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) (202341512)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341512

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

27 August 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:
    1. Reports of damp and mould caused by an internal leak and the associated repairs.
    2. Complaint and the level of redress offered.

Background

  1. The resident has a fixed term assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord, who is a housing association. The tenancy started in July 2020 and is a joint tenancy. The property is a 3 bedroom flat on the fifth floor of a block of flats.
  2. The landlord’s records show that it received a report on 1 November 2023 of a leak from the resident’s property entering the flat below. The record shows that the landlord completed a repair, although the source of the leak is unclear.
  3. On 30 November 2023, following a report by the resident, the landlord arranged to carry out a damp and mould inspection of the property on 5 December 2023. The inspection report recorded that there was damp and mould in the hallway and all 3 bedrooms. It noted that the damp was at a low level and appeared to be from a leak under the floor. Further, it noted that there was pipework in the utility room for the heat recovery system.
  4. On 6 December 2023 the landlord referred this internally as a potential latent defect. It was seeking plans for the pipework that could be leaking under the floor. It noted the urgency of tracing the leak as the resident was currently removing the mould that was developing on the internal walls. The surveyor returned to inspect the property with the defect surveyor on 8 December 2023. It then planned to return the following week.
  5. On 11 December 2023 the landlord raised an order for its contractor to attend the property and check for leaks in the bathroom and ensuite. The contractor was to remove the tiled access panels to carry out the checks. Internal communication shows that the contractor was unable to find a leak when it attended on 13 December 2023. It reported that the resident said that the issue was one of damp and mould. The landlord supplied the resident with a dehumidifier on 14 December 2023 to help with drying out the property.
  6. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 16 December 2023. In this he said:
    1. For the past 19 days he had been having an issue with severe damp and mould affecting the majority of his flat. This had caused damage to the plaster board walls. The skirting boards were rotten and coming away.
    2. He had first discovered damp on 28 November 2023, and it had spread quickly. He reported this to the landlord on 29 November 2023.
    3. There was an unbearable smell in the flat. As the damp and mould was affecting their bedrooms his children were all sleeping in the living room.
    4. The damp was spreading each day, and it was affecting his family’s health and wellbeing. His wife had a lung condition following Covid-19.
    5. He did not believe that the landlord was taking the issue seriously and had not acted to resolve the issue. He wanted it to fix this issue and for the landlord to communicate with him about the action it was taking.
  7. On 18 December 2023 the landlord started the process to temporarily move the resident and his family. This was due to the ongoing and worsening situation with damp and mould in his property. It intended this to be for a period of 3 weeks while it carried out further investigations. It was proposing to carry out an inspection of the roof the following day and looking for possible latent defect in the structure. It noted that there was pipework under the floor and a possible leak running across the concrete floor slab.
  8. The landlord’s surveyor carried out a further visit to the property on 19 December 2023. The resident had removed the access panel to the wash hand basin in the bathroom and exposed the source of the leak. The waste pipe to the wash hand basin was not connected. The landlord noted that this was causing water to run across the concrete floor slab and rise up the nearby plasterboard walls. Further, its plumber had not removed this panel as it had asked it to do as part of the earlier works order. It raised an emergency order for a plumber to attend the same day and provided a second dehumidifier to the resident.
  9. A follow up inspection on 27 December 2023 found that the walls were still wet. It recommended that the dehumidifiers stay in the property. It raised an order to remove the damp plasterboard, skirting and insulation.
  10. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 28 December 2023. It then wrote on 29 December 2023 to say that due to unforeseen circumstances and high volumes there may be a delay in its response. It said that it could exceed its target of 10 working days.
  11. The landlord’s contractor attended between 5 and 10 January 2024. It was to carry out works to remove and replace the damp plasterboard, skirting and insulation to the hallway and 3 bedrooms. Once complete it was to redecorate the affected areas. The landlord’s records show that the resident declined to allow the contractor access on the 9 and 10 January 2024.
  12. The landlord completed a post inspection of the works on 15 January 2024. This recorded that the works were not complete, with sanding and decorating to the damaged walls and skirting outstanding. It noted that the works did not meet its quality standard. The landlord’s post inspection report captures its conversation with the resident. He told it that he did not want the contractor back and had appointed his own contractor to complete the work. He said that he had no confidence in the landlord’s contractor. The landlord collected the dehumidifiers the same day.
