Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202334516)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334516

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

25 April 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

The resident’s complaint is regarding the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to a communal door lock.
2. An Anti-social Behaviour (ASB) case and associated reports.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a 1-bedroom flat in a low-rise block. The landlord is a housing association. The resident has lived at the property since 2015. During the complaint procedure, both the resident and his wife contacted the landlord. For ease, we will refer to both as “the resident”.
The landlord has advised it is unaware of any vulnerabilities affecting the resident or his household. In correspondence, he has advised that the impact of the reported ASB has affected his and his wife’s health.
On 28 September 2023 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. They said they had reported issues which “are never addressed”:
1. The front door had not locked in months. The landlord repaired the door once the resident had reported it, but it kept breaking again “on the same day or the day after”. They said a neighbour was using the fire release switch and stopping the door from locking.
2. A neighbour had been harassing them “mentally”. This had been “going on for years” but they said the landlord had not done anything about it. They said the neighbour tried to “provoke a reaction” from them and alleged they had taken their clothes rack while they had been on holiday.
3. To resolve the complaint, they wanted the “door repaired and (to) see that we are not harassed anymore”.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 10 October 2023. It made the following comments and findings:
1. It “appreciated” the resident’s concerns regarding alleged ASB, but did not uphold the complaint. It said the Local Housing Manager (LHM) had explained that their reports did “not meet the criteria” for opening an ASB case. The LHM had been in touch with both the resident and neighbour to “discuss the allegations”. The resident was advised to report any further concerns to the LHM directly but they should also report any concerns about harassment to the Police as “this (was) a criminal matter”.
2. Regarding the communal door lock, it acknowledged that “multiple repairs” had been carried out in the previous 6 months. It said it was “aware of an issue with repeated vandalism on the…emergency release”. It said it was liaising with its contractor regarding this.
3. It was satisfied that each time its contractor had attended, “works have been completed within the correct timeframes”. The most recent call out had been on 12 September 2023, when works were completed that day.
4. A recall had been raised 3 days later and an engineer attended on 27 September 2023. It said that the door was tested and left in working order. It was also in working order when the LHM attended on 2 October 2023.
The resident submitted a further complaint via the landlord’s website on 31 October 2023. The landlord subsequently treated this as a complaint escalation. Concerns the resident raised included:
1. They initially complained about the neighbour’s behaviour in April 2021. Since then, the neighbour had “started a long campaign of harassment”, which included leaving rubbish and bulk furniture by their front door.
2. The neighbour had verbally abused the resident and his wife and played music at 5am to wake them up. They had sent video and pictures to the landlord as evidence but found the LHM to be “patronising” and dismissive of what he called “old photos”.
3. The neighbour’s behaviour was causing them “stress and anxiety” and affecting their lives. The resident’s wife was seeking counselling.
4. The main front communal door was “constantly not working”. Whenever it was fixed, it would stop working again within a week or 2.
5. To resolve the complaint, the resident wanted the neighbour to be moved. They said the neighbour was “mentally unstable” and had turned other neighbours against him and his wife. The resident believed the neighbour was “constantly trying to find new ways to harass” them. They provided a Police reference number from October 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 13 November 2023. It understood the resident wanted the complaint to be escalated as the communal front door was still not repaired. He was also unhappy with the way his ASB case had been handled. It made the following comments and findings:
1. Regarding the communal entrance door lock, it acknowledged there had been “multiple repairs raised” when this had failed. However, it said all repairs had been attended within the target timeframe. It said a further order had been raised on 25 October 2023 and it had asked its contractor to “install a more robust quick release device to the door” as it noted the current one “appears to fail on occasion”.
2. Regarding the resident’s concerns about ASB, it said its Housing Team was “aware of the allegations” he had made about the neighbour. An ASB case had been opened on 30 October 2023. It noted the resident had been provided with diary sheets to “capture incidents of noise” and given access to a noise app and the local authority’s noise nuisance contact details. It said that evidence recorded “would be used to investigate (his) allegations”.
3. The landlord clarified it had also been in contact with the Police. They had confirmed they were taking no further action against the neighbour following allegations the resident had made.
4. It was satisfied the stage 1 investigation had been managed appropriately when it did not uphold the complaint. It acknowledged the resident was “unhappy with the outcome”, but it had not identified any service failure.
5. Overall, it did not uphold the complaint. It said several repairs had been raised regarding the communal door lock and these had been attended within a reasonable timeframe. It said the resident had “provided the Local Housing Manager with positive feedback” on the quality of the latest repair. Regarding the ASB reports, it said the resident had not signed the ASB action plan, which permitted it to investigate the case, until 9 November 2023. It noted he had submitted evidence which was “currently being reviewed by (the) Local Housing Manager”. They would provide an update regarding the “next steps of the investigation”. It noted the resident had declined an offer of mediation.
On 8 December 2023 the Police wrote to the resident regarding “repeated calls, information and intelligence” about an “on-going neighbour dispute” between the resident and the neighbour. The letter said the pattern of behaviour was “unacceptable” and both parties were being warned to cease contact with the other, except via a solicitor. It advised the resident to report “any issues relating to the communal area of the property” to the landlord.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 December 2023 regarding “unreasonable behaviour, specifically video recording (their) neighbour and tampering with items” that were not theirs. It said it defined unreasonable behaviour as behaviour which was “abusive and/or violent” or contained “unreasonable and persistent demands”. It gave a “formal notice that should this level of behaviour is unacceptable (sic)”.
The landlord’s letter also addressed the resident’s reports of “harassment towards your neighbour since October 2023”. It said it was “not satisfied that (the) allegations are current” and explained that evidence provided had been dated from 2021-2022 and “these events are no longer happening”. It noted that the resident’s “approach towards this situation has not changed” and that they declined mediation. As a result, the ASB case would be closed.
On 18 December 2023, the resident’s LHM wrote a further letter to the resident advising that the ASB case would be closed. They said this was due to the resident’s “continued conduct” related to “repeated contact…regarding ongoing personal issues between you and your next door neighbour”. It said the behaviour was “no longer acceptable” and the landlord reserved the right to limit the way the resident was able to make contact.

