Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202421884)

Decision
Case ID	202421884
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	26 November 2025

Background

The resident complained to the landlord about a roof leak. This complaint included how it responded to the resident’s request for reimbursement of rent and legal fees, and buying the property back from him. The resident told the landlord during the complaint process his son is disabled.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a roof leak.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a roof leak.
2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of a roof leak

The landlord acted reasonably in its initial response to the reported leak and the resident’s requests for reimbursement of rent and legal fees and that it buy back the property. However, it failed to complete the work or make contact by the deadlines it offered. There were also unreasonable delays in it completing temporary repairs, and updating the resident, and despite acknowledging some failings in its complaint responses it failed to resolve the complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There was a delay and an error in the landlord’s response at stage 1 of its complaint process for which it offered an apology, and 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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £750 (the landlord may deduct from this amount the £450 compensation it previously offered if this has already been paid) to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s concerns of a roof leak. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 05 January 2026
2	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the property for any roof leaks and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible A full scope of works to achieve a temporary repair and the likely timescale to commence and complete work. Whether temporary accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during works.	No later than 5 January 2026
3	Action plan The landlord must provide the resident with a written action plan which must include: A timeframe for the work to replace the roof with details of any approvals or consultations and an estimate of when these will either start or be in place by A plan for communicating updates about the roof replacement works with an agreed frequency for updates. The landlord must provide the resident and us with a copy of this by the due date.	No later than 5 January 2026

Recommendation

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

Our recommendation
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident directly the £50 as agreed in its stage 2 complaint response of 19 June 2024 for complaint handling failures. Our finding of reasonable redress for complaint handling is made on the basis this compensation is paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 December 2023	The resident raised a formal complaint about an unresolved water leak over a 6-year period and reported: A new leak that had occurred earlier in December 2023 which he said had made living conditions hazardous for his family, and the property unhabitable or unsellable. The leak was impacting his family’ life, especially his disabled son’s and was a safeguarding matter. The landlord had promised to buy the property back from him in 2019 if it failed to find a permanent fix, and he wanted the landlord to honour this. He wanted to be temporarily or permanently re-housed. He was dissatisfied with the outcome of his stage 1 complaint made in October 2021 and wanted to escalate this as the issue was the same. He wanted the landlord to consider a rent reduction which he said the landlord had offered in 2019.
11 January 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response and said: It disagreed that the leak caused either a risk, hazard, or safeguarding issue and set out its reasons. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged it took longer than it anticipated to establish an action plan and the surveyor’s attendance in January 2024 took longer than it anticipated. It anticipated being able to implement a solution by 12 April 2024. It acknowledged that the last incident it repaired was in 2021. It had not yet been able to establish whether the issue was the same as investigations were still ongoing. It was sorry that it had happened again, but it did not have foresight that it would. The information provided by the resident did not state that it was committed to buy back the resident’s share of the property. This was not an option the landlord was able to consider at this time. It had not received any evidence of damage to the resident’s personal belongings but agreed to consider any the resident wished to share. It had assessed the property and concluded that it did not meet the criteria for a temporary or permanent move. It could not look at historical incidents as it had already previously provided outcomes and redress for these timeframes. It was only able to consider the level of service from the most recent incident from 11 December 2023. Its local housing manager could consider any support the resident needed. It apologised for its delay in its complaint response. It offered £250 compensation broken down as: £100 for the delay in completion of its preliminary survey, £50 for time and trouble, and £100 for poor complaint handling in the delay in its response.
23 May 2024	The resident escalated the complaint. In summary he said: The leak had remained unresolved since 2017 and he was dissatisfied with the level of communication and action, including over his request for a rent reduction and property buy back. The leak was having a significant impact on his family, particularly his disabled son who required a stable environment. The stage 1 complaint response contained errors and incorrect information. He wanted a swift resolution and a clear timeline addressing the water leak issue, including an immediate and permanent repair. The landlord failed to follow up its discussion about buying back the property and he asked it honour this. He wanted a specific director to review the complaint. He wanted the landlord to reimburse the legal fees that he had incurred.
19 June 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response and said: It had made reasonable efforts to address the source of the leak. It had received confirmation that the leak had stopped for an extended period. It noted the resident had experienced a continuation of the leak in the same area of the property over several years. It apologised for the inconvenience caused. It was in the process of obtaining advice from an independent specialist consultancy to try to get the issue resolved. Works were being organised to try to get the issue resolved. It offered to organise temporary repairs in the interim and agreed to complete internal work once it resolved the leak. It could not investigate matters which occurred over 12 months ago, such as the resident’s complaint made in 2017. In respect of its stage 1 complaint response, it was satisfied it had adhered to its complaint policy. It agreed that it had used the incorrect information (name and reference) and had fed this failing back to the staff member responsible. It had been unable to find evidence that it had formally offered a reduction in rent. It had been unable to find evidence that it had offered to buy back the property, and it did not have the facility to do this. It had provided the complaint response to its directors to ensure the accuracy of the information it provided. It agreed to assign someone to contact the resident from its property team by 28 June 2024. It was unable to reimburse the resident’s legal fees which he had incurred as he had sought legal advice on his own volition. It agreed to contact the resident to discuss the latest specialist report which was due shortly and agreed to monthly updates. It had offered £500 compensation, to recognise the effect of the leak and any upset caused by the error in the stage 1 response, broken down as: £50 poor complaint handling at stage 1 due to the name and reference number being incorrect. £450 inconvenience caused while the leak persisted.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us he wanted a roof inspection followed by a bi-annual roof inspection, temporary roof repairs followed by a permanent repair, a timeline and written plan for the work, weekly updates, compensation, an appointed senior contact, and the landlord to consider a rent reduction and buying back the property. Since the complaint closure the landlord inspected the roof in October 2024. The resident raised another formal complaint on 14 October 2024. The resident told the landlord on 15 September 2025 the leak affected all bedrooms, corridors, and living spaces in another formal complaint. The landlord responded under its complaint procedure on 24 September 2025 and 3 November 2025. It addressed the issues that had arisen since the complaint we have considered and agreed to investigate the leak.

