Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202333546)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333546

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

31 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 handling of the resident’s report that the signs it put in the bin store were incorrect.

Background

2. The resident has been a leaseholder of the landlord since 2018. She lives in a one-bedroom first-floor flat. The estate has a communal bin store, and the local council are responsible for rubbish removal.
3. The landlord put signs in the bin store which said not to put cardboard or any other recycling in the bins, residents should take any recycling to the local recycling centre. The resident raised a formal complaint about this on 12 November 2023. She said the signs should say the cardboard should be flattened rather than no cardboard. The resident said she paid the local council through council tax to dispose of her rubbish. The local council had confirmed that they accepted mixed waste from her estate. The resident also reported the neighbours had harassed her as they thought she should not put cardboard in the bins.
4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 28 November 2023. It did not uphold her complaint. It said:
   1. The local council said they do not provide a recycling service on her estate.
   2. It had been asking the local council for a recycling service since 2021.
   3. The local council was piloting a recycling scheme on the estate.
   4. As residents had put cardboard in the bins the local council had refused to collect the rubbish until it was removed. Therefore, the landlord had to pay a contractor to remove this which was chargeable to residents.
   5. The landlord was sorry about the harassment and asked the resident to report this to the local officer.
5. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 30 November 2023, she said the landlord had incorrect information. The resident knew the local council did not provide a recycling service. However, the signs should say cardboard needed to be flattened. She wanted the landlord to remove the signs and an apology. As it did not resolve this at stage 1, she wanted compensation for the stress.
6. The landlord sent its final response letter on 21 December 2023. It did not uphold her complaint. It looked at the way it had managed the situation and the stage 1 complaint. The landlord had spoken with the local council who apologised for not removing cardboard previously. It will remind its operatives they should take flattened cardboard. The landlord was satisfied with how it managed the stage 1 response and did not find poor complaint handling. It said now that it knew the local council would dispose of flattened cardboard, it would remove the signs. The landlord recognised the inconvenience to the resident but did not believe it had failed in the service provided. It did not control whether the council’s operatives would collect the cardboard, and it was trying to prevent rubbish build up on the estate. Again, the landlord said it was sorry about the harassment and asked the resident to report this.
7. The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of this. As a resolution she would like a letter of apology from the landlord and a letter to say the residents can put cardboard in the bins. She is also seeking compensation for the stress caused.

Assessment and findings

8. The resident complained that the signs the landlord put up were incorrect as it instructed residents not to dispose of cardboard in the bin store. She said the local council had confirmed to her it would collect flattened cardboard.
9. This was an early opportunity for the landlord to establish whether the resident was correct. There is no evidence that the landlord approached the local council to verify this. Instead, the landlord issued its stage 1 response and advised that a recycling service was not on offer. We appreciate that as the local council had not collected the cardboard, the landlord believed that it was not a part of the service provision.
10. We can see that the landlord contacted the local council on 4 December 2023, during its final response investigations. The local council confirmed that it would dispose of cardboard until it could offer a recycling service. It later apologised if it had missed collections previously. The local council said that the landlord should have approached it when it missed the collections. This would have highlighted the issue, and the operatives could have returned to remove the rubbish. This shows that the landlord could have clarified this matter for itself. It is reasonable to expect that the landlord would have done this before putting the signs up but also, once the resident said the signs could be incorrect.
11. The landlord’s stage one investigation was an opportunity for it to seek assurance that it had acted appropriately. Had it contacted the local council at this time, it would have been able to resolve this issue much sooner. This also would have saved the resident the time and effort she spent following this matter up.
12. The landlord appropriately signposted the resident to the local officer to discuss the harassment she reported. The landlord told us that she did not do this, and we have not seen any evidence of this. We recognise the resident’s situation, but without her giving information to the landlord, it was limited in what it could do.
13. In the landlord’s final response letter, it concluded it would remove its signs. It also acknowledged the local council would indeed collect flattened cardboard. This agreed with the resident’s initial complaint. The landlord continued to say it did not control whether the council’s operatives collected the rubbish. However, the landlord had control to ensure its signs were correct. The landlord could have recognised here that its signs were misleading, as the resident had stated. In the Ombudsman’s view, there was a lack of ownership and accountability for the initial mistake which does not reflect our dispute resolution principles.
14. A landlord’s stage 2 response is an opportunity to review whether it has properly understood the complaint and taken the right approach at stage 1. Where it is clear the landlord has not, it should recognise this and take proportionate steps to put things right. It should also seek to learn from any mistakes.
15. The landlord did this to an extent as it agreed to remove the signs and confirmed the local council will collect residents’ cardboard. In the Ombudsman’s view, however, the landlord also should have recognised that the information provided in its stage one response was not completely accurate. This meant that the resident had to follow the matter up and had she not, the landlord may never have established that residents were in fact able to dispose of flattened cardboard. The landlord also did not recognise the resident’s inconvenience, or the loss in confidence she was likely to have experienced.
16. Considering the above and in accordance with the Scheme we find there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report that the signs it put in the bin store were incorrect. We have subsequently made orders to recognise this failure and put things right for the resident. We have made an award of £100 compensation in line with our Remedies guidance.

Determination

17. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report that the signs it put in the bin store were incorrect.

Orders

18. The landlord is to apologise to the resident for the failings found in this report.
19. The landlord is to pay the resident compensation totalling £100.
20. The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders to us within 4 weeks of the date of this report.