Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202324724)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324724

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

7 October 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:
1. Leaks in the property and the associated repairs.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since May 2012. The property is a 2 bedroom flat, and the landlord is a housing association. The resident lived with her 3 children who have complex disabilities, including respiratory issues. The children were 5, 10 and 13 year old when the leak started in 2023. The resident informed us that the landlord permanently rehoused her to another of its properties in April 2024.
The resident reported a leak in her property on 12 June 2023, the landlord attended on the same day and raised a job for a roof inspection. The roofing contractor inspected the roof on 21 September 2023.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 26 July 2023. She said she had previously reported leaks to the landlord, and it carried out remedial repairs. In June 2023, she reported a new leak in her bedroom. She said that because of the leaks there was mould in several rooms. Additionally, she said that the family had several health issues, included respiratory conditions. She also explained that some of her belongings were damaged such as her son’s bed and toys.
Between August 2023 and November 2023, the landlord carried out several inspections and roof repairs. It informed the resident that it would complete the internal repairs once it repaired the roof. It remained in contact with the resident who reported further leaks and said the repairs had not resolve the leaks. By October 2023, she said she could not safely use her cooker. In September 2023 the landlord was making queries to confirm whether the roof was under warranty.
The landlord informed the resident it needed more time to respond to her complaint. It initially extended its complaint response to 25 August 2023, then to 12 September 2023, then to 26 September 2023 and then 10 October 2023. On 11 October it said it would respond to the resident’s complaint on 24 October 2023. On 31 October 2023, the resident asked to escalate her complaint because the landlord failed to respond to her stage 1 complaint. She also described her children’s disabilities in detail.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 8 November 2023, and said:
1. It completed the roof repairs, which resolved the leak, and it would continue to monitor the issue.
2. It would provide dehumidifiers to the resident and apply a mould wash to the areas affected by mould. It would complete the remedial repairs to the resident’s property and communal areas once it had resolved the leaks.
3. It advised the resident on making an insurance claim for her damaged belongings and provided information on making an insurance claim to its own insurer.
4. On 13 November 2023, it would consider the resident’s request to move and the household medical information. It would notify the resident of any changes to her priority.
5. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered to pay her £350 in compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused to her. It said this was equivalent to:
  1. £100 to reflect the time and trouble experienced by the resident.
  2. £150 to reflect the impact of not repairing the leak within a reasonable timeframe.
  3. £100 to reflect the impact of its complaint handling failings.
The resident escalated her complaint on 13 November 2023, because the landlord’s failings in resolving the leaks and her concerns about the impact on her children’s health. She raised a complaint with us about her landlord in November 2023. In addition to the leaks, she mentioned about having no heating or hot water for several days. In December 2023 we wrote to the landlord asking it responded to the resident’s complaint. In addition to the resident’s complaint about its handling of the leaks, we also raised its handling of the reports of not heating or hot water in the property for 5 days in September 2023.
Between November 2023 and January 2024, the landlord liaised with the developer to complete the repairs to the roof. It acknowledged the repairs amounted to major works and agreed to extend the resident’s temporary accommodation stay, which it communicated to her.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 19 January 2024, and said:
1. It acknowledged and apologised for its complaint handling failings.
2. It explained that the property was still under warranty, and it contacted the developer about the issues and waiting for their response. It elaborated that the roof was under warranty, and a site meeting would take place on 16 January 2024, to establish a way forward.
3. Although it carried out remedial repairs, those did not resolve the leak.
4. As agreed, it moved the resident to temporary accommodation between 12 December 2023 and 16 February 2024. It extended this for another 6 weeks to allow it to complete the required repairs in the property.
5. It acknowledged that the resident asked for a permanent move because she was concerned about the impact of the damp and mould on her children. It said that it had limited properties, which would meet the resident’s needs. After reviewing the family circumstances, it placed the family in a” double B1 banding” and encouraged the resident to bid on its housing platform. It also encouraged the resident to apply for housing with her local authority.
6. It could not find a job reference for the repairs to the stains on the ceiling, which the resident said was outstanding since 2023. It confirmed that its usual approach in remedy stains on ceilings was to only paint areas affected instead of automatically repainting the whole ceiling.
7. It apologised to the resident and offered to pay her £750 compensation, which was inclusive of the offer it made in its stage 1 complaint response. This was equivalent to:
  1. £300 to reflect the time and trouble experienced by the resident.
  2. £250 to reflect the impact of not repairing the leak within a reasonable timeframe.
  3. £200 to reflect the impact of its complaint handling failings.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaint process

As a resolution to her complaint, she would like the landlord to learn from its failings and prevent the same issue from happening to someone else. She is also seeking compensation, which reflects the impact of the landlord’s failings on her family. She explained that the landlord had not paid the compensation it offered because she declined it.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident reported that the landlord’s handling of the matters significantly impacted on her family’s health. We can consider the impact that the issues raised have had on the family, and whether the landlord acted reasonably. However, we cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s actions may have contributed to or exacerbated any physical and/or mental health issues. These are legal aspects better suited to a personal injury claim or court.

