Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202428004)

Decision
Case ID	202428004
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	31 October 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat within a block owned by the landlord.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about repair and maintenance issues still outstanding from an action plan that was ordered from a previous determination.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was service failure in landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about repair and maintenance issues still outstanding from an action plan that was ordered from a previous determination.
2. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The resident’s concerns about the repair and maintenance issues

The landlord did not complete repairs within the agreed timeframes, failed to provide evidence that inspections took place, and did not follow through on its own action plan. Some repairs were carried inadequately, and the landlord did not explain what went wrong or show that it had learned from the issues. These failings indicate that the landlord did not meet its repair obligations and caused the resident avoidable distress.

The complaint handling

The landlord met the required timescales for responding at both stages of the complaint process and offered compensation for poor complaint handling. However, it did not address a key aspect of the resident’s complaint.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 28 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £460, total compensation broken down as follows: £310 previously offered in its stage 2 response of 30 September 2024. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about the repair and maintenance issues. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 28 November 2025
3	Inspection order We have made an inspection order because the resident reports the issues remain outstanding. The landlord must carry out a full inspection of the following: External render visible from communal areas. Condition and cleanliness of communal walkways. Bedded areas. Bin store doors, including handles and closures. Any signs of water ingress affecting communal ceilings, walls, or flooring. Following the inspection, the landlord must: Provide a full scope of works detailing the repairs or issues it has identified, including timelines and responsibilities Provide a copy of the inspection report to both the resident and this Service	No later than 28 November 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 March 2024	This Service previously issued a determination under case reference 202128221, which included the following order: “The landlord to give an update to the resident and Service on the progress of the works from the resident’s list that it stated it would include in its cyclical works programme. If it has not started the works, it must provide the resident and Service with a schedule of works to include those repairs, ensuring they are completed without further delay. If the resident is unhappy with the quality of those works, the landlord to advise the resident that he can raise this as a formal complaint. Once the landlord has issued its final response, it will be open to the resident to escalate his complaint to the Ombudsman.”
16 July 2024	The landlord shared an action plan with the resident: It would carry out further inspection with focus on the bin store door, handles, windows, and electrical cupboard on 18 July 2024, after attempting to contact the resident. It would raise all repairs by 25 July 2024. It aimed to complete all repairs by 22 August 2024, unless stated otherwise.
27 August 2024	The resident raised a complaint with the landlord, stating that the repairs set out in the action plan dated 16 July 2024 had not been completed by the agreed deadline of 22 August 2024. He said the landlord excluded some repairs identified in the Ombudsman’s determination and had not completed agreed works, including addressing water ingress in the top-floor communal area. He expressed concern that the landlord had not fully complied with the Ombudsman’s determination regarding repairs.
28 August 2024	The resident raised a further complaint, referencing an instruction set out in the order of the previous determination. The resident said the landlord’s action plan contradicted this by listing repairs it would not carry out, including: Repairing and making good external render. Steam cleaning the communal walkways. Upgrading bedded areas. Replacing the overhead bin store closures. He also noted that water ingress into the top-floor communal area remained unresolved, with visible damage to the ceiling and carpet.
6 September 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. The landlord stated that several repair issues raised by the resident were not part of its cyclical works programme, including: External render: Considered aesthetic, not previously included. Communal walkway cleaning: Not part of the programme; referred to estates team for possible inspection. Bedded areas: Not included in decoration works; deemed unnecessary by estates team. Bin store closures: Previously included a repair was completed on 7 August 2024. Water ingress: Acknowledged as ongoing; further works were scheduled but not part of the cyclical programme. The landlord clarified that cyclical works were last done in 2022 and the next cycle is due in 2027. Interim repairs would be handled under its standard repairs policy. It concluded that the resident had already received appropriate information and did not uphold the complaint
10 September 2024	The resident contacted the landlord to escalate his complaint, although this Service has not been provided details of his request.
30 September 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. The key points were as follows: The external render, communal walkway cleaning, and bedded areas, were excluded from the cyclical programme and have since been addressed. It acknowledged that repairs for water ingress and the bin store were still outstanding. Appointments to carry out these repairs were scheduled for 1 October 2024 and 9 October 2024. The landlord upheld the complaint and awarded £310 compensation, comprising: £150 for exceeding the expected timeframe for repair £100 time and trouble for the inconvenience caused £60 for poor complaint handling
Referral to the Ombudsman 21 October 2024	The resident escalated the complaint to this Service. He said the landlord had not fully complied with the orders from the previous determination.
31 January 2025	The resident informed us that the following issues remain outstanding: external render defects, concerns about communal cleaning, ongoing water ingress, unresolved problems with bedded areas, and the closure of the bin store.

