Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202502432)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202502432

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

26 September 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of leaks, damp and mould in the resident’s property.
2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since 2022. The property is a 1-bedroom flat within a block. The resident lives in the property with her young child, who was around 4 months old at the time of the complaint. The landlord has recorded mental health vulnerabilities for the resident.
4. On 5 September 2024 the resident reported damp in her kitchen and bedroom. In response, the landlord completed a damp and mould inspection and raised work to make good a stain on the kitchen ceiling and mould wash around the bedroom window.
5. The resident complained to the landlord on 17 December 2024 about “ongoing mould and leakage” from above. She asked the landlord to speak to her neighbours about the leak, repaint her ceiling and treat mould.
6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 9 January 2025. It said:
   1. when it spoke to the resident on 23 December 2024, she had said mould had reappeared due to the leak not being resolved.
   2. as a result, it had requested work to treat the affected area.
   3. it had attended on 31 December 2024 to locate the leak above but found no source.
   4. it had attended on 8 January 2025 to mould wash an area within the resident’s kitchen.
   5. it could find no record of the leak being reported previously. However, it said it was sorry it had not attended earlier to find the source of the leak. It awarded her £50 in respect of this.
7. The resident escalated her complaint the same day. She said that while the mould treatment was completed on 8 January 2025, the operative could not proceed with further work as the source of damp needed to be resolved.
8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 31 March 2025. It said it had inspected the resident’s property in February and March 2025 and had raised work to assess the feasibility of installing fans in her kitchen and bathroom. It said an appointment for this was scheduled for 4 April 2025. It awarded her additional compensation of £395, which included £95 for delays in its complaint handling.
9. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in April 2025. She expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. She said it had still not dealt with the cause of damp, mould and water damage in her property. She said that she wanted a permanent fix to the leak, increased compensation and for the landlord to replace damaged items.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. Since its stage 2 complaint response in March 2025, the landlord has taken steps to fit fans to windows in the resident’s bathroom and kitchen. The resident has not told us of any concerns about this work. However, in its recent correspondence with us, the landlord said it had experienced some challenges completing final glazing after fitting the fans. It said it wanted to offer the resident further compensation of £200 in respect of the delays concluding this work. 
11. Given these events occurred after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, they do not fall within the scope of our investigation. However, we have recommended that the landlord contact the resident about its further offer. If she has any outstanding concerns about the work, it would be open to her raise these through the landlord’s complaint procedure. It would also be open to her to refer the matter to Ombudsman should she be dissatisfied once any complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
12. In her complaint to the landlord the resident raised concerns that her child’s and her own health may have been negatively affected by damp and mould. We acknowledge these concerns. However, the Ombudsman cannot determine causation or liability for personal injury, including health. This matter could be pursued through the court or through the landlord’s public liability insurance. We note the landlord previously provided the resident with details of to submit such a claim through its insurer. That was appropriate. The resident may also wish to seek independent legal advice about this. Our investigation has considered any distress and inconvenience caused by any failings by the landlord.

Handling of leaks from above and resulting damp and mould in the resident’s property

13. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that it has adopted a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. This is in line with the recommendations of the Ombudsman’s spotlight report published in October 2021. The landlord says that it will work with residents to identify issues and address the remedial work to deal with the causes of damp and mould. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out its target response times for different repair categories. It says it aims to complete non-urgent repairs within 28 calendar days. However, if it needs to complete a technical assessment before raising a repair, it will book an inspection within 20 calendar days of the report.
14. Records show that the resident reported mould in her bedroom and kitchen to the landlord on 5 September 2024. Its attendance on 20 September 2024 to inspect issues was timely. The inspection found no damp and mould in the kitchen but an “old leak stain” on the ceiling that had resolved and the stain was “dried”. There is no evidence the resident reported any concerns about an ongoing leak at this time.
15. The landlord raised work to decorate and stain block the kitchen ceiling and a mould wash to address “minor mould” it had found around a bedroom window. However, while work was completed on 10 October 2024 to stain block and decorate the kitchen ceiling, work to mould wash around bedroom windows was not raised until 23 October 2024. This was more than a month after the landlord’s September inspection, and its delay would have prolonged this work. It was not completed until 20 November 2024. Given the landlord’s aim to complete routine repairs with 28 calendar days, that was a failing.
16. The landlord noted during its inspection of September 2024 that mould around windows was caused by condensation due to “no airflow”. It had also noted a trickle vent was closed. Despite this, there is no evidence it provided any advice to the resident around airflow or that it considered other steps to improve airflow and prevent mould reoccurring. That was a failing. The landlord said in its stage 2 complaint that its surveyor had attended the resident’s property again in October 2024 to assess work. At this time it advised her to keep trickle vents open for ventilation. The resident did not dispute this. However, we have seen no record that clearly shows this further inspection or any advice it provided to her at that time. That the landlord has not provided us with adequate records to demonstrate this is a failing.
17. The resident complained to the landlord on 17 December 2024 and raised concerns that a leak into her property was causing damp and mould. In response, the landlord took appropriate and timely steps to raise work later in December 2023 to trace a containable leak from the property above and to mould wash an area within the resident’s kitchen. Records show its operative inspected the property above on 31 December 2024 and noted that they had found no leak. The landlord explained this to the resident in its subsequent stage 1 response of 9 January 2025. The landlord also noted that it had since attended on 8 January 2025 to clean mould in the resident’s kitchen.
18. The resident confirmed in her escalation request that the landlord’s operative had completed a mould treatment on 8 January 2025. However, she said the operative told her the source of damp still needed to be resolved. This is reflected in repair records. These show the landlord raised further work the same day to trace and repair the leak into the resident’s property. The landlord should reasonably have set this out in its stage 1 response. Instead, its response gave the impression it considered the leak issue to have been fully resolved. It is clear from the resident’s subsequent response of 9 January 2025 that this caused her concern.
19. Repair records show that the landlord attempted to inspect the property above again on 6 February 2025 to trace a leak. This was within the target timeframe it has set for this repair. However, it noted it was unable to gain access. There is no evidence it took any further action in respect of this until after 7 March 2025. At this time, it raised a further work order to check plumbing in the property above. That was prompted by its further inspection of the resident’s property on 18 February 2025. But it should have ensured its earlier work order of 8 January 2025 was appropriately progressed.  Not doing so was a failing that delayed reasonable and timely investigation of the reported leak.
20. We note the landlord’s inspection report of February 2025 was dated 18 February 2025 but was signed by the surveyor on 7 March 2025. However, emails we have seen show inspection had taken place on 18 February 2025. The landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response that it had completed a further inspection on 7 March 2025, after which it raised the work orders. However, we have seen no evidence of this further inspection. Instead, it appears it delayed in raising the work identified in its inspection of 18 February 2025. It is unclear why, but it inevitably delayed the subsequent repairs, which were not completed until 4 and 7 April 2025.
21. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response to the resident of 31 March 2025 set out work it had booked for 4 April 2025 to treat mould in her property and assess the feasibility of installing fans to her bathroom and kitchen. However, it failed to set out what it was doing to investigate a possible leak. It had attended to inspect the property above again on 1 April 2025 and noted it had found no leak from within that property. Records do not detail any further reports by the resident of an ongoing leak. However, the landlord failed to be clear in its stage 2 response and after, about what it had done to investigate the earlier leak. This left the resident unsure about whether issues have been investigated or resolved. Clearly setting out what it had done would have provided her with reassurance. It was also an opportunity for the landlord to consider whether further action was needed. We have ordered that the landlord now contact the resident to review any ongoing concerns she has about leaks from above.
22. We have seen records of internal repairs to address plasterwork and mould under a living room window. We have seen no record that the external investigation identified by the inspection of February 2025 was raised or completed. Such work should have been progressed to ensure appropriate action to prevent damp/mould issues in that area reoccurring. If it was no longer required, the landlord should have clearly detailed the reason for this. That it has not adequately demonstrated it has progressed this work is a failing. We have ordered that it review all recommended work set out in the February 2025 inspection and take appropriate steps to raise any outstanding work.
23. Following correspondence with the resident in April 2025, the landlord agreed to pay her £50 to cover the cost of cleaning curtains she said were damaged by mould. That was appropriate. However, the resident had also said in her escalation request that her dish rack had been damaged. In line with its compensation policy, the landlord may consider reimbursement for loss/damage to belongings up to £300. It should reasonably have responded to the resident’s concern about damaged possessions when providing its stage 2 response and set out how it would consider these. That it did not do so was a failing. We have ordered that the landlord contact the resident to obtain details of any damaged belongings. It should then consider these under its compensation policy and provide the resident and the Ombudsman with the outcome of this consideration.
24. We have identified additional failings in the landlord’s handling which it has yet to recognise. As set out above, it:
    1. failed to clearly set out to the resident what action it had taken to address her concerns about a leak from above.
    2. has not adequately demonstrated that it has progressed all work following its inspection of February 2025.
    3. failed to address the resident’s concerns about damaged belongings in its stage 2 complaint response.
25. The failings we have identified amount to maladministration. So far, the landlord has awarded the resident £350 in respect of delays, distress and inconvenience and time and trouble she has experienced since September 2024. With consideration to all the circumstances, we have ordered that the landlord make a further award to her of £200 in recognition of the additional failings we have identified. We consider this award, together with the compensation already awarded, to be reasonable recognition of the impact of the landlord’s failings. It is also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance

Complaint handling

26. The landlord aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledgement, and to those at stage 2 within 20 working days of acknowledgement. The landlord’s initial stage 1 response was slightly outside this target. It later acknowledged and apologised for this delay and its £25 award in recognition of this was appropriate. 
27. It was also appropriate that the landlord apologised for delays and poor communication in respect of its handling of the stage 2 complaint. While the resident requested escalation of her complaint on 9 January 2025, it did not take any steps to do so until 31 January 2025. It unreasonably delayed doing so. Its eventual stage 2 response was more than 6 weeks outside its target response time set out in its complaints policy. We acknowledge it communicated with the resident to explain this delay. Its award of £70 in recognition of the delays and poor communication was appropriate.
28. As outlined above, we have identified some failings in the landlord’s complaint responses. Most significantly, its stage 2 response did not explain what action it had/would take in response to the resident’s ongoing concerns about a leak from above. As a result, she remained concerned that issues had not been fully resolved. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code the landlord should have ensured that it had addressed all points raised in the complaint. That it did not do so was a complaint handling failure. This resulted in the resident spending more time and trouble pursuing that matter. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. With consideration to all the circumstances, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have ordered that it make an additional award of £100 in recognition of this.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks, damp and mould in the resident’s property.
    2. maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

30. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. write to apologise to the resident for the failings we have identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident compensation of £795, made up of:
       1. £350 already awarded for failings in its handling of leaks, damp and mould.
       2. £200 further compensation for further failings in its handling of leaks, damp and mould identified by this investigation.
       3. £50 already awarded for damage to the resident’s curtains
       4. £95 already awarded for failings in its complaint handling.
       5. £100 compensation for further failings in its complaint handling identified by this investigation.
       6. any payments already made to the resident should be deducted from the total.
    3. contact the resident to review any ongoing concerns she has about leaks from above.
    4. review all work set out in the February 2025 inspection and take appropriate steps to raise any outstanding work. Within the same timescale, it should confirm to the resident and us any work that has raised following this review and provide a clear plan for completing it.
31. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must contact the resident to obtain details of any damaged belongings. It should then consider these under its compensation policy and provide the resident and the Ombudsman with the outcome of this consideration.

Recommendations

32. We recommend that the landlord contact the resident about its offer to pay her a further £200 for delays in completing glazing work following the installation of fans at her property.