Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202418909)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202418909

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTVH)

16 July 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to her reports of low water pressure when using the bathroom shower head.
2. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

3. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
4. The landlord’s records show the resident has a physical disability.
5. On 18 April 2023 the resident requested a repair as there was low water pressure coming from the bath taps. The bathroom was recently renovated. The landlord arranged for a contractor to attend, but it is unclear when this visit took place. However later correspondence between the landlord and its contractor noted that feedback from the visit, including a recommendation to consider installing a pump, was not passed to the landlord at the time.
6. The resident contacted the landlord for an update on the installation of a pump on 20 July. The contractor visited the property on 27 July 2023. The landlord’s repair log shows there was low pressure when the bath and shower head attachment were used. The repair record states nothing could be done to boost the pressure as the landlord no longer provided water pumps.
7. The resident complained to the landlord on 5 February 2024. She told the landlord she had complained about low pressure to the shower head for “months and months”. It had not been repaired and the resident felt she kept being given excuses. She said the shower head had low pressure since bathroom renovations were completed.
8. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 20 February 2024. It said:
   1. An area surveyor had recently visited the property.
   2. It would not install a pump as there was not one already in place.
   3. The shower head attached to the bathroom taps would not have been installed as standard.
   4. The shower head could not be hung and used as a shower as the taps were below a window.
   5. The bath ran at a normal flow level and the pressure dropped when using the shower head part.
   6. It would not uphold the complaint as it could not find any service failings.
9. We have not received a copy of the resident’s complaint escalation request. The evidence shows the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and wanted her complaint to be reinvestigated. The complaint was escalated on 23 February 2024.
10. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 12 April 2024. It reiterated the stage 1 response and added:
    1. It was satisfied with how the stage 1 was managed and there had not been any complaint handling failures.
    2. A contractor attended the property in July 2023. The resident was told at the appointment there was nothing it could do as it does not install booster pumps unless they have previously been installed.
    3. The shower attachment was fitted to aid hair washing. It was not intended to be fixed to the wall and used as a shower.
    4. The taps only lost pressure when the shower head was lifted.
    5. It was not upholding the complaint and it could not identify any service failures.
11. The resident referred her complaint to us on 12 August 2024. She said the landlord installed the shower head under a window and this prevented the landlord resolving the water pressure issue. The resident felt the landlord needed to provide a new shower head or install a booster.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of low water pressure when using the bathroom shower head.

