Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202400110)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400110

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

30 January 2025

Amended 11 February 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 damp and mould.
   2. Request to be decanted.
   3. Formal complaint.

Background

2. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a one-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident has 2 children and no recorded vulnerabilities. The landlord is a housing association.
3. On 22 December 2023 the resident used the landlord’s online form to report damp and mould in her bedroom and living room, which she said had been ongoing for years. She raised a stage 1 complaint on 25 January 2024 which was about her online report of mould having been closed, but she had not been contacted, and still had mould. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 30 January 2024 and emailed the resident the following day to clarify the complaint.
4. The resident emailed the landlord on 9 February 2024 to chase her complaint response. She had previously provided proof of her online request having been closed. The landlord requested an extension of time on 12 February 2024 as it was still waiting for information from its repairs team. The resident replied and said it was not taking the situation seriously. She had to share the bedroom with her 2 children who were both unwell. The landlord and resident exchanged further emails on 26 February 2024 when it requested a further extension of time, and she asked to escalate her complaint. It then provided its stage 1 response in which it:
   1. Admitted it had cancelled her repair request due to an error and apologised for this.
   2. Upheld the complaint and offered £85 compensation for service failure and time and trouble, and £25 for its delay in providing her stage 1 response.
   3. Confirmed it had escalated her complaint to stage 2.
5. On 1 March 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to express her ongoing concerns over her daughter’s health being affected by damp and mould. The landlord inspected on 4 March 2024 and produced a report, which said there was mould and condensation around the bedroom window and on the wall. It said the mortar pointing on the external wall behind had failed and needed repairing. It also recommended internal works to remove the mould. The report concluded that the property was habitable, and the works would not require the resident to be ‘decanted’ or temporarily moved.
6. The resident emailed the landlord on 6 March 2024 and said she had taken her daughter to her GP as she was unwell. She said the surveyor said her wall would need to be taken back to brick, and with the effects on her children’s health, she wanted to be decanted. The landlord replied on 26 March 2023 and said it was waiting for its response to be approved and asked for an extension of time. It provided its stage 2 response on 28 March 2024 in which it:
   1. Upheld the complaint as it should have raised repairs sooner. It said it had raised repairs for the external brickwork and internal mould works and provided appointment dates.
   2. Said it had checked with the surveyor and a decant was not necessary, as the damp and mould was not extensive.
   3. Offered increased compensation of £200 for service failure and time and trouble. It also re-offered £25 compensation for its complaint response delay at stage 1.
   4. Said how the resident could contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
7. The landlords repair records say it attended on 15 April 2024 and completed repairs to the external mortar pointing and applied a coat of water seal, however, the resident disputed that this repair took place. The resident cancelled repairs appointments and refused access for the internal damp and mould works on 30 May 2024 and 11 June 2024, as she said it had not completed the external works. She reported damp and mould again on 8 August 2024, but then refused access for a repair on 5 October 2024, which she said was based on her solicitor’s advice.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. The resident has raised within her complaint to the landlord that her children’s health has been negatively affected by damp and mould being present in the property. While this Service can consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident, the Ombudsman cannot determine causation or liability for personal injury like a court can. Under paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts. If the resident does wish to pursue a personal injury claim she may wish to seek independent legal advice.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

9. Under its repairs policy residents can report repairs to the landlord in multiple ways including via its website. It will categorise repairs as either emergency (attend within 24 hours), routine (repair within 28 days) or complex (repair within 90 days). Under its damp and mould policy the landlord will inspect when a resident reports damp and mould to determine the cause, and raise any repairs needed to resolve the issue.
10. The resident reported damp and mould via the landlord’s website as permitted under its policy. For unknown reasons, described by the landlord as an error, her report was closed and no action taken. This meant the landlord did not follow its damp and mould or repairs policies which was a failing. When the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint, it delayed in raising a damp and mould inspection until 8 February 2024 which was a further failing. It then delayed further in trying to decide which of its surveyor’s should inspect.
11. Within its stage 1 response the landlord correctly admitted its error and offered compensation. By the date of its response, it had managed to decide internally on a surveyor, and correctly contacted the resident to book the inspection, but it should have done this sooner. Prior to its inspection it had no idea how severe the mould might have been and had been told by the resident that it was affecting her children’s health. The landlord should have been more proactive to show it wanted to put things right.
12. In line with its policies the landlord did inspect the property and produced a report. It raised the external repairs within its policy timeframe and internal repairs to follow. Within its stage 2 response it correctly told the resident and provided appointment dates. It correctly upheld the complaint and offered increase compensation of £200. However, it did not acknowledge that it had delayed in arranging the inspection which was a failing.
13. The landlord’s records say it completed the external repairs on its appointment date. The resident later disputed this as she denied access for it to complete the internal repairs. Although it would have been helpful to have a completion report with photographs, there is no evidence that the landlord did not complete the repair it said it did. In addition, the resident could have allowed access for the internal damp and mould repairs in any event, as this would have resolved the issue, even if further works were then needed at a later date.
14. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
15. The landlord failed to act upon the resident’s first report of damp and mould, however it correctly accepted this, and offered compensation. It delayed in inspecting the property following her second report which she made within her complaint. Once it inspected, it arranged repairs and completed the external works. It was prevented from completing the internal repairs despite its efforts to do so. Overall, there was maladministration. To reflect the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused the landlord is ordered to pay £300 compensation, which is inclusive of its offer at stage 2.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be decanted

16. Under its decant policy the landlord will offer a decant when a property is uninhabitable. It may offer a decant when there are severe health and safety issues, or it is not possible for the resident to remain in the property while repairs are completed. It emphasises that decants are a last resort.
17. Within her stage 1 complaint the resident said she wanted to be moved to a suitable property which was not a health risk to her family. At that stage the landlord did not know the severity of the damp and mould, or the repairs required. It was reasonable for it to wait until it had inspected to consider whether to offer a decant.
18. The landlord’s surveyor confirmed within the report that the property was fit for habitation and that a decant was not required. However, the resident disputes this and told it that the outcome of the inspection was far worse than was recorded. Within its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed its position that a decant was not needed.
19. The landlord followed its decant policy and was entitled to rely on the expert opinion of its surveyor. There was no maladministration.

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

20. When the resident raised her stage 1 complaint the landlord acknowledged it within its policy timeframe. It then correctly contacted her to clarify its understanding of the complaint. The landlord requested an extension of time of a further 10 working days which it could under its policy, however it did this after 12 working days and outside of its policy timeframe. When it asked for a further extension, and the resident refused, it correctly provided its stage 1 response. This was within its extended timeframe in line with its policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time. Within its response it apologised for its delay and offered £25 compensation.
21. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 before she had received her stage 1 response. The landlord correctly provided its stage 1 response first and agreed to escalate the complaint, in compliance with paragraph 5.9 of the Code. It requested an extension of time as per its policy and provided a reason for this. It provided its stage 2 response within its extended timeframe.
22. The landlord’s complaint responses were compliant with the Code and demonstrated it wanted to be fair and put things right. It offered reasonable compensation for its minor delays at stage 1 which was reasonable redress.

Determination

23. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
24. In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.
25. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be decanted.

Orders

26. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the maladministration detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £300 compensation (inclusive of its £200 offer at stage 2) for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling her reports of damp and mould.
    3. Confirm compliance with these Orders to this Service.

Recommendations

27. Considering the resident has instructed a solicitor, and has been reluctant to allow access, it is recommended rather than ordered, that the landlord continue to attempt to gain access and complete the internal damp and mould repairs.