Our Business Plan 2026-27 consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202413317)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413317

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

14 August 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

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a window repair.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom third floor flat.
  2. On 28 June 2023 the resident reported her window had broken. The landlord attended the emergency appointment on 29 June 2023 and removed the unsafe window. The resident made a formal complaint on 30 June and 7 July 2023 about the repair and that the tap was damaged by the window removal.
  3. On 10August 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. The landlord explained that its contractor’s had boarded the window on 30 June 2023. It said it had ordered a new window on 28 July 2023 and was awaiting a lead time. It further advised the resident’s faucet was due to be replaced on 11 August 2023(it was repaired that day). It apologised for its service failure in not attending to the emergency repair within its allocated timeframe. It offered compensation of £10 for its service failure and £30 for the resident’s time and trouble.
  4. On 14 August 2023 the resident escalated her complaint as she believed there were delays in measuring the windows and placing the order caused by the landlord not taking the serial number on 28 July 2023. She complained its contractor had to return on 11 August 2023 causing a 2-week delay.
  5. On 29 August 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident. It said it had identified no complaint handling failures at stage 1 (it is unclear when the resident raised this) but as acknowledged it had failed to explain lead times. It explained not taking a serial number on 28 July 2023 did not delay repair as the window had been ordered that day and would normally take 6-to-8-weeks. It offered additional £10 compensation to a total of £50.
  6. The resident reported the window had been fully replaced on 16 October 2023.
  7. In bringing her complaint to the Service, the resident said she wanted more compensation. She was also unhappy that the landlord had not attended within 4 hours of the report and asked for the damage in the kitchen following the window replacement to be fixed (tiles and wood).
  8. The landlord recently contacted the Service and advised it was planning to offer the resident additional £300 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by its further delays. It explained this was because it had not completed the repair within the 6-to-8-week timeframe promised.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident as part of her desired outcome wished for the landlord to fix the tiles and wood that were damaged in the removal of the window. We have not seen evidence of this being reported to the landlord at the time or being raised as a formal complaint. In accordance with the Scheme the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. Any new issues or repairs raised and completed following the end of the landlord’s complaint process will not be considered as part of this investigation. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to our involvement. If the resident wants to pursue these, she may directly address any further issues not formally complained about with the landlord.
  2. The resident stated that the open window in her property had negatively affected her health and caused her to catch a cold. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments; However, the Service cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for effects on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process. They are more appropriately addressed by the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one), as a personal injury claim.

