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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202326403)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326403

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTVH)

17 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 handling of a leak at the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a third floor one-bedroom flat. The landlord had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. On 17 November 2022 the resident reported there was water leaking from the roof into his property during recent heavy rainfall. A work order was raised, and the property was inspected on 22 December 2022.
  3. The resident made a complaint on 4 January 2023. He stated the repair had not been completed and water was still leaking into his property. The resident said he could see on his online account that the status of the job was showing as completed on 22 December 2022, despite the repair still being outstanding. He stated that as the roof is communal it was the landlord’s responsibility to repair.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 22 February 2023. It said since the resident’s complaint another work order had been raised for the roof and was attended to on 30 January 2023. The landlord said it could not see anything wrong with the roof but thought the gullies had overflowed in a heavy downpour. It said the repair was showing as completed and the order closed because an inspection had been carried out and a report had been sent to the repairs team. The landlord apologised for the delay and the frustration caused by no progress on the repair. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint and awarded £70 compensation. The compensation was made up of £35 for service failure and £35 for time and trouble.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 18 September 2023. He told the landlord that the roof was still leaking into the property, and he wanted the repair carried out.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 October 2023. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The landlord advised that a job was raised in July 2023 but had been closed after there was no access on 3 separate occasions. It said there had been no further reports raised about the leak until the resident’s escalation. The landlord stated an inspection was carried out on 6 October 2023. At the inspection it had been identified that there were gaps between the coping stones that was leading to water ingress into the cavity wall. The landlord said this had led to the deterioration of the roof deck which needed replacing. It said the work would be carried out and completed as a priority within its agreed timescales. The landlord acknowledged the resident had been given an incorrect date for an appointment which ended up being cancelled due to staff sickness. The landlord did not award any further compensation but said it was sorry for any inconvenience caused.
  7. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 2 November 2023 as the repair had not been completed. The landlord contacted the Ombudsman on 24 July 2024. It said the repair had now been completed but acknowledged there had been some failings in its handling of the repair which had taken 12 months to complete. The landlord also acknowledged some complaint handling failures. It said it would like to offer the resident £800 compensation consisting of £600 for delays in responding to repairs and £200 for poor complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a leak at the property.

  1. The resident’s lease confirms the landlord is responsible for maintaining the roof.
  2. The evidence showed the landlord raised a work order on 17 November 2022 when the resident reported a leak. The work order noted there was water leaking from the roof into the property due to a recent heavy downpour. An appointment was booked for 13 December 2022, but the appointment did not take place due to the landlord being unable to access the property. Any delay to the landlord carrying out work because of no access provided by the resident was reasonable. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident was informed of this appointment.
  3. The appointment was rescheduled and took place on 22 December 2022. The property was inspected, and a report was issued to the landlord’s repairs team. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to show the landlord advised the resident of the outcome of the inspection or managed his expectations on what action it was going to take.
  4. In his complaint dated 4 January 2023 the resident expressed concern to see on his online account that the work order was listed as completed when no repair work had been carried out. In its stage 1 response issued on 22 February 2023 the landlord advised that the job was closed as the inspection had been completed. It said that another appointment had occurred on 30 January 2023, but its contractors could not identify a leak from the roof. It said the contractor found the gullies had overflowed and this should be monitored by the resident.
  5. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that there had been a delay with information reaching its repairs team. This might account for why the appointment after the inspection did not take place until 30 January 2023 which exceeded the landlord’s 20 working days listed to complete work which is defined as “routine”.
  6. There was no evidence provided by the parties of any subsequent events in the case until 29 June 2023 when the resident contacted the landlord because a brown stain had appeared on the ceiling while it had been raining. The resident had advised the landlord that this could only come from the roof as his flat was on the top floor of the block.
  7. In its stage 2 response the landlord said a job had been raised in July 2023 to address this matter, but it had been closed after there was no access on 3 separate occasions. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to show that the resident was made aware of these appointments. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that there had been no further reports raised about the leak until the resident’s escalation on 18 September 2023.
  8. Another inspection occurred on 6 October 2023. At this appointment it was identified that there were gaps between the coping stones that was leading to water ingress into the cavity wall. This had also led to the deterioration of the roofing deck which the landlord said needed replacing. In its stage 2 response issued on 17 October 2023 the landlord said the work would be carried out by a subcontractor and completed as a priority within its agreed timescales. The landlord did not state what its agreed timescale was or which type of repair this work had been categorised as.
  9. The evidence showed scaffolding was erected in September 2023 and an appointment had been arranged for 28 September 2023. However, the stage 2 response acknowledged that the resident had been given the wrong date of 26 September 2023 for the appointment. The landlord said it had apologised to the resident for this error. The appointment did not occur on 28 September 2023 due to staff sickness. The work has now been completed but it was not clear from the evidence when this took place. In the landlord’s evidence submission, it stated the work had taken 12 months to complete.
  10. The landlord offered the resident £70 compensation at stage 1. This was made up of £35 for service failure and £35 for time and trouble. The landlord did not offer any compensation at stage 2. However, when submitting evidence to the Ombudsman, the landlord acknowledged that had the original fault been identified in December 2022 that the incidents in June 2023 could have been avoided. The landlord had reviewed its compensation offer and told the Ombudsman it would like to offer the resident £600 compensation for delays in responding to repairs.
  11. While this amount of compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance, the Ombudsman has concluded that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of a leak at the property. This was because the appropriate amount of compensation was not made in the landlord’s final response. It was only after the resident brought his case to the Ombudsman that the landlord made an appropriate offer of compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states there are 2 stages to its complaints process. The policy states the landlord will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The resident made his complaint on 4 January 2023. However, the landlord did not issue its stage 1 response until 22 February 2023. This was 35 working days after the resident made her complaint. This was not in line with the Code which states stage 1 responses should be issued within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint.
  3. As there was a delay in issuing the stage 1 response, the resident was delayed in being able to progress his complaint through the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, he was also delayed in being able to bring his complaint to the Ombudsman.
  4. The Code states that “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate”. The landlord acknowledged to the Ombudsman on 24 July 2024 that at stage 2 it had not addressed the issue or recognised its failings suitably.
  5. The landlord has revised its offer of redress and has awarded the resident £200 for poor complaint handling. It stated this was for delays in responding to the complaint and failing to address the original fault in the first instance.
  6. While this amount of compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance, the Ombudsman has concluded that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This was because the appropriate amount of compensation was not made in the landlord’s final response. It was only after the resident brought his case to the Ombudsman that the landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failures and made an appropriate offer of compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of a leak at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £800 to the resident. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to his service charge account. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with this order within 4 weeks of the date of this report by submitting a copy of the remittance advice, or equivalent document, to the Ombudsman. The compensation is comprised of:
    1. £600 in respect of the landlord’s handling of lead paint in the property.
    2. £200 in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.