Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202318440)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318440

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

14 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s
1. Reports of a leak.
2. Reports of damp and mould.
3. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord and lives in a purpose-built block of flats with her child.
On 10 February 2023, the resident reported a leak in the kitchen to the landlord. On the same day, the landlord instructed an electrician to disconnect the kitchen lights.
Between 24 March 2023 and 28 March 2023, the electrician returned to reconnect the lights. However, as the resident reported a further leak and stated that she was using a bucket to collect the water, the lights were disconnected again.
On 14 April 2023, the landlord arranged for a surveyor to inspect the resident’s flat. The surveyor noted that the leak appeared to be coming from a flat above and confirmed the presence of damp in the kitchen and bathroom.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 1 May 2023, stating that there were leaks in the kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom. She said she had been without lighting in the kitchen for over 2 months due to the leaks and had received no update from the landlord on when it would address the damp and mould in the flat. She also stated that she was waiting for the extractor fan in the bathroom to be replaced as it was not working.
On 12 May 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It stated that the leaks from the properties above had been investigated and marked as complete. However, it had raised a job for a plumber to investigate further and confirmed that it had booked an appointment to inspect the extractor fan in the bathroom and reinstate the kitchen lights. The landlord apologised for the time taken to resolve the leaks in the flat and offered £100 compensation for the time and trouble caused, along with £50 to acknowledge its service failure.
On 16 May 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. She stated that the landlord had not addressed the length of time she had been without lighting or the damage to the ceiling and walls caused by the leaks.
On 1 June 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that the kitchen ceiling collapsed, and debris had fallen on her child. The following day, the landlord arranged for her to stay in a hotel temporarily. On 7 July 2023, the resident returned home.
On 20 July 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It confirmed that all the leaks in the flat had been traced and fixed, identifying that they had originated from the flats above. The landlord stated that there were no outstanding repairs required to the bedroom and that the kitchen units were in a reasonable state of repair. However, it had booked an appointment for mould treatment in the bathroom and to repair the damage to the kitchen wall. The landlord informed the resident that it was her responsibility to redecorate any damage caused by the leaks and advised that she might be able to claim this through her contents insurance. It also increased its compensation offer, adding £50 for time and trouble and £15 for poor complaint handling, bringing the total compensation to £215.
Between 2 August 2023 and 16 August 2023, the landlord completed the following works in the resident’s flat:
1. Repair of the kitchen wall and ceiling
2. Repair of the kitchen cupboard ceiling
3. Decoration of the kitchen ceiling
4. A mould wash and treatment in the bathroom and kitchen
On 22 August 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to us. She said that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her complaint and that the mould was still present in the bathroom. She said the landlord had not completed the repairs in her flat to a reasonable standard and that its delays in fixing the leaks had impacted her mental and physical health due to stress. Additionally, she stated that her personal belongings in the kitchen were damaged due to the ceiling collapse, and she wanted the landlord to reimburse her for these losses.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In the interest of fairness, this investigation is limited to events between February 2023 and July 2023, as this marks the period up to the conclusion of the landlord’s complaints process.
The resident has told us that she continued to report further leaks to the landlord in August 2023 and November 2023. The landlord’s repair records confirm that these reports relate to a leak from the kitchen supply pipe, which is a new issue separate from the leaks investigated in this report.
Additionally, the resident has recently reported ongoing concerns about leaks in her flat that may relate to the original issue. However, as a significant period has passed since the conclusion of the landlord’s complaints process, these reports must now be raised as a new complaint to the landlord, if the resident wishes to pursue them.
Under paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we do not consider matters made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord must first be given the opportunity to investigate and respond to these new concerns before our involvement.
The resident may wish to raise a formal complaint with the landlord about both the new leaks and any unresolved issues related to the original matter. If she is not satisfied with the landlord’s final response, she may be able to then refer the new complaint to us for consideration.
The resident has also told us she was dissatisfied with how the landlord handled her temporary move when the ceiling collapsed. She said the landlord moved her between multiple hotels and agreed to replace her damaged belongings. We reviewed correspondence showing that the resident disputed the amount of expenses the landlord agreed to cover during the temporary move, and what it agreed regarding the damage to her belongings. However, she raised these concerns after the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response about the leak.
Since these matters were not included in the resident’s initial formal complaint or the landlord’s responses, we have not assessed the landlord’s actions in relation to them as part of this investigation. The landlord should now log a formal complaint, consider these issues, and respond in line with its complaints policy. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response, she can then refer the new complaint to our service for consideration. We have also included a recommendation at the end of this report to address this.
The resident has expressed that the landlord’s handling of her concerns negatively impacted her mental health. We acknowledge her comments and understand this has been a difficult situation for her. However, claims of personal injury, including damage to health, fall outside the complaints process. These can be pursued through a landlord’s public liability insurance or in court, where medical evidence and any allegations of negligence would be considered. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on making a personal injury claim, if she believes the landlord’s actions, or lack of action, have affected her health. We have, however, considered any distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s errors, as well as how it responded to the resident’s concerns about her mental health.

