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) (202410487)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410487

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

12 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:
    1. the resident’s request for the reimbursement of repair costs.
    2. the resident’s request for it to complete outstanding repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant under an agreement dated March 2021. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities on record for the resident. As part of this assessment the resident has told us that they have informed the landlord of their mental health issues.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted it on 30 April 2024. They said:
    1. their property was in poor condition when their tenancy started and was not ready for them to move in, but the landlord forced them to do so regardless.
    2. the landlord was aware of the issues when they moved in, and resolved some of them, but did not resolve all of them.
    3. they had to maintain the property with their own money over the years to rectify the issues.
    4. to resolve the issues, they would like the landlord to make their property good again and pay compensation for the money they had spent completing repairs the landlord had taken months to complete or even address.
  3. The landlord confirmed receipt of the resident’s complaint on 1 May 2024. It said it would contact them by 8 May 2024. The landlord emailed the resident on 13 May 2024 and acknowledged their complaint. It apologised for their dissatisfaction, outlined their issues and what they wanted to resolve them. The landlord emailed the resident on 14 May 2024 and asked them to provide a list of the outstanding repairs and confirmation of the issues the resident sorted themselves. The landlord requested the cost of these and receipts for the work completed.
  4. The resident provided a letter to the landlord on 23 May 2024. They said they would like the landlord to start the outstanding work to the kitchen and radiator cover. They said the landlord had not considered their mental health and they wanted compensation for this. The resident said they wanted compensation of £4,360 for the money they had spent on repairs.
  5. The landlord emailed the resident on 24 May 2024. It said it was due to send the stage 1 response that day. However, it needed to extend this by 20 working days to 10 June 2024 as it was awaiting a response from its repairs team.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 28 May 2024. It apologised for the delay in responding and any inconvenience caused. It also apologised because the resident was unhappy with the service they had received. The landlord said:
    1. it conducted an inspection of the resident’s property on 13 February 2024 and raised work orders to reinstate border fencing in the front garden and renew side panels and a cover on a radiator.
    2. an operative attended the resident’s property on 22 March 2024 and completed work to renew the side panels and cover on the radiator.
    3. it had scheduled an appointment for 16 June 2024 to reinstate the border fencing including posts in the front garden. This was the only outstanding repair.
    4. the resident’s kitchen was currently on the programme for renewal in financial year 2025/2026 subject to the allocated budget.
    5. it did not receive a request from the resident to install a new toilet and wash basin as per their tenancy agreement.
    6. it was the resident’s responsibility to keep their home clean and in good condition and to keep their gardens tidy and free from rubbish.
    7. it was the resident’s responsibility to complete minor repairs, decoration and replacements that required no technical ability.
    8. it understood the resident’s frustration and acknowledged the stress and inconvenience caused.
    9. it had determined that there was no service failure as it completed all of the works within 28 days as per its policy. Additionally, as the fencing required specialist works it was the landlord’s policy that it completed those works within a 90-day timeframe.
  7. The resident escalated their complaint on 1 June 2024. They said they were not happy with the stage 1 response as the landlord was not taking responsibility for repairs it should have completed before they moved in. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation on 4 June 2024. It outlined the resident’s concerns.
  8. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 11 June 2024. It provided the same information regarding resident’s kitchen renewal and the outstanding work to reinstate the border fencing. The landlord said:
    1. it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint as there was no evidence of a failure of service regarding the repairs.
    2. it understood that the resident had spent money on repairs over the past few years. However, it was unable to find any permission requests on its systems regarding the work they had independently arranged as per their tenancy agreement.
    3. it appreciated that this may not be the outcome the resident was hoping for, but it was unable to reimburse these costs to them.
    4. it was satisfied with the way it managed the resident’s complaint at stage 1, and it did not find any failure of service.
    5. it acknowledged that the stage 1 response confirmed that its contractor had attended on 22 March 2024 to address the issue with the radiator cover and it had marked the work as complete.
    6. it was sorry that it did not explain that it closed the job as completed as its contractor identified that no further work was required as there was only minor cosmetic damage to the side panel which it could not replace. The radiator itself was in full working order, and it had confirmed this with the resident.
    7. it would like to reassure the resident that it had addressed this with the relevant team to ensure it made this clear in future responses.
    8. it would like to apologise for any distress and inconvenience caused.
  9. The resident referred their case to the Ombudsman on 13 June 2024. They told this service on 8 January 2025 that the landlord had fitted a new kitchen on 15 December 2024. The resident said that they wanted an apology and reiterated their request for compensation for the expenses they incurred in completing the repairs themselves. They reiterated that they wanted the landlord to consider the impact this had on their mental health and compensate them for this.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