  13. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 6 February 2024. It thanked him for his contact on 28 December 2023 and apologised for the delay in its reply. It provided a summary of his complaint and set out a timeframe for the actions it had taken to repair the leak and deal with the damp and mould. It said that there had been a delay due to the need to involve its latent defect surveyor. It also recognised that its operative had failed to find the leak. The resident found this, having removed the access panel to the basin. It noted that the resident had declined to allow its contractor to complete the painting and had told it that he was unhappy with the quality of the works done. It acknowledged that the works had failed its own post inspection due to the quality of the work. It upheld his complaint. It acknowledged his frustration at the delay and the time taken to get the issue rectified. It accepted that there had been a service failure as it had not completed the repair within its published target of 28 days. It offered him compensation totalling £200. It broke this down as:
    1. £80 for its service failure.
    2. £70 for time and trouble.
    3. £80 for its poor complaint handling.
  14. On 8 February 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. He was unhappy with the outcome and the level of compensation offered. He said that he had spent £300 on electricity from 11 December 2023 to 15 January 2023 for the dehumidifiers. It had also cost him £800 hiring his own contractor to complete the works that its contractors had failed to do. He said that he had to take 10 days off work to provide access to his home. He wanted the landlord to cover the costs he had incurred. The issue had lasted 6 weeks during which time his children were having to sleep in the living room. He said that this had affected their education.
  15. The resident contacted us on 19 February 2024 as he had received no response from the landlord to his escalated complaint. We wrote to the landlord on 13 March 2024 asking the landlord to provide its stage 2 complaint response within 5 working days.
  16. In line with our request the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 20 March 2024. In this it said that the resident had contacted it on 14 March 2024 about his complaint. It said that he had asked it to escalate his complaint as he was unhappy with the level of compensation awarded. He said that it had not considered his extra energy costs, the cost of the painting and decorating contractors he had instructed or considered the time he had to take off work and the stress and inconvenience caused to him and his family. In its response it said:
    1. It had reviewed the history of works. It could not see that he had given it the opportunity to post inspect the works or put things right. Therefore, it could not assume there had been a service failure in how its contractor had completed the work.
    2. It was unable to reimburse the £800 he had requested to cover the cost of the decorating. It was however happy to consider a contribution towards the costs as a gesture of goodwill.
    3. On the energy usage, it accepted his evidence he had used an added 590 units of energy between 26 November 2023 and 05 January 2024, when the dehumidifiers were in use. It offered a payment of £165.52 based on a cost of 28p per kWh.
    4. It understood the frustration of accommodating multiple appointments. His tenancy agreement set out his responsibility to allow the landlord access to carry out repairs within his property. It said that it could not see that there had been any unnecessary or prolonged appointments. The repairs were essential to prevent further damage. It could not reimburse him for any lost wages. It said that if he was unhappy with this decision he could consider a claim against its public liability insurance.
    5. It upheld his complaint. It further acknowledged that there had been a failure in its complaint handling in that it had not escalated his complaint within its timescales.
    6. In addition to the compensation offered at stage 1 the landlord offered the resident a further £520.52. This it broke down as:
      1. £80 for its service failure.
      2. £100 for his time and trouble.
      3. £75 for its poor complaint handling
      4. £165.52 as reimbursement for his energy usage.
      5. £100 toward the cost of redecorating.
  17. The resident remained dissatisfied with the outcome of his complaint and the level of compensation offered. He contacted us on 21 March 2024 to ask that we investigate his complaint further. He explained that he had paid £800 for the decorating of his home and incurred an added £260 in electricity costs. He said that the issue of damp and mould within his home was resolved.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The landlord reviewed the resident’s complaint on 18 September 2024. It told us that as an outcome to its review it wanted to offer an extra £200 compensation. This was as a contribution towards the cost of the redecoration work the resident had arranged with his own contractor. It said that while the resident had not given it the opportunity to rectify the work, it accepted that these did not meet the standards expected by its residents. Further it said that its operatives were generally multi trade operatives and it would be reviewing the decorating standards of its contractors’ moving forwards.
  2. Following contact with us on 1 October 2024 the resident confirmed that he would not accept the landlord offer of £200. He asked that we investigate his complaint further.