Legal policy and framework

The resident’s occupancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property, including the internal walls and ceilings. It must also maintain installations it provides for the supply of electricity, including electric wiring, sockets, and switches.
The landlord’s repairs guide for residents states that residents are responsible for decorating the property after repairs have been completed.
The landlord classifies repairs into the following categories:
1. Emergency – issues such as uncontainable leaks or no lighting. These should be completed within 24 hours
2. Routine repairs – defects that do not cause serious discomfort or long-term deterioration of the building. These should be completed within 28 days
3. Major routine repairs – larger repairs that should be completed within 3 months or as part of a planned works programme.
Landlords must also assess property conditions using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). While HHSRS does not set minimum standards, it focuses on identifying and minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould fall within its scope as potential health risks. Landlords should be aware of their responsibilities under HHSRS and take appropriate action when hazards are identified. Improvement works are typically the first step, followed by ongoing monitoring to ensure conditions do not deteriorate.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak

The evidence shows that when the resident reported a leak in the kitchen in February 2023, the landlord promptly instructed an electrician to disconnect the lights. While this addressed the immediate electrical risk, there is no record showing whether the landlord investigated the source of the leak at the time. If an investigation was carried out, the resident was not informed. As a result, she was left uncertain about what action the landlord was taking, if any, which may have left her feeling that the issue was not being taken seriously.
The resident reported an uncontainable leak on 28 March 2023. The evidence shows that a surveyor inspected the property on 14 April 2023, 18 days later. This response was not in line with the landlord’s emergency repairs timescales and should have occurred within 24 hours to assess the situation and prevent potential further damage. By failing to act sooner, the landlord left the resident managing an uncontainable leak for a significant length of time, likely causing unnecessary stress and disruption to her daily life.
The records from the surveyor’s inspection indicate that the leaks in the resident’s flat originated from the properties above and that an ongoing investigation was taking place. We understand that locating the source of a leak can be challenging, particularly in a building with multiple flats and shared pipework. However, the landlord has provided no records detailing what these investigations entailed, how frequently it visited the properties, or any challenges that might justify delays.
This lack of documentation is concerning from a record-keeping perspective, as our assessments rely on the documentary evidence provided. The landlord is expected to maintain and provide sufficient evidence of its actions. In the absence of supporting records, we cannot be satisfied that it took reasonable steps to investigate and resolve the leaks in a timely manner.
Additionally, given that the resident reported the leak as uncontainable, we would have expected the landlord to take temporary mitigation measures if an immediate repair was not possible. This could have included providing protective coverings or arranging dehumidifiers and ventilation to reduce damp buildup. The absence of any records showing that the landlord considered such steps suggests it did not take sufficient action to minimise disruption and prevent further damage.
3 weeks after the inspection of her flat, the resident raised a formal complaint having received no update on the landlord’s investigations. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord stated that the leaks had been resolved. However, the evidence shows that it reached this conclusion without conducting a post-inspection of the resident’s property, closing the issue prematurely without verifying that any repairs completed were effective.
Had the landlord followed up, it would have been able to confirm whether the repairs had resolved the leaks in the resident’s flat and identify any related issues before they escalated. By failing to do so, the landlord left the resident with an unresolved leak and likely prolonged the disruption to her living conditions, requiring her to chase progress rather than receiving proactive updates.
Still, it was reasonable that in its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord awarded the resident £150 compensation for the inconvenience caused up to that point. Offering compensation at this stage was a considerate step, acknowledging the disruption caused while it continued working to resolve the leaks.
In response to the resident’s complaint that the leaks in her flat remained unresolved, the landlord stated in its stage 1 complaint response that it had raised a job for a further inspection of the issue. However, the landlord’s records do not reflect that this job was ever actioned. Instead, 3 weeks passed with no evidence of the landlord attending the resident’s property until she reported that the kitchen ceiling had collapsed. While we cannot say with reasonable certainty whether an earlier inspection would have prevented the ceiling collapse, the lack of action suggests that the landlord missed an opportunity to intervene before the situation worsened. Given the severity of the leak and the risk of structural damage, the landlord should have ensured that any follow-up inspections were scheduled and carried out promptly.
