Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202452705)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202452705

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:
   1. The resident’s reports of a leaking roof and the associated damp and mould.
   2. The related complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder. He has owned the property and lived there with his wife since July 2020. The property is a top floor flat in a low rise block. A developer built the block in 2013.
3. On 4 January 2024, the resident told the landlord that damp stains were forming on his kitchen ceiling. He believed a leak from the roof was causing the stains. The landlord passed works to a contractor to check the roof area. They attended on 26 January 2024.
4. The resident complained to the landlord on 12 February 2024. He told it that water had been leaking into the property for 2 weeks and affecting multiple rooms. He said the leak was worse each day. He reported that some of his light fittings were no longer working, the property smelled damp, and he was concerned the landlord was not treating this urgently. He said the landlord and contractor were passing his calls back and forth. He wanted it to urgently repair the roof. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 February 2024.
5. The landlord’s internal records show that it met with its contractor on site on 21 February 2024. It had been unable to conduct a temporary repair and considered passing works back to the original developer as a latent defect. It asked the contractor to quote to repair the roof and passed the issue to its specialist defects team.
6. The landlord wrote to the resident seeking extensions to issue its stage 1 response 5 times between March and June 2024. During this period, it discussed liability with the original developer. On 17 April 2024, it recorded that the developer was refusing liability and conditions inside the resident’s property had deteriorated significantly.
7. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 10 June 2024. It apologised for the delay in its response and the number of times the resident had to call the landlord. It upheld the complaint. The landlord:
   1. Was unable to complete a temporary repair on 12 February 2024. It requested scaffolding to repair the roof on 1 March 2024. Repairs began to the roof on 3 June 2024.
   2. Recognised that there had been considerable internal damage to the resident’s property. Its latent defects manager agreed that it would need to complete internal repairs once it had repaired the roof. It was processing an action plan to prevent further deterioration and planned to book an urgent making good visit on completion of the roof repairs.
   3. Offered the resident £300 compensation. This comprised of:
      1. £150 for time and trouble.
      2. £150 for poor complaint handling.
8. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response and sought to escalate his complaint on 12 June 2024. He disputed the amount of compensation and asked for a breakdown of the planned internal repairs. He expanded on his concerns in an email to the landlord on 27 June 2024. He was concerned about the impact damp and mould could have on his health. He said he had no update on the internal repairs since 8 May 2024.
9. The resident sought help from the Ombudsman in September 2024. We wrote to the landlord on 10 September 2024, asking it to respond to his stage 2 complaint.
10. The landlord met with the resident on 7 October 2024. It said that it had attempted to repair the roof, but the repairs did not last because of a latent defect. It was still disputing liability with the developer. It was trying to minimise the leaseholder’s liability for the costs of the repairs. It was considering a claim to the National Housing Building Council (NHBC), but this could take up to 6 months. It would complete the internal repairs as soon as possible.
11. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 October 2024. It apologised for the delay in escalating his complaint. It accepted that the compensation award was insufficient given the time the leak was ongoing. It summarised the history of the repairs from January 2024 onwards. It upheld the complaint. The landlord:
    1. Agreed that there had been an unacceptable delay to escalate the repair to its later defect team.
    2. Was working with the developer and its contractor to find a solution to the roof leaks. There was an ongoing dispute with the developer over responsibility.
    3. Provided a single point of contact for the resident who would remain in contact with him and share updates.
    4. Acknowledged that the leak caused internal damage to the property. It noted that leaseholders are responsible for internal repairs, but suggested he consider a claim against its insurer for damages. It offered to reimburse him the excess costs for the claim and gave details for the insurer.
    5. Offered the resident £1,050 compensation (in addition to insurance excess should he make a claim). This comprised of:
       1. £150 for poor complaint handling stage 1.
       2. £100 for lack of communication at stage 1.
       3. £50 for the delay escalating the complaint.
       4. £500 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused chasing updates.
       5. £150 for failure of service in assigning the matter to the correct team.
       6. £100 for failure of service for not providing suitable updates.
12. The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman in June 2025. He said that the temporary repairs done in 2024 were unsuccessful. Water came through into the property again in January 2025. In September 2025, the resident informed the Ombudsman that the landlord conducted several additional temporary repairs between May and August 2025. The most recent repair has kept the water out of the property and the landlord completed internal works between August and September 2025. However, he is unclear what the landlord’s plans are to ensure the roof remains free from leaks.
13. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s offer of compensation as he feels that it did not consider the continued impact failed attempts to repair the roof had on him and his family. He described significant losses as a result of the damp and mould. He said that the constant damp and leaks have had substantial impacts on his and his wife’s health and he has reported these to the landlord directly. He wants the landlord to provide a clear plan, with costs, to repair or replace the roof and additional compensation for his distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings 