The leaks and the associated repairs

The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy says that it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours and make sure the resident and the property are safe. It will aim to complete urgent repairs within 5 working days, routine repairs within 28 days and complex repairs within 90 days. It explains that to understand the nature of the repairs, it might inspect the property prior to raising the works with its appointed contractor. It explains that it might take longer to resolve a repair if the property is covered under a defect liability period where the property developer is responsible for the repairs. It elaborates that when assessing the urgency of the repair, it would consider the household vulnerabilities.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) recommends that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly for residents so their expectations can be managed. They should also ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with the residents on actions taken to resolve damp and mould.
We recognise that having leaks in the property would have been distressing for the resident. She described water ingress from the roof into her property. We understand that having a leak in the property would not automatically amount to a failure by the landlord. We also recognise that finding and resolving the root cause of a leak can be difficult and take time.
Nevertheless, our role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and whether the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The resident reported a leak on 12 June 2023, she described water coming through her bedroom light fitting. In keeping with its Responsive Repairs Policy, the landlord attended on the same day and made the electric safe, it also raised a job to inspect the roof. While those were reasonable actions by the landlord, it did not show that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities when it assessed the urgency of the repairs. This was unreasonable and not in keeping with its Responsive Repair Policy. This was also a missed opportunity for the landlord to understand the extent of the household vulnerabilities and adjust its service delivery accordingly, if suitable to do so.
The landlord said that its roofing contractor inspected the roof on 14 August 2023, which was 6 weeks after the resident reported the leak. We understand it can take time to seek specialist contractors such as roofing contractors. However, in such cases, it would be reasonable for the landlord to keep the resident updated on the actions it took to address the issues. In this case, we did not see that the landlord did this, which was unreasonable.
The landlord inspected the issues on 25 August 2023 and updated the resident about appointing a new roofing contractor. It identified leak damage in the kitchen lounge and the bedrooms. It noted the required repairs and explained to the resident that it would complete the internal repairs after it repaired the roof leaks. It was understandable and reasonable for the landlord to complete the repairs to the roof first.
While the landlord adequately managed the resident’s expectations in relation to the sequencing of the repairs, it did not explain the delay in inspecting the property. It inspected the problems 3 weeks after it raised the job for the inspection and 10 weeks after the resident reported the leaks. Those delays were unreasonable, especially as it knew there had been historical leaks in the property, and the family was vulnerable and children lived in the property.
The landlord explained that the first roofing contractor it appointed in August 2023 was not qualified to repair this type of roof. It said that it appointed a new roofing contractor, who inspected the roof on 21 September 2023. We recognise that appointing a new roofing contractor further delayed the resolution to the leaks. However, this was out of the landlord’s control. It demonstrated that it promptly appointed a new roofing contractor, which was reasonable.
The landlord said it applied a mould wash to the areas affected by mould in the property on 21 September 2023. This was 3 months after the resident raised the issue. This was unreasonable, especially as in July 2023, the resident said the family had respiratory health conditions and remined the landlord that children lived in the property. The landlord did not demonstrate that it acted with a sense of urgency. This was not in keeping with the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy.
On 23 October 2023 the resident reported that a new leak appeared above her cooker, and she could not use it. The landlord showed that it satisfied itself the resident had an air fryer and microwave to cook meals for the family. It also explained to the resident why it believed her cooker was safe to use. On 2 November 2023, it checked the cooker electrics to reassure the resident it was safe to use. It also installed a leak diverter so that she could use her cooker and provided her with dehumidifiers. While we recognise the resident did not feel reassured or confident in using her cooker, the landlord actions were reasonable and in keeping with its Responsive Repairs Policy.
We understand that it can take time and several visits to resolve leaks. In this case, the landlord said that its roofing contractor carried out roof repairs on 21 September 2023, 1 November 2023, 6 November 2023 and 20 November 2023. During the same period, the landlord also inspected the problems and the completed repairs. We recognise that the resident said the repairs did not work and the leaks returned. Nevertheless, the landlord showed that it acted on her reports and continued to carry out repairs to the roof to resolve the leaks, which was reasonable. However, we also recognise that the delays in finding the root cause of the leaks and resolving the matters caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident and her children.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that it would apply a mould wash to the areas affected by mould. A key aspect of complaint resolution is for landlords to keep the promise they make in their complaint responses. In this case, we did not see evidence that it completed the mould wash. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to apply the mould wash within 28 days, in keeping with its Responsive Repairs Policy. Its failing to complete the repair as agreed was unreasonable and not in keeping with Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould to act with urgency.
Our Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould says that landlords should recognise that damp and mould can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of residents.
On 1 November 2023 the landlord informed the resident that the property was habitable, and she could remain in situ when it completed the repairs. However, the resident had repeatedly raised concerns about the impact of damp and mould on her children, one of whom had respiratory difficulties. She also reported that she tested the leak incoming water, and it tested positive for e coli. We did not see evidence that the landlord considered this or assessed the risks. It did not show it acknowledged the resident’s concerns which was inappropriate and unreasonable. This was also a missed opportunity to understand the extent of the household vulnerabilities.
