Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202402637)

Decision
Case ID	202402637
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	27 October 2025

Background

The property is a 2-bedroom, ground floor flat in a building comprised of 3 storeys. The resident’s tenancy began in 2013. She made the landlord aware that her son has asthma and mould allergies, and that she had young children.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of repair issues, including damp and mould.
2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repair issues, including damp and mould.
The landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress for its handling of the complaint, which resolved the situation satisfactorily.

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

Summary of reasons

We found:
1. The landlord acknowledged failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and its communication over a 5-year period, but the level of compensation was not proportionate to put right the impact on her or her family.
2. The landlord acted reasonably by recognising delays in its handling of the complaint at stage 1 and offered proportionate compensation which satisfactorily put things right.

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 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £2,500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused by its handling of her reports of repair issues, including damp and mould. 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 24 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

24 November 2025

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £2,500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused by its handling of her reports of repair issues, including damp and mould.

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

24 November 2025

Recommendations

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord also pays the resident £50 as offered within its complaint responses for its complaint handling. The finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis that it paid this.
We recommend that the landlord commits to completing a damp and mould survey, using appropriate tools, when the resident is able to return to the property, to diagnose any ongoing problem, complete necessary repairs and rule out all possible causes of damp and mould.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Events before the complaint	The resident reported damp and mould affecting the property at least as early as 2018 following leaks from above. The resident’s solicitors wrote to the landlord in February 2023 to initiate the pre-action protocol for housing conditions claims. The reported defects included cracks in the living room, damp, mould and cracks in the bathroom, and mould on the walls and floors in the 2 bedrooms (which had damaged 2 mattresses). The solicitors completed an expert witness survey in April 2023 and chased the landlord in August 2023. The landlord had not previously received the claim and arranged a survey on 31 August 2023, before it then raised works.
18 April 2024	The resident raised a complaint as she was unhappy with the way the landlord had dealt with her reports of damp and mould over 5 years. She advised she had asked it to respond to her solicitors and made various calls but a staff member said there was no record of her contact attempts and was unhelpful and dismissive. She said the situation caused distress and anxiety, and that the mould affected her son’s health.
23 May 2024	Following conversations with the resident about her reasons for complaint, the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. In summary: It was unable to establish that it had effectively communicated or managed her history of reports of damp and mould over 5 years and upheld this aspect of the complaint. It noted that works now formed part of the active disrepair claim which its legal team and solicitors were handling separately. There was an initial delay in raising the disrepair claim because the initial letter of claim did not reach its legal team. It took immediate action once her solicitors chased it on 23 August 2023. It apologised for the delay and upheld this aspect of the complaint. She had not provided specific details regarding the incident where she felt a staff member had been unhelpful, dismissive, and unsympathetic but it had provided feedback to their manager and apologised. It said it took her concerns about the impact on her son’s health seriously and apologised for the worry and frustration caused. It would contact her to review the circumstances and offered to refer her to its support team. It also offered to refer her to its mediation service to improve the relationship between both sides. It noted that contractors had recently attended to remove the mould. It would consider reimbursing her for costs associated with purchasing a dehumidifier and sealing around the bath. It could not consider legal fees, but this may be resolved through settling her disrepair claim. It had seen evidence that it had sent letters to the resident about accessing the property for repairs, but she had declined access which had caused delays. It had attempted to contact her about pest issues following an initial visit but had not been able to reach her and it asked her to make contact. It did not initially raise work for a water hammer noise as it believed this formed part of the disrepair claim but had found this was not the case. It included an action plan and said it aimed to complete actions related to the pest issues, a gas pipe hanging from the wall, water hammer noise, and a housing assessment and support referral by 18 June 2024. It found service failures in its record keeping, repairs, and communication. It apologised for the impact of these. It offered £1,000 compensation for the length of time she had been experiencing issues with damp, mould, leaks, and remedial work, and her time, trouble, and inconvenience over the previous 5 years.
31 May 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. She did not feel the level of compensation was suitable given the mental and physical impact on her and her family over 5 years, in addition to her legal fees that she felt could have been avoided had it communicated with her.
19 June 2024	The landlord visited the resident and noted that an operative was resolving the water hammer noise at the time. There was no current mould as this had been removed. The resident was concerned that this would return, and that a contractor had told her it needed to check the damp proof course and had not installed trickle vents as promised.
27 June 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It recognised several complaint handling delays at stage 1 that it had not previously addressed. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by the delays and offered £50 compensation. It said it completed work to address the water hammer noise, gas pipe, and pests, and that any further compensation for the damp and mould would be settled through the disrepair claim.
Following the complaint	The landlord has said it denied liability for the claim but offered £1,000 in settlement, which included payment for damages, and small claims costs. The resident did not accept this but did not pursue the claim further.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us as she remained unhappy with the level of compensation offered. The resident recently informed us that she has been temporarily rehoused due to a fire in the building but there was ongoing damp and mould affecting bedrooms prior to this.

