Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202433015)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202433015

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

29 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:
    1. Reports of roof leaks affecting the property and associated repairs.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 3-bed house owned by the landlord.
  2. The resident reported roof leaks into the living room and bedroom through the ceilings on 12 December 2023. The landlord attended on 10 January 2024 and found it needed to erect scaffolding on neighbouring private property for further investigation. It completed works to the balcony on 25 January 2024, but the leak remained.
  3. On 23 February 2024, the resident complained to the landlord about the lack of a completion date for works to fix the roof leak. She said she had asked about the status of the works multiple times without success. She asked it to expedite repairs and provide clear communication.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 14 March 2024. It said it had scheduled roofing works for completion on 26 March 2024 and explained the delay had been due to needing to approve increased scaffolding costs. It offered compensation of £175 for the delays.
  5. On 6 May 2024, the resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process as it had not erected scaffolding or completed roofing works.
  6. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 of its complaints process on 15 August 2024. It explained that it had faced delays in erecting scaffolding due to needing access to private land to do this. It now had permission and had raised works again for completion within 3 months. It apologised and made a further compensation offer of £450.
  7. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation as works remained incomplete in February 2025.
  8. On 3 April 2025, the landlord contacted the resident to make a further offer of compensation totalling £1,500. This was alongside an offer to fully redecorate the affected bedroom as a gesture of goodwill. She rejected this offer as she found it to be insufficient and asked that we continue to investigate.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has reported that issues in this case have been ongoing since late 2022. While there is evidence that she did report leaks at this time, there were no further reports until December 2023. As such, in line with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), we will only be investigating matters that occurred within the 12 months leading to the resident’s complaints.
  2. The resident reported worsening damp and mould to the Ombudsman. However, she did not include damp and mould in her complaint to the landlord. Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and we are satisfied that the member has not acted within a reasonable timescale. As such, we will not be investigating the landlord’s response to her reports of damp and mould. She may wish to make a new complaint to the landlord about this.

Roof leaks

  1. The resident reported a leak from the roof into the bedroom ceiling and a balcony leak into the living room ceiling to the landlord on 12 December 2023. It logged the roof leak as works with a target date of 24 January 2024 and the balcony works with a target date of 22 March 2024.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy categorises repairs based upon urgency and complexity. It only places leaks in the emergency category if they are uncontainable. It noted on the reports that this leak was containable and therefore, its responses would fall within the routine or bespoke categories. Containable leaks fall within routine repairs which it will complete within 28 calendar days. It includes repairs such as leak trace and repair, and structural repair works to the external building fabric within bespoke works. These have a 90-calendar day completion target.
  3. The landlord attended the resident’s property to inspect the roof leak on 10 January 2024. It found that it needed scaffolding to be able to complete further investigations. It received a quote for scaffolding on 24 January 2024. At this stage, it had attended within policy timescales and arranged for prompt scaffolding quotes.
  4. On 25 January 2024, the landlord attended to the reported balcony leak. It said the resident reported its contractors completed works on the balcony, but the leak remained, causing water ingress to the living room below. The evidence provided by the landlord shows it raised new works for both issues on 15 February 2024 with a target completion date of 26 March 2024. While it stayed within policy timescales for these works, it did not communicate any updates to the resident which left her understandably concerned about its progress.
  5. In her complaint to the landlord of 23 February 2024, the resident said dates for the roof repair kept changing and that it had not set a specific date. She asked for an explanation and an update on the new timeline for repairs. She asked why it had closed the balcony repairs without addressing the underlying issue and for the proposed steps to resolve this leaking into the living room ceiling.
  6. In its stage 1 complaint response of 14 March 2024, the landlord said it had scheduled roofing repairs for 26 March 2024. These would include the erection of scaffolding. It said the delays in doing this were due to it needing to approve increased scaffolding costs. It said it usually takes around 12 weeks to complete roof repairs due to their complex nature. It agreed that its communication had been poor and apologised for this. It offered the resident compensation totalling £175, comprising:
    1. £75 for delays in repairing the roof after the 12-week lead time.
