Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202327932)

Decision
Case ID	202327932
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	24 April 2026

Background

The resident lives in a second-floor flat. He complained that a roof leak kept returning.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Roof repairs.
2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. Service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of roof repairs.
2. Reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

Roof repairs

The resident reported several roof leaks over approximately 2 years. The landlord’s failure to communicate effectively with the resident, in addition to changing contractor, contributed to delays in completing works. Although it acknowledged its failings, demonstrated learning and awarded compensation, the resident continued to experience a leak.

Complaint handling

The landlord appropriately offered the resident compensation in recognition of its failure to respond to his complaint within the timeframe specified in its complaint process.

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 22 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident the £610 that it previously offered in relation to its handling of reports of roof repairs. 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 from the total figure any payments it has already paid..	No later than 22 May 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the roof for repairs and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: The most likely cause of repair issues A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue The likely timescales to commence and complete the works Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works	No later than 22 May 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
As a finding of reasonable redress has been made based on the landlord’s offer of compensation in relation to its complaint handling failure, it should pay the £100 compensation that it offered for the impact on the resident if it has not already done so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
12 June 2024	We raised a formal complaint on the resident’s behalf. The key points were as follows: The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of reports of a roof leak and its communication. The resident wanted the landlord to resolve his concerns to a satisfactory standard and in a timely manner.
14 June 2024	The landlord phoned the resident to discuss the complaint. The key points were as follows: A roof leak had been ongoing for 3 years. The resident had reported that a leak was coming through his ceiling on 21 May 2024. Someone inspected the roof on 31 May 2024 and advised that scaffolding needed to be erected, but nothing had happened since. The leak had damaged the resident’s ceiling and the sound of dripping water had affected his quality of sleep.
27 June 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. The key points were as follows: The resident had reported many leaks over the previous few years, which its records suggested were from various locations on the roof. It had not managed the situation effectively to provide a more permanent solution. This caused the resident to invest a lot of time and effort reporting leaks and pursuing updates as well as impacting his daily life. It should complete routine repairs within 28 days and non-routine repairs within 3 months. The resident had reported a roof leak on 21 April 2024. Its contactor attended in May 2024 but there was no indication when scaffolding would be erected or when the contractor would return. There had been delays in completing works due to changing contractor on 1 June 2024. It apologised for a lack of communication. It would complete an inspection on 1 July 2024, progress the necessary repairs and confirm whether it would complete the work by 21 July 2024. It provided its insurance details for the resident to make a claim for ceiling repairs and offered to reimburse any insurance excess fee if it was deemed liable. It had implemented a new system to improve its record keeping and accountability. Once it had completed the change in contractor, it would be able to provide a more consistent service delivery. It offered the resident compensation totalling £500. This comprised of £150 for failing to communicate effectively and delays in the commencement of works plus £350 for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident, the time taken for him to pursue a response and the impact of experiencing leaks over a 3–year period.
1 August 2024	The resident asked to escalate his complaint. The key points were as follows: The landlord had not erected scaffolding. The roof leak remained. An inspection did not go ahead on 1 July 2024. He was unhappy with the landlord’s lack of communication and handling of the repair.
1 August 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request.
17 October 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. The key points were as follows: It apologised that an inspection did not take place on 1 July 2024, which it rescheduled to 12 August 2024. The resident had confirmed on 9 September 2024 that works had been completed. No further works were required. It increased its total compensation offer to £710. This comprised of the £500 offered at stage 1 plus £10 for a missed appointment, £100 for not responding to the resident’s complaint within the required timeframe, £50 for additional service failings and £50 in recognition of any additional inconvenience caused.
24 March 2025	The resident referred his complaint to us. He reports that the roof leak is ongoing.

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	Landlord’s handling of roof repairs
Finding	Service failure

What we have not investigated

The resident said roof leaks had caused him anxiety and stress. Personal injury claims are more appropriate for a court because they can obtain independent medical evidence. The resident has the choice to seek legal advice if he wishes.

