, but they do not set out what these were. The landlord’s records ought to have captured this detail. It also ought to have been able to share this information with us to aid our investigation. As it has not, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it made appropriate arrangements for the follow on works.
Our spotlight report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management’ states that “If a housing provider is asked to explain what happened, and why, good records will enable it to do so. Poor quality or absent records result in the landlord being unable to answer questions or being unable to provide evidence to support its explanation. Records should tell the full story of what happened, when, and why. A record should be clear about if an action was taken, about who did what, and when; or for planned actions, state who will do what and by when.”
The resident made a further report on 12 October 2022 that there was a leak from the toilet pan. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this report. This was a failure to address the resident’s concerns about the leak at the earliest opportunity. This caused the resident time and trouble re-reporting the same leak for a second time on 19 October 2022.
Following the second report, the landlord arranged for a plumber to investigate the report. It found no leak, but identified that the basin was damaged. Mastic was applied to rectify this. This was completed on 25 October 2022, 14 days after the resident’s initial report about this on 12 October 2022.
While the landlord resolved the issue within the timeframes in its repairs policy overall, it should not have been necessary for the resident to re-report the issue for it to inspect the leak. The landlord should have systems in place to coordinate and action repairs without chasing, prompting or reminding from residents.
The landlord said in its stage 1 response that as a result of this visit, a recommendation was made to replace the bath to prevent long term issues. This is not set out in the repair records the landlord shared with us. Given the landlord’s comments in the stage 1 response, it appears that this was linked to follow on works raised by the landlord. Nonetheless, this was a failure in record keeping to capture the recommendations of its specialist. It is also unclear whether the landlord ought to have reasonably been aware of the need to replace the bath at its earlier inspection in September 2022.
The records did, however, note that it had attended the property on 9 December 2022 to carry out “follow on work”, but that it could not gain access. There was no further information about this appointment, including which work it intended to carry out, the reasons why it could not gain access, nor any steps it took to contact the resident. This was due to poor quality record keeping.
While the individual attendances were overall timely, the landlord took delayed in ensuring that the follow on works which were identified in August were resolved. This was a departure from the 28-day timeframe in its repair policy. Given the poor availability of records, including what needed to be done, by when, and the reasons for the delay, we could not be satisfied that the landlord’s delay was unavoidable. The delay would have inevitably caused the resident distress and inconvenience.

Damage to the flooring

The resident explained that she believed her flooring had been damaged by the bath replacement in communications to the landlord during November 2022. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that her report about the damaged flooring (November 2022) had come before the bath was replaced (December 2022). Therefore, it could not be seen that the replacement bath was linked to any damage caused.
Based on the information the landlord had at the time, this was within a range of reasonable conclusions to make. However, it could have also taken steps to satisfy itself of the condition of the flooring had it undertaken an inspection at the time. That it did not was shortcoming. This was also an opportunity to refer the resident to its insurer to make a claim. However, there is no evidence it did this. It would have been reasonable to do so in the circumstances so that the resident could seek further recourse. That it did not was a failure to explain what further action she could take.
In communications with the landlord during November 2023, the resident explained she was referring to a historical bath replacement as the source of the damage. She said that an inspection had taken place in June 2022, and the landlord had agreed there was damage to the flooring. The landlord said it had inspected the flooring on 9 September 2022 and found that the level of damage to the flooring was “indistinguishable from general wear and tear.” As such it would not accept liability for this. It said it wrote to the resident at the time to explain this to her.
There is no evidence in the landlord’s repair logs concerning an inspection in June 2022 that set out the condition of the resident’s flooring. Nor is there evidence of the landlord inspecting the flooring on 9 September 2022 and writing to her about its findings. As such, we could not be satisfied that the landlord took adequate steps to assess and address the resident’s concerns about her damaged flooring. This was linked to poor record keeping.

Conclusion

Overall, the landlord’s record-keeping undermined its ability to demonstrate it had responded reasonably to all of the resident’s reports of a leak. This issue also contributed to the landlord’s inability to demonstrate that it acted reasonably when carrying out the required follow on work. The delay in resolving the work to the bathroom would have caused distress to the resident. In addition, the landlord’s failure to respond caused the resident time and trouble re-reporting leaks.
In addition, the absence of records meant it failed to demonstrate it had taken adequate steps to assess the resident’s concerns about the flooring. Therefore, it was unable to support its explanation that the damage was what would be expected of general wear and tear. For these reasons, we have made a finding of maladministration.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified. The landlord did not identify the failures we found in our investigation. Therefore, it did not try to put things right.
The landlord must apologise to the resident for the failures set out above. It must also pay the resident £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience these. To learn from outcomes, it must conduct a record keeping review of this case to identify why important repair information was not captured and shared with us.

