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) (202429836)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202429836

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

30 June 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 reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 2018. He lives in a terraced house.
  2. The resident e-mailed the landlord’s complaints inbox on 22 June 2024. He wanted to raise concerns about ASB.
  3. The resident made a further report of ASB on 21 September 2024. He said it was having a negative impact on his mental health. The landlord responded to him on 23 September 2024. It told him he should contact his GP about his mental health concerns. It agreed to pass his ASB report to its Local Housing Team.
  4. The landlord spoke to the resident about the ASB on 7 October 2024. He wanted it to move him to a different property. It asked him to provide written diary sheets as evidence of the ASB. He told it he had over 200 videos of his next-door neighbour. He did not think he should have to fill in diary sheets because of the video evidence.
  5. The resident provided the landlord with more details of the ASB on 10 October 2024. He said:
    1. He was unhappy his neighbour had been causing trouble since 2021.
    2. She had a loud party and was abusive to him after he messaged her on social media the next day to say the music had been too loud.
    3. She spread rumours that he was abusive to his girlfriend.
    4. Her friends had intimidated and threatened him.
    5. She was constantly slamming doors and played loud music early each morning.
  6. The landlord treated the resident’s e-mail as a stage 1 complaint. It provided its stage 1 response 29 October 2024. It told him that:
    1. The allegations of ASB he made during the telephone call were vague.
    2. He became abusive during the call and that made it difficult for it to establish what had happened on the alleged incidents.
    3. If he had been threatened he should contact the police as that was a criminal matter.
    4. It had told him to provide written diary sheets as evidence and he should download the noise app to record noise levels.
    5. If he could provide more evidence such as diary sheets and noise recordings it could strengthen his application to move home.
    6. It awarded him £50 compensation, broken down as £25 for a 1 day delay in acknowledging his complaint and £25 for delaying in responding to his ASB concerns.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 29 October 2024. He was unhappy the landlord’s response did nothing to change his situation.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 4 November 2024. It told him it was satisfied it handled his stage 1 complaint correctly. It said it could log an ASB case with his permission. It repeated that he should contact the police if he felt unsafe.
  9. The resident escalated his complaint to this Service on 7 December 2024. He does not feel the landlord has taken his reports of ASB seriously. He says the situation is negatively affecting his mental health and he does not feel safe in having his child stay in his home. He wants it to move him to a new property in a different area.
  10. The landlord agreed an ASB action plan with the resident on 17 December 2024. The landlord sent a warning letter to the neighbour on 17 January 2025. The ASB case is ongoing.
  11. The resident remains in his home though the landlord increased his transfer priority banding to medium priority on 6 March 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Over the course of the resident’s complaint, and in communication with the landlord and Ombudsman, he has described how the ASB impacted his mental health. It is important to explain that it is outside of the Ombudsman’s remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
  2. The resident has raised concerns to this Service about the landlord’s handling of his request to move home. While he told the landlord his desired outcome for his complaint was for it to move him to a different property he did not complain about its response to his request to move. As such the landlord did not include that matter in its complaint investigation. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed with a new formal complaint if required.
  3. It is important to explain that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether an incident amounts to ASB or whether ASB had occurred. Instead, it is the role of this Service to consider the actions taken by the landlord when reports of alleged ASB have been made to it and to decide whether those actions were appropriate or reasonable in the circumstances.

