Our Business Plan 2026-27 consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202332644)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332644

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

18 September 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 communal lift repairs.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant living in a one bedroom, third floor flat. The flat is in a supported living scheme and the landlord is a housing association. The resident has vulnerabilities which are known to the landlord.
  2. The resident’s daughter acted as her representative, and so this report references ‘the resident’ but refers to actions of the resident herself and her daughter.
  3. The communal lift at the scheme broke down in October 2022. It is unclear when the lift was reported as not working. The resident advised this was “on or around 22 October 2022”. An order was raised on 31 October 2022 and operatives attended the same day. They advised follow on works were required.
  4. Multiple appointments took place between October 2022 and January 2023 to attempt to repair the lift. It is unclear when in January the lift repair took place. However, both the resident and the landlord have referred to the repair being completed in January 2023, so this is not disputed.
  5. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 12 March 2023. They were dissatisfied with the number of lift repairs required and the length of time some of the repairs took to be completed. They were particularly unhappy with the breakdown from October 2022 to January 2023 and how the repairs during this period had been handled by the landlord. They said the regular lift outages were having an adverse effect on their wellbeing. They were also unhappy that specialist equipment provided in the form of a stair climber was not in use during these periods and that staff had not been trained to use the equipment. As an outcome to the stage 1 complaint, the resident asked for:
    1. some form of compensation to be arranged for all the tenants in the  building or for the service charge residents were paying to be amended as they felt they were not receiving the service they were entitled to. They also advised that residents would not pay their service charge until services improved.
    2. steps to be put in place to ensure the specialist equipment could be operated at all times.
    3. the landlord to liaise with care workers in the building and provide them with financial compensation or additional time off in lieu for the inconvenience they had suffered when the lift was out of service.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response confirmed that the complaint had been raised on behalf of 1 individual resident and therefore could only consider their circumstances. It advised all lift repairs had been completed within timescales and said there was no service failure. However, it recognised the inconvenience caused when the lift was not in service and offered £250 in compensation for this. It advised that the stair climber was in service during lift breakdowns and that staff had been trained to use it. It said the resident had been given incorrect information about this at the time, which it said was a service failure. The landlord offered £100 in compensation for its communication failure regarding the stair climber.
  7. On 15 May 2023, the landlord undertook refurbishment works to the lift in an attempt to upgrade it and prevent future breakdowns. The lift refurbishment was completed on 16 June 2023.
  8. The resident’s complaint was escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 21 August 2023. In their complaint they advised they remained unhappy with the continued lift failures. As a resolution to the complaint, they asked for the landlord to visit the property with an individual with mobility issues and attempt to walk the 4 storeys so it could understand the difficulties residents faced. They also asked for an explanation as to why a new lift was not installed during the breakdown between October 2022 and January 2023. In addition, they asked why there was not a dedicated team of engineers for the lift who knew what they were doing. They asked for a compensation package to be considered for all residents and for staff to be supported appropriately due to health issues reported as a result of the lift outages.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 October 2023. In its response, it advised that a visit to walk the stairs with an individual with mobility issues would be challenging to arrange. However, it was aware of the distress and disruption the lift failures caused to residents. It advised that a partial refurbishment had been completed following the lift outage from October 2022 to January 2023, and reassured the resident that qualified staff attended to carry out all the lift repairs. It said that it could not consider compensation for all residents as the complaint was raised on behalf of 1 resident only and also confirmed that staff would need to raise any issues they had with their employer.
  10. It also reviewed its complaint handling and found some failings. This included a failure to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 18 May 2023 and resolution to the stage 2 complaint exceeding its published timescales. It apologised for this and offered £150 for the complaint handling failures and a further £150 for the time and trouble associated with the lift breakdowns.
