Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202431905)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202431905

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:
    1. The resident’s reports of repairs.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord with the tenancy beginning in May 2022. The property is a 2-bedroom flat located in a conservation area. This means there are some extra planning controls and considerations in place when carrying out certain works.
  2. Between 30 May 2022 and 29 September 2023 the resident reported several repair issues regarding the windows in the property. The landlord carried out repairs which included:
    1. Renewing defective seals on the bedroom windows.
    2. Renewing a defective sash window.
    3. Fitting new beading.
    4. Replacing sections of the timber frames.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 19 April 2024. He said that he had sent the landlord a letter in March 2023 regarding unresolved issues, which were still outstanding. He also said that the team sent to fix the damp only erected scaffolding, which had been left in place, causing an obstruction. He requested prompt action within 14 days, otherwise he would escalate the matter if no progress was made.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 10 May 2024. It said that repairs to the windows were carried out in May 2023, including fitting vents and adjusting sash windows, and were completed within its policy timeframes. Additionally, it said the scaffolding was erected in January 2024 and removed in April 2024. It went on to say that other repairs, such as sealing the chimney and gutter clearing, were also completed. The landlord upheld the complaint due to delays in window repairs and scaffolding removal and offered the resident £50 compensation.
  5. The landlord carried out additional repairs in May and August 2024 to renew air vents in the living room. The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 30 September 2024 because of:
    1. The lack of heating in the hallway.
    2. Leaks causing damp.
    3. Conflicting advice on window replacements.
    4. The amount of compensation offered to him.
  6. The landlord carried out a heat loss survey on 21 October 2024. The inspection notes said that the radiators were adequately sized, but there was no radiator in the hallway and the current radiators looked “old, probably 15 years plus”. Additionally, the notes said it would be the landlord’s decision whether to replace them. They went on to recommend the windows were checked “for suitability”.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 6 January 2025. It outlined its understanding of the complaint and acknowledged the delay in providing a response due to staff sickness. It said that despite some repairs being completed, the leak persisted, and a re-call work order had been issued for roof repairs for 6 January 2025. The response noted that a heating survey from October 2024 recommended installing a radiator in the hallway, and arrangements were being made for a quotation. The complaint was upheld due to delays in addressing the leak and the lack of follow-up on the radiator request. The landlord offered the resident a total of £450 compensation.

Events post complaint

  1. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response, expressing his concerns on 6 January 2025 and again to his local MP on 18 February 2025. A new boiler was installed in the property on 28 February 2025. The landlord’s case notes said that during this site visit, “at no point … was it deemed necessary to add additional radiators”. The notes went on to say that “it was not clear” that the decision not to install additional radiators had been explained to the resident.
  2. Following intervention from this Service, the landlord sent an amended stage 2 response on 13 March 2025. It apologised for not including the resident’s concerns regarding the windows in its previous response. It also said repairs completed in May 2023 included fitting vents and adjusting sash windows, which were inspected in April 2023 and May 2024, with both inspections confirming the windows were up to standard. In relation to the planned renewal year for the windows, it confirmed this was 2031, subject to budget and condition. The landlord upheld the complaint due to delays in fixing ongoing leaks and the lack of follow-up on the hallway radiator. As redress, it offered an additional £450 compensation. This was for poor complaint handling, distress, and inconvenience.
  3. During recent communication with the resident, he stated that there were no pending repairs for the windows. However, he reported that they remained draughty and felt they should be replaced with double glazing. He also mentioned that the hallway required a radiator, as the property tended to get cold, which he believed impacted his children’s health. As a resolution, he requested the installation of double-glazed windows, the addition of a radiator in the hallway, and increased compensation from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to concerns about the impact his living conditions may have had on his health and that of his family. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s concerns regarding the potential impact the damp and mould has had on him and his family. Unlike a court, we cannot establish what caused or worsened a health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with through the courts or as a personal injury insurance claim.
  2. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether or not the resident’s windows required replacement. Rather, the role of this Service is to consider whether the landlord took appropriate steps, in line with its relevant policies and procedures, to address the resident’s reports of problems with the windows.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs

  1. The landlord’s repair policy says that:
    1. Emergency repairs should be completed within 24 hours. These include urgent issues that pose immediate health and safety risks, such as uncontainable water leaks or gas and carbon monoxide leaks.
    2. Routine repairs should be addressed within 28 calendar days. These involve non-urgent work aimed at preventing damage or ensuring the proper functioning of the property and its fixtures, such as a manageable leak.
    3. Bespoke repairs should be carried out within 90 calendar days. These are more complex works that may require ordering specific components or involve multiple trades, such as leak tracing and repair or structural repairs to the building’s exterior or interior where damage has occurred.
    4. Planned maintenance typically falls under an investment programme aimed at maintaining the building’s structure or safety, or replacing major components like kitchens, bathrooms, or roofs.
  2. The landlord’s conservation area appraisal document, which relates to the area in which the resident’s property is located, lays down guidelines to ensure that the special character and appearance of the conservation area is maintained. It says that:
    1. Replacement windows and doors do not require planning permission as long as they are similar in appearance to the existing windows. However, the local authority interprets this rule very strictly in conservation areas (ie uPVC windows and doors are not considered similar in appearance to original timber windows).
    2. Even double-glazed timber sash windows often have a different appearance than that of single-glazed originals. Planning permission will be required for these items and will not be forthcoming for uPVC windows and doors.

Leaks, damp, and mould

  1. The evidence shows that an inspection took place on 13 May 2022, during which a recommendation was made to conduct further investigation into the roof leak. The repair log indicates that a work order was issued on 1 June 2022 and completed by 15 June 2022, addressing a hole in the roof. The landlord’s actions were completed within 33 calendar days, contrary to its 28-calendar-day policy timescale, which was not appropriate.
  2. On 21 June 2022, a repair order was raised to locate and fix a leak caused by a pipe behind the toilet, identified as being caused by a hairline crack. This repair was marked as completed on 19 July 2022, within 28 calendar days, which was reasonable and aligned with the landlord’s repair policy timescale.
  3. On 16 August 2022, a work order was created to address a containable leak from the kitchen supply pipes. The repair was completed by 22 August 2022. The landlord again responded promptly and in line with its policy timescale, which was appropriate.
  4. On 29 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord expressing dissatisfaction with the bathroom vent, stating it did not effectively remove moisture. The repair log shows the issue was resolved by 16 December 2022, 17 calendar days later, adhering to the landlord’s repair policy timescale, which was appropriate.
  5. An inspection on 9 January 2023 revealed flaking paint on the bathroom ceiling. The notes indicated this was caused by persistent moisture due to the absence of an extractor fan. It was recommended to scrape, prepare, and repaint the ceiling. However, there is no evidence in the repair log to show these recommendations were carried out at that time. This was not appropriate and suggests the landlord was not effectively monitoring the completion of necessary repairs (or documenting that it did so).
  6. A follow-up inspection on 4 April 2023 noted that the resident had previously reported a roof leak that had soaked the insulation. The case notes advised arranging an inspection of the loft area and replacing any damp or wet insulation found. It was also observed that the resident had covered old, permanently open plaster-type air vents, and a recommendation was made to replace these with open-close plastic vents. On 31 May 2023, the loft was inspected, confirming that all beams and insulation were in good condition. On the same day, 4 new vents were installed in the lounge and bedroom as recommended. This occurred 57 calendar days after the initial report, exceeding the landlord’s 28-calendar-day repair policy timescale. Since some of the work was straightforward and not bespoke, it should have been completed within the standard 28-day timeframe. Therefore, the landlord failed to adhere to its repair policy, which was not appropriate.
  7. A repair order was raised on 23 October 2023 regarding a leak entering the bedroom. The notes suggested the leak might have originated from the guttering or roof. The repair was completed by 24 January 2024, 93 calendar days later. Given the nature of the issue, evidence suggests scaffolding was used to access the area and the landlord applied its 90-calendar-day policy for structural repairs to the building’s exterior. Although this was an appropriate timeframe for more complex aspects of the repair to be completed, there was no evidence indicating that the landlord visited beforehand to identify ways of reducing the impact on the resident or consider interim repairs. This was not appropriate.
  8. In the resident’s stage 1 complaint, he expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the reported leaks, stating that they had caused damp. He also raised concerns about the prolonged period during which the scaffolding remained in place. The landlord’s response explained that it had resealed and rendered the chimney, replaced roof tiles, and cleared the guttering within its 90-day repair timescale. The Service notes that this information aligns with the repair logs. The landlord acknowledged that there was an unnecessary delay in removing the scaffolding, apologised for this, and offered compensation. This was a positive step, as the landlord recognised its failings and took steps to put things right through compensation. However, we consider the amount ultimately offered was insufficient.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 30 September 2024, reporting that a leak in the bedroom persisted. The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued on 6 January 2025, stating that it had arranged a further re-call works order to investigate the roof and scheduled a post-inspection to ensure any internal repairs related to water ingress could be addressed. An internal email confirmed that all the necessary works had been completed on 27 March 2025. The escalation to stage 2 occurred on 30 September 2024, and the works were only completed on 27 March 2025. This amounts to approximately 7 months, which was well beyond the landlord’s 90-day repair timescale. Therefore, the works were not completed within the landlord’s policy timeframe, which was not appropriate and significantly impacted the resident.

