From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202409390)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202409390

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

1 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. Reports of a roof leak.
    2. Associated complaint.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident has been the shared owner of the property, which is a 2-bedroom second floor flat since 2018. The building is owned and managed by the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s repair records confirm the resident reported a roof leak on 20 August 2021, 30 September 2021, and December 2021. The records confirm that the leak was causing internal damage. It is not clear from the records what repairs the landlord completed during this period.
  3. There were no further reports made by the resident until 21 September 2022, when he raised a complaint to the landlord. The resident said:
    1. the roof had been leaking for over 4 years, and it was damaging the ceiling in one of the bedrooms
    2. the leak had damaged electrical appliances
    3. he was unable to use the bedroom due to the leak and the damage caused
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint on 18 October 2022. It did not uphold the complaint. In summary the landlord said:
    1. its contractor had confirmed there were “numerous” closed orders, it had attended on 26 September 2022 but had asked the landlord to attend a joint visit due to the ongoing leak
    2. the contractor contacted the resident on 18 October 2022 to arrange the visit; however, as the resident had COVID-19, it was not possible, and so he was asked to make contact when he was well enough to proceed
    3. there was no service failure as the contractor had attended when the report was made, but it acknowledged that the roof was still leaking and causing damage
    4. it acknowledged the problem was ongoing and offered £50 for the resident’s time and trouble
  5. The resident escalated his complaint with the landlord on 31 August 2023. He remained dissatisfied that:
    1. the roof was still leaking, and he could not proceed with an insurance claim until it was fixed
    2. he could not use the bedroom due to mould and the water going into the electrics
    3. he would not be able to sell the flat if he wanted to because of the leak and the damage caused
  6. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 3 November 2023, in which it upheld the complaint. In addition to the stage 1 complaint response, it said:
    1. it acknowledged previous repairs may have failed or a new location of fault had occurred
    2. an inspection had taken place in January 2023 and scaffolding was erected; however, it was removed in error and stopped the repairs from progressing
    3. no further work was raised until June 2023 when repairs were completed to the gutters and roof slates which had allowed water to back up
    4. the contractor inspected the roof again in August 2023 but was unable to identify find the leak
    5. guttering repairs had been completed on 6 September 2023
    6. roofers attended on 27 September 2023 and confirmed scaffolding was needed, but failed to inform the resident
    7. scaffolding was erected on 4 October 2023 and a joint inspection was completed on 19 October 2023 when repairs were identified and completed, after which, the scaffolding remained in place for 2 weeks so it could monitor the success of the repairs
    8. it was satisfied with the management of the complaint and did not find any service failure, albeit it acknowledged the resident was unhappy with the outcome 
    9. it agreed to contribute to the resident’s insurance excess should he choose to make a claim for the damages, and increased the offer from £50 to £275 (£150 for the time and trouble, £100 for service failure, and £25 for complaint handling)
  7. The resident referred his complaint to us on 8 July 2024. He said the complaint was about:
    1. the ongoing roof leak
    2. damp and mould and damage to possessions
    3. the handling of the complaint
  8. As a resolution, the resident wanted:
    1. the landlord to complete the repairs to the roof, or
    2. the landlord to buy back his share of the property at full market value
    3. more compensation
  9. There is evidence to confirm that the roof leak continued beyond the final complaint response, with further inspections and repairs being completed in November 2023, February 2024, and March 2024. The landlord has confirmed to us that the leak was resolved in full in October 2024 and there have been no further reports of a leak. The landlord completed internal works to the resident’s property in March 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referred to the impact the situation has had on his health, along with damage caused to personal belongings. Although we can consider the impact the situation has had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot determine liability for damage to health or belongings. These are matters better suited to an insurance claim or court. Any compensation offer will be assessed in line with our remedies guidance. If the resident wishes to pursue these matters further, he should seek legal advice.
  2. In his contact with the landlord and us, the resident has stated the problem with the roof has been ongoing since 2018. This is not disputed; however, we expect a resident to raise a complaint to the landlord within 12 months of a matter arising. As there is no evidence of a formal complaint being made prior to September 2022, this investigation has focused on events that occurred from August 2021 to 3 November 2023, the date of the final complaint response.