    2. £100 for inconvenience caused by a lack of communication.
  7. At the time of the landlord’s stage 1 response, 93 calendar days had passed. Its compensation policy allows for payments between £51 and £150 for matters where it has made several errors or not resolved a repair repeatedly and for instances when customers have had to chase several times. As such, its provision of a date for repairs, apology and offer of compensation was fair in the circumstances.
  8. The landlord tried to contact the owner of the adjacent private land in the weeks after its stage 1 response. It needed their permission to erect scaffolding on the land so it could investigate the roof leak. However, it was unsuccessful in its attempts and noted on 24 April 2024 that it was going to cancel the works order at close of play on 25 April 2024 if it was unable to progress.
  9. Complications like needing access to private land are unavoidable at times, however, there is no evidence to show that the landlord considered any alternative options at this time which was not reasonable given its awareness of the ongoing problem. It did not communicate with the resident about the challenges it was facing, which led to her requesting escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 6 May 2024. In this request she said it did not complete works but closed both repair jobs online without notice and requested updates for both.
  10. The landlord chased repairs internally in late May 2024 and there was some confusion over whether the resident had refused access for scaffolding, as reported by its contractor. Its local housing manager spoke with her on 17 June 2024, and she disputed that she had refused access. She told it that works completed previously stopped the roof leak for 6 months but then it started again. The same had happened for the balcony, which stopped for 1 month but then restarted. It reported this internally along with her ongoing concerns.
  11. On 17 and 22 July 2024, the landlord discussed internally whether it needed a new quote for scaffolding and whether it had managed to contact the private landowner. It noted that if it did not manage to do this, it would require a redesign for the scaffolding erection at further cost. It struggled to contact the private landowner and on 6 August 2024, a separate contractor said they could erect scaffolding at the front of the property and gave a date for this of 23 August 2024.
  12. It is clear the landlord was struggling with access to the private land. However, this had been the case since April 2024, 4 months prior. Therefore, it is unclear why it had not explored other options for scaffolding in the interim period and instead waited until the resident chased a response to her complaint at the end of July 2024.
  13. In its stage 2 complaint response of 15 August 2024, the landlord acknowledged the delays in completing works but explained this was due to needing permission from the private landowner to erect scaffolding. It said it now had permission for this but the evidence it has provided shows that discussions and negotiations for this were ongoing as late as October 2024. It was poor practice of the landlord to provide incorrect information to the resident. By doing so, along with saying works now had a 3-month target for completion, it set a false expectation that it would complete works by mid-November 2024.
  14. As part of its complaint response, the landlord apologised for the delays in raising works and for the inconvenience this may have caused the resident. It said that when it completed external works, it would inspect the inside of the property for any necessary repairs. It offered an additional £450 compensation, £300 of which related to the leak repairs, comprising:
    1. £150 for time and trouble in recognition of the further delays.
    2. £150 service failure in recognition of how it managed the repairs.
  15. The landlord’s offer of compensation was separate to its offer at stage 1, bringing its total offer for repair delays to £425 across both stages. This amount was not sufficient when considering its poor communication with the resident and the time it took to find an alternative for placement of the scaffolding which was 4 months at the time of its response.
  16. Overall, the landlord’s stage 2 response was poor. It focused solely on one the roof leak into the bedroom and did not cover the balcony issue affecting the living room. It provided incorrect information and mismanaged expectations.
  17. Following the resident’s complaint to us in February 2025, the landlord further investigated the issue internally. It found that it had completed works to the roof affecting the bedroom ceiling but those affecting the living room remained in progress. It contacted the resident on 3 April 2025 to make a further offer of compensation totalling £1,500 on top of its offer of £625 across both complaint responses. £1,200 of this related directly to its handling of repairs. This brought its total offer for repair delays to £1,625.
  18. The landlord has also provided this Service with the dates of recent repairs and further tests in May 2025 to ensure the leak has stopped. It has set a target date of 17 June 2025 to complete ceiling restoration and redecoration works.
