Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202219503)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219503

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

8 August 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s quality of work in the renewal of the kitchen and additional works.
2. The landlord’s response to requests that it reimburse for damaged goods.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and its record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant. Her tenancy began on 22 October 2001.
The resident has communicated that she has additional needs. These include using a crutch and upper mobility issues. This Service has seen evidence that the landlord was aware of her mobility issues since at least 29 March 2023.
The resident first contacted this Service on 24 November 2022. She complained about the landlord’s handling of works to install a new kitchen. She also complained about damage to her belongings.
The landlord raised a stage 1 complaint on 15 December 2022 after contact from this Service. It said that the resident had not previously contacted it about her complaint. The landlord called and spoke to the resident on 19 December 2022. It then sent an email to the resident to confirm what the complaint was about.

The resident complained:
1. the new kitchen had been incorrectly measured and provided less storage.
2. works to renew the kitchen had started on 24 October 2022, were supposed to take 1 week but had not been completed.
3. the landlord had damaged and lost personal possessions. This included:
  1. food from a fridge, which had been disconnected from the power supply and not reconnected.
  2. items which had fallen through some gaps due to poor installation of the kitchen and had been thrown away by the contractor.
  3. her sofa had been stained.
4. the work had been completed badly, with paint left on switches, tiles not grouted, and her flooring lifted.
5. The landlord had agreed her request for an additional cupboard and an extra panel and for remedial works but had not set a date for work to begin.
6. the landlord was not responding to her attempts to contact it.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the complaint on 6 January 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It offered compensation of £100 for service failure and £100 for time and trouble, which it paid to her rent account.
In its response the landlord said:
1. it apologised that it had not completed the remedial work to the kitchen, and it would set a date by 20 January 2023 to finish the work.
2. it would schedule the additional work to the panel, gap under worktops and extra cupboard by 20 January 2023.
3. she should provide evidence of the losses, and it may pay up to £300. For amounts over £300 she should make an insurance claim to its insurance provider.
On 10 February 2023, the resident called the landlord and complained no work had started. The landlord escalated this to stage 2 of its complaint process. The complaint included:
1. the additional work to install a cupboard and a new panel had not been started.
2. the resident had not received compensation for the spoiled food, the damaged sofa and the items that had been thrown away.
3. the poor workmanship had not been put right.
4. communication with the landlord continued to be difficult.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response dated 18 March 2023. It:
1. upheld the complaint about the remedial and additional work, which had not been scheduled by 20 January 2023 and had not been started.
2. upheld the complaint about poor communication.
3. did not uphold the complaint about compensation for loss of items because the resident had not provided the evidence it asked for.
The landlord also responded to new matters raised by the resident that had not been raised at stage 1:
1. the replacement of a faulty light in the bathroom. It said it would replace it with a standard light fixture and not a non-standard one that the resident preferred.
2. her dissatisfaction with the silicone and skirting boards in the bathroom. It said it would inspect and investigate and address this separately.
It offered a further £100 compensation for time and trouble, £50 for the spoiled food and £50 for service failure in communication.

Events that occurred after the internal complaint procedure had been exhausted

The remedial and additional works to the kitchen were reportedly completed on 31 May 2023. The resident was dissatisfied with the work and continued to complain to the landlord.
The landlord’s records show 10 internal emails between 29 March 2023 and 6 June 2023 in which it discusses its response to the resident’s requests for work to be completed to her satisfaction.
The landlord sent an internal email to its contractor on 6 June 2023 that it would not agree “any further changes to the design” of the kitchen.
The landlord’s records on 18 July 2023 show that the resident requested its help to make an insurance claim to its insurer for the damaged sofa. On 18 October 2023, the insurance company informed the resident and the landlord that it rejected the claim for the damaged sofa. It said there was no evidence of who caused the damage.
On 17 January 2024, the resident confirmed she would like this Service to investigate her complaint. On 18 March 2024 she emailed this Service to ask it to include new matters in its investigation.
On 21 August 2024, the landlord provided the Ombudsman with its summary of the case. It offered the resident additional compensation of £25 for poor complaint handling and £75 for time and trouble.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In her correspondence with this Service, the resident has raised kitchen and bathroom related matters that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 18 March 2023.
The resident has described how the landlord’s handling of the issues has affected her wellbeing. We do not doubt the resident’s concerns. But it is outside our remit to determine the causes of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. While we cannot consider the effect on health, we have considered any general distress and inconvenience which she reports she experienced because of any errors by the landlord.

