Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202217943)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217943

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

7 August 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:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of heating and hot water outages.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident holds an assured shorthold weekly tenancy. The property is a three-bedroom flat.
3. The resident reported problems with her boiler to the landlord on 2 January 2024. The landlord arranged for its contractor to attend the same day and several other times over the next month. It found that a new boiler was required and this was installed on 6 February 2024. The resident reported that radiators were not working properly following the install. The contractor attended the resident’s property 7 times to fix the boiler and radiators.
4. The resident complained to the landlord on 16 January 2024. She said she had been without heating and hot water for 3 weeks. The boiler was switched off by a contractor whilst waiting for parts to repair it and she had been told not to use her gas cooker for heating (which is what she had been doing in the interim) She was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her boiler repair and mentioned mould and condensation on her windows, which the resident believed was caused by the cold. The resident requested compensation for her increased utility bills from using blow heaters when the boiler was not working.
5. The landlord provided its response on 2 February 2024. It discussed a report from a surveyor in March 2023 which said no mould was found during the inspection and that advice was given to the resident about the property being properly ventilated. It said that the windows were due for renewal in 2040.
6. The landlord explained the times its contractor had attempted to resolve the boiler repair. It acknowledged that the hot water and heating was still not working and that there had been delays installing the new boiler. The landlord upheld the complaint. It offered £200 compensation, apologised for the frustration caused and advised the resident that the boiler installation was booked for 6 February 2024.
7. The boiler was installed on 6 February 2024. On the same day the resident reported that some of her radiators were not working.
8. The resident escalated her complaint on 8 February 2024. She said that the boiler repairs were still outstanding and it had been 6 weeks without the heating working properly. She disputed what the landlord said about the damp and mould, and said it had not considered the full impact on her and her family from the lack of heating and cold temperatures in the property, when determining its compensation.
9. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 28 February 2024. It provided a timeline of the repairs and investigations completed by the contractor and confirmed further works were booked for 2 April 24. The landlord acknowledged there had been further problems with the radiators since the boiler replacement. It apologised and explained that a power flush was booked to fix the problem. It offered a further £100 compensation.
10. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said she had asked the landlord to pay the electricity bill but when she provided a comparison bill, this was not accepted as evidence of her costs. She said the radiators did not work until 7 March 24, the heating still did not work correctly and she had large electricity bills to pay from boiling the kettle for hot water and using the blow heater. She also disputed the landlord’s response to her complaint about an issue with damp and mould.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of heating and hot water outages

