Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202411277)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202411277

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

28 January 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a housing association landlord. The tenancy started on 28 June 2021.
The landlord has informed this Service that it was not advised of any vulnerabilities or additional support needs at the time the tenancy began or during the time the resident has been a tenant.
The property is a 2-bedroom flat.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 April 2023 to report that she was getting mould at the bottom of her windows. She advised the landlord that she had cleaned the mould several times but it kept returning. The resident contacted the landlord again on 9 May 2023 to report mould in the living room and 2 bedrooms. The landlord requested photos of the mould so it could raise an order for an inspection if needed. The landlord’s records show that it did not raise any orders to follow-up her reports of mould.
The resident therefore contacted the landlord again on 7 December 2023 to report damp and mould in the property. The landlord again requested photos from the resident, which she sent to the landlord. The landlord raised an order on the same day to carry out a mould wash. An operative attended on 3 January 2024 but did not carry out the mould wash because he said an inspection was needed.
The landlord inspected the property on 8 January 2024 and said that the damp and mould were caused by condensation due to a lack of ventilation in the property. The resident had switched off the mechanical extract vent (MEV) in the property as she said it was too noisy and had been causing sparks in the living room when it was operated. The landlord agreed that the MEV needed to be repaired and therefore raised an order for this.
The resident submitted a complaint on 2 January 2024 regarding the mould in the property. The landlord sent its stage one reply on 30 January 2024 in which it apologised and offered the resident compensation of £125 for not raising an order for mould treatment after she reported the mould on 9 May 2023.The sum offered included £25 for the delay in the landlord responding to the stage one complaint.
The landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 27 February 2024 as the resident said she was dissatisfied with the stage one reply. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 8 April 2024 in which it stated:
1. It had inspected the property on 8 January 2024 and found there was a build-up of condensation in the property but no mould was present as the resident had already wiped it away. The inspector identified that the condensation was caused by a lack of ventilation.
2. A contractor had checked the MEV on 23 March 2024 and found that it was defective. It had therefore raised an order for a contractor to repair the extractor unit by 1 June 2024.
3. The landlord increased its compensation offer to £846, which included £496 to reimburse the resident for reported mould damage to her bed and mattress.
The resident contacted this Service on 18 June 2024 to report that she had not yet been contacted to arrange the repair of the ventilation system.
The landlord advised this Service on 9 December 2024 that it had not yet repaired the MEV. It advised that it had arranged a full damp and mould survey on 16 December 2024, including an inspection of the MEV. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered further compensation of £800.
The resident advised this Service on 17 January 2025 that the MEV had not yet been repaired and that she had continued to wipe away the mould in the property. The landlord advised the Ombudsman on 23 January 2025 that the MEV had not yet been repaired as it was working to appoint a specialist to overhaul the ventilation system.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The landlord completed its complaints process by sending its stage 2 reply on 8 April 2024. However, having considered the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman has concluded that it is fair and reasonable to assess the events up to and including the additional information sent to this Service by the landlord on 9 December 2024. The information relates to the same subjects that were considered by the landlord in its stage 2 reply.
The resident verbally advised the landlord on 2 and 9 January 2024 that the reported mould was affecting her health and had made her unwell. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this option. The Ombudsman has, however, assessed whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint, responded reasonably, applied its policy and procedure, complied with any relevant legislation and followed good practice in relation to its actions.
The resident seeks to be compensated for possessions that she reported were damaged by damp and mould. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to determine negligence or liability in the same way as the courts, or to order damages in relation to these, only a court can offer a definitive and legally binding decision. Similarly, this Service does not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which should be investigated by an insurance claim. The Ombudsman has, however, assessed whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s compensation request in line with its policy and procedure and followed good practice when reaching its decisions.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The landlord’s guide to repair responsibilities states:
1. Residents must report repairs promptly and let the landlord know if they are worried about anything in their home.
2. The landlord uses the following repair priority categories:
  1. Emergency – the contractor will attend within 24 hours.
  2. Routine (appointment) – every effort will be made to complete the repair within 20 working days of the resident contacting the landlord. However, at times, a Repair Officer may need an initial appointment to assess the repair further.
  3. Non-routine – the contractor will be given a 90-day period to carry out the repair where the repair is complex or materials are needed.
3. The landlord is responsible for repairing extractor fans.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states: “in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s recommendation, [the landlord] is adopting a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 April 2023 to report mould on her windows and again on 9 May 2023 to report mould in the living room and 2 bedrooms. The landlord’s records show that it did not raise an order for an inspection or for mould treatment in response to the resident’s enquiries on either of these dates. This was inappropriate as it was not in line with the landlord’s damp policy which said it had adopted a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould.
