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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202334045)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334045

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

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 the resident’s:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a flat owned by the landlord. She has a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
  2. The resident reported ongoing concerns about noise from her neighbour above to the landlord on 1 and 17 April 2023 via the noise app. She made further reports in December 2023 which continued into 2024. The landlord made several attempts to contact her and requested information from police.
  3. On 9 April 2024, the resident complained to the landlord about the ongoing issues including her neighbour pouring water onto her balcony and noise nuisance. She disputed that it had tried to contact her and requested higher banding for rehousing.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process on 17 June 2024. It listed the dates it had tried to contact her, including an email of 13 June 2024 where it agreed a meeting with her to go through the case. It apologised for poor complaint handling and offered compensation of £90 for this.
  5. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 24 September 2024 due to reported consistent issues with neighbours and related property damage.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 19 December 2024. It detailed its ASB response to date but acknowledged an error in its stage 1 response relating to her contact with it. It said that some issues raised were older than 12 months so it could not investigate. It offered compensation of £300 for its error and complaint handling failures.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response as she felt it had failed her in its handling of her ASB reports. She brought her complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The evidence provided in this case shows the resident has reported issues with ASB on several occasions from March 2021. This included a complaint at stage 1 only. The issues reported included several neighbours and the evidence provided shows the landlord provided a warning letter to 1 neighbour for noise in late 2022. However, she did not complain again until April 2024 and this complaint completed the landlord’s full complaint process. In line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), we will only be investigating matters that occurred within the 12 months leading to her complaint as former issues did not complete the landlord’s complaint process.
  2. The resident has told the landlord and the Ombudsman that the complaint has affected her mental health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element to the resident’s complaint is better dealt with via the court.

Antisocial behaviour

  1. Throughout the period of the complaint, the landlord showed close partnership working with the local police in line with its ASB policy. The policy says it is committed to working in partnership with specialist services, including police.
  2. Following the resident’s noise reports in April 2023, the landlord made a disclosure request to police relating to issues from 7 June 2021 to 15 May 2023. Police responded, only providing information from 15 November 2022 to 15 May 2023. They confirmed that she had made no calls to police about ASB.
  3. The resident made no further complaints about noise until 28 December 2023. On this occasion during a call with the landlord, she reported that the children living above her had woken her up by stamping around. She said the noises were worsening her PTSD symptoms. It did not take any action after this call or complete a risk assessment as per its ASB policy. This was not good practice.
  4. On 29 January 2024, the resident contacted the landlord after finding a knife on her balcony on returning from travels. 3 days later she reported ongoing noise from the neighbour above. It spoke to her on 14 February 2024 and tried to explain the noise from above was daily activity. It encouraged her to join its website for rehousing and offered to help her register for this. This showed it had assessed the noise reports and that it was committed to supporting her.
  5. The resident reported finding a second knife on her balcony on 15 March 2024. She suspected it could be any of 3 neighbours but was unable to offer evidence to support this. The landlord tried to call her twice in the following days but could not get through. It made a further police disclosure request on 19 March 2024 and wrote to her asking her to contact it to discuss the report.
  6. This was a proactive approach from the landlord. It tried different methods of communication with the resident and again sought information from police to support the investigation in line with its ASB policy.
  7. In the resident’s complaint of 9 April 2024, she said the landlord was ignoring crime in its properties and not handling complaints effectively. She said there was no reason it was unable to contact her and that she felt it was avoiding the situation. She asked it to support her in getting a higher housing banding.
  8. The landlord continued to investigate the resident’s reports and liaise with her neighbours. It wrote a report on 12 April 2024 noting that it felt the issues stemmed from a clash of personality and lifestyle. It said the resident’s reports did not meet the threshold for ASB. It is fair of a landlord to rely on its professional opinion in these circumstances and it had used evidence from police and its own investigation to do so in this case.
  9. The landlord received information from the police on 3 June 2024. The police reported that they had nothing related to the resident on their systems and the provided crime reference numbers did not match the reports. The landlord noted the resident referred to events that were 2 to 3 years old which it could not action retrospectively and because of this it opted to close the case.
  10. This was a fair decision in the circumstances. The landlord had investigated the resident’s most recent reports and found it did not meet the ASB threshold. It received information from police which did not include any evidence to support her reports. Therefore, there was little it could do at this time. However, it did email her on 13 June 2024 to say it had been trying to contact her to discuss more recent issues.
