Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202410513)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410513

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

16 July 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 and this has been 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. A leak into her property and its handling of remedial works following the leak.
2. A leaking tap in her bathroom and her request for reimbursement of increased costs as a result of the leak.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 31 March 2011. The property is a 2-bedroom flat.
On 20 January 2023, the resident reported a leak affecting her kitchen. An operative attended on 24 February 2023 and reported that the leak was coming from the flat above.
On 1 January 2024, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. The resident referred to a leak the landlord had attended in February 2023. In summary the resident said:
1. Despite her ‘repeated attempts to seek assistance and updates,’ she had received no communication or information about when the necessary repairs would be completed.
2. The ‘persistent black mould and damp’ in her flat had become ‘increasingly unbearable,’ especially given the health conditions of her 13-year-old son, who the resident said had asthma.
3. She was a type 2 diabetic and the stress, and her living conditions, had ‘significantly’ impacted her mental health, referring to anxiety and triggering episodes of depression.
4. The resident said she was told a property surveyor would come round but this had not happened.
5. She had had a leaking tap in her bathroom for months, which had increased her water bills.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 February 2024. The landlord apologised for the delay in its response and said:
1. With regards to the leak reported on 20 January 2023:
  1. An appointment went ahead on 24 February 2023, which identified that the leak was coming from the flat above and had stained the resident’s ceiling, damaged the sink cupboard and a wall cupboard, and caused damp and mould.
  2. It could find no evidence of the resident contacting it since January 2023. However, it was sorry no follow-on appointments were made. The landlord said the repairs would be raised once the leak from above had been completed.
  3. It offered the resident a total of £175 compensation, made up of:

(1) £75 for the time and detriment she experienced chasing up a response to the issues raised.

(2) £100 for failing to resolve the repair within its service level agreement timescales.

With regard to the leaking tap. The landlord said it could find no evidence of this repair being raised prior to the resident’s complaint.
Its area surveyor would inspect the resident’s property on 22 February 2024 and would raise any required repairs after their inspection.

The resident escalated her complaint on 7 March 2024. In summary the resident said:
1. The repairs had still not been raised or treated as a matter of urgency.
2. She had been waiting for over a year now, which had affected her mental health. The resident said she had become ‘slightly depressed and very anxious about it all.’
3. She had had a leaking hot water tap in her bathroom for over a year, which the landlord had not fixed. The resident said hot water was constantly leaking from the tap which meant she had to top up her gas meter every few days.
The landlord issued its final response on 15 March 2024 in which it said:
1. Following the inspection of the resident’s property on 22 February 2024, a job was raised to:
  1. Address the staining to the ceilings in the resident’s hall, kitchen and bathroom following previous water damage.
  2. Stain block and treat the rear of the kitchen wall units.
  3. Repair or replace the hot water tap in the bathroom.
2. It acknowledged that no contact had been made with the resident since the above job had been raised and no appointments had been attended.
3. In addition to the £175 offered at stage 1, it offered a further £35for the ‘slight delay’ in raising the works following its inspection of 22 February 2024.As the resident had arrears on her rent account, this would be credited to her account.
4. With regards to the resident’s request that it reimburse her additional water and gas costs. The landlord said it would consider this; however, it would need evidence of receipts. The resident was asked to send these. The landlord said once these had been reviewed, it would be able to confirm whether it would make a contribution towards her bills.
The landlord’s records note the job, referred to in its stage 2 response, was completed on 11 June 2024.

Assessment and findings

Once a landlord is informed of some damage or deterioration in a property, for which it is responsible, it is ‘on notice’ to carry out a reasonable enquiry to determine the cause and complete a repair. What is a reasonable time will depend on all the circumstances of a case.
A delay in repairs is not always considered a failure, particularly if the issue is complex. However, the landlord would be expected to proactively manage the repair, and complete it as soon as practically possible. It would also be expected to update the resident and manage their expectations.

Scope

It is acknowledged that the resident has raised concerns about the impact of the repairs on her and her son’s health. Whilst we empathise with the resident, we do not have the expertise to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or inaction had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s actions or inaction.

Report of a leak into the resident’s property and its handling of remedial works following the leak

