Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202320804)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320804

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

27 June 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Communication regarding rent arrears.
2. Response to her reports about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
3. Handling of her concerns about staff conduct.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 2 bedroom house. The tenancy commenced on 14 April 2023.
On 24 April 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to explain that she was homeless prior to collecting the keys 10 days ago. She stated the property was stripped of carpets and blinds. She asked for support. The landlord looked into what support was available. This included sourcing a washing machine and cooker.
On 27 April 2023 the landlord contacted the resident and apologised for the delay. It asked her for more details regarding her concerns that the property was not in a good condition. It also stated that once it received this information it would be able to arrange for a contractor to inspect the concerns.
During May 2023 the landlord had spoken to the resident regarding rent arrears on her account. She had advised that Universal Credit needed her to send her tenancy agreement.
On 15 June 2023 the landlord attempted to call the resident three times regarding the arrears. However this was unsuccessful.
On 4 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to explained she was experiencing financial hardship. She asked if there was any support available.
On 10 July 2023 the resident called to end her tenancy. She explained she was not currently staying at the property and was “sofa surfing”. This was due to personal health reasons and she could not financially afford the property. She later withdrew this notice to end her tenancy.
On 20 July 2023 the landlord informed the resident it had requested its supplier contact her directly to supply and fit the cooker. It also confirmed that it had retracted her termination notice as requested.
On 21 July 2023 the landlord attempted to speak with the resident to arrange a payment plan for the arrears. However this was unsuccessful. It emailed the resident to arrange a call back.
It had been arranged for the resident to receive a cooker on 27 July 2023. This date had been confirmed by the resident. The landlord had also attempted to call the resident to remind her of the delivery, however this was unsuccessful. The delivery was missed and the landlord incurred a £50 charge as a result.
On 28 July 2023 the landlord attempted to speak with the resident again regarding arrears. However the call was unsuccessful.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 August 2023 to explain that, despite her requesting delivery of the cooker for the 27 July 2023, she was not available. It explained that it was unable to confirm if the tenant welfare team would be able to provide this item again. It asked the resident to get in touch.
The resident spoke with the landlord that day, however she was unhappy with the housing officer’s conduct. The call was regarding the missed appointment for the cooker delivery. She raised a formal complaint on 1 August 2023. Her concerns were:
1. She said that the housing officer “verbally attacked” her. During the phone call her illness was disregarded. She stated she was fed up with being talked down to.
2. The income team were aware she is unemployed and on benefits. Also that her benefits had not yet been paid but they kept contacting her regarding this. She felt she was being “badgered” by the landlord on a constant basis.
3. She wanted support with funding to obtain essentials.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 7 August 2023. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint was about the “constant phone calls” from its income department. It noted that she felt the landlord failed to take her medical condition seriously and failed to consider her situation. The landlord said:
1. It had explained that it had attempted to contact the resident to resolve the rent arrears, however this was unsuccessful. It explained the absence of involvement from the resident made it challenging for its income team to follow their procedure for collecting the overdue rent payments.
2. As the rent still remained outstanding and a future action plan had not been agreed, it stated it would not be able to reduce contact with the resident until a plan was in place.
The resident’s complaint was escalated to stage two during October 2023. The landlord issued a stage two response on 19 October 2023. It understood the resident’s complaint to be about:
1. Its housing manager verbally attacking her on 1 August 2023.
  1. The landlord did not find evidence to support this and explained its housing managers line of questions to the resident were fair and reasonable.
2. It consistently contacting her about arrears despite t being aware that she is unemployed and Universal Credit had not been released.
  1. The landlord explained the resident had failed on multiple occasions to engage with it to discuss or arrange a payment plan.
As the landlord was unable to identify any service failure, it explained it would not be upholding the resident’s complaint.
In the resident’s complaint to us she stated she was seeking:
1. Compensation.
2. Funding for furnishing, carpets and white goods or for the landlord to put the property in a better condition.

Assessment and findings

We understand the resident has expressed distress over the issues raised in this complaint, stating it has affected her health and wellbeing. Whilst we have noted this as context, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is because claims of personal injury must, ultimately, be decided by courts of law who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Communication regarding arrears

The resident’s tenancy started on 14 April 2023, and she was contractually obliged to ensure that the rent was paid from this date. This contractual obligation was set out in her tenancy agreement. It is unclear when or if she had actually moved into the property. During a call on 10 July 2023 the resident had stated she was not staying in the property due to personal health reasons and because she could not financially afford the property. We also see in an internal email during August 2023 it was noted that the resident had chosen to stay with a family member for almost 4 months. Nevertheless, as the tenancy had started, the resident was liable for rent for the property whether or not she was staying there.
In the resident’s complaint on 1 August 2023 she stated that she was being “badgered” by the landlord on a constant basis and it was difficult for her to deal with. She explained that she was unemployed and awaiting for her benefits to come through and when they did she would pay the arrears.
We understand the resident was unemployed at the time and was awaiting receipt of benefits to pay her rent. Throughout this period the landlord had repeatedly contacted the resident regarding the arrears. However she felt she was being harassed.
The landlord’s debt and money policy states when dealing with arrears it will employ a variety of methods such as:
1. Clear communication – detailing the process for the collection of money by a variety of communication channels.
2. Early intervention – identifying and contacting customers who fall into arrears as soon as possible to prevent arrears increasing.
3. Taking into account the customer’s personal circumstances when deciding the most appropriate method of recovery and providing an enhanced service where a customer has been assessed as requiring additional support.
4. Offering advice, support and signposting to customers to help them access welfare benefits including but not limited to Housing Benefit or Universal Credit.
5. Offering arrangements to repay arrears in instalments based on an assessment of what is affordable and permissible, and regularly reviewing the arrangement to make sure it is still suitable and does not cause any undue hardship.
6. Having clear standards for account management, customer contact and treating customers fairly.
We have reviewed the call logs between 24 April 2023 and 4 August 2023. We find that the frequency of calls was reasonable. On average the landlord had called the resident twice a month, often the landlord had difficulty contacting the resident and would leave voice messages.
We understand the resident felt that she was being harassed. It reasonable for the landlord to contact its residents regarding arrears, as managing rent payments is a fundamental part of the landlord’s housing management function.
The resident has a responsibility to ensure rent is paid on time and to take appropriate steps to address any outstanding debts. Regular contact and early intervention is necessary to enable a landlord to discuss possible support that may be needed for a resident.
In this case the landlord had used a variety of the methods above in order to assist with the arrears: This included:
1. Contacting the resident regarding the arrears via different channels.
2. Contacting universal credit directly to recommend payment be made directly to it. This was agreed, however the resident objected to this.
3. Attempted to offer the resident the option of a payment plan.
4. Signposted her to her local citizen advice bureau, law centre or solicitor.
It was appropriate that the landlord used a variety of methods to assist the resident in managing her arrears as this approach ensured that the resident had multiple opportunities and channels to engage and access support from the landlord. The landlord’s consideration of options to help the resident with arrears, alongside signposting her to third party support services, was a positive and proactive step.
Overall we are satisfied that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s communication regarding the resident’s arrears. The resident was responsible for ensuring that rent was paid, including providing any information needed for her Universal Credit claim. The landlord took appropriate and proportionate steps to communicate with the resident about the arrears, which it was entitled to do.