Scope of investigation

14. During the complaint journey, the resident told the landlord that the damp caused by the flood impacted his and his wife’s health. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether the landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
15. In his communication with the landlord, the resident has disputed the amount, or level, of service charges he was charged, including for repairs to the communal areas. We will not consider the amount of, or increase to, service charges, nor whether the amount charged is reasonable. Disputes over the amount or level of service charge fall properly within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
16. In his reports to the Ombudsman, the resident said that the temporary repairs were unsuccessful and leaks continued in 2025. We do not usually investigate complaints that a landlord has not yet considered through its internal complaint procedure. However, we may assess how a landlord delivered on offers made in its final complaint response to put things right. Therefore, we have considered the events up to the end of March 2025 when the landlord directed the resident to our Service and concluded that it had closed the complaint.
17. We have not considered the more recent events from the point that complaint was closed in March 2025 – these related to additional repair attempts and temporary accommodation offers that have not been through the complaints process. We have made a recommendation below regarding these matters.

Policy and procedures

18. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out timeframes in which it will respond to repairs depending on severity. It considers non-urgent work to rectify or prevent damage as routine and will complete this within 28 calendar days. It may bring this timescale forward where works are urgent. It includes a containable leak in its examples of a routine repair. It also sets out that some repairs may relate to latent defects and may require the original contractor to carry out remedial works.
19. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that where mould is the result of major repairs it will consider the effect on residents. It will support prioritisation of the repairs and will always keep residents updated on progress.

