Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202325331)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325331

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

1 October 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 the resident’s reports of repairs, in particular:
    1. A leak from the roof and guttering.
    2. The front door.
    3. The kitchen.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident reported an issue with a leak from the guttering in June 2023. The landlord inspected in July 2023 and raised “follow on” works. It is unclear what action it took at the time.
  3. The landlord was due to complete a kitchen inspection ahead of a renewing it on 13 July 2023. The inspection did not go ahead.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 10 August 2023. She said she reported the leaking gutter over a year ago. She said when it rained water was “gushing” over the gutter and was getting in to her kitchen. She complained of a “damp smell” in the kitchen. She said she was unhappy it had decided not to replace the kitchen and it needed repairs to the drawers as handles were missing. She raised concerns about the glazing on her front door, following a recent break in.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 18 August 2023. It said it had inspected the gutter issue on 27 June 2023, and raised follow on works which would be done “within internal timeframes”. It said it was not aware of her concerns related to the front door and had booked an inspection for 8 September 2023. It explained the kitchen was due for renewal in the financial year 2024/25. It encouraged the resident to book a repair to the kitchen if needed. It offered £10 in compensation for not completing the inspection in July 2023.
  6. The landlord attended to clear the gutters in September 2023. It completed some of the works but was unable to access gutters of the neighbouring property due to an unauthorised structure in the neighbour’s garden.
  7. The resident asked the landlord to open a stage 2 complaint on 2 October 2023. She said she was unhappy it had not completed the guttering repair and rain was still leaking into her kitchen. She said the door repair had not gone ahead, and she was still waiting for an appointment to inspect the kitchen for repairs.
  8. The landlord inspected the roof/guttering in November 2023. Its notes indicate the guttering needed clearing but there was also an issue with the lead flashing where the property was adjoined to another. It raised follow on works for 30 November 2023. The landlord also inspected the kitchen around this time.
  9. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 2 December 2023. It explained the issues with access due to the neighbours unauthorised structure had delayed it completing the repair. It said it had arranged an alternative contractor to progress with the roof and gutter repair. It outlined the findings of its kitchen inspection from November 2023. It said the kitchen was “fit for purpose” and did not need replacing ahead of its planed replacement in the 2024/25 financial year. It said the front door repair was more complex than first thought and it had raised a new repair which it aimed to complete by 27 December 2023. It offered the resident £125 in compensation for its handling of the repairs (roof and front door), and £75 for the delay in sending its stage 2 complaint response.

Events after the complaints process

  1. The landlord completed the repairs to the roof and guttering on 7 December 2023
  2. The resident contacted us on 30 January 2024 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said the landlord had not yet completed repairs to the front door, kitchen, and gutter/roof leak.
  3. The landlord completed the repairs to the front door on 12 February 2024.
  4. The landlord contacted us in August 2024 and said it had reviewed its handling of the case. It said it had decided to make a further offer of £285 in compensation to the resident for its handling of the repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

  1. The information we have seen shows the resident raised concerns the landlord’s handling of the leak, and decoration works caused damage to her possessions. The evidence we have seen shows the resident did not raise these concerns until after the landlord sent its final complaint response, in December 2023. As such we have not investigated this matter, as our Scheme says we will not investigate matters that have not exhausted a landlord’s complaints process. The resident may wish to raise a complaint about the landlord’s response to these concerns if she remains unhappy. We may then investigate if she is unhappy after exhausting the landlord’s complaints process.
  2. The information available for this investigation shows the resident reported repairs to the kitchen in April 2024, and the landlord deferred the kitchen replacement to the 2025/26 financial year. These matters happened after the landlord sent its final complaint response. As with the concerns, above we have not investigated these issues as they have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
  2. The landlord’s repairs guide says it has 3 priorities of repair. Emergency repairs which it will attend to within 24 hours. It says it will attend to routine repairs within 28 days. It says it will complete more complex, non routine repairs, within 90 days.

