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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202317756)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317756

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

14 February 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 a leak into the communal area and communal decorative works.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property, a 2 bedroom first floor flat in a 2 storey block. His lease began on 16 May 2005. The landlord is the freeholder of the block. It is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure and exterior of the building as well as the communal areas.
  2. On 15 November 2022, the resident reported a leak from the roof of the block into the communal area. The landlord repointed a section of the roof on 28 December 2022.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 13 February 2023. He complained that the landlord’s failure to repair the roof leak had caused water damage to the communal area. The resident said the landlord’s contractor, which had been redecorating the communal area, had told him it was unable to complete the work until the landlord fixed the leak. The resident asked why the landlord had arranged to decorate when the roof was still leaking.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 23 February 2023. It said that it had repaired the roof leak in December 2022. The landlord said the resident’s block was due for communal decoration during the current fiscal year and its contractor should start decorating shortly. It offered the resident £25 for his time and trouble pursuing the matter.
  5. The resident replied the same day. He explained that the landlord’s contractor had already started the communal decoration, but not been able to finish due to the leak. He disagreed that the landlord had resolved the leak and said its response had left him “confused” and “frustrated”.
  6. On 8 March 2023, the resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. He sent current photos of water leaking into the communal area after rainfall.
  7. On 9 March 2023, the landlord raised a works order to reattend the roofing repair from 28 December 2022.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 31 March 2023. It told the resident that:
    1. It had raised an order to reattend the roofing repair and scheduled this for 4 April 2023.
    2. Its contractor had paused decoration of the block until the leak was repaired. The contractor would return to finish the work after this.
    3. It was satisfied with the way it had managed the resident’s stage 1 complaint. Although, it felt it could have helped more with his concerns about the roof leak.
    4. It was increasing its compensation offer to £100, composed of £50 for poor complaint handling and £50 for time and trouble.

Events since the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response

  1. The landlord reattended the roof repair on 24 April 2023. It repointed and sealed around the post box unit in the communal hallway, which it said was allowing water into the building.
  2. The resident referred his complaint to us on 25 August 2023. He said that the landlord had still not resolved the roof leak and that the water had damaged the newly decorated communal walls. He said he wanted more compensation for his time and trouble spent chasing the landlord about this.
  3. In July 2024, when providing information for this investigation, the landlord told us that it had fixed the roof leak.
  4. On 12 February 2025, the resident told the us that, although he could not see water leaking into the communal area anymore, the plasterwork had been damaged and was covered in mould. He said the landlord had not decorated the communal area since its contractor paused work in February 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has said that leaks from the roof into the communal area began several years before the events described within this report. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s complaints policy excluded matters where “the cause of complaint occurred over 6 months ago”. This was in keeping with the Ombudsman’s ‘Complaint Handling Code’ at that time.
  2. The resident complained on 13 February 2023. The works order raised on 15 November 2022 is the only repair for communal leaks in the landlord’s repair records during the 6 months prior to the complaint. This landlord’s complaint responses covered only events from that date. This investigation will do the same.