  11. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 17 June 2024, it listed the dates of its attempted contact with the resident. It said it knew the ASB case needed investigating and that it was trying to contact her. It explained once it had done this, it could decide the next steps. Its response was brief and did not go to any lengths to explain the actions it had taken to date.
  12. It would have been good practice for the landlord to explain in its response that it had requested information from police and why it could not investigate the older issues. The resident asked on 17 June 2024 when it would deal with her burglary case from 2022. If it had explained its position on historical complaints in its stage 1 response, it may have avoided further complaints about this.
  13. In an email to this Service on 24 June 2024 and a further email to the landlord on 7 August 2024, the resident said that she believed the landlord had violated her human rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1988. She said this is due to the impact on her PTSD and its failure to provide suitable accommodation following a burglary in 2022.
  14. The Human Rights Act 1998 sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms entitled to everyone in the UK. The 1998 Act requires all public authorities, including other bodies conducting public functions, to respect and protect the rights of individuals as set out in the articles contained within Schedule 1 of the Act. The Ombudsman has no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached any of the articles in the 1998 Act – only the courts can decide on this. However, the Ombudsman can decide whether a landlord has given due regard to an individual’s rights under the 1998 Act when considering a resident’s complaint.
  15. Landlords may be able to show they have given due regard to the 1998 Act by considering the impact of their decisions and, in certain circumstances, if there is a process for a decision to be challenged by requesting a review or an appeal. In this case, the police were the investigating authority for this matter as it was a reported burglary. The police took no further action citing relevant case law and as such, this was not ASB for the landlord to investigate as it was a one-off occurrence.
  16. The landlord’s actions in this case show that it gave due regard to the resident’s rights. It communicated regularly with the police and provided her with ASB diary sheets and access to the noise app for noise recordings. It tried to contact her regularly and there was no action it could take due to a lack of supporting evidence. It also offered to refer her to its internal assessment support team on 5 August 2024 for support and signposting to mental health support services. Therefore, it is fair to conclude that the landlord has given due regard to the resident’s human rights throughout this case.
  17. On 29 July 2024, the resident sent evidence to the landlord via the noise app with a supporting comment that her neighbour was playing a siren noise which had kept her awake. She called it on 31 July 2024 to say she had not slept for 3 days due to this, white noise, and stomping. She continued to send recordings in the following days.
  18. On 5 August 2024, the landlord completed a risk assessment with the resident. She reported racist abuse from neighbouring children and scored as high risk for vulnerability. It told her that it had been unable to hear any of the reported siren noise in her recordings. It provided diary sheets for her to complete and asked that she provide police reference numbers for any further reports made so it could make further information requests. It asked her to provide details of another resident who helped in stopping racial abuse from neighbouring children, as he would be an independent witness to her reports.
  19. Despite not receiving this information, these questions from the landlord were fair and it showed a continued interest in investigating the resident’s reports.
  20. The resident completed diary sheets on 5 and 7 August 2024, detailing siren noise, white noise, and stomping. However, in an email to the landlord on 7 August 2024, she said she would not continue this, calling it “senseless info gathering”. It emailed her on 12 August 2024 to ask again whether she would consent to it referring her to its assessment and support team. It offered to visit her property to listen to the noise in person and said it would contact the alleged perpetrators upon return from annual leave.
  21. This was a good response from the landlord. Despite the resident no longer wishing to provide written evidence, it offered other avenues of investigation. On the same day, it sent a further police disclosure request for information which showed continued use of effective partnership working.
  22. The landlord completed a further interview and risk assessment with the resident on 3 September 2024. She said noises from above were not good for her PTSD and the neighbours above needed to change their flooring to reduce noise. She scored highly on the risk assessment again, but the landlord judged the score to be low based on professional judgement. Its justification for this was that the incidents had occurred in the past with the only recent issue being water ingress to her balcony when a neighbour was watering plants.
  23. While the landlord did judge the risk to be low, it continued to communicate with the resident and investigate her complaints. It said it would visit the block on 9 September 2024 to see if any other residents were experiencing or witnessing ASB of a similar nature. This showed its continued attempts to investigate her reports and see if there was any supporting evidence from other sources.
  24. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 24 September and 8 October 2024 saying her neighbour above continued to ruin her property with water and that it had not compensated her for this or for damage during the 2022 burglary. She wanted the flooring above changed and the landlord to give the neighbours a stronger warning.
