Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202423497)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423497

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

27 June 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about:
1. Cold temperatures in the property.
2. A leak from the bedroom skylight window.
3. Uneven floorboards.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. He has lived in the 3-bedroom property with his wife and 2 young children since July 2022.
The resident reported that he was struggling to warm the property and said the skylight window on his bedroom roof was leaking. In response, the landlord conducted 2 heat loss surveys in March 2024. It resealed the window on 14 March 2024, and its operatives completed 2 general surveys of the property on 27 March 2024 and 22 April 2024.
On 14 May 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. He said:
1. The property was so cold the family were sleeping in 1 bedroom to keep warm, and they were unable to use the living room due to low temperatures. He said his children were autistic and were unable to express how cold they were, but their skin felt cold to touch.
2. The landlord told him it would replace 2 radiators but had only replaced 1. He asked that it complete another heat loss survey, inspect the radiators, and properly insulate the home.
3. The floorboards were unlevel which had damaged his furniture and cost him money. He said he had complained about this for months and it told him it would rectify the issue, but it had cancelled the repairs.
4. The skylight on the roof of the bedroom in which the family slept was leaking.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 7 June 2024. It apologised for the delay in its response. It found no service failure and said it had:
1. Completed a heat loss survey and replaced 1 radiator based on the recommendations. It noted it had responded within the appropriate timeframes.
2. Inspected and arranged for its contractor to rectify the uneven floor in the small bedroom and hall on 14 May 2024. It said its contractor was unable to complete the work as the resident had not cleared the rooms.
3. Noted its contractor’s recommendation that the whole first floor of the property needed to be levelled, but its repairs team disagreed. It said it would level the floor in the bedroom and hall, but he would need to re-request this and clear any furniture.
4. Resealed the skylight window and raised a further job to renew the timber frame. It was awaiting parts and would contact the resident to schedule works by 24 July 2024.
The response also confirmed the landlord had discussed its findings with the resident and acknowledged he wished to escalate the complaint.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 19 August 2024 as follows:
1. It said it had replaced the radiator, and the heating system was now fully functional. It had also conducted a further survey on 27 June 2024 which determined the energy performance certificate (EPC) rating of ‘C’ was correct and sufficient.
2. The survey confirmed the uneven flooring was non-structural and typical in older properties. It noted the resident did not want to proceed with works to level the floor due to the disruption this would cause, but said he could re-raise the job when he was ready.
3. It acknowledged it should have been clearer about the level of disruption the works would entail. It offered him £100 for the failure to manage his expectations, and £50 for time and trouble.
4. It offered a further £100 for complaint handling delays, bringing the total compensation to £250.
The resident told this Service that, as of February 2025 this year, the family were still sleeping in 1 room for warmth, the skylight was still leaking, and the floor remained uneven. He would like the landlord to complete the repairs and provide additional compensation.

