Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202315463)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315463

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

28 March 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. Reports of a leak, including related mould.
   2. The associated complaint, including compensation.

Background

2. The resident lived in a shared ownership one-bedroom property with her husband and son when she complained. She no longer lives at the property now. The resident said that her son has asthma although the landlord had no noted vulnerabilities for the household.
3. The resident said she reported a leak that affected her bedroom in October to November 2022. The resident complained on 23 February 2023 that the landlord failed to attend to the leak on 9 February 2023. She mentioned she was concerned that the mould in the property may affect her son. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 8 March 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint and explained:
   1. in December 2022 it logged that the resident had a leak
   2. it acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction that no one attended on 9 February 2023 and that the resident had said she had chased the landlord 5 times
   3. it booked an appointment for 13 March 2023 to investigate the leak
   4. it awarded the resident £75 compensation made up of:
      1. £40 for time and trouble
      2. £25 for service failure
      3. £10 for the missed appointment.
4. The resident escalated the complaint on 9 March 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 16 March 2023 and said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint because its stage 1 response was factually correct, and it had dealt with the resident’s complaint without missing any important information. It also said there were no outstanding actions from its stage 1 response.
5. The landlord said it booked the repair work for the week starting 12 June 2023. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation as she remained dissatisfied. The landlord contacted this service on 9 May 2024 and said:
   1. it accepted there had been service failures and while it had made reasonable efforts to complete an initial inspection, there had been a delay in its second inspection
   2. it accepted its complaint handling was unsatisfactory, and it did not communicate the reasons for the delay in completing works
   3. it offered an additional £498.62 to the resident made up of:
      1. £150 for poor complaint handling
      2. £250 for time and trouble
      3. £98.62 for loss of income.
6. The resident told us the landlord resolved the leak in June 2023, and she has since moved home. The landlord paid the resident compensation totalling £573.62. However, the resident told us the leak damaged her mattress worth around £1,000 and she was unable to claim against insurance. Therefore, the resident wanted additional compensation. She also felt the amount offered did not reflect the distress and inconvenience she experienced.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the investigation

7. The resident expressed concerns regarding the effect of the leak and damp and mould on her son’s health. While the Ombudsman acknowledges these concerns, we consider personal injury claims are better suited to courts. This is because a court can consider independent medical evidence and call and cross examine witnesses. This can help it to resolve the dispute while this service does not have access to medical reports and cannot examine witnesses. Therefore, we have not considered this aspect of the resident’s complaint as it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective for the resident to seek a remedy through the courts.

The landlord’s handling of a leak including damp and mould

8. It is unclear exactly when the resident reported the leak affecting her bedroom. While the resident said the report was in either October or November 2022, the landlord said (in its stage 1 response) that it was aware of the leak from December 2022.
9. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a comprehensive record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail. They also enhance the landlord’s ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. We consider the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records. This has significantly impacted this services’ ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a significant failure by the landlord and contributed to other failures identified in this report. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to verify exactly when the resident reported the leak.
10. In any event, following December 2022, the landlord needed to inspect the resident’s property to find the source of the leak. It said it was unable to inspect the leak on 4 January 2023 because of access issues. It has not provided any details of the access issues or why it did not attend again until 24 February 2023. The landlord needed to inspect the resident’s property to find the source of the leak. This was to decide if it was responsible for repairing it. The landlord’s guide to leaseholders requires it to inspect and deal with repairs within 28 calendar days. Due to the lack of evidence, the Ombudsman cannot be satisfied that the landlord acted reasonably in the absence of an explanation for the time it took to inspect the leak – even from December 2022.
11. The landlord accepted it missed the appointment on 9 February 2023. It was made aware on 23 February 2023 that the resident was concerned about mould growth. There is no evidence that the landlord arranged to inspect this and determine if it was linked to the leak or that it sign-posted the resident to the building’s insurer for the internal structural damage which may have been caused by the leak. The landlord said its roofer inspected on 2 March 2023, but it has not provided any details of this appointment. The landlord has a damp and mould policy. It does not limit this to tenancies. The landlord did not inspect in line with this policy. Therefore, we cannot be satisfied that the landlord acted reasonably or in line with its damp and mould procedure.
12. The landlord ultimately accepted there was a roof leak which it was responsible for. The landlord did not make an appointment until 13 March 2023. While it said it approved the use of scaffolding on 29 March 2023 it was not until 12 June 2023 that the landlord booked work to repair the roof. Therefore, it took the landlord around 6 months to arrange a repair based on when it said it logged the leak (December 2022). The landlord’s repairs guide for leaseholders required it to deal with routine repairs within 28 calendar days or within 3 months if classed as major repairs. The landlord has not produced evidence to show this delay was unavoidable or outside its control.
13. The landlord said it took it time to negotiate space with neighbours to erect the scaffolding. This is because the scaffold would interfere with their parking and so it required neighbours to agree to park elsewhere while the landlord completed the work. While it is understandable that this can take time, the landlord has not provided evidence to show the efforts it made to secure the neighbour’s agreement. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot be satisfied that it acted reasonably or in line with its guide in the absence of any evidence.
14. The resident wants the landlord to compensate her for alleged damage to a mattress. However, the resident was responsible for insuring her contents under the lease. Indeed, the resident told the landlord in her complaint that she had made a claim on her contents insurance for damage. The Ombudsman may award compensation for financial loss where it is directly caused by a landlord’s maladministration. However, in this case, we cannot conclude the mattress was directly damaged by the landlord’s failure or whether it still would have been damaged even if there was no error by the landlord. We have also not seen evidence that the contents insurer declined the claim. The landlord also told the resident about public liability insurance on 9 May 2024, even though the resident confirmed she had insurance for the mattress. Based on the evidence in this case, we cannot say it would be fair for the landlord to pay for the mattress on this occasion. 

Complaint handling

15. The landlord’s complaint policy required it to deal with any complaints it could not resolve straight away at ‘local resolution’ through its 2–staged complaint process. It had to deal with complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days. The resident complained on 23 February 2023 and the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 8 March 2023. It took the landlord 9 working days to respond at stage 1, which was in line with its complaint policy.
16. The resident escalated her complaint on 9 March 2023. While the landlord’s stage 2 response was dated 16 March 2023, the resident told the landlord on 8 June 2023 that she had not received it. It is not possible for the Ombudsman to verify when the decision was sent. It is clear that the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the offer of compensation the landlord made during the complaint process (£75). The Ombudsman expects any remedy a landlord offers, including compensation, to reflect the extent of any service failures and upset caused to the resident. This is in line with paragraph 6.2 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) that was in force at the time of the resident’s complaint (April 2022).
17. While the landlord offered compensation to the resident during the complaint process it decided to increase this over a year after its final response. This was after the resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman and therefore was not in line with the clear expectations in the Code.
18. In this investigation, the Ombudsman has identified failures in the landlords’ repairs, record keeping and complaint handling like those identified from previous determined complaints. We made a wider order in complaint 202011109 which the landlord has complied with, and we wish to avoid duplication of orders already complied with. We expect the landlord to take forward the lessons and improvements it shared with the service. The landlord must consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this complaint that require further action.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak, including the related mould.
20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling, including compensation.

Orders

21. Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord must:
    1. pay the resident directly an additional £150 made up of:
       1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the leak, including mould
       2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
    2. consider if there are any further issues arising from this complaint that require further action and explain to the Ombudsman of any additional actions it plans to take.
22. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendation

23. Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord should consider if it has sufficient checks in place to ensure that residents receive complaint responses.