  25. On 8 October 2024, the landlord sent a letter to all residents of the block asking if they had witnessed any ASB or if there was any ASB they had not reported. It explained internally that it took this action as it was unable to visit as planned due to injury. It spoke to the relevant neighbour on 24 and 27 October 2024 and told them to change their flooring as it does not allow laminate. It found the water ingress incident to be a one-off but gave advice to the neighbour about this anyway. It said it would visit to check this after 4 weeks. However, there is no evidence that it has checked this.
  26. In its stage 2 response of 19 December 2024, the landlord said that the resident did contact it on 23 May 2024, but it had failed to acknowledge this in its stage 1 response, and it had therefore provided incorrect information. It detailed its involvement to date with all her ASB reports. It said it had been unable to substantiate her claims and had received no response to its block letter. Therefore, it closed her ASB case. However, it made clear that she could contact it if any of the issues continued.
  27. The landlord explained it could not investigate the resident’s concerns about the burglary as it was historical. However, it provided the quote from the police disclosure request to show it had tried to get more information about this anyway. It included information on rehousing and that it could still refer her to its support team if she wished. It offered compensation of £300, £35 of which was for its failure to identify her contact in its stage 1 response.
  28. The landlord’s complaint response was fair and thorough. It explained that it had been unable to proceed with her reports due to a lack of supporting evidence but continued to offer support. It explained that it was unable to investigate complaints that occurred outside of the 12-month investigation period, as per its complaints policy, and provided the relevant section and a link to this policy for her information.
  29. The landlord also explained that it could not find evidence of agreeing to compensate the resident for damage but that it would consider this if she could provide written documentation. It signposted her to small claims court for damage to personal items or to her contents insurer if she had crime reference numbers. This response was in line with its compensation policy which encourages residents to take out contents insurance. The policy says residents will need to provide its insurance company with proof of damage and ownership for claims and that without relevant evidence, it may be unable to deal with a request for compensation.
  30. It is not for the Ombudsman to determine whether ASB has taken place. Instead, we will assess how a landlord has responded to reports of ASB. Overall, in this case the landlord has managed the resident’s reports of ASB in line with its policy. It has shown commitment to gathering evidence even when the resident has been unable to provide it herself and has shown close partnership working with police.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge complaints at stage 1 within 5 working days of receipt and respond within 10 working days of acknowledgement. It will respond to all complaints escalated to stage 2 within 20 working days of escalation. At both stages, if it cannot respond within the specified time, it will agree a new response time with the customer.
  2. The landlord received the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 9 April 2024. Evidence provided shows that it began to investigate this internally on 11 April 2024, but it did not acknowledge this with her until 12 June 2024, after she reiterated her complaint on 26 May 2024. It responded at stage 1 on 17 June 2024, 47 working days after her first complaint. This exceeded its 10-working day policy response time, and the parties had not agreed an extension. However, it apologised and offered compensation of £90 for this delay.
  3. The landlord’s offer of compensation and apology was in line with its compensation policy, which says remedies for poor complaint handling start from an apology and work upwards for financial compensation.
  4. The resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 24 September 2024. It acknowledged this on 25 September 2024. It responded at stage 2 on 19 December 2024, 62 working days later. This exceeded its 20-working day policy response time.
  5. In its response, the landlord apologised for its failure to resolve her complaint on time and for the lack of communication about this. It offered compensation totalling £300, £265 of which related to complaint handling, comprising:
    1. £90 as offered at stage 1 for the delay in acknowledging her complaint.
    2. £150 for the delay in providing its stage 2 response.
    3. £25 for not contacting her weekly to update her and not managing her expectations.
  6. The landlord said it would credit this amount to the resident’s rent account due to her having arrears. While we appreciate that this may have been disappoint for the resident, the landlord does set out this approach in its compensation policy. The amount offered was fair in line with this policy, as explained above.
  7. This Service’s dispute resolution principles are, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. While there were clear failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, the remedies (apology and compensation) it offered in its stage 2 response were reasonable and appropriate. The compensation amount was fair and in line with the remedies guidance published by the Ombudsman.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord visit the property above the resident to ensure they have changed the flooring from laminate to carpet as it previously asked.
  2. We recommend that the landlord continues to provide advice and support to the resident in relation to rehousing.