Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202403037)

Background

1. The resident reported a leak into her kitchen from a communal pipe.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to reports of a leak.
   2. Response to damage to the resident’s property.
   3. Complaints handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s:
   1. Response to reports of a leak.
   2. Complaints handling.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to damage to the resident’s property.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to reports of a leak

5. The landlord wrongly categorised the leak as a routine repair. Its delay led to the leak becoming worse. It wrongly advised the resident on its responsibility under the lease.

Response to damage to the resident’s property

6. The landlord gave conflicting and incorrect information about insurance options.

Complaints handling

7. The landlord did not address all issues in its complaint responses. It extended the deadline for response at stage 1 multiple times without agreement.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

8. On 19 January 2024, the resident reported a leak from a communal pipe through her kitchen ceiling. The landlord’s repair guide says it should treat safety issues as emergencies and make them safe within 24 hours. It will attend routine repairs within 20 working days. The landlord logged the issue as a routine repair and booked a plumber for 29 January 2024, failing to follow its repairs guide and attend a safety issue within 24 hours. After another resident reported the same leak, a plumber attended on 26 January 2024. He confirmed it was a communal pipe and said it should have been logged as an emergency, but he did not fix it. The reason for this is unclear, however the landlord identifying the same emergency issue and failing to make it safe within 24 hours was a further failure. After this visit, the leak got worse and flooded the resident’s kitchen. If the landlord had followed its procedure and treated the matter as an emergency this could have been avoided. Its delayed action caused the resident distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.
9. Between 26 and 27 January 2024, the resident contacted the landlord 3 times about water coming through a light fitting. Each time, the landlord said it would send an electrician, but no one attended. The resident said she stayed awake all night believing someone was coming out. On a fourth call, the landlord said the resident was responsible for arranging an electrician as a leaseholder. Although electrics inside the property are normally the leaseholder’s responsibility, the issue was caused by a leak that came from a communal pipe. The landlord could therefore have taken action to make the light fitting safe until it had repaired the pipe. It did not do this. A plumber repaired the pipe on 27 January 2024, 6 working days after the leak was first reported. However, the landlord had already identified that this should have been dealt with as an emergency within 24 hours.
10. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, repairs and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
11. At stage 1, the landlord denied fault and said it completed repairs within target times. At stage 2, it accepted that it had wrongly logged the leak as a routine repair instead of an emergency and upheld the complaint. It apologised and offered £70 compensation, made up of £20 for incorrect logging and £50 for time and trouble. This did not consider the misleading advice about the electrician or the landlord’s failure to make the electrics safe, despite being responsible for the leaking communal pipe. This amounts to service failure. We have ordered a further £100 compensation in line with our compensation guidance.

12. The resident said the leak damaged her kitchen ceiling and asked the landlord to repair the damage or reimburse the costs. The landlord said it was not responsible as she is a leaseholder. The lease states that the landlord is not liable for any damage caused to a leaseholder’s property unless its insurance covers it. It also states the landlord must insure the building against reasonable foreseeable risks and make a claim if the property is damaged.
13. On 5 February 2024, the landlord directed her to its building insurance, which has a £500 excess, and asked her to provide invoices as evidence of any completed work. On 22 February 2024, the landlord said she should claim through her contents insurance or the landlord’s public liability insurance. It also said that it might reimburse costs under £500 if it upheld the complaint. On 29 February 2024, the landlord said it had been wrong to mention liability insurance and advised the resident to claim through her contents insurance or the landlord’s building insurance instead. It provided a link and claim details. The resident asked who would pay the £500 excess and whether the landlord would cover costs below £500. The landlord said it could not answer these questions until it completed its investigation.
14. The landlord’s complaint responses did not address the resident’s questions about repair costs. On 11 April 2024, the resident chased the landlord and said she had obtained a repair quote of £850. On 17 April 2024, the landlord repeated that she should claim through her contents insurance or the landlord’s building insurance. The resident asked if the landlord would cover the insurance excess, given that its delay led to the damage. The landlord did not respond.
15. The landlord gave conflicting and incorrect information about insurance options. It accepted that it should have treated the leak as an emergency and the delay led to damage to the kitchen ceiling. Its compensation policy says it will seek to reimburse residents where it causes loss or damage, with losses over £300 considered by its insurance team. In these circumstances, the landlord should have directed the resident to its public liability insurance in place under the terms of the lease. Instead, it wrongly advised her to contact the building insurer, who later confirmed this was incorrect. The resident paid for the repairs herself. The incorrect advice stopped her from making a timely liability claim and resolving the matter sooner. This amounts to maladministration. The landlord did not take any steps to put this right. We have therefore ordered £1000 compensation to cover the cost of repairs as the resident was unable to make a timely liability claim, and for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the incorrect information. This is in line with our compensation guidance, to reflect the significant impact on the resident.

16. The landlord’s definition of a complaint is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Its complaint policy at the time of the stage 1 complaint said it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement. It may extend this by 10 working days in complex cases, keeping residents updated and agreeing new response times. This was in line with the 2022 version of the Code. It had a new complaints policy in place at the time of the stage 2 escalation. This says it will abide by timescales set out in the Code, where this is not possible it will agree a new deadline with the resident.
17. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint within the required timescales. It then requested 3 extensions of 10 working days, citing delays in receiving information from contractors. The landlord told the resident about each extension but there is no evidence that she agreed to them. When the landlord requested the final extension, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the continued delay. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered £50 compensation for poor complaint handling.
18. The Code requires landlords to address all issues raised in the complaint and to give clear reasons for its decision. Throughout the complaints process, the resident sought either repair or reimbursement for damage to her kitchen caused by the delayed repair of the leak. While the landlord addressed this issue in informal emails, it failed to address it in its complaint responses. In addition, the stage 1 response included incorrect dates. These failures amount to service failure. We have therefore ordered a further £50 compensation, in line with our compensation guidance.

Learning

19. The landlord extended the stage 1 response deadline 3 times. This delayed resolution for the resident.
20. The landlord showed good practice at stage 2 by reviewing the complaint, accepting that the repair had been misclassified, apologising, and offering compensation. This showed learning once it identified the failure.
21. The landlord gave conflicting and incorrect advice about insurance. This shows the need for staff to understand when public liability insurance applies and to give correct advice at the earliest stage.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. Incomplete and inconsistent record‑keeping limited the landlord’s ability to show effective decision‑making, escalation, and follow‑up of a safety‑related issue.

Communication

23. The landlord gave inconsistent and misleading information during repeat contacts. This showed the need for clear and accurate communication when responsibilities overlap between communal repairs and leaseholder obligations.
24. The landlord did not respond to reasonable follow‑up questions about insurance excess and reimbursement, highlighting the importance of timely and complete responses once a resident shows financial impact.

Repair handling

25. The landlord did not correctly identify or record a safety‑related communal repair at first contact, which led to avoidable delay and increased risk to the resident.
26. The landlord did not manage safety risks appropriately where a communal leak affected internal electrics, and it did not take interim action to make the situation safe.