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.

Complaint	The landlords handling of the residents’ concerns about the repair and maintenance issues.
Finding	Service failure

What we have not looked at

The resident expressed concern that the landlord had not fully complied with the order made in this Service’s previous determination under case reference 202128221. While this report cannot revisit that determination or assess compliance with its orders, we have considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint dated 27 August 2024, specifically in relation to the outstanding issues he raised.

Repair and maintenance issues

The landlord is responsible for maintaining shared and communal areas, including facilities, unless a separate managing agent is in place. This includes keeping the areas clean and carrying out regular gardening and cleaning services.
Under its repairs policy, the landlord must arrange an initial appointment to assess reported issues and aims to complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days (or 20 working days).
In July 2024, the resident raised concerns about several communal issues including:
1. Damage to external render.
2. Steam cleaning of communal walkways.
3. Water ingress in the top-floor communal area, causing damage to the ceiling and carpet.
4. Poor condition of bedded areas.
5. Closure and condition of the bin store.
On 16 July 2024, the landlord said the external render, steam cleaning of the walkway, and bedded areas were cosmetic or outside the scope of cyclical works. It apologised for not following up after an earlier inspection and shared an action plan. This plan included an inspection date of 18 July 2024, a target completion date of 22 August 2024, and steps for follow-up. This was reasonable, as it showed the landlord was taking steps to clarify disputed issues.
The landlord did not provide any inspection records from 18 July 2024, so we do not know whether the inspection took place or what was identified. The absence of documentation may also indicate a record keeping issue.
The landlord raised a repair for the bin store on 24 July 2024 and reported completion by 7 August 2024, which fell within the expected timeframe of 28 days. However, an inspection on 10 September 2024 found the work unsatisfactory and not completed in line with the work order.
The landlord reported completing roof repairs on 21 August 2024 but subsequently recalled the job and scheduled further work for 6 September 2024. It attended on 22 August 2024 and carried out flashing replacement. Although the timeline aligns with the 28-day target, the need to recall the job suggests the initial repair may not have been effective, raising concerns about quality and follow-through.
In its stage 2 complaint response dated 30 September 2024, the landlord reiterated its position from the stage 1 response of 6 September 2023. It stated that repairs to the external render, communal walkways, and bedded areas were cosmetic or outside the scope of its cyclical programme. It acknowledged that water ingress remained unresolved and confirmed a roofer appointment for 1 October 2024. It also noted that further work to the bin store doors was scheduled for 9 October 2024 and accepted that repairs to the bin store and water ingress had exceeded expected timeframes, apologising and upholding the complaint.
While there was regular correspondence between the landlord and the resident, and the landlord responded to the resident’s emails, the responses did not fully address the resident’s concerns. It is also unclear whether the landlord met with the resident as agreed, which further limits our ability to assess how effectively it engaged with the resident to resolve the issues.
In summary, the landlord failed to complete repairs to a satisfactory standard, did not meet its own timelines, and lacked transparency in its inspection and follow-up processes.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints.
The landlord had a published complaints policy that complies with the Code in respect of timescales.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 8 working days, from 27 August 2024 to 6 September 2024. The landlord had 5 working days to acknowledge and 10 working days to answer the compliant. While we have not seen evidence that it acknowledged the complaint, it issued a response within the 10 working days timeframe. The landlord therefore acted in line with its policy and the Code.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 30 September 2024, 15 working days after the stated escalation date of 10 September 2024. Although we have not seen evidence of the escalation request itself, the response was provided within the 20 working days required under the Code and its policy. Therefore, the landlord acted in line with its policy and the Code.
In his complaint, the resident specifically stated that the repairs listed in the landlord’s action plan dated 16 July 2024 were not completed by the agreed deadline of 22 August 2024. The landlord failed to address this point in either its stage 1 or stage 2 response and did not explain the delay.
The Code requires landlords to respond to all aspects of a complaint, including those defined by the resident. By failing to acknowledge all the issues raised in the complaint, the landlord did not act in accordance with both its own complaints policy and the Code.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered the resident £60 compensation in its complaint handling for not making contact with the resident. This was a positive step. However, it did not acknowledge or address the resident’s concern about the missed repair deadline, which was a key element of the complaint. Addressing all elements is required by the Code and not doing so was a failing by the landlord.