Record keeping

  1. As per our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, we expect landlords to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. Failure to do so can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
  2. The evidence shows the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation. This includes limited or no information regarding inspections and repairs, and a lack of complaint handling information. This has contributed to the other failures identified in this report and as such we have found service failure with the landlord’s record keeping.

Reports of a roof leak

  1. In line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord’s repair guide confirms it is responsible for keeping the structure of the home safe and waterproof and includes the roof and guttering. This is reflected in the resident’s lease agreement. In terms of response times, the guide states:
    1. emergency repairs where there is an immediate health and safety risk will be attended to and made safe within 24 hours of the report
    2. routine repairs will be completed within 20–working days
    3. non–routine repairs will be completed within 90–calendar days
  2. The landlord’s records confirm an inspection for the leaking roof was raised on 20 August 2021. Further orders for the same issue were raised on 30 September 2021 and 6 October 2021. The records provided show the orders as “cancelled” a year after being raised. Due to the inadequate records, it is not clear if any inspection or repairs were completed at this time. We are therefore unable to assess if the landlord acted in line with its repair obligations. This was unreasonable and a failing by the landlord.
  3. On 10 December 2021 the resident made a further report for the roof that was leaking into one of the bedrooms. The order shows as completed on 1 February 2022; however, there is no further information available. As above, we are unable to assess what, if any, repairs were completed at the time, if the landlord fulfilled its repair responsibility, or if it communicated its actions to the resident to keep him updated. This was again unreasonable.
  4. There is then a gap in the timeline, where according to the evidence provided to us, no further reports of a leak were made.
  5. On 21 September 2022, the resident raised a complaint regarding the ongoing leak and lack of a resolution. He told the landlord he could not use the affected bedroom due to the leak and that the water had damaged electrical appliances as it was tripping the electrics.
  6. In its stage 1 complaint response on 18 October 2022, the landlord confirmed a contractor had attended numerous times. This is not disputed; however, there is no further information to confirm when these visits took place, what repairs were completed and what was communicated to the resident. The lack of records means we are unable to determine if the landlord acted in line with its repair responsibilities, or if it monitored the success of the work completed by the contractor. The resident according to the lease agreement is responsible for keeping the internal property clean and in good repair and condition. However given the property had been impacted by the roof leak which the landlord was responsible for, it ought to have considered any mitigating work in the interim such as a mould wash or providing a dehumidifier. There is no evidence it did this. This was unreasonable.
  7. The landlord said the contractor attended on 26 September 2022 but due to the ongoing problem, it asked the landlord to do a joint inspection of the roof. This was appropriate; however, if the contractor had attended numerous times (as stated by the landlord), it is unclear why this had not been requested previously to provide a customer focussed solution. This was a failing by the landlord in not monitoring repeat visits for the same problem.
  8. The landlord said the contractor tried to arrange the visit, but due to the resident being unwell, it was not possible to progress at that time. It asked the resident to make contact when he was well enough. This was reasonable; however, the landlord should have closely monitored the case to ensure it was progressing. There is no evidence it did this, and on 6 January 2023, the repair was cancelled due to no contact from the resident. As the landlord was responsible for the repair, was aware of the leak and the impact on the resident and his property, it was not appropriate to cancel the repair without any attempts of contacting the resident.
  9. In its final complaint response on 3 November 2023, the landlord confirmed that the roof had been inspected in January 2023. It said scaffolding was erected; however, on the appointment day, it had been dismantled in error. The landlord acknowledged that after this, no further work was raised. Further, there is no evidence that the landlord investigated this to determine why it had happened. This was a failing by the landlord. The error was avoidable and contributed to further delays and inconvenience to the resident. This was unreasonable and demonstrated the landlord had not managed the repair effectively or sought to learn from its error.
  10. On 14 May 2023 the resident reported the roof leak again. The repair notes confirmed the leak was causing damp in the bedroom which was unusable, and the water was getting into the electrics. The repair records state it was forwarded to the Repair Officer. While there are no records to confirm the action taken, the landlord advised on 20 June 2023 that repairs were completed to the gutters and slates which were allowing water to back up and leak into the property. This was appropriate as the landlord believed it had located the source of the leak.