The landlord does not dispute there were failings in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak into her property and its handling of remedial works following the leak.
Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, we assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In this case, by the time of the landlord’s final response on 15 March 2024 almost 14 months had passed since the resident first reported water entering her property on 20 January 2023. In those 14 months the landlord had carried out no remedial works to the resident’s property. This was an excessive amount of time for the resident to have to wait for the landlord to complete the required works.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged:
1. No follow-on appointments were made following its visit of 24 February 2023.
2. No contact was made with the resident, and no appointments attended, following its area surveyor’s inspection of 22 February 2024.
3. There was a short delay in the job for the works, identified by its area surveyor, being raised. This not being done until 7 March 2024.
The landlord apologised for these failures for which it offered the resident a total of £210 compensation.
When considering whether the level of compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable, we not only consider the extent of the failures identified but also the impact those failures had on the resident. In this case, the £210 offered fell significantly below what we would expect for the delay alone. Added to this, it is clear the delay in completing the repairs had a significant impact on the resident, as evidenced by her complaint of 1 January 2024 and escalation request of 7 March 2024.
On 15 April 2025, the landlord told us it had reviewed the case and believed that further redress should have been offered for its lack of action following its visit to the resident’s property in February 2023. It also acknowledged that once the works were raised on 7 March 2024 its contractor failed to complete the repairs within the required timescales.
The landlord offered to pay the resident a further £200, which it said it would pay directly to her. Its previous offer being offset against arrears, in accordance with its compensation policy.
Whilst this additional offer of compensation is welcome, it was a failure on the landlord’s part that it did not acknowledge these failures during the formal complaints process. The total offer of £410 compensation also still falls below what we would expect given all the circumstances of the case.
To put things right, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident an additional £190, bringing the total compensation offered for its failures, up to the point of its stage 2 response, to £600. This figure being at the upper end of amounts suggested in our Remedies guidance for circumstances where the landlord has acknowledged failings, and made some attempt to put things right, but the compensation offered was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
Further, where the landlord has made commitments as part of its complaint responses, we will consider subsequent events in order to establish whether the landlord has put things right in accordance with our Dispute Resolution Principles.
In this case, whilst it did not expressly state it, in its stage 2 response the landlord had evidently committed to completing the remedial works to the resident’s property. However, despite this commitment the works were not competed until 11 June 2024, some 3 months after its stage 2 response and some 17 months after the resident’s initial report of 20 January 2023.
Given the further delay in it completing the works it had committed to in its stage 2 response the landlord has been order to pay the resident a further £100 compensation. This brings the total compensation payable for this element of the resident’s complaint to £700.
In addition to being fair and putting things right, the landlord would also be expected to evidence that it has learnt from the outcome of the complaint. In this case, the landlord did not do so in its formal complaint responses. However, as set out in its email to us of 15 April 2025, it has since taken a number of steps to improve its service. These include enhanced contractor oversight, improved communications, prioritizing vulnerable cases and a dedicated property experience team.
Given the above we have made no additional learning orders in this case.

Report of a leaking tap in the resident’s bathroom and her request for reimbursement of increased costs as a result of the leak

The first record we have seen of the resident reporting the leaking tap in her bathroom was in her stage 1 complaint of 1 January 2024. It is acknowledged the resident said this had been happening for months. However, we have seen no evidence of the resident reporting this matter to the landlord before she raised her complaint.
As such it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have excluded this matter from its complaints process, and responded to it simply as a service request. However, it did not do so and in its stage 2 response of 15 March 2024 confirmed that the repair or replacement of the leaking tap had been included in the order raised following its area surveyor’s visit of 22 February 2024.
Given the leak had been reported on 1 January 2024, the landlord would have been expected, in accordance with its Guide to Repair Responsibilities, to have made ‘every effort’ to complete the repair within 28 calendar days. However, both the survey and the raising of the order fell outside of this timeframe.
As with the leak into the resident’s property from the flat above, where the landlord has made commitments as part of its complaint responses, we will consider subsequent events in order to establish whether the landlord has put things right in accordance with our Dispute Resolution Principles.
In this case, it is evident that the tap had not been repaired or replaced by 7 August 2024, some 5 months after the landlord’s stage 2 response. This is because the hot water tap was still reported as being defective following a disrepair survey carried out on that day. That the landlord did not do what it said it was going to do, within a reasonable period of time after its stage 2 response, represents a failure on its part.
To put this right, the landlord has been ordered to apologise to the resident and pay her a further £100 compensation. This figure being in line with amounts set out in our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident but did not have a permanent impact. This figure also takes into account that the landlord was not obliged to respond to the resident’s service request of 1 January 2024 as a formal complaint. It also takes into account the landlord’s offer to look at reimbursing the resident for additional costs she had incurred in relation to her water and gas bills.
In her correspondence with us on 15 April 2025, the resident said the landlord had not yet reimbursed her. In order to resolve this, we have made a further order for the landlord to make another attempt to obtain the evidence it needs in order to make a final decision about this matter.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report of a leak into her property and its handling of remedial works following the leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report of a leaking tap in her bathroom and her request for reimbursement of increased costs as a result of the leak.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £800 compensation. This is made up of:
  1. £700 for the impact of its failures with regards to its response to the leak into her property and its handling of remedial works following the leak. This figure includes the £210 compensation the landlord offset against arrears and the additional £200 offered following its final response, which it said it would pay directly to her. If these have been processed, the landlord need only pay the resident the additional £290 ordered by us.
  2. £100 for the impact of its failures with regards to its response to her report of the leaking tap in her bathroom.
  3. The additional compensation we have ordered should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against arrears.
3. Confirm whether all the works referred to in this report have been completed. If they have not, the landlord is to provide us and the resident with an action plan, with timescales, confirming when they will be.
4. Make another attempt to obtain the evidence it needs in order to make a final decision about the reimbursement of the additional costs the resident said she had incurred in relation to her water and gas bills.
5. Confirm compliance with the above orders.