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 resident’s reports of repair issues, including damp and mould.
Finding	Maladministration

What we are not looking at

In her communication us and the landlord, the resident has referenced how the situation has impacted her and her children’s health and health conditions. It may be more reasonable and effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for this. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not considered whether the landlord’s actions directly impacted the resident or her family’s health but have considered how it responded to her reports of her son’s mould allergy. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

The resident’s reports of repair issues, including damp and mould

The landlord has recognised that it did not effectively manage the resident’s reports of damp and mould affecting the property or communicate effectively with her in the 5 years prior to her complaint in April 2024. It apologised and offered £1,000 compensation for the length of time she had been experiencing damp, mould, leaks, and waiting for remedial works, and the time and trouble she spent contacting it over that5-year period. The resident remains unhappy with the level of compensation offered.
Our investigations generally focus on the 12 months prior to a resident raising a complaint. In line with the Complaint Handling Code (April 2024), we expect landlords to take the same approach. However, within its complaint responses, the landlord has offered redress for failings over 5 years. With this in mind, we have reviewed its actions across 5 years and considered whether the compensation offered to put right the impact of any failings was proportionate.

History of reports

Between 2018 and 2022, we found that:
1. The resident reported a leak entering her property in January 2018 and said she wanted to make a complaint, but there is no evidence to show that the landlord treated this formally. She pursued her concerns about damp and mould and requested an inspection, but there is a lack of evidence to show it inspected or arranged any remedial work.
2. The resident continued to report further leaks into the property in January 2019 and raised a complaint about the lack of previous action by the landlord. We have not seen that it treated her complaint formally under its complaints process. She also notified it of her son’s vulnerabilities at the time. Its records indicate that it inspected and raised works for the kitchen, bathroom and lounge between January and April 2019, but it is unclear what these were or what it did. We have not seen clear evidence to support that she continued to report problems until May 2020, indicating that it may have resolved the issues at the time.
3. In May 2020, the landlord reported completing work to make safe the resident’s electrics following a leak from above. She reported a further leak from her bath in September 2020 and chased the landlord for an inspection of damp and mould in her bathroom, and under the bath from October 2020. The landlord’s records from December 2020 indicate that it rejected the resident’s request for an inspection as it found the mould was due to a “cleanliness issue”.
4. The resident reiterated her concerns about the impact on her son’s health and shared that the mould was present in other areas of the property in January 2021, but there is no evidence to support it took any action.
5. She continued to report and chase her concerns in June 2021, and the landlord told her she would need to follow its guidance and treat the mould initially, which she said she had. She chased this in early July 2021 and said she was unhappy with the delay and that it ignored the impact this was having on her son’s health conditions. Its records from August 2021 indicate that it raised work to renew the bathroom sealant and complete a mould wash on 20 August 2021 while raising a request to replace the bathroom as this was “beyond repair”. However, there is no record to support that it has since renewed the bathroom.
6. The resident continued to report that mould had returned in January and February 2022. It checked the windows in the bathroom in January and found that these were not the cause of mould. She highlighted the impact on her son, who had a mould allergy, and her 3-month-old baby. There is no record to show that it took further steps to investigate despite her requests. Its records indicate that it raised a work order for an inspection in December 2022, but there is no further record to confirm this took place.
It was reasonable for the landlord to recognise that it had not properly managed the resident’s reports or communicated with her effectively based on the available evidence. Despite being on notice of mould, and her son’s asthma and subsequent mould allergy, there is no evidence to support that the landlord diagnosed the cause of the damp. In view of the additional risk associated with the presence of mould in the property, we would have expected to see evidence to show that the landlord acted proactively, took steps to investigate the cause of the problems the resident reported, completed any necessary repairs or interventions where required, and provided suitable advice regarding damp and mould, and how the resident could also help to prevent this.
