Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202416043)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416043

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

2 June 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. water leaks from above and subsequent damage to the resident’s property.
   2. damage to the resident’s possessions.
   3. the complaint.

Background

2. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 1– bedroom flat. The landlord said the resident has disclosed that he has a chronic illness but that it has no further details about this. The resident’s sister (Ms N) acted as his representative during his complaint to the landlord and us.
3. At the end of April 2023 Ms N contacted the landlord’s chief executive. She raised concerns about the number of “floods” from above the resident had experienced. She asked the landlord to accept the matter as an official complaint.
4. Ms N contacted the landlord again in mid-May 2024. She asked about its complaints procedure and raised her concern about work previously completed to decorate resident’s living room. She questioned if the landlord could move the neighbour in the flat above. She said the resident was on “tender hooks” waiting for the next flood.
5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 5 August 2024. It acknowledged his concerns about reoccurring issues with leaks/flooding from the flat above. It said its surveyor had attended to inspect the resident’s concerns about previous repairs to his living room ceiling and it had now raised new work to address this.
6. The landlord noted another leak from above on 18 July 2024, and that Ms N was unhappy it had not attended this within 4 hours of the report. It said that it tried to attend emergency reports within 4 hours but that residents needed to make themselves available for 24 hours, which was its target for emergency repairs. The landlord awarded the resident compensation of £145 for complaint handling failings and delays, and £150 for time and trouble. 
7. Ms N escalated the resident’s complaint on 20 August 2024. She said flooding/leaks had happened 6 or 7 times over the years his neighbour had lived in the property above. She said the resident:
   1. was suffering from stress, anxiety and depression with his possessions in boxes.
   2. wanted compensation for items that had been damaged.
   3. wanted it to consider a property transfer for him or his neighbour.
8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 30 August 2024. It said:
   1. its surveyor had attended the resident’s property in March 2024 following a leak from above due to an overflowing bath. It said the resident had not mentioned concerns about the work to his living room ceiling at this time.
   2. when its surveyor attended on 20 June 2024, they identified staining to the living room ceiling from a historical leak and raised work to stain block and decorate this.
   3. its surveyor had attended again following the recent leak in July 2024.
   4. it has delivered a dehumidifier to the resident to help with drying the affected room.
   5. it considered the compensation it had awarded at stage 1 of its complaints process to be appropriate.
9. Ms N told us that the resident was suffering from anxiety as his home was “a mess” with personal possessions in boxes. She said he was living in fear of another leak.
10. The landlord told us that the leaks/flooding the resident had experienced were not due to repair issues. However, it said it had taken the matter seriously. Since the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response the resident has experienced further leaks from above.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. The resident said the repeated leaks from above had negatively impacted his health. We acknowledge his comments about this. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is a matter which is more appropriately decided by a court following a claim for damages. It could also be considered by way of a personal injury claim through the landlord’s insurer. It would be appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with details of how he can make such a claim should he request this.

Policies and procedures

12. The landlord’s repairs policy outlines its aim to attend emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 20 working days. It operates a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and those at stage 2 within 20 working days.

Water leaks from above and subsequent damage to the resident’s property

13. Ms N raised concerns with the landlord in April 2024 about repeated flooding to the resident’s property. This was following a leak that occurred in March 2024. The landlord responded in mid-May 2024. It said that it had taken steps to ensure the resident’s neighbour’s washing machine was correctly plumbed. It also said it was working with the neighbour to try to support them in moving.
14. Ms N subsequently clarified concerns about the repair work the landlord had previously completed to the resident’s living room ceiling. She also said the resident was concerned that some leaks had occurred as his neighbour had left bath taps running.
15. Following Ms N’s complaint, the landlord arranged for its surveyor to inspect the resident’s property. The subsequent report of this visit set out that the resident was content with repairs completed following the leak in March 2024. However, it noted there was damage to the living room ceiling from a historical leak.
16. In its stage 1 response the landlord set out action it had taken to raise work to the resident’s living room ceiling. The resident told the surveyor that the landlord’s contractor said it would return to complete work, but it had not done so. Records we have seen show previous work had been raised in May 2023 to rectify a crack in the living room ceiling. However, there is no details showing this work was completed. 
17. The landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response that it had upheld the resident’s concerns about the living room ceiling. It awarded the resident £150 in recognition of time and trouble chasing a response to the issues. That was appropriate. The resident/Ms N should not have needed to complaint to the landlord before this work completed.
18. The resident experienced a further leak from above in July 2024 and the records we have seen show the landlord attended this within 24 hours of the report. That was appropriate, and within timeframes set out in its repairs policy. The landlord outlined in its subsequent complaints response that it had disconnected the neighbour’s washing machine, which had caused the leak, and had advised them not to use this.
19. The landlord took appropriate steps to deliver a dehumidifier to the resident to help with drying the affected area. Its stage 1 complaint response also explained that repair work following this leak was not a routine repair and would take time to complete. It was appropriate that it provided the resident with details of how he could contact its surveyor to discuss these repairs. Records show the surveyor subsequently reattended in December 2024 to inspect and confirm repairs had been completed satisfactorily. That was also appropriate.
20. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses that the resident had experienced repeated leaks/flooding from above. It said that its housing team would work with the resident to offer him support in trying to move. It also acknowledged what the resident had said about the impact of issues on his mental health and well-being and directed him to support it could help him to access. That was appropriate.
21. The landlord set out in its complaint responses that its housing team was working with the neighbour above to reduce the instances of flooding to the resident’s property. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns and what he has said about how repeated leaks/flooding has affected him. We also empathise with the position he is in. While we cannot share all the action taken by the landlord, we have seen that it has acted appropriately to address the ongoing issues the resident is experiencing with flooding/leaks.
22. We have found that the landlord has acted appropriately when addressing the leaks from above experienced by the resident. We have also found that the landlord has appropriately recognised the impact of its earlier failure to address repairs to the living room ceiling. We have considered all the circumstances and have referred to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. Overall, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of water leaks from above and subsequent damage to the resident’s property.

Damage to the resident’s possessions

23. Ms N set out in her complaint a list of the resident’s personal possessions that had been damaged by leaks/flooding. In response to this, the landlord directed the resident to claim through his own insurance. Alternatively, it said he could make a claim to its insurer. It also said its insurance team could advise the resident on whether he had a valid claim. That was appropriate. We have found no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damage to his possessions.

The complaint

24. When Ms N contacted the landlord in April 2024, she said that she wanted to raise the matter as an “official complaint”. While the landlord responded to her correspondence at this time, it did not raise the matter as a complaint until the end of May 2024. That was only after Ms N made further contact. The landlord delayed further in its handling of the complaint as it did not provide its stage 1 response until 5 August 2024. That was far outside its 10-working day target set out in its complaints policy.
25. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged complaint handling failings its stage 1 response. Its response at stage 2 of its complaints process was timely. Overall, the £145 the landlord awarded to the resident was fair recognition of the impact of its complaint handling delays and failings. For this reason, we have made a finding of reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of:
    1. water leaks from above and subsequent damage to the resident’s property.
    2. the complaint.
27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of damage to the resident’s possessions.

Recommendations

28. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
    1. pay the resident the £295 it previously awarded, if it has not done so already.
    2. contact the resident to confirm any vulnerabilities that should be recorded for him.
    3. repeat its offer to assist the resident in exploring options for moving, should he wish to consider this.