Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202507182)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1 bedroom flat with her 3 children aged 11, 10 and 3 years old. The flat is on the fourth floor of a 6 storey building above a shopping centre. She has lived in the property since 2010. The landlord has no record of any vulnerabilities for the resident or her family. The resident has told us that her children have asthma. Her son is vulnerable due to global development delay.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to her reports of outstanding repairs to her home, including leaks, damp, and mould.
   2. Response to reports of no heating and hot water.
   3. Handling and enforcement of a fire hazard notice, including the conduct of its staff and contractor.
   4. Response to reports of damage to her personal belongings.
   5. Handling of the resident’s temporary move from her home.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of her complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the outstanding repairs to the resident’s home.
5. There was service failure in its handling of:
   1. Her reports of no heating and hot water.
   2. Enforcing a fire hazard notice and its staff conduct.
   3. Her reports of damage to her personal belongings.
6. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s temporary move.
7. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling failures.
8. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to her home, including leaks, damp, and mould.

9. The repairs to the resident’s home were initially part of her disrepair claim. These remained outstanding after the landlord should have completed the repairs. Having returned to her home in early October 2024, she continued to experience a leak into her home over several months. This led to further damp and mould within her home.

Response to reports of no heating and hot water.

10. The resident has consistently raised concerns about her heating and hot water through her complaints. The landlord attributed this to a failure by the resident to ensure her pay as you go meter was ‘topped up’, or to understand how to use the system. Given the consistency of her reports, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to take time to check the system with the resident and ensure that she fully understood how to use it effectively.

Handling and enforcement of a fire hazard notice, including the conduct of its staff and contractor.

11. The landlord followed its policy in its communication with the resident about her personal items in the communal area. It clearly set out that these were a potential hazard in case of a fire and informed residents of its intention to remove these. Its investigation of the resident’s complaint about its staff conduct in following through on the removal of the items was delayed and inadequate.

Response to reports of damage to her personal belongings.

12. The landlord should have directed the resident to its insurers. She should not have been expected to pursue a separate complaint with the contractor it appointed. We have asked that landlord to revisit this issue with the resident.

Handling of the resident’s temporary move from her home. 

13. The evidence provided shows that the landlord followed its own policy in arranging the resident’s temporary move. The hotel accommodation was booked to include breakfast and evening meal. There is no evidence that the resident raised her children’s allergies ahead of the move. On raising this with the landlord, it appropriately agreed to pay her meal allowance for the time she was away from her home.

We have also considered the landlord’s handling of her complaint.

14. There were significant delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. It offered the resident compensation of £400 for the delays in its responses and the inconvenience caused to her. We consider that this was reasonable in the circumstances.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we did not consider

15. The resident has told us that the ongoing leak and outstanding repairs to her home has affected her health and had a detrimental impact on the wellbeing of her family. We are unable to draw conclusions on liability in such circumstances. These are better addressed by way of the courts or through the landlord’s insurer. We have, however, considered whether the resident has been caused distress and inconvenience because of any failings on behalf of the landlord.
16. The resident raised a disrepair claim with the landlord in November 2021, reaching a settlement in June 2024. We are unable to comment on matters that have been subject to a legal process. However, we have referred to this to provide context to some aspects of the resident’s complaint.

17. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy provides information about the priorities that the landlord places on repairs and the timeframe within which it will carry out a repair. This lists the following categories and timescales:
    1. Emergencies – where there is a significant risk or significant damage to the property. It will visit and make these safe within 24 hours.
    2. Routine repairs – this covers those repairs that it does not consider to be an emergency. For these the landlord aims to complete them within 28 days (20 working days).
    3. For non-routine repairs, those of a complex nature or require special materials, the landlord has an upper target of 90 days.
18. The resident moved out of her home temporarily while the landlord carried out the repairs. It completed a disrepair survey on 10 September 2024. This showed evidence of water leaking into the hallway cupboard, together with areas of black mould throughout the property.
19. The landlord completed a post inspection of the works to the property on 7 October 2024. This found that repairs remained outstanding, including evidence that there was still a leak in the hallway cupboard. The resident had also raised concerns about the quality of the works to deal with the mould growth in her home and reported an ongoing issue with her hot water. These items were dealt with through the landlord’s disrepair process. It is unclear from the evidence provided what immediate steps it took to complete these repairs. It told the resident through its stage 1 complaint response that it did not consider these repairs would have prevented her return home. The resident returned home on 8 October 2024 and on 24 December 2024, through her complaint, she reported that the repairs were still outstanding.
20. In its stage 1 complaint response on 18 February 2025, the landlord said that it had found repairs outstanding to a window in the property and the kitchen extractor. It said that it had found no evidence of dampness at its most recent inspection. It did not give a date for this. This was incorrect if this related to the post inspection it completed in early October 2024 which, as outlined above, noted the presence of a leak. It further said that its contractor had completed a 3 stage treatment to deal with the mould but recorded that the decorative work did not meet its standards. Having found that works were outstanding to the resident’s home it did not make provision for when it would complete these. Instead, it asked the resident to contact it to schedule the works. This was a failure by the landlord, given the time over which the resident had been raising the issue of repairs to her home.
21. As these repairs had been identified at an early stage and were to have been completed as part of the scheduled disrepair works, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have made it clear when these repairs would be completed. As it was over 4 months since the resident’s return to her home this was a significant failure by the landlord to recognise and address the ongoing repairs.
22. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said that it could not comment on the progress of the repairs as its disrepair team had dealt with these. It did however refer to the outstanding leak in the resident’s home. It said that there had been “confusion with the leak as there was also an issue with the boiler”. It said that it had completed a repair to the roof repair within the last 2 weeks. It is not clear from the landlord’s records that the roof was the source of the leak into the resident’s home. It had raised several orders to trace a leak. It had raised the works order for the roof repairs against her neighbour’s flat and the building. It first did so in May 2024. It raised further orders in February, March and May 2025. There was a significant delay in the landlord completing these works.
23. Given the time that had elapsed since the consent order and that the landlord had not completed all the repairs as it had agreed, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered the wider repairs in its complaint response. That it did not give the resident a clear update about the actions it was taking to address her repairs was a failure by the landlord. This was an opportunity for the landlord to take steps to put things right for the resident.
24. Following the conclusion of her complaint at stage 2, the landlord was aware that the leak into her home was continuing. It carried out a further property inspection on 14 August 2025. This found that the water leak continued into the hallway cupboard and it recorded that there was extensive black mould affecting both the cupboard and hallway. Its records show that on 1 October 2025 it was recommended that it use a leak detection system to trace the source of this continuing leak. There is no evidence that it did so. It has shown that it employed a specialist contractor who traced the leak on 13 October 2025 to a disconnected bath waste in the resident’s upstairs neighbour’s flat.
25. This is counter to earlier evidence that this was not the source of the leak. The resident experienced a leak into her home over a significant period of time, with her first reports in November 2021. Her earlier reports were the subject of her disrepair claim. She returned to her property at the beginning of October 2024 to find the leak remained. As outlined the landlord traced the source of the leak to a neighbouring flat in October 2025, 1 year after her return to the flat. There was a failure by the landlord to fully trace and repair the leak. This amounts to maladministration.
26. The length of time over which the repairs to the resident’s home remained outstanding, and specifically the leak, was a continued source of distress to the resident. She told the landlord the impact that she believed that this was having on her children’s health. The resident’s temporary move was an opportunity for the landlord to fully address all the outstanding repair issues. It did not do this, which caused further inconvenience to the resident.
27. The landlord failed in its complaint responses to acknowledge the disruption caused to her by this lengthy repair. We have considered the landlord’s offer, made in its stage 2 response of £100 compensation in respect of the resident’s time and trouble and the inconvenience of to her of the outstanding repair. Given the time over which the resident was raising her concerns, this offer was not proportionate. We have considered the impact on the resident’s enjoyment of her home and made an order, in line with the Services guidance on remedies, for an added amount of compensation based on 10% of her rent for the period October 2024 to October 2025.
28. We wrote to the landlord on 11 November 2025 giving it notice that this could be a hazard (or material change) under the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025. It was required to consider and assess it this could be a potential significant or emergency hazard.
29. The landlord has told us that it was seeking to inspect the resident’s home following this contact from us. It has not provided any follow up information as to the outcome of this or indeed if it found the circumstances in the resident’s home could be a potential emergency or significant hazard.
30. In contact with us the resident has told us that her property and those of neighbours were affected by a flood over the Christmas period. On 5 January 2026 we notified the landlord of the resident’s contact about the flood. As the landlord had not responded we wrote again on 13 January 2025 to highlight that this may represent a ‘material change’ and fall within the remit of Awaab’s Law. We have made an order for the landlord to take action to inspect and repair the resident’s home. We have ordered that it consider if this falls within Awaab’s Law.

