Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202427991)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427991

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

27 November 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:
1. Repairs and improvements to the property, including:
  1. heating and boiler repairs.
  2. toilet repairs.
  3. bathroom repairs.
  4. kitchen repairs and renewal.
  5. window renewal.
  6. attendance of repair appointments.
  7. communication.
2. Concerns about staff and contractors including:
  1. conduct whilst working in the property.
  2. taking photographs in the property.
3. Reports of mice in the property.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy of the property where she has lived since May 2006. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord is aware the resident has a medical condition, which she told it was made worse by stress.
The resident has reported dissatisfaction with the landlord’s repair service for several years. In January 2024 the Ombudsman determined a case relating to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs between June 2019 and March 2022. The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to inspect the property to identify any repairs and confirm to the resident which repairs it would complete. The landlord inspected the property on 18 March 2024.
On 21 March 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. She said she was unhappy about the following issues:
1. The landlord had taken photographs in the property without her permission.
2. There were outstanding repairs to the property, including the heater and boiler repair, the toilet repair, the kitchen repairs, the bathroom repairs, and the window replacement.
3. The landlord and contractor had arranged and attended appointments without giving the resident prior notice. It had also marked appointments as no access when this was not the case.
4. The staff and contractors had behaved in a disrespectful manner while working in her property.
5. The landlord had not resolved the issue of mice in the resident’s property.
On 14 August 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it would investigate the issues which the resident had raised after the date of the Ombudsman’s determination in January 2024. It referred to specific points as follows:
1. It could not uphold the resident’s complaint about its handling of her repairs. It said this was because it had offered several options for appointments but the resident had declined the appointments or not confirmed them. The repairs were therefore outstanding. It was committed to completing the repairs but was unable to do so if the resident could not confirm when it could start.
2. In relation to the toilet, the landlord confirmed this was in the list of repairs. It needed to complete a full CCTV survey to understand the extent of the issues so that it could resolve the issue in full.
3. In relation to the resident’s kitchen, it said it understood the resident had concerns about the colour choices for the worktop. As an alternative it offered to add the resident’s kitchen to its list for planned replacement in the next year, which would give the resident more choice.
4. It asked the resident to provide 3 dates and times which were convenient for her, for works to start. It said if it did not hear from the resident within 10 working days it would assume she no longer required the repairs.
5. It referred to additional support for the resident and asked her to contact it if this was something she required. It also said it would consider a different approach to completing the repairs and would make reasonable adjustments where possible.
6. It acknowledged there had been a delay in it issuing its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised and offered £300 compensation, £50 per month for the 6 months delay.
The resident escalated her complaint on 16 September 2024. She said she was still experiencing problems from the landlord staff including poor communication, poor treatment, and being disrespectful when in her home. She said the landlord was ignoring the repairs she had raised following the Ombudsman’s previous determination and it had closed or cancelled the repairs which it should not have done.
On 17 October 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said its stage 1 complaint response had correctly addressed the outstanding repairs. It accepted it had not addressed some of the points raised in the resident’s complaint. It apologised for the oversight and responded as follows:
1. Photographs – The landlord explained it understood the resident’s concerns about the photographs but it did not agree there had been a service failure. It said this was because it had taken the photographs for a legitimate reason, it had informed the resident why it needed the photographs, and there was no evidence the resident had requested it not take the photographs at the time of the visit.
2. Inspections arranged without permission – It said it could not assess communication sent by its window contractor and therefore had been unable to evidence that its contractors had given the resident suitable notice of appointments. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused.
3. Lack of response to emails – The landlord said it could not agree there had been a service failure because there was evidence the landlord had been in regular communication with the resident by email throughout May and June and in direct response to the resident’s emails. The landlord said the emails also evidenced it had appropriately notified the resident about the works it intended to complete.
4. Outstanding repair works – The landlord said it was committed to completing the outstanding repairs but it relied on the resident’s support in providing access to the property.
5. Pest control – It said its pest control contractor had written to the resident on 30 May 2024 to request she contact it to arrange an appointment. The contractor did not receive contact from the resident within the 7 day timeframe and it had therefore cancelled the service request. The landlord had emailed the resident on 13 June 2024 and offered to arrange the appointment on her behalf but it did not hear back from her.
6. It referred to its email dated 3 October 2024 and confirmed it had scheduled the repair works to the bathroom and bathroom cupboard to start during week commencing 10 November 2024. This included the CCTV survey of the stack pipe and toilet.