Assessment and findings

Cold temperatures

Under the terms of tenancy and section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (LTA) the landlord must keep the structure and exterior of the home in repair and working order. This includes installations for the supply of heating. The landlord also has duties under the Decent Home Standard to ensure its homes provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.
The landlord sets out timescales for responding to repairs in its repairs policy. It will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours and ensure the resident and property is safe. It will aim to complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days from when it is notified of the issue. It has a 90-day period for responding to non-routine repairs, which it notes can take longer to resolve due to complexity and/or the materials that are needed.
The landlord’s records do not state when the resident first reported cold temperatures in the property, but it raised a job for a heat loss survey on 28 February 2024. Its contractor completed this on 6 March 2024. In its complaint response the landlord noted this was “limited in nature”, and as a result, it completed another heat loss survey on 26 March 2024.
The landlord completed both surveys within the month. In its complaint response the landlord considered it had responded within the appropriate timeframe. It also said it had taken follow up action and replaced the radiator prior to its target date of 6 May 2024.
Given it required a specialist to complete the heat loss survey, this survey and the follow-on works could be considered non-routine. On this basis the landlord completed the survey within a reasonable timeframe. However, it did not explain why the initial survey was insufficient or apologise to the resident for the inconvenience caused by having to repeat the survey.
It was also inaccurate of it to say it had replaced the radiator by its target date. Its records show it attended on 19 April 2024, but its engineer did not have sufficient time to install it. It re-attended on 15 May 2024 and was unable to fit the radiator because it was damaged. It returned and ultimately completed the repair on 22 May 2024. This was therefore beyond the target date of 6 May 2024. The landlord therefore failed to fit the radiator according to its own target, to the inconvenience of the resident who had to facilitate 2 additional visits. It caused additional frustration by failing to acknowledge and apologise for this in its response.
The resident complained that the landlord had told him 2 radiators were required but it had only fitted 1. In its complaint response the landlord maintained only 1 was required. The initial survey recommended that the landlord fit 1 radiator, but it also noted there was no radiator in the downstairs rear hallway and toilet. It suggested a fan heater may be required as it would be difficult to install pipework in this location. It therefore suggested an alternative to a radiator, which supports the resident’s understanding of the situation. The landlord failed to clarify this in its complaint response and did not fit the fan heater or explain why it did not consider this necessary.
The survey also noted the rooms were cold and suggested the landlord inspect the windows and vents. The landlord completed a survey on 26 March 2024 which recommended it remove a vent in the living room. It did so on 12 April 2024. The landlord inspected and took appropriate action promptly on this.
However, the survey record is brief, and it is unclear whether the landlord also inspected the windows to see if they were letting in cold, as the heat loss survey had suggested it do. Nor is there any evidence it considered the insulation, which would have been reasonable as part of a holistic assessment to measure thermal efficiency and comfort.
The resident continued to report cold conditions and complained to the landlord. The complaint handler chased the repairs and heating team throughout June 2024, to request an update on the survey and to establish whether it had considered the windows and insulation. He also asked for temporary heaters for the family. The repairs team responded to the request noting the property had an EPC rating of ‘C’ and it had conducted 2 heat loss surveys. There is no evidence it provided the heaters, and it did not clarify whether they had assessed the windows and insulation. This resulted in unnecessary delay.
The landlord ultimately scheduled a further survey on 27 June 2024. This was a reasonable intervention, but it was 3 months since it had last inspected. It should have assessed the windows and insulation at an earlier opportunity, especially given the resident’s ongoing concerns and complaint.
The survey determined the insulation was sufficient. However, it suggested the radiators were undersized, with the ground floor being of particular concern. It recommended that it install 2 additional radiators, 1 below the window in the living room, and 1 in the ground floor hallway. It also recommended replacing and moving one of the bedroom radiators. It concluded there was evidence for the “probability of insufficient thermal comfort” to the living room, kitchen, ground floor toilet, and first floor bedroom. It made no comment on the windows.
Despite its recommendations, the landlord took no follow up action. In its final response it said its survey had determined the EPC rating was correct and the heating system was fully functional. This conclusion did not fully reflect the outcome of the survey.
There were differences across the heat loss surveys the landlord conducted. The initial survey included heat calculations, which suggested the radiators were sufficiently sized and efficient except for 1 bedroom radiator. The second survey record was brief and provided no additional information. The third survey did not include heat calculations. However, all surveyors identified a lack of heating downstairs and recommended measures to provide warmth via a fan heater or further radiators. The initial surveyor also noted the rooms were cold despite their heat calculations.
It is not possible for this Service to determine whether a property is warm enough. While the EPC rating of the property is considered adequate, this is not sufficient on its own. The landlord’s surveys indicate shortcomings in the heating system.
More significantly, the resident’s ongoing experience is that the property is cold. The landlord was aware he had young children who were unable to communicate how cold they were. He also shared that the family was unable to use rooms in the property that were particularly affected. It has not done enough to demonstrate it has considered the family’s circumstances and the outcomes of its own surveys before concluding the property is providing a sufficient degree of thermal comfort.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about cold temperatures in the property. It was not transparent with the resident about the outcome of its surveys and did not act on the recommendations made. Its failure to take reasonable actions within an appropriate timeframe caused the resident and his family distress. They were also inconvenienced by having to facilitate multiple visits without full resolution of the issue.
The landlord must arrange for an independent heat loss survey which includes an assessment of the heating system and windows as a minimum. It should outline its position on what works it will do based on the findings of the survey. It must provide a clear explanation of why it will not complete any recommended works, as necessary. It must be satisfied and evidence that the home provides a sufficient degree of thermal comfort.
The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failures in its handling of his reports. It must also compensate him £350. This amount is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance, where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and address the detriment caused to the resident.