Scope of investigation

In their complaint, submitted to the landlord in September 2023, the resident said they had experienced ASB from a neighbour since early 2021. Some of the evidence provided to this investigation in support of the complaint dates from this period into 2022. The landlord considered this to be historic evidence and did not consider this during the complaint process. Under its complaint policy, it was entitled to take this approach.
We acknowledge the resident considers the alleged ASB is one single issue from 2021 onwards, which the landlord has not addressed. However, this investigation will not consider the landlord’s handling of events dating back to 2021 or 2022 due to the length of time that passed prior to the complaint which was referred to us. What we will consider is the how the landlord responded to any reports made within the 6 months prior to September 2023 as we consider this to be a reasonable period to review. We have also considered the events up to the closure of the ASB case in December 2023, and how the landlord managed contact from the resident, as this is relevant to the actions taken by the landlord following the complaint.
The resident has also provided us with details of more recent events, from 2024 onwards, which they say involve the neighbour and are part of the same ASB issue. However, we are aware the resident has since submitted a further complaint to the landlord in September 2024 (landlord reference 00236471) regarding its handling of ASB reports. This was responded to at stage 1 on 4 December 2024. The resident has therefore already raised these subsequent events with the landlord, but the new complaint is yet to complete the landlord’s complaint process. We will therefore not investigate these issues as the resident is able to escalate the open complaint if they wish to do so.
In their complaint and correspondence with both the landlord and the Ombudsman, the resident also stated that the alleged ASB was having an impact on their mental health. While the resident’s concerns regarding their health is noted, we will not consider this aspect of the complaint.
This is because the courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury/illness. Independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence, and oral testimony can be provided. We would also be unable to assess whether there is any potential detriment caused by events that have not yet occurred, such as the resident’s son’s employment opportunities.
We can, however, consider any distress or inconvenience that was caused because of any inaction or failings by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a communal door lock