Assessment and findings

Reports of damp and mould caused by an internal leak and the associated repairs

  1. The landlord’s guide to responsibility for repairs sets out its obligations in line with the landlord and tenant act 1985. Section 11 of the act creates an implied term in tenancy agreements that a landlord must carry out certain repairs. This places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It also has an obligation to keep in repair and working order the installations in the property for the supply of water, gas, and electricity. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
  2. The guide provides information about the priorities that the landlord places on repairs and the timeframe within which it will carry out a repair. This lists the following categories and timescales:
    1. Emergencies – where there is a significant risk or significant damage to the property. It will visit and make these safe within 24 hours.
    2. Routine repairs – this covers those repairs that it does not consider to be an emergency. For these the landlord aims to complete them within 28 days (20 working days).
    3. For non-routine repairs, those of a complex nature or require special materials, the landlord has an upper target of 90 days.
  3. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould highlights the need for a timely response by landlords to reports of damp and mould. The report set out that “landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and wellbeing of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner. Landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly to residents so their expectations can be managed.” The report further highlighted the need for residents to be kept informed. It recommended that landlords should “ensure that it clearly and regularly communicated with its residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.”
  4. Following the resident’s report of damp and mould, the landlord completed an inspection of the property within 3 working days. This identified the possibility of a leak under the floor causing water to run along the concrete and then rise up the plasterboard walls. It noted the presence of pipework for the heating system in the utility room but did not remove any of the inspection panels in either the bathroom or the ensuite. As the property was built within the last 5 years the surveyor highlighted the issue as a possible latent defect. It completed a joint inspection on 8 December 2023. On 11 December 2023 it raised a request for a plumber to attend. The landlord did not raise this as an emergency and the plumber did not attend until 13 December 2023. It reported back that it was unable to trace a leak. The landlord’s records show that its plumber only removed the access panel in the ensuite. The resident later removed the access panel under the wash hand basin in the bathroom and found the leak on 19 December 2023. There were missed opportunities by the landlord to find the leak at an earlier stage. Following the resident’s report of damp and mould in his property the leak continued for just over 2 weeks. The condition of the property deteriorated over this time.
  5. The landlord appropriately considered temporarily moving the resident while it continued further investigations into the cause of the damp and mould. Having found and repaired the leak, it then agreed with the resident to place this on hold, providing an added dehumidifier to help with drying out the property. There is no evidence that the landlord discussed with the resident covering the cost of running the dehumidifiers. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have done so, avoiding the need for the resident to raise this as part of his complaint.
  6. On reinspecting the property on 29 December 2023, the landlord found that it needed to dry out further, although it had repaired the leak. This reflects the extent of the leak over the preceding weeks, and the level of damage caused. It raised a works order for its contractor to attend in January 2024 to carry out works to remove the damp plasterboard, insulation and damaged skirting and replace these. It was also to redecorate. The landlord’s records show that the resident would not allow the contractor to continue the works, refusing access on 9 and 10 January 2024. The landlord carried out an inspection on 15 January 2024 of the works completed. In this it noted that the works did not meet its quality standard.
  7. The surveyor noted the resident’s dissatisfaction with its contractor and that he did not wish it to return. It is not clear from the landlord’s records if the landlord offered to send a different contractor to complete the works. It recorded that the resident had arranged for a private contractor to do the decorating on his behalf. This was an opportunity for the landlord to discuss with the resident its obligations. It would have been right for it to arrange for an alternative contractor to complete the works. If the resident wished to go ahead with his own contractor, there was an opportunity for him to agree with the landlord what costs it would cover. There is no record that such a discussion occurred. This was a missed opportunity by both parties to reach an agreement about the redecorating of the property and covering the cost of the work.
  8. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs.
    1. There were several missed opportunities to find the leak at an earlier stage to limit the damage that occurred to the property.
    2. It did not ensure that its contractor had followed its instructions to remove all the access panels.
    3. Having found that the works carried out did not meet its quality standard it did not engage with the resident to arrange for an alternative contractor to rectify these.
    4. It did not discuss with the resident if it would cover his costs for the use of the dehumidifier or for the decorating that he took on at his own expense. It was a missed opportunity to provide clarity and transparency to the resident.
  9. We have considered below the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint and its overall offer of compensation to him. This includes consideration of his request that the landlord covers the cost of running the dehumidifier and redecoration to the areas affected by the damp and mould.