Reports of the property’s condition.

The resident was unhappy about the condition of the property when the tenancy commenced. In particular that there were no curtains, carpets or white goods.
We have reviewed the landlord’s void standard policy, to understand the landlord’s requirements during the void period and consider whether it adhered to its policy.
1. Section 4 is in reference to the clearance and removal of assets. It states:
  1. The property must be cleared of all rubbish and any non-standard fittings removed. The previous resident’s cooker, fridge, washing machine etc. must be disconnected and removed from the property. This includes all hobs and ovens regardless of whether they are integral and part of a fitted kitchen.
  2. Where appliances have been provided and maintained by the landlord because of the nature of the scheme (e.g. frail elderly schemes, new build schemes with fully integrated units), they should be left at the property, cleaned and tested. Where hobs are removed the worktop shall be made good.
2. Section 10 is in reference to flooring. It states:
  1. That all laminate flooring and carpet should be left unless in poor condition.
We have reviewed schedule three of the resident’s tenancy agreement which refers to furniture and furnishings included in the tenancy. It does not state that the landlord was required to provide any furniture or furnishing.
We have not seen any evidence to suggest that the resident was part of a scheme when moving into the property that required the landlord to ensure appliances were fitted. We also have not seen evidence that the landlord was required to do this as per her tenancy agreement.
Nonetheless we recognise the resident had informed the landlord of her financial difficulty and asked if there was any support it could provide in order to help her get the property furnished.
The evidence shows when she raised these concerns to the landlord it referred her for starter tenancy support. The following actions were taken:
1. It offered a second hand washing machine. This was refused by the resident.
2. It had arranged the offer of a furniture pack via a third party. The correspondence stated this was initially refused, but the landlord offered this again to the resident.
3. It had arranged for a gas cooker to be delivered to the resident. The date was agreed for 27 July 2023, however she missed this delivery.
While we acknowledge the resident was unhappy with the condition of the property at the start of her tenancy, the landlord was not obliged under the terms of the tenancy agreement or its internal policy to provide items such as carpets, blinds or white goods. These items are generally considered the resident’s responsibility to source. However when the resident informed the landlord of her financial difficulties, the landlord responded appropriately by considering support options available to her.
Overall we find the landlord acted positively by showing empathy and offering support to the resident, in line with its policies. Therefore we have found no maladministration in its response to her concerns about the condition of the property at the start of her tenancy.

Staff conduct.

The resident informed the landlord on 1 August 2023 that she was “verbally attacked” by its staff member. We would have expected the landlord to conduct a fair and objective investigation, take appropriate actions where necessary, and clearly relay its findings to the resident.
We have therefore considered whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations.
Section 2.8 of the landlord’s code of conduct policy is in reference to its relationship with residents and other service users. It states it must maintain high standards of professionalism, fairness and courtesy in all dealings with residents and other service users. This means it will:
1. Treat everyone with courtesy, dignity and respect.
2. Not allow any personal relationship with a resident or other service user to conflict, or been perceived to conflict, with role and responsibilities.
In this instance, we see the resident was referring to a conversation that took place on 1 August 2023. The call was in reference to why she missed an agreed delivery of a gas cooker on 27 July 2023.
We have not been able to listen to this audio call. However we have reviewed the records and can see the landlord had looked into the resident’s concerns in a timely manner. Following her report, on 7 August 2023 it had requested further information from its staff member regarding the call to investigate the complaint about conduct.
In its stage two response, we see the landlord apologised that the resident was unhappy with the call. However it explained that it found the housing manager’s line of questioning as to why the appointment was missed to be fair and reasonable. It also explained that it could not identify a service failure regarding its conduct towards the resident.
We understand this would have come as a disappointment to the resident. It is clear that there are different accounts of the conversation from the two parties. Based on the evidence available, our view is that the landlord acted appropriately by promptly investigating the resident’s concerns about staff conduct, and making her aware of its position on the matter. It acknowledged the resident’s feelings and apologised that she found the call unpleasant. Therefore we have found no maladministration, as the landlord took appropriate and proportionate steps to address the resident’s concern about how she had been treated.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord communication regarding rent arrears.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to her reports about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of her concerns about staff conduct.