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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202319256)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319256

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

26 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
    1. The resident’s reports of water leaks in the temporary property and his subsequent request for compensation.
    2. The resident’s request for compensation for personal items that went missing after moving to the temporary property.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. His property is a 1-bed flat. The landlord noted the resident was considered vulnerable in May 2022.
  2. There was a fire at the resident’s property in 2021. The landlord organised for him to be moved to a different property temporarily while damage caused by the fire was repaired. The move took place in September 2022.
  3. The resident raised his stage 1 complaint on 8 June 2023. He said personal belongings had gone missing during the move to his temporary property which he wanted returned. He also asked for compensation for water leaks in his temporary property.
  4. The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 19 June 2023. It offered an apology for any inconvenience and gave a timeline of events leading up to the move. It said the resident was offered time to choose items to take and was told that items left behind would be disposed of. It also said the leaks were attended to in a reasonable time frame. It did not uphold the complaint.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 28 June 2023. He said there had been a lack of care given to his personal items. He said damage caused by the water leaks had caused him distress.
  6. The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 31 July 2023. It said that it had investigated the stage 1 response and it was satisfied with its initial response. It did not uphold the complaint as it could not find any failures with the service delivered.
  7. The resident escalated the complaint to the Ombudsman on 31 August 2023. He said he was never told that any items would be disposed of. He wanted compensation for the items that had been misplaced and for damage caused by leaks.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The resident asked us to award compensation for his missing belongings. We cannot make liability decisions or establish whether the landlord was responsible for the loss reported. Such decisions may be made via the landlord’s liability insurance, the resident’s own contents insurer, or via the courts. We cannot consider whether the resident should be compensated for loss of his belongings. However, we have assessed how the landlord responded to the concerns raised.
  2. Following the landlord’s stage 1 response, the resident raised a series of additional issues including leaks affecting his water bill, staff behaviour and problems with light in the property. These issues had not been mentioned in the original complaint. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s initial complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any further complaints as part of its internal complaints process, prior to the involvement of this Service. This investigation will consider the complaint that formed part of the landlord’s stage 2 response from 31 July 2023.

The landlord’s response to reports of water leaks in the temporary property

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says that the priority given to the repair of leaking pipework varies according to the severity of the leak. It aims to complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days, or 20 working days, of being notified. It notes the importance of carrying out repairs in a timely manner and requests that residents give access to the property when required.
  2. The resident raised the initial report of a water leak from the bathroom of his temporary property on 14 December 2022. The landlord logged this as a containable leak and set a target date for completion by 26 January 2023. The target date was reasonable as it considered the days lost over the Christmas period and as such was in line with its policy timeframes.
  3. The landlord attempted to access the property to complete the repair on 4 occasions through January 2023 but was not permitted access by the resident. The job was cancelled following the fourth attempt on 25 January 2023. While the landlord could have chosen not to cancel the works in response to access challenges, its numerous attempts to access the property in a short period of time show it understood the importance of acting quickly to rectify the problem.
  4. The resident reported the leak again on 31 January 2023, which the landlord logged with a target date for completion of 28 February 2023. This was in line with its policy. It completed the repair on 6 February 2023 and said the resident was happy with the works carried out.
  5. The landlord showed a determination to resolve the repair issue within a reasonable timeframe but it was unable to do so due to factors beyond its control. Its repeated efforts to access the property over a short period showed it was prioritising support for the resident. When it did complete the works, it resolved the issue. Its actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
  6. In the stage 1 complaint, the resident said that he wanted compensation following the water leaks but did not specify what for. The landlord acknowledged this request but did not offer compensation as it found it had attended to the repair of the leaks within a reasonable timeframe. The resident added further complaint points in the stage 2 escalation which may have related to water damage. These issues were not investigated as part of this complaint as they had been raised at stage 2. The landlord acknowledged the new information raised and arranged for them to be addressed via a new stage 1 complaint. This showed that it considered the importance of these matters to the resident and took steps to investigate them further.
  7. In summary, the landlord responded appropriately to the report of leaks. It identified the importance of the issue and prioritised the works. It was met with delays which were outside of its control. It made reasonable attempts to access the property following the report of a leak. While it did cancel the work due to no access, it worked swiftly to complete the repair once it had been raised again. Despite delays, the repair was completed within a reasonable timeframe of 35 working days. For these reasons a finding of no maladministration has been made.