The landlord’s handling of window and faucet repairs

  1. The resident stated the landlord advised her it would attend the emergency repair within 4 hours on 28 June 2023 and although we do not doubt the resident’s account, we have seen no evidence of this advice. It did however attend within 9 hours and removed the broken window. It appropriately identified it was an emergency repair and attended within its repairs policy timeframes (24 hours). It however failed to make the window safe for another 24 hours, and until30 June 2023 which was unreasonable.
  2. The resident reported the damaged window was left in her house and the contractor had broken her tap, forcing her to have to chase its removal and repair within the landlord’s complaint procedure. This was unreasonable. It would have been more appropriate for its initial contractor to have kept ownership and ensured all works were complete. It is also unclear how long it took for the landlord’s contractor to take the window away.
  3. The window was replaced on 16 October 2023 which was 111 days since the resident reported it broke. The landlord’s repair policy states bespoke repairs where the components need to be ordered will be replaced within 90 days. It is noted the landlord had to use scaffolding which can cause extra delays; however it should have been able to plan the repair in that time. The extra 21 days beyond its 90-day policy although not causing considerable delay, was aggravated by the landlord’s promise at stage 2 that the work would be completed within 6-to-8 weeks, which it did not adhere to. This raised the resident’s expectations and its failure to do so, caused her inconvenience and distress which was unreasonable.
  4. While delays happen, in such circumstances, it is reasonable for landlords to regularly communicate with and update resident’s accordingly. We have seen no evidence of this happening in this case when the landlord exceeded the period of 6-to-8-weeks. This would have left the resident unclear about when the issue would be resolved and caused undue distress which was not a reasonable and customer orientated approach.
  5. The landlord’s response to the faucet being damaged by its contractor was in line with its own repair policy of completing a routine repair within 28 days. Although the tap wasn’t replaced until 11 August 2023 the landlord had booked the repair for 25 July 2023. It however changed this without notice to 26 July 2023, when the resident was not available. Although it is understandable that repair appointments can change it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to have provided better advanced notice and an explanation. We have seen no evidence of it doing so which would have demonstrated a good level of communication.
  6. In its stage 1 response of 10 August 2023 the landlord appropriately explained it had ordered the window and that the faucet replacement was booked in. It failed to provide a timeframe for the window repair which may have helped manage the resident’s expectations. It did however rectify this in its stage 2 response and provided a timeframe to complete the repair on 11 September 2023 which was appropriate. It apologised and offered the resident a total of £50 compensation. An apology and offer of compensation although a reasonable step to take did not go far enough in terms of putting things right. It was inappropriate the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s reported health condition and the impact of its delays.
  7. Also in the landlord’s stage 2 response it stated, “there has been no service failure when addressing your concerns”. This contradicts its stage 1 response acknowledging it did not make safe the window within its policy timeframes of 24 hours. The landlord, therefore, did not show an in-depth investigation and missed an opportunity to explain what went wrong or the steps it would take to ensure it did not happen again.
  8. The landlord sought to provide redress and wrote to us in January 2025 advising it acknowledged it had failed to complete the repair within the 6-to-8-week timeframe that it had promised. It advised it was going to contact the resident and offer an additional £300 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by its further delays, as such bringing the compensation to a total of £350. This is proportionate to the impact on the resident caused by the 24 hours delay in dealing with an emergency repair, poor communication about the window replacement times and failure to follow up on its promise made at stage 2.
  9. Although this level of compensation is in line with our remedies’ guidance for maladministration with no lasting impact, this was not offered in a timely manner and considerably after the end of its process (17 months) and the completion of the repair (15 months). Additionally, the landlord could not evidence any learning taken about its handling of emergency repairs and communication in relation to complex repairs. This is unreasonable as the landlord could not demonstrate steps it would take to improve services to prevent similar failures from happening again.

The associated complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints procedure in its complaints policy, which is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The policy states the landlord will aim to provide a response to stage 1 complaints within 15 working days, and at stage 2 within 25 working days. This includes 5 days allowed for it to acknowledge the complaint. It also states it will agree any extension to these timescales with the resident.
  2. The resident raised her initial complaint about the handling of the emergency repair with the landlord on 30 June 2023, which the landlord acknowledged on 6 July 2023. We have seen evidence the resident asked for this to be withdrawn as she stated it had not been recorded correctly which the landlord did on 7 July 2023. We have seen no information as to why the resident believed it had not been recorded correctly. However, at this stage the landlord should have explained its complaint’s process and confirmed it had record of her original complaint.
  3. The resident raised her new stage 1 complaint on 7 July 2023, the same day she withdrew the previous as seen within the landlord’s file. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged this recent complaint. While confusion may have been caused by the resident’s withdrawn complaint, the landlord should have kept a clear record and communication with the resident to explain its process. Furthermore, its response on 10 August 2023 was delayed by 10 working days outside the timeframes of its complaints policy.
  4. It is unclear if there had been further confusion with the landlord as internal emails discuss the more recent complaint and that the resident had requested to cancel it. However, we have not seen evidence of communication with the resident to clarify this. Additionally, in its stage 1 response it noted incorrectly that the resident raised her complaint on 7 August 2023 rather than 7 July 2023. Due to this error it failed to acknowledge the actual period of time the resident was awaiting a response which was unreasonable. It would have been more appropriate to have apologised, investigated why the previous complaint was not recorded properly and explained its delays in its complaint handling.
  5. The landlord did however show it had taken some learning from its initial complaint handling as it acknowledged her escalation request the day it was made on 15 August 2023. It also provided a timely stage 2 response on 29 August 2023, which was in line with its complaint handling policy. However it advised in stage 2 response that it had found no complaint handling failures at stage 1 which was unreasonable.
  6. The landlord’s complaint handing delays, its failure to investigate the previous complaint or explain what went wrong has resulted in a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handing of the window repair.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handing of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident £400 compensation (including £350 offered prior to this investigation if not already paid) comprising:
      1. £350 offered by the landlord prior to this investigation for the inconvenience and distress caused by its handling of a window repair.
      2. £50 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to confirm compliance with the above order.