Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202330415)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330415

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

30 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. A leak and associated work.
2. Kitchen, bathroom, window, and door replacements.
3. Garden maintenance.
4. Pest control.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house owned by the landlord. This is an assured tenancy that began in 1998. The resident has mental and physical health issues.
The landlord’s repair records show it attended the property in September 2019 to carry out joiner repairs to the kitchen units. Its notes say, “the resident does not want patch repairs – she wanted a new kitchen.” There is evidence the resident then made contact with the landlord in December 2019 about various outstanding issues that included mice at the property, numerous repairs and a leak in the bedroom and hall. She said the leak was getting worse and mould spores were beginning to appear. The resident was concerned that the issues were having a detrimental impact on her living conditions. The landlord arranged for its surveyor to inspect the property in January 2020. There is no record to show the outcome of this inspection, or if any follow-on work was arranged.
There is a gap in records until 29 October 2021 when the resident contacted the landlord stating she requested a complaint in 2019. She was concerned that the outstanding repairs were getting worse.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 26 November 2021. It apologised for its delayed response. It confirmed that following its inspection of 12 November 2021 it would arrange several repairs which included:
1. Mould wash in the hallway, bedroom and living room.
2. Reskim and paint kitchen wall.
3. Secure and seal worktop.
4. Box in exposed boiler pipes.
5. Repair fans in kitchen and bathroom.
6. Repair leaks in bedroom and living room.
7. Overhaul bedroom window timber frame.
8. It would raise a works order to renew the resident’s kitchen and bathroom to be completed within the current financial year.
9. It apologised that it had not carried out work on an overgrown tree. It said it would arrange this work.
10. It upheld the complaint and offered £200 compensation comprising of:
  1. £120 time and trouble.
  2. £80 for its service failure.
11. It is unclear from the landlord’s records when the above work was completed.
In December 2021, the landlord inspected the loft for a leak. It found 2 holes in the roof. It noted scaffold was required. The same month, its repairs history shows repair work to the bedroom window. Its notes refer to the need for a new window.
The landlord’s repairs history of February 2022 refers to 3 leaks, 1 in the toilet and 2 on the kitchen floor. The toilet leak was repaired on 23 February 2022. The landlord attended and traced the leak in the kitchen to the stop tap. It provided the resident with a dehumidifier. The landlord then completed work to plaster walls on 30 March 2022.
There is a gap in records until 27 March 2023 when the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 saying:
1. She was dissatisfied with the condition of the windows and doors as they would not retain heat.
2. The kitchen needed to be pest proofed.
3. There were issues with the paintwork in the downstairs bathroom, plasterwork on the wall in the second bedroom and the ceilings in the upstairs back bedroom and hallway.
4. In 1998 she said the landlord promised to bring the garden to a useable state and maintain it.
5. She was dissatisfied with the overall condition of the bathroom and kitchen stating they needed to be replaced.
The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 28 March 2023 and issued its stage 2 response on 9 October 2023 saying:
1. On 2 May 2023 it inspected the property and found the windows and doors should be renewed. It brought forward the renewal date to March 2024. It said the kitchen and bathroom were serviceable and it would not bring forward their renewal dates. These were planned for 2030 (kitchen) and 2038 (bathroom).
2. It recognised and apologised outstanding work had exceeded its repair priority timeframe. Final work (excluding pest proofing) was due to be completed within 28 days subject to an asbestos survey.
3. The pest infestation and garden maintenance were the resident’s responsibility. However, it recognised the pest control request was long-standing and it instructed contractors to pest-proof the property. It also referred the resident to gardening services for assistance in maintenance of the garden. It offered £300 to contribute to the cost of garden maintenance as a goodwill gesture.
4. It acknowledged it did not provide its response within its policy timescales, it failed to escalate the complaint, and it should have communicated better with the resident and provided updates.
5. It apologised for the distress caused and said it would learn from the complaint. It offered £200 compensation (in addition to the £200 paid at stage 1) comprising of:
  1. £150 for its complaint handling failures.
  2. £50 for time and trouble.
The resident referred her complaint to us on 18 January 2024. She wanted the landlord to replace the kitchen, bathroom, windows, and doors.
In August 2024, the landlord told us that:
1. Windows and door replacements were expected to be completed by March 2025.
2. It did not order pest proofing work following its stage 2 complaint response. It had since arranged the work.
3. It had given incorrect information that it was a resident’s responsibility for treating mice when its policy states that it will treat mice.
4. All internal repairs had been completed. It was unable to complete full work to the bedroom ceiling due to the resident’s belongings, however, it had made safe the area.
5. The resident did not accept the landlord’s offer of £300 towards maintenance costs of the garden. It then obtained a quote to clear the pathway, but it was concerned how beneficial this would be if the resident did not upkeep the garden.
6. It had decided to bring forward the kitchen renewal. It would survey the kitchen and if it concluded a renewal was required it would include this in its current programme of works.
7. It offered the resident additional compensation of £300 giving a total of £1000 including its offer of £300 towards garden maintenance work. The additional compensation breakdown was:
8. £100 complaint handling due to incorrect pest control information.
9. £200 to acknowledge that no pest control treatments were raised following the stage 2 complaint

