Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202331469)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331469

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

23 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs required to address the resident’s concerns of damp and mould.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident’s child has a disability which the landlord is aware of. Also, the resident’s partner has asthma.
On 26 December 2022 the resident experienced a leak from a radiator. He reported issues with radiators in the property, as well as damp and mould concerns to the landlord. The landlord attended the property for the radiator on 6 January 2023. The landlord also arranged for a survey on 31 January 2023. The landlord attended the property on 10 January 2023 for the boiler and 15 February 2023 for the radiators.
The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord via its portal on 13 July 2023. The resident was dissatisfied that condensation, damp, and mould were persisting due to outstanding repairs which were agreed on 31 January 2023. The resident said:
1. Radiators in the property needed to be repaired.
2. The wet room flooring needed to be renewed.
3. He had concerns about the winter ahead as he had been living without the use of 2 radiators.
4. He had concerns about his son’s living conditions.
5. His clothing, bedding, and furniture had damp and mould.
6. The loft space was to be inspected regarding insulation.
7. The boiler was becoming depressurised.
On 19 July 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. The landlord outlined a history of repairs at the property from January 2023 until 7 June 2023. The landlord said:
1. There was miscommunication between it and its contractors, as they were waiting to be told when the wall would be strengthened. Then it could install the radiators. It apologised for this.
2. There were no repairs raised for loft insulation or the wet room floor. It checked its systems, and these were not raised before by the resident. It arranged for a further surveyor’s inspection on 24 July 2023.
3. It offered a total of £150 for the delays in installing the radiators. This was made up of:
  1. £100 for the time and trouble expended by the resident.
  2. £50 for the landlord’s service failure.
The landlord carried out a survey on 24 July 2023 and raised repairs to tile the wet room and renew the floor. It also told the resident that loft insulation was not possible. On 17 August 2023 the resident said the landlord’s operative who carried out tiling works in the wet room on 3 March 2023, attended the property again. The resident said he was not happy with the quality of previous work, so the landlord re-arranged the tiling works for 24 August 2023.
On 18 August 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and provided electricity bills and photos of damaged personal possessions. The resident escalated his complaint on 21 August 2023. He was dissatisfied the complaint was closed at stage 1 of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, before the surveyor visited on 24 July 2023. The resident said:
1. The landlord should have a plan of action in place. He had been experiencing issues for 8 months at that stage.
2. He sent copies of utility bills, purchases and photographs.
3. The wet room floor repairs were incomplete.
4. The wet room tiles were previously completed to a poor standard.
5. The radiators had not been installed.
6. The boiler was becoming depressurised.
7. He was dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered.
On 25 September 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. A surveyor and supervisor attended the property on 7 September 2023 and carried out decorative works. The landlord raised a repair for the wet room and the appointment was arranged for 4 October 2023.
2. The resident was waiting for an update about the radiators. It had raised a work order to produce a thermal efficiency report by 17 October 2023. He would be contacted after the report to carry out the repairs.
3. The resident was not aware that it was not possible to insulate his loft, but as this was not responded to at stage 1 it considered this a complaint handling failure.
4. The landlord awarded a total compensation of £456, this was made up of:
  1. £150 offered at stage 1.
  2. £100 for time and trouble.
  3. £50 for service failure.
  4. £136 re-imbursement for heating.
  5. £20 for complaint handling.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and on 4 January 2024 confirmed that he wanted us to investigate his concerns. In February 2024 the resident’s partner was diagnosed with asthma. On 17 July 2024 the landlord contacted the resident and offered an additional £1,050 as it had not completed radiator repairs. The resident was dissatisfied as repairs were still outstanding and he said the experience had affected his family’s health and wellbeing. On 14 August 2024 the radiator repairs and strengthening of the walls were completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident told us the outstanding repairs and damp and mould was affecting his family’s health and wellbeing. This includes his partner’s asthma diagnosis of February 2024. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s concerns, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, effects on health and wellbeing. This element of the complaint may perhaps be better suited for the courts. However, we will consider any distress, or inconvenience caused. Additionally, it is important to note that the landlord would not have been aware of the resident’s partner’s asthma during the internal complaints procedure. As this happened after the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, we will not be able to comment further.
