Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202326605)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326605

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

25 July 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 handling of repairs at the resident’s property, which includes:
1. Plastering of walls.
2. Gaps around a newly installed extractor fan in the kitchen.
3. Issues with a new door handle which had been installed.
4. Issues with electrical sockets in the kitchen that were not working.
5. Works needed to the windows.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She was assigned the property in 2006 after a mutual exchange. The property is a 3-bedroom maisonette.
In March 2023, the landlord decanted the resident into a hotel so it could complete works to the property.
On 5 May 2023, the landlord acknowledged a complaint from the resident. She cited delays in entering the temporary accommodation and not being able to bring possessions from her property. She further stated when she returned from temporary accommodation, there were outstanding works, and her carpet was soiled.
On 14 June 2023, the landlord sent the stage 1 response and said the following:
1. It apologised for not completing all works or cleaning the carpets before the resident returned to the property, although it had completed the “major works”.
2. It stated it would attend on 15 June 2023 to address outstanding repairs, assess damp in kitchen units, and arrange to clean the carpet.
3. It offered compensation of £180 which comprised:
  1. £75 for service failure.
  2. £75 for time and trouble.
  3. £30 for poor complaint handling
On 29 June 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She stated there were outstanding repairs:
1. Plastering to a wall.
2. Gaps around a newly installed extractor in the kitchen.
3. Issues with a new door handle which had been installed.
4. Issues with electrical sockets in the kitchen that were not working.
5. Works needed to the windows.

She further noted the carpet had not been cleaned.

On 6 October 2023, the landlord sent the stage 2 response and said the following:
1. Delays occurred in completing the works due to the resident’s request for specific operatives to attend after their leave, and because she declined dates.
2. It had completed some works. It would plaster and decorate walls, seal gaps around the extractor fan installed in the kitchen, repair the new door handle, and repair the sockets in the kitchen.
3. It was due to complete a post-inspection on 6 October 2023 to ensure the works were completed. It would also book in a carpet clean.
4. It had agreed to reglaze one room but would check whether it would need to replace other glazing.
5. It accepted it had caused some delays to the works due to miscommunication over what works were outstanding.
6. It offered additional compensation of £300 which comprised:
  1. £150 for poor complaint handling.
  2. £75 for time and trouble.
  3. £75 for service failure.
On 3 November 2023 and 20 December 2023, the resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She advised the following:
1. At a visit on 16 January 2023, the landlord had agreed to change windows in the living room, a bedroom, and the kitchen as they were stained. Also, the living room window had come off a hinge. Wind still blew into the property.
2. When she returned from the temporary accommodation in April 2023, most of the works were not completed.
3. The landlord had completed plastering works in September 2023 after damp works. However, it had not reinstated the kitchen cabinets which had been removed to allow the works.
4. The landlord had not yet cleaned the carpet.
In July 2025, the resident advised the Ombudsman the landlord had still not reinstated the kitchen cabinets. She said since her last contact with us, the landlord had installed new windows under a planned works programme; however, the other matters complained about were unresolved. As resolution to her complaint, she would like the landlord to complete all outstanding repairs.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

