Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202346786)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346786

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited

31 July 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 handling of:
1. Boiler repairs.
2. Damp and mould.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association since December 2019. The property is a 2-bedroom first-floor flat and the resident lives in the property with 2 children.
The landlord said it was not aware of any vulnerabilities at the commencement of the tenancy. However, as the complaint progressed, the landlord became aware of some health issues and vulnerabilities.
On 3 January 2024, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. The resident said:
1. The boiler had broken down, which left the household without hot water. She said it was unacceptable to be left without hot water with a small child and that she had to rely on extended family to provide access to washing facilities.
2. The landlord’s contractor cancelled and rescheduled the repair appointments on 2occasions.This resulted in having to reschedule her hospital appointments.
3. There was mould and damp on the external walls in her child’s bedroom She had reported it, an inspection arranged but the landlord failed to attend.
4. She chased the failed inspection and was still waiting for the landlord to provide another date.
5. The entire building where the flat was located showed signs of mould and damp.
6. She booked a GP appointment because her child had breathing difficulties, and their breathing had deteriorated since the mould occurred.
7. She felt neglected by the landlord because nothing had been done. She was pregnant and concerned about living in a property with mould and damp.
On 31 January 2024, the resident contacted the landlord because she had not received a response to her stage 1 complaint. She said she wanted to escalate it to a stage 2 complaint.
On 9 February 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord:
1. Confirmed that the boiler was reported by the resident on 11 December 2023 and repaired on 3 January 2024.
2. Investigated the damp and mould complaint and said that the inspection had not taken place because it was unable to gain access in December 2023 and January 2024. It said the resident was required to rebook.
3. Partially upheld the resident’s complaint because of a missed appointment, which related to the boiler.
4. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered £85 compensation, which comprised of:
  1. £10 for the missed appointment.
  2. £50 for the resident’s time and trouble.
  3. £25 for poor complaint handling.
On 20 February 2024, the resident requested to add additional information to her stage 2 complaint. The resident said:
1. She was unhappy that she had to chase the landlord to provide its stage 1 complaint response.
2. Her child is being tested for asthma because the mould and damp conditions were affecting their health. She was also 7 months pregnant and should not be in contact with damp and mould.
3. Previously, the resident was informed that the whole block of flats had damp and mould, and this was due to defects with the roof and external walls.
4. On 19th February 2024, the landlord’s surveyor completed a damp and mould inspection. The resident subsequently advised that:
  1. Only the room humidity was assessed, a damp meter was not used.
  2. She was told the damp wall in the bedroom was due to condensation and that her lifestyle was a contributing factor.
  3. The surveyor said they did not see any damp and mould although she explained that she had cleaned it and photos provided for evidence.
  4. The information provided was contradictory, because despite saying there was no evidence of mould and damp, the surveyor suggested she should move.
  5. The surveyor said an appointment would be raised to clean and treat the mould and damp.
On 20 March 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord:
1. Confirmed that the stage 1 complaint was appropriately handled and the correct outcome provided.
2. Apologised for the delay in providing the stage 2 response. It said an administrative error had occurred and the complaint had not been allocated.
3. Acknowledged a request from the resident’s GP to complete further inspections to monitor the condition of the property.
4. Reported that all traces of mould had been cleaned from the walls and that it had offered the resident a mould prevention solution.
5. Explained that a higher than average humidity reading was found in bedroom 2 but the remainder of the property showed no signs of damp and mould. The readings were confirmed as being within an acceptable range and posed no cause for concern.
6. Explained that the likely cause of the damp and mould was residual damp from the roof, which was travelling down the outside of the building within the external wall. The options for roof remedial works were being investigated.
7. Partially upheld the resident’s complaint due to the delay in providing its stage 2 complaint. It offered a further £50 compensation for poor complaint handling.
The resident asked this service to investigate her complaint because she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response. She said that the property has severe damp and mould, which had affected her child’s health. Further, she said mould and damp had ruined her furniture and some belongings.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said that the damp and mould within the property had an effect on the household’s health. While we do not dispute the resident’s position, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury insurance claim or through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue these concerns.
Since the stage 2 complaint response, the resident has informed us that the damp and mould conditions have continued despite having moved from the property in November 2024 on a temporary basis. Further, her possessions and furniture have now been damaged by damp and mould. This has occurred since the end of the internal complaints process and therefore should be treated as a new complaint and raised with the landlord in the first instance. If the resident remains unsatisfied with the landlord’s response, then she has the option to complete the landlord’s complaint process and refer to this service if she remains concerned. Nevertheless, a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to provide details of its insurers should she wish to pursue a claim for damage to her possessions.
What we can consider is whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s requests and whether this was timely, clear, and accurate. Where we find a failing, we may award compensation or order an apology.