We note that it refused to inspect in 2020 due to it believing the mould was due to a “cleanliness issue”. At the time, it had been aware of multiple leaks into and in the property and it was on notice of household vulnerabilities, meaning it should have taken proactive steps to address her concerns. There is no evidence to show it investigated or had suitable evidence to support that there were no repair defects for which it was responsible at the time. It also ignored her requests in 2022, despite her reports that mould had returned.
The resident spent considerable time and trouble asking the landlord to act, and while the mould may have been temporarily resolved at times, we have not seen evidence to support that the landlord sought to provide a lasting resolution. It did not respond to a significant proportion of the resident’s communication which was likely to cause frustration over a significant timeframe. While there were some gaps in the resident’s communication, it is not reasonable to expect a resident to continually ask the landlord to act. The evidence suggests that it also missed opportunities to consider her complaints formally when it had the opportunity to do so

Pre-action protocol negotiations

The resident initiated the pre-action protocol for housing condition claims via a solicitor in February 2023. However, the address on the letter of claim was not the landlord’s address, and it was reasonable for the landlord to explain that it could not confirm whether its offices received this at the time. It nonetheless acted reasonably within its complaint responses by apologising for the delay in raising the disrepair claim between February and August 2023.
We note that the resident had also contacted the landlord about ongoing damp and mould in June and July 2023. She said the damp and mould had worsened, there had been multiple missed inspections and this was impacting the bathroom and bedrooms. The landlord responded and said it did not have any available inspectors in the area but put her on a list for a “future” inspection which was the reason for the delay. This indicates that the landlord did not have had sufficient systems in place to enable it to investigate reports of damp and mould or related hazards to meet its obligations. It is unclear how it established that it was safe for the resident to wait for an unspecified time before it inspected.
The resident’s solicitor chased the landlord directly on 23 August 2023 at which point it opened a disrepair case and arranged an inspection for 31 August 2023. This was within a reasonable timeframe of the solicitor’s contact. It found no mould in one of the bedrooms, mould behind furniture in one of the bedrooms, and damp staining to the bathroom ceiling. While it raised work to replace the fan, renew sealant, repair the window trickle vent and stain block the bathroom, and mould wash the bedroom on 1 September 2023, we have very limited evidence as to what happened following this.
While there was some communication about the resident refusing access for a repair to replace her fan in December 2023 to January 2024, we have not seen evidence to show that the landlord provided her with a clear scope of works or agreed dates for appointments with her in advance. We have seen evidence to show that the resident had asked the disrepair team to contact her about the scope of work between December 2023 and her complaint in April 2024 and expressed concern that no one was getting back to her. The communication between the landlord and resident indicates that it completed a mould wash, stain blocking, and painting around 15 May 2024, which was over 8 months after the inspection. The landlord has not provided evidence to support that this delay was fully outside of its control or that it managed the repairs effectively.
In her complaint of 18 April 2024, the resident raised specific concerns that the landlord was not communicating or responding to her solicitor. The landlord did not dispute that its communication with the resident was not effective. However, in its stage 1 complaint response, it said that it had seen evidence to support that it had attempted to contact the resident and her solicitors since the disrepair claim. While we have seen evidence that it initially wrote to the resident on 31 August 2023 prior to an inspection, and records indicating that it had called the resident about work to replace the fan, neither party has provided evidence of communication between their respective legal representatives, and we do not have sufficient evidence to comment on this further.
In view of the history of her reports, we would have expected to see evidence to support that the landlord diagnosed the cause of the problem and clearly explained this to the resident to provide some reassurance of the steps it was taking to put things right. While it can be reasonable for a landlord to remove potentially harmful mould spores as a reactive measure, it should also engage with the cause of the problem. The expert witness survey report (from April 2023) recommended that the landlord investigate the air bricks to ensure they were not blocked and were allowing sufficient airflow as this may have been the cause of condensation related mould in the bedroom. The resident also informed it of this, and the trickle vent repair that was outstanding on 19 June 2024, but there is no evidence to support that it acted on these concerns at the time of the complaint or as part of the claim, which was a failing.