Complaint and the level of redress.

  1. The landlord has provided a copy of its complaints policy. This was effective from May 2021. It sets out a 2 stage process for handling complaints. It says that it will look to resolve complaints quickly and effectively with local resolution. If this is not suitable it will contact the resident and log the complaint at stage 1 of its formal process. It says that it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. Where it is unable to meet this target, it will keep the resident informed and agree a new response time. Should the resident remain unhappy they can ask that the landlord escalate their complaint to stage 2, which it should respond to within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out its approach to compensating its residents when things go wrong. This includes a table to help it to calculate the level of compensation it will consider in a range of circumstances. This includes a failure of service, time and trouble and poor complaint handling. It sets out the level of failure as low, medium, or high against whether it should issue an apology or compensation taken from a financial starting point of £51. Its policy further allows the reimbursement of costs where a resident has been financially disadvantaged. This sets an upper limit of £300 with claims higher than this directed to its insurers.
  3. The resident first raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 16 December 2023. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 28 December 2023, 9 working days after he raised this through its online reporting. Having done so it then wrote to the resident to say that it may not meet its target of 10 working days. It provided its stage 1 complaint response on 6 February 2024. This was 37 working days after he raised his complaint and 28 days after the landlord acknowledged his complaint. This was a significant delay in its complaint handling at stage 1.
  4. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 8 February 2024 but there is no evidence that this was progressed by the landlord. He contacted us on 19 February 2024 having received no reply from the landlord. We then asked the landlord to escalate his complaint and respond by 20 March 2024, which it did. It took 29 working days to provide the resident with its stage 2 complaint response. At both stages, the landlord incorrectly reflected the date on which the resident had raised and escalated his complaint. This shows a lack of clarity in its record keeping and attention to detail when providing its reply.
  5. In its stage 1 response the landlord recorded that the resident had found the leak himself. Further it noted that its surveyor had completed an inspection of the works carried out by its contractor and that these had failed to meet its quality standard. Its stage 2 complaint reply gave a different response. Here it said that it had not had the opportunity to post inspect the works or to put things right. This presented a confusing response for the resident and showed a lack of clarity in the landlord’s own record of the events that had taken place.
  6. It did not address the failure to meet its quality standard or consider what action it may take to prevent such an issue arising in the future. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to learn from the resident’s complaint and look to improve its services for other residents in the future. The landlord considered this as part of its review of the resident’s complaint following his contact with us. It has said that it has put in place steps to check the decorating skills of its multi trade operatives. This is a positive outcome, but one that the landlord should have considered at an earlier stage within the complaints process.
  7. The landlord recognised within its complaint response that there had been a service failure in the length of time taken to complete the repairs. It did not however consider the level of detriment caused to the resident and his family by the extent of the damp and mould affecting his property. He had told it that the family were unable to use the bedrooms, but it did not acknowledge this within either of its responses. This was a failure to fully consider the impact on the resident and the wider household.
  8. Through both stages of the complaint the landlord has offered compensation in recognition of its service failure, the time and trouble caused to the resident and failures in its complaint handling. The total offered was £455. Having considered the landlord’s compensation guidance and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies we consider that the combined amount offered for each of these elements is appropriate in the circumstances of the resident’s complaint.
