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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202323534)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323534

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

3 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 shower repairs.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy at the property began on 22 January 2013. The property is a 1 bedroom flat. It has a wet room.
  2. On 3 July 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that she had no hot water. The landlord’s gas contractor attended the same day. It found that there was hot water to all outlets apart from the shower. It said this was due to an issue with the shower mixer valve which required a plumber. The landlord raised a works order for the shower to its repairs contractor on 4 July 2023.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 5 July 2023. She said that its repairs contractor had been due to attend that morning, and she had waited in for them. However, nobody had arrived. She said she had been told she would have no bathing facilities for 3 weeks.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 13 July 2023. It said that it had offered the resident an appointment for the shower repair on 14 July 2023, but this had not been convenient for her. It said an appointment was now arranged for 18 July 2023. The landlord said that this was within its target timescale for the repair and so it had not identified any service failure.
  5. The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 18 July 2023. She objected to the landlord saying that the appointment had not been ‘convenient for her’. She said that she had arranged a trip away due to the lack of bathing facilities in the property and the landlord telling her partner it would be 3 weeks before it could attend for repairs.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 20 July 2023. It said that:
    1. It had incorrectly raised the shower repair as a routine repair, to be attended within 20 working days.
    2. Based on the information the resident had provided, it should have raised the repair as urgent, to be attended within 24 hours.
    3. Its repair contractor had attended on 18 July 2023 but been unable to complete the repair due to not having the correct part.
    4. It had now sourced the part and would return on 21 July 2023 to finish the job.
    5. It had awarded the resident £150 compensation composed of £50 each for time and trouble, service failure and poor complaint handling.