The evidence shows that the resident was without consistent lighting in the kitchen from February 2023 until she returned from the temporary move in July 2023. While it was necessary for the landlord to disconnect the lights until it identified and permanently resolved the leak, it was also required to take reasonable steps to minimise disruption to the resident. The landlord should have offered alternative lighting, such as a plug-in lamp or battery-powered lighting, to ensure the resident could continue using her kitchen safely. By failing to do so, the landlord did not take sufficient steps to mitigate the impact of the prolonged loss of lighting of the resident’s daily life.
The landlord’s records show that the resident was temporarily moved for 5 weeks. During this time, its records confirm that the bathroom extractor fan was repaired, the leak was contained, the ceiling was made safe, and the kitchen lights were reinstated. Given the need to coordinate access to other flats, contractor availability, and the nature of the required repairs, this timeframe appears reasonable in ensuring the necessary works were completed before the resident’s return.
When the resident returned from her temporary move, the landlord’s records indicate that it conducted a post-inspection and confirmed in its stage 2 complaint response that the leaks had been traced and fixed. This demonstrated a more structured approach compared to its earlier handling of the leaks, ensuring repairs were checked before considering the matter resolved.
Additionally, it was positive that the landlord offered the resident an additional £50 compensation to acknowledge any further inconvenience caused since its stage 1 complaint response. This reflected a continued effort to recognise the impact of the ongoing situation.
The stage 2 complaint response also outlined the remedial work to the ceilings and walls would be completed within 4 weeks. While we acknowledge the continued disruption this would have caused after the resident’s return, it was reasonable for the landlord to complete these works while she was in occupation to minimise the length of her temporary move.
That said, given the prolonged impact of the leaks and ongoing repairs, the landlord would still be expected to redress any disruption caused to the resident and ensure appropriate support was provided during this period. The landlord’s records confirm that these remedial works were completed as planned, and within its routine repair timescales. However, it did not offer additional compensation at the time the works had been completed to recognise the impact of this disruption.
Overall, the landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s reports of leaks and did not act in line with its emergency repairs timescales. While it later completed the necessary works and awarded compensation, these actions did not fully address the impact of its earlier failings. Considering this, we have determined maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak.
During our investigation, the landlord told us that it wished to offer the resident an additional £200 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused during the handling of her concerns, along with a £100 goodwill gesture towards decoration costs after repairs. This should have been offered directly to the resident at the time of her complaint or shortly thereafter. We welcome the landlord’s willingness to put things right, but the fact this offer was only considered significantly outside of the complaints process and not made directly to the resident was a missed opportunity to provide timely redress.
However, based on the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, published on our website, which sets out our approach to resolving disputes. Where we have determined that there was maladministration which has adversely affected the resident, the guidance states that landlords should offer residents a financial remedy of £100 to £600, to put things right. The landlord’s increased final offer of £500 compensation is in line with what we would have ordered it to pay the resident. Therefore, if it has not done so already, it must pay the resident £500 for the failures identified in this section of the report.
For the sake of clarity, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the landlord’s handling of a complaint through its complaints process. We find that there has been maladministration by the landlord even if it made a reasonable offer after the end of its complaints process and after the Ombudsman’s involvement, as in this case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The landlord confirmed the presence of damp in the kitchen and bathroom during its inspection in April 2023, and its records show that mould treatments were completed in August 2023, 4 months later. It was reasonable to prioritise resolving the leak before fully addressing the damp, as eliminating excess moisture was essential to preventing further spread. However, the landlord failed to communicate this to the resident, leaving her uncertain about its approach. Both her stage 1 and stage 2 complaints raised concerns that the issue was being overlooked. Clear communication would have reassured her that action was being taken and helped manage expectations.
Beyond communication, the landlord was also responsible for monitoring the damp while repairs were ongoing. It should have conducted regular inspections, provided guidance on managing the damp in the meantime, and considered temporary measures, such as early-stage mould treatment. There is no evidence that the landlord took these steps. A proactive approach, in line with HHSRS, would have helped mitigate the issue while the work to resolve the source of the damp was still in progress. As a result, the resident and her child were left living in damp conditions for an extended period, without reassurance that steps were being taken to manage the conditions.
Considering these failings, we find maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance as referenced above, the landlord must pay the resident £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its errors in this section of the report. This is in addition to the compensation the landlord offered during and after its complaints process. The compensation it offered was not sufficient in view of its errors relating to the damp and mould in addition to the errors in the handling of the leaks.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint

The resident raised a formal complaint on 1 May 2023, and the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 9 working days later, in line with its complaints policy. While the response acknowledged delays and inconvenience, it did not address the resident’s concern about being without lighting for a significant period. In her stage 2 complaint, the resident highlighted this oversight and said that the landlord seemed more focused on closing the complaint within the complaints timescales than resolving her concerns. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response also failed to address the issue of lighting, leaving her without a full resolution.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which is published on our website, sets out our expectations for fair complaint handling. Landlords must address all points raised in a complaint and ensure responses are specific, clear, and directly relevant so that residents feel they are being listened to. By failing to address a key issue raised in both stages of the complaint, the landlord did not fully meet these expectations.
The resident escalated her complaint on 16 May 2023, and the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response 47 working days later, exceeding its complaints policy timescales. The landlord’s records indicate that the delay was due to waiting for updates from the repairs service. The Code emphasises that landlords must manage complaints independently of repair progress. Delaying complaint responses while awaiting repairs can prolong resident dissatisfaction, especially if repairs take longer than expected. Landlords should issue complaint responses on time and explain that they will issue a further response if appropriate once the repairs have been completed. By failing to respond within its stated timescales, the landlord did not follow best practice and missed the opportunity to provide a timely resolution to the resident’s concerns.
We acknowledge the landlord offered the resident £15 compensation for poor complaint handling in its stage 2 complaint response. However, the response did not explain why the landlord believed its handling was inadequate. It also did not include an apology for the delay and stated that it was satisfied with how the stage 1 complaint was handled. This suggests the compensation was offered without meaningful acknowledgement of the service failures that occurred, reducing its effectiveness in addressing the resident’s concerns.
Given the landlord’s failure to fully address the resident’s complaint and its delay in issuing the stage 2 response, we have determined service failure in its handling of the resident’s formal complaint.
Based on the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, where we have determined service failure that may have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, landlords should offer a financial remedy of £50 to £100, to put things right. In this case, the landlord should pay the resident £50. This replaces the £15 previously offered, which may be deducted from the overall compensation if it has already been paid.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident the following compensation:
  1. £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures relating to the resolution of the leak
  2. £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures relating to addressing the damp and mould in the property
  3. £50 for its poor handling of the resident’s complaint
2. These amounts replace the landlord’s previous offers of compensation, which can be deducted from the total if they have already been paid.
The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance of the above orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

The landlord should log a formal complaint to address the resident’s dissatisfaction with how it handled her temporary move, including what expenses it agreed to cover during this period.
It should also investigate her claim that it agreed to replace her damaged belongings and provide a clear explanation of the next steps she needs to take.