Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202307004)

Background

1. The resident lives on the fourth floor of a block of flats. The property is serviced by a single communal lift which was replaced in 2017. The resident is unhappy with the frequent communal lift outages, which began in September 2022, and does not feel safe using it.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Lift repairs and maintenance.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for maladministration in its handling of the lift repairs and maintenance.
4. We found the landlord responsible for service failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord failed to keep adequate repair records, failed to identify when contractor escalations should have taken place, and did not keep the resident updated on repair progress.
6. The landlord’s complaint handling was poor as it failed to record and manage the complaint appropriately. Although it later identified complaint handling failures, it took our involvement to do so.

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.

What we have not considered

7. We have seen the resident raising a separate complaint about the light within the lift in 2022. This was resolved within the landlord’s complaints procedure under a separate complaint. This was mentioned as part of a previous decision made by us in March 2025 and, as such, will not form part of this investigation.
8. The resident reports further issues with the lift beyond what was investigated as part of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. We are unable to investigate instances that have not been through the landlord’s complaint procedure. Our investigation has only considered events between September 2022 and April 2024. We can see no further repair issues with the lift until December 2024, indicating the landlord had resolved the ongoing issues at the time. If the resident remains unhappy with events after April 2024, she is able to raise a new complaint with her landlord.

The handling of lift repairs and maintenance

9. The landlord was responsible for repairing and maintaining the communal lift under its repairs policy. The policy required it to attend emergency repairs within 24 hours, complete routine repairs within 28 days, and complete major routine repairs within three months. The landlord also had a separate lifts procedure that required monthly servicing and six‑monthly independent audits. The evidence shows the landlord met these servicing and audit obligations throughout the period being investigated.
10. The landlord attended several reported repair issues within the required timescales. It inspected the lift on 30 December 2022 and 13 December 2023 and found no faults. It also made the lift usable on 15 December 2022 and again on 7 June 2023 after repairing the lift controller. These responses were in line with its repair policy.
11. The resident reported snagging and jittering doors on 20 February 2023. The landlord did not show that it attended or recorded a reason for not attending. This poor record keeping makes the outcome unclear. The 6‑monthly audit in April 2023 and the monthly service checks did not show any faults, but this does not remove the need for clear repair records.
12. The landlord inspected the lift, following a report of “dragging lift cars and vandalism”, on 21 April 2023. It raised this as a new issue and completed the repair on 26 April 2023. This was a reasonable response and within its repair policy.
13. The resident raised concerns on 28 April 2023 about banging noises, which the landlord replied to on the same day and sought a quote to carry out further work. It approved the quote on 7 June 2023 and completed the repair on 28 July 2023. These timescales met the landlord’s policy for major routine repairs. However, the landlord did not keep the resident updated on its progress. This caused avoidable frustration and repeat reports. Clear communication would have reassured the resident about safety and reduced the need to continue reporting the issue.
14. On 14 July 2023 the resident reported the lift was “broke again” due to door damage. The landlord linked this to the earlier repair request and relied on the approved quote. This was reasonable. However, once again it did not keep residents informed about the repair progress. This was a missed opportunity to prevent repeat reports and reduce concern.
15. The landlord attended 4 times between 3 and 29 November 2023 after further faults were reported. It made the lift usable after a power cut and completed lock‑related repairs, all within its repair policy timescales.
16. The landlord told the resident that a contractor escalation would occur under its policy if more than 3 callouts happened within 4 weeks. The evidence shows that the threshold was met in November 2023. The landlord did not identify this or follow its escalation process. This was a failure and caused the resident further distress, as she may have felt her concerns were not being taken seriously.
17. The resident expressed understandable worry about using the lift with her children due to the banging noises and her belief that the lift’s emergency system was unreliable. The evidence shows the emergency system passed all monthly and 6‑monthly checks and that the lift was safe to use. The landlord was entitled to rely on its qualified contractors. However, gaps in communication and inconsistent record keeping made it harder for the resident to feel reassured.
18. The resident reported in her initial complaint that she had been stuck in the lift with her children and other resident had told her about being stuck. The landlord failed to acknowledge this or provide a response which was not reasonable. It was particularly concerning as the resident highlighted events that involved the elderly and children. Landlord’s should be able to demonstrate that they have taken a resident’s concerns seriously and record what it has done in response.
19. Also within the initial complaint she raised the issue of increased repair cost’s due to the frequent lift repairs. Although it did not reply to this complaint it later explained to the resident that the cost’s had not been charged yet. As such she would have to wait until they had been billed to make a complaint. This was a reasonable response, however the landlord could have done more to advise the resident about costs. This would have allowed the resident to understand the process and helped relieve the reported anxiety of the possible costs.
20. Overall, the landlord completed most repairs within the expected timescales. However, it failed to keep adequate repair records, failed to identify when contractor escalation should have taken place, and did not keep the resident updated on repair progress. These failures caused distress and inconvenience and amounted to maladministration.
21. The landlord offered £125 compensation during the complaint process. Our order of £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused is in addition to this amount, bringing the total compensation for the handling of the lift issues to £225. This amount is proportionate to the failings identified in this report and in line with our remedies guidance.

22. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint policy. This requires it to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages. The policy requires the landlord to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2. These timescales and the landlord’s definition of a complaint were compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) applicable at the time.
23. The landlord did not handle the resident’s April 2023 complaint in line with its complaint procedure or the Code. The resident’s email clearly set out her concerns about the lift, but the landlord incorrectly treated it as a broadband‑installation issue. This mistake forced the resident to chase a response through us and caused avoidable distress and inconvenience. The error was not reasonable because the resident’s message was clear, and the landlord had a responsibility under its complaints policy to identify and log complaints accurately.
24. In September 2023 the landlord incorrectly told us that the resident had not raised any issues about the communal lift. It then wrote to the resident on 25 September 2023 to withdraw the complaint opened after our intervention, stating that it had already resolved the matter under a different complaint. The available evidence does not support this. The landlord’s actions caused further delays and, although it opened a new complaint after 29 September 2023, it did so only after more contact from us.
25. In its complaint responses, the landlord apologised that it had failed to handle the complaint properly and offered £250 compensation. This offer was in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration where there was no permanent impact. It acknowledged issues at stage 1 and for the 140‑day delay at stage 2. However, the landlord did not show any learning in its responses and did not address the unresolved April 2023 complaint.
26. The landlord has since been able to demonstrate learning from the handling of this complaint. It told us it has improved internal communication through regular meetings and has hired more staff to support timely complaint responses. It also offered the resident an extra £165 compensation and apologised for not handling the April 2023 complaint in line with its complaints procedure.
27. The total offer of £425 was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration where there was no lasting impact. However, it took until August 2025 and required our intervention for the additional £165 compensation to be offered. The landlord should identify and correct errors without the need for the resident to escalate their concerns to us. In this case, missed opportunities to respond sooner led to a service failure. If it were not for the landlord’s offers of compensation and willingness to put things right, it is likely we would have found maladministration for its handling of the complaint.

Learning

28. The landlord has shown learning by improving its internal communication through regular meetings and has hired more staff to support timely complaint responses. This should help it to resolve complaints quickly and within its own complaints procedure.

 Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. This investigation identified issues which were based on examples of poor record keeping. Our Spotlight report on knowledge information management explains the importance of landlords keeping accurate, accessible, and well‑managed records to support effective decision making. It highlights that poor record keeping can lead to service failures, unclear accountability, and poor outcomes for residents, particularly those who are vulnerable

Communication

30. Although it was positive to see proactive communication through text messages when the lift was back in service the landlord could have used this facility more often to keep the resident’s updated. We have seen poor communication about the quote and the timeline of the repairs that followed, which could have been resolved by group texts.