Windows

  1. An inspection was carried out on 13 May 2022 in relation to the windows. The case notes said that the windows were due to be replaced in the year 2024/2025 and that the contractor was unable to detect a breeze coming through them. The repair log shows repairs carried out between 30 May 2022 and 9 August 2022 – which included overhauling sash cords, fitting new weights, and making minor adjustments – were all completed within the standard 28-day repair timescale. This was appropriate.
  2. On 22 August 2022, an inspection was conducted to assess the condition of the windows. The inspection’s findings indicated that the sash windows across the property were sticking and difficult to open and close. The parting beads were found to be damaged, broken, or missing. Additionally, the bottom rail of the sash window in the rear bedroom was decayed. The casement windows in the toilet and bathroom were not closing properly, with gaps remaining around the frames when shut. The repair records confirm that work to address these issues was undertaken between this date and October 2022. According to the landlord’s repair policy, routine repairs should be completed within 28 days. However, given the nature of these repairs – which involved fixing operational faults, sealing gaps, and addressing minor damage – they could reasonably be classified as non-urgent, routine repairs, and the 28-day timescale was applicable. Additionally, because the property is located within a conservation area, the policy’s 90-day repair timescale could also be considered appropriate for these works, particularly if replacement windows parts or more extensive repairs were involved.
  3. Overall, the repairs were completed within 62 days of the initial inspection, which was within the acceptable policy timescales for both bespoke repairs and those applicable to properties within conservation areas. This demonstrates that the landlord’s actions were appropriate and timely in addressing the issues identified on 22 Augst 2022.
  4. A subsequent inspection was conducted on 9 January 2023. During this inspection, the resident reported that the vent in the bathroom window remained open continuously, allowing cold air to enter. The recommendation was to install a new vent in the same location. The repair was logged on 13 February 2023, and the new fan, fitted with toughened glass, was installed on 4 April 2023. The entire process took 85 days, which was within the 90-day policy timescale for repairs involving the ordering of specific components.
  5. During the inspection, it was also identified that a repair was needed to the timber frame of a bedroom window. The repair record from 7 February 2023 indicated that the window could not be repaired. A quote was obtained, and records show that the window was replaced on 7 September 2023. This amounted to 212 days after the landlord initially assessed the window as beyond repair, which was substantially outside the policy’s 90-day timescale for such repairs. Even considering the constraints related to the conservation area, this represented an unreasonable delay of approximately 7 months. It also highlights a lack of effective monitoring and timely action in completing necessary repairs.
  6. An inspection was conducted on 4 April 2023 to assess the remaining windows. The case notes stated there was “no clear evidence of a draft or urgent repair required”, and that the windows “generally seal well”, with only minor adjustments needed. The contractor observed that the resident had requested all the windows be replaced, especially since the bedroom window was being replaced. The notes went on to say that the contractor planned to raise a works order to first explore adjustments or seal repairs. This was a reasonable approach by the landlord, as the inspection findings showed that the windows were in good condition, sealed properly, and did not require urgent repairs. The landlord appropriately prioritised simpler and less invasive solutions – such as adjustments or sealing – before considering full replacement. This approach was consistent with both the repair policy and conservation area guidance regarding window replacements.
  7. The repair records indicate that on 31 May 2023, the remaining windows in the property were “eased and adjusted” and fitted with draught excluders. This occurred 57 days after the initial inspection, which was an unreasonable delay. Given that these repairs were straightforward and not complex or bespoke, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have completed them within its routine repair timescale of 28 days, as outlined in its policies.
  8. In the resident’s complaint he said that the issues outlined in his letter of March 2023 had not been addressed. As we have not seen this letter, we are unable to provide further comments. He also expressed dissatisfaction with the length of time the scaffolding had been in place, believing it was causing an obstruction. The landlord’s stage 1 response stated that the scaffolding was erected on 11 January 2024 and removed in April 2024. Additionally, it said that following a contractor inspection on 13 May 2023, the issues with the windows had been addressed. The landlord acknowledged that there had been some failures in completing the window repairs and that the scaffolding was not removed promptly. It issued an apology and offered the resident compensation. This approach was resolution-focused and represented a positive step toward addressing the resident’s concerns.
  9. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 30 September 2024, expressing dissatisfaction with the conflicting information he had received regarding the timing of the window replacements. Internal emails dated 16 December 2024 indicate that the landlord coordinated on when the windows would be replaced, noting that they were not due for replacement until 2035 based on the expected lifecycle. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 6 January 2025; however, it did not address the resident’s concerns about the window replacement. On the same day, the resident contacted the landlord to highlight this oversight. Following intervention from this Service and the resident’s local MP, the landlord provided an amended stage 2 response on 12 March 2025 that addressed the window replacement issue.
  10. The response confirmed that, following inspections in April and May 2023, the windows were deemed to be up to standard and required no repairs. It also stated that replacement windows would be considered in 2031. The landlord apologised and offered the resident compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused. While this was a positive step in clarifying its position regarding the windows, it was unreasonable that the landlord took over 5 months to provide this confirmation. This delay was clearly frustrating for the resident and led to prolonged uncertainty. Additionally, the resident invested time and effort in pursuing the matter through both his local MP and this Service before receiving a response. It is also noted that the response indicated the replacement would be in 2031, whereas the internal email stated it would be in 2035. This seems to be a typing error but may have caused some confusion.
  11. The resident remained unhappy following the exhaustion of the landlord’s complaint process. He again contacted his local MP. The landlord updated the MP, explaining that there were no outstanding repair issues and the windows were scheduled for renewal in 2035. It apologised for the oversight and any confusion caused to the resident. This was a reasonable response to the concerns highlighted, although in the circumstances it would also have been appropriate for it to apologise to the resident personally.

Lack of heating in the hallway

  1. The resident raised concerns about the lack of heating in the hallway in his escalation request dated 30 September 2024. The evidence shows that the landlord conducted heat loss calculations on 21 October 2024. The notes indicated that “all habitable rooms had sufficiently sized radiators with adequate heat output for their size and type”, but also noted that the hallway did not have a radiator, which was not part of the original building design. Case notes from 23 October 2024 stated that the decision to install a radiator in the hallway was at the landlord’s discretion. There was no evidence to suggest that this information was communicated to the resident until the landlord issued its stage 2 response in January 2025, which was over 3 months later. The delay in providing this information was unreasonable, especially given that the heat loss calculations were carried out promptly. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that the heat loss survey “recommended a radiator” but acknowledged that the hallway radiator “was not followed up”, which it appropriately upheld as a failure to act on the recommendation.
  2. On 28 February 2025, the case notes indicate that a new boiler was installed in the property. They also stated that “at no point during the site survey” was it considered necessary to add additional radiators, and that there were “no outstanding heating issues at the property.” The notes further acknowledged that it was unclear whether the decision not to install a radiator was fully communicated to the resident. This was unfair to the resident, especially given that the landlord’s stage 2 response confirmed the heat loss survey recommended a radiator for the hallway, and it had passed the information to its heating team “to attend to provide a quotation for the additional hallway”. The inconsistent information was clearly frustrating for the resident and led to further uncertainty.
  3. The landlord issued an amended stage 2 response on 12 March 2025. It reiterated its apology regarding the lack of follow-up on the hallway radiator and offered the resident additional compensation. However, this Service finds the response to be unclear and lacking clarification on whether the hallway radiator was intended to be replaced. Internal communications clearly indicated that the decision had been made not to install an additional radiator, but this was not explicitly communicated to the resident in the response. This was not appropriate, especially as the landlord had confirmed in its stage 2 response that quotes for a radiator would be obtained.

Compensation

  1. In total, the landlord offered the resident £550 for distress and inconvenience and time and trouble in relation to the repairs. This was made up of:
    1. £50 at stage 1
    2. £250 at stage 2
    3. An additional £250 in the landlord’s amended stage 2 response.
  2. This aligned with the landlord’s compensation policy, which permits a maximum of £250 for cases where there has been a medium impact on the resident, such as when “a service took significantly longer than expected to deliver, leading to an adverse effect on a resident”.
  3. The landlord’s total award of £550 exceeded the maximum amount permitted in its policy where there has been a “substantial impact on a resident or their property and/or emotionally, either short or long term”. This suggests that the landlord provided an additional amount beyond the standard policy limits, by acknowledging the extent of the impact on the resident. However, as referred to above, while reflecting the exceptional circumstances of the case in its compensation award was appropriate, the award itself did not reflect the extent and impact of its failings.

Summary and conclusion

  1. Overall, there were delays in the landlord completing the necessary repairs. In some instances its actions were reasonable and in line with its policies. For example, the timely completion of straightforward repairs such as pipe repairs and minor sealing works, which were completed within the specified policy timescales. However, there was a substantial delay of 7 months in addressing the repairs after the resident reported on 30 September 2024 that the bedroom leak continued. Although it is acknowledged that resolving such issues may involve multiple attempts, and that identifying the root cause can be difficult initially, it was nonetheless unreasonable for the landlord to be 4 months beyond its complex repair policy timescale in addressing the matter.
  2. The landlord appropriately prioritised less invasive repair solutions before considering a full window replacement, consistent with both its repair policy and conservation area guidance. Nevertheless, there were delays – notably the extended period to replace the timber window frame and the scaffolding removal. The landlord took some steps to acknowledge these shortcomings, including issuing apologies and offering compensation, but did not go far enough.
  3. It took the landlord over 3 months following the heat loss survey to communicate with the resident regarding the hallway radiator. The decision not to install a hallway radiator was not clearly communicated to him, and there were several missed opportunities to do so.
  4. While the additional offer £250 of compensation at the amended stage 2 was a positive form of redress, it occurred only after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints process and following involvement from this Service. As a result, this could not be considered reasonable redress. In this case, the multiple and prolonged delays, combined with poor communication, suggest a pattern of failings rather than isolated issues. The landlord’s acknowledgement of faults, offering of compensation, and steps to put things right indicate some recognition of these failures, although they do not negate the severity of the impact on the resident.
  5. We find that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the various repairs, and have awarded an additional £150 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience. This brings the total award to £700, which is in line with our remedies guidance where there has been a finding of maladministration. A further order has been made to address the outstanding matter of the radiator.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy allows 10 working days for a stage 1 complaint response to be issued, and 20 working days for a stage 2 response.
  2. The resident raised his complaint on 19 April 2024. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 10 May 2024, which was 14 working days later, exceeding the policy timescale.
  3. The resident escalated his complaint on 30 September 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 January 2025, which was 67 working days later. This was significantly outside the 20-working-day policy timeframe, which was unfair to the resident and delayed resolution. However, the landlord acknowledged the delay and offered the resident a total of £200 for its “poor complaint handling”, representing a positive step in attempting to put things right.
  4. On the same day, the resident contacted the landlord again, stating that his concerns regarding the window replacement had not been addressed. The landlord issued an amended stage 2 response on 12 March 2025, apologising for the oversight and offering an additional £200 in compensation. While these actions are a form of redress, they occurred only after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints process and following involvement from this Service. As a result, these measures cannot be considered reasonable redress. Nonetheless, the revised compensation total of £400 was fair, and this Service will not be making any further compensation orders. Therefore, we find that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint, but the final compensation offered was reasonable.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £1,100, made up of:
      1. £550 previously offered to him for the distress and inconvenience in relation to the repairs.
      2. An additional £150 for the for the distress and inconvenience in relation to the repairs.
      3. £400 previously offered to him for its delays in relation to complaint handling.
      4. This should be reduced by any amount already paid.
    3. Reconsider installing a radiator or similar in the hallway, as indicated in its stage 2 response and amended stage 2 response. The resident and this Service should be informed of the landlord’s intentions within the 4 weeks.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews:
    1. Its processes for informing residents about repairs in a timely and effective manner.
    2. How it communicates and manages residents’ expectations in respect of and following repair reports.