Complaint handling

Our Complaint Handling Code 2022 (‘the former Code’) was in force at the time of the complaint. This states that landlords must respond to complaints as follows:
1. issue a stage 1 within 10 working days of the date of logging the complaint. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
2. issue a stage 2 within 20 working days of receiving the escalation request. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
3. a landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. A complaints policy must clearly set out the circumstances in which a matter will not be considered, and these circumstances should be fair and reasonable to residents.
4. if a landlord decides not to accept a complaint, a detailed explanation must be provided to the resident setting out the reasons why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process and the right to take that decision to the Ombudsman. If the Ombudsman does not agree that the exclusion has been fairly applied, the Ombudsman may instruct the landlord to take on the complaint.
5. a full record must be kept of the complaint, any review, and the outcomes at each stage. This must include the original complaint, and the date received, all correspondence with the resident, correspondence with other parties and any reports or surveys prepared.
The resident made a complaint on 19 October 2022 as set out earlier in this report. The landlord responded on 9 November 2022 and said it could not accept the complaint because it did not have contact details to “enable further discussion.” It also asked for photographs of the reported damage. The landlord told us that because the resident did not provide the necessary evidence, it could not take the complaint further. This is because it said it does not consider complaints about damage to property under its complaints policy and refers this to its insurer.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that it does not consider insurance claims under its complaint policy. Therefore, it may have been reasonable for the landlord to have excluded the resident’s request for compensation for damaged flooring from the complaint procedure. However, there is no evidence it decided not to accept the complaint for this reason. Rather, it said that it did not have contact details to discuss the matter further. It is unclear why this was the landlord’s position, given it had used the resident’s email address to contact her.
We consider the landlord’s decision making was unfair and unreasonable. This is because it had the resident’s details and used these to contact her. Therefore, it departed from its obligations under the former Code to set out fair and reasonable circumstances when deciding not to accept a complaint. This would have caused frustration to the resident because her landlord acted unfairly when it decided not to accept her complaint. It also caused her time and trouble in raising a further complaint.
In addition, there is no evidence that when the landlord decided not to accept the complaint, it told the resident of her right to take this decision to us. This was a further departure from the former Code. Nor did it provide her with the contact information of its insurer to make a claim for the flooring. This would have been reasonable given that it considered this matter was exempt from its complaint policy and would have been better dealt with through its insurer. This meant the resident was not made aware of all the options open to her to seek a further resolution.
Further, the landlord still ought to have triggered its complaints process to address the resident’s concerns about the installation of the bath and the leak. This is because there was an expression of dissatisfaction with repairs it had made, and these issues fell under the remit of its complaints policy. That it did not was a failure to identify the resident’s complaint and a missed opportunity to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity. This contributed to the delay the resident experienced in her complaint being answered.
When the resident made her second complaint on 17 August 2023, the landlord responded at stage 1 of the complaints process within 6 working days. This was in line with the timeframes set out in the former Code.
The landlord explained in its stage 1 response that it failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint in a timely manner. It apologised for this and offered the resident £25 in recognition of the concern this may have caused. It also said that it had provided feedback to relevant staff members. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
The resident escalated her complaint on 31 October 2023. The landlord responded at stage 2 of the complaints process within 11 working days. This was in line with the timeframes set out in the former Code.
The landlord identified in its stage 2 response that there had been a missed opportunity in September 2022 to trigger its complaints process. It apologised for this and offered £50 in recognition of its error. However, the landlord failed to provide evidence of its communications around this matter during September 2022. As such, we were unable to investigate the events that took place and assess whether the landlord’s response had been reasonable. The landlord was obligated to keep a full record of the complaint, including all correspondence with the resident. That it did not was a departure from the former Code and evidence of poor record keeping.

Conclusion

Overall, we consider that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. This is because it failed to identify the elements of the resident’s complaint that it could respond to during November 2022. This meant it was delayed in responding to her complaint at the earliest opportunity.
Further, it failed to signpost the resident to the appropriate channels to progress her concerns about the flooring. And it failed to set out fair and reasonable circumstances when deciding not to accept a complaint. This caused the resident frustration and time and trouble pursuing the complaint at a later date. In addition, its record keeping undermined its ability to evidence it had made reasonable efforts to put right a failure to progress another of the resident’s complaints in September 2022.
The landlord failed to identify the majority of these failures during its investigations, so it did not try to put things right. Therefore, it must apologise and pay her £150 in recognition of the impact of this. It must also provide appropriate training to relevant staff members to ensure it is appropriately identifying complaints and that they are aware of the differences between these and insurance claims. This is in line with our ‘Remedies Guidance’ for this level of finding.
We also recommend it review its letter templates to ensure that resident are provided with clear information about how to escalate their complaints to us, and/or make a claim to its insurer. This is to make sure residents have the necessary information to escalate their concerns in future. We note the landlord explained a new system was being implemented at the time to address administrative errors. We recommend the landlord ensures its current system allows it to capture all information related to complaints, so that its record keeping supports its decision making.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in her bathroom and the associated damage to her flooring.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of its record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. apologise to the resident for the failures found in this report.
2. pay the resident £350 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience of its complaint handling.
  2. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience of its handling of the leak and the associated damage to her flooring.
3. conduct appropriate training to relevant staff members to ensure they can appropriately identify a complaint. And that they are aware of the differences between these and insurance claims. Including where to signpost residents in the event a complaint is not accepted.
Within 56 days of the date of this determination the landlord must assess its record keeping for the repairs investigated in this report. This must include identifying the minimum standards that ought to have been recorded in its repair log, which of these standards it failed to adhere to, and why. The landlord must provide a written report to the Ombudsman detailing its findings and any wider learning it has identified.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord:
1. review its letter templates to ensure that resident are provided with clear information about how to escalate their complaints to us, and/or make a claim to its insurer. This is to make sure residents have the necessary information to escalate their concerns through the correct channels in future.
2. ensure its current system allows it to capture all information related to complaints, so that its record keeping supports its decision making.