Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202339649)

Decision
Case ID	202339649
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	15 May 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom flat. At the time of her complaint, she lived with 4 of her children. Later, another child rejoined her household. The resident has vulnerabilities that include a visual impairment and depression. Some of her children have vulnerabilities. The complaint relates to her requests for a permanent move to a different property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s concerns about a move.
   2. Response to her related concerns about discrimination, staff conduct issues, and a lack of support.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a move.
5. We have found that there was service failure in the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s related concerns about discrimination, staff conduct issues, and a lack of support.
   2. Complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to the resident’s concerns about a move

6. There is no evidence to show the landlord was responsible for any failures which adversely impacted the resident. It took a reasonable approach during its complaints process.

Related concerns about discrimination, staff conduct issues, and a lack of support

7. The landlord missed a clear opportunity to signpost the resident to relevant support services. The resident may have benefited from its knowledge of these. Its insensitive approach may have added to her distress.

Complaint handling

8. There was a complaint handling delay at stage 2. The landlord apologised to the resident at the time. However, an apology was not sufficient given the duration of the delay and the related adverse impact to the resident. The landlord’s late compensation award (£25) was proportionate, but it did not award this during its internal complaints 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 provided by a relevant manager. 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 15 June 2026
2	Compensation order  If it has not done so already, the landlord must pay the resident the £100 that it awarded her during its late case review. This is to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to her request for information about relevant support agencies, and a separate complaint handling delay. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 15 June 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
3 August 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. She said she had been waiting for a permanent move for about 3 years. She also said that, in the interim period, she had told the landlord’s local officer that the property was unsuitable for her. In summary, the resident’s other key points were: She was vulnerable and unwell. The officer had repeatedly ignored her concerns about the property. The officer had discriminated against her. The landlord should refer the resident to relevant support services. It should also help her to move.
15 August 2023	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It did not identify any failures or uphold the resident’s complaint. It said it had previously held several panel hearings to consider her circumstances. It also said that she had been assigned the right priority for rehousing. Its other key points were: The resident could provide new medical evidence to support a move. A medical specialist would review any new information. The resident could apply for housing through the local council. Its officer did not have any control over the rehousing process. It had not found evidence to support the resident’s concerns about them. It would not assign her a new officer.
Between 24 August and 4 September 2023	The resident told the landlord she was unhappy with its stage 1 response. She said that one of her children had previously died in the property. She also said this was the main reason that she wanted to move elsewhere. The resident’s other key points in this period were: She knew the officer was not in control of the rehousing process. They had told the resident that they could not help her. They could have explored alternative ways to move. They were aware of the resident’s bereavement. They had given her incorrect information and ignored her calls. They had acted in an unprofessional manner. The landlord had dismissed her concerns. It should show some compassion and use its discretion to help her.
24 October 2024	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It did not uphold the complaint. It said it had followed its rehousing process. It also said it had not found any evidence of inappropriate conduct by its local officer. It said that the resident had been offered a larger property but she declined it.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In March 2024 the resident told us that her health had deteriorated since her bereavement. She felt that the landlord had not done enough to support her. In May 2026, the resident told us she was still waiting for a move. She did say that the landlord had recently changed her priority status. She wanted it to use her experience to improve its performance.

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	Response to concerns about a move
Finding	No maladministration

