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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202331734)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331734

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

20 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 the resident’s:
    1. Requests for garden works, including the installation of a rear boundary fence and gate.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a mid-terraced house owned by the landlord.
  2. On 15 April 2023, the resident reported rubbish dumped on land at the rear of her garden and that there was no fence or gate meaning the garden was not secure. The landlord responded to the rubbish query only.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 14 September 2023 as it had taken no action in relation to her reports about having no rear garden fencing or gate and the condition of the garden.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 4 October 2023. It said it would only replace the fence like for like and therefore would replace the two broken concrete posts. It said it was seeking advice on the ownership of land at the rear of the property ahead of any works.
  5. The resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 27 October 2023 because it had not completed any works in the garden.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 8 December 2023. It said it should have noticed the issues with the rear boundary fence during the voids process for the property and apologised for not doing so. It confirmed ownership of the land at the rear of the garden and said it had instructed its contractors to begin works to this area with a target completion date of 2 January 2024. It offered compensation of £150.
  7. The landlord did not complete works as advised so the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation.
  8. The landlord contacted the Ombudsman on 26 September 2024 following its review of the evidence in this case. It said it had installed a new fence in April 2024, but its complaint responses had caused confusion for the resident. It said it had offered her further compensation of £650, comprising:
    1. £400 for the delay in resolving the issues and providing incorrect information in its complaint responses.
    2. £200 for time, trouble, and inconvenience.
    3. £50 for poor complaint handling by way of error in the redress awarded.
  9. The additional offer from the landlord took its total offer across all responses to £800.

Assessment and findings

Garden works

  1. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s first enquiry about whether it could install a gate and rear boundary fencing on 15 April 2023. However, it did respond to her concerns about rubbish in the area to the rear of the garden. It attended to investigate on 26 April 2024 without notice, but she was not home. It did not take any further action after this.
  2. This was not a suitable approach by the landlord. The tenancy agreement with the resident makes clear that the landlord is responsible for maintenance of the structure and outside of the property, including boundary walls and fences. As such, it should have raised a repair for this at the time of her report.
  3. In her complaint to the landlord of 14 September 2023, the resident said she had recently complained, and it told her to request a repair which she had done. She said her children could not use the garden due to the lack of privacy and its condition. She asked it to fit an “adequate sized” fence. Upon receipt of this complaint, it booked an inspection of the gate and fence.
  4. While this was a positive response, it is unclear why the landlord had not taken this action in the prior 4 months. Its repairs responsibilities guide states that it may inspect a property before making any repairs when a repair is complicated, to identify the works needed. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for it to do this after the resident’s first report in April 2023.
  5. After the landlord’s inspection of the property, it noted there was a big mound left at the end of the garden which included rubbish buried by the previous tenant. It said it would only replace the fence like for like, meaning it would only replace the concrete posts and not install a fence.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 4 October 2023, it said that it would be replacing the concrete posts by 31 October 2023 and that she had accepted the property, including the garden, in its current condition. It said it was seeking information on the ownership of the land and the mound with rubbish in. Once it had this information, it would arrange any required works.
  7. The landlord’s response was poor as it did not acknowledge the length of time it had taken to inspect the property. Although there was no obligation on the landlord to install a fence when there was none at the start of the tenancy, it should have acknowledged the delay to responding the issue and offered redress.
  8. The landlord attended to complete works to the concrete posts on 27 October 2023 but could not complete works due to the garden needing maintenance works first. This led to the resident requesting escalation of her complaint on the same day.
  9. The landlord did not obtain a quote for the clearing and levelling of the garden until 27 November 2023, 1 month after it identified that this was necessary for other works to start. It did not offer any explanation for this added delay.
  10. On 5 December 2023, the landlord held a meeting to discuss the ongoing issues. It noted that it should have picked up the rear boundary fence concerns during the voids process, but it had missed this. It confirmed it owned the land at the rear of the garden and that it needed to confirm the timescale for garden maintenance works.
  11. At this stage, the landlord should have considered these works as routine under its repairs responsibilities guide. As such, it should have raised works and completed them within 28 calendar days.
  12. In its stage 2 complaint response of 8 December 2023, the landlord apologised for not picking up the boundary fence concerns in the voids process and acknowledged that this error led to the complaint. It explained that it confirmed ownership of the land at the rear of the garden and that as such, the existing wooden fence at the end of the garden would become her boundary line. It gave a target completion date for works of 2 January 2023 and offered compensation of £150 for the delays, £75 of which related to repairs as follows:
    1. £25 for the service failure.
    2. £50 for time and trouble.
  13. The landlord’s complaint response was of a higher quality than its stage 1 response. It acknowledged failures in its handling of garden works and repairs and made efforts to offer redress for these alongside a date for works. However, the offer of compensation made was low in comparison to its compensation policy.
  14. In its compensation policy, the landlord allows for offers of redress for services failures and time and trouble, starting from an apology for low-level service failure, from £51 for medium-level service failures and from £151 for high-level failings. Its offer of £25 for service failure and £50 for time and trouble was not sufficient in the circumstances, considering it had taken over 7 months to provide a date for works at this stage.
  15. The landlord completed all works by 9 April 2024, a further 3 months after the date it gave for completion in its stage 2 response. It then made a further offer of compensation to the resident in September 2024 as it found further issues while reviewing the case. This offer totalled £650, £600 of which was for the garden works and repairs.
  16. The landlord’s revised offer brought its total compensation offer for garden works and repairs to £675 across all its responses.
  17. As the landlord made the increased offer of compensation several months after its formal stage 2 response and further delayed works, it is not clear that it would have changed its position had the resident not referred the matter to this Service.
  18. The added compensation offered in the landlord’s revised response was reasonable and appropriate and its review of the case was thorough. When combined with its original stage 2 response, the landlord showed a good adherence to the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles in putting things right, being fair and learning from outcomes.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 days of receipt and respond within 10 working days. Once it receives a stage 2 escalation request, it will respond within 20 working days. At both stages, the landlord can agree a new response time with the customer.
  2. There were no complaint handling failures at stage 1 of the landlord’s process or in its acknowledgement of the resident’s stage 2 escalation request of 27 October 2023. It asked for an extension of the stage 2 deadline within 20 working days, on 23 November 2023. This was also in line with its policy.
  3. The landlord requested a further stage 2 extension on 7 December 2023 due to quality checking of its response. This is acceptable under its complaints policy which says if it cannot respond within the 20-working day timeframe, it will keep the customer informed and agree new response times.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 8 December 2023. In this response it offered an apology and compensation of £75 for poor complaint handling due to the delay in providing its response. This amount was fair and in line with its compensation policy.
  5. In the landlord’s revised compensation offer in September 2024, it offered an extra £50 for poor complaint handling. It explained that it had caused confusion in its stage 1 and 2 responses by failing to properly explain the issue with garden access and by incorrectly saying it owned the land at the rear of the garden. It had also made a typing error and said it was offering £200 compensation in its stage 2 response, rather than the correct total of £150. This offer was fair and brought its total offer across both responses to £125.
  6. Overall, while there were issues with the landlord’s complaint handling, it has addressed these and offered appropriate redress. It has now completed the garden works and installation of a garden fence which has therefore stopped any ongoing impact from the complaint handling errors.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling the resident’s requests for garden works, including the installation of a rear boundary fence and gate, satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of her associated complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the total sum of £800 which it has offered to pay across all complaint responses if it has not done so already, as this recognised genuine elements of service failure and we make the sufficient redress finding on that basis.