Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202500663)

Decision
Case ID	202500663
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 January 2026

Background

The resident complains the landlord has failed to take suitable action to prevent non-residents using the communal car park as an auction site for car-parts. He considers the landlord needs to install a security gate to resolve the issue. The resident has vulnerabilities related to an Autism diagnosis.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of Anti-Social-Behaviour (ASB).
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

ASB

The landlord failed to address the resident’s reports in accordance with its ASB policy. It also failed keep the resident meaningfully informed about actions it took in relation to his reports from March 2024 until January 2025.

Complaint handling

The landlord delayed in handling the resident’s complaint at both stages. However, it has offered appropriate compensation for both omissions in line with its own guidance.

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 27 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £250 for distress caused by its omissions in handling his reports of ASB. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 27 February 2026
3	ASB order The landlord must provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a written, up‑to‑date position statement on the effectiveness of the car‑park barrier in preventing unauthorised access. This statement must confirm: The current operational status of the barrier, An assessment of its effectiveness, and; Any further actions required. The landlord must also review any current ASB concerns raised by the resident and address these in line with its ASB policy. This must include assessing risk and vulnerability, setting out what it will do to investigate the concerns, and providing the resident and the Ombudsman with a written update on actions taken and next steps.	No later than 27 February 2024.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If the landlord has yet to pay the resident the £220 offered for complaint handling failures, it should do so and evidence that it has paid this.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
29 May 2024	The resident complained that: For the previous 6-8 months non-residents had been using the car park as a dumping ground and workshop for cars. They consistently occupy all the visitor bays. His support worker could not park on site. He asked LL to remove the non-resident’s cars and vans and install an electronic security gate.
31 October 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It explained that: It was sourcing quotes for the installation of a barrier to prevent unauthorised access to the car park. It had discussed the escalating nature of the ASB on the estate with the Police who had increased their patrols in recent months and arrested youths for smoking drugs in the carpark. The resident should report any further similar incidents to 101. This would allow the Police to build up a picture of the nature of these incidents and when they took place. The CCTV the landlord installed to address the ASB could not be viewed remotely. However, it would expedite requests for footage to help ensure it was collated in a timely manner. The landlord acknowledged a delay in acknowledging and addressing his complaint. It offered him £100 compensation for this.
4 November 2024	The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He complained that: The landlord had failed to address unauthorised use of the carpark. The landlord had advised it would install a gate but had not done so. The non-residents involved had been abusive to the resident in the past. The landlord should remove the individuals from the estate and install a security gate since the CCTV had not worked as a deterrent due to the delay in releasing any footage following an incident.
21 January 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It explained that: It recognized that it had written to the resident’s MP on 19 August 2019 and agreed to install a new security gate to address his concerns about non-residents using the car park to take drugs. It obtained quotes for the fitting and installation of a security gate at the time. The quote was over £35,000. It decided this was not feasible. It opted to install CCTV as a cheaper alternative in January 2022. Its contractor had issued a quote for a “bar barrier” on 30 September 2024. Following the resident’s complaint, it requested another quote for a barrier with fob access to exit the car park to tighten security. It also requested another quote for a car park gate and queried whether there was a difference between a barrier and a gate in security terms. The contractor advised the gate would be much more expensive as the landlord would also need to install a pedestrian gate, access control, and a door entry system. It also would not prevent tailgating. The contractor advised they could install an ANPR system on the barrier that could alert the landlord to tailgating or non-residents being on site. They concluded that this would be more cost effective, the barrier would work as a deterrent, and CCTV would allow the landlord to proactively deal with nuisance visitors. Having considered all this, the landlord decided to install the barrier. The landlord recognised a delay in handling the stage 2 complaint and offered the resident £120 compensation for this.
4 April 2025 Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident complained that the landlord: Refused to check CCTV footage which rendered it useless as a method of addressing the ASB. Had failed to act on his reports that a specific resident was allowing non-residents on site to misuse the car park. Was not managing or enforcing the barrier it installed. He explained he wanted us to order the landlord to: Monitor CCTV to identify and remove trespassers. Install additional security measures. Install a security gate as per its 2019 commitment to do so.
6 January 2026	In a phone call with the resident, he advised us that the barrier and CCTV installed had not been successful in preventing non-residents accessing the carpark. He explained that he wants the landlord to install a security gate as per its commitment to do so in 2019. He also wants the landlord to provide him compensation for distress he says has been caused by its inaction.

