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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202326012)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326012

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

19 May 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 the resident’s report of a leak in his bathroom.
  2. We have also looked at the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord for over 20 years at the property which is a 1-bedroom flat in a block of flats.
  2. In December 2022 the landlord arranged to visit some of the flats in the resident’s block. This was in relation to an order raised to deal with a leak (leak 1), entering the resident’s flat from the front section of the property’s roof. Its records say this was coming through the bathroom ceiling, causing water marks. It arranged to visit the resident. Its notes say it completed the works between January and March 2023.
  3. In the resident’s 25 August 2023 stage 1 complaint, he said he was currently experiencing a leak, which he said he reported “a year ago”, but the landlord had not resolved it. He said an engineer came to look at the bathroom ceiling but did not fix the leak.
  4. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 8 September 2023. It said it visited the property on 6 September 2023 to “make safe” the hole in the bathroom ceiling. It said it would return to renew the damaged ceiling and other works although did not specify what it would do specifically to address the leak. It acknowledged it had attended in December 2022 and noted the hole but failed to return to deal with it then. It apologised and offered the resident £40 for the time and trouble caused.
  5. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 20 September 2023. He said no one had contacted him about completing the repairs and the ceiling was leaking again.
  6. On 28 September 2023 a landlord operative visited the property. He confirmed that the leak the resident reported in August 2023 was a “new leak”, unrelated to the repair works that it had carried out for leak 1 at the front of the property in January/February 2023.
  7. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 of its complaint’s process on 20 October 2023. It informed him that leak 2 was coming from the rear of the building and that it had erected scaffolding to inspect and repair the roof. It said it would complete the internal repair works to the bathroom when the roof was finished. It increased its compensation to £250 plus £150 for the time and trouble caused, and £100 for its service failure.
  8. In November 2023 the resident asked us to investigate. He described being unable to use his bathroom and considered the issue was “dangerous for my health.” He wanted the landlord to complete repairs to the bathroom.
  9. On 21 June 2024 the landlord wrote to us. It said its complaint responses had been “inconsistent.” It said it first become aware of a leak and the damage to the resident’s ceiling in August 2023, when he complained. It said it should have offered compensation for the delayed repair to leak 2 and for its poor communications. It offered a further £150 for its poor complaints handling and £250 for its communication failures. The total compensation was £690.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The records indicate the landlord visited the resident about leak 1 in December 2022. However, it does not appear that the resident complained about that visit or the landlord’s failure to address the issue with that leak at the time. His first recorded complaint was in August 2023. The landlord’s complaint correspondence initially referred to the visit in December 2022, indicating that it had accepted a complaint about the landlord’s response to leak 1. However, it later clarified that it was only responding to a complaint about how it had dealt with leak 2.
  2. The Service will only investigate complaints that have been through the landlord’s internal complaints process before coming to us. The circumstances surrounding the landlord’s response to leak 1 or any damage caused by that leak are unclear, meaning we cannot make a finding about that part of the complaint. Therefore, apart from references to the background for context, this investigation centres on the landlord’s responses to the complaint about its handling of leak 2.

On the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about leak 2.

  1. The resident reported leak 2 on 25 August 2023. He said it had caused a large hole in his bathroom ceiling. The landlord’s repairs policy says that where any repair may cause significant risk to the safety of tenants, or significant damage to the property, a contractor will visit to ensure the resident is safe within the first 24 hours after it has been reported.
  2. In this case, the landlord visited to “make safe” the hole in the bathroom ceiling, on 6 September 2023. This was 12 days after the resident complained about the issue. It was not within its policy timeframe and was an inappropriate response.
  3. The landlord also raised a job on 6 September 2023 to renew the section of damaged ceiling, plasterboard and then skim the entire ceiling. It did not complete this work until 25 January 2024. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that where roof repairs that require scaffolding are necessary, it may treat a repair as non-routine. It says non-routine repairs may take 90 days. From the point at which the repair request was identified, on 25 August 2023, to the final completion of repairs in January 2024, this repair took 153 days. Before the landlord responded at stage 2, the resident had to chase the landlord for an update on the proposed repairs to the roof. In his escalation to stage 2 he said that the landlord had failed to contact him and that rainwater was leaking into the bathroom again.  Nothing in the evidence specifically explains the delay, or shows the landlord updating the resident about the expected completion time. The delay was therefore unreasonable.
  4. In its 20 October 2023 stage 2 complaint response the landlord informed the resident that it would make repairs to the roof after an inspection on 23 October 2023. The records show these did not go ahead until 30 November 2023. The resident then had to wait for the area to dry out before the landlord would complete the internal works to the bathroom ceiling.
  5. In total the landlord offered the resident £500 compensation for the inconvenience caused and for its service failure in regard to the leak and the subsequent repairs. Its compensation policy says that where there has been a “high failure” compensation should start from £151 for a failure in service, time, and trouble.
  6. The amount offered by the landlord was in line with that policy. It was also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a complaint in which there was no permanent impact but has adversely affected a resident and required their involvement and time and trouble. Taken with the landlord’s final completion of the work, its acknowledgement of its poor service, and its apologies, the compensation was therefore a reasonable remedy to the complaint.

On the landlord’s complaint’s handling

  1. The landlord recognised, in correspondence with us after the end of its complaints process, that its complaint responses had been “inconsistent” and had failed to deal fully with the resident’s issues. It increased its compensation to £690.
  2. This offer was sufficient to remedy the complaint handling errors the landlord identified. However, it made the offer after the resident had brought his complaint to the service, and not through the operation of its internal complaints process. The landlord did not explain why it did not identify its poor handling of the complaint at the time of its final complaint response. If it had done so, its compensation would have reasonably remedied its failing. As it did not, it’s poor handling remains a failing.

Determinations

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its response to the resident’s report of a leak in his bathroom.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must pay the resident the further £190 it offered in its correspondence with the Service. Evidence of the payment must be provided by the deadline. 

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already the landlord should ensure it has paid the £500 compensation it offered in its complaint responses. The findings in this report are based on it doing so.