In the original complaint, the resident said they had reported the lock to the front communal door as having been broken on several occasions. They alleged a neighbour was tampering with the emergency release mechanism.
From the evidence seen, the landlord appeared to respond to the resident’s reports regarding the lock reasonably. Repair records show it attended promptly after receiving the resident’s reports in April, May, June, August (twice), September (twice) and October 2023. While it is true that multiple attendances were necessary and the resident was caused inconvenience by having to make several reports, when the landlord received the reports, it responded appropriately and within the timeframes set out in its repairs policy. It reasonably outlined the actions it took within its complaint response.
The landlord also acted proactively during the stage 2 complaint investigation. It identified the resident had made several similar reports about the neighbour misusing the emergency release mechanism. A Team Coordinator in particular noted that some of the repair reports raised had referred to the doors/locks being tampered with. They raised an order for an operative to attend and establish whether a more “robust” mechanism could be installed.
This was positive and showed the landlord had both appropriately reviewed the repair records as part of its complaint investigation, and that it sought to find a lasting solution to the issue, rather than simply rely on the fact it had attended to previous call outs in a timely manner. Records indicate that a new lock was installed on 15 November 2023, in time for the landlord to advise on the action it had taken in its final complaint response. It has advised the Ombudsman that, since installing the new lock, it has not received further reports about the door lock being broken. We have not seen evidence to the contrary.
While the resident’s frustration at having to make several repair reports between April and September 2023 is recognised, overall the landlord’s handling of the reports was reasonable. It attended to each call out in a timely manner and completed repairs within its target timeframes. While it would have been preferable if it had identified a trend with the reports and considered whether a new locking mechanism could be installed at an earlier stage, it was positive that it took this step as part of its response to the complaint. As such, we have found there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of repairs to the communal door lock.

