Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202333781)

Background

1. The resident reported a roof leak to the landlord, and it attended in November 2021. In September 2023, she complained the landlord did not complete the roof repair and she was living with damp and mould caused by the leak.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of repairs.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of repairs.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to repairs

4. The landlord did not respond to reports of repairs in line with its repair policy. It acknowledged some failings at stages 1 and 2 but did not address the damp and mould issue. The compensation it offered was not proportionate and did not align with its policy.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord did not comply with its complaint policy or our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It offered compensation at stage 2, but this was not proportionate or in line with its compensation policy.

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 has 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 investigated

6. The resident said the damp has impacted her and her family’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further.
7. The resident said her energy bills have increased because the heating has been on constantly due to condensation. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised this issue during the internal complaint process. Therefore, we have no power to investigate this issue.

What we have investigated

8. In November and December 2021, the landlord inspected the roof at the resident’s property. It identified a roof leak and damp affecting the living room and bedroom. It raised a repair but later accepted it had closed it in error before completing the work. A further inspection in April 2022 identified internal damage, but there is no evidence the landlord took remedial action. In December 2022, the resident reported the leak again. The landlord arranged a mould wash and raised further work orders, but it did not complete the repairs.
9. The landlord’s repair policy says it is responsible for roof repairs. Both the repair policy and the lease say the resident, as a shared owner, is responsible for internal repairs. Its repair policy aims to complete non-routine repairs within 90 days.
10. The resident complained to the landlord on 30 September 2023. She said it had not fixed the roof or the internal damage, and she was living with damp and mould on her ceiling. She said the landlord had not kept her updated and contractor visits had failed. The landlord offered £75 in acknowledgement for its failure to complete the repair and for poor communication. It said a repairs officer would attend on 12 October 2023, which it did, and evidence shows the landlord completed the roof repair on 30 October 2023. This was just under 2 years after it identified a roof leak. This was significantly outside the timescales set out in its repair policy.
11. On 1 November 2023 the resident escalated the complaint. She said the landlord had not completed the repairs or kept her updated. She reported damp smells and raised safety concerns. The landlord inspected and completed further roof repairs on 15 November 2023.
12. On 15 December 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response and accepted its repairs had not resolved the problem. It said the council would not allow it to erect scaffolding until January 2024, after which a leak specialist would attend. It appointed a repairs officer as the main point of contact and increased the total compensation offered to £125. The landlord later accepted this did not align with its compensation policy for either medium or high failure.
13. The repairs officer contacted the resident and communication improved. Before this, there is little evidence the landlord kept her updated. The leak specialist attended on 29 February 2024, and the roof repair was completed in June 2024. This was around 2 and a half years since the landlord’s inspection identified the repairs and significantly outside its policy. The landlord’s internal records state it completed internal ceiling repairs in October 2024 as a gesture of goodwill.
14. The resident told us the roof and ceiling were repaired, but she is still living with damp and mould. While the landlord completed some internal repairs, there is no evidence to suggest it is responsible for this issue. However, it was a failing that it did not address this part of her complaint or explain its position in either of its complaint responses, or in its communication with the resident. By completing some internal repairs, but not others, the landlord likely caused confusion for the resident.
15. The landlord told us it reviewed its compensation in October 2024 and increased it to £1,000 for the delays in completing the repairs. It said it would advise the resident, but she has since told us it has not done this. Its revised offer is at the upper end of the range recommended in our compensation guidance. Therefore, we have not increased the offer further. Nonetheless, we cannot find reasonable redress, as the landlord did not review its offer until 10 months after the complaint concluded and only after our intervention.
16. In summary, we find maladministration. The landlord took around 2 and a half years to resolve the roof leak, and its communication before stage 2 was poor. It failed to address the resident’s damp and mould concerns or confirm responsibility for the matter. Its revised compensation was reasonable, but belated. We have ordered the landlord to pay the £1,000 compensation it calculated for the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. We have also ordered it to apologise, and to confirm its position regarding the damp and mould.

17. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complied with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2022). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code. 
18. The landlord acknowledged the complaint, spoke to the resident, and issued its stage 1 response within its policy timescale. It acknowledged the resident’s escalation but issued its stage 2 response around 8 working days outside its policy timescale. It did not provide an explanation for the delay either before or within the response. It offered £25 compensation but did not apologise or demonstrate any learning. The compensation was not in line with its compensation policy.
19. The landlord told us it reviewed its compensation in October 2024 and increased it to £150 for its complaint handling. While it said it would advise the resident, she has since told us it has not done so. Its revised offer is in line with our compensation guidance. Therefore, we have not increased it further. However, we cannot find reasonable redress, as the landlord did not review the compensation until 10 months after the complaint concluded and only after our intervention.
20. In summary, we find service failure. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident the £150 it calculated. This recognises the likely upset and frustration caused to the resident by the complaint handling failures identified.

Learning

21. The landlord should provide its complaint responses in line with its policy timescales. If it is unable to do so, it should provide an explanation prior to the deadline to ensure it keeps the resident informed. It should address all issues raised in the complaint.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord should improve its record keeping, particularly by tracking repairs and clearly confirming completion. It should oversee contractor performance and ensure it completes repairs before closing jobs. Our spotlight reports on repairs and knowledge, and information management may help.

Communication

23. Before the stage 2 response, there is little evidence the landlord consistently kept the resident updated. This improved once a named point of contact was appointed. The landlord should consider a named point of contact for complex cases to ensure good communication.