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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202402841)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402841

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

27 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:

  1. the resident’s report of damage to the communal roof following a storm.
  2. the resident’s request for an insurance claim to be made following the storm.
  3. the associated complaint.

Background

2.             The resident is a leaseholder under a lease agreement dated September 2023. He lives in a ground floor flat of a short block of flats. The landlord is a housing association and freeholder of the property.

3.             On 3 January 2024, the resident reported damage to the communal roof following a storm. Tiles blocked the gutter and had fallen onto his patio. He provided photos of a view up to the blocked gutter and tiles on his patio. On 24 January 2024, he questioned why the landlord did not consider the repair as an insurance claim and was concerned residents will pay for the repair.

4.             On the 13 February 2024, the resident complained to the landlord which it received on 14 February. He said the storm caused roof tiles to fall. No one updated him about the repair, and no one told him whether it made an insurance claim.

5.             The landlord emailed the resident that it had granted a stage 1 extension on 5 March 2024. It responded at stage 1 on 13 March 2024 and said:

  1. it raised a roof repair on 3 January 2024 and instructed the contractor to investigate.
  2. it had not made an insurance claim.
  3. it could not confirm when it could complete repairs and so escalated to stage 2.
  4. it offered £20 for the time and trouble for him to chase for the repair.
  5. it offered £25 for poor complaint handling.

6.             The resident replied on the same day. He did not agree as the landlord had not made an insurance claim and believed it would charge residents for the repair. He chased for the stage 2 response on 7 and 10 April. He contacted the Ombudsman on 20 April.

7.             On 30 April 2024, the landlord responded at stage 2. It said:

  1. it should have told the resident that he could have submitted an insurance claim for the repair.
  2. it made an insurance claim on his behalf.
  3. on 10 April 2024 it completed an inspection of the roof and agreed to replace tiles on 6 May 2024.
  4. it is sorry for continued delay for the roof repair.
  5. it offered £120 in total for the time and trouble, as he chased for the repair.
  6. it offered £75 in total for poor complaint handling.

8.             The resident contacted the Ombudsman again on 28 May 2024. He was concerned that the delay to notify the insurer could affect the claim, and the possible increased costs for the repair due to the delay.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaint procedure

9.             The landlord continued repair work into July 2024 and provided a further response to the resident in January 2025, after the internal complaint procedure. It replaced the contractor due to delays and communication problems. It introduced a new system to improve repair tracking and communication, and that the insurer will cover the cost of the roof repair. It offered £300 for the failure of service, on top of £120 offered for time and trouble, and £75 for poor complaint handling. A total of £495.

 

 

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

10.        The resident’s explained that insurance should cover the roof repair. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to determine negligence or liability in the same way an insurance provider would. We have however, assessed whether the landlord responded appropriately to his concerns and request in line with its policy and procedure and followed good practice when reaching its decisions.

Repairs to the communal roof

11.        On 3 January 2024, the resident reported damage to the roof following a storm. The landlord’s repair information, sourced from its website at the time, says:

  1. it will attempt to respond to a repair request within 5 working days after receiving the report.
  2. it will respond within 24 hours to an emergency repair that poses a health and safety risk and, if it cannot fix it, it will make the situation safe.
  3. it will complete repairs within 28 days.
  4. its current repairs policy from June 2024 says it expects to complete complex repairs within 90 days.
  5. communal areas are its responsibility.

12.        It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. It ensures residents receive accurate information. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, it also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

13.        The resident’s roof damage report on 3 January show tiles had fallen onto his patio. This caused distress and prevented him using his outdoor space due to the possibility of further tiles dislodging. According to the landlord’s repair policies, it needed to respond within 24 hours to assess potential hazards and make the situation safe. But the earliest inspection was 3 months after the report, on 5 April. There is no evidence to understand why there was a delay or that he was kept updated. And it did not respond to the repair within the timescales outlined by its repair policy. This was unreasonable and left him distressed and exposed to risk of further tiles falling.

14.        The resident contacted the landlord for roof repair updates at least on 19 January, 5 February, and 23 February. And on 5 February, he provided photo evidence that more tiles had fallen. In response, the landlord gave a commitment to inspect and repair the roof on 5 occasions between 23 February and 13 March. After providing reassurances and 3 months after the initial damage report, an inspection took place on 5 April. Although it eventually completed an inspection, there’s no further information to show it remedied the risk in line with its repair policies, which kept him exposed to a hazard and prevented use of his outdoor space.

