Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202415746)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202415746

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

5 September 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to:
    1. Radiators.
    2. External cladding.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom mid-terrace house.
  2. The landlord attended in December 2023 to repair cladding on the front of the property. On 29 January 2024 the resident reported that some of the radiators in her property required repairing.
  3. The landlord’s contractor attended on 5 February 2024 but needed parts to complete the repairs. The contractor attended again on 17 February 2024 but found some of the parts it had brought were the wrong size. On 23 February 2024 it attended and completed the repairs, but noted that it was unable to access 2 of the rooms.
  4. On 29 February 2024 the resident emailed the landlord. She said that 3 of the 4 radiators now worked, however there were issues, such as a leak from one radiator and that she was now unable to turn another radiator off. She reported a new repair to the bathroom radiator. She also complained about:
    1. A delay in repairing some cladding at the front of her property.
    2. Delays in completing the radiator repairs throughout February 2024.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 7 March 2024. On 13 March 2024 the landlord raised new repairs with its contractor to the resident’s radiators.
  6. On 2 April 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said that:
    1. There had been a delay in completing a repair to the cladding, for which it offered £100 compensation.
    2. There had been no failings in completing the radiator repairs, because:
      1. It had been unable to access all of the rooms to complete repairs to every radiator.
      2. The repairs that had been completed were done so ‘within timescale’.
    3. There had been a complaint handling delay, for which it offered £25 compensation.
    4. It would attend on 15 April 2024 to complete the remaining radiator repairs.
  7. On 8 April 2024 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day, confirming that the resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the radiator repairs.
  8. On 15 April 2024 the contractor called the resident and asked to reschedule the appointment to 1 May 2024. On 1 May 2024 the contractor called the resident and advised it was running late. It asked to attend later than had been planned, but the resident said this would not be convenient.
  9. On 7 May 2024 the landlord emailed the resident and asked for more time to respond to her formal complaint. On 10 May 2024 the contractor attended but said it could not get access to the resident’s property. On 12 June 2024 the resident called the landlord to arrange a new appointment. The contractor recorded that it could not get access to complete the repairs on 28 June 2024 and 1 July 2024.On 5 July 2024 the resident called the contractor and a new appointment was arranged for 19 July 2024.
  10. On 16 July 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said that:
    1. The resident and contractor had each rescheduled some appointments in April, May, and June 2024.
    2. After speaking to the landlord on the phone, the resident had agreed to close the complaint about the radiators because ‘progress was being made and an appointment was scheduled for 19 July 2024.’
    3. There had been delays in complaint handling for which it offered £150 compensation.
    4. It offered an additional £50 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble.
  11. On 19 July 2024 the contractor recorded that it could not get access to the resident’s property. On 24 January 2025 the resident asked us to investigate the landlord’s handling of repairs to the cladding and the radiators. She said that some repairs to the radiators were still required.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of repairs to cladding on her property at stage 1 of the complaints process. There is no evidence that she asked the landlord to escalate this element of her complaint to stage 2. This element of the resident’s complaint did not complete the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
  3. Paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident’s complaint about repairs to the external cladding are therefore outside of our jurisdiction to consider.

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident raised concerns with us about the landlord’s handling of radiator repairs which took place after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated as part of its complaint response. It is considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has been included in this report for context only.