Leak from skylight

The windows constitute the structure and exterior of the property and the landlord was therefore responsible for window repair and maintenance under the LTA and terms of tenancy.
The landlord’s records do not state when the resident first reported that the window in the top floor bedroom was leaking. This makes it difficult for us to determine whether the landlord’s initial response was within the appropriate timeframes under its policy. It raised jobs on 6 March 2024 to reseal the window and renew the timber frame. Following this, it promptly resealed the window on 14 March 2024.
However, it did not renew the timber frame. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 June 2024 and reported that the window was still leaking on the roof of the room in which the whole family slept. He noted the landlord said it would change the window months ago but had not done so. In its complaint response the landlord updated the resident that its contractor had ordered the relevant parts for the window, and it had until 24 July 2024 to complete the repair. However, it was unreasonable that the resident had to chase the landlord and complain for it to update him about the works.
The records show the landlord considered the window as part of the surveys it conducted on 27 March and 22 April 2024. It then re-raised the job for a replacement frame on 25 April 2025. It was reasonable for the landlord to assess the window and decide what follow up action was required. Its policy allows it 90-days to complete repairs in circumstances where the job is complex and/or it requires specialist materials, as was the case here.
However, this was a significant period for the resident to wait for the repair to be completed, given the leak was active and the family were sleeping in the room. It should have explained the situation to the resident and apologised for the ongoing inconvenience. It could also have explored further mitigating actions to prevent the leak from impacting the family in the interim. Additionally, the landlord has provided no evidence it contacted the resident before 24 July 2024 to progress the repair. It therefore delayed according to its own timeframes and what was reasonable in the circumstances.
The repair log states operatives were not able to access the property on 1 and 9 August 2024 and the landlord subsequently closed the job. Under the terms of tenancy, and as outlined in the landlord’s repairs policy, residents must provide access so it can complete repairs. However, the landlord must also provide reasonable notification of repair appointments. The resident had informed the landlord he was out of the country for a month from 4 July 2024, so it is not clear that he was able to facilitate the visit. He asked the landlord to email during this period rather than phone, but it has provided no evidence it attempted to schedule appointments by either method.
In its final response the landlord provided no update on its efforts to complete the works in August 2024 and did not explain that it had closed the job. This left the resident in limbo, without an understanding of why works had stalled. This was a missed opportunity for it to review the situation, progress the works, and resolve the problem for the resident.
It is unreasonable that it has taken the landlord so long to address the issue and that it remains unresolved. The resident and his family have experienced the detriment of living with the leak throughout this period as well as time and trouble in having to chase it to progress the issue. The landlord has not taken ownership of its failings or learnt from them. While it recently re-raised the job with a target date of July 2025, it has offered no remedy for the detriment and inconvenience caused by its failings. For this reason, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the leak from the skylight window.
It is ordered to write a letter of apology to the resident and pay him £350 compensation. This is in line with its compensation policy and this Service’s remedies guidance. Amounts in this region are appropriate where a landlord has failed to take appropriate action and this has had an adverse impact on the resident.
The landlord is also encouraged to keep accurate and detailed repair records. This includes its repair logs, survey reports, and communications relating to repairs. This will help it track repairs and provide accountability for the actions it takes and does not take. We have recommended that it review this Service’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management and consider how it can embed these learnings.