  11. The resident approached this service as they were unhappy with the complaint response and the continued breakdowns with the lift. They felt that the landlord had failed to take accountability for the lift repairs and the effect these had on vulnerable residents and was frustrated that specialist equipment was not in place during the outages. Following our request for information from the landlord, it conducted an internal review of the complaint and found that the compensation award was not proportionate and offered an additional £350 in compensation. It is unclear if it has since offered this to the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. During the complaints process, the resident raised concerns regarding the care workers at the scheme and the effect the lift breakdowns were having on their wellbeing. While the resident’s concerns are noted, this is a matter which falls outside of our remit as it concerns personnel and employment matters. We are limited to assessing the landlord’s actions and inactions as a housing provider.
  2. The resident has expressed concern about the impact that the lift breakdowns were having on all residents at the scheme. It is noted that these concerns were raised with the landlord during the complaints process. The landlord appropriately advised that it could only consider the impact on the resident as the complaint had not been referred as a group complaint. Similarly, our investigation will not consider the impact of the landlord’s handling of the repairs on all affected residents. Each complaint should be investigated on its own merit, taking into account that each individual can be impacted in different ways. The resident may inform others that they can raise their own individual complaints – or a group complaint – to the landlord. If they remain unhappy with the response they receive, they may refer the matter to us accordingly.

The landlord’s response to the repair of the communal lift at the property

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will take reasonable care to maintain common parts of the building, including the lifts. The landlord’s repair responsibilities policy states that if the only lift in the building breaks down, this will be considered an emergency repair, and a contractor will be asked to attend within 24 hours. If more significant work is required, they will attempt to complete this as soon as possible.
  2. The landlord also has a Lifts and Lifting Equipment Management Procedure (the procedure). This states that it is a legal requirement for thorough examinations of the lift to take place at every 6 months.
  3. The evidence provided to this service demonstrates that the landlord serviced the lift on a monthly basis from October 2022 to October 2024. We are therefore satisfied that it was maintaining examinations in accordance with the procedure. meaning the landlord adhered to these guidelines.
  4. It is unclear from the evidence provided, which date in October 2022 the lift repair was reported to the landlord. The resident has referred to a date of ‘on or around 22 October 2022’ in their correspondence with the landlord. We do not seek to dispute this, and the landlord did not dispute this either when it responded to the complaint. However, the landlord’s records show that a works order was raised and attended to on 31 October 2022, approximately a week later following an emergency call to the fire brigade as residents were trapped in the lift when it went out of service earlier that day. This suggests the lift was in working order prior to the 31 October 2022. Given the absence of contemporaneous evidence relating to the initial report, we cannot establish what transpired here. However, it is imperative that landlords keep and maintain an accurate audit trail of all reports received.
  5. Following the emergency call on 31 October 2022, an operative appropriately attended that day. However, they were unable to complete the repair as a second operative was required. The landlord raised a new repair the following day which was reasonable and showed it was treating the repair with appropriate levels of urgency. Two operatives attended on 3 November 2022 but were unable to complete the repair as there was an issue with the down deceleration which required additional work on site. The evidence provided by the landlord shows that following this visit, a new repair was raised on 20 December 2022 for further follow on works. This is a period of 48 calendar days after the last visit. Given the nature of the scheme, the landlord’s knowledge of the resident’s reliance on the lift and the vulnerabilities recorded. It is unclear why the repair could not be raised sooner. The repair responsibilities policy does not give a timeframe for follow on works for lift repairs, but says the landlord will attempt to complete works as soon as possible. In line with this policy, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to do all that was reasonably possible to work towards a fast resolution to the lift repair. The evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord was being proactive in its handling of the repair and the time taken to ensure it was completed was the cause of detriment and inconvenience to the resident.
  6. It is accepted that lift repairs can be complex to diagnose and specialist parts are often required. This can lead to delays in repairs being completed. We would expect however, that the landlord is in regular communication during this time to notify residents of what it is doing to attempt to bring the lift back into service. There is no evidence of any communication from the landlord to the resident throughout the repair from October 2022 to January 2023. Poor communication from the landlord during a prolonged period of upheaval for the resident was not appropriate and ultimately caused further upset and inconvenience.