11. In her complaint dated 16 January 2024, the resident:
    1. Said she was without hot water and heating for 3 weeks, the boiler was making loud noises, the central heating was not working and radiators leaking.
    2. Said she was advised not to use the gas cooker for heating and said the temperature was 1.3 degrees in the front room and she was experiencing damp and mould.
    3. Requested compensation for the increased utility bills from using a blow heater, asked for the boiler to be fixed.
12. On 2 February 2024 the landlord responded to the resident. It detailed the repairs which had been completed. It said that on 03 January 2024 temporary heaters were offered, but that these were declined by the resident. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s frustration and offered £200 compensation for time and trouble, and the time the resident had been without heating and hot water. It also explained that an inspection done in 2023 had found no evidence of mould in her home.
13. The resident escalated her complaint on 08 February 2024 because:
    1. She did not believe the compensation offered by the landlord reflected the full detriment to her and her family.
    2. She disputed that she had refused temporary heaters.
    3. She disputed the surveyor’s 2023 findings about mould and said her children were off sick as a result of the cold temperatures in the property.
14. The landlord sent its final complaint response on 28 February 2024. It provided a timeline of the repairs and acknowledged that further problems with the radiators had inconvenienced the resident. The landlord apologised and told the resident it would do a power flush to resolve the repair. It offered a further £100 in compensation for the service failure and time and trouble, in addition to what had been offered earlier.
15. The evidence supports the landlord’s explanations of its actions. It shows the landlord immediately arranged for a contractor to attend and assess the boiler as an emergency appointment, and then made attempts to repair it over several visits. When it was found that a new boiler was required, this was arranged. The landlord made efforts to resolve the repairs when other issues were identified with the radiators and leaks following the installation. It offered temporary heaters, and the time taken to resolve the boiler issue was in line with the landlord’s timescales for a repair requiring additional parts or further work.
16. The resident disputed the landlord’s explanation that she had declined the temporary heaters. The evidence supports the landlord’s explanation but also shows heaters were subsequently left with her on 11 January 2024 (it is not wholly clear, but it appears the resident had already obtained one or more temporary heaters herself). Nonetheless, the key point is that the landlord offered them, which was in line with its repairs policy.
17. The landlord’s compensation policy explains that when its actions or inaction, or general poor service has caused detriment to a resident it will consider offering compensation.
18. In this case, the time taken to resolve the boiler and heating issues took longer than was hoped, but nothing in the evidence shows this was clearly because of any specific failing by the landlord. Rather, it appears to have been more due to the nature and scale of the problem. Because of that, in line with its policy, the landlord was not obliged to offer compensation for the inconvenience the resident experienced. Nonetheless, the landlord felt it had not provided the level of service it should have and it used its discretion to offer £300 compensation.
19. That was good customer service because it showed that despite handling the repairs reasonably the landlord appreciated the resident had still experienced the inconvenience and frustration of a boiler failure in the coldest part of the year.
20. However, the landlord did not address the resident’s request for reimbursement for her increased gas and electricity costs during the repairs, or what she said about the damp and mould in her escalated complaint. These issues were raised by the resident during the complaint process and the landlord should have responded to them, in line with basic complaint handling practice.
21. Following its final complaint response the resident gave the landlord some of her utility bills to support her request. It should be noted that increased costs is not necessarily evidence of increased usage, given that costs fluctuate regularly even with consistent usage. If the landlord had addressed the matter, it would have been able to explain this to the resident, and made clear what type of evidence it would need to see in order to calculate an appropriate level of reimbursement.
22. The landlord has told us that it has recognised in hindsight that it should have addressed both points, and is seeking to do so now. It has also explained how it intends to ensure such omissions do not reoccur in its future complaint responses and said it will offer the resident £200 for not responding to the damp and mould issue.
23. The landlord’s post-complaint reconsideration is commendable, but in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code the actions and remedies it has now suggested should have been done as part of the complaints process. If it had done so, the resident may not have needed to escalate her complaint to the Ombudsman. Accordingly, while the landlord’s actions regarding the boiler and radiators was reasonable, it subsequently failed to address and respond to all of the parts of the resident’s complaint about the issue.

Complaint handling

24. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaint policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It should respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 days.
25. Overall, the way that the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint was reasonable and in line with the timeframes set out in its policy.

Determination

26. 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 heating and hot water outages.
27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

28. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must pay the resident £100 compensation for its incomplete consideration of her complaint.
29. Also within 4 weeks the landlord must pay the resident the £200 it has told the Service it intends to offer her.
30. If it has not done so already, within 6 weeks of this report the landlord must visit the resident to discuss her concerns about damp and mould and undertake an inspection. The outcome of its inspection must be shared with the resident. In doing this the landlord should consider the time of year and the impact that may have on its conclusions. The landlord must explain what action it intends to take to resolve any problems it finds, and in what timeframe. If the resident subsequently has concerns about how it handles these future actions she would be entitled to raise a new complaint with the landlord about them.
31. As the landlord has told us it will now review the resident’s request to be reimbursed for increased utility usage and costs during the period of this complaint it should provide evidence of having done so within 6 weeks of this report. Whatever the landlord decides, it must clearly explain how it has reached its decision and calculated the amount of any reimbursement it offers.
32. Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided by their respective deadlines.