Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202308698)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308698

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

8 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 and mould.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She has lived at the property, which is a 2-bedroom flat since March 2000.
  2. The landlord arranged a damp and mould inspection for 23 January 2023. The resident contacted the landlord on 12 January 2023 to request that it arrange for a different operative to attend. Its operative recorded on 23 January 2023 that the inspection did not go ahead as the resident declined access. She contacted the landlord that day to request that the operative not return to her property again.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 20 June 2023. She said that it had not dealt with, or repaired, damage caused by mould in the bathroom and her son’s bedroom. She said it had appointed a new operative in May 2023, but they had not completed an inspection. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord completed a damp and mould inspection on 13 July 2023. This identified repairs to the bathroom and bedroom.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 19 July 2023. It explained that it had arranged repairs for issues it identified from its inspection on 13 July 2023. It apologised for the delay in arranging repairs and the delay in its response. It offered compensation of £100. The resident escalated her complaint through the Service on 27 September 2023. She requested that it complete repairs and provide the compensation offered.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 31 October 2023. It provided details of the repairs it had completed in July and August 2023. It said that the resident had declined work to her windows as she did not want white UPVC fitted. It explained it had tried to book work to fit thermal boarding. It provided details for how the resident could contact it to arrange the outstanding work. The landlord acknowledged there was a delay in it resolving the damp and mould the resident reported. It offered further compensation of £125.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and compensation. She requested we investigate her complaint in April 2024. In its response to us, the landlord advised that its responses at stage 1 and 2 were slightly outside of its timescales. It has offered to compensate the resident £50 for complaint handling failures.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told us in May 2024 that “the mould took some time and it has been completed”. She said she had been compensated for this. She has since told us that she has an ongoing issue with mould within her property. No evidence has been provided that the resident has raised any further issue with the landlord regarding mould in her property following its final response in October 2023.
  2. The resident would need to report this problem to the landlord and then raise a complaint with it if she is dissatisfied with its responses. If she remains dissatisfied following the landlord’s complaint responses, she has the option of asking the Ombudsman to start a new investigation. Because of that, matters that have arisen after 31 October 2024 will not be considered in this report.

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

  1. The landlord’s repair guide states that for routine repairs it aims to complete the repair within 20-working days of the resident contacting it. It classes repairs related to damp and mould as a routine repair.
  2. The evidence shows that the resident requested the landlord send a different operative to the one it had assigned to complete a damp and mould inspection on 23 January 2023. She said this was for several reasons, including a complaint from last year. The landlord requested for its repair team to arrange for a different operative to attend. However, this did not happen, as the same operative attended.
  3. It was unreasonable that the landlord failed to arrange for an alternative operative to attend or to contact the resident to explain why it could not arrange this. This caused a delay in it completing a damp and mould inspection, as she declined access to the operative in January 2023.
  4. The evidence shows the landlord did not complete an inspection until 13 July 2023. No evidence has been provided of the events after 23 January 2023 until the resident’s complaint in June 2023. However, there was a significant delay in the landlord completing an inspection. The length of time was outside of its published timescales and was excessive and unreasonable.
  5. The inspection in July 2023 recommended works to the bathroom and 1 bedroom. It found that condensation in the bathroom during the colder months and cold exterior walls in the bedroom was causing the mould issues. The bedroom works included improving the insulation by installing thermal boarding and PVC to the windows. The landlord completed all recommended work to the bathroom and mould treatments to both rooms by 17 August 2023. It was unable to install PVC, as the resident declined this work. The resident told us that her son did not want thermal boarding installed in his room. Therefore, she had also declined this work.
  6. It was appropriate that the landlord completed the works its survey recommended that the resident allowed it to complete. It was also reasonable for the landlord to not complete work the resident declined but to offer her the option to arrange this work should she change her mind.
  7. In its complaint responses, the landlord did not identify its failure to address the resident’s request for a different operative to attend. However, it did acknowledge and apologise for the delay in completing an inspection and associated repairs, which was the impact of this failure. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for the delays. The total compensation it offered was £225. This amount reasonably reflected the time the repairs took and demonstrated the landlord’s appreciation of their effect on the resident. This sum is also within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations such as this, where there was a failure that had an impact on the resident, but which was not permanent.
  8. Overall, the landlord has taken appropriate steps to acknowledge, apologise and put things right. The landlord’s recognition of the impacts its failing had on the resident, along with its apology and financial redress, reasonably put things right and resolved the complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord has acknowledged that it responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint 6 days outside of its policy timescale and that it was 1 day late responding at stage 2. It apologised for the delay in its response in its stage 1 response. It was reasonable for the landlord to apologise for the delay, and this would have been a fair resolution. However, in its stage 2 response, the landlord said that it had told the resident it had extended its response time by 10-working days. It said that it was satisfied with the way it had managed the complaint and did not consider there was any poor complaint handling.
  2. We have seen no evidence that the landlord told the resident that its stage 1 response would be delayed by 10-working days. Because of this, it did not respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within the timescales of its policy, as it has now acknowledged. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for its complaint handling failures in its stage 2 response. This undid the positive work it had done to apologise for the delay in its stage 1 response.
  3. The landlord has offered to compensate the resident £50 for its complaint handling failures. This is a reasonable resolution for this issue. We have made a finding of service failure because the landlord missed the opportunity to provide suitable redress and identify points of learning from the complaint within its internal complaint process.

Determination

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

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £50 for failures in its complaint handling.
  2. Evidence of compliance with this order must be provided to the Service by the deadline.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already the landlord should now pay the resident the £225 it offered in its complaint responses. The finding of reasonable redress has been based on the landlord making this payment to the resident.