  7. Poor communication also impacted the resident’s ability to use the specialist stair climber at the scheme. The resident has told this service that carers said this was the landlord’s responsibility to operate and manage while the landlord advised it was the responsibility of the carers. This failure to communicate effectively, led to the resident not receiving any assistance from the landlord to navigate the stairs while the lift was out of service, resulting in further isolation for them. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord advised that the stair climber was in use at the scheme between October 2022 and January 2023 and that staff had been trained to use it in February 2022. It said the resident had been given incorrect information regarding the use of the stair climber at the scheme and apologised for this. It offered £100 for the service failure.
  8. The landlord attempted to put things right with this offer of compensation. It also reassured the resident that staff had been trained to use the equipment on site and gave further reassurance to the resident that staff would undertake refresher training which was appropriate. The resident still disputes that the stair climber was in use at the scheme. We have been unable to evidence this, but in line with our Dispute Resolution Principle of fairness, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to ensure the stair climber is serviced and available for use, and to communicate this clearly with residents.
  9. Operatives attended to and repaired lift breakdowns within 24 hours on the 16 January 2023, 8 February 2023 and 20 February 2023. This was within its repair timescales and was good practice by the landlord.
  10. A new lift breakdown was reported on 1 March 2023, and an operative attended the same day. They were unable to complete a repair as they needed to “carry out a complete set up of all floor magnets”. In line with the landlord’s repairs policy, they attended within their initial timescales.
  11. The lift remained out of service until a refurbishment was completed in June 2023. This was another prolonged period where the lift was out of use, which was undoubtedly the cause of frustration for the resident. Repair logs show that while the lift was out of service, on 29 March 2023, the landlord raised a new order for a partial refurbishment of the lift. The refurbishment works did not start until 15 May 2023. It is unclear from the evidence provided if an interim repair could have been completed to ease the disruption to residents until refurbishment works were undertaken. Again, given the nature of the scheme and the vulnerabilities of the resident it would have been appropriate for the landlord to do all it could to reduce the impact of the lift outages on the resident. Efforts should reasonably have been made to expedite the works, where possible. The lack of documentary evidence provided by the landlord around the repair makes it difficult to establish if the landlord acted appropriately. In the absence of this information, this Service cannot conclude that the landlord treated the resident fairly in regard to its response to the lift repair and consideration for their needs.
  12. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord advised there had been no service failure in the handling of the lift repairs as all timescales were met. This investigation has found that there was a delay in raising a follow-on repair order in December 2022 which was not addressed by the landlord. This delay may or may not have been avoidable. However, the landlord missed an opportunity to explain to assess its actions and learn from any shortcomings identified. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at that time encouraged landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery. That this did not occur was poor complaint handling by the landlord. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to provide refresher training to staff on the Code.
  13. The landlord’s response acknowledged there had been multiple lift failures and empathised with the frustration felt by the resident. It accepted the distress caused by the multiple times the lift was out of service and offered £150. The landlord went further by advising the resident that it was planning an overhaul of the lift to prevent future breakdowns. This was a proactive response to the complaint and demonstrated the landlord was fully engaging with the resident’s concerns and attempting to put things right.
  14. The landlord communicated with residents on 6 April 2023 to advise them of the planned lift overhaul. It then wrote to them again on 10 May 2023 advising that works would start on 15 May 2023 and would last 1 month. It appropriately advised of alternatives in place for residents to use the stairs while the lift was out of service. The communication with residents was what this service would expect to see in these circumstances. In addition to appropriate levels of communication, the landlord employed additional staff during this period who were trained to use the stair climber to assist residents during the planned maintenance. This was a positive step by the landlord and showed they had considered the vulnerabilities of the resident and attempted to reduce the impact of no lift being available while the refurbishment was undertaken.
  15. On 18 May 2023, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the stage 1 complaint response. There is no record of this in the evidence. However, the landlord referenced it in its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process until the resident made further contact on 19 August 2023. The failure to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process meant additional time and trouble for the resident and a delay in receiving a resolution to their complaint. The landlord appropriately apologised for its failings in its stage 2 complaint response and offered £150 in compensation for this and the late response to the stage 2 complaint. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our Remedies Guidance and was a fair response to its failings.
