From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202433813)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202433813

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

23 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 concerns about damp and mould and associated repairs within the property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a 2-bedroom flat. The resident’s child has a pulmonary embolism and weak lungs which the landlord is aware of.
  2. Between 11 September 2024 and 23 September 2024, the resident reported there was damp and mould within the property. The landlord carried out an inspection of the damp and mould on 30 September 2024.
  3. On 27 February 2024 the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould. The resident said it had taken the landlord a month to carry out an inspection. She had also not been updated following its inspection of the damp and mould within property.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 28 October 2024. It awarded the resident £155 compensation for its delays in carrying out the repair to treat the damp and mould. The landlord said it had raised a works order for an operative to carry out these works and to overhaul the living room window. The landlord said these works would be completed between 28 October 2024 and 22 November 2024.
  5. On 7 November 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. The resident said the landlord had not taken into consideration the impact the damp and mould was having on her health, and on her daughter’s health.
  6. On 25 November 2024 the resident said she was unhappy with the conduct of the operative who was carrying out the damp and mould treatment within her property. She said its operative had not treated all the affected areas that had damp and mould.
  7. On 26 November 2024 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord said:
    1. It would repair the living room window by 29 November 2024.
    2. On 9 December 2024 it would attend the property to:
      1. Treat the damp and mould under the living room window.
      2. Carry out the 3-part treatment of the damp and mould in the 2 bedrooms of the property.
      3. Repair the concrete sill on the first floor which was outside of bedroom 2.
  8. Between 2 December 2024 and 9 December 2024, the landlord repaired the windows and treated the damp and mould within the property.
  9. In January 2025 the landlord identified the water ingress into the property had been caused by damaged brickwork, and gaps in the windows. It completed these repairs on 23 January 2025.
  1. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her complaint. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman stating the resident and her daughter had to sleep in the living room whilst she was waiting for the landlord to carry out the works to treat the damp and mould. The resident said she still has damp and mould in both bedrooms. She wanted the damp and mould within the property to be fully resolved, and for the landlord to increase its award of compensation.
  2. In May 2025 the landlord told us that it had carried out a further review of the resident’s complaint. The landlord accepted its final response had not taken into consideration further delays in its handling of the repairs and wanted to award the resident a further £450 compensation.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

Scope of investigation

  1. As part of her complaint, the resident has said that her health, and her child’s health has been affected by the presence of damp and mould within her home. We acknowledge what the resident has said. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can be damaging to health, particularly for those who are vulnerable.
  1. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the specific health conditions of the resident or her family. Matters of liability for damage to health are better suited to a court or liability insurance process to determine. We have considered the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health, and the health of her child.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out a number of categories as to how the landlord will respond to repairs. This includes the following:
    1. Emergency – This is where there is an immediate health and safety risk. It will complete the repair or carry out a temporary repair within 24 hours.
    2. Routine – These are non-urgent repairs to rectify or prevent damage and to ensure the proper working order of the property. It will complete these repairs within 28 days.
    3. Bespoke – This is where a component needs replacing or the work is complex. It gives examples of this as tracing a leak or carrying out structural repairs. It will complete these repairs within 90 days.
  2. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will record and investigate reports of damp and mould. The landlord will consider a resident’s vulnerabilities, and the levels of damp and mould when deciding if it needs to fast-track a report of damp and mould. The landlord aims to carry out a fast-track inspection within 5 working days.

The resident’s concerns about damp and mould and associated repairs within the property.

