From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202319788)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319788

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

19 March 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. the resident’s concerns about a repairs appointment.
    2. the subsequent complaint.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. Another housing association acts as the managing agent for the property. However, the resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for the repairs.
  2. The landlord said it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident at the start of her tenancy. However, it said it was told by the managing agent in 2022 of the resident’s mental health concerns. The resident told us she has ADHD, impaired vision, dyslexia and anxiety.
  3. On 22 August 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She said:
    1. she was “perplexed” when a contractor attended that day to complete a window repair as she had not been told of this appointment.
    2. her friend had opened the door to let the operative in, who had “insisted” they needed to take a photograph of the window.
    3. the resident was in the shower at the time and “shouted” that the window handle had already been repaired.
  4. The resident said that the operative should not have entered her “personal space” without her consent. She said she had a panic attack and was left with “anger”.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 29 August 2023. It acknowledged that the operative who attended the resident’s property on 22 August 2023 was not aware the window repair had been completed earlier in the month. It said:
    1. the operative had stated that they were unaware the resident did not want them in her property.
    2. when a repair is completed, its operatives would take a photograph of the repair as evidence it had been completed.
    3. it could see no evidence its operative had forced entry or stayed at the property without consent. However, it apologised to the resident for the upset caused.
  6. The landlord said it had shared the resident’s comments with its contractor so that feedback could be provided. It offered the resident compensation of £25 for the failing in its communication around the repair.
  7. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 29 August 2023. She said her friend had let the operative into the property as they had “insisted”. She said the landlord had not addressed how this had made her feel “invaded” and that she was left “angry” and that her anxiety had gone “through the roof”.
  8. The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 complaint response on 6 September 2023. It said:
    1. it had reviewed how the case had been managed at stage 1 and noted its officer contacted the relevant stakeholders.
    2. the resident had not provided information to demonstrate that the stage 1 complaint response was factually inaccurate, did not address the complaint or had not considered important information.
    3. it stood by its initial decision provided at stage 1 of the complaints process.
  9. The landlord said that it wanted to apologise sincerely for the “trauma” the resident had been put through. It repeated its offer of £25 made at stage 1 of the complaints process.
  10. The resident told us that she felt that the landlord’s response to her concerns did not acknowledge the impact of the incident upon her.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs guide sets out that, after a repair report, it will send a repair order to its contractor. It says it aims to provide the resident with an appointment at the time of the report. However, in some cases, it may need to ask the contractor to contact the resident direct.
  2. The landlord has a compensation policy. This outlines the range of compensation it may consider where there has been a failure in service, depending on severity. It sets out the following awards:
    1. low failure – apology to £50.
    2. medium failure – £51 – £150.
    3. high failure – £151 upwards.
  3. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to those at stage 2 within 20 working days.

Handling of the repairs appointment

  1. The resident told the landlord that she had been unaware of the appointment of 22 August 2023 for the window repair. The landlord told us that its planner had booked this appointment on 4 August 2023 but left no confirmation they had spoken to the resident about it. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs, published in March 2019, sets out the importance of landlords providing residents with sufficient notice of repair appointments. The landlord should reasonably have made adequate record to demonstrate that it had appropriately communicated with the resident about the appointment of 22 August 2023. That it cannot demonstrate it did so is a failing.
  2. The landlord told us it has since provided feedback to its team to avoid this issue reoccurring. That is a positive action. However, we have recommended that it review whether it has adequate processes and guidance for appropriately communicating repair appointments to residents and clearly recording these communications.
  3. We have not seen records of the window repair completed on 9 August 2023. However, it is not disputed that the repair was completed that day, when the operative had attended another repair at the resident’s property. When investigating the resident’s complaint at stage 1 the landlord noted internally that the operative made no record that this extra repair had been completed.  That was a failing in record keeping. The landlord should have appropriately recorded the completion of repair work. Doing so would have avoided its unnecessary attendance on 22 August 2023, and the resulting inconvenience and concern caused to the resident.
  4. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged that the resident had said she had told the managing agent the window repair was complete. It noted that it was “unfortunate” the managing agent “possibly did not pass on” details of this contact. But there is no evidence the landlord made any attempt to contact the managing agent about the matter. Nor did it consider whether it had adequate systems and processes in place for effective communication with the managing agent. It would have been reasonable for it to do so, to learn from the complaint and consider possible steps to avoid issues being repeated. Doing so would also have provided the resident with reassurance that her concern around this issue had been appropriately addressed. That the landlord did not do so was a failing.
  5. In its complaints response the landlord said that, while the resident “disputed” allowing access, its operative was not of this understanding as access had been granted by the resident’s friend. It also said the operative had stated they were unaware the resident did not want them in her property. However, we have seen no record of any discussion the landlord had with the operative at this time. Given the concerns the resident had raised the landlord should have made, and stored, appropriate record of any contact with the operative about the matter. This was a record keeping failing which means it cannot adequately demonstrate how it considered the resident’s concerns.
  6. We recognise that the resident believes the operative would have heard her shout that she did not want them to go into her bedroom. However, we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude that was the case. We also note that the resident feels the landlord’s response to her concerns does not acknowledge that she felt “overwhelmed” by the unexpected visit. However, the landlord had noted what she had said about how she felt, and it apologised sincerely for this. That was appropriate.
  7. So far, the landlord has awarded the resident £25. While this appropriately recognises the miscommunication around the repair appointment, we have identified the landlord could have done more to demonstrate how it had investigated the resident’s concerns. In addition, it should reasonably have done more to consider whether it had effective systems for communicating with the managing agent. With consideration to all the circumstances, we have ordered that the landlord make a further award to the resident to fully recognise the impact of the additional failings we have identified.

Handling of the complaint

  1. Each of the landlord’s complaint responses were timely. However as noted above, it should have made and stored appropriate records of its contact with the operative about the concerns the resident raised about the repair appointment. In addition, the landlord should reasonably have explored whether it had adequate systems and processes in place for effective communication with the managing agent.
  2. The officer who reviewed the complaint at stage 2 noted they had contacted the resident by telephone on 1 September 2023 to discuss the complaint. However, they made only brief record of the call. While they noted they had spoken to the resident for over 10 minutes, they recorded only that she was unhappy, and did not believe her feelings had been considered. In its eventual stage 2 complaint response, the landlord noted the resident had said the situation had affected her more as she was going through the menopause and suffered from ADHD. While the resident has not disputed that she told the landlord this, it did not make adequate record of when she provided this information. That was a further record keeping failing. It should have made and stored clear record of the points raised or discussed with the resident during the complaints process. Doing so would help it to demonstrate that it had responded appropriately to concerns raised by the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the repairs appointment.
    2. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
    3. service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
    1. write to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident compensation of £75, made up of:
      1. £25 already awarded by the landlord.
      2. £50 further payment in recognition of the additional failings identified in this report.
    3. remind staff of the importance of making adequate record of how they have investigated issues raised, including record of contact with contractors, operatives and residents.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should review whether it has adequate systems and processes in place for effective communication with the managing agent.

Recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should contact the resident to make sure it has appropriate record of her vulnerabilities, and that it considers any appropriate reasonable adjustments.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should review whether it has adequate processes and guidance for appropriately communicating with residents about repair appointments and clearly recording these communications.