Communication with solicitors and legal fees

The resident was initially unhappy with the level of compensation offered by the landlord – in part, because this did not include her legal costs. We have not seen evidence of the resident’s legal costs, or that she provided this information to the landlord at the time of the complaint. She has since confirmed that she is not aware of any legal costs at this stage. Employing a legal representative was the resident’s choice and this may not have been necessary for the resident to pursue a repair or a complaint. However, it is evident that given her previous experience and lack of resolution, she may have felt this was the case.
The landlord would not generally be expected to consider whether it was liable, or would contribute toward, the resident’s legal fees via its complaints process. It is reasonable for the landlord to consider specific legal damages, including legal costs, separately. It was reasonable at the time for it to confirm it would consider any additional compensation (for damages) when it settled the claim. Our decisions focus on the time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and we do not consider legal damages, including liability for any alleged impact on health, as set out above.
The landlord has not confirmed what damages the separate £1,000 settlement offer covered, or what proportion was for damages versus legal costs. We note that the resident refused the settlement and the pre-action negotiations failed so we have not commented on this offer further.
The resident has informed us that the damp and mould issues are unresolved following her complaint. She has been temporarily rehoused due to an unrelated fire in the building. For this reason, we have not made any specific orders for the landlord to inspect as it is unclear when the resident will be able to return to the property. We have included a recommendation for the landlord to commit to completing a damp and mould survey, using appropriate tools when the resident is able to return to the property, to diagnose any ongoing problem, complete necessary repairs and rule out all possible causes.

Pests

It is unclear when the resident first reported pest issues. She reported seeing a mouse in the property on 14 February 2024 and the landlord sent her a “pest control template”. As pests in the property are generally the resident’s responsibility, this was reasonable. We note that pest control visited the property on 1 May 2024, and the resident informed the landlord that there was a communal pest issue on the same day. During a separate visit on 19 June 2024, it noted that she confirmed it had completed proofing at the time, and she had not seen any further mice.
It was reasonable for the landlord to relay that its contractors had not been able to reach her to book in a treatment within its stage 1 complaint response on 22 May 2024. The landlord has provided limited evidence of the steps it was taking to address the pest issue reported across the block and we do not have enough evidence to determine that there were failings in its handling of the matter. Nonetheless, it appears that the problem was resolved.