7. It said it understood the resident’s concerns regarding the landlord arranging appointments without speaking to the resident. However, it was aware there had been multiple instances where it had requested the resident’s availability and not received a response, most recently on 14 August 2024, 23 September 2024, and 29 September 2024. Because all attempts had failed, it had made the decision to arrange the appointment, whilst giving the resident adequate notice of the date. If the date was not suitable the resident should contact the landlord to rearrange.
8. In conclusion the landlord said there had been no service failure in its management of communication or attempts to complete the repairs. However, it accepted there had been failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint and its window contractor attending appointments without notice. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and said it would remind its contractors to ensure the resident had confirmed an appointment before attending. The landlord offered a further £100 compensation which it broke down as follows:
  1. £50 for poor complaint handling and failing to address all the complaint points in its stage 1 complaint response.
  2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused for attending without confirmation.
In communication with this Service the resident said the landlord was avoiding completing the repairs she had requested at the inspection in March 2024. She said the landlord had closed all the repairs down on its system without notifying her. She confirmed the landlord had completed the window renewal in March 2024 and the kitchen replacement around June 2025. As an outcome she would like the landlord to:
1. Provide her with a list of the repairs it intends to complete.
2. Complete the repairs in a timely manner and to a satisfactory standard.
3. Attend agreed appointments and not cancel on the day.
4. Fully proof the property to prevent mice from coming back.
5. Complete the repair to her toilet so that it does not flood again.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said the landlord had left her with no hot water for over a month and the heating contractor had failed to repair her boiler despite attending approximately 8 times. We can see the Ombudsman considered this issue as part of the previous determination in January 2024. Therefore, we will not consider this issue as part of this investigation. This is because the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that we may not investigate any issue which have previously been considered by an Ombudsman.
The resident said she was unhappy that the landlord had taken photographs as part of its inspections because she was concerned about it capturing personal information and belongings. Under the Scheme the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. The resident’s concern about the landlord’s handling of her personal data is a matter which properly falls within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). However, we have considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and whether this was reasonable in the circumstances.
Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

Repairs and improvements to the property

The Ombudsman issued its determination on the resident’s previous complaint on 24 January 2024. The orders made included for the landlord to inspect the property to identify any areas in need of repair. The investigation report also said the landlord should give the resident the opportunity to raise any further repair issues during the inspection.
The landlord inspected the property on 18 March 2024. Although this was outside the Ombudsman’s timeframe of 2 weeks, we can see the reason for this delay was because the resident was reluctant to accept the inspection, which she said would have been 4 inspections in approximately 6 months. Due to this we cannot say the delay was due to the landlord’s inaction.
At the inspection the landlord noted the following issues and repairs:
1. Bathroom
  1. Reseal the bath.
  2. Change the current bath panel to UPVC.
  3. Refix hot pillar tap.
  4. Renew section of sub-floor.
  5. Take up and renew floor covering.
  6. Conduct a CCTV survey on stack pipe.
  7. Upgrade current extractor fan to humidistat fan.
  8. Renew ducting that goes into cupboard.
2. Bathroom cupboard
  1. Stain block and repaint the ceiling due to minor water damage.
  2. Stain block and repaint the top section of the wall, due to minor water damage.
3. Kitchen
  1. Replace pillar taps.
  2. Renew all worktops.
  3. Renew ceiling mounted extractor fan with humidistat fan.
  4. Lack of cupboard space.
4. Lounge
  1. Make good minor area on left hand wall.
5. Windows and doors
  1. Windows and balcony door were in poor condition and due for renewal on 27 March 2024.
6. Electrical issues
  1. Although the landlord did not note any specific issues with the electrics, the resident raised concerns about the age of the electrics in the property. The landlord agreed to check and assess the electrics.