31. Alongside her reports of outstanding repairs to her home, the resident has raised her concern about the heating and hot water system in her property. We understand this is a communal heating system for which the resident has a ‘pay as you go’ meter. In its stage 1 complaint response it said that it believed that the issue was due to a lack of credit on the resident’s pay as you go meter. It does not appear through its response to have taken any steps to confirm this with the resident or arrange for the system to be checked. This was a failure by the landlord and a missed opportunity to resolve the issue.
32. In its stage 2 the landlord again addressed the issue by advising the resident that her meter required sufficient credit to use the heating and hot water in the property. It said that its Heat Network team had confirmed that her meter was functioning correctly. It went on to provide information to the resident about reporting a fault on her meter.
33. It noted that its records showed that she had last reported a heating issue in October 2024. Its heating contractor attended on 18 October 2024 and was able to restore the heating and hot water. It said that if there was a fault with her heating and hot water, she should report this direct to its heating contactor. Given the length of time over which the landlord had been dealing with the resident’s complaint it would have been appropriate for it to have confirmed with her if she was still experiencing an issue with the heating and hot water. It should have arranged for the system to be checked by its contractor and advice provided to the resident about its future use. That it did not do so was a service failure to provide a solution through its complaint process.
34. We have included within the inspection order that the landlord should check the resident’s heating and hot water system to ensure that this is working correctly.

35. The resident’s complaint was about an incident that occurred on 8 November 2024. The local housing manager attended the resident’s building together with its cleaning contractor to remove items from the communal area. The resident said that the cleaning contractor was intoxicated. She further said that he claimed to have “been recruited off the street” by the housing manager.
36. The landlord has provided evidence that it wrote to all residents of the building on 28 October 2024. This provided 7 days’ notice that its contractor would collect and dispose of items left in the communal area. This followed a fire safety inspection of the building. It found a range of items left in the communal area including prams, bicycles, and toys.
37. The landlord has a policy to address possessions left in the communal areas. This is part of its process for dealing with fire safety. It covers the removal of items which may be potentially flammable or cause an obstruction in case of a fire. It provides the process for the removal of items. It says that it will immediately remove any items considered to be hazardous. It will provide notice for the removal of other items. The landlord’s action was in line with its policy and procedure.
38. The landlord’s letter told residents that it would arrange for its contractor to remove the items from the communal area 7 days after the date of the letter. In attending with its contractor on 8 November 2024 it acted in line with this advice to residents.
39. The resident’s complaint focused on the behaviour of the cleaning contractor and housing manager when they attended to clear the items. The landlord’s investigation of this element of her complaint does not appear to have been very detailed. It was unable to access CCTV of the area given the time that had passed before the resident raised her complaint and the delay in allocating the same. The landlord did not complete an effective investigation about the conduct of its staff based on the resident’s complaint.
40. It did not contact its cleaning contractor about the complaint until 22 January 2025, 2 months after the incident. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have made this contact when it first received the complaint in November 2024. The company denied the allegation made but was unable to undertake an investigation of the incident given the time that had passed. This was a failure in its investigation of and handling of her complaint.
41. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it had been unable to identify the individual concerned. It would be expected that the housing manager would have been able to provide this information, together with feedback on the person’s behaviour. The local housing manager arranged the attendance of the cleaning contractor and was in the building with the contractor concerned. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have spoken with the housing manager as part of its investigation of the resident’s complaint. There was a failure in it not doing so.
42. It completed a more detailed investigation in its stage 2 response. It required the resident to escalate her complaint to initiate this further investigation.
43. There was a service failure in it not carrying out an effective investigation into the resident’s complaint about the conduct of its staff. The landlord should apologise to the resident about its failing in the handling of this part of her complaint.