  1. The resident has raised concerns about the condition of the property when their tenancy started in March 2021. The resident did not contact the Ombudsman until 13 June 2024. As such we will not investigate the issues from 2021 as their initial complaint was not brought to us within a reasonable time. Any reference to issues from 2021 will be to provide context only. 
  2. In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident referred to other issues they had raised with the landlord, including having a tree stump removed and a new front door fitted. This matter did not form part of the original complaint brought to us. It is unclear whether the resident raised these issues as a separate complaint. Accordingly, this investigation will only consider the issues addressed in the landlord’s stage 2 response on 11 June 2024. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed.  
  3. As part of their complaint the resident has raised that the issues have impacted their health. Unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. 

Policies and procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement says:
    1. the resident must arrange and pay for minor repairs including door handles.
    2. the resident must keep inside of the property clean and in good condition. They must decorate the inside of the property as often as necessary to comply with this obligation.
    3. the resident must keep their garden tidy and free from rubbish.
    4. the resident must not improve, change or add to the property unless the landlord has agreed in writing.
    5. the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing basins, sinks and toilets.
    6. the resident must tell the landlord straight away if their property needed repairs that it was responsible for.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy supports this. It also says that:
    1. the resident is responsible for floor coverings in areas other than kitchens, bathrooms and toilets.
    2. the resident should arrange minor repairs, decoration or replacements that require no technical ability and use common household tools.
    3. it would complete routine (appointment) repairs in 28 calendar days or 20 working days.
    4. it would complete non-routine repairs in 90-days. This included complex works, work that required additional materials or the landlord had to consider the safety of its operatives.
    5. it would include major components such as a kitchen as part of an investment programme to maintain the safety of a property or replace a major component.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the reimbursement of repairs costs

  1. The resident complained about the money they had spent on repairs to the property in their correspondence to the landlord on 30 April and 23 May 2024. The resident said they had spent £4,360 on:
    1. a new toilet.
    2. a new wash basin.
    3. materials.
    4. new flooring for 5 rooms.
    5. the painting of 3 rooms and all materials.
    6. maintaining the front and back garden.
    7. new kitchen cupboard door handles.
    8. cleaning products.
  2. In its stage 1 response of 28 May 2024 the landlord said that it did not receive a request from the resident to install a new toilet and wash basin in accordance with their tenancy agreement. This was appropriate as the tenancy agreement says that the landlord is responsible for repairing basins, sinks and toilets. It also says that the resident must tell the landlord straightaway if their property needed repairs, it was responsible for.
  3. The landlord also informed the resident in its stage 1 response that it was their responsibility to keep their home clean and in good condition and their garden free from rubbish. It also said that it was the resident’s responsibility to complete minor repairs, decoration and replacements that required no technical ability. This was appropriate as the landlord provided this information in the tenancy agreement. The landlord also states this in its repairs policy.
  4. However, in its stage 1 response the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about the flooring they had laid in their property. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain that the resident was responsible for floor coverings in areas other than kitchens, bathrooms and toilets in accordance with its repairs policy. Although, this did not cause a detriment to the resident this was a shortcoming in the landlord’s communication.
  5. In its stage 2 response of 11 June 2024 the landlord explained to the resident that it could not find any permission requests for the work they had completed. While it was an oversight for the landlord not to specifically refer to the flooring the resident had fitted. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord addressed this issue as part of this response. It was appropriate for the landlord to explain this as the tenancy agreement states that residents must get the landlord’s agreement before improving or adding to the property.
  6. The landlord also told the resident that it was unable to reimburse their costs to maintain their home. It was reasonable for the landlord to tell the resident this.

Summary and conclusions

  1. In summary, while the landlord failed to explain that the resident was responsible for laying flooring in her property in rooms other than the kitchen, bathroom and toilet. It has explained to the resident within a reasonable timeframe that it could not reimburse their repair costs because:
    1. they did not report repairs to the toilet and wash basin, it was responsible for, before completing the repairs themselves.
    2. they did not seek its permission to carryout improvements or add to the property.
    3. some of the work completed by the resident was their responsibility. Including keeping their home clean and in good condition, decorating, keeping their garden tidy and carrying out minor repairs.
  2. This is in line with the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy. Therefore, the Ombudsman has found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the reimbursement of repairs costs.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for it to complete outstanding repairs