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	How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of ASB.
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not consider

The resident has complained that the landlord failed to honour a commitment it made in 2019 to install a security gate for the estate to prevent non-residents accessing it. We can see the landlord agreed to do so in relation to a historical ASB case the resident had raised about drug abuse around this time. Typically, we do not investigate matters which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a complaint within a reasonable timeframe, usually 12 months.
The resident first complained to the landlord about non-residents accessing the car park on 29 May 2024. Therefore, this investigation will only consider the landlord’s actions from 29 May 2023 onwards, as the events which preceded this did not take place within 12 months of the complaint.

What we have considered

The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that it considers a wide range of behaviours, including drug and alcohol abuse, and intimidating or threatening behaviour, as potential examples of ASB. It explains that, once it receives a report of ASB, it will:
1. Complete an initial assessment which will determine case priority, response times, and frequency of contact.
2. Consider resident’s vulnerabilities when assessing case priority.
3. Regularly assess cases throughout the investigation with a risk assessment matrix.
4. Address ASB in partnership with external services like the Police when appropriate.
5. Be clear with residents on the range of interventions and solutions available.
The resident first reported that vehicles belonging to non-residents had been left in the car park on 16 February 2024. He explained they had been there for 2 weeks without license plates and asked the landlord to call him back. The landlord did well to contact the resident on 20 February 2024 and advised him that it would discuss his concerns with the Parking Management Company (PMC). Internal emails from 6 March 2024 note the PMC agreed to issue notices for the cars. The landlord acted appropriately here by promptly referring this issue to the body best placed to deal with parking concerns.
On 28 March 2024 the resident reported that the non-residents had recently threatened him. The landlord advised him to continue reporting these incidents to the Police. It also assured him that it would share images of the cars with the police, and enquire about installing a vehicle barrier. A few days later it advised it would put notices on the vehicles and report the registration numbers to the PCM.
The landlord was reasonable to advise the resident to report any further incidents to the Police. However, given he had explicitly reported threatening behaviour, the landlord should have raised an ASB case as per its policy. There is no evidence it did so at any stage from May 2024 to January 2025. We consider this was a repeated missed opportunity to address the resident’s concerns appropriately and via its established processes. This was also poor given the landlord was aware of the resident’s autism diagnosis.
There is also no evidence that the landlord contacted the PCM or the Police as per the commitments it made to do so. This was a missed opportunity to escalate its approach and involve third parties as per its ASB policy.
Following the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 29 May 2024 we can see the landlord contacted the PMC. It asked to meet on site to investigate unauthorised vehicles and sought advice on how to remove these. The PCM advised that residents could be abusing the permit system by purchasing more than 1 per household. It offered to cancel these and ticket non-compliant vehicles, and the landlord asked it to do so. However, there are no further records related to this. Therefore, we do not consider the landlord took suitable action to progress this specific strategy, such as by asking the PCM for progress updates.
The landlord then asked its contractor to quote for a vehicle barrier on 30 July 2024. We can see it first advised the resident it would do so on 4 April 2024, and there is no evidence within the records to justify this delay. Therefore, we consider the delay was unreasonable. The contractor did not issue the quote until 20 September 2024.However, we note the landlord did well to repeatedly chase it for throughout the intervening 1.5 months.
We can see the landlord also escalated the resident’s concerns to the Police on 17 September 2024. It explained that the PCM could not remove the vehicles on the estate as they had to follow a lengthy procedure to do so, by which point the vehicles depart. We note this was a positive step towards addressing the resident’s concerns as per its ASB policy. However, this was 5 months after it agreed to contact the Police on 4 April 2024. This delay was unreasonable. We note that it might have avoided this kind of omission by opening an ASB case and following a documented process as per its policy back in March 2024.
In its stage 1 response on 31 October 2024 the landlord explained that it intended to install a vehicle barrier, and that it would be in touch with progress updates on this. Given it sourced a quote for the barrier on 20 September 2024, the landlord should have updated the resident about this at the time as per its ASB policy. This was another missed opportunity to keep the resident meaningfully informed and manage his expectations.
