Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202231468)

Decision
Case ID	202231468
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	19 December 2025

Background

1. The resident reported several outstanding repairs at her property over a long period. In March 2023, we issued a determination ordering the landlord to agree a plan of action with the resident for any remaining repairs. An inspection took place on 18 April 2023. In July 2023, the resident complained that no progress had been made with any of the repairs. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and asked us to investigate.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. handling of repairs following an inspection on 18 April 2023.
   2. process for dealing with complaints from the resident.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs following an inspection on 18 April 2023
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s process for dealing with complaints from the resident.
6. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

7. There were avoidable delays in completing repairs at the property. The landlord gave the resident inaccurate information about these delays and failed to take responsibility. It did not apologise or offer any redress for its failings.
8. The landlord acted in line with its complaints policy when it assigned a sole point of contact for stage 1 complaints from the resident.
9. The landlord did not respond to the complaint in line with its timescales or those outlined in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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 23 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £400 made up as follows: £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays to repairs following the inspection in April 2023. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures identified in this report.	No later than 23 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord has told us that all associated repairs from the April 2023 inspection are now complete. However the resident disputes this. We recommend that the landlord makes contact with the resident to discuss this further, so that any outstanding repairs may be remedied.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
18 April 2023	The landlord inspected the resident’s property following a previous determination by us (202014172). It identified 15 repairs needed within the property. As part of the inspection the landlord advised the following: The kitchen would not be renewed. Flooring in the property would not be replaced by the landlord.
23 May 2023	The final report detailing the works highlighted at the April inspection was completed and signed off by the landlord.
6 June 2023	The landlord received an email from the resident expressing dissatisfaction that it would not replace the flooring in the property. She said: she felt the damage had been caused by the landlord’s inaction and asked for a replacement as a goodwill gesture. she “needed” the replacement to be completed alongside repairs and the environmental clean. she was “really annoyed and frustrated” with the landlord’s attitude.
9 June 2023	The landlord wrote to the resident about the repairs. It said: She had informed it that she was not in the right “frame of mind” for the works to begin. It was aware that due to an ongoing dispute surrounding flooring no agreement had been reached on when repairs could start.
11 July 2023	The resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She was unhappy that the works were yet to be booked, and expressed concern about the impact this was having on her.
27 July 2023	The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint. In response, the resident said she was known to the complaint handler and believed they could not deal with her complaint. The landlord confirmed that the member of staff would deal with all her complaints going forward. As the resident was unhappy with this, the landlord the landlord included this concern in its stage 1 complaint investigation.
31 July 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. The complaint was not upheld due to the following reasons: The landlord advised attempts had been made to book works but the resident had said she was not in the “correct frame of mind” for works to begin. It also said the resident had disagreed with the scope of works and would not “work with” members of staff who were involved. As delays were not due to any service failure by it, and so it did not agree it actions had caused the detriment described by the resident. It said the complaint handler was not known to the resident outside of work so there was no conflict of interest. They could work on her case in line with its complaints policy. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on the same day. She said that: She disagreed with the stage 1 response and said she had given dates and would have allowed repairs from July 2023. She was unhappy with how her complaints were being handled: She felt the landlord was in breach of its complaints policy as she was known to the handler. Her former complaints handler was bullying her. She was unhappy that the landlord did not discuss appointing a single point of contact for complaints with her before doing so. She requested to speak with the complaints Manager or Team Leader.
11 August 2023	The landlord met the resident at her home to discuss progressing the repairs.
18 August 2023	The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response. It said: The information provided at stage 1 regarding repairs and complaint handlers was correct. It had reviewed the complaint handler’s actions and there was no basis to suggest bullying after reviewing their actions. It apologised she felt this way but was unable to uphold this element of the complaint. The decision was taken to have a sole point of contact for all stage 1 complaints in order to provide a better outcome for the resident. It also advised that it did not have to consult residents when making business decisions such as these. The complaints Manager and Team Leader had not had any involvement in her case so she was unable to speak to them about her complaints. It said it would not be an appropriate use of resources.
18 August 2023	The landlord and resident exchanged emails about the stage 2 response. The resident asked both her repairs contact and the complaint handler why they stated she was not in the “right frame of mind” to allow repairs in June 2023, as she said this was untrue. She explained that at the April appointment she had said she would be as flexible as possible and had offered dates in July 2023 for the works to begin.   The landlord responded that during a phone call on 2 June 2023, the resident’s point of contact said she had been told the resident was not ready for repairs to begin. It acknowledged that she had advised works could commence in July 2023.  The landlord had interpreted her comment about not wanting works to begin, along with an email received on 6 June 2023 as a request to delay progress. It apologised and offered to remove references to her “frame of mind” from the complaint responses but confirmed this would not change the complaint outcome.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman because she believed the landlord’s response about delayed repairs was inaccurate. She also felt the landlord breached its complaints policy by assigning her a specific contact. The resident argued that the complaint handler could not remain impartial if they had managed previous complaints and already knew her.