The landlord had requested the resident to send photos of the mould on 9 May 2023. It is not clear from the evidence seen whether the resident provided the photos. Although any photos would have provided the landlord with some information, the landlord’s failure to inspect the property meant it had not accurately assessed the extent of the damp and mould, the impact on the resident or the underlying causes of the problem. The lack of action by the landlord prompted the resident to ring the landlord again on 7 December 2023 to report the presence of damp and mould in the property.
The landlord raised works orders on 7 December 2023 for a contractor to carry out a mould wash on 3 January 2024 and for an inspection to be carried out on 8 January 2024. However, the mould wash did not go ahead as the operative who attended said that the inspection was needed before carrying out the mould wash. This created further frustration for the resident and delayed the planned mould wash. It was therefore unreasonable that the mould wash had not occurred because of the landlord’s lack of communication with the contractor.
As the resident had first reported the mould in April 2023, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not given greater priority to arranging an earlier inspection following the resident’s contact on 7 December 2023. The inspection was arranged to take place on 8 January 2024, which meant she had to wait a further month for the inspection. This showed a lack of urgency on the landlord’s part, despite the known potential health problems caused by mould. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould produced in October 2021 stated: “Landlords should recognise that (damp and mould) issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner”.
The delay in carrying out the inspection, prompted the resident to send an online complaint to the landlord on 2 January 2024. She stated that she had reported the mould in 2023 and had made various calls, but the issue had not yet been resolved. She stated that there was mould in her bedroom and this had made her unwell.She also said there was mould on the windows, bedroom walls and on her mattress. She added that she had tried cleaning the mould, but it kept returning.
The landlord’s inspection on 8 January 2024 found there were no signs of mould as the resident said she had removed it. However, the inspector found there was heavy condensation on the window and door due to a lack of ventilation in the property. He found that the mechanical ventilation system in the property had been switched off. The resident advised the landlord that she had switched the system off because it was noisy and sparks were coming from the unit in the living room.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 9 January 2024 regarding her complaint and she advised the landlord of the following:
1. She said she had contacted the landlord in April 2023 regarding the mould.
2. She said the mould kept spreading and was worse in the bedroom, which she now felt was unusable.
3. She had tried opening the windows as per the landlord’s previous advice but this had not worked.
4. The resident said the mould was impacting her health and had damaged her mattress and decorated walls.
The landlord sent its stage one reply on 30 January 2024 and confirmed that it had arranged for a contractor to inspect and repair the mechanical extract vent (MEV), which it said was a communal system. It advised the resident that the target completion date for the work was 23 February 2024. The landlord stated that it had no record of the resident reporting the defective MEV and therefore it reminded her about the importance of reporting repairs promptly.
It was reasonable that the landlord had used the inspection on 8 January 2024 to identify the cause of the condensation and had arranged for the MEV to be repaired. It was also reasonable for the landlord to remind the resident about her responsibility to report repairs in a timely manner. Finally, it was reasonable that the landlord had not raised a further order to carry out a mould wash immediately following the inspection as it had found there was no mould present during the inspection (although the resident had advised the landlord on 9 January 2024 that the mould kept returning).
The landlord accepted in its stage one reply that there had been a failure in its service as it had not acted on the resident’s reports of damp and mould until the inspection in January 24. The landlord apologised and offered compensation. The landlord’s offer of redress is considered later in this assessment.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 27 February 2024 as she had not yet been contacted regarding the repair to the MEV. It was unreasonable that neither the landlord nor the contractor had contacted the resident regarding the repair to the system as the repair order was now overdue. Given that the landlord had concluded from the inspection on 8 January 2024 that the damp and mould were caused by a lack of ventilation, it was inappropriate that the landlord had not tracked the repair order adequately following the stage one reply. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states: “outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned expeditiously with regular updates provided to the resident”.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 8 April 2024 in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord accepted that it had failed to act on the resident’s initial reports of damp and mould in May 2023 (it did not mention the report of mould in April 2023).
2. The landlord said there had been a delay in addressing the defective MEV following the inspection on 8 January 2024. It said this had been because it had incorrectly assumed the MEV was a communal system and had therefore issued the repair order to the wrong contractor.
3. After realising the MEV solely served the resident’s property, it had arranged for the correct contractor to inspect the unit in March 2024 with a Housing Officer present. The contractor tested the unit and established it was not functioning properly and therefore needed to be repaired. The landlord said it had therefore issued an order to the contractor, with a target to complete the repairs by 1 June 2024.
