Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202319094)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319094

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

27 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his property.
We have also looked at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association. He lives in a flat with his wife and 2 young children.
The resident first reported damp and mould in his home to the landlord in November 2021. The landlord has said it gave him advice on suitable products to clean the mould with at the time.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 5 October 2022. He said:
1. He had reported damp and mould in his home to the landlord 8 months ago, and although it visited at the time, it took no action to resolve the issue. He said he had since continued to experience damp and mould in his home.
2. He was concerned his family including his child and pregnant wife’s health were in danger from the effects of damp and mould. He said his wife had been diagnosed with allergies because of the damp in the property and she had to take daily medication.
The landlord’s surveyor completed an inspection of the damp and mould in the resident’s home on 19 October 2022. They:
1. Said the mould was caused by a lack of adequate heating and ventilation and not due to an underlying defect with the building that the landlord needed to repair.
2. Ordered a mould wash to the bedroom.
3. Took measurements to fix thermal boards to the exterior walls in the bedroom to reduce moisture and condensation settling on the cold exterior walls.
4. Took measurements for a heat assessment in the bedroom.
The landlord completed a mould wash behind the resident’s bedroom wardrobe on 16 November 2022.
The resident requested the landlord escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process on 21 November 2022. He said he had tried to show its operatives all the areas where mould was present when they visited on 16 November 2022, but they told him they did not have enough time allocated to their appointment and left without finishing the works.
The landlord issued the resident with its stage 1 response to his complaint on 22 November 2022. It acknowledged its operatives did not have enough time to complete the works on 16 November 2022. It offered the resident a total of £350 compensation made up of:
1. £150 for time and trouble.
2. £50 for missed appointments.
3. £150 for service delay.
The resident requested the landlord provide an emergency decant (temporary re-housing) around 6 December 2022. The landlord told the resident it could not agree to a decant and advised him of his housing options.
The landlord returned to the resident’s property on 10 December 2022 to carry out a mould wash to the living room, bathroom, and bedroom. However, it said it did not find any mould present in the resident’s home and left without completing any work.
The landlord’s surveyor completed a second inspection of the resident’s home on 15 December 2022. They found no mould in the property but noted the resident had said he had used an anti-mould spray to remove the mould prior to the visit.
The landlord issued the resident with its stage 2 response to his complaint on 4 January 2023. It said:
1. On its inspection in December 2022, it had not found any mould and there were no hazards that would have a detrimental impact to his family.
2. Work was scheduled to combat any additional mould which included a mould wash in the bedroom and installation of thermal boards. It said it would install an additional bedroom radiator after these works were complete.

Events after the landlord’s final response

The landlord organised for its contractor to complete a mould wash of the bedroom and to fit the thermal boards on 16 January 2023. The resident declined this appointment as he wanted the landlord to carry out a mould wash and redecoration to the living room and bathroom. He also raised concern to the landlord that his family could not stay in the property whilst the works were carried out due to the chemicals used in the mould wash and the lack of space as personal items including furniture needed to be moved out of the bedroom.
The landlord made the decision to decant the resident for the duration of the works towards the end of January 2023. It also agreed to increase the scope of works to include a mould wash to the living room and bathroom rather than just the bedroom as previously planned.
The landlord decanted the resident and his family to a hotel for 3 nights from 20 March 2023 and completed the works during this time.
The resident made another complaint to the landlord on 9 August 2023. He said the mould washes had been a temporary solution which had not addressed the underlying issues and that the landlord had not provided information about the potential dangers of the chemicals used. He said he incurred costs of eating out which the landlord promised to reimburse him for but never did.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 August 2023 and told him it could not accept his recent communication as a formal complaint as he had already exhausted its internal complaints process.
The landlord has since told the Ombudsman that its complaint handling was mismanaged and would like to offer an additional £50 compensation to the resident for the delays in complaint handling. It is unclear whether this has been offered directly to the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns about the impact of damp and mould on his family’s health. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health. The Ombudsman can consider the general impact and distress any identified failings by the landlord may have caused, but it is outside our role to determine effect of the landlord’s action or inaction on the specific health conditions of the resident and his family. Any such claim would be more appropriately progressed through liability insurance or as a civil action through the courts. If the resident wishes to pursue a personal injury claim, he can seek independent legal advice.
We can consider complaints that were brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period, which we typically consider to be within 12 months of the matters arising. Although the resident’s first report of damp and mould was made in November 2021, which was within 12 months of his complaint in October 2022, the landlord has said it received no further reports from the resident during this time. Given the time that passed between the resident’s reports, we do not consider the issue of mould and damp reported in October 2022 to have been a direct continuation of the report made in November 2021 and we will therefore not include the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mould and damp from November 2021 in our investigation.
The resident has said he reported damp and mould to the landlord 8 months before making a formal complaint to it in October 2022. The resident has not been able to provide evidence of this, and the landlord is disputing it. The landlord has provided records of its communications with the resident which do not show he contacted it to report damp and mould between November 2021 and October 2022 and neither do its repair records. Although there is evidence of contact about other matters during this period. We have therefore concluded that in the circumstances of this case, it is reasonable to take the resident’s report of damp and mould in October 2022 as the start of our investigation into the resident’s complaint.
We will therefore look at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould from October 2022 to the landlord’s final response in January 2023 and any actions it committed to as part of its final response.