 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	The landlord’s handling of repairs following an inspection on 18 April 2023
Finding	Maladministration

10. The landlord did not uphold the complaint at either stage in its process as it said it had found no evidence the delays in progressing repairs were due to its handling of the matter. It said that delays had been due to the resident’s request to delay works and also her refusal of repairs. This service has found that this was not a reasonable response for the following reasons:
    1. The landlord visited the resident on 18 April 2023 to carry out an inspection of all required repairs. It did not complete its report of these repairs until 23 May 2023. This was a delay of over a month. We have seen no evidence that this delay was unavoidable.
    2. In an email from the resident on 6 June 2023, she expressed dissatisfaction regarding the landlord’s decision not to replace the flooring at the same time as repairs were to be completed. The resident did not explicitly refuse the repairs in this email. If the landlord felt this was ambiguous, it should reasonably have made attempts to clarify this with her. We have seen no evidence that it did so.
    3. Following the stage 2 complaint response, the resident emailed her point of contact for repairs asking why the landlord had said she told it that she was not in the “right frame of mind” for repairs to progress. The landlord accepted in an email on 18 August 2023 that she had not said this and it had wrongly interpreted what she had said. It offered to redact it from the complaint responses.
    4. The landlord advised the resident that due to conversations with her repairs contact on 2 June 2023 and the email it received 4 days later, it had made the decision to postpone works at her property. It acknowledged that it took this decision based on what it perceived the resident had requested. The landlord should have sought clarity on this issue before postponing repairs. We have seen no evidence that it did so.
    5. In an email on 18 August 2023, the landlord confirmed it had received the dates the resident offered for works to start in July 2023. It explained that it interpreted earlier interactions as the resident not being ready for repairs and decided to give her “space” to avoid causing distress. As a result, it did not act on the offered dates.
11. The landlord did not progress repairs in a timely manner. Its repairs policy states that standard repairs will be completed within 28 days and major repairs within 3 months. It is unclear how the landlord categorised the repairs due to the scale of works that were to be completed. However, it did not meet timescales for either category of repairs which was a failing and caused further distress to the resident.
12. Throughout the complaint, the landlord missed opportunities to seek clarity from the resident regarding repairs. It relied on what it “perceived” the resident to be telling it. Given the previous delays and that the inspection from April 2023 was linked to a previous determination order from the Housing Ombudsman, the landlord had been put on notice of the repairs and should have done all it could to expedite matters. That it did not was a failing.
13. The landlord failed to identify all of its own shortcomings during the complaint investigation and instead placed blame on the resident. This approach does not align with our dispute resolution principle of fairness. The inaccurate complaint response caused the resident further distress in addition to the already delayed repairs. It also meant she incurred additional time and trouble escalating the matter to this service. The landlord did not act appropriately. It made no attempt to resolve the delays or provide any redress to the resident. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250 for these failings, in line with our Remedies Guidance for issues that caused impact but were not permanent.

Complaint	The landlord’s process for dealing with complaints from the resident
Finding	No maladministration

14. The landlord’s complaint policy says that each complaint will be reviewed to ensure there are no conflicts of interest with the assigned handler. If a conflict is identified, such as the complaint involving a team member or the customer being personally known to them, the case will be reassigned to another member of the regional team.
15. The landlord appropriately explained within its stage 1 complaint response that there was no conflict of interest regarding the complaint handler. Although the member of staff did know the resident, this was on a purely professional basis. It said they had previously handled a complaint and felt this was good reason for them to be the designated point of contact going forward. It clarified that its policy referred to personal, not professional, relationships. This was a reasonable response.  While the resident may have been unhappy with this, the landlord acted in line with its policy and provided clear reasoning for its decision which was appropriate.
16. The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that it assigned a dedicated complaint handler to improve the resident’s service experience. It explained that it did not consult the resident because it was not required to do so. While this was accurate and intended to benefit the resident, it was a shortcoming that the landlord did not engage with her before implementing the change. Discussing the plan could have allowed both parties to review its benefits and strengthen their relationship as intended.
17. The resident was concerned that the single point of contact for complaints would mean the landlord could not carry out an objective assessment. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint escalates to stage 2, a different staff member reviews it, providing an additional opportunity for objectivity. The landlord’s complaints policy emphasises that its team will complete their duties independently and without bias. It is also a requirement of the Code that complaints are conducted in an impartial manner so that fair and appropriate findings can be made.
18. While we recognise the resident’s concerns, the landlord’s implementation of a sole point of contact for all stage 1 complaints did not depart from the rules of the Code or those within its own complaints policy.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

19. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process and follows the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Both its policy and the Code require stage 1 complaints to be acknowledged within 5 days and responded to within 10 days after that. In this case, the landlord acknowledged the complaint after 13 days and responded after 15 days, departing from both its own timescales and those set out in the Code. It did not acknowledge or apologise for these delays.
20. On 18 August 2023, the landlord and resident exchanged emails about the information within the final complaint response. The landlord acknowledged that the response contained incorrect information about the resident’s “frame of mind”. It also confirmed it knew she had offered dates in July 2023 for the works to start. It said it could remove the mental health reference from the response but said this would not affect the outcome of the complaint. As the landlord appeared to rely heavily on this information in its decision making, it is unclear how it reached this conclusion.
21. Given the change in position, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to reconsider the decision it had made. While it is noted that the complaints process had come to an end, the landlord should reasonably have exercised its discretion and considered whether it had reached the correct decision. Not only would this have been fair and reasonable, it would have also demonstrated that the landlord was resolution focused and determined to put things right for the resident. It evidenced a rigidity in its complaint handling and was a missed opportunity to learn from its failing to improve future services. This was a departure from the Code. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £150 for its complaint handling failures.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. It is unclear what took place in a telephone conversation between the resident and the landlord on 2 June 2023. The resident disputes the landlord’s reports and the contemporary call notes are not robust enough for us to make a decision regarding this. It is imperative that landlords keep and maintain an accurate audit trail of all reports received. This is not only so that it can assess its own performance, but also so that it can provide independent organisations, such as the Ombudsman, with contemporaneous evidence in the event of a dispute. The landlord may wish to review this and whether further staff training is required to ensure that robust records are kept.

Communication

23. The landlord communicated with the resident at appropriate intervals throughout the complaint, but it lacked real engagement. It missed opportunities to seek clarity or discuss issues that could have improved its service and restored goodwill in the landlord-tenant relationship.