Leaks and decorative works

  1. The landlord raised a works order for the leak on 15 November 2022, the day the resident reported it. Its repair logs gave a ‘target date’ of 23 December 2022 for it to attend – 28 working days. However, the landlord’s repairs policy says that it aims to attend routine repairs within 28 calendar days, which in this case would have been 13 December 2022. The landlord failed to attend until 28 December 2022, although this was the next working day after the ‘target date’.
  2. On 28 December 2022, the landlord carried out work to repoint a section of the roof that it “suspected was causing the problem”. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident contacted the landlord after this until 13 February 2023, when he made his complaint. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to believe it had resolved the leak up until that date.
  3. Within his complaint, the resident told the landlord that its contractor decorating the communal area had told him the roof leak had not been repaired. This meant it was unable to complete the decoration. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord confirmed that “the internal decorations were paused due to the roof leak”.
  4. It would be reasonable to expect the landlord’s contractor to tell it that it had ‘paused’ work, and the reasons for this. However, based on the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it appeared unaware that the contractor had paused work, or even started at all. This suggests either inadequate record keeping on the landlord’s part, or poor communication between it and its contractor.
  5. The landlord also told the resident that it had repaired the leak in December 2022. It failed to consider the possibility that this repair had not resolved the issue or ask the resident for more details – despite the stage 1 response claiming that it had “contacted him directly” as part of its investigation.
  6. Even when the resident replied reiterating that the leak was ongoing and its contractor had already started and stopped communal decoration, the landlord only repeated the information from its stage 1 response. This caused frustration to the resident who then sent photos of water leaking into the communal area on 8 March 2023 and asked the landlord to escalate his complaint.
  7. After receiving the photos, the landlord appropriately raised a works order to reattend the previous roofing works on 9 March 2023. Its system recorded a target date of 25 April 2023 to attend this, well beyond the 28 calendar days its policy aims for.
  8. Internal landlord emails show that it scheduled to reattend on 20 March 2023. It then pushed this back to 4 April 2023 “due to capacity”. The landlord eventually reattended on 24 April 2023. It is unclear what caused this further delay. As the landlord had told the resident it would attend on 4 April 2023 within its stage 2 complaint response, it would have been appropriate for it to inform him of the delays. It has not provided any evidence that it did so.
  9. On 24 April 2023, the landlord carried out works to seal the edges of the post box unit built into the communal hallway wall. It has not provided any evidence that it inspected or repaired the roof on this date.
  10. The landlord has told us that “There were 3 points of [water] ingress, the roof, window surround and letterbox housing. A number of visits to site were required as the resident reports were not always correctly instructed to contractor”.
  11. This appears to have been the case here. The photos provided by the resident on 8 March 2023, clearly show water travelling from the ceiling of the communal area down to the windowsill below. This windowsill is on the opposite side of the communal area to the post boxes. Had the operative who attended on 24 April 2023 seen these pictures, or been told what they showed, it is unlikely they would have left the block having only resealed the post box unit.
  12. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it followed up with the resident after its attendance on 24 April 2023. This would have been appropriate considering completion of the repairs was part of the agreed outcome of his complaint. Had the landlord done this, it would have identified that it had not addressed the roof leak.
  13. The landlord did not fully resolve the roof leak until some point between March and July 2024. Leaks can be difficult to trace and remedy, particularly roof leaks which are only clearly visible during rainfall. The landlord’s records show that it sent contractors out on at least 3 occasions to trace and remedy the leak after the events described in this report. However, the resident has told us that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions following its stage 2 complaint response.
  14. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the landlord’s handling of the leak beyond its stage 2 complaint response as it has not had the opportunity to do so itself – through its internal complaints procedure. The resident would normally need to log a new complaint about these events for the landlord to consider. However, in this case the Ombudsman feels that this would unreasonably add to the excessive time and trouble the resident has taken in pursuing the matter over several years. Therefore, we make a recommendation below for the landlord to carry out a review of its handling of the leaks since April 2023 and determine whether it would be appropriate to offer the resident further compensation for this.
  15. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that once it had repaired the leak its contractor would resume the communal decoration. It said this would include laying new flooring. Despite the landlord stating that it has repaired the leak, the resident has told the Ombudsman that the communal decoration remains incomplete. He also said that the partial decoration completed by the landlord’s contractor in February 2023 has since been damaged by the continued leaks, causing damp and mould in some areas. We have made an below to ensure the situation is resolved.
  16. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident compensation of £100. It said £50 of this was for its complaint handling, due to not appropriately assisting with his concerns about the leak at stage 1. However, the Ombudsman considers this to be a failing in the landlord’s handling of the leak itself, rather than the resident’s complaint. We have therefore considered the landlord’s full offer of £100 as being made for its failings in addressing the leak and decorative works.
  17. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance lists £100 as being the starting point of redress for instances of maladministration. This being failure(s) by the landlord which adversely affect the resident with no permanent impact. It is important to clarify that when assessing an appropriate level of compensation for this case we can only consider events over the 5 month period between 15 November 2022 and 24 April 2023.
  18. During this period, the landlord completed both the original roof repair and the reattendance outside of the timescales published in its repairs policy. It failed to appropriately investigate the resident’s complaint at stage 1, which delayed it in raising the works order to reattend. The landlord failed to provide appropriate information to its operative for the reattendance, which led to them repairing an entirely separate leak. Whilst the landlord recognised some of these failings within its stage 2 complaint response, its compensation offer did not reasonably reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Therefore, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration and orders a further £150 compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a leak into the communal area and communal decorative works.

Orders

  1. Within 5 weeks of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £250 composed of:
      1. The £100 offered in its stage 2 complaint response, if not already paid.
      2. A further £150 for the maladministration in its handling of the leak and decorative works.
    2. Apologise to the resident for the maladministration identified by this investigation.
    3. Inspect the communal area of the resident’s block and compile a schedule of works needed to:
      1. Complete the cyclical decoration works commenced in February 2023, including laying new flooring.
      2. Repair any water damaged plasterwork.
      3. Address any damp and mould.

The landlord should send a copy of this schedule to the resident and provide an expected start date for all works.

  1. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord complete a review of its handling of the leaks into the communal area since April 2023. As part of this review it should assess whether it would be appropriate to offer the resident further compensation for any failings or delays identified during this period. The landlord should write to the resident to set out its position on this.
  2. The Ombudsman further recommends that, as a gesture of goodwill, the landlord bear the cost of completing the cyclical decoration of the communal area, rather than reclaiming this via residents’ service charges.
  3. The landlord should inform the Ombudsman, and the resident, whether it intends to follow these recommendations.

Chat to us