Repairs to a leak from the roof and guttering

  1. We acknowledge this matter was a complex repair that required multiple attendances to fix. The matter was also complicated by access issues involving an unauthorised structure in the neighbour’s garden preventing access to parts of the rood/gutter. We have taken the above issues into account when assessing the landlord’s handling of the matter.
  2. The information available indicates the landlord was on notice about the matter from June 2023. We acknowledge the resident said in her complaint she had been reporting the issue since 2022. We do not seek to dispute the resident’s claim. However, we have not been provided with any evidence that supports this claim. From the information available for this investigation, the earliest report of the issue we have seen is from 27 June 2023. We have therefore assessed the landlord’s handling of the matter from this date onwards.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response cited it was on notice about the matter from June 2023. The repair records lack detail about the actions it took at that time. This is a failing in its record keeping. We acknowledge it claimed it inspected the roof in July 2023. While the records do not support this claim, the resident did not dispute its version of events. It is therefore reasonable to conclude it did inspect at the time. This was within a reasonable period of the resident reporting the issue. It is also apparent it did not complete works to resolve the matter at the time. This was unreasonable and inconvenienced the resident. She was further inconvenienced by the need to raise a complaint before the landlord sought to progress the repairs.
  4. When the resident made her complaint in August 2023 she raised concerns the ongoing leak was causing a “damp smell” in her kitchen. We have seen no evidence that shows the landlord investigated this matter further at the time. We acknowledge the landlord’s comments when supplying evidence for this investigation, that the damp was linked to the gutter/roof issue. However, it has not provided evidence it inspected inside the property in relation to the resident’s concerns about damp when she reported the issue. This was an error in its handling of the matter. The resident was distressed at the conditions in her property. The landlord’s failure to inspect internally about her reports of damp may have increased the distress she experienced.
  5. The resident has since updated us explaining the leak from the roof and gutter was fixed and said the damp issues are resolved. We therefore see no need to make orders in relation to a damp and mould inspection. We would have done so if the matter was still outstanding.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response lacked the appropriate detail about what follow on works it had raised to the guttering. It explained it had inspected in July 2023 and that follow on works would be completed within its policy timeframes. However, it did not set out when this would be or what works it would do. This lacked transparency and the resident was inconvenienced by the lack of information about the repairs.
  7. The evidence shows the landlord completed some gutter work in September 2023. This was outside its 90 day timeframe set out in its policy. This was a failing in its handling of the matter. We acknowledge the landlord was unable to complete all the repairs needed due to the access issues, as outlined above. The landlord is not responsible for the entirety of the delay after this point. The landlord sent multiple warning letters to the resident’s neighbour in September and October 2023 in order to get the structure removed. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  8. The landlord decided to use an alternative contractor so it could access the roof. This was because the resident’s neighbour had not removed the unauthorised structure. This is evidence the landlord sought to prevent further delays by appointing a specialist contractor.
  9. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to explain the delays, apologised and outline its next steps. This was appropriate in the circumstances. While we welcome the fact it offered compensation for the delays in an attempt to put things right, considering the delays up to that point we do not consider its offer of compensation satisfactory.
  10. The landlord completed the roofing works on 8 December 2023 this was nearly 6 months after it was on notice. We acknowledge some of the delay was outside of its control. However, there was a delay in it initiating the works which inconvenienced the resident.

