Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202404828)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom top floor flat. The property has a mechanical extraction ventilation (MEV) unit installed in the kitchen and bathroom. The resident was unhappy with the time it took the landlord to resolve a fault with the unit and asked us to investigate.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s reports of a faulty MEV unit
   2. the complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress in how the landlord handled:
   1. reports of a faulty MEV unit
   2. the resident’s complaint

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The faulty MEV unit

4. The landlord recognised its failings and offered suitable redress to put things right. The compensation offered exceeds our remedies guidance, and the landlord apologised.

The complaint

5. The landlord recognised its failings and offered suitable redress to put things right. The compensation offered exceeds our remedies guidance, and the landlord apologised.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we did not investigate

6. During recent contact with us the resident said she was dissatisfied with the way in which the landlord had handled her rehousing application in May 2025. In the interest of fairness, this investigation will look at matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 22 August 2024. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its action before the involvement of this Service.

What we did investigate

7. When the resident initially reported the faulty MEV unit in May 2023, the landlord logged jobs. Some of these were cancelled and some jobs do not confirm a clear outcome. This caused the resident frustration and inconvenience as the issue was not being resolved.
8. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states it will attend routine repairs within 28 days and bespoke repairs within 90 calendar days. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged it did not meet these timescales. It explained that the repair required a specialist contractor due to its complexity. The landlord apologised and offered compensation. This was consistent with its compensation policy for repeated failings with high impact, it reflected the extended delay and the inconvenience experienced by the resident in chasing the matter multiple times.
9. On 11 March 2024 the resident requested the landlord to clear her arrears as a resolution to her stage 1 complaint. She explained that due to the wait and the expense she had to go to, to clean the mould and staining, her rent account should be credited. At stage 1 the landlord confirmed if she provided receipts of the products she used, it could reimburse her. It noted her arrears were at £3,727.89 so this was not something it could authorise. While we consider this approach was reasonable, as this was a significant amount and did not align with its compensation policy, the landlord could have provided an explanation as to why it was unable to do this.
10. As the issue was still unresolved at stage 1, the landlord confirmed a specialist contractor would attend on 29 May 2024 to inspect the MEV unit. A further inspection would follow to assess any damaged caused from the faulty unit. This was a reasonable action by the landlord as it gave the resident a clear understanding on its next steps to put things right.
11. The resident wanted the complaint to remain open until the landlord renewed the MEV unit, so it was fair the landlord escalated her complaint to stage 2.
12. As agreed, the contractor attended on 29 May 2024, but no work took place. Another inspection was completed on 26 June 2024 when it was confirmed a specialist contractor was required. These appointments, with no repair outcome, understandably caused frustration for the resident as the issue was not resolved. She continued to report mould growing and the inconvenience of having to clean this away. She again told the landlord on the 29 June 2024 she was “fed up of paying rent and repairs not being done” so she wanted the landlord to write off her rent arrears as compensation.
13. In its stage 2 response the landlord provided an overview of the resident’s experience, which showed it understood the context of the complaint and the impact it had on her. It expressed its sincere apologies to the resident and confirmed it would address the gap in its process. This provided the resident with reassurance that her complaint had been taken seriously, and the landlord was committed to learn from its actions.
14. The landlord confirmed it approved the renewal of the unit and, in its action plan, stated that it booked an appointment for 29 August 2024. It also provided the resident with a point of contact for the appointment, which helped set clear expectations about the next steps to restore a fully functioning unit. However, it did not install the new unit until 30 September 2024. We understand this delay was due to a part being unavailable and the landlord waiting for the engineer to return from annual leave. While the delay was likely frustrating for the resident, the landlord’s approach was reasonable as it aimed to maintain continuity by using an engineer familiar with the work required.
15. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider reimbursement where its failings have caused financial loss or damage. Although the policy sets a general limit of £300 for reasonable costs, it was appropriate that the landlord agreed to reimburse £610 in this case. This amount covered the cost of a portable ventilation unit and other products the resident purchased to address mould and damage to the décor. The landlord acted outside of its usual policy to resolve the issue and avoid further inconvenience to the resident.
16. Its compensation policy also states that if a resident is in arrears, and the arrears is not due to be paid by housing benefit, it will usually credit any compensation or other payment to a residents rent account. We have also seen evidence that the resident specifically requested for the landlord to clear her arrears as a resolution to her complaint.
17. Therefore, the landlord was reasonable in its approach to compensation. It followed its own policy and applied the compensation to the rent account. It was resident focused and went further to meet a full resolution by offering a goodwill payment, which was outside its policy, to ensure the arrears were fully covered. The offer exceeded our remedies guidance for such cases.
18. As part of her contact with the landlord during the stage 2 response, the resident stated she wanted the landlord to rehouse her due to the reoccurring issues she has had with the MEV unit in the property. The landlord chose to address this formally in its stage 2 response and committed to contact her and arrange a visit to discuss options.
19. When the landlord spoke to the resident on 27 August 2024, and explained it would help her find a 2-bedroom flat or apartment, the resident was unhappy. She said, during the stage 2 investigation, the landlord said it would rehouse her in a house. There is insufficient evidence to conclude what was agreed. However, it was appropriate for the landlord to explain that its policy does not typically offer houses to households made up of adults with adult children. The landlord continued to offer support throughout September 2024. This included advising her about the Home Swapper scheme and providing relevant details.
20. While the resident remains dissatisfied with the outcome, the landlord fulfilled its commitment at stage 2 and offered the support it had promised. As the resident declined this support, any ongoing concerns about rehousing should be raised with the landlord separately.
21. The evidence shows that the landlord acknowledged delays in addressing the faulty MEV unit and took steps to put things right. It accepted that its response times fell short of its repair policy and offered compensation in recognition of the delay and inconvenience. It also reimbursed the resident for costs she incurred in managing the effects of the fault, exceeding its usual compensation limit. As the delays and inconvenience continued the landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response. It provided a clear action plan which it monitored to ensure it put things right for the resident. It offered redress over what we would expect and offered further assistance to the resident. Overall, the landlord recognised its failings, took proportionate steps to address them, and provided reasonable redress.
22. We note the landlord credited the resident’s rent account with the agreed amount from stage 1 on 4 July 2024, and from stage 2 on 10 October 2024.

23. 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). Our findings are:
24. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
25. The landlord issued its stage 1 response after 85 working days, which was significantly over its 10-day target. It contacted the resident 8 times to request extensions.
26. The stage 2 response was issued after 70 working days, exceeding the 20-day target. The landlord contacted the resident twice to request extensions.
27. The delays at both stages caused further frustration for the resident. At stage 1, the landlord apologised and offered £200 compensation. At stage 2, it apologised again and offered £500. This exceeded its own guidance and reflected its consideration of the impact on the resident. We are satisfied this amounted to reasonable redress.
28. We note the landlord credited the resident’s rent account as above which included the complaint handling compensation.

Learning

29. The landlord demonstrated flexibility in applying its own compensation policy. This shows a resident-focused approach and a willingness to resolve issues fairly, even outside standard policy.
30. The landlord provided the resident with a point of contact and a clear action plan following its stage 2 response. This helped manage expectations and showed good practice in ensuring it met its commitments by updating the resident.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. Overall, the record keeping by the landlord was good.

Communication

32. Overall, communication with the resident was good. When it experienced delays in complaint responses it contacted the resident. It also provided a point of contact at stage 2 to communicate updates about the action plan.