Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202429373)

Decision
Case ID	202429373
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	3 March 2026

Background

The resident lives in a 7th floor flat. She has asthma and the household includes young adults with vulnerabilities. The bathroom and toilet do not have windows and there is a mechanical ventilation with heat recovery system (MVHR) to provide ventilation.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlords handling of:
1. Repairs and servicing of the mechanical ventilation with heat recovery system (MVHR).
2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs and servicing of the MVHR system.
There was a reasonable offer of redress by the landlord before this investigation for its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord initially allocated the repair to the wrong contractor. This delay meant it did not complete repairs within its stated timescale for non-routine repairs. It failed to consider whether the temperature of the property constituted a hazard or offer any temporary measures to reduce the impact on the resident.
The landlord extended the timeframe for its complaint responses multiple times at both stages. It also failed to fully address the resident’s concerns about why it had not regularly serviced the MVHR. However, it offered an appropriate amount of compensation to the resident in its stage 2 response.

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 31 March 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1265 made up as follows: £515 offered during the complaint process £750 for its handling of repairs to the MVHR. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct £515 from the total figure if it has already paid this amount to the resident.	No later than 31 March 2026
	Servicing The landlord must contact the resident to arrange the annual service for the MVHR. The landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure the service is completed by the due date. A suitably qualified person must complete the service. If the landlord has already completed the annual service (due 30 September 2025), it must provide us with documentary evidence of this no later than the due date.	No later than 31 March 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord updates its records to accurately reflect the household’s vulnerabilities.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
On or around 17 May 2024	The resident complained that the ventilation system had not been working for several weeks. She said: the building was extremely hot the air quality was poor the landlord had not carried out appropriate servicing and maintenance she has asthma and the situation was affecting her health.
25 July 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It upheld the complaint and said: the repair was reported on 8 May 2024 there were delays because the repair was initially allocated to the wrong contractor the appropriate contractor attended on 17 July 2024 and found the MVHR unit needed to be replaced once it receives and approves a quote for the work, it will arrange an appointment to install the new MVHR at the earliest opportunity its contractor will maintain and service the new MVHR as required there were delays acknowledging the complaint, providing a response and updating the resident during the process it offered a total of £265 compensation broken down as: £150 for the resident’s time and trouble pursuing the complaint £20 for delays acknowledging the complaint £20 for poor communication £75 for delays issuing its response. The resident escalated the complaint on the same day. She said: the landlord had not addressed her complaint about the lack of servicing of the MVHR since she moved into the property approximately 9 years ago she was dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered.
31 October 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: it apologised for delays issuing its response, inconvenience and time and trouble the resident experienced it did not identify any service failure in the repair it approved the works on 5 August 2024, and completed the work on 30 September 2024 it had not serviced the MVHR in recent years however, in future it will carry out annual servicing from the date of installation it offered an additional £250 compensation, broken down as: £100 for the resident’s time and trouble pursuing the repair £150 for delays issuing its stage 2 response.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted us on 31 October 2024. She said: the landlord ignored her online requests she had to make a complaint to be taken seriously she was unhappy with how long the landlord took to replace the MVHR the landlord had failed to adhere to regulations by not servicing the MVHR regularly since the start of her tenancy the situation had severely exacerbated her asthma.

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

The resident is unhappy the landlord did not service the MVHR regularly since the start of the tenancy in 2015. We expect residents to raise complaints within a reasonable time, usually 12 months of an issue occurring. Therefore, our investigation has focused on events in the 12 months preceding the resident raising a formal complaint and up to the date the final complaint response was issued.
We cannot assess medical evidence or decide whether a landlord’s actions (or lack of action) have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. These matters are more suitable for a personal injury claim or court. However, we have considered what the resident told us about how they were affected, and any distress or inconvenience that was caused because of any failings by the landlord.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of repairs and servicing of the mechanical ventilation with heat recovery system (MVHR)
Finding	Maladministration

Repairs

The landlord’s ‘guide to repair responsibilities’ says it will complete non-routine repairs such as those which are complex and/or require working at height within 90 days.
The landlord is obliged by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to ensure the property is fit for human habitation throughout the tenancy. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to identify potential hazards. The HHSRS identifies excess heat as a potential hazard which may make a property unfit for habitation.