Repairs to the front door

  1. The information available indicates the landlord was on notice about the front door issue when the resident made her stage 1 complaint in August 2023. It was appropriate for the landlord to explain it would inspect the door to identify what works were needed.
  2. The landlord completed the inspection of the front door on 8 September 2023, and needed to raise follow on works. While we acknowledge the repair was more complex than first thought, the evidence indicates the landlord did not raise a further repair until 29 November 2023. This was an unreasonable delay of 2 months.
  3. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to apologise for the delays and offer compensation for its handling of the door repair. This went some way to putting right its handling of the matter.
  4. The landlord did not order the glazing for the door until 18 January 2024 (according to its records). We acknowledge it was unable to get access to the property on 10 January 2024. However, this was nearly 2 months after it had raised the follow on repairs. This was a further unreasonable delay that inconvenienced the resident. The resident had raised concerns in her complaint about the security issue the glazing posed. The lack of proactive action from the landlord did little to ease her concerns.
  5. The information available shows the landlord sought to complete the door repairs on 1 and 2 February 2024, but was unable to access the resident’s property. This impacted on its ability to progress with the repair. It completed the repair on 12 February 2024. The later delay was outside of its control. However, the overall delay to complete the repair was unreasonable.

Repairs to the kitchen

  1. The information available shows the landlord was due to inspect the resident’s kitchen ahead of its upcoming replacement on 13 July 2023. The landlord decided to delay the kitchen replacement. It was entitled to do so as it is important for the landlord to manage its limited resources. However, it was inappropriate not to inspect the kitchen at the time to identify any interim repairs needed, given it had postponed the replacement. The resident was inconvenienced by this, and the lack of communication about its decision.
  2. When the resident made her stage 1 complaint she raised concerns about the condition of the kitchen. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response inappropriately put the onus on her to raise any repairs needed. She had already put it on notice about repairs to the kitchen. It should have raised an inspection following her complaint (as it had done so for the front door issue). The resident was frustrated by this and used her stage 2 complaint to chase the landlord about an inspection for the kitchen.
  3. The landlord inspected the kitchen on 15 November 2023. This was 2 months after the resident raised concerns about the condition of her kitchen in her stage 1 complaint, which was unreasonable. The landlord’s inspection found the kitchen to be “fit for purpose” and it used its stage 2 complaint response to outline its position in relation to the kitchen. This was appropriate in the circumstances. We acknowledge the resident disagreed with its position the kitchen did not need urgently replacing. However, the landlord was entitled to rely on the findings of its appropriately qualified officers and it communicated its position with clarity. We welcome the fact the landlord has now renewed the kitchen, as confirmed to us by the resident in April 2025.

The landlord’s offer of redress for the repairs

  1. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the role of this Service is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles of: be fair (follow fair processes and recognise what went wrong), put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The landlord offered the resident a total of £410 in compensation for its handling of the repairs. £125 of this was during the complaint process, and £285 was offered 8 months after its final complaint response. The landlord grouped the compensation offers for multiple repairs. It is not possible to determine the exact amount it offered for its handling of the individual repairs. We have therefore considered the landlord’s overall offer of compensation for the repairs and whether it fully put things right in light of the errors we have identified in this investigation.
  3. The the landlord made its final offer of compensation 8 months after its complaint response. This impacts on the degree to which the offer put right the errors identified above. It is our role to assess the landlord’s handling of the complaint through its complaints process. If the landlord does not offer reasonable redress during its complaints process but makes an appropriate offer after the complaints process has ended, we may find that there has been maladministration by the landlord as it did not do enough to resolve the complaint during its complaints process. We have therefore determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
  4. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident. The exact amount of compensation will depend on the individual circumstances of the complaint. The guidance states that findings of maladministration may be made when we identify failures “which adversely affected the resident”. The amount depends on the severity of the failing and the impact on the resident. Considering the total amount of compensation the landlord offered, we have not made orders for additional compensation. We order the landlord to pay the resident its total offer of £410 in compensation if it has not already done so.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states landlords must send stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response within the timeframes set out in the Code. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response 45 working days after the resident made her stage 2 complaint. The landlord appropriately apologised and offered £75 in compensation for the delay. This was appropriate to put right the inconvenience the resident experienced due to errors in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress which, in our opinion, resolved errors in its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with our guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident its total offer of £410 in compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the repairs. (if it has not already done so).

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £75 in compensation it offered for errors in its complaint handling. The finding of reasonable redress is based on an understanding this was/will be paid.