Policies and procedures

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states stage 1 complaint responses must be sent within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses sent within 20 working days. Its complaint policy also states it will not consider a complaint that has already been handled under its complaints policy.
The landlord’s repairs guide states:
1. Emergency repairs will be attended to within 24 hours.
2. Routine repairs will be completed within 20-working days.
3. Non-routine repairs will be completed within 90-calandar days.
4. Where a repair is more complicated, it will complete an inspection to help it diagnose the right works needed.
The landlord’s decant policy states it will only decant a customer where a property requires repair work that it is responsible for and where remaining in the property could constitute a health and safety risk to residents.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The landlord acted appropriately by completing an inspection of the resident’s property for damp and mould in October 2022. Given it can sometimes take time to find the right solution and different repairs may need to be attempted before the issue of damp and mould is resolved, it was appropriate for the landlord’s surveyor to inspect the property and was in line with its repair guide relating to more complex repairs. It was also positive that the landlord completed this inspection within 10 working days and in the circumstances of this case, this was a timely response.
It was also positive that the landlord raised additional works including fitting thermal boards and completing a heating assessment. This is because although it did not find there to be an underlying defect causing damp and mould, it sought to help the resident better heat his home which would in turn reduce mould growth.
The landlord completed a mould wash behind the resident’s wardrobe on 16 November 2022, 20 working days after it completed its inspection. This was in keeping with its published timescale for routine repairs and appropriate action by the landlord to remove the mould.
There was confusion in regard to the scope of works scheduled for this date as the resident wanted the landlord to treat areas of mould in the living room and bathroom as well as the bedroom. However, it appears the landlord intended to complete works in the bedroom only and its surveyor later confirmed they had not seen any mould in areas other than the bedroom. The resident has not provided evidence from this particular time showing mould to the living room and bathroom and the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its appropriately qualified surveyor when deciding what works were needed to resolve the damp and mould. We have seen no evidence to confirm his opinion was incorrect and so we have found the landlord acted appropriately in raising work for a mould wash to the bedroom only at this time.
It was positive that the landlord then raised another job to complete mould treatment in the property although it did not find any mould to treat when it attended to the resident’s home on 10 December 2022. This showed it was responsive to the resident’s concerns. It was also positive that the landlord’s surveyor re-visited the property on 15 December 2022 to address the resident’s concerns of mould growth but again, did not see any visible signs although we acknowledge that the resident said he had already cleaned the mould away. This made it difficult for the landlord to fully assess all areas of the property that were suffering from mould growth. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately in response to the resident’s concerns that it had failed to treat all mould in his home on 16 November 2023.
The landlord initially refused to decant the resident as it said the situation did not meet the “decant criteria.” It could have been clearer and explained its decision making to the resident at the time and it should have also been able to provide evidence that it addressed the resident’s specific concerns that the mould wash and moving furniture from the bedroom to the living room could pose a potential health and safety issue to him and his family. However, we understand the landlord’s surveyor spoke with the resident regarding its position not to decant him at the time and it had a number of conversations with him regarding this.
It was positive that the landlord escalated the resident’s continued dissatisfaction with its decision not to decant him for the works and visited him in person to discuss the matter. It accepted carrying out mould washes to the living room and bathroom would be more impactful to the resident and his family and agreed to decant them. This was an appropriate response from the landlord as the works were now more intrusive, and it would take longer than originally planned when it held the position that it would not decant the resident as the works were to the bedroom only.
The landlord took 155 calendar days to install the thermal boards in the resident’s bedroom from the date of the landlord’s first inspection. We would consider this type of work non-routine in line with the landlord’s repair guide as it was not obliged to complete the works as they were raised to help support the resident better heat his home rather than to address an underlying defect to the property. There was also a delay caused by discussions between the landlord and resident in regard to the decant and increase in the scope of works. As such, we do not find there was a failure by the landlord regarding the time taken to complete the installation of the thermal boards.
We are also aware the resident has requested the landlord reimburse him for:
1. The costs incurred as a result of eating out whilst staying at the hotel in March 2023 during the decant.
2. Loss of personal items damaged by mould.
3. Loss of income due to him having to take 4 days off from work while repairs were completed.
4. Damage caused to his wardrobe during the works.
The landlord should have reimbursed the resident for costs he incurred whilst decanted in the hotel in March 2023 but failed to do so even though it said it would. This was a failure by the landlord that caused the resident distress. As the landlord confirmed it had received the resident’s receipts in Mach 2023 and would process them, it should do so now.
The landlord should have also responded to the resident’s request that it reimburse him for damage caused to his bedroom wardrobe during the works and to personal items due to mould. It can assess the claim itself or refer it to its liability insurer. The Ombudsman will not comment on the outcome of a claim if one is made to an external insurer as insurers are separate organisations from landlords and we can only look at the actions of social landlords. Should the resident remain unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his request for it to compensate him for damaged items, he can make a new complaint to the landlord.
The landlord is not responsible for reimbursing the resident for loss of wages due to him needing to take time off work for repair appointments. This is because whilst the repair works have inevitably caused inconvenience to the resident, his occupancy agreement requires that he give access for repairs to be carried out as needed, and it would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order the landlord to pay the resident reimbursement for loss of earnings for repair appointments which are necessary.
The landlord offered the resident a total of £350 compensation. This sum was broken down into time and trouble, missed appointments and service delay. It is unclear what appointments were missed at this stage as it had only completed the visit to mould wash the bedroom on 16 November 2022 when it offered this compensation and similarly, it is unclear what service delay there was by the landlord. Although the landlord has not explained the breakdown in compensation and could have been clearer, we have made our determination based on the total sum of £350 offered to the resident for its handling of the resident’s reports of mould and damp and the inconvenience and distress caused to him.
When the landlord has made an offer, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess whether the offer is fair and reasonable. The amount offered is in line with what the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which sets out our approach to compensation, would consider maladministration. This reflects circumstances where there has been a failure by the landlord that has adversely affected the resident but there may be no permanent impact from the failure.
For the reasons set out above we have found there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of mould and damp as it did not respond to his claim for damaged possessions and the costs incurred during his decant in March 2023 and an order has been made below for it to do so. However, we will not award increased compensation for this error, as the overall compensation offered by the landlord remains proportionate and fair, taking into account this further error. We do not award set amounts of compensation for each error a landlord makes. Rather, it is our approach to assess what a reasonable amount of compensation would be in total, taking into account the cumulative impact of a landlord’s errors on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