  16. Following completion of the lift refurbishment in June 2023, there were further lift failures in June and August that year. On each occasion an engineer attended within 24 hours and the lift was back in service the same day. There was a further lift outage on 15 August 2023. The engineer attended on site within 24 hours but was unable to repair the lift. The repair was completed on 31 August 2023. A new cable was ordered and fitted for the repair. The timescale was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s policy. We recognise that the continued lift failures following the refurbishment were distressing to the resident and caused them inconvenience. However, the landlord’s actions were reasonable and proportionate given the information they had at that time.
  17. The complaint was escalated to stage 2 of the complaints process on 21 August 2023. The resident remained unhappy with the continued lift breakdowns and the effect this was having on their wellbeing.
  18. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response acknowledged there had been further breakdowns and recognised that this had caused significant disruption to residents. It advised that a lift refurbishment rather than a full replacement had been completed as it was felt it was the appropriate action at that time. It said that the lift would continue to be monitored and a future lift replacement would still be considered if needed. This was a positive response from the landlord – it demonstrates that it was trying to ensure that residents’ concerns were being considered, and it had flexibility in its approach should further actions be needed regarding a long term solution for the lift.
  19. The resident asked the landlord to visit the scheme and attempt to walk the stairs with an individual with limited mobility to fully understand the impact the lift outages had been having on residents. While the landlord was under no obligation to arrange for this visit and advised it was aware of the impact and seriousness of the outages, its final response was ambiguous and lacked clarification for the resident. It advised that it would be ‘challenging’ to arrange such a visit and gave no further detail on whether it would still endeavour to arrange this or not. Given the length of time the complaint had been ongoing and the resident’s repeated requests for the landlord to take accountability, the resident should have been given a definitive response that provided clarity on the issue. That it did not provide this was a shortcoming by the landlord.
  20. There have been instances of poor record keeping throughout this complaint regarding breakdown and corresponding repair dates for the lift. Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) emphasises the importance of good record keeping from landlords. It states, “The failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”. Missing information has been challenging in this investigation and at times made it impossible to determine if the landlord acted appropriately. Therefore, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to review the Spotlight report on KIM and self-assess against this.
  21. In its final response the landlord offered £300 in compensation. This was broken down as £150 for the complaint handling failures at stage 2 and £150 for the further time and trouble as a result of the lift breakdowns. While it was reasonable for the landlord to seek to compensate the resident for the inconvenience caused by the lift breakdowns, it is not clear how it reached the figure of £150. Setting out what factors it had taken into account would have been transparent, and would have helped the resident to understand how the figure had been reached. This was a shortcoming by the landlord.
  22. Our role is to assess landlords handling of complaints through their internal complaint procedures. It is positive that the landlord reviewed this complaint and felt an increased offer of compensation was appropriate. However, the offer was not made until some 13 months after the time of the landlord’s final response. Therefore, the landlord failed to effectively put things right during its complaints process and missed the opportunity to learn lessons from the outcome at the time of its original investigation. In addition, the landlord missed a further opportunity to explain how it had reached its figure of compensation and why it felt that it was a proportionate and fair amount in the circumstances. Nevertheless, we are satisfied that the overall compensation offered by the landlord, £350 for the lift breakdown was proportionate. However, given that this could and should have been reasonably been offered during the course of the complaint, there was a complaint handling failure – and a failure to put things right – by the landlord. We have therefore found that there was maladministration and order the landlord to pay the resident a further £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience they have been caused.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the repairs of the communal lift at the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the receipt of this report, the landlord is required to provide evidence to this Service of compliance of the orders as follows:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to them.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to review our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management and self-assess against this.
  2. The landlord is recommended to provide refresher training to its staff on the Complaint Handling Code.
  3. The landlord is recommended to ensure the stair climber at the scheme is serviced and available for use and staff have been trained appropriately. The status of the stair climber should be communicated in writing to all residents as a priority.
  4. The landlord should make arrangements to pay the resident all the compensation offered during the internal complaints process and the additional £350 that was decided upon in its recent case review.