  1. The landlord carried out an inspection of the damp and mould within the property on 30 September 2024. This was 13 working days after the resident first reported this issue.
  2. The resident raised that she and her daughter both had health conditions that were being impacted by the damp and mould which was in both bedrooms. This included her child having experienced a pulmonary embolism and having weak lungs. The landlord should have considered this information and responded to it as a fast-track case.
  3. The landlord raised its recommended works following its inspection 25 days later, on 25 October 2024. These works should have been raised within 5 working days. We have seen no evidence the landlord communicated with the resident about the results of its inspection of the damp and mould, and the repairs required to put things right. The landlord should have provided this information to the resident. This is evidence of poor communication.
  4. On 11 November 2024 the landlord completed some of the works to treat the damp and mould. Its operative said it needed another member of staff to complete the works. The landlord then raised a further appointment to complete the works to treat the damp and mould, which it completed on 9 December 2024. We would expect a landlord to send the right number of qualified operatives who are suitably prepared for its prearranged appointments. This is to prevent multiple visits, and unnecessary delays in carrying out repairs for which it is responsible. We understand this delay caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who wanted the damp and mould in her property to be treated and fully resolved.
  5. The resident told the landlord she was unhappy with the conduct of the operative who had attended her property. The resident explained the operative kept saying he was a plasterer and was continually being sent to carry out mould washes at properties which would not fix the problem, and did not work. The resident said the operative had left part way through completing the works, leaving their jacket behind, and not communicating with the resident if they would return. The resident said the operative had also not carried out all of the works that had been recommended. The resident said she did not want the operative to attend the property again due to his behaviour towards her.
  1. The resident’s account of the operative’s behaviour in the property suggests that the operative’s behaviour was inappropriate and this was understandably upsetting for the resident. We have not seen any evidence the landlord investigated this. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to investigate employment matters and therefore we would not assess or comment on any disciplinary action. However, we would expect landlords to carry out a proportionate investigation when there are allegations of inappropriate conduct by its staff. This would include speaking to those persons whose conduct was in question. The landlord should apologise if it finds that its operative’s conduct was inappropriate.
  2. The landlord told the resident that it would try but could not guarantee that the same operative would not attend her property to complete the works. This was a reasonable response because landlords do not always have sufficient staff resources to allow them to substitute a member of staff for another.
  3. On 2 December 2024 the landlord carried out repairs to 6 of the windows at the property, including replacing and resealing the glass, and replacing 3 sets of window hinges. This was 8 weeks after the landlord’s original inspection. This was a reasonable response to this repair because it is accepted that if external windows need to be replaced, this can take longer than 28 days, which is the industry best practice for a routine repair to be completed. This is because the windows would need to be measured, manufactured, and fitted.
  4. On 2 January 2025 the landlord inspected the concrete sill on the first floor, outside of bedroom 2, at the property. This was 24 days after the landlord said it would carry out this inspection. Records show the landlord’s delay had been caused by a neighbour not granting access to their property which it needed to access the windowsill. The lack of access was beyond the landlord’s control. However, we have seen no evidence the landlord kept the resident updated about this delay. The landlord should have kept the resident informed about what it was doing to complete this repair. This is evidence of poor communication which would have inconvenienced the resident.
  5. Also, on 2 January 2025 the landlord identified the cause of the water ingress into the resident’s property had not been caused by the concrete sill but by gaps in 2 window frames, and damage to external brickwork. The landlord completed these further repairs it identified by 7 January 2025. This was an appropriate response as we would consider this to be a routine repair which the landlord’s repairs policy states it will complete within 28 days.
  6. The resident told the landlord throughout her complaint that her health, and the health of her child had been affected by the damp and mould within the property and its handling of this. The landlord should have provided information to the resident about its liability insurance so the resident could make a personal injury claim if she wished to in respect of this. We will order the landlord to provide this information to the resident now, if it has not already done so. As explained above, the Ombudsman will not comment on the likely outcome of such a claim, but we have assessed the landlord’s communication about the matter.
  7. The landlord awarded the resident £155 compensation in its stage 1 complaint response. It is positive the landlord attempted to put things right, but we do not consider the landlord went far enough.
  8. In May 2025 the landlord told us that it had carried out a further review of the resident’s complaint and wanted to award the resident an additional £450 compensation to reflect its failings in handling these repairs after its stage 1 complaint response. Whilst this is also positive, any offers made after the end of the complaint procedure will not influence our overall findings, although we will take into account any offers of compensation when assessing how much compensation to award.  This is because it is our role to assess the landlord’s handling of the complaint through its formal complaints process and whether it made a reasonable offer as part of this process. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould and associated repairs within the property.
  9. We have considered our own remedies guidance (published on our website) in respect of compensation. We have taken into consideration the landlord’s combined offer of compensation as being £605. This amount awarded by the landlord is within the range of compensation the Ombudsman would issue if the landlord had not made this offer. Therefore, we will not increase this amount offered. Examples of this level of compensation in our guidance include where the landlord has made errors which caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident over a prolonged period.
  10. The resident has said she still suffers with damp and mould within the 2 bedrooms of the property. Therefore, we will order the landlord to carry out an inspection of the damp and mould within the property.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated repairs within the property.

Orders

  1. The landlord is to apologise to the resident in writing. The apology is to be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance that it acknowledges the maladministration for which it expresses a sincere regret for its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated repairs within the property.
  2. The landlord is to pay the resident the £605 it has awarded in its stage 1 complaint response, and further review of the resident’s complaint, unless this has already been paid.
  3. The landlord is to carry out an inspection of the damp and mould within the resident’s property. The landlord is then to set out a schedule of works for which it is responsible, including timescales, which it is to share with the resident and the Ombudsman.
  4. If follow on works are identified by the inspection, these works are to then be carried out within a reasonable timescale, in line with the landlord’s published timescales and industry best practice.
  5. The landlord is to share the details of its liability insurer with the resident. The landlord is to also advise the resident in writing how she can submit a personal injury claim for herself and her daughter which she said has been as a result of its failings in its handling of the damp and mould within the property.
  6. The landlord is to share evidence with the Ombudsman confirming that it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this report.