Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202409859)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202409859

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

6 October 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 a leak in the living room and associated damp.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat.
  2. On 24 April 2023 the resident reported damp in her living room. The landlord completed a damp and mould inspection on 3 May 2023. It noted that there was water ingress from the external downpipe and signs of mould growth.
  3. The landlord repaired the downpipe on 18 May 2023. It raised an order to replaster the living room and redecorate on 14 June 2023. Following this, it made several attempts between July and December 2023 to complete the plastering, but the walls were too wet.
  4. The resident raised a complaint on 8 December 2023. She said that the landlord had not completed the repairs to her living room walls and its communication had been poor. She said that it had left dehumidifiers in her home unnecessarily and the issue was impacting her health. She asked the landlord for a completion date and compensation.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 January 2024. It said that the delays were due to the walls being wet, and they needed more time to dry. It confirmed that it had completed the plastering work on 22 December 2023, and it had scheduled the redecoration for 19 January 2024. It upheld the complaint, apologised and awarded £170 compensation for service failure, inconvenience and poor complaint handling.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 2 April 2024. She said the landlord had not resolved the damp and mould and this continued to impact her health.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 3 May 2024. It acknowledged that there had been further delays due to prolonged drying. It said that it had completed a further downpipe repair in April 2024 and was considering a permanent solution. It upheld the complaint and awarded a further £125 compensation for delays and time and trouble, bringing the total redress to £295.
  8. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint in June 2024. She said that the damp had returned, and the paint was peeling. She also said the issues had impacted her health.
  9. The landlord wrote to us on 11 June 2025 following an information request. It confirmed that it had completed the internal works on 3 May 2024 and the external downpipe repair on 3 September 2024. It also informed us that it had reviewed the case, and it found that its compensation offer had been too low. It said it would bring the total offer to £795.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In her communication with the landlord, the resident referenced how this situation has impacted her health. It is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The courts are better suited to handle this as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. 
  2. The resident has said that damp has been ongoing for several years. While the resident’s past experiences undoubtably contributed to the overall stress and inconvenience experienced, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess how the landlord responded to the more recent report of damp from April 2023, and how it handled the related complaint. This investigation will primarily focus on the period from April 2023 until the end of the landlord’s complaints process in May 2024. However, we have also considered relevant events after the end of the complaints process to establish how the landlord put things right, including its review of the case that it provided on 11 June 2025.

The landlord’s handling of the report of a leak in the living room and associated damp