Kitchen renewal and additional works

The landlord’s Planned Property Investment Policy states, “We will ensure the effective procurement and delivery of major works programmes including: Consulting customers when planning works programmes to make sure they meet the customer needs.”
The resident states that she was not consulted about the design of her kitchen when the renewal was planned. She states she was not aware that the kitchen units would be smaller and there would be fewer units. The landlord has not produced evidence that it consulted with the resident before the work started. In the absence of this information, this Service cannot conclude that the landlord treated the resident fairly, or in compliance with its policy, to ensure its planned works met her needs.
This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord has given due regard to duties it may have under the Equality Act 2010. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s additional needs when it decided not to re-position the additional cupboard in June 2023. Its records do not show an explanation for its decision not to remedy its design failings and what factors it considered when making this decision. Therefore, the landlord has not demonstrated that it properly considered its duties under the Act, and its actions cannot be viewed as comprehensive, in the circumstances.
The landlord has not provided this Service with the exact specification of works or design for the property. It has instead provided a general specification of kitchen renewal works. This document sets out:
1. “All kitchen designers (sic) will be fully agreed and both signed and dated by the resident and the Partnerships Contract Administrator (CA) with a copy supplied to both the resident and the Partnership’s CA for reference.
2. The design will not be limited to a 2D design but will also include a 3D design for perspective purposes.
3. A cooling off period of 5 working days will be allowed for the resident to make amendments or cancel the kitchen design completely.
4. If the Contractor/Supplier is to provide drawings the design must provide no less than the current amount of storage provision.
5. Improvements are to be completed within a timescale of 10 working days.”
There are 5 standards within the specification document which the landlord failed to deliver against. This Service has seen no evidence of:
1. an agreed, signed and dated kitchen design.
2. a 2D or 3D design.
3. the resident being given an opportunity to amend or cancel the kitchen design.
It has not evidenced that it consulted her prior to the works start date. In the absence of this information, it is impossible to conclude that the landlord delivered upon the standard it had set in its dealings with the resident on the matter.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the kitchen design at stage 1 of the complaints process. She said she was unhappy about the removal of an upper cupboard and that the new kitchen had gaps and had been measured incorrectly.
It is not disputed that the landlord delivered a renewed kitchen which had less storage space than the previous kitchen. The design failed to meet the landlord’s stated commitment and did not comply with its own specification of works. This was unfair and unreasonable because the resident was unable to put back all the items in her kitchen that had previously been stored.
Kitchen renewal work began on 24 October 2022 and was completed on 31 May 2023. Most of the kitchen renewal work was completed by the time of the resident’s stage 1 complaint, but it was not fully completed until 31 May 2023. This was 7 months later than the timeframe of 10 working days set out in its specification document. There was an unreasonable delay in completing the works.
Following the resident’s stage 1 complaint in December 2022, the landlord said it would set a date by 20 January 2023 to address the work outstanding that were raised in the stage 1 complaint. However, it did not do so. This demonstrates the landlord’s failure of oversight over its contractor and the commitments it made. There was a lack of effective project management. This was a significant failing by the landlord. The landlord did not put things right in a reasonable timescale, which it had committed to.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states:
1. “MTVH will increase frequencies of quality checks if deemed necessary, for example as a result of poor contractor performance for new contractors or where we may have concerns about quality of works. We will also incorporate learning outcomes from customer satisfaction results and complaints into our repair service wherever feasible.”
Although not related to these planned works, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to adopt the same approach with planned works as it does with responsive repairs.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would review the handling of the kitchen works. There is no information about who would do the review, by when, and what would happen once the review was completed. There is no evidence that the review took place. This demonstrates a further lack of oversight, follow up and poor record keeping by the landlord.
On 11 April 2023, the contractor sent an email to the landlord to confirm the status of remaining works. This email included confirmation that it would “install 1 no. new wall unit, as per the existing kitchen design before renewal”. This was a reasonable response.
The landlord completed the installation of the new cupboard on 31 May 2023. Photographic evidence provided independently by both the resident and landlord appears to confirm that the cupboard was positioned on the wall. It is not disputed that the cupboard which was removed had been embedded into the wall. This solution therefore did not meet the landlord’s commitment made on 11 April 2023.
The photographs appear to show that the new cupboard had been placed at right angles to another cupboard, with a small gap between the 2. The existing cupboard door appears to be unable to open more than halfway because it is impeded by the placement of the new cupboard. Given the landlord’s awareness of the resident’s additional needs, the positioning of the cupboard was clearly unsuitable.
The landlord has not provided this Service with a log of the visits to complete the kitchen remedial works and additional bathroom works. Its records state that all work was completed by 1st September 2023. This was 5 months after the internal complaints process was exhausted. This was a further failing and evidence of poor customer service which is likely to have undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s motivation to support her and will have damaged the landlord and tenant relationship.
In both its stage 1 and 2 responses, the landlord appropriately apologised for the delay. It offered a total of £400 compensation for time and trouble and service failures, poor communication, and the spoiled food. It recognised the impact on the resident and took steps to put things right.
However, given the resident’s additional needs, the landlord failed to deliver a fully workable resolution that put things right. It did not take meaningful steps to ensure the works to the kitchen were completed within reasonable timeframes. It refused to explore solutions to restore workable storage space for the resident. This premature cessation of its efforts was particularly unreasonable.
Multiple failings in the landlord’s delivery of its standards have been identified during this investigation. Cumulatively, these have caused detriment to the resident in terms of frustration, inconvenience, time, and trouble.
The landlord has offered an additional £100 compensation in addition to the £400 it offered at the conclusion of the internal complaints process. However, this was offered after the end of the internal complaints process and cannot be considered to be reasonable redress. While the compensation offered provides the financial remedy, the landlord did not put things right for the resident. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the kitchen renewal and additional works.