15.        After the inspection, the landlord arranged roof repair on 6 May. It re-arranged this at least six times, from 13 May until the end of July. The records are unclear on why the appointments could not be met. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have been proactive in its contact with the resident. That it was not proactive with updates, is a failure of service.

16.        There is an expectation, as set out in our Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) Spotlight report, that the landlord keeps clear records, monitors progress with third parties, as well as update the resident on progress to complete repairs within a reasonable timescale. The continued delay and failure to comply with good practice to update him was unreasonable, caused unnecessary inconvenience and frustration, and worsened any uncertainty of repair whilst he was exposed to risk.

17.        Based on the evidence it is reasonable to conclude that the repair was completed six months after the initial report. This is outside of its repair policies to complete repairs within 28 days and its more recent complex repair timescale of 90 days. The failure to comply with its policies understandably caused distress, frustration, and inconvenience for him. Until the repair was completed, he was exposed to a health and safety risk and felt unsafe to use his outdoor space.

18.        From the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 response, it apologised and offered £120 for the time and trouble for the repair. We have considered what it said about this redress, and it is for:

  1. the three months it had taken to inspect the roof damage.
  2. the time taken to arrange repair.

19.        The landlord revisited its response 9 months later in January 2025. It said:

  1. it has replaced the contractor to prevent similar issues in the future.
  2. it has introduced a new system to improve repair tracking and communication.
  3. the insurer will cover the cost of the storm damage, minus excess.
  4. for the failure of service, it offered an additional £300.

20.        Although the landlord’s recent comments and actions can be said to have put some things right for the resident, it failed to address the substantive issue of his complaint until several months after it issued its final response. It also did not fully acknowledge its failings or make the increased offer of compensation until the case was accepted by this Service for investigation. The Ombudsman’s outcomes guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot be determined under such circumstances.

21.        In summary, the landlord had taken an unreasonable amount of time to inspect the roof, remove any risks, and repair it. It did not acknowledge and compensate for the delay, lack of updates, as well as the seriousness of the substantive issue, until we had accepted the case for investigation. So, we cannot conclude there has been reasonable redress. Therefore, we find there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of repairs.

22.        After careful consideration and in line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £600. This appropriately recognises the distress, frustration, inconvenience, and safety risk caused by the failures identified in this report.

Building insurance claim

23.        On 24 January 2024, the resident contacted the landlord as to whether an insurance claim should be made for the roof repair. The:

  1. landlord’s website confirmed a resident can make a claim and that the insurer will confirm what to do next.
  2. landlord’s website explained it is responsible for repairs to communal areas.
  3. insurers process document confirmed a resident can make a claim.
  4. copy of lease dated 17 January 1997, indicates it should make an insurance claim as soon as reasonable, if building risks are covered.

24.        On 24 January, the resident raised his insurance query, provided a copy of the insurance terms, and why he felt the storm damage to the roof was an insurable event. He was worried the landlord would charge residents for roof repairs if it did not make a claim. The landlord internally forwarded his query to its insurance team. He continued to chase for a response 7 times between 13 February and 14 March. During that time, he also made it clear he was unsure who should claim. In these emails he signposted to the insurance document as well as covenant 5 in the lease.

25.        The landlord responded to the resident’s insurance queries 5 times between 23 February and 13 March. It said it would not make an insurance claim, the insurance does not cover the damage, and it will complete repairs itself. Considering the insurance documents and lease covenant, its responses were unreasonable and not in line with its insurance policy. Its inflexible replies and approach increased concern that the approximate £2,500 worth of roof repairs would be charged to him and other residents, which caused unnecessary frustration and distress for a possible insured event.

26.        We recognise that after this, on 15 March and 2 April, the landlord internally made a reasonable suggestion it should make an insurance claim on behalf of residents. This shows it may have considered the insurance terms and obligation for communal repairs under the lease covenant. Although, it did not make a claim. Instead, on 26 March it told the resident to claim for the repair.

27.        The resident contacted the insurer, and it told him on 2 April that the repair falls within a communal part of the building and it can only accept a claim from the freeholder, the landlord. He chased the landlord on 7 April about making an insurance claim. On 9 April, it confirmed it had made a claim. Although its approach prior to this and the delay taken to raise a claim were unreasonable, the eventual response was fair, in line with the lease covenant and the insurer’s expectation for a communal claim.