In its stage 1 response, the landlord said the resident first reported problems with the MVHR on 8 May 2024. The landlord has not provided repair records prior to July 2024 which has impacted our ability to investigate this matter. However, there is no evidence of any repair reports prior to 8 May 2024, therefore we have treated this as the date the landlord was first put on notice of the repair.
The resident said the landlord did not respond to her initial repair reports. Evidence provided by the resident confirms the landlord told her it cancelled the original repair requests and re-raised the repair against the block as a communal repair. It apologised that its contractor attended without prior notice on 29 May 2024 and rebooked the appointment for 13 June 2024. The resident said it failed to attend the appointment on 13 June 2024. The contractor attended on 26 June 2024 and said the MVHR needed to be replaced however the repair did not fall under its remit. The landlord’s internal communications confirm it was initially confused about which department was responsible for the repair. The landlord’s poor record keeping meant it did not have sufficient knowledge of the property. This resulted in it incorrectly assigning the repair to a contractor for the communal ventilation system rather than a domestic repair. This unreasonably delayed the repair being allocated to the correct contractor until 15 July 2024.
The landlord’s repair records do not clarify what priority it gave the repair which is a record keeping failure. However, the evidence shows the repair required an air conditioning specialist and working at height. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider the repair to be non-routine.
The landlord received the contractor’s quote for replacing the MVHR on 1 August 2024. It approved this and contacted the resident promptly, arranging an appointment for 19 August 2024. However, the landlord cancelled the appointment at short notice because the air conditioning specialist was unwell. This was an unfortunate event that was outside of its control. The landlord contacted the resident to let her know the appointment had been cancelled and the reason for this. It said it would contact her to rebook the appointment. The landlord progressed the repair appropriately after receiving the quote and communicated clearly with the resident about the cancelled appointment.
The landlord completed the repair on 30 September 2024 which was the next available date the air conditioning specialist was available. On 21 October 2024 the resident asked the landlord to adjust the setting of the MVHR. It attended promptly and completed this the following day.
The landlord took 145 calendar days to replace the MVHR from when it was put on notice of the repair. This is not in line with its commitment to complete non-routine repairs within 90 days. The delay caused by the air conditioning specialist being unwell was 42 days. However, the most significant delay was the 70 days between the repair being reported on 8 May 2024 and the correct contractor attending the property on 17 July 2024.
During the complaint, the resident repeatedly told the landlord the high temperatures and quality of the air in the property was affecting her family’s physical and mental health. She said:
1. she has asthma and the household included vulnerable young adults
2. the property was stiflingly hot, humid and sweltering
3. she experienced breathing difficulties and felt light-headed
4. she had been prescribed a new asthma inhaler
5. her mental health was affected, she felt forlorn and abandoned by the landlord
6. her daughter fainted in the bathroom
7. she was using electric fans and keeping windows open at night to try and circulate air.
The landlord only acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the impact on the household’s health and wellbeing once. This was unreasonable and unsympathetic. In response to our request for evidence, it told us it has no records of vulnerabilities for the resident. It is a failure that it did not appropriately record the household’s vulnerabilities or consider whether the repair should be prioritised in light of the household’s circumstances.
There is no evidence the landlord checked the temperature of the property or considered whether it should provide temporary measures such as air conditioning or alternative accommodation, despite the resident’s continued reports of significant distress and inconvenience caused by high temperatures. This was inappropriate and not in line with its obligation to ensure the property was fit for human habitation.
The landlord offered £100 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble chasing the repair. This amount is not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. The resident believes the landlord should pay around £13,000 compensation. We do not award damages or rent refunds in the way that a court or insurance company might, instead we award compensation which recognises the level of distress and inconvenience experienced by a resident. The repair was outstanding from the beginning of May to the end of September 2024, during the warmest months of the year. The resident repeatedly told the landlord the situation was causing distress. Therefore, in line with our remedies guidance, which sets out that between £600 to £1000 is appropriate where landlord failures had a significant impact on the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay £750 compensation as redress.

Servicing

Whilst regular servicing is recommended for MVHR systems, the landlord is not obliged by legislation or its repair commitments to provide this. Therefore, the lack of servicing was not a service failure. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide an explanation to the resident about why it did not have a regular service plan in place before the complaint.
In its stage 2 response the landlord agreed it had not serviced the MVHR. It is positive that the landlord listened to the resident’s concerns and committed to annual servicing from 30 September 2024. This is a reasonable solution to reassure the resident the MVHR is being kept in good working order. In February 2026 the resident told us the landlord has not serviced the MVHR since it was installed. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to complete the annual service it committed to in its complaint responses.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will comply with our Complaint Handling Code, which says that landlords must:
1. acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days of receipt
2. issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement
3. if it needs extra time, this must be no more than 10 working days without good reason, and it must inform the resident
4. acknowledge escalation to stage 2 within 5 working days
5. issue its stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledgement
6. if it needs extra time, this must be no more than 20 working days without good reason, and it must inform the resident
7. address all points raised in the complaint
8. Provide the resident with our contact details when it extends the timescales for its response.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 31 May 2024. This was 9 working days after receiving the complaint which was a service failure. It then extended the timeframe for its response 3 times before it issued the response on 25 July 2024. This was 39 working days after it acknowledged the complaint.
The landlord promptly acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 and said it would issue its response by 22 August 2024. On 23 August 2024 it extended the timeframe for its response to 19 September 2024. On 24 September 2024, after the resident chased for its response, the landlord extended the timeframe by a further 20 working days. It extended the timeframe for a third time before issuing its response on 31 October 2024. The landlord failed to keep the resident appropriately updated and issued its stage 2 response 50 working days after it acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate the complaint.
It is positive the landlord communicated with the resident about its need for additional time and it reasonably explained the reasons for this. However, it was unreasonable to extend the timeframe for its responses multiple times at both stages of the complaint. It also failed to comply with the Code by providing the resident with our details when it informed her of the extensions.
Despite discussing the complaint with the resident at both stages, the landlord did not fully address the resident’s concerns about the lack of servicing of the MVHR during her tenancy. It missed opportunities to demonstrate it was listening and explain its obligations.
The landlord offered a total of £415 compensation for its handling of the complaint. This was a reasonable offer of redress.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Whilst the landlord failed to provide records for the full timeline of the complaint, the repair records it submitted are clear and include sufficient detail about its communication and what work it carried out. Its could improve its records by including information about what priority it assigns each repair.
The landlord should have clear processes for quickly identifying which team is responsible for a repair.
The landlord’s failure to provide a full record of its actions has impacted our ability to thoroughly assess its actions before 15 July 2024. The landlord should have adequate processes in place to ensure it submits all relevant information to this Service upon request.
The landlord told us that since the time of this complaint, it has implemented new monitoring measures to reduce delays in its complaint responses.

Communication

From 15 July 2024 onwards, the landlord’s communication with the resident about repair appointments was good. It arranged appointments in advance by calls and/or text messages and clearly explained the reason it needed to cancel an appointment.