We have no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act 2010 or the Human Rights Act 1998. However, we can decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties and followed its own related policies and procedures.
On 31 October 2023, the resident’s representative provided the landlord with detailed information about the children’s disabilities and the impact of the situation on them. We recognise that while it had opportunities to discuss the household vulnerabilities with the resident, we did not see evidence that the landlord knew about the extent of the household vulnerabilities prior to October 2023.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that on 13 November 2023, it would review the evidence provided by the resident in support of her housing application. During that period, the resident also reported that while the leaks were intermittent, they were getting worse and new leaks appeared. The landlord explained that after considering the evidence provided by the resident it decided to move the family to temporary accommodation until it completed the repairs. The evidence shows that it immediately made queries and liaised with the resident to secure a suitable property for her. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord. It showed that it considered the household vulnerabilities in keeping with its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998.
Additionally, once it secured temporary accommodation, the landlord liaised with the resident on getting the temporary accommodation ready for the family. For example, it checked that the property’s windows and balconies were safe for the children. At the resident’s request it also removed items from the temporary accommodation, which she had identified as a risk to her younger son. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord. Its actions showed that it considered the children disabilities, listened to the resident and considered its obligations under Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998.
The resident moved into temporary accommodation on 12 December 2023, for 8 weeks. We understand that the landlord had to extend the family stay in temporary accommodation because of the delays in resolving the roof repairs. We recognise that this was not an ideal situation, and it was challenging for the children to be away from their home and routines. We also recognise that the resident could not access her belongings without the landlord granting her access to her property, which was inconvenient.
However, the evidence shows that the landlord effectively communicated with the resident about extending her stay in temporary accommodation. It also showed that it promptly provided her with access to her property when she requested it. It also took steps to ensure the resident’s belongings were secured and locked away in her property. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord.
The landlord said that the building was 11 years old and under warranty. In September 2023, it confirmed that it could proceed with doing small repairs to the roof. However, as the leaks worsened it contacted the developer in November 2023 to inspect the issues. We understand that in January 2024 and February 2024, the resident was concerns about the slow progress of the repairs. However, the delay was out of the landlord’s control, and it showed that it was actively engaged with the developer to resolve the failing roof. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord.
The resident informed us that the landlord provided her with its surveyor’s contact details for her to discuss the repairs. The evidence also shows that its complaint team was in regular contact with the resident. We recognise that at times, there were delays in the landlord responding to the resident’s queries and informing her of cancelled appointments. However, overall, it kept the resident updated on the situation. For example, on 7 December 2023, it provided a detailed update to the resident on the steps it would take in supporting her moving into temporary accommodation. It also provided her with updates on the repairs it did to the roof and its meeting with the developer. While it would have been helpful for the landlord to agree the frequency of contacts with the resident, overall, it communicated with the resident bout the issues.
The resident reported that the leaks and damp and mould had damaged some of her belongings. In its stage 1 response the landlord correctly advised the resident on making a claim to her home content insurance or its public liability insurance. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord.
The resident’s children have complex disabilities, and the situation significantly impacted on them. Between June 2023 and December 2023, they lived in the property with intermittent leaks, the resident reported them feeling anxious about the situation. She also explained that although the landlord moved the family to temporary accommodation for their safety, this further impacted on the children. She explained that because of the nature of their disabilities, the change of routines and the uncertainty about the future significantly impacted on them. She also described her distress at not being able to reassure her children and her concerns about exposing them to harmful bacteria and mould.
In its complaint responses the landlord apologised and acknowledged its failings in completing the repairs to the resident’s property within its published timeframe. It offered to pay £550 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact of its failings on the family. We recognise that the landlord took actions to resolve the leaks and some of the delays were out of its control because the developer was responsible for repairing the roof. We also recognise that when it found out about the extent of the household vulnerabilities it moved the family to temporary accommodation.
However, we identified additional failings by the landlord such as failings in discussing the household vulnerabilities with the resident sooner, delays in applying the mould wash and inspecting the property. After considering the evidence of the case, we determine there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the leaks and the associated repairs. We cannot determine the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident because we found its compensation offer was too low. This is because it did not adequately reflect the significant impact on the family and the aggravating factors, such as the children’s disabilities and age.
Our outcomes guidance states that a finding of maladministration is appropriate where the landlord acknowledged its failings and made some attempt to put things right but failed to adequately address the detriment to the resident. Our remedies guidance lists £600 as the starting point for instances of maladministration when there were failures which significantly impacted on the resident. Therefore, we order the landlord to pay £700 compensation to the resident in reflection of the distress, inconvenience, time and effort caused to the family. This also reflects the impact of the additional failings identified and the aggravating factors mentioned in this report. The compensation is inclusive of the landlord’s compensation offer in its stage 2 complaint response.