4. The landlord stated that it was satisfied with the way in which the stage one complaint had been managed. However, it upheld the resident’s complaint that the MEV had not yet been repaired. It apologised for this and increased its offer of compensation to £846, which was comprised of:
  1. £50 for the failure of service in not acting on the resident’s report of mould in May 2023.
  2. £250 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
  3. £50 for poor complaint handling.
  4. £496 to reimburse the resident for the mould damage to the bedframe and the mattress.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 18 June 2024 to advise that the landlord had not yet repaired the MEV, despite agreeing to do so by 1 June 2024. It was unreasonable that the landlord had again not repaired the MEV before the agreed target date, despite having previously concluded that the defective unit was causing damp and mould in the property.
On 9 December 2024, the landlord wrote to this Service and stated:
1. The landlord had completed a review of the case and found that the repairs to the MEV had not been carried out. Therefore, it accepted there had been a further failing following the conclusion of the complaints process.
2. The landlord stated that although the damp in the home did not appear to be severe, the repair delays were unacceptable. The landlord had therefore contacted the resident to apologise and to offer further redress, which it said the resident had accepted.
3. The landlord offered additional compensation of £800, which was comprised of:
  1. £450 for the delay in repairing the MEV and inconvenience (this was calculated at £50 per month from April to December 2024).
  2. £350 for the further time and trouble experienced by the resident.
4. In addition, the landlord said it had arranged to carry out a full damp and mould inspection on 16 December 2024 to check the condition of the home and raise the works. The works should then be concluded within 30 days of the visit and the landlord would monitor the works.
5. The landlord identified various lessons it had learned as a result of the complaint and the subsequent events. These included:
  1. It had created a new team to oversee complaint resolutions in relation to repairs. This would entail monitoring repair commitments given during the complaint process until completion.
  2. The landlord said it had recently implemented a new customer relationship management system, which it was in the process of rolling out to its various teams.
Given the length of time that had elapsed since the landlord last inspected the property on 8 January 2024, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange a further damp and mould inspection to take place on 16 December 2024. The inspection would enable the landlord to assess the current condition of the property and the impact of any damp and mould on the resident. However, the Ombudsman agrees with the landlord that it was unacceptable that the MEV had not yet been repaired at the time the landlord wrote to this Service on 9 December 2024. It again showed inadequate tracking of repairs by the landlord and it meant that the root cause of the damp and mould, the defective MEV, had not yet been addressed.
In summary, the Ombudsman has found the following failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould:
1. The landlord did not arrange to inspect the property or arrange mould treatment in response to the resident’s initial contacts on 6 April and 9 May 2023.
2. The landlord took a further month to inspect the property on 8 January 2024 following the resident’s contact on 7 December 2023.
3. The mould wash that was planned to take place on 3 January 2024 was aborted due to the landlord’s lack of communication and coordination with its contractor about the planned inspection.
4. The landlord failed to repair the MEV by the agreed target date of 23 February 2024 as stated in its stage one reply. Furthermore, neither the landlord nor the contractor had contacted the resident about the repair following the stage one reply.
5. The landlord failed to repair the MEV by the agreed target date of 1 June 2024 as stated in its stage 2 reply. Furthermore, neither the landlord nor the contractor had contacted the resident about the repair following the stage 2 reply.
6. The landlord had not yet repaired the MEV at the time it wrote to this Service on 9 December 2024.
As a result of these failings, the resident reported concerns about the impact of the mould on her health and she reported mould damage to some of her possessions. She also advised this Service on 27 September 2024 that she had been unable to sleep in the bedroom due to the mould and that she repeatedly had to wipe away the mould herself. The evidence therefore shows that the damp and mould caused significant detriment to the resident, as well as the inconvenience, time and trouble of having to chase the landlord for updates and action.
The Ombudsman has taken into account that the resident did not report the defective MEV promptly to the landlord prior to the inspection on 8 January 2024. However, once it became aware of the defective MEV, the landlord was responsible for arranging timely repairs to the unit.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the actions taken by the landlord and the redress offered in response to the failings put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s actions and redress were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In this case, the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging in its complaint responses its failings in handling the reports of damp and mould and in relation to repairing the MEV. The landlord also acknowledged in its email dated 9 December 2024 that there had been further failings in relation to the damp and mould and the MEV. In each case the landlord apologised for the service the resident had received.
In terms of financial redress, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s offers made in its stage 2 response (this superseded the stage one offer) and the additional offer made on 9 December 2024.