The landlord’s response to requests that it reimburse for damaged goods

It is not our role to determine liability for any damage or loss caused to the resident’s possessions. This would usually be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. It is our role to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in compliance with its policies and procedures.
The landlord’s Tariff of Discretionary Compensation Payments states:
1. “When a customer has been financially disadvantaged we may consider reimbursement, or in the event that MTVH’s failings have caused damage.
2. Reasonable costs incurred can be reimbursed in full up to the value of £300.
3. Losses greater than £300 will need to be considered by our insurance team.
4. Customer evidence of cost needs to be provided for this to be paid.”
The resident complained in December 2022 that the contractor had stained her sofa, that food had been spoiled when an electrician unplugged the fridge and the contractor had thrown away kitchen items. The landlord advised her in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses to make an insurance claim to its insurer for the sofa and other items. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for the spoiled food. This was a reasonable offer, as the resident had not provided the receipts it had asked for. However, it failed to start an investigation into the damaged sofa when the resident first reported it.
In July 2023, the resident asked the landlord to help her to make an insurance claim. The landlord took steps to assist her. This was reasonable. The insurance company notified the resident and the landlord on 18 October 2023 that it rejected the claim. It said there was no evidence of who caused the damage.
There is email evidence that the landlord first considered asking the contractor to investigate the allegation of damage on 27 July 2023. The landlord did not ask the contractor to investigate until 13 September 2023, which was 9 months after the resident had made the complaint of damage. The contractor’s response stated:
1. “To be honest where this was completed so long ago, I don’t have too much information. The operative that was at the property last from my company has since left. I know for a fact the lounge area was heavily cluttered so my guys would never have been able leave any materials or damage the sofa in anyway.”
This was an unsatisfactory and weak response that was not supported by any evidence of meaningful investigation. An internal email sent by the landlord states the response “isn’t exactly helpful.”
The lack of timely action by the landlord following the resident’s reports of damage to the sofa in December 2022 compromised an effective investigation and cannot but have negatively influenced the outcome of the resident’s insurance claim.
Given the failings identified, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to requests that it reimburse the resident for damaged goods.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints procedure in its complaints policy, which is compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The Ombudsman notes that at stage 2 of the complaints process the landlord was late in its response by 6 days. While there was no significant effect on the resident because of this, it does not demonstrate compliance with the Code.
The landlord appropriately apologised for the delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint. It offered an extra £25 compensation on 21 August 2024. It also offered an additional £75 for time and trouble. This was after the resident had escalated her complaint to this Service. It is unclear to this Service under what policy or procedural context this offer was made.
While it is positive that the landlord reflected on its actions and offered compensation, we expect landlords to undertake sufficient investigation and review all circumstances of the case at stage 2 of their complaints process. Its additional compensation award, post internal complaints process, is evidence of poor complaint management.
Further, this offer provides no effective resolution to the resident’s dissatisfaction. The landlord has not remedied the matters which the resident brought to it.
The resident complained at stage 1 and 2 about difficulties in communicating with the landlord and its contractor. She states that she felt her concerns were dismissed and she was ignored by the landlord.
The landlord accepted the resident’s complaints about poor communication at both stages of the complaints process.
The landlord appropriately apologised and offered a total of £50 compensation for communication failures. While the landlord has identified failings in its process, it did not go far enough. It has not evidenced that it took meaningful action to improve communication.
The resident continued to complain about difficulties in communication with the landlord. Evidence shows that she sent 11 emails to the landlord to follow up on works progress and compensation after the internal complaint process was completed. There was a lack of cohesion internally to bring about a solution for the resident’s complaints.
The landlord’s records in this case failed to capture or retain important information, including:
1. the exact specification of works and design for the property.
2. evidence of consultation with the resident prior to the works starting.
3. details of the resident’s mobility issues and vulnerabilities and how it considered these when it planned the work.
4. actions it took to ensure that work was completed to an acceptable standard and to reasonable timeframes.
5. actions it took to ensure communication between it and the resident was improved.
This poor record keeping contributed to the landlord’s poor management of the kitchen renewal and additional works. It failed to respond appropriately to the resident and complete the additional works within a reasonable amount of time. Cumulatively, given the failings identified above, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling and record keeping.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the kitchen renewal and additional works
2. service failure in the landlord’s response to requests that it reimburse for damaged goods
3. service failure in its complaint handling and record keeping

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, survey the kitchen and complete a thorough analysis and consideration of the kitchen design, to support its overarching policy of delivering no loss in storage capacity:
  1. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, complete design alterations to remedy the placement of the cupboard and address the reduction in storage space
  2. If it is not possible to alter the placement of the cupboard, the landlord must consider how to provide additional storage to ensure it meets its standard for no net shortfall of storage in its kitchen renewal specification
  3. In examining such possibilities, the landlord must ensure it is confident it has explored all reasonable possibilities
  4. Within 6 weeks from the date of this report, to prepare a report which must be shared with this Service and the resident and must include a timed action plan for any identified works
  5. Any identified work must be completed within 10 weeks from the date of this report
2. Pay direct to the resident total compensation of £600, which is not to be paid into her rent account. This is made up of:
  1. £500 compensation already offered under the complaint process for its acknowledged service failures, if it has not already directly paid this sum
  2. £100 for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing a reasonable remedy for her complaints, communication failures and information management
3. Provide evidence of compliance with this order to the Ombudsman within 10 weeks

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to capture accurate and up to-date details of her additional needs including any health conditions and ensure its records are updated accordingly.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews learning from this case with a particular focus on ensuring cohesion across its services in the delivery of its commitment to achieve resolution for this resident.