Boiler Repairs

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord must keep in repair and working order the installations for the supply of gas, water, electricity, sanitation, and heating water. This includes water pipes, boilers, and water tanks. It must also keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord acknowledges this obligation within its damp and mould policy.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy explains that emergency repairs are considered those that present a health and safety risk to residents or that seriously damage the property. It says emergency repairs are responded to within 24 hours and if the issue cannot be fixed right away, it will make the situation safe and arrange another appointment. Routine appointments are completed within 28 days.

The landlord’s compensation policy provides 3 categories of compensation circumstances which include mandatory loss, quantifiable loss, and discretionary loss. Appropriate redress ranges from an apology to compensation payments of £151 or more depending on the type of service failing and whether the failure is assessed as a low, medium, or high.
On 11 December 2023, the resident reported a lack of hot water. The landlord then took the following action:
1. On 13 December 2023, it inspected the boiler and identified that a new flow turbine sensor was required.
2. On 15 December 2023, it revisited and obtained a photo of the data badge. This was required to order the correct part.
3. On 19 and 20 December 2023, it attempted to contact the resident by phone and text to book the repair appointment.
4. On 22 December 2023, it attended the property but was unable to gain access. It is not clear within the evidence if this was a cold call or if an appointment had been booked with the resident.
5. On 28 December 2023, its contractor failed to attend a booked repair appointment.
6. On 3 January 2024, works were completed and the hot water was restored.
7. The landlord’s records do not indicate what priority and timescale it applied to the repair. However, it attended the property within 48 hours. Attendance within 24 to 48 hours is likely to be considered a reasonable timescale in winter under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
It is evident that the hot water could not be restored to the property on its first visit and the contractor identified that a new part was required. It is noted that boiler repairs are often complex or require new parts, which can cause delay. However, with the resident’s pregnancy in mind and with a small child in the property, it would have been reasonable of the landlord to have evidenced that it discussed the repair timescale and checked with the resident what alternative provisions were available to her regarding washing facilities.
The landlord’s contractor re-visited the property on 15 December 2024, this was because it required further information from the data badge located on the boiler to enable the correct part to be ordered. The landlord acknowledged that this information should have been obtained on its first visit and resulted in an unnecessary delay of 2 days in ordering the correct part.
On 19 December 2024, the landlord attempted to contact the resident by phone to arrange an appointment to complete the repair works. It attempted again on 20 December 2024 by text. On 22 December 2024, it visited the property in an attempt to gain access and complete the repair. It is noted that if the landlord had managed to establish contact with the resident the repair would have been completed within 6-days and prior to the extended Christmas break. This was a reasonable attempt of the landlord to establish contact and restore hot water to the property.
On 28 December 2023, the landlord did not attend the booked repair appointment. The missed appointment resulted in a further delay of 6-days in completing the repair, because of the extended new year break. This was inappropriate of the landlord and not in line with its policy.
Overall, the landlord’s contractor took 22 days to complete the repairs to the boiler. The delay in ordering the parts and the missed appointment resulted in an unnecessary delay of approximately 8-9 days to restore hot water into the property. Further there is no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident regarding her vulnerabilities. However, it is noted that the landlord did attend the property within 48 hours and made a reasonable effort to contact the resident to restore hot water prior to the extended Christmas break.
Where the landlord admits failings, it is our role is to assess if the resident’s complaints were remedied fairly in the circumstances. We also consider whether the landlord acted in line with our dispute resolution principles; be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
Given the failings identified, we have found a finding of maladministration. This is because the landlord has failed to fully acknowledge its failings and the offer was not proportionate the failings identified by our investigation. We have made an order for the landlord to pay £200 compensation to the resident to recognise the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident regarding the delay to the boiler repairs.