Further, the resident has said condensation, damp, and mould in the property caused damage to personal possessions. It is not our role to determine liability for damaged possessions and the resident may wish to make an insurance claim. However, we will assess if the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports about damaged possessions.

Repairs required to address concerns of damp and mould

In the landlord’s final response, it accepted failings with the length of time there were outstanding repairs. After the resident confirmed he wanted us to investigate, the landlord offered additional compensation to him. Neither party has disputed the repairs remain incomplete. The resident has disputed the level of compensation offered by the landlord and the time taken to complete repairs. Therefore, this report will consider whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles and remedies guidance. The principles of effective dispute resolution are:
1. Be fair, treat people fairly, and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep in repair:
1. The structure and exterior of the property.
2. The installations in the property that supply heating and hot water.
The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to assess hazards and risks within its properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord’s repairs guide states its timescale to complete routine repairs are 28-calendar days. Non routine repairs are to be completed in 90-calendar days.
The evidence shows the resident first reported issues with a leaking radiator on 26 December 2022. This was attended to on 6 January 2023 which was appropriate and in line with its 28-day timescale.
The landlord was put on notice of the resident’s concerns with condensation, damp, and mould in the property on 4 January 2023. The landlord completed a survey of the property 19-working days later, on 31 January 2023. This was also appropriate action by the landlord and in line with its 28-day timescale.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it works with residents to solve issues. It also says it will always be clear on the timescales of each solution it proposes.
After the landlord’s survey of 31 January 2023, there is no evidence it told the resident when the works would be completed by. This was not appropriate as it contrasts its damp and mould policy. While we acknowledge appointments were made for multiple repairs, the resident did not receive completion timescales at the outset. Therefore, the landlord missed the opportunity at this point to manage the resident’s expectations.
We acknowledge the landlord was carrying out repairs to help stop condensation, damp, and mould growth in the property. While the evidence shows the extent of the damp and mould was not widespread, it was still causing distress to the resident. The evidence shows the landlord did not complete a mould treatment to the skylight areas of the property until 20 April 2023. This meant it had taken 56-working days after its survey of 31 January 2023, which was not appropriate.
We acknowledge the landlord did not find presence of mould in subsequent visits. However, the landlord did not provide any further reasoning or explain any delays related to damp and mould treatment throughout the internal complaint procedure. This was unreasonable action by the landlord, as the resident clearly remained distressed about the potential for re-occurrence of damp and mould.
Further, in the resident’s complaint submission, he referred to damage to clothing, bedding, and furniture. In his complaint escalation request he said he had sent photos to the landlord. The landlord made no reference to this in its internal complaint procedure. There is no evidence it provided any support about what it would or would not do. There is also no evidence the landlord made the resident aware or supported him to potentially claim via contents insurance for personal possessions if applicable. This was unreasonable of the landlord. A recommendation has been made that it contacts the resident with information on claiming through insurance, if applicable.
We have evidence that the first installation of the tiles in the wet room were completed on 3 March 2023. This was 23 working days after the landlord’s survey. The landlord’s repairs guide says wall tile repairs fall under its routine repairs category. As such, this was appropriate as it followed its 28-working day routine repairs timescale.
There is no evidence that the landlord’s survey of 31 January 2023 agreed works were required to the wet room floor or loft insulation. However, the landlord responded to this after being put on notice of these issues in the resident’s complaint submission. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 19 July 2023 said a surveyor would attend the resident’s property on 24 July 2023. This meant it had been 7 working days since the resident complained until a surveyor attended. The timeliness of this was appropriate and in line with its repairs guide.
The second survey of 24 July 2023 showed that further works to the loft insulation would not be carried out. This was confirmed in the landlord’s final response. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on professional opinion, as such no further action was required regarding the loft insulation.
In contrast, the survey of 24 July 2023 did identify that the wet room floor needed to be renewed. This was completed 21-working days after on 22 August 2023. This was appropriate action by the landlord as floor repairs fall under its routine repair category in its repairs guide.