The landlord appropriately raised the following repairs following its inspection:
1. Repairs to the bathroom, kitchen, and lounge.
2. Upgrade of the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen.
3. Check of electrics.
4. CCTV survey of the stack pipe.
On 21 March 2024 the resident sent the landlord the list of repairs she had prepared. The resident’s list included all the repairs identified by the landlord together with 2 additional items:
1. Install an electric shower.
2. Install an energy efficient blanket for the water heater.
In relation to the resident’s request for an electric shower, we can see the landlord discussed this with the resident at its inspection in March 2024. The landlord explained it was inspecting the property to identify repairs and was unable to agree to install additional components, such as an electric shower. However, it explained it would likely install a shower when it renewed the bathroom. It explained there were exceptional circumstances where the landlord installed electrical showers for medical reasons but the landlord needed the relevant documentation to proceed with this. If the resident wished to install an electric shower herself she would need to seek permission from the landlord and the form was available on the landlord’s website.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an electric shower was reasonable. This is because the installation of an electric shower, where there was currently no shower, would be an improvement and not a repair. The landlord also acted reasonably in explaining to the resident how she could apply for permission to install the shower herself and in explaining there were exceptional circumstances where the landlord installed electrical showers for medical reasons.
It was reasonable of the landlord to speak with its planned works team following the inspection. It agreed to bring the resident’s kitchen renewal forward to the 2023/24 financial year, subject to available budget. The landlord attempted to update the resident with this information around 20 March 2024.When it could not contact her it sent a text.
On 28 March 2024 the resident reported the landlord’s window contractor had attended on 26 March 2024, instead of 27 March 2024. In the interest of getting the work done, the resident allowed the contractor entry but said it had caused her inconvenience. In addition, the resident said the window contractor had arranged afternoon appointments but had turned up in the morning, which had disturbed her.
The landlord’s repair guide states it normally completes planned works, such as window replacement, to an agreed work programme. We have not seen the agreed work programme for the window replacement. Therefore we cannot say the landlord gave the resident sufficient notice of the appointments. The landlord acknowledged this within it stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused and offered compensation of £50 to put things right. This was a reasonable response.
On 5 April 2024 the landlord emailed the resident, enclosing a copy of the inspection report from 18 March 2024 and the resident’s list of repairs. It said the repairs, including the kitchen replacement, would take approximately 2 weeks and it could start towards the end of April 2024. The landlord asked the resident to confirm if this was enough notice for her.
On 8 April 2024 the landlord attended the resident’s property to check the electrics. The landlord’s records state the resident did not answer the door. The landlord called her but there was no answer so it left a message to say it would return on 10 April 2024.
We can see the resident called the landlord on 8 April 2024 regarding a repair appointment and a message was sent to the landlord’s complex works team. We do not know if this contact was in relation to the electrical appointment or the landlord’s email of 5 April 2024. We have not seen any evidence to show the landlord returned the resident’s call.
The records indicate the contractor returned on 10 April 2024. The resident states that she did not permit access as she was unaware of an appointment to check the electrics. She confirmed that she understood that the appointment related to upgrading the extractor fans to the kitchen and bathroom. The resident states that the electrician told her that they were not there to fix extractor fans. It is clear that the resident was aware of the appointment, but the landlord had not clearly explained the purpose of the appointment to either the resident or the contractor. The landlord has not provided evidence to show it gave the resident a clear notification about the electrical appointment.
On 10 April 2024 the landlord informed the resident it wanted to start the works to the kitchen, bathroom, and lounge on 29 April 2024 but would like to meet with the resident first to discuss the works and agree a plan. It suggested a visit for 23 April 2024. Although the visit did not go ahead on 23 April 2024 we can see the resident emailed the landlord on 24 April 2024 to say she thought the pre-inspection was due to take place on 29 April 2024. The landlord responded on the same date to say it would attend on this date.
The landlord attended on 29 April 2024, as arranged, but the resident would not let it in, stating the landlord had not informed her of the appointment. There is therefore evidence to show the resident was aware of the appointment on 24 April 2024.
The resident asked the landlord to reattend on 1 May 2024. It would appear this visit went ahead because the landlord referred to a pre-inspection visit in its stage 1 complaint response. However, due to lack of adequate records we do not know what the landlord and resident agreed at this visit.
On 23 May 2024 the resident emailed the landlord again about the ongoing repair issues at her property. In her email she referred to her taps leaking. The landlord said it would arrange for someone to inspect the taps on 28 May 2024 and asked the resident to let it know if this appointment was convenient by 24 May 2024. Although we have not seen that the resident responded to the landlord’s request, the repair records show it raised a repair on 28 May 2024 to repair the bathroom and kitchen taps. The records show it attended on 4 June 2024 and the operative comments state it renewed the kitchen taps. This attendance was appropriate because it was inline with its repair timescales.
On 12 June 2024 the landlord emailed the resident informing her it would like to arrange the outstanding repairs, not including the kitchen replacement. It offered to start the repairs on 26 June 2024. It asked the resident to let it know if the date was not convenient and for her to provide alternative dates.