12. The landlord’s guide to repair responsibilities states it is responsible for ensuring “all fixtures and fittings – for the supply of water, gas, electricity, heating and sanitation – are working.”
13. The landlord’s complaints policy states the landlord can make a discretionary compensation payment to recognise time and trouble. The policy states the landlord can offer in the region of £50 for a “low failure” alongside an apology.
14. The resident reported low water pressure in her bath on 18 April 2023. It is unclear from the evidence provided when the landlord visited the property. However a contractor attended. The resident says that she was told the contractor would recommend a booster pump be installed. The landlord’s repair log shows an entry on 28 April 2023 for a job to be raised to “increase the water pressure to the bath/shower”.
15. In emails between the landlord and contractor, it was acknowledged that the repair job was closed without feedback being given to the landlord to consider installing a pump. This led to the resident contacting the landlord again on 20 July 2023. She said she had been told a contractor would raise a job for a water pump to be installed but she had not heard any more. This caused inconvenience and prolonged uncertainty for the resident.
16. A contractor attended the resident’s property on 27 July 2023. The landlord has told us the resident was informed no action could be taken, that it did not install pumps in properties with a working bath or shower and the bath water pressure was sufficient.
17. On 2 August 2023 a representative of the resident contacted the landlord. They said more than one person had visited the resident’s property about the issue but nothing had been done. They requested for a water pump to be installed. There is no evidence the representative or resident was contacted following this enquiry.
18. The resident contacted the landlord again on 16 October 2023. She told the landlord that water pressure in the bathroom was still low, nobody had fixed the issue and she was hearing “excuse after excuse”.
19. On 2 November 2023 the landlord completed an inspection of the property. The inspection report stated that when the bath taps were turned on the pressure was “perfectly fine”. When the shower head mixer was turned on, there was not enough pressure for the water to “come out as you would like”. The report confirmed the landlord did not install pumps anymore and the bathroom was designed with a bath and not to have a full standing shower. It is unclear from the evidence if this was communicated to the resident during the visit. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to update the resident with its findings from the inspection and set the resident’s expectations.
20. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it told the resident that the shower head attachment “would not have been installed with the bathroom as standard”. It is not clear what the landlord meant by this. The resident has told us that the shower attachment was installed by the landlord.
21. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it explained to the resident that the shower attachment was installed to aid hair washing and was not intended to be fixed to the wall and used as a shower. It said the layout of the bathroom would also not allow this. It was positive for the landlord to provide an explanation of the intended use of the shower head. This provided a clearer explanation to the resident as to why the landlord was not taking any action. Whilst this was positive, the landlord could have provided this explanation to the resident much earlier.
22. We appreciate that this has been a frustrating issue for the resident. However, in our opinion there is no requirement for the landlord to provide a water pump or new shower head in the current circumstances, based on the evidence provided. The landlord acted reasonably by checking the bath tap water pressure and confirming that the resident has adequate facilities within the property for bathing. This is in line with its repairs policy as the bath and shower head attachment were in working order for its designed purpose. The landlord’s response was appropriate.
23. Overall the landlord did investigate the water pressure issue reported by the resident. However it did not confirm at the earliest opportunity that it did not have an obligation to provide a repair. The landlord could have been clearer with the resident. Simply telling the resident “nothing can be done” and that it did not install water pumps would have been confusing and frustrating for her. It should have been clear about the function of the shower head attachment and that it was not designed to be used in the way the resident wanted. The lack of explanation meant the resident was inconvenienced by continuing to report the issue and asking the landlord to provide a water pump. While the landlord did explain its position in its complaint responses, this was 10 months after the resident’s original request. This was inappropriate. We therefore consider there to have been service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of low water pressure when using the bathroom shower head.
24. We have made an order that the landlord must pay £50 compensation to the resident. This is to reflect the inconvenience caused to the resident by the lack of clarity from the landlord. The amount awarded is in line with the landlord’s complaints policy for a “low failure”.
25. The resident has told us that she has a health condition which is affected by being unable to use the shower head as a shower. There has been no evidence provided to us to suggest that the resident raised this with the landlord. However the landlord was aware that the resident had a physical disability and missed opportunities to explore the reason the resident wanted use of a shower.
26. The landlord is under no obligation to provide shower facilities at the property for the reasons outlined above, however, household disability may mean that the property needs to be assessed by a qualified Occupational Therapist (OT) to see if the facilities are suitable or if any aids or adaptations are needed. We have therefore made a recommendation for the landlord to provide signposting information to the resident, advising her how she can obtain an Occupational Therapy referral.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

27. The Complaint Handling Code (the code) states landlords must decide whether an extension to its complaint response timescale is needed. “Any extension must be no more than 20 working days without good reason, and the reason must be clearly explained to the resident. When an organisation informs a resident about an extension to these timescales, they must be provided with the contact details of the Ombudsman.”
28. The landlord sent an acknowledgement to the resident’s stage 2 escalation request on 23 February 2024. It sent a further email to the resident on 8 April 2024. The evidence shows the complaint response time was extended. In its email, it told the resident it would begin investigating that day and provide a response within 20 working days. The email was not clear that the landlord was notifying the resident of an extension and seemed to be a further acknowledgement of her complaint. This would have been confusing for the resident. The landlord did not explain the reasons for extending the complaint response timescale or provide the resident with contact details for the Ombudsman. This is not in line with the code.
29. The landlord’s stage 2 response was dated 12 April 2024. The evidence provided by the landlord shows the response was not sent to the resident until 16 April 2024. Following contact from us, the landlord reviewed its complaint handling and recognised the complaint response was delayed. On 2 February 2025, it told us it would offer the resident an apology and £25 compensation. We have not received evidence to confirm the landlord did so. We accept the landlord reviewed the case and recognised it needed to put things right. However, it was a considerable time after the complaints process was exhausted. Additionally, it appears to have been prompted by our intention to investigate the complaint. This should have been an outcome and offer of redress identified at the time of the complaints process.
30. We have identified service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint due to the delay and unclear communication when extending the complaint response timescale. Taking the landlord’s complaints policy into consideration and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord must pay the resident £50 to recognise the inconvenience caused. This replaces the £25 that the landlord said it would offer to the resident, which may be deducted from the overall compensation if it has already been paid.

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of low water pressure when using the bathroom shower head.
32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

33. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failures identified.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £100 compensation, broken down as follows:
       1. £50 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s reports of low water pressure when using the bathroom shower head.
       2. £50 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the failures in its complaint handling. This replaces the £25 that may have been offered to the resident, which may be deducted from the overall compensation if it has already been paid.
       3. This should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any possible arears.
34. Provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above orders.

Recommendations

35. It is recommended that the landlord provides signposting information to the resident, advising her how she can obtain an OT referral.