  9. The resident asked the landlord to reimburse him for specific financial losses that he had incurred because of the damp and mould within his property. He said that he had incurred increased electricity costs running the dehumidifier between 14 December 2023 and 15 January 2024. He also wanted the landlord to pay for the decorating he paid for and to compensate him for loss of earnings due to tie off work to allow access to the landlord.
  10. The resident presented evidence of his increased electricity bills. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord provided a calculation behind its offer of £165.52. In this it noted that the resident had used an extra 590 units of electricity during December 2023 and January 2024. It based its calculation to reimburse the costs on 28 pence per unit. The resident rejected this offer as not meeting the actual increased costs incurred. We have reviewed the evidence provided by the resident and note that his bills show that the cost per unit charged was higher than that used by the landlord in its assessment. The December 2023 shows the cost per unit to the resident as 36.7 pence. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to compensate the resident on this basis. We have calculated the cost as £216.53 and have made an award of an added £51.01 to cover the shortfall in the 2 figures.
  11. The resident asked the landlord to pay for the redecorating of his home. He had instructed his own contractors following his dissatisfaction with the quality of the works undertaken by those appointed by the landlord. The landlord declined to cover these costs as it said that it had not had an opportunity to post inspect the works or to remedy the situation. This was incorrect. It completed a post inspection on 15 January 2024. It acknowledged in this that the works carried out did not meet its quality standards. It was aware at this point that the resident intended to use his own contractor. The is no evidence that the resident asked the landlord to cover his costs at this point or that he provided the landlord with a quote for the works. There was no agreement that the landlord would cover the resident’s costs. As set out in the section above there were missed opportunities by both parties to discuss this matter more widely and agree a satisfactory outcome. In the circumstances we consider that it is fair and proportionate for the landlord to meet half the cost of the redecorating works claimed by the resident. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £400 to cover the cost he incurred. This is in place of the £300 offered through its own complaint process and its later review.
  12. The resident was also seeking compensation for loss of wages. The landlord declined to include this within its offer of compensation. This was reasonable in the circumstances. The resident’s tenancy agreement requires that he give access for the landlord to carry out necessary repairs. While there were some missed opportunities to find the leak at an earlier stage, the landlord acted appropriately in inspecting the resident’s home and arranging the attendance of its contractors. The landlord has factored in the inconvenience to the resident in the compensation awarded through its internal complaints process.
  13. We have concluded that there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and the level of redress offered.

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 damp and mould caused by an internal leak and the associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and the level of redress.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the identified failings. This should be in line with the Service’s guidance on remedies.
    2. Pay the resident directly total compensation of £451.01. This is broken down as:
      1. £51.01 for the added electricity costs in running the dehumidifier.
      2. £400 for the redecoration works carried out on behalf of the resident. This replaces the £300 offered by the landlord at stage 2 and in its later complaint review.
    3. This is in addition to the compensation of £620.52 offered by the landlord through both stages of its complaint. These are set out below to confirm the components of this amount.
      1. £160 for the service failure found by the landlord at each stage of its complaints process.
      2. £170 for the time and trouble caused to the resident in having to pursue his complaint.
      3. £125 for the failures in its complaint handling.
      4. £165.52 for the added electricity costs in running the dehumidifier.
    4. The landlord should follow up on the review of the resident’s complaint completed in September 2024 to ensure that it has implemented its recommendations to introduce greater oversight of the quality of its multi trade operative’s skills. The landlord should provide this service with evidence of the steps it has taken to implement this recommendation.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its compensation policy to include guidance for staff on covering added energy costs incurred by residents through the running of equipment such as dehumidifiers.