Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202503698)

Background

1. The property is a ground floor flat and the resident lives there with her young child.
2. When the resident moved into the property in August 2024, it was a new build under a defect period. The property was built by a third-party developer and the landlord took handover of the property from the developer, before letting it to the resident. 
3. At times, a support worker acted as the resident’s representative. For the purposes of this report, unless we need to specify, all communications from the resident and her support worker are referred to as coming from the resident.

What the complaint is about

4. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
5. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

6. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
7. The landlord has offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling.
8. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

9. The landlord did not do enough to obtain updates from the developer, and there were communication failures in its handling of the damp and mould. While it acknowledged some failures and offered redress, it did not do enough to fully put things right for the resident.
10. There were failures in the landlord’s complaint handling, but it has taken reasonable steps to put things right.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

11. The landlord is responsible for addressing damp and mould in line with section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This says the landlord has an obligation to ensure the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy, in relation to freedom from damp.
12. During the defect period, the developer was responsible for resolving defects, rather than the landlord. We cannot assess the actions of the developer as it is not a member of our Scheme. While the landlord was limited in what it could do to resolve any defects during this period, it was responsible for supporting the resident to ensure any issues were raised with, and progressed by, the developer in a timely manner.
13. The developer was ultimately responsible for investigating and resolving the damp and mould. While we cannot assess its handling of the issue or the decisions it made, we have considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports and how it engaged with the developer when she raised concerns.
14. When the resident reported mould in the property on 20 September 2024, the landlord referred this to the developer the same day and asked for action to be taken. This was reasonable and timely and resulted in the developer attending on 4 October 2024 to complete a mould wash.
15. When the resident reported mould in the property again on 17 October 2024, the landlord contacted the developer again; and it responded saying it considered the matter closed. In light of this, the landlord arranged to inspect 6 days later. This was sensible so it could assess the condition and determine if it needed to challenge the developer’s decision.
16. As the landlord then identified mould throughout the property, it contacted the developer again on 23 and 24 October 2024. It said there was a “concerning level of mould” and that this was negatively impacting the resident’s child’s health. It asked the developer to take action to investigate and resolve it. This was again reasonable and timely and showed the landlord was taking the matter seriously, including the impact on the resident’s child.
17. The landlord’s contact to the developer resulted in it completing another mould wash and delivering a dehumidifier on 28 October 2024, and arranging an independent inspection by a specialist company on 8 November 2024. This identified issues with the damp proof course (DPC) and recommended works, to dry out the property and to replace damp kitchen units.
18. The resident asked for updates on 15 and 19 November 2024, saying she had heard nothing. The landlord replied on 26 November 2024 and said it had been following up with the developer but had no update. Despite this, it should have proactively contacted the resident to tell her it was following up with the developer. This would have reassured her it had not forgotten about the matter and was continuing to take it seriously. Had it done so, this would have prevented the resident from expending time and trouble chasing for updates.
19. The landlord told the resident on 28 November 2024 that the developer believed the problem was due to groundwork issues and had instructed a contractor, but no date had been given. While positive that it gave some update, the landlord should have done more to obtain a detailed update for the resident. Its failure to do so meant she was left uncertain on what was happening, or when action would be taken. This was particularly upsetting for her as she had told it how the mould was impacting her child’s health and wanted to know when the issues would be resolved.
20. The landlord arranged another inspection by the developer on 12 December 2024. Again, the landlord did not proactively update the resident after this. It was only after she contacted it on at least 5 occasions in December 2024 and January 2025, that it provided a detailed update, on 17 January 2025, confirming works to the DPC had been completed. This update was sent 2 months after the first inspection, which was too long considering the seriousness of the issue and the impact it was having on the resident and her child.
21. During the period of delay, the landlord did tell the resident it was chasing the developer for updates, but this was only in response to contact from her. It should have been more proactive in telling her what it was doing, without her expending time and trouble to be kept informed.
22. The landlord has not provided records of its contact with the developer, so we have not seen how regularly it made contact, or chased for updates. This means we have been unable to fully assess its handling of this matter. However, the landlord has told us it could have taken a firmer and more consistent approach with the developer, to ensure progress was made and provided clearer updates to the resident. From the evidence we have seen, we would agree with this assessment. It is positive that the landlord has identified this and we encourage it to learn from the failure in this case so it can avoid similar failures in the future.
23. The landlord’s stage 1 response confirmed there was an outstanding action for the developer to replace damaged kitchen units (as recommended by the independent inspection of 8 November 2024). Three days later, it sent a further update from the developer, which said rather than replacing the units, they would remove, clean and reinstall them. The resident raised concerns about this decision. As this was a decision made by the developer, not the landlord, we cannot comment on this.
24. The landlord told the resident the developer needed 4 days to complete the works to the kitchen units, and it would temporarily move her while these were done. The resident raised concerns about this and the landlord explained this was necessary because there would be no kitchen facilities while the works were being done. The resident was temporarily moved from the property between 16 and 20 February 2025.
25. This temporary move was difficult and upsetting for the resident, but it was reasonable that the landlord arranged it based on the information it had been given by the developer. After the works were completed, the resident said she felt the move was unnecessary as minimal works had been done. While this may be the case, the landlord could not have known this prior to the works being done and so its decision to temporarily move her was reasonable.
26. When the resident returned to the property, she raised concerns about the quality of the works, saying not all of the mould had been removed. As these works were completed by the developer’s contractor, not the landlord’s, any failure in this regard, was not a failure by the landlord. In response to her concerns, the landlord raised them with the developer, which was reasonable, and resulted in the contractor returning 8 days later to complete further cleaning works.
27. The resident told the landlord some of her furniture was damaged by the mould. The landlord has given the resident advice on how to make a claim via its insurance for these items. She said it has told her she needs to provide proof of purchase for the items, but she is unable to do so due to time passed and other circumstances beyond her control. While frustrating for her, the landlord’s response was in line with its compensation policy, which says losses over a certain amount will be considered by its insurance team and residents must provide proof of ownership and the value of the damaged items. The landlord also suggested she could make a claim on her own contents insurance and offered to reimburse her the excess payment. This was a reasonable offer and showed it was trying to assist her in resolving the issue.
28. The landlord has acknowledged failure in its handling of this matter and offered a total of £875 compensation. The resident has said she is dissatisfied with this amount because it does not reflect the impact on her and her child, including the impact on health. We cannot determine that there was a direct link between the landlord’s action and the resident, or her child’s, ill-health, as this is more appropriately assessed via a public liability insurance claim. What we have considered is the general distress and inconvenience experienced by her and whether the landlord’s offer adequately reflects this.
29. The compensation offered is in line with our remedies guidance for higher level maladministration findings that had a significant impact on the resident. Considering the failures in this case and the impact on the resident, the compensation offered is reasonable. However, as part of this was not offered until after we contacted the landlord about our investigation, it has not, on its own initiative, taken steps to put things right. This means a finding of reasonable redress cannot be made.
30. Similarly, while the landlord acknowledged its failings and their impact on the resident, it has not apologised to her. This is important to help rebuild trust with the resident and show her it has taken accountability for its failings. Therefore, while the landlord has offered some redress this does not go far enough to put things right for the resident, and so a finding of service failure is appropriate. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her the £875 compensation already offered, if not done so.
31. The resident used a dehumidifier between October 2024 and February 2025. In the stage 2 response, the landlord said it was aware there was an outstanding action for the developer to reimburse her costs associated with this. However, 5 months later, the landlord told us there had been confusion around this and said it would process this. It subsequently went on to ask the resident to provide proof of electricity usage from October 2023 onwards. Considering the length of time that has passed and the delay in this being progressed, the landlord should have taken more decisive action to identify an amount to reimburse the resident, rather than asking her to expend time and trouble providing historic electricity usage details. Therefore, we order the landlord to pay the resident £115 for use of the dehumidifier for the period 28 October 2024 to 19 February 2025 (£1 per day for 115 days).
32. The resident has told us there is currently no damp or mould in the property, indicating the actions taken may have resolved the issues. Our damp and mould spotlight report suggests it is good practice for landlords to proactively follow up with residents after works are completed to address damp and mould, to ensure they have fully resolved the issues. This is particularly important when the weather changes and becomes colder, as this is a time when damp and mould often reoccurs. In light of this, we order the landlord to inspect the property in December 2025 to assess whether there are any further issues with damp and mould. A written update to be sent to the resident with the outcome, including any works it will do with a timescale for these to be completed.

33. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said it would respond in line with timescales set out in our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code says complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to at stage 1 within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged, and at stage 2 within 20 working days of the complaint being acknowledged.
34. The landlord sent the stage 1 acknowledgement on 18 December 2024 and the stage 2 acknowledgement on 28 February 2025. This was 4 and 5 working days respectively, both of which were in line with the Code’s timescale.
35. The landlord sent the stage 1 response 30 working days after the complaint was acknowledged. This was 3 times the 10 working day response time set out in the Code, and equates to a delay of 3 weeks.
36. The landlord sent an update to the resident on 5 January 2025 confirming the complaint had been allocated and said it would respond within 10 working days of that day. As this was already 9 working days since the complaint had been acknowledged, this was an extension to the original deadline. While positive that it gave the resident an updated deadline, it did not expressly say this was an extension. The Code requires landlords to explain its reasons for extending complaint deadlines, therefore, the landlord should have been clear that it was extending the deadline and the reasons for this.
37. Despite the landlord committing to respond within 10 working days of 5 January 2025, it failed to do so; and did not send the response until 20 working days later. This was disappointing for the resident and caused her to lose faith in the complaints process.
38. The landlord sent the stage 2 response 20 working days after the complaint was acknowledged. This was in line with the timescale set out in the Code.
39. The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged there had been delays in resolving the damp and mould but said it did not believe these were a result of any service failure. Despite this, it went on to uphold the complaint, but did not explain its reasons for doing so. It is clear there were failures in the landlord’s handling of the matter, particularly in relation to its communication, but it did not clearly explain this in the response. It subsequently told us this as part of the evidence submission in August 2025. While positive the landlord identified its failures, it should have properly explained this to the resident so she was reassured it had taken the complaint seriously.
40. The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of the complaint, apologised and offered £50 compensation. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
41. Considering the full circumstances of the case, and in consultation with our remedies guidance; the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its complaint handling. We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £50 compensation already offered, if not done so. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord. 

Learning

42. For defects being dealt with by a third-party developer, the landlord must ensure it takes a firm and consistent approach with the developer to ensure progress is made, and provide clear, proactive updates to the resident. This will ensure the resident is fully informed and reassured that the landlord is taking the matter seriously.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

43. The landlord has not provided us records of its contact with the developer. This means we have been unable to assess whether its actions to chase updates/ progress was reasonable. Going forward, the landlord should ensure this type of evidence is provided to us, where relevant, so we can make a full assessment of its handling of these matters.

Communication

44. Where the landlord identifies failure in its handling of issues, it should apologise for these. It is not enough to simply acknowledge the impact.
45. Landlords must expressly tell residents if their complaint response deadline has been extended and explain the reasons for this.
46. Landlords must clearly explain the complaint outcome, including any specific failures identified.