The landlord’s handling of an ASB case and associated reports

It is important to note that what the Ombudsman cannot do is determine whether alleged ASB did or did not occur, or who was responsible. What we can assess is whether the landlord responded to any reports appropriately and fairly and whether the actions it took were reasonable in the circumstances.
In the complaint, the resident said they had experienced harassment from the neighbour from “early 2021”. They had made reports since that time, but the landlord had not acted. As noted above, this investigation will look at reports made in the 6 months prior to the complaint, from March 2023 onwards.
On 18 April 2023, the resident emailed the landlord “once again” about the neighbour. They said the neighbour had turned “the communal way in to a dump and a personal drying room”. They said the landlord had previously threatened to take the neighbour to court over the issue and the problem stopped “for a while”, but the neighbour had now started again. The resident provided photos and said the items posed “a fire hazard and…is against the law”. They claimed the neighbour’s behaviour was “bait” and designed to make them react so they would be arrested. They said it was “mental harassment”.
Records show that, after responding a week later to clarify the resident’s personal details, the landlord wrote again on 3 May 2023 to say the matter had been passed to the resident’s LHM. The LHM would “further investigate…and will contact (them) within the next 2 working days”.
The resident sent a further email on 7 May 2023 to say a box had been left outside the neighbour’s front door for “more than 2 weeks…and nothing has been done”. They provided a photo as evidence. The resident said they had been “tormented by this kind of behaviour for 2 years”. They said they felt “discriminated (against)” and believed that if they behaved in a similar manner, the landlord would take action “immediately”. The landlord replied on 11 May 2023. It was sorry the situation “still persists”. It said the matter had again been passed to the LHM and they would respond within 2 working days.
We have not seen evidence that the LHM, or anyone else, responded to the resident directly regarding their reports. This was not appropriate and means the landlord cannot show it communicated reasonably with the resident. From the evidence seen, the landlord did not appear to have any kind of centralised, comprehensive case record regarding the resident’s ASB reports. This is not appropriate and means it is unable to fully evidence steps it took in response. Two case notes indicate the LHM spoke to the neighbour on 12 May 2023 regarding “items left on (the) landing”. The note said the neighbour advised they would be removed that day. While this was a reasonable step, there is no evidence this was followed up or that the resident was provided with an update.
No further actions are noted until the LHM’s next diary entry of 2 August 2023, when a site visit was carried out following a complaint from the resident. The note said “items (were) inside the bin area”. Contractors were asked to remove them. Records show the LHM also took further action, which we consider was proportionate, but will not detail further due to data protection requirements. However, there is no indication the resident was kept updated regarding this. Again, there is a lack of evidence the landlord maintained good communication with the resident or assured them that issues were being taken seriously.
In its complaint responses, the landlord advised the LHM said the reports did not constitute ASB and therefore a case was not opened. From the evidence seen (2 reports regarding items left in communal areas between May and August 2023 and 1 report from September 2023 of the neighbour’s dog barking) the decision was reasonable. Regarding the barking dog, a diary entry stated the resident was encouraged to use the noise app. This was a reasonable step to take. While the landlord was entitled to decide not to open an ASB case, and this was in line with its ASB policy, there is no evidence it advised the resident of the decision. If it did communicate with the resident and outlined its position, it should have made a contemporaneous record of this. This would enable it to show, and justify, the steps it took for audit purposes or in case a complaint was made, as happened here.
We note the landlord has advised that, since this case, it has changed its ASB policy and “all ASB cases are now logged on (a) new CRM system”. This is welcome, however the landlord’s records keeping should have been better at the time, to allow it to better monitor cases and identify any trends.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord complaint responses outlined that it did open an ASB case in October 2023. While there is evidence of the resident being given, and submitting, incident diary sheets around this time, there is no formal record of the case being opened or any communication the landlord had with the resident. In the incident diary sheets, the resident outlined concerns over the neighbour’s dog barking, loud music being played at unsociable hours and laughing at them. While not all the reports appeared to demonstrate ASB, there is no evidence of whether the landlord investigated the issues further, or of any consideration it gave to the reports.
After the complaint procedure had ended, the LHM wrote to the resident on 15 and 18 December 2023 regarding their alleged unreasonable behaviour. The LHM said they were not satisfied the resident’s allegations of harassment were “current” and noted that “documents (they) have show are stemming from (sic) 2021-2022”. They also noted the resident’s “approach towards this situation” had not changed and they had refused mediation, so the ASB case would be closed. The landlord was entitled to close the case if it believed there was a lack of evidence of harassment and/or ASB.
However, the content and tone of the letters was inappropriate. They unreasonably inferred the resident’s decision to refuse mediation was a reason for closing the case. Residents may have valid reasons for not wanting to engage with mediation and landlords should make a reasonable attempt to consider this. There is no evidence it did so. Stating the resident had “already been offered a resolution through mediation” also unfairly implied mediation would offer a guaranteed resolution, when this would not be the case.
The landlord also appeared to unfairly link the resident’s alleged unreasonable behaviour with the decision to close the ASB case. Its letter of 18 December 2023 in particular referred to a letter the Police had sent the resident and the neighbour regarding their behaviour and stated that “due to your continued conduct, we will now be closing this case of ASB of harassment (sic)”.
The landlord was entitled to issue a warning to the resident regarding alleged unreasonable behaviour if it believed their conduct was inappropriate. However, it should have treated this separately to the ASB case. If it felt there was no evidence of harassment and no reason to keep the case open, it should have said so more clearly (as well as logging this decision on a proper case record), rather than imply it closed the case due to the resident’s alleged behaviour. This was not appropriate and is further evidence of poor communication regarding the actions and decisions the landlord took.
Regarding the letter from the Police referred to above, we have noted the resident’s concern that the landlord told the Police to send a “cease and desist” letter. We cannot comment on the decisions made by the Police as they are not members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. However, for clarity, the evidence we have seen does not indicate that this was the case. The Police appear to have made the decision to write to both the neighbour and the resident of their own volition and simply informed the landlord of their intention. There is no evidence the landlord unfairly pressured the Police to act against the resident or provided any misleading information.
We acknowledge the resident’s frustration, and it is clear the reported situation with the neighbour has caused distress. We also understand they consider issues are continuing and several Police reports have been made within recent months. However, from the evidence seen, prior to the complaint the landlord was entitled to decide there were insufficient grounds to open an ASB case.
However, there is insufficient evidence it communicated appropriately with the resident regarding their initial reports or after an ASB case was opened in October 2023. There is insufficient evidence it gave appropriate updates or responded in reasonable timeframes. Once the October 2023 ASB case was opened, there is no evidence the resident’s diary sheets were reviewed. The correspondence in December 2023 was dismissive and unfairly conflated issues regarding the resident’s alleged behaviour and level of contact with the decision to close the ASB case. Overall, we consider there was service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of an ASB case and associate reports. We order the landlord to pay the resident compensation that reflects the level of distress and inconvenience this would have caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs to a communal door lock.
2. Service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of an ASB case and associated reports.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, pay the resident £100 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the ASB case and associated reports.