Events since landlord’s stage 2 complaint response

  1. On 21 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to accept its offer of compensation. However, she said that its repairs contractor had not attended to repair the shower.
  2. The landlord’s repairs contractor replaced the shower mixer valve on 25 July 2023. It found that the shower still did not run hot and advised the resident to contact the landlord’s gas contractor to check the boiler.
  3. On 3 August 2023, the landlord’s repairs contractor removed a flow restrictor from the shower which reinstated the hot water to it.
  4. On 20 June 2024, when providing information for this investigation, the landlord told us that it had reviewed the resident’s complaint. It said it had found that further compensation would be appropriate. It said it had awarded the resident:
    1. £200 for its repairs contactor’s failure in ordering the wrong part.
    2. £150 as “the Stage One response did not address the urgent nature of the complaint”.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s ‘repair responsibilities’ document details how it prioritises repairs. It says that it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours of them being reported. For routine repairs it will attend within 20 working days. The document says that a loss of hot water with no alternative form of hot water for bathing is an emergency repair.
  2. The resident reported that she had no hot water on 3 July 2023. The landlord’s gas contractor attended the same day, in keeping with the landlord’s repairs priorities. The gas contractor found the issue was with the shower and appropriately referred it back to the landlord for a plumber to attend.
  3. The landlord raised a works order to its repairs contractor on 4 July 2023. Its records show that this was raised as a routine repair. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged it should have raised an emergency repair due to the resident not having any other means of bathing. When escalating her complaint, the resident said that her partner called the landlord about the repair and was told she faced a 3 week wait for its contractor to attend.
  4. The resident also emailed the landlord on 4 July 2023. She told it she was “severely disabled” and without bathing facilities. We note that the landlord told us it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on its systems, we have made an order regarding this below.
  5. The resident said within her complaint that she had waited in all morning on 5 July 2023 for the landlord’s contractor to attend. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord or its contractor made an appointment with her for this date.
  6. Internal emails show that the landlord asked its repairs contractor to bring the repair forwards “based on the residents’ circumstances”. But the contractor did not respond until 10 July 2023. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to escalate the matter, such as by phoning the contractor, to ensure it attended within its repair priority timescale. Its failure to do this led to the resident making her complaint on 5 July 2023.
  7. In its email of 10 July 2023, the contactor told the landlord that the resident was “going away today until next Monday” (17 July 2023). It arranged an appointment with her for 18 July 2023. Whilst this was the next available date, the resident has advised that she only arranged to go away due to the landlord telling her she would have to wait 3 weeks before it could repair the shower.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 13 July 2023. It failed to identify its failure to appropriately log the repair as an emergency. It said that “As we have offered both appointments within the allocated timeframe, it cannot be agreed that a service failure has occurred.”
  9. The landlord’s repairs contractor attended the property on 18 July 2023 as scheduled. According to the contractor’s records, its operative brought a ‘like for like’ part “however, it was a different brand and the pipework is slightly smaller”. As the contractor had not previously inspected the shower it would be unreasonable to be critical of it for not having the exact part to hand. The contractor said its operative tried to find the correct part locally but was unable to. They eventually located one on their way home from work and updated the contractor of this.
  10. The contractor told the landlord it tried to phone the resident on 19 July 2023 and had a left a message offering an appointment for 21 July 2023 to complete the work. Considering the resident was without bathing facilities it would have been appropriate for the contractor to offer an emergency appointment to complete the repair as soon as possible, rather than 2 days after it had sourced the part.
  11. The contractor also told the landlord “however, I need [the resident] to call back to confirm they will be home before I can book this in.” In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord told the resident that it would be attending on 21 July 2023 to complete the repair. It failed to mention that its contractor required the resident to confirm this appointment before it would go ahead.
  12. The landlord’s contractor failed to attend the property on 21 July 2023. It told the landlord that the resident had not called back to confirm the appointment. However, in an email to the landlord on 21 July 2023, the resident said “I have attached the confirmation call I made on July 19th in response to [its repairs contractor] offering me a Friday, July 21st appointment.” Whilst we have not been provided with a copy of this attachment, there is no evidence the landlord has disputed its content. Therefore, we find that the contractor failed to appropriately record that the resident confirmed the appointment and book it in.
  13. On 24 July 2023 the landlord’s contractor arranged an appointment with the resident for the following day. The resident had emailed the landlord to make it aware its contractor had not attended at 5:49pm on 21 July 2023, it is therefore unlikely the landlord would have been aware until 24 July 2023, when it emailed the contactor to ask about this and it responded advising of the new appointment.
  14. The repairs contactor attended on 25 July 2023 and completed repairs to the shower as scheduled. However, the shower was still not providing hot water. The contractor recorded that it told the resident to contact the landlord’s gas contractor as it believed it was an issue with the boiler. Considering the landlord’s gas contractor had fed back to the landlord directly about the plumbing issue on 3 July 2023, it would have been appropriate for the repairs contactor to do likewise here. This would have saved the resident the time and trouble of logging a further repair.
  15. It is unclear when the resident contacted the landlord’s gas contractor, however it attended on 27 March 2023. It found the landlord’s repairs contractor was mistaken and there was an issue with the pipes rather than the boiler. It again referred this back to the landlord, which raised a repair order to its contractor on the same day. However, the landlord failed to show that it had learnt from the resident’s complaint and again raised this repair as a routine priority.
  16. As a result, its repairs contractor did not attend until 3 August 2023, when it managed to restore the shower to full working order. This meant that the resident had been left without a means to bathe for a full month.
  17. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £150 compensation. After the resident referred her complaint to us, the landlord carried out a further review and offered a further £350 – bringing its total offer to £500. It is our position that a finding of reasonable redress can only be made based upon a landlord’s actions before we have accepted a resident’s complaint. Therefore, we are unable to consider this further £350 in that regard.
  18. In summary, the landlord acknowledged some of its failings during its complaints procedure but there were additional failings afterwards. These led to further delays in restoring the resident’s shower to working order and showed it had not learnt from the complaint. We feel that the landlord’s eventual offer of £500 compensation is appropriately in keeping with our remedies guidance for instances of maladministration. However, the landlord failed to make this offer until after the resident had brought her complaint to us. Due to this we make a finding of maladministration but do not order any additional compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of shower repairs.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident £500 compensation composed of:
      1. The £150 offered in its stage 2 complaint response, if not already paid.
      2. The further £350 it awarded after reviewing the complaint, if not already paid.
    2. Apologise to the resident for the maladministration identified by this investigation
    3. Contact the resident to ensure it has appropriately recorded all her vulnerabilities on its systems.
    4. Remind staff responsible for logging repairs of the importance of checking if residents have other bathing facilities available when logging shower or bath repairs to appropriately assess their priority.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of its compliance with these orders to us.