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) (202410518)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410518

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

2 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 handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 11 January 2024 to report concerns about damp and mould within her property. The landlord inspected on 24 January 2024. The notes from the landlord’s inspection stated there was mould present in the kitchen, dining room, landing and 1 bedroom. Its inspection reported recommended an “overhaul” of the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom as it “suspect[ed]” condensation was causing mould around the property. It did not progress with any works at the time.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 5 March 2024. She said she was unhappy it had not started any works. She said there was “mould all over the property”, and asked it to raise works to resolve the issue.
  4. The landlord completed works to the extractor fans on 20 March 2024. It completed a mould wash treatment at the property on 26 March 2024. It reported it was unable to access the ceiling area around the stairs, and said it needed scaffolding in place to complete the works.
  5. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 10 April 2024. It gave a history of when it had completed the above repairs. It explained it hoped to erect the scaffolding and finish the mould treatment by 28 May 2024. It apologised for the delay in raising the repairs following its January 2024 inspection. It also apologised for the delay in sending the stage 1 complaint response. It offered £255 in compensation for its handling of the repairs, and £25 for its complaint handling.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response and asked it to open a stage 2 complaint on 10 April 2024. She said she was concerned about the impact on her children’s health due to the mould. She said the compensation it offered did not consider her loss of earnings. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 15 April 2024, and said:
    1. It would do a mould wash on the kitchen cupboards and renew the backboards for the cupboards on 3 May 2024.
    2. It planned to erect scaffolding and complete the mould wash on the stairs on 20 May 2024.
    3. It upheld the complaint as some works were not yet completed.
    4. It asked the resident to provide a letter from her employer confirming she had taken unpaid leave for the repairs visits. It said it would consider reimbursing her for the loss of earnings but it would not reimburse her for paid annual leave.
    5. It made an increased compensation offer of £375 for its handling of the repairs. It restated its £25 for the complaint handling delay at stage 1.

Events after the complaints process

  1. The landlord asked its contractor to quote for replastering and decorating around the stairs on 4 July 2024.
  2. The landlord completed the repairs to the kitchen cupboards on 21 August 2024.
  3. The landlord’s contractor attended to complete the replastering works around the stairs on 25 October 2024. The contractor attended to complete the decorating on 4 November 2024.
  4. The resident contacted us on 8 January 2025 and asked us to investigate. She said the damp and mould issues were not resolved and was concerned about the impact the situation was having on the health of her household.
  5. The landlord contacted us on 18 February 2025 and said it had reviewed its handling of the resident’s case. It said it had found it had not addressed the complaint appropriately and wanted to offer the resident a further £150 in compensation for its handling of the repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

  1. Throughout her complaint, and when she asked us to investigate, the resident said the landlord’s handling of the damp, mould and associated repairs had impacted on the health of her household. We acknowledge the serious nature of this issue and the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury.
  2. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance, or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of our remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. However, it is widely accepted that damp and mould can pose a risk to health. We have considered this general risk, rather than any specific impact on health and any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord. We have also considered the way in which the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about health.
  3. The landlord sent its final complaint response in April 2024. At the time of its stage 2 response the repairs subject to the complaint about were outstanding. For fairness, we have increased the scope of our investigation beyond the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. This is to fully consider the landlord’s handling of the outstanding issues raised in the complaint.
  4. The evidence also shows the resident reported further repairs, including but not limited to, a leak from the boiler and leaks in the bathroom in September 2024. The landlord also did a damp and mould inspection in December 2024. The resident also sent the landlord a disrepair ‘pre-action protocol’ letter, in March 2025. We have limited our investigation to the repairs the resident raised as a formal complaint and the landlord addressed in its complaint responses. We have also considered any repairs that were outstanding, and it had committed to complete, at the time of its final response. This is in line with the approach set out by our Scheme. We have not investigated its handling of repairs it became aware of after the resident exhausted its complaints procedure. As the resident is evidently unhappy with its handling of the later repairs, and has started a legal disrepair claim, we recommend it opens a new complaint investigation now to respond to her concerns.