The resident disagreed with the landlord’s decision to install a barrier. In his stage 2 escalation he explained that only a security gate would effectively resolve the issue. The landlord did well to go back to its contractor and ask it for a specialist opinion to address the resident’s concerns on 18 November 2024. The contractor advised that a gate would be much more expensive. It also advised it would not confer any greater security benefits than a barrier, since it could not prohibit tailgating. It advised the landlord that it could install a fob system once the barrier was installed which would only permit access for residents. On this basis it advised the landlord to choose the barrier.
The landlord opted to proceed with the barrier on this basis. While we note the resident’s position on the current effectiveness of the barrier, the landlord was entitled to make decisions based on the professional advice of its contractor. It was also entitled to make these decisions by balancing this advice against resource considerations. We consider it did so reasonably here. It also did well to thoroughly set out how it reached this decision in its stage 2 response on 21 January 2025.
In summary, the landlord:
1. Delayed in progressing the resident’s concerns with the PCM and the Police from late March 2024 until September 2024.
2. Delayed in sourcing a quote for a vehicle barrier from April 2024 to July 2024.
3. Failed to address his reports formally via the processes set out in its ASB policy at any stage from January 2024 to January 2025.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will pay residents sums of £250 when its failures have caused an adverse, but not permanent, impact. We consider its omissions likely caused the resident some distress from late March 2024 until its stage 2 response on 21 January 2025. We also note the resident’s vulnerabilities likely meant this distress was felt more intensely than it would have been for someone else in difference circumstances.
While the landlord has offered compensation for complaint handling delays, it has not acknowledged or offered compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the omissions described above. Therefore, we have ordered it to pay £250 compensation to put this right. This amount is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance.
We note that, following the landlord’s final response, the resident reported several times from February 2025 to August 2025 that the barrier had not resolved the issue. We can see the landlord met with the resident to discuss his ongoing concerns on 8 August 2025, and that the resident found this meeting productive. The landlord also explained to us on 13 November 2025 that it would meet with the resident every 6 weeks to discuss the ongoing situation and provide progress updates.
With this in mind, we have ordered the landlord to set out an up-to-date position on his present concerns about the effectiveness of the barrier. We have also ordered the landlord to invite the resident to submit any present concerns about ASB and address these in accordance with its policy.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days, and provide a response within 10 working days of this. It will then acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days, and issue a response within 20 working days of this. When it is unable to meet these timescales, it will explain this to residents and provide updated timescales. This is in line with our Complaints Handling Code.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint, and then issued its response 101 working days past the deadline in its policy. It acknowledged his stage 2 complaint 2 working days past its deadline and then issued its response 26 working days late.
We consider these delays likely caused the resident some distress. However, we can see the landlord has already offered £100 compensation for the delays at stage 1, and an additional £120 for stage 2 delays. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will pay £100 compensation to address short term distress and inconvenience caused by its failures. Therefore, it has offered compensation to address each period of delay, and at a slightly higher sum than is set out in its guidance. Therefore, we consider it has done enough to put its complaint handling omissions right.

Learning

The landlord did well to raise the resident’s concerns with its contractor about the relative benefits of a barrier versus a gate in November 2025. It also did well to clearly set out how it decided to install the barrier by setting out all the variables which it considered. However, the landlord should reflect on its delays in progressing the reports with the Police and the PMC, and how it might have better supported the resident by doing so.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The record keeping was generally good. The landlord did well to keep clear audit trails of its contact with third parties and the resident.

Communication

The landlord’s communication was poor from March 2024 until its final response in January 2025. It missed repeated opportunities to meaningfully update the resident throughout this period. We would encourage the landlord to reflect on how better communication might have mitigated the ongoing impact of any ASB on the resident.