Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202408632)

Back to Top

 

Decision

Case ID

202408632

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

Landlord type

Housing Association

Occupancy

Leaseholder

Date

28 May 2026

Background

  1. The resident lives with her husband in a flat served by a communal lift. Both have arthritis and rely on the lift to access their home. In July 2023, the resident complained that the lift had broken down several times over the previous 12 months.

What the complaint is about

  1. The landlord’s response to:
    1. Communal lift repairs.
    2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

  1. We found:
    1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to communal lift repairs.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

  1. We found:
    1. The landlord generally responded within its timescales, but the lift broke down repeatedly over a prolonged period. Its stage 2 response did not fully reflect the extent of the issue. It did not show it had fully considered the impact on the resident’s reported mobility needs.
    2. The landlord did not address all issues raised in the complaint and did not recognise this until the complaint was referred to us. It delayed issuing its stage 2 response; however, it acknowledged this and offered proportionate compensation.

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

25 June 2026

2

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £400 made up as follows:

£250 to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its response to lift repairs (£100 in addition to the £150 offered in its complaint process)

£150 to recognise the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures (no additional amount ordered)

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord may deduct any payments it has already made from the total figure. It must provide documentary evidence it has paid, including any payments already made, by the due date.

No later than

25 June 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident to:

  • ensure its records accurately reflect the household’s health and vulnerability needs
  • explain how it calculates service charges, including the proportion relating to lift maintenance and the costs incurred in 2023/2024
  • explain how the Section 20 consultation process works, when it may apply, and how costs would be managed if lift replacement is considered

The landlord should ensure that all contractors attending the building can access the required areas to prevent unnecessary repeat visits and delays in resolution.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

20 July 2023

The resident made a stage 1 complaint. She said the communal lift had been faulty throughout the previous 12 months. She explained that she and her husband had arthritis and relied on the lift, as they found the stairs difficult. She said she paid a service charge that included lift maintenance, but the lift was not working reliably. She asked the landlord to consider replacing the lift. She also raised other concerns about the communal areas.

3 August 2023

The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it had attended each reported repair within its policy timescales. It acknowledged the impact on the resident and offered £150 compensation for her time and trouble.

1 February 2024

The resident escalated her complaint. She said the stage 1 response did not address her concerns. She said the repairs had not provided a lasting solution. She wanted the landlord to consider refunding the service charge and replacing the lift.

15 March 2024

The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said there had been 5 breakdowns in the 6 months prior to the resident’s escalation. It said it had completed all but one repair within its policy timescales. On one occasion the contractor had to order parts, so the repair had taken longer to complete. It partially upheld the complaint and acknowledged the impact on the resident but did not find service failure. It provided some information on service charges. It offered an additional £50 for delays with complaint handling at stage 2.

Referral to the Ombudsman

The resident referred the complaint to us. She said the lift had been faulty for the past 12 months and no repairs had provided a long-term solution. She said the faults had a severe impact due to her arthritis. She wanted a refund of service charges and a new functioning lift.

17 December 2024

In communication with us, the landlord recognised it had not addressed all the points raised in the complaint. It offered an additional £100 compensation.

