Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202406744)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202406744

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

7 October 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 which we have 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak causing water damage.
2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a leaseholder of a 2-bedroom second-floor flat. Her shared ownership of the new build property began in 2017. The resident does not live at the flat, but she has her own tenants.
4. In November 2023 the resident reported a leak from the roof. The landlord inspected the property and told the developer, as the roof remained under warranty. The landlord informed the resident she was responsible for any internal repairs required in her flat.
5. On 5 March 2024 the resident complained. She said the leak was worse and she was concerned the lounge ceiling may collapse on her tenants. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the time taken for the landlord and developer to resolve the repair.
6. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 5 and 12 March 2024. On 25 March 2024 it extended the date of its investigation and sent the resident a stage 1 response on 27 March 2024. The landlord summarised the actions taken since November 2023 to identify the cause of the roof leak. It apologised for the inconvenience and the lack of adequate communication to keep her informed. It offered £185 compensation, made up of £100 service failure, £60 and trouble, and £25 for poor complaint handling.
7. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 April 2024. She said the landlord’s offer of compensation did not reflect her time and trouble, nor the distress caused to her. She said it should pay her £4,608 and she provided a calculation of her expenses. The resident said this sum did not include lost rental income, which she also considered the landlord responsible for.
8. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 10 April 2024. It extended its stage 2 investigation and sent her its final response on 4 July 2024. The landlord said:
   1. the developer remained responsible as the property was still in the defect liability period
   2. it was not responsible for the resident’s internal property repairs
   3. it was sorry that the root cause of the leak took time to locate
   4. the resident would be able to claim on her home contents insurance policy or via its policy if she considered it negligent
   5. sorry for the inconvenience caused and delays with its complaint handling
   6. it would offer an additional £150 for time and trouble, and £150 for complaint handling failures, taking the total sum to £485
9. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to us. She said the landlord’s offer did not reflect the distress, frustration, monetary loss, or wellbeing factors caused over 6 months.
10. Following the resident bringing her complaint to us, the landlord reviewed its final response. It remained satisfied that it had properly addressed her concerns but regretted any frustration caused. It increased its total compensation offer to £685 and reminded the resident of her options to make an insurance claim.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. The resident refers to a loss of rental income, damage caused to her property, financial expenses, and effects on the living conditions of her tenants.
12. We are unable to say what may have caused an illness or prove legal liability for expenses incurred or any damage caused. Any detrimental effect on a resident’s health or finances requires a decision by a court or through an insurance claim. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue a claim for damages. Our role is to consider if the landlord responded to the resident in line with its policies and procedures.

Roof leak

13. The lease agreement states the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and external parts of the building.
14. The lease agreement states the resident is responsible for the interior plaster walls and ceilings up to the underside of the joists, slabs, or beams.
15. Having received reports of a leak on 23 November 2023, it was appropriate for the landlord to inspect the same day. Its attendance within 24 hours was consistent with its repairs policy.
16. The landlord identified that the resident’s flat remained within the developer’s defect liability period. By informing the developer of the leak it ensured the correct party took steps to repair any structural issues under warranty. The landlord’s actions were responsible, as it was the developer’s responsibility to complete the repair.
17. That said, the landlord had overall responsibility for external repairs. Therefore, it had a duty to monitor repair progress and ensure it kept the resident informed. The evidence shows this did not consistently happen. This was not appropriate and caused the resident time and trouble chasing for updates.
18. Between November 2023 to January 2024, investigations to identify the root cause of the leak took place, albeit unsuccessfully. However, communication with the resident remained poor. The evidence shows in December 2023 the developer attended without the necessary equipment. And in January 2024 a contractor could not attend, delaying work further. The resident received no communication about these issues from the landlord.
19. Evidence also shows the resident had to chase the landlord and developer for information from November 2023 through to April 2024. Given the reports of worsening conditions inside the flat, this did not demonstrate effective monitoring of the resident’s situation. Nor did it show improved communication following her complaint. These failings caused an unreasonable delay and avoidable distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble as she tried to progress matters to protect her property.
20. The landlord informed the resident she was responsible for the demised property. While damage due to a leak would be upsetting, the lease confirms it was the resident’s responsibility to claim on insurance or make good any internal repairs. The landlord was not therefore responsible for putting the interior decorations right.
21. However, the resident was unable to progress any repairs to the interior of her property as the leak remained. This caused distress and inconvenience as she could not improve the condition of the flat until the developer completed the repairs. This was beyond her control.
22. The evidence shows the landlord informed the resident she could make a claim on its liability insurance if she considered it negligent. This was reasonable and demonstrated the landlord providing the resident with options to pursue her claim for damages. While it is unclear if she made a claim, the outcome of any insurance decision is not something we can determine.
23. When there has been an admission of failure, as is the case here, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with its own policies and with our remedies guidance.
24. While leaks can be hard to trace and resolve, the landlord did not demonstrate effective monitoring of the developer’s progress. Nor did it communicate with the resident effectively during an approximate 6-month period. It was therefore right that the landlord apologised. However, its offer of £310 compensation at stage 2 was not proportionate given the time and recurring communication failings.
25. We recognise the landlord offered an additional £200 compensation after our involvement. While the total sum offered of £510 is consistent with our remedies guide, the landlord’s improved offer came after the completion of its complaints process. In such circumstances, our outcome guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot therefore be determined.
26. Therefore, we find maladministration. The landlord’s failure adversely affected the resident, and its initial offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Complaint handling

27. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022 required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days. And respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. If it required more time, this should not have exceeded a further 10 working days without good reason. It should also have agreed any extension with the resident in advance.
28. While the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the same day, 4 March 2024, it did not define its understanding of her complaint. This was not consistent with the expectations of the Code. The landlord’s second acknowledgement letter on 12 March 2024 showed an improvement.
29. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 27 March 2024, which was late. Although the landlord wrote to the resident to extend its response date, we have no evidence that it agreed this extension with her in advance as we would have expected it to. This was not consistent with the Code.
30. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request within the expected time and by 10 April 2024. This was appropriate.
31. The landlord’s stage 2 response was more than 40 days late. While the landlord wrote to the resident to extend its response date, we have no evidence it arranged this extension in advance. This indicates ineffective communication and demonstrates a recurring failure to meet the expectations of the Code.
32. The landlord provided a thorough stage 2 response. It apologised for the delays to identify the root cause of the leak and empathised with what she had experienced. It demonstrated answering the questions she raised within her escalation request. And it informed her of her right to make an insurance claim. The landlord offered a total of £175 for failures during its internal complaints process. While there were failings, the landlord acknowledged them, apologised, and offered compensation consistent with our remedies guide.
33. Therefore, based on our findings we find the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak causing water damage.
35. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress which resolved the complaint about the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

36. We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the findings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £510 compensation, for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak causing water damage, if not already paid.

Recommendations

37. We recommend the landlord reoffers the resident £175 for the identified complaint handling failures, if not already paid.
38. We recommend the landlord reoffers the resident its liability insurance details.