Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202348512)

Decision
Case ID	202348512
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 March 2026

Background

The resident reported a problem with a blocked kitchen sink waste pipe (the waste pipe) which he said was ongoing since 2022. The resident said the issue caused his washing machine to break down. He was unhappy that the landlord had not acted sooner to replace it. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the residents:
1. Reports of repairs to kitchen sink waste pipe issues.
2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found the landlord responsible for:
1. Maladministration in its response to the kitchen sink waste pipe repairs.
2. Reasonable redress in relation to its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of drainage repairs.

The landlord did not manage the waste pipe repair effectively due to its poor appointment scheduling which resulted in no access visits, and its unreliable record keeping. It misinterpreted the resident’s request for a permanent repair solution as a refusal to allow works which caused avoidable delay and uncertainty for the resident. In its stage 2 response, it failed to acknowledge its service failings. Instead, it placed responsibility for its delayed repair solely on the resident. It did not offer an appropriate remedy to put things right.

Complaint handling.

The landlord delayed its complaint responses at both stages beyond its complaint policy timescales, but it apologised and acknowledge its failures and offered proportionate redress.

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 24 April 2026
2	Inspection Order If it has not already done so under case reference 202404088, the landlord must carry out a full investigation into the kitchen sink drainage issue. It must: Investigate the issue and identify a permanent repair solution. Set a clear action plan of any works, to include timescales and responsibilities. Provide evidence of completion to us. The landlord must provide the resident and us with a single, clear written update setting out the current position, the next steps and timescales.	No later than 24 April 2026
3	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its service failure relating to the waste pipe. This includes £50 for the time and trouble for the resident in pursuing a remedy. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 24 April 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the sum of £250 offered in its stage 2 response for the impact of its complaint handling failings, if it has not done so already. The finding of reasonable redress is based on this sum being paid to the resident.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 August 2023	The resident raised a complaint to the landlord. He said the drainage contractor did not attend its pre-scheduled appointment to address the kitchen sink waste drainage issue.
18 September, 29 September and 1 November 2023	The landlord provided the resident with a notice of extension of its complaint response on these dates.
7 November 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: Its contractors attended on 2 occasions but could not access the property and on another occasion the resident had cancelled the work order. Therefore, it found no evidence of missed appointment or service failure. It partly upheld the resident’s complaint on the grounds of poor complaint handling and awarded £100 in compensation for the inconvenience caused.
8 November 2023 and 5 December 2023	The resident contacted the landlord to escalate his complaint. In his further communication with the landlord in December, the resident refuted having cancelled jobs and said he was unhappy with the service. The resident said the drainage pipe kept getting blocked and he wanted it replaced. He asked for a prompt investigation.
5 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: It did not uphold the resident’s complaint about repairs to kitchen sink waste drainage. It apologised the repair remained outstanding, but it concluded it was not the fault of the landlord or its contractor because the resident had either not allowed access for its contractors to complete the works or had cancelled appointments. It had no alternative contractor to complete the works. It had scheduled an appointment for 15 February 2024, and its Local Housing Manager would also attend. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint on the grounds of poor complaint handling and offered additional compensation of £150.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought his complaint to us. He said: The landlord had failed to fix the drainage pipe despite a recommendation made by a previous contractor in 2022 that it would continue to get blocked if not replaced. He disputed cancelled appointments. The waste pipe issue is ongoing. He wanted the landlord to fix it and to compensate him for the delays.
27 February 2026	Our investigation decision for case reference 202404088 raised an inspection order for the landlord to investigate the sink and drain issue to establish if it was still ongoing, and to identify any necessary follow-on works.

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	Repairs to kitchen waste pipe drainage.
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated.

We note the repair issue was outstanding at the time of our previous complaint investigation case reference 202404088. This investigation covered the resident’s complaints from 22 March 2024 and 29 April 2024 and its revised offer after this date of £250 compensation to recognise the delays in its handling of the resident’s the sink and drain issues. Therefore, we will not cover this period as part of this investigation.

What we have investigated.