On 13 June 2024 the landlord emailed the resident in relation to the drainage issues. It asked the resident to provide it with a convenient date so that it could arrange the CCTV survey of the pipes and drains at the resident’s property to check for defects. The landlord’s approach was reasonable and showed its continued attempts at completing the outstanding repairs. We have not seen any evidence the resident responded to either of the landlord’s emails at this time.
On 5 September 2024 and 13 September 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to ask it why it had cancelled some of the repairs without her knowledge. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s query at this time. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord. Had it responded to the resident it may have prevented the resident from escalating her complaint, which she did on 16 September 2024.
On 19 September 2024 the landlord held an internal meeting to discuss the resident’s complaint and what it needed to do to complete the repairs. It decided it would request suitable dates from the resident and allow her time to respond before scheduling the works.
On 23 September 2024 the landlord emailed the resident. It asked her to provide 3 suitable dates when it could complete the repairs. It said, if it did not receive a response from the resident, it would schedule the repairs on the availability of its contractors. The landlord did not receive a response and emailed the resident again on 27 September 2024 to check she had received its earlier email. We have not seen any evidence that the resident responded to either.
On 3 October 2024 the landlord held another internal meeting because it had not heard back from the resident. At this meeting it decided to try another approach to arrange the repairs. This time it scheduled the bathroom repairs, which included the CCTV survey of the drains, for 10 November 2024. It informed the resident of this via email on 3 October 2024 and asked her to let it know if this date was not suitable by 10 October 2024.
We can see there was contact from the resident on 9 October 2024 when she informed the landlord she was not happy that it had arranged the appointment for 10 October 2024 without her agreement. While the resident was unhappy that the landlord had arranged this appointment, it had informed the resident that it would do this if it did not hear back from her following its emails in September 2024. We therefore consider the landlord’s actions to be reasonable.
Having considered the evidence in this case we consider the landlord’s attempt at arranging the repairs identified at its March 2024 inspection to be reasonable. This is because it made 3 attempts between March 2024 and October 2024 to arrange the repairs, which included different approaches of fixed and flexible appointments. None of the landlord’s attempts were successful which were due to either the resident not responding to its requests or her informing it she was not happy that it had arranged the appointment without her knowledge.
The resident raised concerns about communication from the landlord in relation to repair appointments. She said it was not responding to her emails and telephone calls. The resident said the landlord had been using an incorrect email address, which she did not monitor.
The landlord’s communication service standards, available on its website, state it will respond to general enquiries within 5 working days.
We can see the landlord maintained regular contact with the resident by email throughout her complaint. This was in line with her contact preferences at the time. The resident’s email to the landlord dated 18 March 2024 noted that she wanted ‘all reasons for the visit in writing’. The resident later asked for all communication to be via telephone in an email dated 9 October 2024.There were a couple of occasions where the landlord did not respond to the resident’s communication within its published timescales. For example, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s email dated 31 May 2024 until 12 June 2024 and there was no contact from the landlord following the resident’s emails on 5 September 2024 and 13 September 2024. This was a failure.
We can see the resident informed the landlord of a new email address in February 2023. The landlord confirmed this was the same email address as it had on its systems. There were multiple emails exchanged between the resident and the landlord throughout her complaint. Although the resident informed the landlord in October 2024 that she did not regularly check her email, we have not seen any evidence that she provided it with a new email address. Further to this, around October 2024 the resident requested the landlord contact her by telephone instead of email. We have therefore recommended the landlord contact the resident to ensure her contact details and preferred method of contact are up to date on its systems.
We have not identified any failures in relation to the landlord’s attempts to complete the repairs and improvements to the property. However, we have identified some failures in relation to the landlord’s communication about the repairs. These were in relation to its missed and delayed communications, and the window contractor attending without giving prior notice. These failures amount to a finding of service failure.
When there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman will consider whether any redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly by apologising for the inconvenience caused to the resident due to the window appointments. It showed its attempt to put things right by offering to complete the repairs in April 2024, June 2024, and again in October 2024, and offering compensation of £50.
The landlord showed consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities by offering additional support and agreeing to make reasonable adjustments, where possible.
Having considered the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available online, a proportionate level of compensation, which also includes the impact of the landlord’s missed and delayed communications, would be £150. This is because the failures identified were minor, short in duration, and did not affect the overall outcome of the case. We have also ordered the landlord confirm to the resident what repairs are outstanding and set out when it intends to complete them.

