Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202333949)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333949

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

12 September 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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to damaged personal property and contractor conduct during the resident’s temporary move.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident has additional needs, which require the support of her daughter, who is her representative.
The landlord temporarily moved the resident from the property between January 2022 and October 2022 to carry out essential fire safety works.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 12 March 2023. She complained:
1. the contractor had damaged a high number of personal items during the moves. The landlord had told her before the move that anything damaged would be replaced with the exact same item or “like for like” but it had not honoured this.
2. the kitchen lighting had been changed, and the lights were too bright.
3. the landlord mismanaged the move back to the resident’s property and delayed the agreed move date. The resident’s daughter had to book and cancel annual leave, and her work had been adversely affected because of stress and disruption.
4. fixtures in the property including granite counters, carpets and kitchen cabinets had been damaged. The landlord was not accepting liability.
5. the landlord’s treatment of the resident was unprofessional and caused distress.
The resident requested compensation for damaged items, distress and for the annual leave taken by her daughter. She asked that all damaged items be replaced like-for like.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 16 March 2023. It requested an extension of 10 working days on 29 March 2023. It issued its stage 1 response on 14 April 2023. It said:
1. it had replaced one wardrobe in February 2023. It would repair the 2nd wardrobe. It offered the resident £325 compensation for the chandelier and the work to fit it. It would compensate the resident £35.95 for other damaged items.
2. it would change the kitchen spotlights to warm light lightbulbs.
3. the date for the resident to return to the property had to be moved due to snagging issues.
4. The carpet had been cleaned and would not be replaced. It did not accept liability for the scratches to the granite worktop.
5. It partially upheld the complaint and apologised. It offered compensation of £75 for time and trouble and £75 for failure of service.
The resident submitted the stage 2 complaint on 11 May 2023. She stated:
1. the landlord had not fully considered the costs of replacing the damaged items. It had not considered the level of stress and anxiety caused to the resident. It was necessary for her daughter to be present at meetings and to take annual leave, due to the resident’s additional needs.
2. The wardrobe could not be repaired, and she should be compensated for a replacement. The compensation offered by the landlord for the chandelier was insufficient.
3. The landlord should have done more to avoid moving dates being postponed.
4. The resident had been spoken to in an intimidating way by the contractor and landlord.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 13 June 2023 and apologised for the delay. On 10 July 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to extend the deadline for its response to 24 July 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 July 2023. It apologised for any stress and anxiety. It acknowledged the temporary move was stressful and said that it had done its best to minimise impact. It said:
1. it had ended its relationship with the contractor due to its performance.
2. it apologised for delays to the remediation works.
3. it would arrange for a repair to the wardrobe. If the resident wished to use a preferred contractor, it would consider this.
4. It did not uphold her stage 2 complaint. The resolution at stage 1 was appropriate.
5. The resident could make a claim to the landlord’s insurer for damaged items.

Events post–internal complaints process

The resident and landlord communicated by email 20 times between 3 August 2023 and 4 April 2024 about remedial works and compensation. On 16 April 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident to conclude that it had resolved all outstanding matters.
The resident contacted this Service on 4 October 2024. She sought compensation of £7620 to include damaged items, hurt and distress and annual leave taken by her daughter.
The landlord wrote to this Service on 18 November 2024. It offered the resident additional compensation of £150 for poor complaints handling and £100 for service failure, to recognise its lack of investigation into the allegation of inappropriate staff conduct.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman cannot consider claims for financial loss. Nor can this Service consider claims for costs incurred by a resident’s representative. This is because this Service does not have the jurisdiction to award damages, nor does it have the necessary expertise to assess liability and determine loss. These are matters within the jurisdiction of the court and this Service cannot provide a legal determination. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice.
This Service does not typically investigate or make findings on matters involving liability for damage. We can, however, look at how the landlord responded to the resident’s request for compensation for damaged personal belongings and consider any new information not known at the time of any remedy or insurance settlement.

The landlord’s response to damaged personal property and contractor conduct during the temporary move process.