The resident’s complaint

The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) outlines the requirements for landlords to operate effective complaint handling. It states that landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. It also states that if a landlord needs more time to respond, it must agree an extension with the resident. The evidence shows that the landlord’s complaint policy is in keeping with the Code.
However, the Code also says that landlords must sent a complaint response to the resident within the published timeframe and not delay its response until it completed the actions required to address the issue. It also adds that if the resident raised new issues after its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord should raise a new stage 1 complaint. While we understand the landlord’s complaint policy did not include those details, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to handle residents’ complaints in keeping with the Code. We also note that the landlord reviewed its Complaint Policy in September 2025, and it is fully compliant with the Code.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord in July 2023, which it correctly acknowledged 5 days later. The evidence shows that between August 2023 and October 2023, the landlord made 5 requests to the resident for extending the timeframe to respond to her complaint. We recognise it communicated with the resident about the delays and explained that it would respond once it resolved the issues. However, this was not in keeping with the Code. Additionally, this contributed to the landlord issuing its stage 1 complaint response 62 days outside its published timeframe. This was unreasonable and caused inconvenience to the resident who had to raise the issues as a stage 2 complaint.
The landlord promptly acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 13 November 2023, and it issued its stage 2 complaint response on 19 January 2024. We recognise that the landlord informed the resident it needed longer to respond to her complaint in December 2023 and January 2024, because of the issues it faced with completing the repairs. As previously mentioned, delaying responding to a resident’s complaint until it resolved the repairs was not a reasonable explanation for not responding to the resident’s complaint within the agreed timeframe. In total, it showed that it asked for 30 days extension to respond to her complaint. This was unreasonable and not in keeping with its Complaint Policy and the Code.
Additionally, when the resident requested to escalate her complaint, she also raised that in September 2023, she did not have heating or water for 5 days. We understand this was a new issue, which the resident had not raised in her stage 1 complaint. We also raised this issue with the landlord in December 2023. Given that we and the resident raised this with the landlord, it would have been reasonable for it to respond and make its position clear on the matter. However, it did not show that it raised the matter as a new stage 1 complaint or explained to the resident why it would not. Its actions and lack of communication on the matter was not in keeping with its Complaint Policy and the Code.
Overall, we determine there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. We recognised that it communicated with the resident about the delays in responding to her complaint. However, the landlord did not make its position clear about her complaint of having no heating and water for 5 days.
During the complaint process the landlord offered to pay £200 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact of its complaint handling failings on her. While its offer was reasonable, it did not reflect the additional failings identified in this report. Therefore, in keeping with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, we order the landlord to pay £275 to the resident to reflect the impact of its failings on her. This is inclusive of the compensation offered by the landlord in its stage 2 complaint response.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the leaks and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, we order the landlord to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The landlord should consider our apologies guidance which is available via our website.
2. Pay £975 compensation directly to the resident, this includes the compensation offered by the landlord during the complaint process and is equivalent to:
  1. £700 compensation to reflect the impact of its handling of the leaks and the associated repairs on the family.
  2. £275 compensation to reflect the impact of its complaint handling on the resident.