  1. The resident raised concerns about outstanding repairs including a radiator cover and work in their kitchen on 23 May 2024.
  2. In its stage 1 response of 28 May 2024 the landlord said that it had completed work to renew panels on the radiator on 22 March 2024. However, in its stage 2 response of 11 June 2024 the landlord said it marked the work as complete as there was only minor cosmetic damage to the radiator side panel. The landlord apologised for not explaining this at stage 1. It said it had already confirmed with the resident that it would not complete further work to repair the panel. The landlord said it had addressed this with the relevant team to prevent recurrence.
  3. It was reasonable for the landlord to take this action and apologise to the resident. This is because the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code) states that to put things right a landlord should apologise, acknowledge were things had gone wrong and provide an explanation.
  4. The landlord told the resident in both complaint responses that their kitchen was currently on the programme for renewal in financial year 2025/2026 subject to the allocated budget. It was appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident of this. This is because the landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it usually included kitchen replacements as part of a planned investment programme to maintain safety and replace major components of a property.
  5. In its stage 1 response the landlord told the resident that it had found no service failure as it had completed repairs within timescales. The landlord maintained this position in its stage 2 response. This was inappropriate as it arranged an appointment for 16 June 2024 to reinstate the fence which was 125 days after the landlord had identified the works in its inspection on 13 February 2024. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it would complete such work in 90-days.
  6. Additionally, the landlord took 38 days from when it identified the repair in its inspection on 13 February 2024 to attend to the radiator cover on 22 March 2024. The landlord’s repairs policy says it would complete such work in 28 days. Although this was a failure the detriment to the resident was minimal as when the operative attended the job the repair was not required.
  7. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that the landlord has reinstated the border fence in the front garden although it is unclear when. They have also informed this service that the landlord replaced their kitchen in December 2024.

Summary and conclusions

  1. In summary, the landlord has:
    1. acknowledged the incorrect information provided in its stage 1 response regarding the radiator cover and apologised for this.
    2. provided an explanation for this and outlined the action taken to stop this happening in future.
    3. explained to the resident that it had scheduled work to reinstate the border fence in their front garden. It also explained that it would replace their kitchen as part of a planned programme in line with its repairs policy. The resident has confirmed that these jobs are no longer outstanding.
  2. Additionally, although the landlord went outside the timeframes stipulated in its repairs policy to attend to the radiator cover there was minimal detriment to the resident. However, when scheduling an appointment to reinstate the border fence in the resident’s front garden the landlord exceeded its 90-day timescale for such works by 35 days from when it identified the work was required. The landlord failed to identify this in both of its complaints responses.
  3. Therefore, the Ombudsman has found that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to complete outstanding repairs. The resident suffered distress and inconvenience as they had to wait for the landlord to reinstate the border fence. The landlord should pay the resident compensation to recognise how its failures impacted her.
  4. Having carefully considered the guidance on remedies a fair level of compensation would be £100. This appropriately recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures in its handling of the resident’s request for it to complete outstanding repairs.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. 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 of the acknowledgement at stage 1.
    3. clearly explain the reason for any extension to the resident.
    4. provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledging the escalation request.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy is compliant with the provisions of the Code.
  3. The resident complained on 30 April 2024, and the landlord confirmed receipt of their complaint the following day. The landlord said it would contact the resident within 5 working days by 8 May 2024. The landlord emailed the resident on 13 May 2024 and acknowledged their complaint. This was a shortcoming as it had gone beyond the 5 working days a landlord has to acknowledge the initial complaint as stated in the Code.
  4. As the landlord had acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 13 May 2024 it had until 24 May 2024 to provide a response. The landlord emailed the resident on 24 May 2024 and said it needed an extension to 10 June 2024 to provide a response as it was awaiting a response from its repairs team. This was in line with the Code and was reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident that it needed additional time and provide an explanation for this.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 28 May 2024. It apologised for the delay in responding. It was reasonable for the landlord to do this. The resident escalated their complaint on 1 June 2024, and the landlord acknowledged this on 4 June 2024. This was appropriate as it was in line with the Code.
  6. As the landlord had acknowledged the resident’s escalation on 4 June 2024 it had until 2 July 2024 to provide its stage 2 response. The landlord provided this response on 11 June 2024.
  7. Although, there was a slight delay in acknowledging the resident’s initial complaint. The landlord sent an email to the resident confirming receipt of their complaint within 1 day. The landlord handled the rest of the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy and the Code. Therefore, the Ombudsman has found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the reimbursement of repairs costs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for it to complete outstanding repairs.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 28 days the landlord should:
    1. write a letter of apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident £100, which it must not offset against any arrears, to recognise the likely upset and distress caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to complete outstanding repairs.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contact the resident to ascertain their mental health issues. The landlord should then update its records to reflect this.