The landlord’s customer guide on repair responsibilities confirms its repair responsibilities. This includes its statutory obligations to “keep the structure and exterior of your home safe, secure and weatherproof”, and “ensure all fixtures and fittings – for the supply of water, gas, electricity, heating and sanitation are working”.
The resident has advised that a senior staff member inspected her property on 16 January 2023. The staff member identified works which required the resident and her family to be decanted. The landlord has not provided evidence of the inspection or the works it identified at the time. This is inappropriate as clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service as this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure the landlord has a good understanding of the condition of the structure and its fittings within the property. Records also enable the landlord to monitor and manage outstanding repairs and provide accurate information to residents. While there is no evidence of the inspection, the parties do not dispute the landlord decanted the resident as a result. The landlord has advised the Ombudsman it needed to source and repair a plumbing leak at the address that had caused damage to the home.
In her complaint, the resident stated the landlord decanted her to complete major works. It had informed her by phone it would carry repairs to “the stained windows, the dampness, the kitchen, the smell in the toilet, the noise from the extractor fan and anything else that I had reported”. However, as noted, there is no evidence the landlord outlined the works in writing to the resident prior to placing her in temporary accommodation. The landlord therefore did not take adequate steps to manage her expectations on the works it would complete to her property. This was particularly unreasonable as the works were extensive enough to require a decant.
The landlord placed the resident in a hotel as temporary accommodation. There was an initial delay as the landlord did not provide sufficient storage boxes and did not pay for Wi-Fi at the hotel. The resident at the time was both in full-time employment and studying at university so required an internet connection. This indicates the landlord did not take adequate steps to identify the resident’s needs and wants before placing her in temporary accommodation.
The resident has advised the Ombudsman she intended to book in the hotel on the evening of 9 March 2023. This would be after attending university, then going to her property to pick up belongings. However, she states the landlord did not respond to her phone calls about making an appointment to meet at the property and on arriving she found it had changed the locks. The resident confirms she paid for a locksmith to change the locks so she could collect belongings to take to the hotel. The resident has also stated she asked the landlord for regular access so she could pick up changes of clothes; however, there is no evidence of any discussion or agreement on this issue. Again, this indicates that the landlord did not take adequate steps to agree what access the resident could have to her possessions when in temporary accommodation.
The resident has stated when she returned to her property to collect possessions on 11 March 2023, she raised concerns about dirt on the carpet. On 20 March 2023, the landlord warned the resident about returning to the property and changing locks as this was unsafe and delaying works.
The resident has provided us with an email dated 6 April 2023 that the landlord sent to her. The landlord has not provided this email to us. The email stated, “With regards to the timescale for windows, I have advised it will take 6-9 weeks for the delivery of glazing and then appointment will be agreed with you for actual works to be done”. This email indicates that the landlord had agreed window repairs which entailed reglazing a number of windows at least.
On 5 May 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint. She outlined the initial delays with the temporary accommodation and the difficulties faced when needing access to property. She said she returned to the property on 14 and 15 April 2023 after being told all works were completed; however, she did not see this to be the case. This included the landlord not replacing or cleaning a bath panel, walls being painted with oil paints, and an unfinished living room wall. The resident said, also, the carpet was still dirty.
In the stage 1 response of 14 June 2023, the landlord apologised for not completing works or cleaning the carpet prior to the resident returning to property; it said, however, the major works had been completed. The landlord confirmed it would attend on 15 June 2023 to address outstanding repairs, assess damp in the kitchen units, and arrange to clean the carpets. It is therefore not disputed the landlord failed to carry out all the works it agreed to when deciding the resident could return to the property. There is no evidence it had inspected the property to ascertain whether all works had been satisfactorily completed. It thereby failed to adequately monitor the works and keep records to justify its position that the resident could return. This was unreasonable.
The landlord in the stage 1 response advised it had completed the major works. However, without a clear schedule of works and evidence of inspections, it was not in a position to conclude this. In fact, the stage 1 response noted the landlord had not resolved the dampness in the property. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and our Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould highlights that landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach. This failure to fully resolve the damp was particularly unreasonable given that it remained in the kitchen where food was kept and prepared.
There is no record to confirm whether the landlord attended on 15 June 2023, or what works it completed. On 29 June 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She stated there were outstanding repairs:
1. Plastering to walls.
2. Gaps around the newly installed extractor in the kitchen.
3. Issues with the new door handle which had been installed.
4. Issues with the sockets in the kitchen that were not working.
5. Works needed to her windows.
6. The carpet had not been cleaned.
The later correspondence between the parties indicates there were delays in the completion of outstanding works. This in part was due to the resident being away until 13 July 2023 and then wanting named operatives to attend, before changing her mind on 17 August 2023. However, the landlord did not arrange completion of the outstanding works until making appointments for 22 and 27 September 2023 then 4,5, and 6 October 2023. Notwithstanding the period when the resident did not provide access to her property, the landlord did not show sufficient urgency for the remaining works.