9. The resident wants to move for several reasons. Records show that she finds it hard to live at the property as it is linked to her bereavement. She has reported trips and falls that stem from her vision impairment. She has also referenced crowded conditions and her children’s needs. We recognise that she is dealing with difficult personal circumstances.
10. There is evidence that the resident registered with a national rehousing service in February 2021. She was in contact with the landlord around the same time. Later, she was deemed to qualify for a low priority move on health/welfare grounds. To date, she has been waiting to move for more than 5 years. This is a significant timeframe.
11. In itself, the resident’s wait time does not evidence a failure by the landlord. This is because it has limited influence over the availability of homes. In many areas, there is also a shortage of large properties. Ultimately, the landlord cannot fairly be held responsible for matters beyond its control. During its complaints process, it said it had followed its policies and procedures in relation to the resident’s request for a move.
12. The landlord supplied a lettings policy that was effective from July 2023 onwards. This did not fully cover the relevant timeline, so we looked for a more relevant document. We were unable to find a more relevant policy on the landlord’s website or in our own records. As a result, we used the landlord’s document during our investigation. We also considered whether its approach was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
13. Overall, the evidence supports the landlord’s assertion that it followed its policies and procedures. For example, there is no evidence to show that it was responsible for any processing errors that prolonged the resident’s wait time. There is evidence that it chased her for missing information on a number of occasions during the period in question.
14. For example, between March and June 2021 the landlord contacted the resident several times about her rehousing application. This was to obtainidentity documents for each member of her household. There is evidence that it emailed and called the resident about the situation. We have also seen a letter that it sent her. Ultimately, the landlord showed a proactive and reasonable approach when issues arose with the resident’s application.
15. There is no evidence to show the landlord missed clear opportunities to expedite a move. There is evidence that it attempted to reduce the resident’s wait time. For example, records show it helped to place her on an automatic bidding system (for available homes) in December 2021. This was a reasonable and proactive approach in the circumstances.
16. The landlordalso confirmed that the resident had been assigned the correct priority banding. In internal correspondence on 19 April 2022, it said it had referred her case to its third-party medical specialist on 2 different occasions. We have seen evidence of its referrals. The landlord was entitled to rely on the professional opinion of a relevant specialist.
17. In its above referenced correspondence, the landlord said it could arrange for its welfare panel to review the case. It believed this mechanism could provide an alternative option for the resident. The landlord’s lettings policy says that residents can appeal decisions which affect their tenancy. It refers to an allocations panel that can consider a resident’s rehousing priority. Ultimately, a panel hearing was consistent with the landlord’s policy.
18. As part of its subsequent panel review, the landlord considered a statement from the resident. This detailed her circumstances and reasons to move. We have seen a copy of the panel’s recommendations. Ultimately, it did not amend the resident’s priority banding. We have not seen any information to suggest the landlord’s decision-making was flawed.
19. The resident has said the landlord should use its discretion to help her (presumably by arranging a move). It was not obliged to do this. During its complaints process, the landlord did say it would reconsider matters if the resident supplied new medical evidence to support her case. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
20. In May 2026, the resident told us the landlord had recently held another panel review. She said the panel had increased her priority banding to expedite a move. She felt its decision may relate to information that a therapy service provided to the landlord. Her comments indicate that new information prompted the landlord to reconsider her case.
21. In summary, there is no evidence to show the landlord was responsible for any failures which adversely impacted the resident. On that basis, it took a reasonable approach to her concerns during its complaints process. Although the resident is dealing with some difficult circumstances, the landlord is not obliged to use its discretion to move her.

Complaint	Related concerns about discrimination, staff conduct, and a lack of support
Finding	Service failure