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The landlord’s records refer to historical issues from 2019 in relation to various outstanding work including a leak in the bedroom and hall. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns, however, due to the time that has elapsed, we are unable to investigate these historical issues. To give context we will refer to these earlier issues in this report, however, we will not assess these events.
Our investigation will therefore start from 2021 onwards. It will cover the large gap between the stage 1 complaint response of November 2021 to the resident’s escalation of the complaint in March 2023 and the landlord’s stage 2 response in October 2023 to reflect how the landlord considered the complaint. We will refer to this more in our complaint handling section.

The landlord’s handling of a leak and associated work

The resident raised her concerns about outstanding work in October 2021. The landlord inspected the property in mid-November 2021. It identified various work that included a leak in the bedroom and living room. It arranged a mould treatment of the hallway and living room and work to overhaul a kitchen and bathroom fan. It also arranged to reskim and paint the kitchen walls. The majority of work shows as complete in December 2021, however, it is unclear when the fans were repaired.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will arrange an inspection where repairs may be more complicated. Given the landlord was required to carry out exploratory investigations to find the source of the leak, its decision to inspect the property including providing its timeframe for doing so was reasonable.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to repairs according to the severity of the issue. Its complaint categories include: emergency repairs (to be made safe within 24 hours) and routine repairs (that it aims to complete in 20 working days by appointment). The evidence suggests the majority of repairs were completed within a reasonable timeframe and in accordance with its repairs policy. However, the lack of records means we cannot be confident the full range of repairs were completed.
The resident raised her complaint to the landlord in October 2021. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints procedure in November 2021. It recognised its failure to fully complete work on time and offered the resident compensation of £200. This was broken down to £120 time and trouble and £80 in recognition of its service failures in relation to the whole of the complaint (not solely relating to delays in carrying out repairs at the property).
There is evidence that the landlord carried out another inspection of the property in December 2021. It identified roof work for which scaffolding was required. It is unclear from its records when, or if this work was completed.
In February 2022, the landlord’s records refer to 3 leaks. One leak was to the toilet and the repair shows as complete at the end of February 2022. Two leaks related to the kitchen floor. The landlord repaired the stop tap and provided the resident with a dehumidifier to dry out the property. The work shows as complete within the same month. The landlord’s actions were reasonable and aligned to its repairs policy.
The resident did not escalate her complaint until March 2023. She said there were issues that remained outstanding with plastering and paintwork. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints procedure in October 2023. It confirmed:
1. All internal repairs had been completed.
2. It was unable to complete full work to the bedroom ceiling due to the resident’s belongings being in situ, however, it had made safe the area.
The landlord offered the resident an additional £200 compensation comprising of £150 in relation to its complaint handling failures and £50 for her time and trouble. The total amount of compensation was £400; this related to the whole of the complaint.
Where the landlord has recognised its failures and offered to put things right for the resident, we use our Dispute Resolution Principles of:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
It is difficult to establish the exact compensation amount the landlord apportioned to its failures in its handling of the leak and associated work. We would expect an appropriate level of compensation to be £300 to put things right in recognition of the adverse impact caused to the resident of distress and inconvenience. We are therefore satisfied that the landlord put things right for the resident in its compensation offer and completion of works. This amount of compensation is aligned to our remedies guidance.