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

Communal lift repairs

Finding

Service failure
  1. Under the resident’s lease the landlord is responsible for repairs and maintenance of the lift. The lease specifies the landlord is not liable for any claim arising from interruptions to lift services for repairs or maintenance. It also allows the landlord to stop the lift service if it deems it to be uneconomically viable.
  2. The landlord’s guide to repair responsibilities says it will treat lift breakdowns as emergencies and attend within 24 hours. It aims to complete repairs as soon as possible after initial attendance. It asks residents to inform it immediately if they have mobility needs and the only lift in the building is out of service.
  3. The Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER) require landlords to ensure lifts are properly maintained and inspected. The landlord’s procedure says it will complete thorough examinations every 6 months and carry out interim inspections to meet these obligations.
  4. The landlord’s records show it serviced the lift monthly between October 2022 and October 2024 and completed 6‑monthly thorough examinations between November 2022 and February 2026. This indicates it took regular steps to maintain the lift in line with its LOLER obligations.
  5. The examination reports identify defects requiring immediate action and recommendations for completion ‘as soon as reasonably practicable.’ The evidence shows the landlord did not always complete recommended works promptly, with some taking over 12 months. This delayed preventative maintenance and may have contributed to recurring breakdown issues.
  6. In the 12 months before the stage 1 complaint, the landlord attended 21 reported lift breakdowns. Its records include attendance dates but not times. Therefore, we cannot confirm whether it always attended within 24 hours as per its policy or determine exactly how long each outage lasted. For the purpose of this investigation, we considered attendance the following calendar day as meeting its policy timescales. The landlord generally met its response times, with only minor delay in 1 instance.
  7. The resident said the lift was out of service for significant periods before she made her complaint. The landlord’s records show that in 18 of the 21 reports, it either found the lift working or completed repairs and left it in service. However, the records show repeated breakdowns within short periods. There were multiple attendances in November 2022, April 2023, and June 2023, coinciding with times the lift was out of service. This shows the lift service was disrupted on multiple occasions including some extended periods when it was not operational. While the landlord generally met its response times, these repeated faults and unreliability are likely to have affected the resident’s use of the lift and caused distress and inconvenience. The impact on the resident may also have varied depending on the times the lift was unavailable.
  8. On 2 occasions in April 2023 the landlord attended on time but could not access the lift control room because it needed a specific key. This prevented it from completing repairs at the first visit and led to repeat attendances. The records do not show this happened again which indicates the landlord took appropriate action to prevent recurrence.
  9. On 15 May 2023, a contractor recommended a technical inspection if the issues continued. A technician attended on 9 June 2023 after a further 5 breakdowns. The lift was left out of service as it required replacement parts, and the contractor reattended on 21 June 2023 to complete the repair. The landlord’s policy does not set a timeframe for completing follow-up repairs after the initial attendance. It attended the initial repair within its policy timescales and took 8 working days to complete the follow-up work after identifying the required parts, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
  10. The resident told the landlord that she and her husband have arthritis and relied on the lift to access their home. While the landlord acknowledged this in its complaint responses, it later told us that it had no record of household vulnerabilities. Given the information provided, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether the resident required any support or service adjustments during the lift breakdowns. This lack of communication and record keeping was not in line with its guide to repair responsibilities.
  11. Although the landlord did not identify any service failures when it provided its stage 1 response, it offered the resident £150 compensation for her time and trouble reporting the repairs. This was appropriate and showed it had recognised the impact the lift outages had caused.
  12. The lift issues continued after the landlord’s stage 1 response. The landlord recorded a further 14 breakdowns before its stage 2 response. It continued to attend within 24 hours in most cases, with 1 delayed attendance. This shows it maintained its response times but did not resolve the underlying problem.
  13. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said there had been 5 breakdowns in the 6 months before the escalation. While this was accurate, it did not take account of further breakdowns before it issued its response or that the complaint covered the 12 months prior to July 2023. In total, there were 35 breakdowns between July 2022 and March 2024. The stage 2 response therefore did not demonstrate the landlord had considered the full history of failures or their cumulative impact on the resident. It maintained its offer of £150 compensation and did not identify any service failure.
  14. The records show the landlord considered whether a service charge refund was appropriate. It decided against this because it considered it had met its obligations. It later told us it capped the amount recharged to residents for 2023 to 2024, so it did not pass on all its costs. This suggests it recognised there had been issues beyond what might normally be expected and took reasonable steps to provide redress. However, there is no evidence it explained this to the resident. If it had done so, it may have reassured her and prevented the complaint escalating.
  15. The evidence shows the landlord continued to monitor the lift issues and seek a longer-term solution after the complaint process. It considered whether a replacement was needed but assessed the lift to be serviceable and safe. Both the landlord and resident advised that there has been an improvement with the number of breakdowns. We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded to the resident during the complaint process when she asked for the lift to be replaced. We’ve made a recommendation in relation to this. However, under the terms of its lease, the landlord is not required to replace the lift if it deems it to be uneconomically viable.
  16. Our finding of service failure recognises the landlord responded to repairs and maintained the lift in line with its obligations. However, it did not always complete recommended repairs in a reasonable timeframe. It did not clearly respond to the resident’s queries and did not update its records when told about mobility issues. Furthermore, its stage 2 response did not reflect the full number of breakdowns or the impact on the resident. We have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £100 compensation on top of the £150 offered at stage 1, to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused. This is in line with our compensation guidance where a resident has been adversely affected.

Complaint

The handling of the complaint

Finding

Service failure
  1. The landlord’s relevant complaint policy said it would acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10. It said it would respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. These timeframes aligned with The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The resident complained on 20 July 2023. The landlord’s acknowledgement and stage 1 response were issued in line with its policy and the Code.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 1 February 2024 and the landlord acknowledged it the same day. It requested 2 extensions due to waiting on information from a specific team. It issued its response on 15 March 2024, one day later than the extended deadline. This was a minor delay and had limited impact on the resident, however it was avoidable. The landlord acknowledged the delay and offered £50 compensation, which was reasonable.
  4. In her stage 1 complaint, the resident raised other communal issues that the landlord did not address in its response. At stage 2, the resident said the stage 1 response had not addressed her complaint. She also asked specific questions about replacing the lift and service charges. The Code requires landlords to address all issues raised.
  5. After the complaint was referred to us, the landlord recognised it had not responded to all points and offered a further £100 compensation. However, it did not identify this during its own complaint process or respond to the outstanding issues. This amounts to a complaint handling failure.
  6. While the total sum of £150 is consistent with our compensation guidance, 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.
  7. We have not made a further award of compensation. However, we have identified learning and made recommendations for the landlord and ordered it to apologise to the resident.

Learning

  1. In this case, the landlord extended its complaint response time while it sought information from another team. The Code became statutory in 2024. Landlords are expected to treat complaint handling as a core service and provide prompt resolutions. The landlord should remind staff of these requirements to support timely complaint handling.
  2. In this case, there is evidence the landlord did not always act promptly on the actions recommended by the contractor in the thorough examination reports. Though there are no set timescales for it to do so, it would be beneficial for it schedule recommended work as soon as possible. It should also communicate these plans with its residents.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

  1. The landlord should record resident vulnerabilities and support needs when it becomes aware of them. This helps it to keep its records up to date, provide an appropriate service, and reduce the need for the resident to repeat information.

Communication

  1. The landlord should ensure it responds to all points raised in a complaint. Where it treats an issue as a service request or decides it falls outside of the scope of a complaint, it should explain this clearly to the resident and record its reasoning. Where it considers a request but decides not to act, it should tell the resident and explain why. This supports clear communication and helps the resident understand the outcome, even if they disagree with it.