Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202222052)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222052

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

28 January 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. repairs to the boiler.
    2. requests to replace the hot water cylinder.
    3. reports of damp and mould at the property.
    4. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom second floor flat. There are 3 children living at the property.
  2. The landlord raised a repair for uncontainable leaks from the boiler on 7 April 2022. Its contractor also attended the property on 29 August 2022 for a leaking cylinder, which it repaired on 1 September 2022. In addition, the resident reported damp and mould in the property on 16 December 2022.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 29 January 2023. They said the cylinder had still not been replaced and there was damp and mould in 4 out of 5 rooms in the property. They said it was affecting their children’s health (including a 6-week-old baby), and there had been damage to personal possessions. They also said there had been no contact from the landlord over the proposed repairs to be carried out. They asked to be moved out of the property and for compensation for their damaged possessions.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 10 February 2023. It said:
    1. the leaking cylinder was repaired on 1 September 2022. A further inspection took place on 6 September 2022 and there was no leak present. The resident also confirmed on 10 February 2023 the cylinder was not leaking, so the landlord said it did not warrant a replacement.
    2. an inspection of the damp and mould was carried out on 5 January 2023. Extensive works were raised and the contractors said they needed further inspections to assess the scope of the works. There was a joint inspection booked for 13 February 2023 with both the contractors and the repairs officer. After that inspection they should be able to advise of a timeframe for the works and how long the resident would be decanted for.
    3. it offered total compensation of £150 for the length of time to get the repair organised. This consisted of £100 for time and trouble and £50 for service failure.
  5. The resident asked to escalate their complaint to stage 2 on 16 February 2023. They said no work had been started yet and they refused an offer to decant them to a different area, unless the landlord would cover all additional costs.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 24 March 2023. It said:
    1. it had raised further work that was completed on 14 March 2023 and accepted there was a service failure due to delays completing work from December 2022 to March 2023
    2. it apologised for the delays and increased its offer of compensation to a total of £350
  7. After the resident brought their complaint to this Service, the landlord contacted the Ombudsman on 9 April 2024 with a further review of the case. It identified further compensation would be appropriate and increased its total compensation offer to £750.
  8. We spoke with the resident on 5 December 2024 and they confirmed the boiler was fixed and the landlord had replaced the hot water cylinder. They advised the damp and mould had returned, but the landlord had just washed and painted over the problem areas. They said the children’s bedroom was the worst affected.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called our jurisdiction. This is set out in the Scheme.
  2. Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
  3. There is no evidence that the resident has raised their concerns about repairs to the boiler as a complaint or that, if they have, it has exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. In the interest of fairness, the landlord must have the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s recent concerns. The resident will need to contact the landlord about these concerns and, if appropriate, raise another complaint if they are dissatisfied with the way the landlord responds.
  4. This investigation will not consider the landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler. It will focus on the remaining matters set out in paragraph 1.

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has stated that the landlord’s actions (or inactions) has had an impact on their, and their families, health and wellbeing. It is beyond the remit of this service to determine whether there was a causal link between the landlord’s handling of the reported matters and an impact on health.
  2. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of independent expert reports. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter, they should seek independent legal advice.

The landlord’s handling of requests to replace the hot water cylinder

  1. Under the resident’s occupancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping in good working order systems for supplying water, gas and electricity, and any water or room heater. The landlord was therefore under a duty to repair the hot water cylinder within a reasonable time of being given notice that it was not in working order. This is also set out in the implied terms in s.11(1)(c) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  2. What is a reasonable time will depend on all the circumstances of a case. The landlord’s repairs policy says:
    1. emergency repairs are repairs where there is a total or partial loss of electricity, heating or hot water (in winter months), or where there is a risk to harm to the resident. The landlord aims to attend these within 24 hours to assess and offer at least a temporary repair to make safe
    2. routine repairs are repairs which pose no risk to the health and safety of the residents. The landlord aims to complete these by mutually agreeable appointment within 28 days
    3. non-routine works are upgrade or renewal works. The landlord can complete these over longer periods (90 days) based on the landlord’s budget and the need
  3. The landlord has said the resident reported a leak from the hot water cylinder on 29 August 2022. The landlord’s contractor confirmed it attended the property the same day. They ordered the necessary parts and returned on 1 September 2022 to complete the repair. There is no evidence the resident disputes the date the repair request was made. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied the landlord dealt with the repair in line with its policy, which was appropriate.
  4. The contractor reported there might be further faults with the coil in the cylinder and that a replacement cylinder might be required. A further inspection on 6 September 2022 determined there was no leak present and the cylinder did not need replacing.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 September 2022 to ask about a replacement cylinder. The landlord explained that, as the leak had been fixed, the heating contractor had not recommended replacing the cylinder. It confirmed it would therefore not be replacing the cylinder.
  6. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely upon the advice and/or recommendations of an appropriately qualified contractor, when making decisions about whether to repair or replace items it has responsibility for. While this may not have been what the resident had requested, the landlord is not under any obligation to replace parts which their contractor has assessed as in working order.
  7. The resident emailed the landlord on 16 December 2022 and said the water cylinder had broken down again. The repair logs show the landlord’s contractor attended the same day and repaired a frozen pipe on the boiler. There were no issues identified with the water cylinder. The landlord maintained its position that the cylinder did not need replacing. This was reasonable as there was no evidence of any further issues with the water cylinder since it was repaired in September 2022.
  8. Since the resident brought the complaint to this Service, the landlord replaced the cylinder on 12 December 2023. Given the time that has passed, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude the replacement of the cylinder in December 2023 is an indication of a service failure of the landlord to not replace it at an earlier date.
  9. In summary, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of requests to replace the hot water cylinder.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould at the property

