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) (202327581)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327581

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

17 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the validity of the fire risk assessment and his queries concerning the proposed works to install a communal fire alarm system.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint has also been considered.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, living in a 2-bedroom flat. The building is a two-storey house converted to self-contained flats.
  2. The landlord completed a fire assessment survey on 9 July 2022. The landlord raised a work order on 16 February 2023 to install a communal fire alarm to be compliant with the fire risk assessment requirements. The resident raised concerns on 19 May 2025 about the validity of the assessment and cost of the works.
  3. The resident complained on 20 June 2023 as he disputed the fire assessment had taken place. He said the landlord had not provided sufficient evidence and he did not provide access to the property. He rejected the validity of the report and the recommendations. He further requested to raise a complaint on 17 July 2023. He noted inconsistencies in the report, which indicated the landlord did not complete a full assessment. He added the landlord had not satisfactorily responded to his queries about whether the fire alarm system was necessary, including whether a more affordable system was available.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 3 October 2023. It said it attended the resident’s property on 13 January 2023 and 6 February 2023 but was unable to gain access. It therefore completed a desktop exercise based on information from a fire risk assessment completed on 9 July 2022. It had issued a Section 20 notice about the works. It was consulting with its legal team to enforce the installation of the communal fire alarm detection system. It needed to ensure the building was compliant with fire regulations to ensure the resident’s safety. It recognised it had not handled the complaint appropriately and offered £100 compensation for its failure to respond in a timely manner or communicate effectively.
  5. On 4 October 2023 the resident escalated the complaint. He was reassured the landlord recognised that the fire assessment did not take place but noted the report remained inaccurate and not based on a proper fire risk assessment. The landlord had not satisfactorily explained why the works were necessary or addressed whether a more cost-effective solution was available. The landlord failed to correctly consult with the resident as required for works over £500. He asked the landlord to cover the cost of the works.
  6. In its stage 2 response on 3 November 2023, the landlord reiterated that a communal fire alarm system was required following the desktop assessment. The cost for the system would be recoverable via a Section 20 from the sinking fund. The resident needed to allow access for the works. It increased its offer for poor complaint handling to £125.
  7. The resident told the Service the landlord has since installed the communal fire alarm system. He continued to dispute the validity of the fire assessment report and remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the matter.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has raised concerns regarding the service charges for the fire assessments and the frequency the landlord completes them. The landlord handled this matter under a different complaint, and the Housing Ombudsman will consider it separately under case reference 202430852. As a result, such issues have not been assessed in this investigation. This investigation will focus on the complaint set out above.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the validity of the fire risk assessment and his queries concerning the proposed works to install a communal fire alarm system