The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that reimbursement for damaged goods may be paid up to a maximum of £300. Amounts over that must be considered through an insurance claim. It encourages residents to take out contents insurance.
The landlord’s Tariff of Discretionary Compensation Payments states paid leave is not considered as a loss of earnings. Compensation for service failure and time and trouble may be paid based on the extent of failure and detriment caused. The maximum it may pay for either is £350.
Between February and July 2023, the resident and landlord discussed, via regular email, reimbursement of expenses, compensation, and replacement of damaged items. The landlord instructed the contractor to repair damaged items. However, the contractor was unwilling or unable to do what was needed. This would have caused understandable frustration for the resident, as well as time and trouble in following up.
The landlord initially used its contract to progress the remedial works on its behalf and later ended its relationship with the contractor and directly managed the remedial works. This was an appropriate response and shows the landlord was willing to put things right for the resident and learn from what had gone wrong.
The landlord replaced 1 of the damaged wardrobes at a cost of £3500. It proposed to arrange an assessment and repair of the other wardrobe. It offered the resident the option of engaging a specialist contractor of her choice if she preferred. This was a reasonable suggestion and evidences the landlord’s flexibility in its endeavours to restore the resident to her previous position.
The resident told the landlord that it would be too disruptive to empty the wardrobe for assessment and repair, given her additional needs. She said there was not enough space to store the wardrobe’s contents in her property and doing so would be a breach of her quiet enjoyment. She said she wanted compensation instead. This Service understands that emptying the wardrobe and storing contents would have caused some degree of inconvenience. However, the landlord’s efforts to put things right were hindered by the resident’s position.
The landlord did not notify the resident until 19 July 2023 that she could make an insurance claim on her or its insurance. There was an oversight on its part not to have told the resident earlier about making an insurance claim.
The landlord paid the resident £1949.74 for the broken chandelier, plus additional sums for other items lost or damaged. The amount of compensation paid by the landlord was above the £300 maximum limit stated in its compensation policy.
It was not until 16 April 2024 that the landlord was able to conclude that all remedial works were completed. This was 9 months after the internal complaints process was exhausted and 18 months after the resident had returned to the property. This would be considered excessive, but for the evidence the landlord has provided of its concerted and proactive efforts to resolve the remedial work and to put things right for the resident.
The resident has told this Service she is dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered. She states that the landlord did not appreciate the financial and sentimental value of the broken and lost items or the emotional impact on her. She said the landlord failed to recognise the distress and inconvenience of having to fight for the damaged items to be replaced or repaired. The Ombudsman empathises and does not underestimate the frustration the resident experienced. Nevertheless, based on the evidence available, the landlord acted appropriately, in line with its policies and with its duty to protect the public purse.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of reports of damage to the resident’s property. The landlord’s actions were broadly reasonable and consistent with its policy and procedures. It responded to the resident’s concerns and made efforts to put things right. It was fair and proportionate in its approach.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days of receipt and send its reply within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. Stage 2 complaints will also be acknowledged within 5 working days, and a full reply will be sent within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. The policy states that if the landlord cannot respond within these timescales, it will keep the resident informed and agree new response times.
The landlord issued its response later than its complaints policy timeframes at both stages of the internal complaints process. However, the landlord did communicate with the resident in-between issuing its formal complaint responses, which in part mitigated any adverse impact of these delays.
The landlord offered compensation at stage 1 of £75 for time and trouble and £75 for service failure. This was in the middle range of its compensation awards set out in its policy. It did not offer further compensation at stage 2.
However, the landlord failed to investigate or respond to the allegation that the resident had been shouted at and felt intimidated by the landlord and contractor. This was a failing in its complaints handling.
The landlord later reviewed the case and offered the resident a further £250 for failings in its complaints handling. This was after the resident had escalated her complaint to this Service. It is unclear to this Service under what policy or procedural context the landlord made this offer. While it is positive that the landlord reflected on its actions and offered compensation, we expect landlords to undertake sufficient investigation and review all circumstances of the case at stage 2 of their complaints process. Its additional compensation award, post internal complaints process, is evidence of poor complaint management within its formal framework.
Cumulatively, given the failings identified above, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to damaged personal property during the temporary move process.
There was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. pay the previously offered compensation of £400 directly to the resident broken down as follows:
  1. £150 for time and trouble and service failure if it has not already done so.
  2. £250 for service failure in complaints handling if it has not already done so.
2. Provide evidence of compliance with this order.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord re-engage with the resident and endeavour to reach a remedy on the outstanding matter of the wardrobe repair. In the event of a failure to reach a mutually agreeable resolution the landlord should provide details to the resident as to how to progress an insurance claim.