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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202448358)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202448358

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

25 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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about repairs in and the condition of her bathroom, and her request it be renewed.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord for a 3-bedroom mid terraced house.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 11 October 2024. She said it had refused her request to refurbish her bathroom, despite her not having this done since 1997, when she moved in, and raised concerns about the condition of the pipework in the bathroom.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 11 November 2024. It confirmed it repaired the pipework under the bathroom basin on 21 November following a report on 15 November. It inspected the bathroom on 4 November, finding it to be in good condition and said this did not warrant urgent renewal. It said the next planned renewal of the bathroom was 2045. However, it agreed for its contractor to complete a condition survey of the bathroom by the end of March 2025.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 16 January 2025. She said the landlord had inaccurate records, which meant the date it gave for the planned renewal of the bathroom was incorrect. She repeated her concern about the condition of the bathroom pipework. She also said there was mould, and her shower pole was broken.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 6 February 2025. It reviewed its stage 1 response and found it had used correct information about the renewal. It reiterated that its inspection determined it could not complete an urgent renewal of the bathroom. However, it would complete the condition survey by the end of March to determine if it could bring the date of the planned renewal forward. It offered £50 compensation for not informing the resident that it was extending its stage 1 reply timescale.
  6. The resident told the Ombudsman the landlord was not answering her questions. She said her bathroom was in very poor condition and believed the landlord’s records showed it last renewed her bathroom in 2015. She said this was not correct. She wanted compensation for the refurbishment issue.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s planned property investment policy confirms that it will complete planned works such as bathrooms based on condition surveys and the life cycle of components. It states this is in line with the Decent Homes Standard, which advises a bathroom should ideally be replaced if it is over 30 years old or is in poor condition.
  2. The resident’s complaint centred on her concern about the condition of her bathroom. She said the landlord had not renewed it since the start of her tenancy in 1997.
  3. In its responses the landlord explained that its recent survey showed the bathroom to be in a reasonable condition and did not warrant bringing its scheduled renewal forward. Nonetheless, it said its contractors would arrange a condition survey by March 2025 to assess whether it should renew the bathroom earlier than scheduled. The evidence supports and confirms the landlord’s explanation.
  4. However, the landlord’s internal correspondence also shows there was a possibility the 2045 renewal date was based on incorrect data about when it had previously renewed the bathroom. The resident’s escalated complaint explained her concern about such a possibility. The evidence shows one of the landlord’s officers suggested it bring forward the renewal date to 2030 to account for the potential error.
  5. The landlord failed to explain this in its stage 2 response. It instead reiterated that the planned renewal of the bathroom was due in 2045. As such, it did not address the resident’s concerns, it held inaccurate information, and there is no evidence that it considered this any further from this point.
  6. The landlord has not provided evidence it completed the condition survey promised by the end of March 2025. Because of that it is unclear what the outcome of this was, or if the renewal timescale changed.
  7. In her escalation complaint the resident also raised further issues with the pipes in her bathroom, and new issues with mould between her sink and cistern, and a broken shower rail. The landlord’s website confirms it will contact a resident within 5 days of a report of mould to identify the cause and assess the impact. There is no evidence it did this. It is not clear from the landlord’s repairs policy who was responsible for repairing the shower rail. However, it did not respond to any of these 3 issues, leaving them unresolved and outstanding.
  8. In summary, the landlord acted in accordance with its planned property investment policy in regard to the bathroom renewal. It inspected the bathroom to assess whether it needed to complete urgent renewal of it and arranged a further survey in several months to reassess the situation. However, it failed to address the resident’s concerns that it held inaccurate information, despite having evidence indicating she may be right. It also failed to respond to her reports of further repair issues in her bathroom and explain whether and how it could resolve them.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of her bathroom and request for renewal.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £250 in light of the failures identified in this report.
  2. Within 6 weeks the landlord must:
    1. Provide the outcome of the 2025 condition report to the resident (if it has not already done so). It must also consider the possibility of an error in its data about when the bathroom was previously renewed and write to the resident confirming its current schedule for renewal and the reasons for it.
    2. Either confirm and show evidence that it has responded to the resident’s reports of further bathroom pipe problems, mould, and a broken shower, or respond now as a matter of urgency. If the issues remain currently unresolved it must explain to the resident how it intends to resolve them and in what timeframe.
  3. Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided by their respective deadlines.