Damp and mould

Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk-based assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) which does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under this legislation. They are expected to conduct additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it adopts a zero-tolerance approach to mould and does not impose blame on the resident. It will work with households, medical teams, and GPs to support with requests. If a technical assessment is required, before a repair can be raised, an inspection is booked within 20 calendar days of the initial report.
The landlord’s policy explains that it will reinspect all damp and mould cases within 12 months of works completing to ensure the effectiveness over a year of changing seasons. When damp and mould is caused by an issue which needs to be addressed as major works to a property, these works are considered as future planned work programmes e.g. roof renewal. However, the effect of the damp and mould on residents is considered to support the prioritisation of the works and residents will be kept updated on progress.
It is evident that the landlord was aware, prior to the resident’s complaint, of the defective roof to the building where the flat is located. The landlord said that at the point of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, it was in the process of appointing a contractor and the works were due to start.
The resident said that she reported mould and damp within her property in December 2023. An inspection was booked, yet the surveyor failed to attend. On 3 January 2024, the resident reported it again to the landlord and said that she thought the mould and damp was affecting her son’s breathing. The landlord responded and said that it visited the property in December 2023 and 15 January 2024; however, access had not been provided.
The landlords repair and maintenance policy is silent regarding its policy or process regarding failed access. However, in this case, the landlord was told that the resident was concerned that her child’s health was being affected and that she was pregnant. With the resident’s vulnerabilities in mind, and that of known issues to the building, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have escalated the matter, established the reason for the failed access, or written to the resident regarding the missed appointments. However, it did not do this.
On 19 February 2024, the landlord completed an inspection. It was reported that there was water penetration observed tracking down the external walls. The findings coincided with the bedroom wall where the resident had reported the issues. The inspection noted that the only room affected was the second bedroom and that the humidity readings were in-range and reportedly safe. It also said it would complete a mould wash to the property.
In line with a recommendation from the GP and with the household’s vulnerabilities in mind, the landlord agreed to continue to monitor the damp and mould conditions by completing regular inspections. The landlord was right to offer increased inspections and acted in accordance with its policy.
On 26 February 2024, the landlord carried out a second inspection. Humidity readings were taken but due to open windows they were noted as not fully accurate. The resident explained that she had found black mould in the child’s bedroom behind free standing shelves. A high scale damp reading was recorded to this section of wall and evidence of bubbling to paintwork, which was recorded as likely to be from salts as a result of water ingress from the roof defect. This area also showed some evidence of water staining. The remainder of the wall provided no further readings and no evidence of water staining to the rest of the property.
On 14 March 2024, a third inspection took place. The surveyor confirmed the findings as stated previously and also noted minor spot mould to the bedroom window external wall. On 22 March 2024, a fourth inspection took place. It is not clear within the landlord’s evidence if any observations or comments were recorded from this visit.
On 22 March 2024, the resident contacted the landlord regarding the mould wash. She said she had waited since 19 February 2024 for this work and had not heard anything and also wanted to know what chemicals were used. The landlord’s representative said that they did not know and will ask the Surveyor to contact the resident. The resident said that she had already waited for a call and therefore requested the surveyor’s email details. She was told this could not be provided because of data protection purposes. While this may have been a correct response, it was likely that the delay to the mould wash and the concern regarding her son’s health had resulted in the resident feeling frustrated and distressed. The landlord could have handled this better by understanding the resident’s frustrations, escalating the query, and providing a timely response.
On 25 March 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident and said that the water penetration from the roof was unlikely to be fixed quickly. This was due to the extensive works required and although it was satisfied that the current conditions did not render the property uninhabitable, it wanted to offer the resident temporary accommodation. This was reasonable of the landlord, it showed that it had considered the effect of the damp and mould on the resident and the timescale involved in completing the repairs and therefore acted in accordance with its policy.
In her complaint the resident said she felt that the surveyor initially blamed the damp and mould on her lifestyle because of a clothes airer, tumble dryer, and a fish tank. The inspection notes provided by the landlord to us did not indicate that the landlord believed there to be an issue with lifestyle because it was already aware that the damp and mould was likely a result of the known issues with the roof. However, the landlord remained silent on this within the complaint response. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to address the resident’s concerns at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord said that it has a zero-tolerance to mould and damp. Landlords should actively monitor properties for signs of damp and mould, using data and intelligence to identify issues before they escalate rather than simply reacting to complaints. It is unclear what communication was provided to the resident regarding the condition of the building prior to her complaint or if she was aware of the imminent works to the roof. If the landlord had communicated with the resident earlier in the process and provided information at the earliest opportunity, this is likely to have eased the resident’s concerns and managed her expectations.
It is noted that while the landlord completed regular inspections between February 2024 and March 2024 to monitor a deterioration in the conditions, there is no evidence that it completed the suggested mould damp wash or communicated effectively with the resident regarding when she could expect any repairs or what repair works were required to her property. This is likely to have left the resident feeling frustrated and unsure as to when she could expect the damp and mould to be remedied.
Overall, given the failings noted around the landlord’s communication with the resident, a finding of maladministration has been made. This is because the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right. We have made an order for the landlord to pay compensation of £150 to recognise the loss of confidence, distress, and inconvenience.
It is noted that the resident moved from the property on 26 November 2024 on a temporary basis, and her belongings placed securely into storage. The landlord said that it completed extensive works to the roof during November and December 2024; however, the resident states that the mould and damp conditions continue. As mentioned earlier within the report, while this was after the time span of the complaint and has not been included within the investigation. An order has been made, in line with the landlord’s policy that it revisits the property and completes a damp and mould inspection.