Handling of repairs to the resident’s radiators

  1. The landlord’s repairs handbook states that it aims to complete routine repair appointments, such as repairs to radiators, within 28 calendar days. The handbook states that if it cannot get access to complete a repair, the resident must make contact with it to reschedule.
  2. The resident raised repairs to the radiators on 29 January 2024 and they were completed on 23 February 2024, within the landlord’s 28 day timescale. The resident was frustrated that there had been unnecessary appointments during this time because the landlord did not have the correct sized parts needed, however the repair was still completed on time. The landlord did not complete repairs to the radiators in rooms it could not access, which was reasonable. The landlord was right to say that it had identified no failings in its stage 1 complaint response.
  3. On 29 February 2024 the resident reported that new radiator repairs were required as part of a formal complaint. The handbook provides residents with instructions of how to report repairs. There is no evidence that the resident used these contact details to contact the correct department. The evidence shows that it took the landlord’s complaints team 9 working days until 13 March 2024 to refer these repairs to the correct department. In view of what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, this was reasonable.
  4. In line with landlord’s policies, the repairs should have been attended by 10 April 2024. An appointment was scheduled instead for 15 April 2024. However the evidence shows that this delay was in part because the contractor and landlord wanted to confirm with the resident that she could provide access to rooms with the other 2 radiators in, before it attended. While this 5 day delay was not unreasonable, the contractor rescheduled 2 further appointments after this date, until 10 May 2024. This delay of 25 days was a failing that resulted in avoidable time and trouble to the resident.
  5. The contractor reported that it could not get access to the property on 10 May 2024. The resident later told us that she disputed some or all of the repairs marked as ‘no access’ by the contractor. The resident did not provide any evidence to support this, while the landlord did provide evidence that repairs were marked ‘no access’. We have been unable to find evidence to corroborate the resident’s concerns that the contractor did not attend on the dates it recorded as no access and have found no failings.
  6. There is no evidence that the resident contacted the landlord or contractor again to reschedule the repairs until 12 June 2024. The contractor was due to attend on 21 June 2024 but the resident rescheduled this appointment. The contractor then said it could not get access again on 28 June 2024 and 1 July 2024. As above, there is no evidence that casts doubt on the contractor’s account of events. It rescheduled for 19 July 2024, which was within 28 days of 1 July 2024 and was not unreasonable. Therefore there were no further failings seen by this investigation after 10 May 2024.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response offered £50 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble. The evidence shows that during the 25 day delay described above, the resident had some working radiators and also had access to electric portable heaters at the property. In view of this and in line with our Remedies Guidance, compensation of £50 was proportionate to the likely adverse effect experienced by the resident. As a result, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in respect of its handling of radiator repairs at the property.
  8. Another ‘no access’ repair was recorded on the 19 July 2024. We have seen no evidence beyond this point, but understand that the resident is still having issues with some of her radiators. It is unclear if this has been reported to the landlord. We have made a recommendation below that the landlord contact the resident to arrange to inspect her radiators and complete any necessary repairs.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will respond to a complaint ‘as soon as possible, in line with the Ombudsman’s requirements’. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the expectations the landlord must meet in its complaint handling. Landlords must acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days of being received. Stage 1 complaint responses should be issued within a further 10 working days. Stage 2 responses should be issued within a further 20.
  2. Where delays are expected, the Code states that landlords must ‘decide whether an extension to this timescale is needed and then inform the resident of the expected timescale for response.’ Our Dispute Resolution Principles are to ‘be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes’.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 7 March 2024, within 5 working days of it being received. The response should have been issued by 21 March 2024 but there was a delay of 7 working days until it was issued on 2 April 2024. The landlord was right to acknowledge this delay in its complaint responses.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on the same day that it was received, on 8 April 2024. The stage 2 complaint response was due on 4 May 2024. On 7 May 2024 the landlord informed the resident that it needed more time to respond and said it would complete its stage 2 response by 21 May 2024. However, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident again to inform her that there would be further delays. There was a delay of 49 working days from 4 May 2024 to 16 July 2024, when the stage 2 response was sent. This was a failing.
  5. The delays likely resulted in avoidable time, trouble, and frustration to the resident. The landlord acknowledged its delays comprehensively in its stage 2 complaint response and offered a total of £150 compensation. This amount is proportionate to the likely adverse effect experienced and is in line with our remedies guidance. However, there is no evidence that the landlord sought to identify the reason for the delays or learn from outcomes. As a result, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to complete a senior management review of its complaint handling delays in this case, and outline what steps it will take to ensure these are not repeated.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to external cladding, is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer that provides reasonable redress in respect of its handling of repairs to radiators.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must complete a senior management review of the complaint handling delays highlighted in this case. It must set out the reason for the delays and why the resident was not contacted, and outline what steps it will take to ensure these delays to not reoccur in future complaints.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should reoffer the resident the £200 offered during the complaints process if this has not already been paid. Our finding of reasonable redress has been made on the basis that this compensation is paid.
  2. The landlord may choose to contact the resident to arrange an appointment to inspect her radiators and complete any necessary repairs.