Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202336683)

Decision
Case ID	202336683
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	22 October 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 3-bed house. Following planned works to replace his windows and door, he was concerned with draughts and noise levels in the property.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns following replacement of the windows and door at the property.
We have also assessed how the landlord responded to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns following replacement of the windows and door.
2. There was service failure in how the landlord responded to the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of the resident’s concerns following replacement of the windows and door

The landlord has failed to evidence it responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns before his formal complaint.

The complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failures. However, its compensation offer was not proportionate to the time and trouble caused by its delay in responding to the complaint.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 19 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £250 made up as follows: £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns following replacement of the windows and door. The £55 offered within its complaint responses. A further £95 for the time and trouble caused by its poor complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 19 November 2025

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Apology order

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:

The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.
It has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than

19 November 2025

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £250 made up as follows:

£100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns following replacement of the windows and door.
The £55 offered within its complaint responses.
A further £95 for the time and trouble caused by its poor complaint handling.

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.

No later than

19 November 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
27 January 2022	The landlord replaced the windows and door as part of its planned works.
Between 5 and 27 May 2023	The resident contacted the landlord on 3 occasions stating he was unhappy with the new windows and door. He felt they allowed noise and draughts in, which caused increased heating bills.
2 November 2023	The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of his concerns about the windows and door. He said it had arranged an inspection, but he was not available on the date offered and it had not rearranged this. He was also unhappy with its lack of response to his attempts at raising formal complaints in May 2023.
14 November 2023	The landlord inspected the property. It did not find any fault with the windows or door.
16 November 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It apologised for not responding to the resident’s earlier complaints and for the inconvenience caused by this. It offered him £30 compensation for his time and trouble. It confirmed it had since inspected the property and had not found any issues with the windows and door.
11 December 2023	The resident escalated his complaint. He said he had paid for an independent air tightness test which made recommendations to resolve the draughts. He asked the landlord to complete the works. He also asked it to reimburse him for the survey cost and for his increased heating bills.
15 February 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It explained that the test only applied to new build properties. As such, it could not complete the recommended works or pay the resident for the test. It said it had inspected the property “multiple” times and had not found any issues with the windows or door. It increased its compensation offer to £55. This consisted of the £30 offered at stage 1, and a further £25 for its delayed complaint response.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate his complaint. He felt the landlord had not completed a thorough inspection as he still experienced draughts in the property. He wants it to pay for the test and for his increased heating bills, and to resolve the draughts.

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’s 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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns following replacement of the windows and door.
Finding	Service failure

Internal records suggest the landlord previously inspected the property twice for draughts. We have not seen evidence of this. We therefore cannot assess whether it did so or when due to its poor record keeping. It is also unclear what the outcome of the inspections was. Nevertheless, it shows the landlord was aware of the issues prior to the formal complaint.
The lack of records mean we cannot establish whether the landlord communicated with the resident about his concerns or its findings from the earlier inspections. In the absence of any other evidence, we cannot establish that the landlord acted appropriately, which is a failing.
Following the complaint, the landlord inspected the property. While the resident disagreed with the outcome, the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate and address his concerns. Its detailed inspection notes showed it completed a comprehensive assessment of the windows and door. It also arranged this in a timely manner within its timescale for routine repairs.
The landlord appropriately explained why the air tightness test findings did not apply to the property. Given this, and the outcome of its inspection, the landlord’s decision not to pay for this test or for any increased heating bills was reasonable. While this was understandably disappointing to the resident, we have not found any failing with the landlord’s handling of his concerns after raising the complaint.
Overall, the landlord acted appropriately after the resident made a formal complaint. However, it failed to take his concerns seriously or promptly prior to this, causing understandable distress and inconvenience. As such, we have found service failure.

Complaint	The complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaints policy is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord acknowledged failings in its complaint handling. It apologised for not responding to the 3 complaints in May 2023 and for its delayed response at stage 2. By not responding in a timely manner, it did not act in line with its policy or the Code. Reflecting on its handling gave it an opportunity to learn from its mistakes and to try to put things right.
The delay understandably caused the resident time and trouble as the landlord did not respond for around 6 months. As such, the offer of £55 compensation was not proportionate to the length of time that the failings impacted him for. In line with our remedies guidance, it awarded an amount proportionate to minor failings. However, this was not a minor delay, and its lack of communication at the time understandably caused him further inconvenience. The landlord has therefore not fully put things right for the resident. Given this, we have found service failure.

Learning

It was positive that the landlord considered the failings in its complaint handling. However, it should consider whether its offers of redress are proportionate to the failings identified in line with its compensation policy.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord should maintain clear accessible records to evidence what happened.
The notes from the inspection after the complaint was a good example of record keeping.

Communication

The landlord clearly explained why the air tightness test did not apply to his property.