  1. The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 states that the responsible person must ensure that “the premises are, to the extent that it is appropriate, equipped with appropriate fire-fighting equipment and with fire detectors and alarms”. As such, the landlord has an obligation to ensure the property has appropriate fire alarm systems.
  2. The landlord completed a fire assessment on 9 July 2022. It identified a moderate risk, and that essential action was required. Due to the nature of the building’s construction, a full evacuation policy was required. It noted the lack of fire detection could lead to the occupants being unaware of a fire in another flat.
  3. The landlord must make reasonable effort to complete all significant findings on the fire assessment. The landlord raised a work order on 16 February 2023 to install a communal fire alarm to be compliant with the fire risk assessment requirements. It then sent a letter to the resident on 10 May 2023 advising that it was installing a communal fire alarm system. The Service has not been provided with a copy of this letter, but it appears it was a Section 20 notice.
  4. The resident raised concerns that a contractor had not attended on the reported date of the fire assessment, so he disputed the findings of the report. The landlord noted in its complaint responses that it completed a desktop evaluation as it was unable to gain access on 2 occasions. The landlord has not provided evidence that it notified the resident of these appointments or gave him the chance to provide access. This was unreasonable as it resulted in the landlord not completing a full in-person investigation.
  5. The resident further disputed the validity of the report due to discrepancies. He said the photo of the property on the report was taken in approximately 2015 (as the colour of the exterior of the building had since changed), the number of residents in the block was incorrect, and the landlord did not inspect the fire assets on a weekly basis as stated in the report. He added that there were already instructions for the necessary action in case of a fire. In response, the landlord said that such issues were outside of the scope of the consultation and did not have a material impact on the findings. While this is true, the landlord somewhat dismissed his concerns and made no attempts to correct the information it held. Nonetheless, it was reasonable that it later advised that the fire assessment was completed by a qualified assessor, and was approved and checked internally, so it had no concerns about the validity of the report.
  6. The Service has not seen evidence that completing a desktop evaluation rather than an in-person inspection had a material impact on the overall outcome of the fire assessment findings. The resident did not provide any evidence to dispute the need for a connected fire alarm system, such as a similar system already in place. This meant the findings were valid as the work was required to improve the fire safety of the property.
  7. The resident also did not think that the works were within the landlord’s remit, as he was responsible for repairs within the property. The lease states the landlord “may add to diminish modify or alter any such service if by reason of any change of circumstances during the term such addition diminution or alteration is in the opinion of the Landlord reasonably necessary or desirable in the interest of good estate management or for the benefit of the occupiers of the Building”. This would permit it to install the fire alarm system as it benefitted the occupiers by increasing fire safety. The landlord explained this clause of the lease to the resident, which was appropriate to address his concerns that the works were not within its remit.
  8. The resident also disputed the need for the fire alarm system as there was 2 smoke alarms and a carbon monoxide alarm in his property. He thought the proposal was “overkill”. However, the current alarms in place would not notify the other flat. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord sought to implement a more comprehensive fire alarm system in line with the fire safety assessment recommendations.
  9. The works were quoted at £2494.78. The resident was responsible for 50% of the costs, which would be covered by the sinking fund. The resident asked the landlord whether it could consider a more cost-effective alternative or whether he could purchase the alarm system. The landlord explained the contractor was appointed under a Qualifying Long-Term Agreement. It had therefore completed due diligence to ensure the contractor would deliver quality of works and value for money.
  10. However, given that the works were a relatively small scale, as it only involved 2 properties, there may have been a cheaper alternative. The landlord could have given the resident the opportunity to liaise with the neighbour and obtain quotes from a different contractor for the landlord to consider. It does not appear the landlord gave such options fair consideration. Nonetheless, it is recognised that it would not have a legal obligation to do so as it had followed the correct process to instruct the contractor.
  11. As the freeholder, the landlord is the responsible party for adhering to the fire regulations. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not permit the resident to complete the works himself as it may have left it open to possible liability issues if the works were not completed to a suitable standard.
  12. It is of concern that the landlord told the resident it intended to commence legal action to complete the works. As the works were to ensure the safety of the building, the landlord would be entitled to pursue legal action if the resident was preventing access. However, there is no evidence that the landlord notified the resident of the appointments, so he did not have reasonable opportunity to provide access. The landlord’s approach therefore appears to be unnecessarily heavy handed and likely had a detrimental impact on the landlord-tenant relationship.
  13. Ultimately, as the freeholder, the landlord has a responsibility to ensure residents’ safety. It was reasonable that the landlord maintained it needed to install the communal fire alarm system as it was deemed necessary by a suitably qualified contractor. However, the landlord should have taken reasonable steps to notify the resident of all appointments (particularly where it subsequently threatened legal action), thoroughly addressed his concerns regarding the accuracy of the fire risk assessment report, and it could have taken further action to address his concerns about the cost of the works. As it failed to do so, this may have had a detrimental impact on the landlord-tenant relationship, and it resulted in the resident incurring additional time and effort pursuing the matter. This amounts to a service failure.
  14. As an outcome of the complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to cover the cost of the works. It would not be obliged to do so as the resident is a leaseholder, so he is responsible for costs incurred by repair works.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If it cannot meet its timeframes, it will update the resident and agree a new response timeframe.
  2. The resident asked to raise a complaint on 20 June 2023. The landlord did not recognise this correspondence as a complaint, which was unreasonable. The landlord has not acknowledged this initial delay. The resident raised a further complaint on 17 July 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 30 October 2023. It therefore took the landlord 94 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint. This was an unreasonable delay as it significantly exceeded its response timeframe.
  3. The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 4 October 2023 and the landlord sent its stage 2 response on 3 November 2023. This exceeded the response timeframe by 2 working days. Although it was not a significant delay it would have been appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident it needed additional time to manage his expectations.
  4. In its final response, the landlord offered £125 compensation for its poor complaint handling including a failure to respond in a timely manner or communicate effectively. This was a reasonable amount of compensation and in line with both the landlord’s compensation policy and the Service’s remedies guidance. The landlord has therefore reasonably redressed this element of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the validity of the fire risk assessment and his queries concerning the proposed works to install a communal fire alarm system.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has reasonably redressed its handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord should apologise to the resident for the shortcomings identified in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the fire risk assessment and the communal fire alarm system. It should explain how it will prevent a recurrence of the identified issues.
  2. It should provide a copy of the apology to the Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident £125 for its complaint handling failures as offered at stage 2.