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	The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a roof leak
Finding	Maladministration

We acknowledge the resident has said he experienced an ongoing leak since 2017 which led to previous complaints between 2019 and 2021. However, there is a gap between the resident’s last complaint (October 2021) and their formal complaint about a leak in December 2023. We expect residents to raise a formal complaint within a reasonable time which would usually be within 12 months of matters arising. As there was over a 2-year gap between complaints we have not investigated the landlord’s response to the leak during this gap.
Instead, this report will consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns since December 2023 and up to its stage 2 complaint response on 19 June 2024, including any commitments it made in this. This was the complaint referred to us and which we accepted for investigation. The resident told us after referring his complaint to us that there was damp in the property, and he had incurred higher heating costs. However, as this was not part of his complaint or escalation this aspect has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process and therefore we have not investigated this.
The resident made other complaints to the landlord on 14 October 2024 and 15 September 2025 which included additional issues. We have not considered these in this investigation as the resident made these after the complaint we accepted for investigation. We understand the landlord provided the resident with another final complaint response on 3 November 2025. This addressed matters which had arisen since the complaint we have considered. We have told the landlord and resident that we will open a separate complaint to consider the landlord’s response to this, including any compensation offered.
The resident told us that the roof leak has affected his son’s mental health and development. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The landlord was responsible for the exterior and structure of the resident’s property under the lease. Following the resident’s report of a leak on 11 December 2023 the landlord took the following actions:
1. it arranged for a surveyor to visit on 18 December 2023
2. it arranged for a roofer to attend on 22 January 2024 to complete a comprehensive roof inspection
3. it sent another operative on 23 January 2024 to look at the roof
4. it considered whether it could offer temporary accommodation to the resident on 25 January 2024
5. it agreed to cover any internal decoration and remedial work on 25 January 2024
6. it sent a quantity surveyor to the resident’s property on 6 February 2024
7. it inspected the roof in February 2024.
The inspections and assessments were in line with the landlord’s leasehold repair guide. This was also an appropriate response to the resident’s concerns on 23 January 2024 about the safety and structural integrity of the building. The landlord considered temporary accommodation and offered redecoration although it was under no obligation to offer these under the lease. While the resident expressed concerns about the condition of the property, we have not seen evidence that this was hazardous or that the property was unhabitable. We cannot fault the landlord for not offering any temporary accommodation in these circumstances.
The resident said the landlord should honour its promise to buy his property back. While we have seen the landlord said it could consider this in 2019, we have not found evidence it agreed to do this. During the complaint process the landlord clarified that this was not an option available to it, and we have not seen any provision in either the resident’s lease or the landlord’s resales policy to the contrary. The resident also wanted the landlord to reimburse his legal fees for advice he sought on the landlord’s response. However, the landlord did not agree to this, which was reasonable as it was under no obligation to cover these costs.
The resident wanted the landlord to reimburse rent he had paid the landlord after telling it he could not use some of the property. The landlord told him in 2019 it could consider a rent allowance for loss of room use but would need to understand which rooms were completely unusable, and over what period. The landlord clarified during the complaint process that it had not agreed a rent allowance but only said it could consider this on the production of evidence. In the absence of evidence to show the landlord agreed to a rent allowance we cannot find fault in the landlord not offering this.