28.        Overall, the expectations about who can submit a communal insurance claim were unclear from the start and delayed the claim being submitted. Considering this, we have found there has been maladministration. The landlord had:

  1. incorrectly told the resident the insurance does not cover the damage.
  2. incorrectly told the resident to claim, when the insurer had explained to him it can only accept a communal claim from the landlord.
  3. not listened to repeated contact from the resident who provided relevant documentation and explored avenues unsuccessfully with both the insurer and landlord.
  4. unreasonably taken around three months from the report of storm damage to make a claim.

29.        From the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 response, as well as its review of the case in January 2025, it did not acknowledge the conflicting guidance on insurance and information provided to the resident. Instead, it explained he could have made a claim, which was in opposition to his experience with the insurer and the lease. It had not made an offer for the frustration and inconvenience this caused.

30.        In the landlord’s case review in January 2025, it said that the insurer will cover storm damage to the roof as part of the claim, minus excess. This is reasonable to address the repair costs will not be charged to him or the other residents. But it does not address the inconvenience and frustration that the resident experienced.

31.        After careful consideration of the evidence and in line with our remedies guidance, a fair level of compensation would be £250. This appropriately recognises the distress, frustration, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by conflicting insurance guidance and the different avenues he had to take before the landlord submitted the claim.

the associated complaint to the substantive issue

32.        Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must ensure they:

  1. acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
  2. respond to the complaint within 10 working days from the date it acknowledged at stage 1.
    1. if an extension is needed, that it communicates the timescale to the resident, and that it is no longer than a further 10 working days.
  3. provide a final response within 20 working days of the date it acknowledged the stag 2 escalation.
    1. if an extension is needed, that it communicates the timescale to the resident, and that it is no longer than a further 20 working days.

33.        The landlord’s policy is aligned with the Code.

34.        The landlord received the resident’s complaint on 14 February 2024 and so it had until 21 February to acknowledge the complaint. On 21 February it acknowledged the complaint, and that a stage 1 response will be provided within 10 working days, by 6 March. On 5 March, it communicated that an extension to respond was accepted, but did not say how long that may be. In line with 6.4 of the Code it should have informed him of the expected timescale to respond. On 13 March, it provided its stage 1 response, which was reasonable and within the Codes overall stage 1 timeframe of 20 working days.

35.        The resident requested the complaint escalation on 13 March. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on the same date and said it will respond within 20 working days. This was reasonable and in line with the Code. It had until 11 April to respond or confirm an extension. The resident chased on 7 and 10 April and referred to the Service on 20 April.

36.        It provided its stage 2 response on 30 April 2024, 13 working days late. There is no evidence the landlord communicated an extension to the resident, which is not in line with 6.4 of the Code. This is a failure of its own policy and the Code. As the landlord did not communicate a stage 2 extension, it inconvenienced him further by having to contact the Service to request it responds to his stage 2 complaint.

37.        Overall, there is no evidence that the landlord communicated the timescales it would respond in its stage 1 extension and did not communicate a stage 2 extension. On that basis the landlord failed to comply with its own complaint policy and the Ombudsman’s Code and caused inconvenience to the resident.

38.        The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failures in their stage 1 and stage 2 responses. Even though it provided its stage 1 response with no overall delay, it offered £25. And at stage 2, as it did not update him of an extension, it offered a further £50. A total of £75 for the complaint handling failures that both sides identified.

39.        There had been no measurable monetary loss because of the complaint handling failings, but we have considered there had been minor inconvenience to the resident, as he was not aware of when to expect a response and contacted our Service as a result.

40.        Considering the above, we find that the landlord has provided reasonable redress within its internal complaint procedure for the complaint handling failures.

Determination

41.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord with the delay handling the roof repair.

42.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord with conflicting information provided about building insurance and delay making a claim.

43.        In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was ‘reasonable redress’ in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. It offered reasonable redress to the resident prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved this complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

44.        Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:

  1. pay the resident a total of £600 compensation for the distress, frustration, inconvenience, exposure to risk as well as time and trouble caused by the landlords handling of repairs to the communal roof. The landlord can deduct the £420 it offered for these failures if it has already been paid to him.
  2. apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report regarding the conflicting insurance claim information and delay making a claim.
  3. pay the resident a total of £250 compensation for the distress, frustration, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by unclear policies and guidance around communal building insurance claims.

45.        Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review and produce a report into the information available to residents on its building insurance. This should include:

  1. the accuracy of the information published.
  2. guidance on who can raise a claim in what circumstances.

A copy of the report should be provided to this service.