 

The landlord’s response to requests for compensation for missing items

  1. In its discretionary compensation tariff, the landlord identifies reimbursement costs for loss of belongings as a potential reason for payment. It says it will pay up to the value of £300 and that any higher amount must be considered by its insurance team. It says that customer evidence must be provided to make a payment in this category.
  2. The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 8 June 2023. He said that items had been misplaced by the landlord following his move to the temporary property. He specified items of furniture and photo albums. He asked for compensation to be paid for the missing items.
  3. The landlord offered to organise a meeting on 12 June 2023 between the resident, the removal company and itself in order to establish what happened with the resident’s personal items following the move. While this was a proactive response to the complaint, the meeting did not take place on the scheduled date and it was not reorganised.
  4. The landlord said that the meeting was not rescheduled due to issues with engagement from the resident. It said the meeting had been in part to remove additional items from the temporary property back to the resident’s original address. It said that it chose to withdraw the offer of funding a second removal as the resident was refusing to vacate the temporary property. It said this was the basis for not reorganising the meeting.
  5. The landlord missed an opportunity to establish what had happened with the storage of items following the move, which meant the resident was not given reassurance that his concerns were being treated as a priority. It should have made clear its intention to locate the missing items or given a clear explanation for their loss. The resident’s already challenging experience of having to relocate was made more distressing as a result.
  6. The landlord also allowed other complications with moving the resident and his remaining belongings back to his original property to affect its investigation into the missing items. It did not demonstrate a robust approach to its handling of this aspect of the complaint. It should have been able to manage the process of locating the missing items as a separate matter as an answer was important to the resident.
  7. The landlord explained to the Service that it failed to take an inventory of items that were moved on the day of the relocation. It said that challenges with engagement in the lead up to the move and also the condition of the property meant taking a comprehensive inventory was not possible. However, it failed to explain this to the resident. This meant the resident was not given a clear understanding of how the landlord had handled his belongings, which was unfair. It should have documented what actions it took and why it could not offer more detailed notes about the contents of the property on the day of the move.
  8. It was unreasonable for the landlord to have been unable to produce an inventory in some form. The landlord decided to attend and support the resident with the packaging and moving of items to the temporary property in a single day after the resident had failed previously to pack by himself. This decision did not mean it was unable to make notes or offer some other method of documenting the items that were chosen to be moved on the day, such as a video or photographs. It is acknowledged that the circumstances meant the landlord faced challenges in obtaining a detailed inventory. However, taking the time to offer some form of recording these items would have offered clarity on what had been disposed of and would have shown the resident that it valued his personal belongings.
  9. The landlord did not consider the resident’s vulnerability when providing its explanation of what would happen with his items following the move. It said it explained that any items left in the property would be disposed of but this only appears to have been a verbal explanation. The resident said in his complaints that his items were being taken to storage, which showed that things had not been made clear to him. In light of his known vulnerabilities, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered alternative ways of satisfying itself that the resident understood its plans. It could have considered providing a summary in writing or organising a support worker or advocate to attend and support the resident on the day of the move. The resident was put to further distress and inconvenience as a result of insufficient explanation by the landlord.
  10. In the landlord’s public liability insurance claims process guidance, it says that a resident considering a claim against the landlord or any of its subsidiaries should direct a claim towards the landlord for consideration under public liability.
  11. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had alleged a contractor it had appointed was responsible for the loss of his items. In its stage 1 response, it said that if the resident wanted to make a claim it should be through his own contents insurance policy. There is no evidence that the landlord provided details of its own insurance to the resident. This was despite it knowing the resident believed it was responsible for the loss of his personal belongings. It missed opportunities to do this as part of its complaint process. This was a failing.
  12. In June 2025 the landlord contacted the resident to offer an apology for this. It offered guidance on how to make a claim and £200 compensation to recognise not offering the guidance sooner. While the offer of compensation is proportionate to the failing, this came too late, nearly 2 years from the end of the complaint process. It should not have taken the intervention of the Service to prompt this.
  13. In summary, the landlord attempted initially to support the resident with his concerns but failed to offer an adequate response. Additional support and better record keeping could have been arranged to assist the resident with his understanding of what would happen with his belongings on the day he moved. When the resident reported his concern, the landlord could have conducted a fuller investigation with the removal company to establish what happened to all items stored or disposed of after the move. It could have engaged with the resident in a more empathetic way to give him the reassurance that his concern was being properly investigated. Instead, it relied on its stage 1 response and took no further steps to give the resident an answer. It apologised for not offering information about its public liability insurance sooner and compensated appropriately for this. However, this came 2 years after the complaint had been made which was inappropriate. For the above reasons, a finding of maladministration has been made.
  14. In considering compensation, an amount of £350 inclusive of the amount already offered is appropriate. This includes an additional £150 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of missing personal belongings. The amount has been considered with the landlord’s compensation guidance and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance in mind.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water leaks in the temporary property and his subsequent request for compensation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration for the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for personal items that went missing after moving to the temporary property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide an apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay compensation of £350 inclusive of the amount already offered for distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
    3. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord considers the implementation of a policy or procedure for the handling of resident’s belongings left in properties that they do not occupy.