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 28 calendar days. Major routine repairs are within 3 months or made part of a planned works program.
  2. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s reports of damp was reasonable. The resident reported the issue on 24 April 2023, and the landlord completed a damp and mould inspection on 3 May 2023. It found water ingress from the external downpipe and signs of mould growth in the living room. It repaired the downpipe on 18 May 2023, within 16 working days. This was in line with its policy for a non-urgent repair. During the repair, the operative also recommended a further surveyor’s inspection as the issue had been ongoing for several years.
  3. On 14 June 2023, the landlord raised an order to replaster and decorate the living room. Its repairs policy classes plastering as major routine repairs which it should complete within 3 months. It scheduled this work for July 2023. This was in line with its repairs policy.
  4. While it was appropriate for the landlord to schedule the plastering, there is no evidence that it took any interim steps to address the mould it found at the May 2023 inspection. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould (2021) states that landlords should act quickly to reports of damp or mould. It should not let other significant repair issues prevent the investigation. In this case, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to take reactive measures to remove mould spores until it could complete the plastering. This was a failing that likely caused the resident distress and concerns about whether the living conditions were impacting her health.
  5. The landlord attended on 21 July 2023 to complete the plastering, but it found the walls were still wet. It returned on 23 August 2023 when it again found the walls were damp. It removed the plaster from the external wall to expose the brickwork. A surveyor inspected on 13 September 2023 and recommended the use of a dehumidifier.
  6. However, there is no evidence that the landlord checked if the May 2023 downpipe repair had worked or why the walls were still damp 4 months later. This was a failing. Its operative had made it aware on 18 May 2023 that it may need to investigate the downpipe further, but it did not take any action. This likely led to further delays, inconvenience, and distress for the resident.
  7. The landlord provided a dehumidifier around September 2023. It attended again on 13 October 2023 and found the walls remained damp. Despite this, the landlord plastered the walls on 18 December 2023. It is unclear why it went ahead with the plastering at this time, as there is no evidence that it had confirmed the walls were fully dry before it carried out this work.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 January 2024. It appropriately apologised for the delays and offered compensation. It also set out when it planned to complete the remaining internal decoration. It explained that the delays were due to the time it had taken for the walls to dry. However, it did not offer any explanation about why the walls had taken 7 months to dry or what it would do to prevent similar issues in the future. This was unreasonable and a missed opportunity to build trust and reassure the resident.
  9. The landlord attended on 19 January 2024, but it could not complete the decoration as the walls were still too wet. At this point, the recurring damp had been ongoing since April 2023. It provided another dehumidifier to speed up the drying process but the walls had still not dried by 23 February 2024.
  10. The landlord did not arrange a further surveyor’s inspection until 15 March 2024. Given that it was aware that the damp persisted in January 2024, and it had been ongoing for at least 9 months, it is not clear why the landlord decided that this was not an urgent repair. Its response was unreasonable and outside of its timescale for non-urgent repairs.
  11. The landlord completed a further repair to the downpipe on 9 April 2024. In its stage 2 response, the landlord again accepted that it had not managed the repairs effectively. It confirmed it had temporarily repaired the downpipe, and it was currently exploring a permanent solution. It said that the decorations would take place on 3 May 2024, and it apologised for the delay. It awarded an additional £125 compensation for the continued inconvenience.
  12. However, the landlord did not fully explain the reasons for the delay or when it planned to complete the permanent repair. This was unreasonable as the issue had been ongoing since at least April 2023. It did not acknowledge that the resident had lived with persistent damp for over a year. The redress offered did not fully reflect the impact on the resident or provide assurances that it had fully recognised its failings.
  13. In summary, the landlord did not complete the repairs in line with its repairs policy or within a reasonable timeframe. It took nearly a year to complete the internal works and had not confirmed a permanent solution to the downpipe issue by the end of its complaints process. The delays and poor management of the repairs would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Its compensation award was insufficient given the excessive delay period. For these reasons, we have made a finding of maladministration.
  14. The landlord wrote to us on 11 June 2025. It said that it had completed the internal decoration on 3 May 2024 and resolved the downpipe repair in September 2024. It acknowledged that the resident had experienced prolonged damp conditions for over a year. It felt the compensation it offered through its complaint responses was too low and suggested it would increase the total to £795 (made up of £720 for the substantive issue and £75 for related complaint handling). It also offered to reimburse increased energy costs arising from the extended use of dehumidifiers.
  15. While this Service welcomes the landlord recognising the need to revisit a complaint, it made its increased offer 13 months after the resident had exhausted the complaints procedure and only after the involvement of this Service. As such, we cannot consider these actions reasonable redress.
  16. Nevertheless, the revised financial offer was proportionate for the failures identified up to the end of the complaint procedure. Our remedies guidance states that awards in the range of £600 to £1,000 may be appropriate for circumstances where there was a failure by the landlord that had an adverse impact on the resident. However, this was only sufficient to recognise the failings up to May 2024. The landlord did not finalise the external repair until September 2024, 16 months after the resident first raised the issue. It therefore failed to promptly put right its earlier failings and indicates the landlord failed to take sufficient learning from the complaint.
  17. Taking this additional delay into account, we have ordered an additional £200 compensation for the failings that resulted in distress, inconvenience and additional delays for the resident. This is in on top of the £795 offered by the landlord. The additional amount is again in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a failure by the landlord that adversely affected the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak in the living room and associated damp.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, we order the landlord to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this determination and provide a copy to this Service.
    2. Pay £995 compensation directly to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in handling the leak and associated damp. It must also provide this Service with evidence of payment.
    3. Contact the resident to establish why the paint in the living room is flaking. If the walls require further work, the landlord must give both the resident and this Service a clear timeframe for completing the repairs.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report to ask for evidence of any additional electricity costs incurred through the use of a dehumidifier. Where the resident provides evidence of increased usage, the landlord should reimburse these costs in full.