There was a minor delay by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s stage 1 complaint as it took 34 working days to issue him with its response. Whilst this fell outside of its published timescales the landlord did contact the resident to inform him that it would need to extend the date of its response and kept in communication with him regarding the scheduled repairs. This was appropriate and reduced the impact of the delay.
There was also a delay in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s stage 2 complaint as it took 32 days to issue him with its response. This fell slightly outside of its published timescales but as this was a minor delay, it did not have a significant impact on the overall complaint.
We are aware the landlord responded to the Ombudsman in November 2023 and queried what further action it might take following the resident contacting us to request we formally investigate his complaint about its handling of his reports of damp and mould. However, as we had not assessed the complaint at that point, we were not in a position to decide what was and was not included in the complaint or the landlord’s final response in January 2023 and which issues were new and made after this time. Ultimately, it is the landlord’s responsibility to know what issues it had and had not already responded to as part of its internal complaints process and to correctly identify a new complaint.
The complaint made by the resident to the landlord in August 2023 referred to events that had already been addressed by the landlord, but it also showed the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his reports of damp and mould after its final response in January 2023 and after it completed works it committed to as part of this response in March 2023. As such, it was inappropriate for the landlord to refuse to record a new stage 1 complaint at the time as the resident was raising new issues it had not responded to yet as part of its internal complaints process.
We will order the landlord to respond to the complaint about the continued reports of damp and mould between March 2023 and August 2023 now, through its complaints process. We have not assessed these newer reports of damp and mould in our current investigation because the landlord has not responded to this, so we do not know what its position is. It needs to go through the landlord’s complains process. However, we have considered the delay in the resident being able to progress the complaint when assessing compensation.
Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling due to the delays in responding to the resident’s complaint and due to it not identifying that the resident was raising new issues and requesting a new stage 1 complaint be logged after its final response in January 2023. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident the £50 compensation it already offered him if it has not done so already. This amount is in line with remedies guidance which suggests awards in this range where there has been a failure by the landlord which affected the resident, but the failure did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 1 week of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident and raise a new stage 1 complaint regarding its handling of his reports of damp and mould, if it has not already done so. The landlord should respond to the stage 1 complaint within 10 working days following the acknowledgement.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings highlighted by this investigation in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated complaint. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
2. Pay the resident the following compensation:
  1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould if it has not already done so.
  2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint if it has not already done so.
3. Reimburse the resident for the costs he incurred to eat out whilst he was decanted in the hotel in March 2023.
4. Respond to the resident’s requests for it to reimburse him for damage caused to his personal items and wardrobe and either refer a claim to its liability insurer or consider the claim itself.
The landlord should provide this service with evidence to confirm it has complied with the orders above within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.