The landlord advised it would complete the works listed by the resident in her complaint escalation on the scheduled dates, apart from the windows. It agreed specifically to replaster walls in the kitchen, hallway, and living room, then decorate. It agreed to replace kitchen units, remedy the gap around the kitchen extractor fan, repair the door handle, repair the kitchen, and clean the carpet. Furthermore, it agreed to check the fan in the toilet, which the resident stated was noisy, and replace it if needed.
However, an internal email sent on 31 August 2023 noted the repair issues raised by the resident were not on the landlord’s repair systems. Also, the resident in correspondence in September 2023 referred to the inspection of 16 January 2023 when raising the window works. She contended the landlord had promised it would replace the kitchen, bedroom, and living room windows, and make the others airtight. The landlord had no record of this and stated it would confirm its position. This is further evidence of the landlord failing to keep adequate records of the works identified for completion and their progress.
In the stage 2 response of 6 October 2023, the landlord confirmed it would complete the outstanding works discussed and carry out a post-inspection. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states: “Handling a complaint should include an assessment of what evidence is needed to fully consider the issues, consideration of what outcome would resolve the matter for the resident and urgent actions identified and acted upon.” However, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out a post-inspection to ensure all works were completed. In fact, the resident emailed the landlord on 6 October 2023 to say the surveyor did not attend. The landlord has also not provided any other evidence to confirm it completed the works it agreed to when investigating the resident’s complaint. The resident has advised the Ombudsman some works are still outstanding. Therefore, it is not evident that the landlord has fully acted upon and resolved the repair issues it identified at the time it investigated the resident’s complaint.
In summary, there have been delays by the landlord in scheduling, monitoring, and completing works to the resident’s property. It has not consistently managed the resident’s expectations on the repairs to be completed. The fact the landlord did not maintain timely and detailed repair records has contributed to these service failures. There were also failures in the provision of temporary accommodation, in particular, accommodating the resident’s situation through responding to their needs and wishes. Taken altogether, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord.
With regards to its handling of repairs, at both stages of the complaints procedure the landlord offered £150 compensation (£75 for service failure and £75 for time and trouble). This makes a total of £300. When providing information for this investigation, the landlord has offered to pay a further £300 compensation. It explained this is based on poor communication, delays, chasing up outstanding works, and failing to provide access to belongings. The Ombudsman considers that an award of £600 is more proportionate to the failures identified in this report. It is within the range of compensation within our Remedies Guidance for cases of maladministration where there was a failure that affected the resident but with no permanent impact.
The Complaints Procedure confirms the landlord should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. The landlord should send the stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days. At both stages, it should agree an extension with the resident, if required. In this case, the landlord offered a total of £180 for its poor complaint handling. This is within the range of compensation in the Remedies Guidance for cases of maladministration.
While the landlord did not meet its timeframes for responding to the complaint, it provided holding responses at both stages. This included correspondence sent on 11 May 2023, 23 July 2023, 3 August 2023, 17 August 2023 and 31 August 2023. We therefore consider that the landlord offered proportionate redress for its poor complaint handling.
The resident has informed the Ombudsman after we notified her we would be investigating her complaint, she contacted the landlord about the repair issues. She said the landlord consequently inspected her property in May 2025, and agreed to complete all works. This included an offer to replace her carpet if she provided evidence it had previously agreed to make it good. The resident has stated she has not heard back from the landlord following the inspection. As she states the inspection covered the repair issues that she complained about, we order the landlord to confirm to her the outcome of the inspection.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs at the resident’s property.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within the next 4 weeks, to:
1. pay the resident compensation of £780 comprising:
  1. the £480 that was offered within the complaint process.
  2. an additional £300 to reflect the resident’s time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs.
2. confirm if the inspection of May 2025 that the resident has referred to covered the issues raised in her formal complaint. If so, it should confirm to the resident the outcome of the inspection and complete the works.
3. otherwise, carry out all works that remain outstanding from the time of the resident’s complaint. This should include making good or replacing the resident’s carpet.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, to undertake and complete a strategic review of this case setting out and including learning and improvement opportunities across at minimum the following:
1. The reasons why it delayed in completing works at the resident’s property.
2. The reasons why it did not keep records of the works it identified and of all the actions taken on the repairs. It may wish to consider our guidance and Spotlight Report of Knowledge and Information Management (KIM).
3. The reasons why it did not effectively track and monitor the works so as to reduce delays.
4. The extent to which there were access difficulties and repeat visits, and whether this could have been mitigated.
5. The reasons why it did not fully address and resolve the issues after responding to the complaint at stage 2.

The resultant report must be shared with the Ombudsman.