The landlord’s handling of kitchen, bathroom, window, and door replacements

Kitchen and bathroom

In 2019 the landlord’s records refer to attending the property to carry out kitchen repairs, however, its notes refer to the resident not wanting patch repairs – she wanted a new kitchen.
There is a gap in records up until October 2021 when the resident contacted the landlord about outstanding work. The landlord arranged to inspect the property in November 2021 and told the resident it would arrange repairs to the kitchen to secure and seal a worktop in December 2021. This work was completed in the same month.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will carry out routine repairs within 20 working days. It will inspect more complex work. The landlord’s actions were therefore reasonable.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 complaint letter of November 2021, it told the resident it would renew the kitchen units and bathroom fittings within the current financial year. The landlord did not replace the items within this timeframe. There was then a gap in the resident escalating her complaint to the landlord, until March 2023.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints procedure at the beginning of October 2023. It told her the kitchen and bathroom fittings were serviceable and therefore it could not bring the items forward giving dates for replacement of 2030 (kitchen) and 2038 (bathroom).
The Decent Homes Standard (DHS) 2006 sets out the minimum standards that social homes are required to meet. It provides guidance on the lifespan of a kitchen (20 years old or less) and a bathroom (30 years old or less). Landlords are guided by criteria outlined within the DHS which does not relate solely on the age of an item. However, this does not mean automatic renewal and landlords should assess the condition of fixtures and fittings against the criteria of the DHS. The economical viability to repair against the decision to replace an item is one that requires careful consideration based on the existing condition of the fixture or fitting and the likelihood of completing a lasting repair.
The landlord had evidenced it had carried out repairs to the kitchen worktop. It is unclear if it carried out any repairs to the kitchen units. It later made the decision to replace these items. The evidence suggests the landlord’s actions and decision making was therefore reasonable. However, its communications with the resident confused matters.
We do not expect landlords to complete replacement items within the same timeframes of responsive repairs. This type of work is more costly and requires careful planning and co-ordination. It often involves a programme of works with other similar items for cost effectiveness. Naturally, it will take longer for the landlord to complete work of this nature.
The landlord later told the resident it needed to arrange another inspection of the kitchen to decide whether it required replacing. We expect landlord’s to provide regular communications to residents explaining their decision making and justify any reasons for change. The landlord’s information was misleading resulting in raised resident expectations.
The landlord’s decision to replace the bathroom and kitchen before their due dates was reasonable. However, the landlord’s communication with the resident is contradictory raising her expectations that a kitchen replacement will take place soon. It is unclear whether the work has been completed.

Window and door replacements

The evidence shows the resident’s first report of concerns with windows and doors at the property was in mid-December 2021. The landlord’s repairs history refers to the requirement of a new bedroom window. It is unclear from the records whether the work was completed.
When the resident escalated her complaint to the landlord in March 2023, she referred to the condition of the windows and doors due to a lack of heat retention. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 of its complaints procedure in October 2023. It told her that in early May 2023 it had inspected the windows and doors and agreed that they should be renewed. It said the work would be arranged for March 2024.
The landlord’s internal records from April 2024 note that it had deferred the window and door replacements to March 2025 due to budget constraints.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will carry out inspections where a repair may be more complicated. Given the resident’s concerns about the windows and doors, it was reasonable for the landlord to inspect their condition. It’s inspection was carried out within a reasonable timeframe.
Window and door replacement items fall within the landlord’s planned maintenance activity. Due to cost implications, planning, and co-ordination of work of this nature, it was reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with a longer timeframe for completion of works. The landlord’s timeframe was extended due to budget constraints. There were no indication of immediate repair concerns with the windows and doors and therefore the landlord’s decision was reasonable.
Where the landlord is delayed in completing work, we expect it to put plans in place to communicate effectively with the resident. This should include estimated timeframes for completion of work and regular updates throughout the replacement journey. There is no evidence the landlord communicated with the resident. The landlord’s ineffective communications were therefore unreasonable.
In conclusion, the landlord’s actions to renew windows and doors at the property were reasonable. It was unable to stick to the date of March 2024 to complete work due to budget constraints. Given there is no evidence of outstanding repair issues, the landlord’s decision making was reasonable.
The landlord did not effectively manage the resident’s expectations. It failed to communicate with her throughout the replacement item journey. For this reason, we have found service failure in the landlord’s communication in relation to its handling of kitchen, bathroom, window, and door replacements. The landlord should apologise to the resident and provide her with a clear action and communication plan including timeframes for completion. The landlord should also consider its learning from this complaint in relation to how it can improve its communications throughout the journey of replacement items.