  11. It is noted that multiple visits and repairs may be needed to trace and rectify a leak, and this in itself is not unreasonable, however there should be sufficient communication with the resident to keep him updated, and the necessary follow up to monitor the success of the work completed. There is no evidence the landlord did this, and on 31 July 2023, a further report was made which would suggest the root cause of the problem had not been resolved. An inspection was raised, and a scaffold tower was installed, and a further inspection took place on 9 August 2023. This was in line with the response timescales, but the contractor could not locate the leak. While it tried to contact the resident to arrange another visit it was unable to do so.
  12. A scaffold tower was installed again on 6 September 2023 to complete further repairs on the gutters, but it was confirmed additional scaffold was needed to complete the work in full. This was erected on 4 October 2023 and on 19 October 2023 the landlord and contractor identified the leak and the necessary repairs to resolve it. The repairs which included refixing of roof slates and sealing of the box gutters were completed on 19 October 2023, 2 years after the first report in August 2021. While there is evidence of attempted repairs, the errors which contributed to the delays, the lack of monitoring of the repairs, and the lack of communication to the resident regarding the case were unreasonable.
  13. It was reasonable for the landlord to keep the scaffolding in place to monitor the success of the repairs; however, there is no evidence it did this, and no evidence it communicated with the resident to sign off the work.
  14. In its final complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the delays in the repairs in January 2023 and the lack of follow up on its part. It recognised it took too long to establish the root cause of the leak and provide a solution and demonstrated an understanding of the impact the delays had on the resident and his property. It offered £250 compensation for the time and trouble and service failure and agreed to contribute to the insurance excess if the resident chose to make a claim for damages.
  15. In line with our remedies guidance, this offer was not proportionate to the failures identified, the time taken to resolve the problem, and the impact on the resident as a result. As such an order has been made to pay the resident an additional £350 compensation to account for the time from the report made in September 2022 to the final complaint response in November 2023.
  16. In summary, we find maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a roof leak. This is because the landlord:
    1. did not monitor the progress on the case effectively
    2. did not follow up on the repairs after the error with the scaffolding, which led to avoidable delays and increased impact on the resident
    3. did not communicate with the resident to explain any delays or outcomes of inspections
    4. took 2 years to complete the repairs
    5. failed to evidence the monitoring of the success of the repairs
  17. The landlord has provided evidence which confirms the roof leak continued after the conclusion of the complaint process. On 9 November 2023, the resident reported a roof leak. With evidence of further inspections and repairs throughout 2024, the landlord confirmed the leak was fully resolved in October 2024, and it completed internal work to the resident’s home in March 2025.
  18. As part of the evidence gathering for our investigation the landlord reviewed the case. In doing so it recognised the significant delays in identifying the cause of the leak and completing the repairs. It acknowledged the errors that contributed to the delays and advised the learning taken to prevent recurrence. This included improving communication between teams through regular meetings to discuss complaints, a review of the process to diagnose leaks to improve timescales for remedial work and a new system to allow better visibility and tracking of cases.
  19. In terms of redress, the landlord confirmed the original offer was “inadequate.” It offered a further £250 for the distress and inconvenience and in addition, agreed to pay the resident’s insurance excess. Due to the time that had lapsed before this offer was made, it has not been considered as part of the compensation order.
  20. While it is positive the landlord reconsidered its position and made an offer of redress, it is not clear why it did not make this offer when considering the complaint within its own complaint procedure. Due to the delay in making the additional offer to put things right, we do not consider it appropriate to make a finding of ‘reasonable redress’. We therefore find service failure.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint policy which states it will acknowledge complaints within 5–working days of receipt. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10–working days of receipt and stage 2 complaints within 20–working days. If at any stage additional time is needed, this will be communicated to the resident.
  2. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords should:
    1. acknowledge, define, and log stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5-working days of receipt
    2. issue a full response to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days of the acknowledgement, and within 20-working days of a stage 2 complaint escalation request
    3. decide whether an extension to these timescales is needed and inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10-working days for stage 1 complaints (20 working days for stage 2 complaints) without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy states it may offer discretionary compensation for poor complaint handling where it has not met its complaint policy and for poor communication. While the calculations are based on low, medium, or high failure, there are no specific amounts for poor complaint handling.
