Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202428784)

Decision
Case ID	202428784
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	28 November 2025

Background

1. The resident is a leaseholder of a 2-bedroom flat in a block where the landlord is the freeholder. The resident complained that the communal intercom system was broken, which in turn caused the front and rear doors to be continuously unlocked, which were later damaged and allowed trespassers in. He asked us to investigate as he was not satisfied with the landlord’s final response to his complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of issues with the communal intercom for the building.
   2. Reports of damage to, and security of, the front and rear communal doors.
   3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. The landlord offered redress to the resident prior to our investigation for its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the communal intercom in the building.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of damage to, and security of, the front and rear communal doors.
   3. The landlord offered redress to the resident prior to our investigation, for its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Communal intercom

4. The landlord apologised and offered appropriate compensation for its delay in determining it should replace the intercom. It followed a section 20 consultation to replace this and offered appropriate information following a brief delay.

Front and rear communal doors

5. The landlord did not repair the rear communal door within the timescale in its repairs policy. It appropriately investigated the front door but failed to return a further time as it promised it would. It apologised and offered proportionate compensation for this. However, it did not consider temporary measures to make the building secure and failed to acknowledge this.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord was delayed in acknowledging the stage 1 complaint and responding to the stage 2 complaint. It apologised for this and offered reasonable compensation.

 

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	Compensation order In light of the failings identified in this report, the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £845. This is made up of: £250 for its failure to consider measures to make the building secure and safe. £595 it previously offered to the resident. This was £70 on 18 June 2024, £75 on 15 August 2024 and £450 on 29 July 2025.	No later than 07 January 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
25 October 2023	The resident reported that the communal intercom was not working, and he could not let people into the building. The landlord’s contractor attended on 1 November but needed to order parts to complete the repair. No further action took place at this time.
13 March 2024	The landlord asked the contractor to reattend to complete the intercom repair. The contractor could not diagnose the repair when they attended on 11 April and 17 May.
19 May 2024	The resident complained. He said the intercom repair was outstanding from October 2023. He said the front and rear doors’ electric locks had deactivated, and teenagers had accessed the building and damaged the rear door.
23 May 2024	The landlord’s contractor inspected the communal intercom system and found it “beyond economical repair”. It recommended installing a new communal intercom system.
18 June 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It acknowledged that it was delayed in repairing the doors and the intercom. It said it would inspect the doors on 20 June and then raise a repair order by 1 July. It said it would contact the resident in 2 weeks regarding a Section 20 consultation to replace the intercom. It apologised for the frustration and inconvenience caused and offered £70 compensation.
3 July 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He said the issues with the doors and intercom were still present and asked the landlord to fix all issues.
15 August 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It apologised that it had not sent information about the Section 20 consultation for the intercom but would send this by post on 15 August 2024. It confirmed that it inspected the doors on 17 June and its contactor repaired the rear door closer on 22 July. The landlord and contractor found no issues with the front door frame, but it agreed to reinspect this on 29 August. It offered further compensation of £75.
15 August 2024	The landlord sent the Section 20 notice to the resident regarding the communal intercom system. It said he had 30 days to comment or object, and it outlined the financial contribution he needed to make towards the system.
9 January 2025	The landlord’s contractor installed a new communal video intercom system at the building.
29 July 2025	The landlord told us it reviewed the complaint. It found failings with its approach and offered further compensation of £450.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In his complaint to us on 3 December 2024, the resident said he did not feel safe as unwelcome visitors were accessing the building, causing antisocial behaviour (ASB). He felt it was unfair he had to pay to replace the intercom and wanted the intercom and door issues resolved. On 20 November 2025, he said the doors and intercom issues were resolved, which had resolved ASB. He said an issue relating to a burn mark on the communal carpet, caused by unwelcome visitors, was unresolved.

 

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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the communal intercom for the building.
Finding	Reasonable redress

Investigation scope

7. The resident has told us he disagreed with the cost implication of the Section 20, and he believed he should not pay this. It is quicker, fairer, more reasonable and effective to seek a remedy to this matter through the court or other tribunal or procedure. As such the resident’s concerns about the Section 20 will not be considered in this report.