The survey carried out on 24 July 2023 also noted that the tiles in the wet room were to be re-done. The landlord’s contractor attended on 17 August 2023, but the resident noted it was the same contractor who initially repaired the tiles on 3 March 2023. The resident was dissatisfied with this, as such the repairs were not completed on this date. He raised quality of work issues with the tiles in his complaint escalation email of 21 August 2023. The landlord re-attended on 24 August 2023 and completed repairs to the tiles. The completion date of the tiles was 23 working days from the survey of 24 July 2023. Therefore, the landlord’s actions were appropriate and inside its 28-day timescale.
In the landlord’s final response, it committed to further plastering works in the wet room. This was identified after its visit of 7 September 2023. Work was completed on 4 October 2023, which was 19-working days after. Its repairs guide says plaster works are to be completed in 28-working days as a routine repair. Therefore, the landlord’s overall handling of repairs to the wet room was appropriate.
Repairs to some of the radiators in the property were attended to by the landlord’s contractors on 15 February 2023. This was 11 working days after the landlord’s survey of 31 January 2023. Therefore, the landlord was in line with its 28-day policy. While this was appropriate, the landlord was put on notice that the wall needed to be strengthened to refit a radiator. We have received conflicting evidence from the landlord about this, but it is clear it was not repaired inside its policy timescales. The evidence shows the landlord’s survey of 24 July 2023 documented this radiator was not installed. Based on its repairs guide, wall repairs should also be completed in 28-working days. Therefore, it was not appropriate the landlord had not completed repairs to strengthen the wall and re-fit the radiator by 27 March 2023.
The landlord committed in its final response to conduct a thermal efficiency survey of the property by 17 October 2023. The evidence shows it did this on 5 October 2023, ahead of the timescale provided to the resident. The findings of the survey was not provided to us. However, we acknowledge that further upgrades to multiple radiators were to be carried out and 6 walls were to be strengthened. It was not until 14 August 2022 that the landlord had fully completed strengthening the walls and installing the radiators. This was inappropriate and outside its policy timescales. It is clear the landlord failed to keep the resident updated about timescales as it states in its damp and mould policy.
While there is evidence that the resident had temporary heaters from January 2023, repairs to the radiators were overdue by more than 16 months. This was inappropriate action by the landlord. It is clear the resident experienced distress and inconvenience because of the landlord’s inactions. It is also clear he expended time and trouble in chasing the matter.
There is evidence that the landlord completed repairs to the boiler on 10 February 2023. This was 8-working days after its survey in January 2023, and appropriately inside its 28-day routine repairs timescales. However, the resident expressed concern about the boiler depressurising in both his complaint submission and complaint escalation. The landlord failed to provide a response about the boiler, which was unreasonable. We acknowledge the thermal efficiency survey was arranged in its final response, but it did not provide any support or reassurance to the resident about his concerns. This demonstrates poor communication from the landlord and it not treating the complaint seriously.
Under the landlord’s repairs guide it can review the urgency of repairs based on household vulnerabilities. During the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, it did not provide its position on adjustments to service delivery or prioritisation of repairs. This was despite the resident telling the landlord his disabled child was affected by the outstanding repairs. There is no evidence to support that the landlord was required to adjust its service delivery or prioritise repairs based on household vulnerabilities at that stage. However, it would have been reasonable to communicate this to the resident at the time. By not doing so, the landlord demonstrated poor communication and caused distress to the resident who was concerned about his child.
We asked the landlord to provide evidence on 25 June 2024, and it proposed a revised compensation offer to the resident on 17 July 2024. It offered an additional £1,050. This meant it had offered a total of £1,486 in compensation (excluding complaint handling). While this was positive, we are unable to conclude it would have completed all the repairs required prior to our involvement and proactively compensated the resident. The resident had waited more than 14 months since its final response for repairs to be completed. Therefore, these actions are not sufficient to avoid an adverse finding.
Under this Service’s remedies guidance, consideration is also given for distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by a particular service failure, as well as the severity of the situation, and the length of time involved.
The revised level of compensation was in line with the highest tier of what we would order under our guidance on remedies. This is for cases where there has been a significant impact on the resident over a longer duration. Although the landlord attempted to put things right, delays to complete repairs were unreasonable.