 Leaking roof and the associated damp and mould

20. The Ombudsman acknowledges that it can take more than one attempt to resolve a leak as it can be difficult to identify the cause at the outset. In some cases, the landlord may need to attempt different repairs before it is successful. Some delay in identifying the cause of the leak and repairing the problem would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord.
21. In this case, the roof repairs were complicated by a dispute between the landlord and developer over liability. The landlord’s new homes service aftercare procedure recognises that latent defects are not often a quick process. The process will often require consultations with different stakeholders. It says that roofs are a common costly defect and it will manage these through its specialist team. It should triage roof repairs early and decide how it will progress the case and inform the resident.
22. The resident reported stains appearing on his ceiling on 4 January 2024. The landlord passed works to its contractor to inspect the roof area who found that the roof needed repairs. It correctly conducted the initial inspection within 28 calendar days of the resident’s report. After a discussion with the contractor, the landlord appropriately asked that it provide a quote for the repair. This initial response was reasonable, the leak was not severe at that time and the landlord was taking reasonable steps to understand the cause.
23. However, when the leak became worse on 5 February 2024, the landlord delayed escalating the repair to its specialist defect team. Although he said it was containable in buckets, the resident reported that water was coming into the property in his bathroom, living room, and kitchen. The resident’s frustration at the delay in completing repairs and the lack of urgency from the landlord was clear in his emails in February 2024. He said the property smelled damp, there was mould on the ceilings, rooms were in darkness, and there was constantly water coming into the property. The landlord should have considered the risks present to the resident and determined if there was some action it could take to reduce the impact. It did not and this was a failing.
24. The landlord conducted the joint inspection on 21 February 2024. It noted that the roof had failed. Its contractor agreed to quote for the repair on 23 February 2024. It noted that the repair would be costly and it considered if it needed to return the repair to the developer. It is not clear if the landlord conducted any temporary repairs in February, March, or April 2024 and there was no action to mitigate the impact on the resident. This was also a failing by the landlord.
25. During this period, the resident reported that water was still coming into the property and causing further damage. On 20 March 2024, he said he had to arrange for family and friends to empty buckets at the property while he was away. He showed photos of water staining and damage to the ceilings in the bathroom and living room. In an internal email on 17 April 2024, the landlord acknowledged that the conditions were unacceptable for the resident and it needed to conduct temporary repairs urgently. It said that it needed to act within a few days. It did not and this contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
26. In an email on 7 May 2024, the landlord provided the resident with a plan to get the roof repaired. It did not provide a timeline for the works or any action to reduce the risks to the resident inside the property. On 20 May 2024, he reported large fungi appearing in the bathroom. The same day, the landlord said it was looking to complete urgent internal works as soon as possible. It told the resident on 23 May 2024 that it would begin repairs to the roof on 3 June 2024. Although it was positive that it offered some updates to the resident, it did not fully address the impact the leak was having on him and his family.
27. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that works began to the roof on 3 June 2024. This was around 6 months after the resident first reported the leak. Although the landlord appropriately agreed to complete internal repairs, its offer of £150 for time and trouble did not reflect detriment caused. It failed to fully consider the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It did not acknowledge its failures to conduct any meaningful temporary repairs or consider if it needed to move the resident temporarily. It did not address the damages to the resident’s property because of the leak. It was unclear what internal repairs it had agreed to complete.
28. The resident asked for a breakdown of the agreed internal repairs in his escalation requests in June 2024. He said that water was still coming through in June and July 2024. The landlord failed to provide a clear list of agreed repairs to the resident.
29. The landlord reasonably decided to place the internal works on hold until it had weather tested some repairs done in August 2024. On 26 August 2024, the resident said the temporary repair earlier that month had worked for a few days by that point. The landlord arranged for its contractor to complete some internal works on 28 August 2024. It appropriately arranged for a specialist leak detection company to attend on 10 September 2024. At this point, the landlord showed that it was taking reasonable steps to identify the cause of the leak and resolve the substantive repairs.
30. In its stage 2 response on 18 October 2024, the landlord appropriately apologised for some of its failures early in the timeline, as well as the length of time the issues were ongoing. It acknowledged that the 3 month delay in passing works to its specialist latent defect team between January and March 2024 was unacceptable. It explained the reasons for delays between March and May 2024. It attributed these to communication issues with the developer.
31. The landlord’s response was resolution focused. It appropriately assigned a single point of contact to oversee the remaining works. It agreed to evaluate any damage done to the tiles. It said it would resolve mould issues (which it determined were surface level rather than deeply penetrating) when it began internal works. It appropriately offered to consider the resident’s request for a new bathroom, without committing to its replacement. It provided a clear timeframe to complete the internal repairs and explained what it would do to pursue its latent defect claim.
32. The landlord’s combined offer of £750 compensation was reflective of its compensation policy. It was also within the range the Ombudsman would recommend where a landlord’s failing had a significant impact on a resident. Therefore, it was proportionate to the serious failings identified between February and October 2024.
33. The landlord made discretionary payments of £150 for the initial 3 month delay to assign the matter to the correct team. It also made an additional offer of £100 for failure to provide suitable updates. It appropriately recognised that the resident may seek costs for loss or damages. It was reasonable to direct the resident to submit a claim for damages against its insurer and its offer to reimburse the excess was fair.
34. The landlord broadly followed through with the commitments set out in its stage 2 response. It maintained communication with the resident through the single point of contact. It pursued temporary roof repairs in October 2024 and scheduled internal works in November 2024. However, there was some delay in completing the internal works, and these were rescheduled several times between November and December 2024. This would have caused the resident some additional time and trouble in making, and then re-arranging, appointments albeit the landlord did reasonably explain the delay and kept him informed of the changes.
35. Although there was some delay completing the internal works, the temporary roof repair was successful until January 2025 when the leak came through again. The resident pursued updates from the landlord and reported water pouring into the property in January and February 2025. He was unhappy and sought additional compensation when the landlord had not completed additional roofing repairs by March 2025.
36. The landlord declined to review its compensation offer in March 2025. It said it had closed the complaint and directed the resident to the Ombudsman. This was unfair and did not address the additional impact the recurring leak had on the resident. This indicates that it did not learn lessons from the outcome of the earlier complaint where it acknowledged delays, insufficient communications, and poor complaint handling.
37. Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the leaking roof. In its stage 2 response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the delays early in the timeline and the poor communication with the resident. Its approach was resolution focussed. Its decision to assign a single point of contact to oversee the outstanding repairs was positive. Its offer of compensation in October 2024 was reflective of the failures as set out in its compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. It appropriately directed the resident to its insurer to consider additional damages and fairly offered to repay the excess costs.
38. The Ombudsman welcomes and encourages landlords to learn from complaints. In this case, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to reconsider its position given the further internal works delay and recurrence of the leak in January-February 2025. Although its earlier offer of compensation was appropriate, there were failings following the stage 2 response that contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
39. The landlord missed the opportunity to review its handling of events between October 2024 and March 2025. It did not address the resident’s additional time and trouble between November 2024 and January 2025 in making and changing appointments. It did not address the resident’s distress and inconvenience caused by the further leak in January 2025.
40. The landlord should pay the resident an additional £300 compensation. This is comprised of:
    1. £150 distress and inconvenience caused.
    2. £150 for the residents time and trouble.
41. The compensation reflects the impact on the resident of the further delays with the temporary roof repair between January and March 2025. They also reflect the resident’s time and trouble pursuing the internal repairs between November 2024 and January 2025.