What we have investigated

On 6 September 2022, the landlord raised a job for a roof leak that had leaked into the resident’s home. It resolved this on 30 September 2022, which was within the 28-day timeframe specified for routine repairs in its responsive repairs policy.
The landlord raised another job for a roof leak on 28 October 2022. However, it is unclear whether it resolved this. It is vital that landlords keep clear and accurate records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
It was not until more than a year later, on 14 November 2023, that the landlord next raised a job due to a roof leak. The lack of any reports in the interim does not indicate that there was an ongoing issue with the roof. A contractor attended on 23 November 2023, which was within the landlord’s timeframe for routine repairs.
On 4 December 2023, the resident said the contractor had resolved the leak. When he asked about making good the loft area, the contractor advised him to contact the landlord. However, there is no evidence that the resident did this, which meant the landlord was unaware of his concerns.
When responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 1, the landlord said he had reported leaks on 21 April 2024 and 21 May 2024. It said its contractor had identified that scaffolding was required when attending the first of these reports, but no further action was taken so the landlord arranged an inspection for 1 July 2024. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence of these reports, or of any action taken to address them, which indicates an issue with its record keeping.
It is a failing that an inspection did not take place until 12 August 2024, with works completed on 9 September 2024. However, this was more than 7 weeks outside the landlord’s 3-month timeframe for non-routine repairs specified in its responsive repairs policy. This was not appropriate given that this was outside its published repair timescales.
On 19 November 2024, which was approximately one month after it issued its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord raised a job as the resident, ‘still has leak coming into kitchen’. This indicates that it had not resolved the leak that the resident had previously reported.
Upon considering his complaint, the landlord identified service failures in response to his reports and demonstrated learning. It also awarded compensation to recognise its failings as well as the time and trouble caused to the resident and said it would reimburse any costs associated with any insurance claim that the resident made for ceiling repairs if it was found responsible for these, which was reasonable. However, this has not prevented an adverse finding, as the action taken by the landlord has not fully resolved the issue and the resident reports the roof has continued to leak following the landlord’s intervention.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

Our statutory Complaint Handling Code (the Code), effective from 1 April 2024, sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy that complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
We raised a formal complaint with the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 12 June 2024. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days and issued a stage 1 response within a further 10 working days. It is a shortcoming that the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint. However, it issued a stage 1 response on 27 June 2024, which was 11 working days after it received the complaint. Therefore, its failure to issue an acknowledgement did not unduly affect the resident.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it had phoned the resident to discuss his complaint on 14 June 2024. However, it has not provided any evidence of this call. Nor has it provided a copy of the resident’s escalation request. This further indicates an issue with the landlords’ record keeping.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 1 August 2024. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the escalation request within 5 working days and issued a stage 2 response within a further 20 working days. Any extension would not exceed a further 20 working days without good reason. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 1 August 2024, which was in line with the timeframe specified in its complaints policy. On 29 August 2024, it wrote to extend its response timeframe by 20 working days, which was also in line with its complaints process. However, on 26 September 2024, the landlord further extended its response timeframe. It said it was checking that no additional works were required before issuing a response but failed to confirm when the resident could expect to receive this, which likely caused him inconvenience. The landlord then issued its stage 2 response on 17 October 2024, which was 55 working days after it acknowledged the resident’s escalation request.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered the resident £100 for failing to respond to his complaint within the required timeframe. As this was in line with our remedies guidance where there have been complaint handling delays, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

Learning

The landlord should consider the findings highlighted in this investigation to review its policies and practices against the statutory Code, specifically regarding acknowledging a complaint at stage 1 of its process.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

The landlord said it had implemented stricter, clearer protocols for all resident interactions and service delivery. This included mandatory logging of all communications, decisions and actions taken.
It had also implemented a new customer relationship management system to centralise customer information and communications, giving staff real-time access to accurate and consistent data to ensure a more streamlined experience for residents.

Communication

The landlord said it had focused on improving communication and coordination with its contractors, as conflicting assessments and unclear handovers had contributed to delays and confusion for the resident.