44. The resident reported damage to several items of furniture following their removal and return to her home by a contractor appointed by the landlord. It had removed these items to allow for repair works to the property.
45. The landlord’s customer remedies and compensation policy says that it will offer reimbursement “where it has failed to deliver a service/caused knock-on effect that led to damage to property/decoration, or loss of personal belongings”. Where the loss exceeds £300 it will refer residents to its public liability insurer. This policy goes on to say that it will not provide reimbursement where “the loss or damage is caused by a third party not contracted by us”.
46. In line with its policy the landlord should have offered at stage 1 either reimbursement to the resident or directed her to its public liability policy. As the landlord had arranged the removals of her belongings it was not appropriate for it to refer the resident to directly complain to the contactor. This caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing a complaint with a contractor appointed by the landlord. At stage 2 the landlord appropriately directed the resident to its liability insurer. That it did not do so at an earlier stage was a service failure in its handling of this issue. We have made an order for the landlord to contact the resident and help in submitting a public liability claim if she has not already done so.

47. The landlord’s decant policy sets out that it will temporarily move residents where it needs to undertake major repairs. It will use a combination of hotels and empty properties to provide suitable accommodation. The landlord booked the resident into a hotel for an initial for a period 4 weeks, from 18 August to 9 September 2024. The landlord extended her stay until 8 October 2024, when she returned home.
48. The landlord’s evidence shows that it first arranged the temporary move on 6 August 2024. It spoke with the resident on 12 and 16 September 2024, to discuss the arrangements with her. Its further emailed her on 16 August 2024 to provide confirmation of this. Its booking records show that she was booked into a hotel with her children with breakfast and evening meal provided. This was in line with the landlord’s policy.
49. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 August 2024 as one of her children was ill. There is no evidence of the landlord’s response, and it is known that the resident checked into the hotel on that day. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 1 complaint response and noted that its officer should have spoken with her at this time. Had it done so it may have rearranged the booking. The landlord’s response within its complaint was appropriate in the circumstances.
50. Following her temporary move the resident contacted the landlord to say that the hotel was unable to meet her children’s dietary needs. She provided evidence that they had a range of allergies. The landlord agreed to pay a meal allowance for her and the children. This was initially paid from 5 September 2024 when it recorded being aware of the issue. It later agreed to make the payment from 20 August 2024. The landlord’s actions in the circumstances were reasonable. We have found that it acted in line with its own policy and procedure and that there was no maladministration.

51. The landlord has a 2 stage process for handling complaints. It will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. Where it is unable to meet this target, it will keep the resident informed and agree a new response time. Should the resident remain unhappy they can ask that the landlord escalate their complaint to stage 2, which it should respond to within 20 working days.
52. Its compensation policy sets out its approach to compensating its residents when things go wrong. This says that when assessing compensation, it will consider what is fair considering the impact and personal detriment to the resident.
53. There were significant delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. She first raised a complaint on the 29 November 2024. While it appropriately acknowledged her complaint, had it followed its policy the resident could have expected a response by 20 December 2024. It did not do so.
54. On 24 December 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord raising several issues. She asked the landlord to investigate these alongside her original complaint. The landlord agreed to combine the 2 complaints and told the resident it would need longer to investigate these. It acted appropriately on the resident’s request to combine these into a single complaint.
55. It then wrote to her on 7 January and 4 February 2025 extending the target for its reply. It provided its stage 1 response on 18 February 2025, 11 weeks after the resident first raised her complaint. This was 34 working days after she raised her further complaint. This was a significant failure by the landlord to meet its published response target.
56. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 19 February 2025. There were further delays in the landlord acknowledging and responding to the resident’s complaint. This led to her writing to the landlord again on 28 April 2025 to say she was unhappy with the continued delays. She also set out that she remained concerned about a leak into her home and ongoing problems with the heating and hot water. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this. The landlord provided its final stage 2 response to the resident on 13 June 2025, 75 working days after she asked it to escalate her complaint.
57. There was a significant failure by the landlord to follow its publish policy which amounts to maladministration. However, at each stage of its complaint process it acknowledged these failures. We have therefore considered whether the landlord has provided sufficient remedy to recognise the impact of its failings and put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles. It offered the resident compensation at each stage recognising the delays in its complaint response. At stage 2 it made an offer of £400. We consider that this was an appropriate level of compensation in respect of the failures in its complaint handling. As such we have recorded that the landlord offered a level of compensation which represented reasonable redress for its complaint handling failures.

Learning

58. We have recommended that the landlord consider further training for staff on its complaints procedure to ensure that it provides timely and appropriate responses to complaint.

Communication

59. The landlord should ensure that it is clear in its communication with residents. It should further ensure that its communication is timely and consistent.