Concerns about the conduct of staff and contractors

The resident complained about the landlord’s staff and contractors arranging and attending appointments and their conduct when attending the resident’s property. The resident’s initial complaint on 21 March 2024 did not refer to specific incidents. However, the resident emailed the landlord on 28 March 2024 and 3 April 2024 setting out the specific appointments which had affected her.
The resident referred to occasions when a contractor had stood in her bath with its shoes on and left tools on her bed, without covering the bed first. She also referred to occasions in March 2024 when the landlord’s window and drainage contractors had attended appointments without ID badges. As a result the resident had refused them access.
The resident also complained about the landlord’s surveyor taking photographs during an inspection on 18 March 2024. She said she had asked the surveyor to stop taking photographs but it had ignored her and continued.
We have not seen the landlord’s policy for management of contractors and there is no reference to the conduct of staff or contractors in the landlord’s repair guide. The landlord’s repair guide states all employees and contractors will carry ID badges.
When a resident raises an issue about the conduct of an employee or contractor of the landlord, we would expect the landlord to complete an investigation into the issues raised and provide the resident with a response to their concerns.
In relation to the taking of photographs at the inspection on 18 March 2024, the landlord explained in its stage 2 complaint response that it had spoken to the surveyor who said it had informed the resident it needed to take the photographs for the inspection report. The surveyor said the resident did not ask it to stop taking photographs.
The landlord explained in its complaint response that it had taken the photographs for a legitimate reason. It also explained that if the landlord captured any personal information, this would be subject to data protection legislation and it would not share personal information without the resident’s consent. The landlord provided details of the Information Commissioners Office website should the resident require further information. This was a reasonable response.
However, we acknowledge what the resident said about knowing beforehand what actions the landlord would complete at visits. We have therefore recommended that the landlord write to the resident before any future visits or inspections and inform her if it will need to take photographs and the reason for this. This will ensure the resident is aware that the landlord will need to take photographs and provide her with sufficient time to remove any personal belongings should she wish to.
The landlord should have discussed the resident’s concerns about the conduct of staff and contractors, and ID badges, with its contractors when the resident raised the issue and provided the resident with a response. There is no evidence that it did this, which was a failure.
Given the time that has passed since the resident’s interaction with the contractors it would not be proportionate to order the landlord to revisit the issue and complete an investigation. Instead, we have ordered the landlord pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This amount falls within the service failure banding of our remedies guidance.

Mice in the property

We understand that mouse infestations are distressing for residents and can be difficult for landlords to resolve. We also understand that it can sometimes take multiple attempts to achieve a lasting resolution.
Around 14 December 2023 the resident reported mice in the property and the block. We have not seen the landlord’s pest control procedure for 2023 or know if one was in place at this time. The tenant’s repair guide states the landlord will carry out pest control in blocks where all residents have agreed to share the cost of this, payable through a separate service charge. We do not know if this was agreed in this case. However, the landlord took responsibility for treating the mice infestation and therefore it should have responded to the resident’s reports in a timely manner, arranged a prompt inspection, sought expert advice to address the problem, and taken steps to prevent future infestations.
The landlord referred the issue to its pest control contractor who said it would contact the resident to arrange an appointment. The contractor attended on 22 December 2023, which was 6 working days later. The contractor placed bait boxes in the kitchen area and bathroom. The inspection report noted gaps below the kitchen unit. The landlord’s response was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord’s contractor said it attempted to complete the second and third visits but there was no access on each occasion. Due to lack of adequate records we are unable to determine if the landlord gave the resident sufficient notice of these visits. However, where a landlord is unable to access a property for a prearranged appointment, it should be able to evidence that it made reasonable attempts to contact the resident at the time of the visit, by way of telephoning or leaving a calling card. We have not seen the pest control reports for these visits and therefore are unable to conclude that the contractor made reasonable attempts to contact the resident when it could not get access. We have also not seen any evidence the landlord raised further works to fill the identified gaps in the kitchen unit at this time.
The landlord raised a further request for a pest control visit following its inspection of the property on 18 March 2024. The contractor attended on 9 April 2024, which was 16 working days after the landlord made the referral. This was unreasonable because the landlord did not complete a timely or prompt inspection.