  1. The Ombudsman understands that the circumstances experienced by the resident have caused significant distress and it is understandable that they are concerned about the ongoing impact of the issues that they have reported on their family. The purpose of the Ombudsman’s investigation is to determine whether the landlord’s actions in the circumstances were in line with its policies and procedures, as well as best practice.
  2. The landlord had a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004 to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard, and the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that requires remedy.
  3. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that it should:
  1. adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review its current strategy and consider whether its approach will achieve this.
  2. ensure it can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution.
  3. ensure that it clearly and regularly communicates with its residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
  4. identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
  1. Under the landlord’s repair timescales, issues of mould are treated as routine repairs, rather than emergency. That means they may require an initial inspection to assess the problem, and the landlord will aim to complete repairs within 28 calendar days of being contacted.
  2. The landlord also rolled out a damp and mould process map in October 2022. It shows that on receipt of reports of damp and mould, a damp and mould specialist should carry out an initial check on any supplementary information provided and raise works for any leaks where necessary. The landlord should then open a case, triage the case and inform the resident. A repairs officer or specialist should then inspect the property to identify the cause, determine what actions are necessary and inform the resident. The landlord should then carry out the required works, with the timescale varying depending on the cause of the damp and mould, and the remedial actions required.
  3. Under the landlord’s repair timescales, issues of mould are treated as routine repairs, rather than emergency. That means they may require an initial inspection to assess the problem, and the landlord will aim to complete repairs within 28 calendar days of being contacted.
  4. On 5 January 2023 the landlord booked an inspection for damp and mould following the resident’s email of 16 December 2022. That was reasonable and in line with its repairs policy.
  5. The inspection report of 5 January 2023 said that there was severe mould growth on all external walls to the bedrooms and living room, and on wooden windows reveals/bays in both bedrooms. There was also evidence of slight water ingress from gaps around window frames and cills in the bedrooms, and various repairs were required to correct all issues. The landlord then raised work orders on 11 January 2023 to complete all recommended repairs.
  6. On 12 January 2023 the resident asked the landlord for a copy of the inspection report, along with a plan of action. There is no evidence the landlord provided a copy of the report, despite a further 5 requests between 5 February 2023 and 23 March 2023. The Ombudsman considers that to be inappropriate and not in line with the Ombudsman’s recommendations from the Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould.
  7. The landlord cancelled the raised works and emailed the resident on 20 January 2023. It told them that due to the amount of work required, the case had been passed to its complex team, who would contact the resident to discuss when the work would be done. It is unclear why the case was not determined to be complex immediately following the inspection of 5 January 2023 or why works were raised in the first instance and subsequently cancelled. This suggests an issue with the landlord’s record-keeping.
  8. Following the resident’s complaint of 29 January 2023 the landlord emailed them on 1 February 2023 and told them works had been scheduled for 9 February 2023 and 14 February 2023. It said the works should therefore be completed by March 2023. The landlord had previously told the resident the complex team would contact them to discuss when work would be done, but did not provide any timeframe for when they would be contacted. That resulted in the resident chasing the landlord for an update. This is therefore not in line with the Ombudsman’s recommendations from the Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould that landlords should provide clear communication regarding actions to be taken.
  9. The landlord raised the necessary repair works again on 7 February 2023. It emailed the resident the next day and apologised for the lack of communication about repairs. The Ombudsman expects landlords to clearly and regularly communicate with its residents about actions to resolve damp and mould. The evidence shows the landlord failed to reply to the resident’s requests to provide a copy of the inspection report, and also gave several conflicting start dates for the commencement of repairs. The Ombudsman considers the clarity of communication from the landlord to be inappropriate.
  10. On 10 February 2023 the landlord booked a joint inspection (for 13 February 2023) with both its contractors and its repairs officer. It emailed the resident the same day and told them it should be able to advise of a timeframe for the works and decant following the inspection. It is unclear why there was a delay from the initial inspection of 5 January 2023 to the landlord booking a further inspection on 10 February 2023. The Ombudsman expects landlords to identify complex cases at an early stage and take action in a timely manner. The Ombudsman considers the delay to be unreasonable.
  11. Following discussions with the resident about appropriate areas to be decanted, the resident was decanted to a hotel on 26 February 2023 with a date of 10 March 2023 set to return to the property. A surveyor completed an inspection of the works on 9 March 2023 and reported the remedial works were completed below expectations and there were various issues that remained outstanding. The surveyor determined the decant should be extended until 17 March 2023 for works to be completed fully. The landlord informed the resident of this on 10 March 2023 which was reasonable to ensure the completion of works.