Water hammer

It is unclear from the evidence provided as to when the resident first reported a water hammer noise. We have seen evidence to show she called “again” to report this on 3 May 2024, and she had previously informed the disrepair team. Within its stage 1 response on 22 May 2024, the landlord said that it did not initially raise a repair as it believed this formed part of the disrepair claim but later found that this was not the case. It then raised work which it aimed to complete by 18 June 2024. During a visit to the property on 19 June 2024, a staff member noted that an operative was there, repairing the noise.
While the landlord completed the repair within its routine repair timescales of 28 calendar days following the complaint, there was evidently a delay in raising work due to confusion about whether this formed part of the disrepair claim, and the landlord has not fully recognised this within its complaint responses. We have seen evidence to show that it attempted to gain information about this from its disrepair team when investigating the complaint but have not seen that they provided a response. While the landlord ultimately resolved the repair issue, it should have clear records to confirm what repair issues form part of a disrepair claim, and what do not, to prevent delays, ensure the right repairs are raised, and that residents are not disadvantaged.

Gas pipe

It is unclear when the resident first reported that the gas pipe in her kitchen behind her cooker was becoming detached from the wall. The landlord has suggested that this was on 15 May 2024. It acted reasonably within its complaint response on 22 May 2024 by confirming that it intended to arrange work to resolve the matter by 18 June 2024. Its records indicate that an engineer had visited prior to, or on, 22 May 2024, taken photos, and noted that the gas bayonet pipe could not be refitted into the wall by a kitchen fitter.
The landlord raised work on 23 May 2024 to address this but the resident has said she was dissatisfied with the number of visits from different trade operatives, and the situation was not managed effectively. While it said the matter was resolved within its stage 2 complaint response on 26 June 2024, the landlord has not provided a completion date for the work, or any other evidence to support the actions taken. The onus is on the landlord to provide relevant evidence, and the lack of records has impacted our ability to come to a conclusion.

Summary

Our remedies guidance (available on our website) states that compensation offers over £1,000 can be proportionate in cases where the landlord repeatedly failed to provide the same service which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. This includes where failures accumulated over a significant period of time, demonstrating a failure to provide a service, put things right and learn from outcomes.
It is evident that the resident reported damp and mould in the property for a significant period between 2018 and 2024, and there is a lack of evidence to support that the landlord effectively managed her communication or reports, which it has recognised. We have also found failings in how it handled her reports of a water hammer noise, and the lack of records has prevented us from making findings regarding its handling of her reports of pests, or the loose gas pipe.
The landlord offered £1,000 compensation to recognise the impact on the resident over a 5-year period. We have found this is not proportionate given the overall timescales, and its failures to act on the resident’s reports, provide a lasting resolution, or communicate effectively with her over a significant period. We also have not seen evidence to support that it considered the potential risk to her or her family despite being aware of household vulnerabilities and a mould allergy which is unreasonable given the potential risks of damp and mould on young children or those with existing health conditions. We have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £1,500, bringing the total to £2,500 compensation. This is to recognise the considerable time and trouble the resident spent pursuing a resolution over many years, and the distress ad inconvenience caused over an extended period.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (April 2024). We found:
1. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
2. The landlord took approximately 25 working days to respond at stage 1 (18 April 2024 to 23 May 2024). The landlord had 5 working days to acknowledge and 10 working days to answer the complaint (up to 15 working days), meaning that it should have responded by 10 May 2024. It acted reasonably and put matters right by recognising the delay and offering £50 compensation.
3. The landlord took 19 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process (31 May 2024 to 27 June 2024) which was in line with its policies and the Code.
Overall, the landlord acted appropriately by recognising its delay in responding at stage 1 and put matters right by offering £50 compensation for this aspect. This is proportionate to put right the impact of a delay of a short duration.

Learning

There are several elements in this case that the landlord can take learning from. In summary:

The landlord should have sufficient systems in place to record reports of damp and ensure it investigates and takes appropriate action within a reasonable timescale. We note that the landlord has a new damp and mould policy effective from September 2025, and it should ensure staff are aware and prepared to act in line with statutory timescales and obligations under Awaab’s Law from 27 October 2025.

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

The landlord should ensure that new repairs reported to its disrepair team are appropriately forwarded to a relevant repair team to avoid delays. It should also ensure it has clear records as to what factors form part of a claim, and what do not, so that its staff can make informed decisions about the best route for repairs.