The resident reported ongoing blockage issues with kitchen sink waste pipe since 2022. However, we have not seen evidence of a formal complaint exhausting the landlord’s complaint process until February 2024. In the interests of fairness, this investigation focuses on events and available evidence from 11 August 2023 and 5 February 2024.
We have considered whether the landlord acted appropriately when responding to the resident’s reports, including whether it adequately communicated with the resident about appointment scheduling, whether its record keeping was adequate and enabled it to manage the repair effectively and if its complaint responses were fair and reasonable in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement states it must maintain installations which provide for sanitation for the supply of water including sinks, waste pipes and water storage facilities. The landlord aims to deal with non-urgent repairs, such as blocked sinks, within 28 days. The landlord may decide to inspect a property before it completes repairs to diagnose the works required.
It is appropriate that the landlord scheduled an appointment to attend within its timescales following the resident’s reports in August 2023. However, on 30 August 2023 the contractor recorded its visit as no access. This prompted the resident to raise his complaint.
The records show the resident raised several repair requests about kitchen sink drainage issues between 11 August 2023 and 26 January 2024. The landlord marked as ‘cancelled’ 6 work orders it had raised over this period without an explanation. The records show during this period the resident was in regular contact with both the landlord and its contractor. On 5 December 2023 the resident disputed he had cancelled any appointments. Despite this, in its complaint responses, the landlord attributed delays to him cancelling works. However, it has not provided sufficient evidence to support its position.
In relation to the contractor’s visit on 30 August 2023, the photographic evidence provided by the contractor does not show the resident’s property, and the records do not show it had demonstrated it had attended the correct address. It was therefore not reasonable for the landlord to rely on this as evidence that the resident refused access.
On 29 September 2023 the contractor contacted the resident to attend that afternoon. The resident replied that he was not available and queried if unblocking the waste pipe would provide a solution as he had received previous advice from its contractor to replace the pipe. The landlord cancelled the work order and passed it to its repairs team to consider progressing to its repairs officer to assess the works, or to raise a new work order. While this was a reasonable action following the resident’s concerns, it does not demonstrate that the resident had refused works.
On 30 January 2024 the contractor attended without an agreed appointment. It again recorded no access. The resident reported an intercom problem to the landlord on the same date. The landlord did not attempt to provide reasonable notice in advance of the appointment.
The landlord’s repairs guide states it will agree appointments with residents in advance. The evidence does not show the landlord had given reasonable notice. The repeated failure to provide adequate notice of appointments together with intercom issues meant the ‘no access’ records were unreliable. Poor appointment scheduling significantly contributed to the delay, the cancelled appointments and uncertainty for the resident. It was unreasonable for the landlord to conclude the resident was responsible.
The landlord’s records do not demonstrate that it managed the repair effectively. There were notable gaps in the landlord’s repair records. It did not document the reasons for cancelled work orders, and its internal records did not align with the explanation it later provided in its complaint responses. This hindered its ability to establish an accurate timeline or demonstrate that it had acted reasonably. Poor record keeping meant the landlord could not give the resident a clear explanation for delays, which likely contributed to the delay in repair progression and caused further frustration for the resident.
The landlord did not fully identify the core issue in dispute. The resident had requested a long-term solution to replace the kitchen waste pipe which the landlord misinterpreted in September 2023 as a refusal to allow works. This misunderstanding between the landlord, its contractor and the resident created delay and an avoidable barrier to progressing the repair. The nature of the communication failings meant the landlord did not meet its expected repair timescales.
At the time of its stage 2 response in February 2024, the repair remained outstanding. The landlord said it had not been able to agree a date to complete works. It was reasonable for the landlord to attend to inspect the required works before it raised a works order. Although the landlord said it would liaise with the Local Housing Manager to arrange an appointment for 15 February 2024, it is unclear from the evidence whether this appointment took place.
In responding to the complaint, the landlord did not adequately address the concerns raised or properly acknowledge the impact on a vulnerable resident. It did not fully consider the relevant evidence and did not offer a remedy that reflected the level of service failure and the potential heightened detriment to the resident.
As a result, it did not act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles—to be fair, put things right and to learn from outcomes. The fact that the resident needed to make a further complaint demonstrates it had not appropriately resolved the issues.
The landlord’s delay in responding to the repair, its lack of adequate appointment scheduling and the gaps in its repair records resulted in the waste pipe issues remaining unresolved for a prolonged period, causing uncertainty for a vulnerable resident which was unreasonable. This caused the resident avoidable distress, inconvenience and time and trouble in repeatedly chasing a remedy, as well as providing clarity around missed or cancelled appointments.
In line with our Remedies Guidance, and the landlord’s compensation policy for this level of impact where there was no permanent impact on the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay £150. This amount recognises the cumulative impact of the delays, poor communication and record-keeping. We also order the landlord to pay the resident £50 to reflect the time and trouble in chasing the repair. This level of redress appropriately reflects the detriment experienced and the landlord’s missed opportunities to put things right sooner.
We have raised an inspection order for the landlord to investigate the kitchen waste pipe issue to establish how it can provide a permanent repair. We note a similar order was included in the report for case reference 202404088. If the landlord has complied with that order (compliance was due at the end of March 2026) then it does not have to inspect again.
We order the landlord to apologise to the resident for the maladministration we have identified in this report.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
Under the Code stage 1 and stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged in 5 working days and responded to within 10 and 20 working days of the acknowledgment, respectively. It requires the landlord must keep a resident informed of any extension, which should exceed no more than an additional 10 and 20 working days respectively.
The landlord acknowledged it had delayed the resident’s complaint at both stages. At stage 1, it notified the resident of an extension on 3 occasions before it provided its final response on 7 November 2023, which meant the response was provided 36 working days outside of its timescale, which was unreasonable. However, the landlord apologised and acknowledged the delay and awarded £100 compensation.
The landlord provided its final complaint at stage 2 on 5 February 2024, which was 40 working days outside of its expected timescale. It notified the resident of an extension on one occasion during this period, which was 40 days after it had acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate the complaint on 8 November 2023, which was unreasonable. However, the landlord apologised and acknowledged the delay and awarded £150 in addition to the compensation awarded at stage 1 for its further complaint handling failures.
In light of the landlord’s acknowledgment of its service failure, which it said was due to resourcing issues, and its compensation offer, we find reasonable redress in relation to its complaint handling. Our Remedies Guidance expects landlords to make awards between £50 and £100 for service failures that do not significantly affect the overall outcome but delay matters getting resolved. The landlord apologised and explained the delay and the redress offered aligns with our Remedies Guidance. The landlord’s award is above this range. Therefore, we are satisfied it has provided reasonable redress for its complaint handling failures.

Learning

General learning

The landlord attributed blame to the resident without demonstrating it had sufficient evidence. The landlord should enhance its complaint handling to ensure it considers evidence carefully and fairly.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord missed records on cancelled works and provided insufficient evidence to support its finding of the resident’s refusal to allow works. The landlord should ensure its repair records clearly state who cancelled appointments, why work orders are closed and evidence failed access attempts. This is highlighted in our KIM Spotlight report (May 2023).

Communication

The landlord’s communication showed a disconnect between its internal repairs team, its contractors and the resident. It did not coordinate appointments, and it misinterpreted the resident’s communication as a refusal to allow works. It also failed to verify evidence of contractor attendance. The landlord should refer to our Centre for Learning training on effective communication to improve its communication processes. It should look to better communication internally and with its contractors, and to ensure residents receive clear, agreed appointments.