Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202346688)

Decision
Case ID	202346688
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	31 March 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a first floor flat. The neighbour below is a leaseholder. The resident reported a blocked drainpipe from the flat below to the landlord several times. The blockage caused her balcony to flood.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

a. The resident’s reports of flooding to her balcony and the subsequent repairs.

b. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of flooding to her balcony and the subsequent repairs.
   2. Service failure in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of the resident’s reports of flooding to her balcony and subsequent repairs

4. The landlord took an unreasonable amount of time to fully resolve the blocked drainpipe. Its failure to make timely or effective contact with the leaseholder to gain access contributed to the delays. The landlord’s communication was poor as it failed to provide updates, and the resident was left uncertain about whether any action was being taken to resolve the issue.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord failed to address all issues raised in its responses. It did not manage the complaint in accordance with its policy timescale.

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 30 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £275 made up as follows: £225 (this includes £25 already offered to the resident by the landlord) for the time and trouble caused by the failings in its handling of her repair report. £50 for the time and inconvenience caused in relation to 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 30 April 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 January 2023	The resident complained to the landlord that: she had reported a balcony repair issue months earlier and although contractors had attended her property to try to fix the issue, it was unresolved the balcony drainpipe was blocked, and it made her property smell, she was also concerned that if it rained the water would enter her flat the landlord did not respond to the emails she sent, and kept closing repair jobs without taking any action
31 January 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response which said: its contractor had visited her flat and completed work to clear the blocked drainpipe the root cause of the blockage was from cat litter going down the drainpipe from the resident’s flat the issue was on-going whilst it arranged access to the neighbouring flat so that it could fully clear the blockage it did not uphold the resident’s complaint
20 February 2023	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord had not addressed her concerns about its poor communication and that it had closed the repair jobs she reported.
3 April 2023	The landlord issued its final response. It said: it had followed procedures and did what was required to provide the resident with the appropriate outcome it was satisfied with the way it managed her complaint at stage 1 it accepted that its communication had been poor and apologised it offered the resident £25 compensation for time and trouble
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate the complaint. She said she couldn’t use the balcony for months because the drainpipe overflowed repeatedly. Contractors attended but did not permanently repair the issue.

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 handling of the resident’s reports of flooding to her balcony and the subsequent repairs
Finding	Maladministration

6. The resident said she reported the balcony repair to the landlord on 24 October 2022. However, the landlord said she reported it on 15 November 2022. We have seen no evidence that confirms when the report was made.
7. The landlord’s repair policy says its contractor will aim to complete routine repairs within 28 days.
8. A contractor attended the resident’s flat on 23 November 2022. This was well within its policy timescales, had the resident reported it on 15 November 2022. However, it would have been 2 days late if she reported it on 24 October 2022; that said, this was not an unreasonable delay.
9. The contractor completed further works at the resident’s flat on 25 November and 6 December 2022, but it needed access to the neighbouring flat to fully clear the blockage.
10. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 31 January 2023 told the resident that the blockage was caused by her disposing cat litter down the drain. Despite this, the landlord was still responsible for repairs to avoid the issue causing further damage. This response also told the resident about the issue it was having gaining access to the neighbouring flat.
11. Internal communications from March 2023 refers to the landlord trying unsuccessfully on numerous occasions to contact the neighbouring flat about gaining access. However, we have seen no evidence of the call records or access letters to evidence this. This suggests a record keeping issue. We asked the landlord for evidence of all attempts it made to contact the leaseholder, but it told us it was unable to locate this information.
12. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 3 April 2023 told the resident that it had agreed to attend the neighbouring flat on 17 April 2023. However, we have seen no evidence the landlord attended that day.
13. It took the landlord approximately 16 months to resolve the drainpipe issue, which was unreasonable. We acknowledge the repair was complex and required access to the neighbouring property. However, we have not seen evidence that the landlord made sustained efforts to gain access the neighbouring property or escalated the matter when this was not provided. These shortcomings likely contributed to the delay in completing the repair.
14. The landlord’s repair policy requires it to keep residents updated when further visits are needed to complete a repair. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would update the resident, but it did not. As a result, the resident had to chase for information several times between October 2023 and January 2024. The landlord only provided updates when she contacted it. This was not in line with its policy and likely caused her frustration, inconvenience, and uncertainty about the repair’s progress.
15. The resident told us she could not use her balcony for several months between October 2022 and March 2024 and the blockage made her flat smell, which caused her inconvenience. She also felt uncertainty about the effectiveness of each repair as the balcony kept flooding when it rained and she worried that the water would eventually enter her flat.
16. Where there are acknowledged failings as in this case, our role is to determine if the landlord resolved the issue in line with our resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcome. The landlord offered the resident £25 for time and trouble. We do not consider this compensation proportionate to the impact of its failings. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of flooding to her balcony. We have ordered the landlord to pay an award of £225 which includes the £25 it already offered, for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused, in line with our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

17. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
18. The Code also says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decision. The landlord’s stage 1 response was consistent with its policy timescales, but it did not respond to the resident’s concerns about its communication which was not appropriate. However, we acknowledge that this was responded to at stage 2.
19. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation in line with the Code. However, it issued the stage 2 response 9 working days late. It did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay in its stage 2 response.
20. Within that response the landlord acknowledged the resident’s reasons for escalating her complaint. However, it said it was satisfied with the way it oversaw her complaint at stage 1. This was not correct because it hadn’t fully addressed the complaint at stage 1 as the Code required.
21. The landlord did not award any compensation for its handling of the complaint within its internal complaints procedure. It was only after the resident raised the complaint with us that the landlord offered to pay £50 compensation in recognition of its poor complaint handling.
22. While it is positive that the landlord reconsidered its position and made an offer of redress, it is not clear why it did not make this offer when considering the complaint within its own complaint procedure. Due to the delay in making this offer to put things right, we do not consider it appropriate to make a finding of ‘reasonable redress’ as set out in our Scheme. Instead, we find service failure and have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident the £50 it offered after she complained to us. It should do this for the time and inconvenience it caused in relation to its complaint handling.

Learning

23. The landlord should look to identify how it can improve its services when it is having difficulty gaining access to a property, to avoid similar failings in the future.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. It is important that landlords record all contact attempts as this is evidence of efforts made which may be needed later. The landlord was unable to locate its historical records of the contact it made to the leaseholder about gaining access. This shows a record keeping failing and it should explore why this happened to prevent a recurrence.

Communication

25. The resident would have benefited from proactive updates from the landlord about its plans to resolve the blockage and the action it had taken to contact the leaseholder.
26. If the landlord requires an extension to respond to a complaint, it should contact the resident to request this within the required timescale.