In its stage 2 reply, the landlord offered compensation of £496 for the damaged bed and mattress. However, the resident later reported that additional possessions, such as her wardrobe and curtains had also been damaged. As explained in the scope of this report, this Service cannot award financial redress for damage to items which should be investigated by an insurance claim. Therefore, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to consider the resident’s request for reimbursement for additional items she reported were damaged by mould or provide its insurance details so the resident can submit a claim if she wishes to do so. The additional items for consideration include a wardrobe, curtains and decorations.
In terms of the landlord’s offers of redress for inconvenience, time, trouble and distress, the landlord offered the following sums (excluding sums offered for complaint handling):
1. £50 offered at stage 2 for not acting on the resident’s report of mould in May 2023.
2. £250 offered at stage 2 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
3. £450 offered on 9 December 2024 for the delay in repairing the MEV and the inconvenience caused.
4. £350 offered on 9 December 2024 for the further time and trouble experienced by the resident.
The landlord therefore offered a total of £1,100 for inconvenience, time, trouble and distress. The landlord provided evidence to the Ombudsman that the sums offered at stage 2 were paid. The resident advised this Service that she also received the payment of £800 offered on 9 December 2024.
The £1,100 offered by the landlord goes some way to putting things right and is within the range of sums identified in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for situations where there have been serious failings by the landlord. The view of the Ombudsman is that the sum offered was proportionate to recognise the impact of the failings on the resident. Therefore, this Service has not ordered additional compensation. However, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration because at the time of its additional offer of compensation on 9 December 2024, the landlord had not yet repaired the defective MEV. The landlord had therefore not put things right.
An order has been made to carry out the repairs to the MEV, which is essential to put things right and resolve the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman has also ordered the landlord to carry out any required removal of mould from the property.
In making its findings, the Ombudsman has taken into account that the landlord demonstrated it had learnt from outcomes. It included information in its email dated 9 December 2024 regarding improving the tracking of repairs and rolling out its customer relationship management system to improve communications. The Ombudsman’s view is that the lack of tracking and monitoring of the repair to the MEV was a particularly serious failing by the landlord. Therefore, it was appropriate that the landlord had identified measures to improve this going forward.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days of receipt and will reply to stage one complaints within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord will acknowledge the stage 2 complaint within 5 working days of receipt and provide a full response to the complaint within 20 working days. The policy states that if the landlord cannot respond within these timescales, it will agree an extension with the resident.
The resident submitted a stage one complaint on 2 January 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 8 January 2024, which was 4 working days after receipt. The landlord therefore acknowledged the complaint within an appropriate timescale.
The landlord sent its stage one reply on 30 January 2024, which was 16 working days after the landlord had sent its acknowledgement. The time taken to reply was therefore longer than the landlord’s target for responding to stage one complaints. However, the landlord wrote to the resident on 19 January 2024 to advise her that it would need to extend the timescale for responding by an additional 10 working days. It stated that it was still waiting for feedback from the inspection that had taken place on 8 January 2024. The landlord therefore sent its response before the revised deadline. As the landlord had advised the resident it would need to extend the deadline for the response, the landlord replied to the resident’s stage one complaint within a reasonable timescale.
The resident advised the landlord on 27 February 2024 that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one reply and with its handling of her reports of damp and mould more generally. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on the same day and therefore acknowledged the complaint within its advertised timescale.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 8 April 2024, which was 28 working days after acknowledging the complaint. The time taken to reply was therefore longer than the landlord’s advertised timescale for responding to stage 2 complaints. However, the landlord wrote to the resident on 25 March 2024 to advise her that it would need to extend the deadline to 9 April 2024. Therefore, as the landlord responded on 8 April 2024 and had advised the resident it would need an extension of time, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord responded within a reasonable timescale.
The evidence shows that the landlord offered £25 to the resident at each stage of the complaints process. It was a positive gesture that the landlord offered these sums to recognise the additional time it had taken the landlord to respond to the stage one and stage 2 complaints. However, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord acted reasonably in responding to the resident’s complaints. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of no maladministration in terms of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 6 weeks of this report to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Carry out any necessary repairs to the mechanical extract vent in the property.
3. Carry out mould treatment to the property as required.
4. Consider the resident’s request for reimbursement for additional items she reported were damaged by mould or provide her with the landlord’s insurance details so she can make a claim if she wishes to do so. Write to the resident to advise her of the landlord’s decision on whether to reimburse her and send a copy of the letter to the Ombudsman.