The communal intercom

8. The leaseholder agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for the common parts of the building, which includes entry phone systems.
9. In his complaint on 19 May 2024, the resident said that despite repair attempts the intercom had been broken since October 2023 and he was unable to let people into the building. He said he missed deliveries and visitors due to this.
10. The landlord’s stage 1 response apologised for delays. It explained the delay was partly due to the need for parts, but also due to mistakes on its part.
11. In its stage 1 response, the landlord promised to provide details about the section 20 consultation within 2 weeks. It did not do this, and the resident escalated his complaint on 3 July. In its stage 2 response of 15 August, the landlord apologised for this delay and for not updating the resident. It promised to address this internally. It confirmed it would send the section 20 notification out the same day, which it did. This provided relevant information about the upcoming work.
12. A section 20 consultation was appropriate as the cost to the resident to replace the intercom exceeded £250, which was in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
13. The landlord offered total compensation of £375 for the impact of the delayed repairs. This was £50 in its stage 1 on 18 June 2024, £25 in its stage 2 on 15 August 2024 and £300 in its complaint review on 29 July 2025. It is unclear what proportion it accounted for the separate intercom and door issues. We have split this evenly between the intercom and door issues at £187.50 respectively
14. The landlord’s compensation policy states that an offer of up to £250 had medium impact, with delays and detriment but no permanent impact. The £187.50 offered was therefore reasonable and in accordance with its policy.
15. In summary, the landlord was delayed in determining that it needed to replace the intercom. It apologised for this and offered proportionate compensation. It followed the correct process following this. The matter was understandably frustrating and inconvenient for the resident, but he had methods to mitigate the impact such as informing visitors or adding delivery instructions.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to, and security of, the front and rear communal doors.
Finding	Service failure

Investigation scope

16. After the landlord’s final complaint response on 15 August 2024, the resident told the landlord about further issues with people trespassing in the building. Furthermore, he complained at stage 1 but did not escalate concerns regarding a burn to the communal carpet. There is no evidence that the landlord had opportunity to respond to either issue in its final complaint response. The resident has the option to raise this as a further complaint with the landlord, and he can then ask us to investigate if he is dissatisfied with its response.

Damage to, and security of, the front and rear communal doors

17. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms it will complete routine repairs within 28 days of the respective issue being reported to it.
18. In the resident’s complaint of 19 May 2024, he said the intercom issue caused the doors to electronically deactivate, and anyone could access the building. He said people had been trespassing in the building, and they had damaged the back door.
19. In its stage 1 response of 18 June 2024, the landlord promised to inspect the doors on 20 June and complete any raise any repairs by 1 July. Its stage 2 response of 15 August confirmed it complied with this and completed the repair to the back door on 22 July. The landlord took 64 days (19 May to 22 July) to complete the repair. This exceeded the timescale in its policy by 36 days.
20. The landlord also said in its stage 2 response that it found no issues with the front door in visits on 18 and 22 July 2024. However, as the resident still found this was an issue, it agreed it would inspect the doors again on 29 August, this was a reasonable approach. However, there is no evidence that it completed this, and the landlord acknowledged this failing in correspondence with us on 29 July 2025. It factored this into its later compensation offer.
21. There is no evidence throughout the complaint of the landlord considering temporary measures to secure the building. This was particularly relevant as the resident said people were trespassing, and he provided evidence of vandalism. On 29 July 2025, the landlord acknowledged that it should have done more to show how it was keeping the communal areas safe and secure.
22. The landlord offered £187.50 compensation, which suggests medium impact in accordance with its compensation policy. This is proportionate to the issues it acknowledged. However, it did not consider compensation for its failure to consider temporary security measures at the building.
23. In summary, the landlord was delayed in completing the repair at the property, which was not in accordance with its repairs policy. It apologised and offered reasonable compensation for its delays but did not do so for the security issue. The landlord did not consider temporary measures to make the building safe and secure and although it later acknowledged this with us, it did not make this clear to the resident.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

24. The landlord’s complaints policy confirms it will abide by the timescales in our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
25. The resident complained to the landlord on 19 May 2024. The landlord’s notes, including its July 2025 review, incorrectly state the resident complained on 26 May.
26. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 June 2024. This exceeded the 5 working days for acknowledging a complaint in the Code by 7 working days. The landlord provided its stage 1 response in 9 working days from the acknowledgement, which was in accordance with the Code.
27. The resident escalated his complaint on 3 July 2024, and the landlord acknowledged it the same day. It provided its stage 2 response on 15 August, exceeding the timescale for response given in the Code by 11 working days. It said in its response that it requested 1 extension to this timescale, but there is no evidence of this.
28. At the end of its complaints process, the landlord apologised for its complaint handling failures and offered total compensation of £70. However, following its complaint review on 29 July 2025, it offered further compensation of £150 for complaint handling failures. This was total compensation of £220 and was in line with our remedies guidance for the delays and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord maintained appropriate records that supported our investigation into the complaint, which helped us understand events that had taken place.

Communication

30. The landlord provided some updates about repairs but failed to communicate with the resident about what it was or could do to make the building safe temporarily. It acknowledged it should have given more information about the safety of the building in its July 2025 review, but it did not tell us about the steps it would take to address this. More informative communication could have reassured the resident it was taking the matter seriously.