The landlord’s response to reports of ASB

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states it is committed to tackling ASB and promoting a culture of respect in communities. It says it will respond to reports of ASB in a timely manner. It will regularly assess ASB cases throughout the investigation using a risk assessment matrix. Where initial reports of ASB do not meet its threshold to investigate it should ask for more information. It will stay in contact with victims and witnesses, keeping them informed of its progress. It should take action that is reasonable and proportionate.
  2. The ASB section of the landlord’s website makes a commitment that it will respond to a report of ASB within 5 working days. It says it needs evidence to be able to take action. It gives 2 examples of evidence as diary sheets and for recording noise, the noise app. It says it will initially try to resolve problems informally and help everyone involved to resolve their issues. If it has evidence of serious and prolonged ASB it can take legal action.
  3. When the resident contacted the landlord in June 2024 to report concerns about ASB it was not appropriate it did not take any action to respond to him. It should have either forwarded his concerns to the relevant team or explained to him how he could report ASB. In not doing so it extended the period he experienced ASB without any action being taken.
  4. The landlord’s approach when the resident next contacted it on 21September 2024 was not in line with the assurance published on its website. It did not respond to his ASB report within 5 working days. While it was appropriate it told him to speak to his GP about his mental health it did not show it had considered the effect the ASB was having on his mental health. In line with its ASB policy it would have been appropriate to have considered whether it should complete a risk assessment.
  5. When the landlord spoke to the resident 14 days after him reporting the ASB, on 7 October 2024 it was reasonable that it asked him to fill in diary sheets. While it is noted that he did not think he should have to because he had over 200 videos, it would not be reasonable to expect the landlord to view every video without an explanation of their content. The landlord missed an opportunity to tell him that. Had it done so it could have explained to him that filling in diary sheets would allow it to target its investigation more effectively. The landlord’s approach of requesting further information was in line with the guidance published on its website.
  6. Given the landlord recorded it had not been able to clarify the extent of the ASB during that call when the resident became abusive it would have been appropriate for it to have followed up that call with further contact, such as an e-mail. As it was, the impact of its failure to do so was minimised because the resident provided further information 3 days later.
  7. When the resident provided more information about the ASB on 10 October 2024 the landlord sent an automated reply that said it would reply to him within 5 working days. It was not appropriate that it did not respond to him within that timeframe. Given he had provided further detail about the ASB it would have been appropriate for the landlord to begin its ASB procedure. As he had told it the ASB was having a negative impact on his mental health it should have considered completing a risk assessment. Instead, it treated that e-mail as a complaint which further delayed its response. It sent him an acknowledgement on 17 October 2024. This was 1 day outside the 5 working day timeframe allowed by its complaints policy.
  8. The landlord failed to identify the resident’s June 2024 contact about the ASB in its stage 1 investigation. That was not appropriate. Had it done so it could have apologised and increased the amount of compensation it awarded. It went some way to put things right in awarding £25 compensation for its failure to respond to his 10 October 2024 report of ASB within the 5 working days it said it would. While that amount was in line with its compensation policy for a low impact failing it did not consider the delay in responding to his 21 September 2024 e-mail or its failure to follow up the 7 October 2024 telephone call. The Ombudsman considers the £25 it awarded for the 1 day delay in acknowledging the stage 1 complaint reasonable.
  9. The landlord again missed the opportunity to identify its failure to respond to the resident in June 2024 and its delay in responding to the September 2024 contact in its stage 2 response. It was appropriate that it explained to him that it could open an ASB case with his consent.
  10. Since the landlord’s stage 2 response it set up an ASB case on 14 December 2024. It agreed an action plan and completed a risk assessment on 17 December 2024. Since then, it has been proactive in the action it has taken. It issued a warning letter to his neighbour in January 2025 and continues to work alongside the police. It is also noted that it attempted to arrange counselling for the resident in January 2025 but he decided not to take up that support. While it is positive it has taken action, it was not appropriate it took around 6 weeks from its stage 2 response to complete a risk assessment and agree an action plan.
  11. Some of the landlord’s actions after the resident reported ASB in September and October 2024 have been reasonable. It told him what evidence he would need to submit to enable it to consider if his neighbour’s actions amounted to ASB. In its stage 2 response it explained that it could open an ASB case with the resident’s consent, which it did shortly after. It was also appropriate it signposted him to the police about his allegations of threatening behaviour. It recognised it did not progress his concerns as quickly as it should have when it awarded him £25 compensation in its stage 1 response.
  12. However, it did not act as quickly as its ASB policy allows. Initially it did not respond to his June 2024 e-mail. It also delayed in contacting him following his September 2024 e-mail and made no attempt to explain its position following the telephone call where it recorded the resident became abusive. It failed to identify those failings in its complaints investigation. In delaying in setting up an ASB case until 14 December 2024 it did not show it had learned from its failings or considered the impact the resident said the ASB was having on his mental health. Taking that into consideration there has been maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of ASB. Had it responded to his initial e-mail it could have gotten to the point of registering an ASB case almost 6 months sooner than it did. It would have reduced the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced in having to chase up the matter again in September and October 2024.
  13. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a further £200 in compensation. That figure falls within the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to respond to his June 2024 report of ASB and the delays following his September 2024 report.
    2. Pay the resident £225 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in responding to his reports of ASB. The landlord is entitled to deduct the £25 it awarded in its stage 2 response if it has paid this already.
  2. The landlord should provide proof of its compliance with the orders to this Service within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £25 compensation it awarded for its delay in acknowledging his stage 1 complaint, if it has not done so already.
  2. The landlord should contact the resident to see if there is any additional support it can offer him regarding his mental health.