However, there were several failures in the landlord’s response. The resident told the landlord that operatives attended on 19 January 2024, 6 February 2024, and 8 February 2024 without prior notice. The landlord has not disputed this in its responses or provided evidence to contradict this. Also, we have not received copies of the reports of the inspections the landlord made between 18 December 2023 and February 2024, which indicates issues with the landlord’s record keeping. We have had to rely on the resident’s account to evidence these in the absence of these records.
The resident told the landlord on 18 December 2023 that the landlord said it would offer a permanent fix to the leak by the end of February 2024. It also told the resident in its stage 1 complaint response that it anticipated an implemented resolution by 12 April 2024. As it had not met this deadline it was important for the landlord to give the resident an explanation for the delay and communicate updates during the complaint process. The absence of this was a failing. The landlord also failed to arrange for its property team to contact the resident by 28 June 2024, or show when it contacted the resident to discuss the specialist roof report after it promised this in its stage 2 complaint response.
Given the above failings it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise and to offer the resident compensation. Its apology acknowledged the inconvenience caused to the resident between 11 December 2023 (date of new leak report) and 19 June 2024 (stage 2 complaint response). However, the evidence shows that the resident had still not received any updates or contact from the landlord to explain what action it was taking to resolve the leak, and only did so on 11 September 2024. This was nearly 3 months after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response and was unreasonable considering the landlord’s promise to offer monthly updates.
While the landlord offered a temporary repair in its stage 2 complaint response it did not complete this until 161 calendar days later (27 November 2024). This was against a target of 28 calendar days in its repairs a guide for leaseholders. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £750 (inclusive of the £450 previously offered) which is in line with our remedies guidance where we have found failings that have significantly adversely affected a resident. In considering the impact we have taken into account that the resident’s son was vulnerable. As the resident has told us the roof leak and replacement roof (permanent repair) is outstanding, we have made an order in relation to this.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time the resident complained, in terms of how it defined a complaint and the timescales, were in line with our Complaint Handling Code in force at the time (July 2020). It took the landlord 20 working days to respond at stage 1 of its complaint process (on 11 January 2024) from when the resident complained (11 December 2023), against a target of 10 working days.
It took the landlord 18 working days to respond at stage 2 of its complaint process (19 June 2024) from the resident’s escalation (23 May 2024), against a target of 20 working days.
The landlord apologised for any distress caused by including an incorrect name in its stage 1 complaint response. It said it provided feedback to the staff responsible for the error and offered the resident £50 compensation. This amount was proportionate and in line with the compensation suggested in our remedies guidance where there has been a failure which was of minimal duration and which did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident.

Learning

The landlord would have benefited from keeping robust records of its inspections and appointments. The recommendations numbered 14 to 16 of our spotlight report on repairing trust (published May 2025) amount to good practice. Landlords must do what they say they are going to do and must explain to residents the reasons for any delays and keep them updated with a timeframe for work.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s records of attendances and inspections between December 2023 and February 2024 was poor. It has also not been possible to establish when the landlord discussed the specialist report it referred to in its final complaint response because of poor record keeping.

Communication

Overall, the landlord’s communication was lacking, it failed to inform the resident of appointments in advance or make contact when it said it would. There was nearly 3 months delay in it providing an update on what action it was taking after its final complaint response.