Associated Complaint

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. Complaints are acknowledged within 5 days and responded to at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. If it cannot respond within 10 working days, it will keep the resident informed and new response times agreed.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 3 January 2024, which the landlord acknowledged on 9 January 2024. The resident chased a response on 31 January 2024, and on 9 February 2024 it provided its stage 1 response. While the complaint acknowledgement was provided on time, the complaint response took 28 days, this was not appropriate as it was not consistent with its policy of 10 working days.
It is important to note that the landlord requested an extension to its stage 1 response on 8 February 2024, however at this point the complaint was already due and delayed. Therefore, the extension request was not appropriate.
The landlord did not provide an apology for the delay within its stage 1 response and did not identify learning or actions it would take to prevent a similar situation happening again. The lack of apology or acknowledgement that the resident had to chase her stage 1 response was not appropriate.
The landlord applied an extension to the residents stage 2 complaint, which again was late in the process at 1 day past the timescale afforded of 20 days. However, it is noted that the overall response was received within 27 days.
While the stage 1 response lacked an apology, it did offer £25 compensation and the stage 2 complaint response went further and identified further failures in its complaint handling, it apologised and offered £50 compensation. This demonstrated its willingness to learn from its outcomes, be fair and put things right. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress is made. This finding is made on the basis that the £75 compensation as stated within the stage 1 and 2 complaint response is paid.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a boiler.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
1. Apologised to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Paid the resident £350 compensation for the following:
  1. £200 for the delay to the boiler repairs and time and trouble.
  2. £150 for distress, time and trouble relating to the damp and mould repairs.
  3. The landlord may deduct form this, any payments already made in respect of this complaint.
Compensation payments should be made directly to the resident and not credited to the resident’s rent or service charge account.
Within 6 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence that it has completed a full damp and mould inspection of the property by a qualified surveyor. Provide the report to the resident and if further repairs are identified the landlord must agree the works with the resident and dates for the completion of the works.

Recommendations

The landlord should provide details of its insurers should the resident wish to pursue a claim for damage to her possessions.
The landlord should pay £75 for poor complaint handling as offered within it stage 1 and stage 2 response if it has not done so already.