The landlord’s handling of garden maintenance

The resident complained to the landlord in October 2021 about various outstanding work. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints procedure in November 2021. It apologised for its delay in carrying out work to an overgrown tree and it told the resident it would rearrange the work. It upheld the complaint and offered her £200 compensation. This covered the whole complaint and not solely related to its delay in carrying out tree work.
There was a gap until March 2023 when the resident escalated her complaint to the landlord. She told the landlord that it had promised to bring the garden to a useable condition and maintain it from the start of her tenancy. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints procedure in October 2023. It told the resident that maintenance of the garden was her responsibility. While it did not specifically refer to whether it had agreed to maintain the garden previously, it referred her to its garden services for assistance and as a gesture of goodwill. It also offered her £300 to contribute to the costs of garden work. After the landlord’s stage 2 complaint, its records show it obtained a quote to clear the garden, however, it was unsure if this would resolve the resident’s longer term maintenance concerns.
The tenancy agreement states the resident is responsible for keeping the garden tidy and free from rubbish. The landlord therefore had no obligation to carry out garden maintenance works.
The landlord’s evidence showed the resident had made various previous requests for the landlord to maintain the garden. The landlord considered the requests, and it appears it completed work around 2007. It then maintained its position that garden maintenance was the resident’s responsibility. It recognised the resident’s difficulties in maintaining the garden and signposted her to support services. The landlord went a step further and offered to contribute half of the costs (£300) towards garden maintenance. The landlord then obtained a quote to complete works on the resident’s behalf.
In conclusion, the landlord recognised it had delayed in completing tree works. It apologised and offered the resident a total of £200 compensation, however, this amount included other elements of the complaint.
Given garden maintenance was the resident’s responsibility, the landlord showed a human centric approach in its attempts to resolve the garden maintenance issues for the resident. We would expect a reasonable amount of compensation to be £50 in recognition of its delays in completing tree work. The landlord’s actions of compensation and its additional offer of a choice of a part contribution towards the garden work or arrange the full works were therefore reasonable in its attempts to put things right for the resident. For these reasons, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of garden maintenance.

The landlord’s handling of pest control

In December 2019, the resident reported mice at the property. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property in January 2020. It is unclear what happened if anything at this point.
There is a gap until the end of March 2023 when the resident mentioned pest proofing work. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints procedure in October 2023. It told the resident pest control was her own responsibility. However, it did recognise this had been a longstanding issue and therefore it arranged to pest proof the property.
After the landlord’s final complaint, the landlord recognised it had not ordered pest proofing work, and it made a mistake about its responsibilities with pest control. It offered the resident additional compensation of £200 to reflect its failure. However, this related to the whole complaint and not solely in relation to its pest control failures.
The landlord’s pest control procedure states that it will always carry out works relating to mice. The landlord recognised its wrong advice to the resident at stage 2 of its complaints procedure and told her it would arrange pest proof work. However, after the landlord’s final complaint, it failed to order the work. The landlord later recognised its failure and offered an additional £200 that related solely to its failure to arrange pest control work.
In conclusion, we are satisfied the landlord recognised its delays and misinformation in relation to pest proofing work. We consider £100 compensation to be reasonable for failures of this nature causing an adverse impact on the resident. We are therefore satisfied that the landlord put things right for the resident in its overall compensation offer.

Complaint handling

The resident first raised a complaint to the landlord in 2019. The landlord did not log the complaint or respond to her.
It was not until 29 October 2021 that the resident raised the complaint again. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints procedure on 26 November 2021.
Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code – July 2020) states landlord’s must log a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days of receipt. If this is not possible, it should provide the resident with an explanation and date when it will respond. This should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints procedure within 20 working days. There is no evidence it acknowledged the complaint or provided the resident with reasons for an extension. The landlord therefore did not comply with the Code.
There was a delay in the resident escalating her dissatisfaction until 27 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day and on 9 October 2023 it sent its stage 2 complaint response. Given the prolonged gap in the resident escalating the complaint, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to register a new stage 1 complaint.
The Code states the landlord should respond to a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. If this is not possible, it should provide the resident with an explanation and date when it will respond. This should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
The landlord delayed in its response by 6 months. There is no evidence it contacted the resident to extend its timeframe and explain reasons for its delay. This was inappropriate.
The landlord recognised it had delayed in providing its stage 2 complaint response and offered the resident £150 compensation. After the landlord’s final complaint response, it recognised misinformation in its response relating to pest control. It offered the resident an additional £100 compensation in recognition of its failure.
In conclusion, the landlord’s failure to log a complaint in 2019 together with its delays in responding to the resident at stage 1 and stage 2 of its complaints procedure were inappropriate and did not comply with the Code.
Where the landlord has attempted to put things right for the resident we will refer to our Dispute Resolution Principles of:
1. Be fair
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes
The landlord’s offer of £250 compensation reflects the level of failures identified in its complaint handling. We are satisfied that the landlord’s actions were therefore reasonable and puts things right for the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of a leak and associated work at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of kitchen, bathroom, window, and door replacements.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of garden maintenance.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of pest control.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should apologise for the failures identified within this report.
Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should provide the resident and our Service with an update on outstanding work. This should include the replacement items to the kitchen, bathroom, and windows. This should include its action plan and timeframe for completion of the work.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should pay the resident £1000 compensation. This is made up of:
£300 the landlord’s handling of a leak and associated work.
£350 the landlord’s handling of garden maintenance. (Includes £300 towards garden work).
£100 the landlord’s handling of pest control.
£250 the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord should contact the resident to agree an action plan for completing work in the bedroom.
The landlord should reply to our Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.