  4. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 21 September 2022; however, there is no evidence that it acknowledged receipt of the complaint. Due to lack of evidence, we are unable to assess if the landlord followed its policy or the Code. This was unreasonable.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 18 October 2022, 19 working days after it was received. There is no evidence the landlord informed the resident of the delay in its response or proposed a new expected response date. The landlord did apologise for the delay in its response, but it did not explain the reasons or offer any redress in acknowledgement of the delay. The lack of communication and delay in response was unreasonable as it was not in line with the policy or the Code.
  6. The resident escalated the complaint on 31 August 2023. It is noted that the request was received beyond the 6-month timescale stated in the stage 1 response; however, the landlord used its discretion and accepted the escalation. This was appropriate due to the fact the problem was ongoing.
  7. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 September 2023. It informed the resident it would respond within 20-working days, and said if it was unable to do so, it would keep him updated and would propose a new response time. This was reasonable as it was in line with the policy and the Code.
  8. On or around 27 September 2023 the resident contacted the landlord. Although we have not seen a copy of this contact, it appears from the landlord’s response to him that he was unhappy that the landlord had not responded to his complaint and wanted us to challenge the landlord’s response time. The landlord provided our contact details to the resident; however, it is noted that this was within the landlord’s 20-working days response time.
  9. There is no evidence of any further communication with the resident until 30 October 2023 when the landlord advised it was unable to provide a full and final response. It said it needed an extension of a further 10–working days to collate all the information. It is acknowledged the landlord may have needed more time to respond; however, it is expected to communicate this to the resident in advance of the original timescale. The landlord’s update was after the 20-working day response timescale. This was unreasonable as it was not in line with policy. Furthermore, it was not in line the expectations of the Code.
  10. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 3 November 2023, 46 working days after it was received. This was unreasonable as it was not in line with policy or the Code.
  11. The landlord confirmed it was happy with the way the stage 1 complaint was managed; however, it noted that it did not respond within the 10-working day timescale. The landlord apologised for any inconvenience caused and offered £25 for poor complaint handling. It did not, however, acknowledge, explain, or apologise for the delays in its final complaint response. This was unreasonable as it did not demonstrate an understanding of how the delay had impacted the resident or the resolution of the problem. The compensation offer was not in line with our remedies guidance or what we would expect to see for the failings highlighted, therefore an order has been made for the landlord to pay an additional £75 compensation.
  12. Considering the above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint. This is because the landlord:
    1. did not provide a response at either stage that was in line with the timescales stated in its complaint policy or the Code
    2. did not evidence it acknowledged the stage 1 complaint
    3. did not communicate the delay of its stage 1 complaint response to the resident
    4. did not communicate the extension of the final complaint response until after the original timescale had passed
    5. did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay in its final complaint response, or offer reasonable redress for the delays at both stages of the process
    6. did not acknowledge the impact the delays had on the resident
  13. We have received information from the landlord which confirms its review of the case highlighted complaint handling failures, including the delays and incorrect spelling of the resident’s name. As a result, it increased the compensation offer for complaint handling from £25 to £75. Due to the time that has lapsed since the initial offer was made, this compensation has not been included in the orders made.
  14. While it is positive the landlord reconsidered its position and made an offer of redress, it is not clear why it did not make this offer when considering the complaint within its own complaint procedure. Due to the delay in making the additional offer to put things right, we do not consider it appropriate to make a finding of ‘reasonable redress’ as set out in the Scheme. We therefore find service failure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a roof leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
    1. written a letter of apology to the resident which addresses the failures highlighted in this report
    2. paid the resident £700 compensation which is made up of the following:
      1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident because of the delays in repairing the roof leak
      2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident due to the delays in the complaint responses
      3. this is inclusive of the compensation previously offered by the landlord in its final complaint response and not as part of its case review. Therefore, the landlord may deduct from this total any compensation it may already have paid in relation to this complaint
      4. the payment should be made directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed