Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202428530)

Background

1. The resident is a shared owner of the 1 bedroom, first floor property. She does not reside at the property but has a tenant in situ.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of water ingress through the window.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s report of water ingress through the window.
   2. Complaint handling.
5. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. We found that:
   1. The landlord did not take ownership of the resident’s initial enquiry. It did not complete an inspection to investigate her concerns.
   2. There were delays in the landlord’s complaint responses.
   3. The landlord acknowledged its failings and awarded sufficient compensation but this was not done through its complaints process.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

 Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. The lease agreement states the landlord is responsible for all load bearing walls, windows and doors on the exterior of the building. The resident is responsible for all of the glass along with all interior surfaces of walls, doors and windows. This includes the handles and hinge mechanisms attached to the doors and windows.
8. The records show that on receipt of the resident’s repair request, the landlord responded within 2 days by acknowledging the request. It advised that, as she was a homeowner, the query was passed to the relevant team. This shows an appropriate and timely response to the initial request.
9. However, following this initial contact, between 12 May 2023 and 27 November 2023, the landlord failed to appropriately allocate the query to the correct team. In total, the request was passed between 3 departments leaving the customer to chase a resolution as the landlord had not provided updates. In total, the resident sent 6 emails during this period, chasing her enquiry without receiving an appropriate response. This was an unacceptable delay of 6 months, leaving the resident without a resolution.
10. The resident raised the complaint on 7 December 2023. She stated that she felt the cause of the water ingress was poor workmanship during the window upgrade completed by the landlord. Having paid for a survey, she provided photographs taken by the surveyor showing breaks in the external mastic around the frame. The report stated this needed to be replaced to prevent further problems.
11. In its stage 1 response, the landlord advised that all UPVC windows are designed to allow water to run into the frame and drain out through holes within the frame. If the holes become blocked, water will gather in the frame, rusting the hinges and eventually leaking into the cavity. After reviewing the photographs provided by the resident, the landlord concluded that these holes had become blocked due to the inside of the frame not being cleaned. It stated that this was the cause of the water ingress and, as such, any repair would be the resident’s responsibility in accordance with the lease. It was a failing by the landlord to base its conclusion solely on photographs at this point and not conduct its own inspection.
12. We acknowledge the records show the landlord attempted an inspection shortly after the stage 1 on 26 February 2024. It is unclear from the records if the landlord arranged the inspection with the resident or not. It did not gain access to the flat. It therefore took photos from the ground level with no up-close inspection of the exterior mastic completed. This was a missed opportunity to inspect the external mastic and resolve the situation at an early stage.
13. In her complaint escalation, the resident raised several concerns with the landlord’s findings. She stated the installation date given by it was incorrect (as it was 2017 not 2015/16). She queried whether this affected the defect period. She also expressed concerns regarding the blocked weep holes as no inspection had been conducted by the landlord.
14. The landlord’s stage 2 response failed to properly investigate either of these concerns. It advised that it attempted a second inspection on 13 May 2024 but could not gain access. It is again unclear from the records as to whether this second inspection was arranged with the resident or not. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to ensure it conducted its own inspection. This would have allowed it to consider the findings of the resident’s survey and provided a more evidence based conclusion.
15. The landlord’s failure to complete an up-close inspection of the exterior mastic around the frame caused the resident additional time and trouble. She was not provided with any clarity as to why the landlord did not agree with the survey report she had obtained which showed there was a fault with the exterior mastic.
16. We acknowledge that since the resident contacted us, the landlord has reviewed its findings. On 12 June 2025, the landlord acknowledged the 2015/16 installation date quoted was incorrect. It confirmed it had installed the windows in 2017 as the resident stated.
17. The landlord advised that a third inspection was also unsuccessful due to internal communication issues regarding its arrangement. It was however in the process of arranging a fourth attempt. It also acknowledged the delays in addressing the situation were unacceptable.
18. As such, the landlord reviewed its compensation offered at stage 1 and 2. It increased this to £825, consisting of:
    1. £625 for time and trouble caused by the delays.
    2. £200 in recognition of missed appointments.
19. This reflects a fair and proportionate offer which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a failure which has adversely affected a resident. Although this level of compensation is sufficient acknowledgement of the impact on the resident of the time and trouble and uncertainty caused to her over the past couple of years, we have found maladministration given the landlord did not use its complaints process to put right its failings. It failed to do so until more than 6 months after its stage 2 response.
20. Further, it is still unclear if an up-close inspection of the exterior mastic has ever been conducted by the landlord. While we acknowledge that an internal survey was recently done and diagnosed a condensation problem, this was again silent on the condition of the exterior mastic. The only comment that landlord was offered was from May 2025 when it suggested the mastic appeared in good condition when observed from a ground level. However, without an up-close inspection of the exterior, it is unclear how the landlord has dismissed the findings provided by the resident. As such, an order has been made for an external up-close inspection.

21. The resident raised her complaint on 7 December 2023. The landlord responded appropriately by acknowledging this on 14 December 2023. It then requested an extension 5 working days later on 22 December 2023. These actions were in line with the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy.
22. However, the landlord’s stage 1 response was not issued until 21 February 2024. This was a delay of 30 working days beyond the timescales in its complaints policy.  This delay caused the resident additional time and trouble pursuing a response.
23. The resident escalated her complaint on 12 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day, with an extension requested on 8 July 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 July 2024. This was narrowly outside the timescales set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
24. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged there were delays. It apologised and offered £200 for poor complaint handling. We acknowledge that the landlord increased its offer to £350 in June 2025 which consisted of:
    1. £200 for poor complaint handling.
    2. £150 for failure to address all the resident’s complaint points in its responses.
25. This was a proportionate offer and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for service failure that had an adverse impact on the resident. Had the landlord offered this redress through the complaints process, we would likely have made a finding of reasonable redress. As this matter was not put right through the complaints process, we have found maladministration and ordered the landlord to pay the£350 compensation.

Learning

26. The landlord advised in its 12 June 2025 response that it has taken several learnings from its handling of this case. The landlord should review these learnings to ensure they have delivered the appropriate improvements to its service.