The resident experienced detriment with the radiators for over 16 months from when the landlord should have completed repairs by. This meant he also experienced another winter period without adequate heating in the property. There were also delays not acknowledged in the landlord’s final response regarding the mould treatment on 20 April 2023. However, the total compensation offered reflects the resident’s distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble for the duration of the complaint. The landlord did not evidence it kept him updated and provided expected completion dates proactively. This is despite it knowing he wanted an action plan devised by the landlord.
Additionally, there is no evidence the landlord identified any learning during its internal complaint procedure. Had it not been for the landlord’s attempts to put things right, we would have considered a finding of severe maladministration. In considering all the above, a finding of maladministration has been made for the landlord’s handling of repairs required to address the resident’s concerns of damp and mould. However, no additional financial order will be made. This is because its revised compensation offer was proportionate to the events. Instead, the revised offer of £1,486 has been made an order, if not paid already. A further order has been made for the landlord to complete a case review to identify learning from the resident’s complaint.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy in operation at the time set out that at stage 1 it would respond within 10-working days after acknowledgement of a complaint. At stage 2 it says it would respond in 20-working days. It also said all formal complaints were recorded so it could analyse data, recognise re–occurring issues and themes, and ensure learning. It also said at stage 2 it considers if important information provided in the initial complaint was not considered.
While the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 within the timescales set out in its policy, it did not do so at stage 2. The stage 2 complaint response was sent to the resident by the landlord 25-working days after his escalation request was received. This meant it was overdue by 5-working days and not in line with its complaints policy timescales. This was not acknowledged by the landlord in its final complaint response.
The landlord said there was poor complaint handling at stage 1 of its internal complaint procedure about its response to the loft insulation. It admitted that it should have confirmed this was not possible at stage 1 and offered £20 in compensation for this. However, this conflicted with the evidence provided to us, as it would not have known it was not possible to insulate the loft until its survey of 24 July 2023. Therefore, it did not clearly explain or analyse the data in line with its policy when saying this to the resident. This demonstrates poor communication by the landlord and inconsistency with its complaints policy.
Despite the landlord’s above admission, its stage 2 complaint response did not include the resident’s complaint of the boiler losing pressure. The landlord had a lack of consideration for this aspect of the resident’s complaint. Its complaints policy said that it would reconsider important information provided in the initial complaint. As such, the landlord did not set out the decision on this complaint in line with its policy. It was also unclear on next steps or any actions it would take. This was inappropriate of the landlord.
Further, the landlord made an additional offer of compensation on 17 July 2024. Our guidance on outcomes says that an offer of redress that is awarded late, is not in the spirit of our dispute resolution principles, or the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This is where a landlord makes a substantial offer of redress at the end of a long process with the effect that the Ombudsman will not consider the matter further. While it was positive that the landlord reviewed the case, and made a new offer of compensation, an effective complaint procedure should identify significant service failures at the earliest opportunity. It should aim to provide reasonable redress from the very first stage. This ensures fairness to all resident who access its complaint handling procedures.
Overall, the landlord did not identify its delayed stage 2 complaint response or identify further learning from its complaint handling. This was not appropriate and not in line with its complaints policy. It also failed to respond to an aspect of the resident’s complaint (the boiler). Combined with its approach to revising the total amount of compensation, we have found maladministration in its complaint handling. In the circumstances, a total of £100 has been ordered for the complaint handling failings identified. This amount replaces the £20 it previously offered in its stage 2 complaint response. The £100 ordered is made up of:
1. £50 for the 5-working day delay in its stage 2 complaint response.
2. £50 for the landlord’s failure to consider a response to the resident’s concerns around his boiler losing pressure.
The award of £100 is in line with our guidance on remedies where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and attempted to put things right (prior to our involvement). However, no further orders have been made regarding its complaint handling, as the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code is now statutory.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs required to address the resident’s concerns of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident a total of £1,586 comprised of:
  1. £1,486 it previously offered for its handling of outstanding repairs, which caused the resident distress and inconvenience, and reflects the time and trouble experienced. This amount includes £436 in its stage 2 complaint response of 25 September 2023 and its additional offer of £1,050 on 17 July 2024.
  2. £100 for the complaint handling failings identified in this report.
2. Complete a case review to mitigate repeat errors occurring and to identify learning from the complaint. This must be shared with us.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to us.

Recommendation

The landlord is recommended to contact the resident about damage to personal possessions and his insurance options.