  12. The contractor told the landlord on 13 March 2023 they attended the property that day. They said works had been agreed for completion the following morning, and the resident could move back into the property later that day. It said the condition of the property was acceptable and any minor snagging could be done with the resident in situ. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on those recommendations from a qualified contractor.
  13. The surveyor reported to the landlord on 15 March 2023 that they had contacted the resident that day, and they confirmed they were happy with the works completed and the case could be closed.
  14. In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of damp and mould at the property. The landlord delayed identifying the complexity of the works required, delayed arranging and completing the necessary repair works, and delayed providing regular updates about the works required. Therefore, we are ordering the landlord to pay the resident £650 compensation for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused. This takes into consideration the repeated failure to provide a copy of the inspection report, delays booking the appropriate work, not providing updates, poor communication, and not completing the work to expectations in the first instance. This is within the bracket this Service would award for failures of this nature.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must ensure they acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. They must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the acknowledgment at stage 1. They must also provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledging the escalation request.
  2. The Code also sets out a complaint is ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents.’ Therefore, a resident does not have to use the word complaint for the landlord to treat it as such.
  3. The landlord’s policy is compliant with the provisions of the Code.
  4. The evidence shows that the landlord missed several opportunities to investigate the resident’s concerns at an earlier opportunity. For example, on a phone call with the landlord on 27 September 2022 the resident said they would be making a complaint about the landlord failing to replace the water cylinder. According to the Code, a complaint must be raised when the resident expresses dissatisfaction with the response to their service request. The landlord therefore could have taken the opportunity to raise this as a complaint, rather than wait for the resident to submit a formal complaint.
  5. In addition, in an email on 16 December 2022 the resident made it clear they were dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision not to replace the water cylinder and said they had forwarded the issue to the Ombudsman. The landlord did not raise that as a complaint. The resident also asked to raise a formal complaint by email on 12 January 2023 about the refusal to replace the water cylinder and the damp and mould issues. The landlord again did not raise a complaint. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or the Ombudsman’s expectations in line with the Code.
  6. The resident raised an online complaint on 29 January 2023. The landlord acknowledged it on 3 February 2023 and provided a response on 10 February 2023. That was in accordance with the Code and the landlord’s complaint policy.
  7. However, in the complaint the resident raised the issue of damage to personal possessions caused by damp and mould and requested compensation. There is no evidence the landlord addressed that issue in its complaint responses or any other correspondence. This was inappropriate as it did not provide its stance on the matter, or provide any explanation or information about any further steps the resident could take.
  8. The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 16 February 2023. The landlord acknowledged the escalation to stage 2 the next day. However, it did not provide a final response until 24 March 2023. That was 26 days after the acknowledgement, which was not in accordance with the Code and the landlord’s complaint policy.
  9. The landlord has told the Ombudsman the timescale for the final response was extended in agreement with the resident. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence the resident agreed to this.
  10. The landlord reflected on its actions and increased its offer of compensation after the involvement of this Service on 9 April 2024. There is no evidence on which the ombudsman can conclude that the landlord would have made this offer had we not contacted them about the complaint. The Ombudsman expects landlords to undertake a sufficient investigation and review all circumstances of the case at stage 2 of its complaints process. Had this been done, the landlord may have identified its failings sooner and had the opportunity to put things right at an earlier stage. This was inappropriate.
  11. In summary, landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to its residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case there were delays in the landlord recognising expressions of dissatisfaction. There were also delays in issuing the stage 2 response and the landlord did not make its final offer of compensation until over 12 months after it had issued its stage 2 response. In addition, there was a failure to address all complaint points. The Ombudsman finds maladministration for the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. Therefore, we are ordering the landlord to pay £100 for the time and trouble of having to raise a complaint together with the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, the Ombudsman has not investigated the complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of requests to replace the hot water cylinder.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould at the property.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint, including the level of redress.

Orders

  1. The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failings outlined in this report.
    2. Pay the resident the total compensation of £750 that it previously offered since the complaint was brought to this Service, which is comprised of:
      1. £650 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by its failures to appropriately handle reports of damp and mould, including the time taken to complete all necessary repairs.
      2. £100 for the time and trouble of having to raise a complaint together with the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
    3. This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.