Complaint handling

42. The resident complained on 12 February 2024. The landlord issued stage 1 extensions on 27 March, 18 April, 29 April, 14 May, and 5 June 2024. It issued its stage 1 response on 10 June 2024. This was around 4 months later. In its response, it appropriately apologised for the delay and offered £150 for poor complaint handling.
43. The resident sought to escalate his complaint on 12 and 27 June 2024. He chased the landlord on 5 July 2024. Having received no response, he took additional time and trouble escalating his complaint to this Service. We wrote to the landlord on 10 September 2024. It escalated the complaint on 10 October 2024. This was also around 4 months after the resident’s initial requests. In total, there was an unacceptable combined delay of around 7 months throughout its complaint handling.
44. The Ombudsman finds the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress in its handling of the associated complaint. At stage 2, it acknowledged the delays throughout its complaint handling process. It appropriately apologised for missing his earlier requests in June and July 2024 and explained the reasons for this failure.
45. The landlord’s total offer of compensation for complaint handling failures was £300. This represents the maximum the landlord can offer at each stage of the complaint in accordance with its compensation policy. It is also within a range that the Ombudsman would recommend where there is a failure that had an adverse impact on a resident and we consider the level of compensation was therefore proportionate given the circumstances of the case.

Determination

46. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leaking roof and the associated damp and mould.
47. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress in its handling of the related complaint.

Orders

48. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Write to the resident and apologise for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £1,050 compensation. This is comprised of
       1. £750 offered in its stage 2 response (if it has not paid this already).
       2. An additional £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his reports of a leaking roof and the associated damp and mould.
       3. An additional £150 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of his reports of a leaking roof and the associated damp and mould.
    3. Write to the resident to:
       1. Provide a timeline of when it expects to complete permanent repairs to the roof and confirm how often it will offer updates to the resident until the works are complete.
       2. Explain what costs he will be liable for once the repairs to the roof are complete.
       3. Explain whether it will make good the front and rear render/walls that are reportedly water damaged.
    4. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

49. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the £300 offered in its stage 2 response for its complaint handling failures. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis that this is paid to the resident.
50. The landlord should contact the resident to discuss his concerns about how it managed repairs at the property since March 2025. If he is dissatisfied with its actions, it should log a new complaint and respond in line with its complaints policy. It should consider whether redress should be offered for any failings that it identifies.