22. During her complaint, the resident said she had experienced disability discrimination from the landlord’s local officer. She also cited other issues with their conduct.Thesewereserious matters that warranted aresponse from the landlord. Its relevant complaints policy says the landlordis committed to ensuring that all of its residents are treated fairly.
23. In this case, the landlord engaged with the resident’s related concerns at each stage of its complaints process. This was an appropriate approach in line with its policy. The landlord said it had not found any evidence of unprofessional conduct by the officer. We have seen evidence of its internal investigation. We are satisfied that this was thorough.
24. For example, one of the landlord’s senior leaders was involved in its investigation at stage 2. Their seniority shows the landlord took the resident’s allegation and staff conduct concerns seriously. Their high-level oversight also shows that the landlord took a reasonable and proportionate approach to the matter.
25. During our own investigation, we checked the case evidence for any information to support the resident’s allegation and conduct concerns. Aside from her comments, we have not seen any other evidence to support these. For example, there are no records to show the officer made inappropriate or unsensitive comments to the resident. Similarly, there are no records to show that they failed to respond to any of her communications.
26. There is evidence the resident was adversely impacted because the landlord overlookedher request for a reasonable adjustment.This is based on emails from 24 and 25 August 2023. In these, the resident said she had asked the landlord to send her information in a large text format. The landlord apologised to the resident on the next day. The evidence indicates that it also rectified the error atthat point (by reissuing its stage 1 response).
27. Given the landlord’s prompt apology and remedial action, we are satisfied that it took reasonable and proportionate steps to address the above referenced failure. We encourage it to be mindful of any protected characteristics and related legal duties.
28. There is also evidence of a lack of support by the landlord. In her initial complaint, the resident asked it to refer her to relevant support services. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said she could ask the local council to rehouse her (to increase her chances of a move). It did not provide any other information to comply with her request. This was unreasonable.
29. The landlord could have referred the resident to her local GP, an occupational therapist (OT), or third-party support agencies. Ultimately, it did not adequately address her request for support. It missed a clear opportunity to help the resident with her health and wellbeing. From the resident’s perspective, the landlord’s approach was insensitive.
30. In mitigation, records show the resident was previously in contact with her GP and the local council’s ‘sensory team’. It is reasonable to conclude that she was already aware of these options. While she may have benefited from referrals to other agencies, there was no guarantee that a referral would have made a difference to her overall situation.
31. In late 2024 the landlord updated us about the resident’s complaint. It said it had reviewed matters while it was preparing its case evidence. It recognised the missed opportunity (to support the resident) in its file summary. The landlord’s comments suggest it awarded the resident £75 in related compensation at that point.
32. The landlord’s review took place around 16 months after it had issued its final response. While its compensation award was welcome, it was late and stemmed from our involvement. As a result, it cannot be fairly considered part of the landlord’s internal complaints process. We cannot use it to reach a reasonable redress finding.
33. In summary, the landlord did not respond reasonably to a health/welfare aspect of the complaint. It missed a clear opportunity to signpost the resident to relevant support services. The resident may have benefited from its knowledge of these. The landlord’s insensitive approach during its complaints process may have added to her distress.
34. The landlord’s late award (£75) was consistent with the moderate impact category in its relevant compensation policy. This was a reasonable category to apply. The landlord’s calculation is also consistent with our compensation guidance. As a result, we have not ordered it to pay any additional compensation. We have ordered it to apologise.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

35. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when landlords should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition (effective April 2022). The landlord has supplied a complaints policy from May 2021. Its key timescales match those in the Code.
36. It took the landlord 12 working days to issue a stage 1 response. Under its policy and the Code, the landlord had a maximum of 15 working days to do this. Ultimately, it issued its response within an appropriate timeframe.
37. After the resident confirmed she was unhappy with its initial response, it took the landlord 2 months to respond at stage 2. Under its policy and the Code, it had a maximum of 20 working days to do this. The landlord departed from its policy and the Code. The resident was adversely impacted. For example, she was prompted to reiterate her dissatisfaction to the landlord. It is reasonable to conclude this was avoidable and inconvenient for her.
38. The landlord did apologise for a delay when it acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 2. It did not mention the issue in its stage 2 response. It is unclear if it recognised the full extent of the delay (about 5 weeks) at that point. Given the duration of the delay and its related adverse impact, the landlord could have awarded the resident some compensation to put things right. This would have been a reasonable approach.
39. Later, the landlord awarded the resident some related compensation during its case review. Its comments suggest the amount that it awarded was £25. The landlord’s calculation was consistent with its relevant policy. It is also consistent with our compensation guidance. If the landlord had taken a similar approach during its internal complaints process, it may have avoided an adverse finding from our Service.
40. In summary, there was a complaint handling delay at stage 2. The landlord did apologise to the resident at the time. However, an apology was not sufficient given the duration of the delay and the related adverse impact to the resident. Although the landlord’s late compensation award was proportionate, it did not offer this during its complaints process.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

41. The landlord was able to provide key case evidence. Our investigation did not highlight any record keeping issues.

Communication

42. The landlord overlooked a request for documents in a large-print format. It also overlooked a request for information about relevant support agencies. It could provide related feedback to its staff about:
    1. The importance of recording and implementing any reasonable adjustments promptly.
    2. The importance of being sensitive to, and mindful of, any health/wellbeing issues.