The contractor did not find any mice activity at this visit. It placed bait boxes to monitor and ascertain pest activity. It returned on 23 April 2024 and serviced the bait stations. It did not find any evidence of mice taking the bait or any dead mice. The contractor returned on 10 May 2024. Again, there was no evidence of mice taking the bait, no fresh signs of mice in the property, and the resident had not reported any new sightings. The contractor removed the bait stations from the property following completion of the works. The landlord’s actions were reasonable because it sought expert advice and attempted to address the issue by using a methodical approach.
On 13 May 2024 the resident telephoned the landlord to report a pest infestation in her property. On 21 May 2024 the resident sent a video to the landlord of a mouse in the property and requested urgent proofing work. She also reported finding mouse droppings in her front room. On 23 May 2024 she chased the landlord for an update on her report because she had not received a response. The landlord referred the new report to its contractor on 24 May 2024. The landlord’s actions were not appropriate because it was not in line with its pest procedure from May 2024 which states it will refer any new reports of pest infestation to its contractor by the end of the following working day.
The landlord asked its contractor to organise a further visit and for a supervisor to attend. It appears from the contractor records that it attempted to visit the resident on 27 May 2024. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord referred to this as a no access visit. However, because the contractor’s email agreeing to attend the property was dated 27 May 2024, this would indicate the landlord did not give the resident reasonable notice of the visit, which would normally be 24 hours for a non urgent matter. This was a failure.
The contractor’s records show it attempted to contact the resident by telephone on 28 May 2024, 29 May 2024, and 30 May 2024 to arrange an appointment. The records show there was no answer and it left a message on the resident’s mobile number. It sent a letter to the resident on 30 May 2024 asking her to contact it to arrange a convenient appointment date. It stated it would close the service request if it did not hear from the resident within 7 days of the date of the letter.
Further to this, we can see the landlord emailed the resident on 13 June 2024 and 14 October 2024 offering to arrange the appointment for pest control on the resident’s behalf, if she would provide a suitable date. We have not seen any evidence that the resident agreed to this.
The resident has told us the landlord completed some proofing work to the kitchen prior to installing the new kitchen in March 2025. She said she had not seen any evidence of mice for a couple of months.
In summary, the resident’s reports of mice were sporadic and the landlord’s contractor experienced difficulties in gaining access to the property to complete its pest control treatments. While the resident did not agree the contractor was making any difference, the contractor attempted and completed pest control treatments, which demonstrated the landlord’s attempts at resolving the issue.
There were failures in the landlord attending and referring the resident’s report to its contractor, and its contractor attempted a visit without giving reasonable notice. We have therefore made a finding of service failure.
Following the resident’s complaint we can see the landlord made attempts to put things right by asking its contractor to visit again and by offering to arrange the appointments on the resident’s behalf. However, it did not recognise the failures in its complaint responses or make any offer of compensation.
Having considered the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, , a proportionate level of compensation, which also includes the impact of the delays and attending without notice, would be £100. This is because the failures identified were short in duration and did not affect the overall outcome of the case.

Complaint handling

When the resident raised her initial complaint on 21 March 2024, the landlord acknowledged it within 5 working days. This was in line with its complaint policy timeframe. It provided its stage 1 response on 14 August 2024, which was 6 months outside its policy timeframe. This was also a breach of paragraph 6.3 of the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It accepted its failings, explained the reason for the delay, and offered £300 compensation.
Our guidance on remedies suggests that an award of £300 is proportionate to the impact of the failings we have found. This amount is within the range of awards set out in the guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. Given the extent of the landlord’s failings, the apology made, and the compensation awarded this amounts to a reasonable offer by the landlord to put things right. This leads to a determination of reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the repairs and improvements to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of staff and contractors.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the reports of mice in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must, within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. pay the resident compensation of £350 in addition to that offered via the complaint procedure (£400) (£750 in total). The additional compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the repairs and improvements to the property.
  2. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of concerns about the conduct of staff and contractors.
  3. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of mice in the property.
2. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.
3. Consider the inspection report dated 18 March 2024 together with the resident’s list of repairs. It should then write to the resident setting out:
  1. what repairs are outstanding
  2. if there are any repairs on the resident’s list of repairs which it will not complete, it should provide the resident with an explanation why
  3. when it will start the repairs and the estimated timetable for completion
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it has complied with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord:
1. Write to the resident before any future visits or inspections informing her if it will need to take photographs and the reason for this.
2. Contact the resident to ensure her contact details and preferred contact methods are up to date on its systems.