Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202407549)

Background

1. The resident reported problems with her fire door and a leak in her bathroom before raising her complaint in 2024. The resident has mental health and stress related issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. Damage to the fire door.
   2. A bathroom leak and subsequent damage.
3. We will also be investigating the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of damage to the fire door.
   2. The resident’s reports of a bathroom leak and subsequent damage.
5. There was reasonable redress in its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord failed to investigate a fire safety concern and then delayed replacing a damaged fire door for 7 months. Its communication was poor and its offer of compensation was insufficient for the distress and inconvenience its failings caused the resident.
7. The landlord’s communication was poor and the delay in resolving the bathroom leak and subsequent repairs was unreasonable. The compensation offer was insufficient.
8. The landlord delayed its complaint responses, but its compensation award was enough to put things right.

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.

Recommendations

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

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.

What we’ve not investigated

9. The resident told us that the landlord’s handling of repairs affected her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

Assessment

10. The landlord has a duty to do regular checks to ensure there is no damage to fire doors that would impact their performance under the Fire Safety Act 2021 and the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022. Its Building Safety Policy 2024 says it will be pro-active in all matters related to fire safety. Its repairs policy says it will carry out bespoke component replacements within 90 calendar days. If it requires a technical inspection, it will do this within 20 calendar days.
11. The landlord attended 5 fire door repairs from September 2023 to April 2024 to fix the handle. It was reasonable for the landlord to carry out repairs, and we have seen no indication that the contractor reported any wider concerns with the condition of the fire door at that time.
12. In April 2024 the resident reported that the landlord had repaired the door 9 times and it had holes in it from all the previous repairs. This contractor visited within the 28 day routine repair target and renewed the handle and refixed the door. The landlord recalled the contractor to this as the resident was unhappy with the quality of the work and it asked for photos of the door. This was unreasonable as, given its fire safety duties, it should have been pro-active and raised a technical inspection.
13. At the end of May 2024, the landlord passed the door repair to its new contractor who was taking over in June 2024. Its stage 1 response that month said it had no indication the door needed replacing. This was unreasonable as it had requested follow on work and pictures from the previous contractor to establish this and we have seen no evidence it received them. It said it would repair the door by 28 August 2024, using a bespoke timescale due to the change of contractors.
14. At stage 1, the landlord offered £80 for the resident’s time and trouble in chasing the repairs and £80 for its failure to complete repairs within 28 days (plus £10 for a missed appointment). Based on the wording of the response, we consider that it intended £80 of the £160 to go towards the failings related to this repair (with the other half towards the bathroom leak). This amount was in line with our compensation guidance for low impact and short duration failings.
15. The contractor attended the fire door in June 2024 and confirmed it required replacement and was not fit for purpose. It visited again in July 2024 to repair the handle, and the job notes confirmed a new fire door was needed. It was unreasonable for the landlord to raise a further repair after receiving confirmation the door required replacement.
16. The landlord has not shown evidence it raised a job to replace the door, albeit its stage 2 response in September 2024 said it would complete this by 22 September 2024. This was reasonable and within the 90 days for bespoke replacements. It offered further compensation payment of £100 for time and trouble and £50 for service failure. We consider £75 to be the intended portion for this repair.
17. In September 2024 the landlord attempted to fix the door again but confirmed it needed replacing. This was inappropriate as it already had confirmation that a replacement was necessary and had confirmed this to the resident. The unnecessary delay caused the resident distress about her safety. The landlord did not raise a further works order to replace the fire door until the end of November 2024. In December 2024 the landlord confirmed it was awaiting a quote, and the resident has confirmed the landlord replaced the door in January 2025. This continued delay beyond the end of the complaints process was unreasonable and caused the resident further distress.
18. Overall, the landlord failed to order a technical inspection in April 2024 when it had reason to believe the fire door may be compromised. It then took 7 months to replace the door after confirming this requirement. This was a significant and unreasonable delay. During this time, the resident expressed the considerable distress she felt knowing her property was not meeting fire safety requirements. She also expended time and trouble chasing the repair with the landlord.
19. The landlord’s total compensation of £165 was insufficient given the effect the failings had on the resident. The poor repairs management, communication and unreasonable delay justify a compensation award of £600 in line with our compensation guidance for failings that had an adverse effect on the resident.

20. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours. It will carry out routine repairs within 28 calendar days and bespoke repairs within 90 calendar days. If it requires a technical inspection, it will do so within 20 calendar days.
21. The landlord attended for a report of a ‘shower leaking from pipe behind wall’ in April 2024. It did so within its 28 day target. The resident described this as a constant drip in her later complaint so it was reasonable for the landlord not to attend as an emergency. It replaced a broken shower mixer pole and hose. During this appointment, the resident contacted the landlord to explain it had not completed all the repairs. In her complaint in April 2024, she said the constant drip had damaged her flooring (which she had paid for herself) and the sealant, and she wanted it to fix this.
22. In May 2024 the landlord raised a repair to replace the bathroom flooring and resolve the leak. In its stage 1 response that month, it confirmed it would complete this by 28 August 2024, with a bespoke timescale due to the changeover of maintenance contractors. It said she could accept replacement polysafe flooring or pursue an insurance claim to have her preferred flooring fitted. It offered compensation of £80 for its failure to action the repair within 28 days and the inconvenience caused to the resident in chasing progress. This was in line with our compensation guidance for a limited failing of a short duration.
23. The landlord raised a repair in June 2024 to attend the leak behind the shower wall with a completion date due in September 2024. It then cancelled this, noting the resident was away, but other notes indicate this was because the resident did not want the old contractor to attend due to a history of problems with their work. This shows poor record keeping. The landlord then raised a repair in July 2024 to replace the flooring but did not complete this. It subsequently raised an inspection in July 2024 which it completed in August 2024 and raised works for the bathroom. Though it was reasonable to inspect, it unnecessarily delayed deciding to do so.
24. In September 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said the resident had cancelled the June 2024 works order, but it would complete the follow on works from the August 2024 inspection later that month. It said it had subcontracted the flooring works but gave no timescale for this. It offered an additional £75 for this failing.
25. The contractor attended the repair in September 2024 but left. They noted that the resident was abusive, and future operatives should attend in pairs. The resident has said the operative had the wrong information and was there to inspect rather than complete work and she was frustrated. It was reasonable for the landlord to raise a new repair for 2 operatives to attend, though there was clearly a communication breakdown between the landlord and resident that resulted in frustration and unmet expectations.
26. The landlord raised a further repair in October 2024 to replace the flooring and attend the leak. This was vague and unreasonable as the August 2024 inspection had noted specific works and it had already said it had subcontracted the flooring work. It raised a further repair with the same wording later that month, showing poor oversight of repairs.
27. The landlord raised another works order in the same month with specific works to the bathroom and to renew the flooring following on from an inspection that month. It completed this work in October 2024 with the flooring still outstanding. It is unclear why the landlord continued to inspect. It noted it had inappropriately cancelled some of the works orders and the resident’s chasers had brought this to its attention.
28. The resident has confirmed that the landlord completed the bathroom works in January 2025. Some landlord internal notes from December 2024 suggest there may have been a further delay due to a disagreement with the resident over the type of flooring that it would fit.
29. Overall, the landlord did not manage the repair effectively, with delays well beyond its policy timescales, though we note some of these were not due to landlord failings. It showed poor coordination of repairs, and vague or duplicated work orders, which caused avoidable delays. Record keeping was inconsistent and poor communication led to confusion about scheduled visits. The total compensation of £155 was not sufficient given the distress and inconvenience these delays likely caused the resident. We have ordered total compensation of £300 in line with our compensation guidance for failings that had an adverse effect.

30. Under the Complaint Handling Code, the landlord must acknowledge a complaint or an escalation request within 5 working days. It must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request.
31. The landlord sent its stage 1 response 32 working days after the resident raised her complaint. It sent 2 extension letters, saying it was awaiting information from the repairs team and could not respond until it had this. This indicates that poor internal communication unreasonably delayed its complaints process. It offered £50 for its complaint handling failures. This was reasonable and in line with our compensation guidance for complaint handling failures with a limited impact.
32. The landlord sent its stage 2 response 63 working days after the resident’s escalation request. It sent an email extending the deadline for a response in July 2024 but did not include a new deadline. This was unreasonable and caused the resident further time and trouble as she did not know when she would receive a response. She had to engage with us for support in getting a response. The landlord extended the response time again in September 2024 but gave a 20 working day deadline and met this. It offered compensation of £75. This was in line with our compensation guidance for complaint handling failures with an adverse effect.
33. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its complaint handling failures and the compensation offered was proportionate and in line with our compensation guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. Accurate and consistent record keeping is essential to ensure the landlord manages repairs effectively and residents receive a reliable service. In this case, records appeared unclear and sometimes inconsistent. These issues led to confusion, delays, and a breakdown in accountability. However, we acknowledge that the landlord took a proactive step in changing its maintenance contractor to improve resident satisfaction. While this demonstrates a commitment to service improvement, it may also have contributed to some of the inconsistencies seen in earlier records during the transition period. Strengthening record-keeping practices and ensuring clarity and accuracy in repair logs will support better coordination, reduce errors, and improve overall service delivery.

Communication

35. Effective communication requires consistent and proactive engagement with residents, as highlighted in our Repairing Trust Spotlight report. In this case, the landlord failed to return calls or provide updates, leaving the resident feeling ignored, unsupported, and ultimately leading to a loss of trust in its ability to manage the issue. Prompt responses and regular updates are essential to maintaining confidence and managing expectations. Additionally, weak internal communication between teams led to avoidable delays, demonstrating a lack of coordination and accountability. Strengthening both external responsiveness and internal information sharing, in line with the principles set out in our report, will support more efficient case handling and deliver a more reliable and transparent service.