 

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

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
  2. Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
  3. The landlord’s repair responsibilities guide states it will attend to emergency repair within 24 hours. It states it aims to complete routine repairs within 28 days. For non-routine repairs, such as working at height, it aims to complete the repairs within 90 days.
  4. The resident put the landlord on notice about the damp and mould issues on 11 January 2024. The landlord inspected, and identified repairs needed to try and rectify the issue, on 24 January 2024. This was prompt and reasonable in the circumstances. However, the resident was inconvenienced by the fact it did not raise the recommended repairs after the inspection. She was evidently distressed at the conditions in the property. The lack of proactive action by the landlord may have increased the distress she experienced. The resident was inconvenienced by the need to raise a complaint, in March 2024, before the landlord took action on the repairs.
  5. The landlord completed the repairs to the extractor fans on 20 March 2024, and did a mould wash throughout the property on 26 March 2024. The resident was inconvenienced by the delay that was outside of the landlord’s repairs policy timeframes. However, it attended promptly after the resident complained. This is evidence that once it became aware of errors in its handling of the matter it sought to progress with urgency. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
  6. The landlord used its stage 1 complaint response to apologise and offered compensation for the delays. This was appropriate. It was also appropriate to set out when it planned to complete the remaining repairs. However, it offered no learning about what caused the delays, or what it would do to prevent similar errors in the future. This was unreasonable and it missed an opportunity to build trust and reassure the resident.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response appropriately made an increased offer of compensation in recognition of the fact the repairs were still outstanding. It was also appropriate to set out what evidence it needed to consider in order to reimburse the resident for her claimed loss of earnings. We have seen no evidence the resident responded to this request. She may wish to provide the landlord with the requested evidence if she still wants a reimbursement for a loss of earnings. We would not expect the landlord to reimburse the resident for loss of earnings without evidence. In line with its policy, the landlord is not obliged to reimburse residents for earnings if they were able to use annual leave. However, it should consider compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by unnecessary appointments and missed appointments.
  8. The evidence provided shows the landlord did not attend to erect scaffolding for the remaining mould wash on 20 May 2024, as it said it would in its stage 2 complaint response. This caused a further inconvenience as well as a disappointment of not doing something it said it would. The information provided also shows the landlord did not progress with this matter at the time and asked its contractor to provide a further quote for the area in July 2024. We acknowledge the repair was complex and required more extensive works than first thought. However, it was unreasonable it did not ask for a new quote for another 2 months. This increased the delay and the inconvenience the resident experienced.
  9. There was an unreasonable delay of another 2 months in the landlord approving the quote from its contractor. We have seen an email from the landlord from September 2024 that said it had “finally” approved the quote and asked the contractor to go ahead with the works. This delay further inconvenienced the resident. We note there were some delay in booking the works with the resident, which was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control. The works did not start until late October 2024. Most of this delay was due to the length of time it took the landlord to approve the quote. The works were completed well outside of its 90-day target timeframe for non-routine repairs.
  10. The landlord completed the repairs to the kitchen cupboards in August 2024. This was 3 months after it said it would in its stage 2 complaint response. This was an unreasonable delay that was well outside of its target timeframe of 28 days. The delay inconvenienced the resident.
  11. The landlord’s records say it was unable to complete all the decoration works on 5 November 2024. Its notes state the resident asked its contractor to leave because they refused to complete additional works she requested. The resident did not respond to our query about this incident. Based on the information available it is reasonable to conclude this incident may have impacted on the landlord’s ability to complete the decoration works.
  12. The landlord told us in February 2025 that it had decided to offer the resident a further £150 in compensation after reviewing its handling of the matter. We welcome its decision to increase its offer of compensation. It made the offer 10 months after its final complaint response. We therefore do not consider it an offer made as part of the complaints process. This impacts on the degree to which its offer puts things right as our investigation is focused on whether the landlord did enough to put things right through its complaints process. Considering the errors made after its final complaint response, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
  13. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. Considering the landlord’s total offer of £525 in compensation, we have not made orders for additional compensation. Its offer is in line with the amount we would have awarded if it had not made an offer.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states landlord must send stage 1 complaint within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response 26 working days after the resident complained. This was outside of the timeframes required by the Code. We acknowledge any delay would have caused some level of inconvenience to the resident. But overall, the delay was not excessive.
  3. The landlord appropriately apologised and offered £25 in compensation for the delay. This was reasonable in the circumstances and evidence it sought to put things right for the resident.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response within the timeframes required by its complaints policy and the Code. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
  5. Our remedies guidance states order of compensation up to £100 may be appropriate to put right errors that occur over a short duration. Considering this we have determined its offer of £25 in compensation was appropriate to put right the delay in issuing the stage 1 response.

 

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident the £525 in compensation it offered in in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. (if it has not already paid the compensation).

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord:
    1. Opens a complaint investigation into its handling of the repairs the resident reported after its final complaint response and responds to this in line with its complaints policy.
    2. Pay the resident the £25 in compensation it offered in recognition of errors in its complaint handling if it has not already done so. Our finding of reasonable redress by the landlord is based on an understanding that this compensation was/will be paid.