  19. This Service would, ordinarily, not have assessed these later events as part of the original complaint. It would have been acceptable for the landlord to consider the later events as a separate matter even while properly offering a higher amount to remedy its earlier inadequate offer. However, it showed it was making efforts to put things right by offering revised compensation for its failures and offering to fully redecorate the affected bedroom. It also indicated that it had learnt from the issues in this case by providing us with extensive information on how it planned to improve its services, including increased management checks for repairs and further staff training.
  20. As the landlord made the increased offer of compensation, for events leading up to 3 April 2025, several months after its formal stage 2 response, it is not clear that it would have changed its position had the resident not referred the matter to this Service. Therefore, as we are not investigating the later events, we will make a finding of service failure for its handling of leak repairs, but we will make no added financial order. This is because, its revised compensation offer was proportionate to the events and exceeded its own compensation policy. However, it did not offer this until the complaint was with the Ombudsman and its original complaint response did not fully acknowledge its service failures.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days of this. If will respond to complaints escalated to stage 2 within 20 working days. At both stages, if it requires more time to investigate, it will advise the resident and agree new response times.
  2. Evidence provided in this case shows the resident first complained to the landlord on 23 February 2024 using an online webform. It responded on 14 March 2024, 13 working days later. This was outside of its policy timescales. However, it had not acknowledged the complaint upon receipt and told the Ombudsman that it received the complaint on 4 March 2024. It is unclear why there is a discrepancy between the received dates and as such, we cannot consider this minor delay to be a failing.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation request promptly on 7 May 2025, 1 day after receipt. It sent an email on 4 June 2024 to tell her that it needed a further 20 working days to investigate. It emailed her again on 5 July 2024 to say it needed more time and would be in contact by 30 July 2024. It contacted her again on 30 July 2024 to say it needed more time to respond as it had been unable to book works yet.
  4. It is reasonable for landlords to delay complaint responses to enable them to provide residents with comprehensive information. The evidence in this case shows that it was working internally to arrange scaffolding ahead of works during this time, although unsuccessfully.
  5. As part of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 15 August 2024, it offered compensation of £150 for poor complaint handling. It said this was for its failure to respond to the resident’s complaint within the allocated timeframe. This offer was fair for the delays and appropriate in line with its compensation policy. It also noted that she reported trying to make 3 further complaints which it refused due to her already completing the complaints process. We have not seen evidence of this but recommend that she consider making a new complaint to the landlord for any matters not covered in her complaints so far if she feels it necessary.
  6. In the landlord’s revised compensation offer of 3 April 2025, it offered an extra £300 for poor complaint handling. This related to its failure to respond to a key point of the complaint in its responses. It has since offered a further £150 comprising of £50 for each of 3 complaints the resident made that it declined to investigate. This brought its total offer to £450.
  7. As with the repairs, it is not clear that it would have changed its position had the resident not referred the matter to this Service. However, its revised compensation offer was proportionate to the events and exceeded its own compensation policy. It fully acknowledged its failures and has provided information about how it intends to improve its complaint handling service, including implanting new processes, providing staff with refresher training and hiring additional team members.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of roof leaks affecting the property and associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation for the failures identified in its handling of repairs totalling £1,675, comprising:
    1. £175 previously offered in its stage 1 complaint response for repair delays and poor communication.
    2. £300 previously offered for repair delays in its stage 2 complaint response.
    3. £1,200 additional compensation offered in April 2025 for repair delays, inconvenience, and distress.
  2. The landlord must provide a copy of the outcome of the most recent leak testing to the resident and this Service, along with a schedule for any remedial works identified from this.
  3. The landlord must provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a date for the remaining ceiling restoration and redecoration works.
  4. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the above orders within 4 weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. This Service recommends that the landlord pay the resident its previous offers of compensation totalling £600 for poor complaint handling, comprising:
    1. £150 offered in its stage 2 complaint response.
    2. £300 additional compensation offered in April 2025.
    3. £150 additional compensation offered in April 2025 for 3 declined complaints.