Uneven floor

The landlord has a duty to repair and maintain the structure of the house under the terms of tenancy and the LTA, which includes the floorboards. There is no record of when the resident first reported the issue, but he said he had complained about this for months. The landlord is again reminded to keep accurate and detailed repair records so it can be accountable for the action it takes or does not take.
The landlord assessed the floor as part of its surveys on 27 March and 22 April 2024. The survey records are brief but among the ‘outcomes’ were the first-floor floorboards and doors. The survey did not describe the extent of the work and whether this constituted the entire first floor.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 14 May 2024 to level the floor in the bedroom and first floor landing but was unable to complete works. The landlord said this was because the floor was not clear. In its final response the landlord acknowledged it had not communicated effectively with the resident and informed him the floor would need to be cleared completely, including the fitted furniture and the laminate flooring. It offered compensation of £150 for its failure to manage his expectations and for his time and trouble, which was reasonable.
There was also a dispute about the extent of the work required to level the floorboards. The landlord’s contractor reported that the whole first floor needed to be levelled but its repair team refuted this. Given the dispute, it was reasonable that the landlord assessed the floor again during its survey on 27 June 2024. This found most areas were unlevel, but the issue was not structural/urgent. To fully assess and rectify the issue, it said the resident would need to move out of the property, all his items would need to be removed and placed in storage, and the floor would need to be taken up and relaid.
The landlord has put the works on hold at the resident’s request due to the disruption this will entail. The issue continues to cause the resident inconvenience. He explained he has fitted wardrobes in the bedroom which will not open and close because the floor is unlevel. He would like the landlord to progress the works at a convenient time. He noted his kitchen is overdue for renewal as part of the landlord’s planned works program and the property is due to be repainted. He would like the landlord to clarify when these works will take place and coordinate a temporary move at the same time to minimise inconvenience.
While the landlord has assured the resident it will progress the works with his agreement, it has not outlined its position on the level of support it will provide. It is unclear whether it will cover the cost of temporary accommodation and remove and store the resident’s items.
It has been clear it is the resident’s responsibility to remove the laminate flooring. The landlord’s policy notes, where the resident has provided laminate floor coverings, and removal and reinstatement of the flooring is required to allow for repairs, the resident must arrange for this at their own cost. The landlord’s position on the resident’s responsibility for this aspect of the repair is therefore reasonable.
Overall, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about uneven floorboards. This is on the basis that it provided appropriate remedy for the impact of failings in its communication following its initial visit. We have recommended that the landlord outline its position on what support it will provide to minimise inconvenience and detriment to the resident, and when it will facilitate the works. It should also provide him with the details of its insurer so he can make a claim for damage to his furniture because of the uneven floor, should he wish.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. It states it will provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. These timeframes are in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out standards for landlords’ complaint handling practices.
The resident complained on 14 May 2024, and the landlord responded at stage 1 on 7 June 2024. This was a delay of 8 working days beyond the timeframe outlined in its policy. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay in its initial response.
The resident escalated the complaint the same day and the landlord responded on 19 August 2024. This totalled 52 working days which was further significant delay. Within its initial response, the landlord notified the resident it was dealing with a high volume of complaints and explained it might take longer than 20 working days to respond to any complaints at stage 2. It extended the deadline for responding to the resident’s complaint on 2 occasions. It explained it was waiting for confirmation that it had scheduled works and, on the latter occasion, said its response was awaiting approval from a manager.
While it was reasonable of the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations about when he could expect the response, the delay caused him frustration and inconvenience. The landlord should not delay in responding to a complaint until it has completed actions. As outlined in the Code, it should respond within timeframes and monitor any outstanding actions to completion following its response.
The landlord’s delay was a failing, but it acknowledged, apologised, and compensated the resident for this in its final response. Its offer of £100 was in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance. Figures in this region are appropriate where the landlord’s failings have had an adverse impact on the resident. Therefore, based on the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation, we have found reasonable redress. The landlord should ensure it pays the compensation it offered to the resident as remedy for its failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about cold temperatures in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a leak from the bedroom skylight window.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about uneven floorboards.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Write a letter of apology to the resident for its failings.
2. Pay the resident a total of £700 compensation comprised of:
  1. £350 for failings in its response to the resident’s reports about cold temperatures.
  2. £350 for failings in its response to the resident’s reports about the window leak.
3. Arrange for an independent heat loss survey which includes an assessment of the heating system and windows. It should outline its position on what works it will do based on the findings of the survey. It should act on the recommendations or provide a clear explanation of why it will not.
4. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Pays the resident the £250 compensation it offered for failures in its communication and complaint handling. We determined reasonable redress based on it paying this amount, as it identified service failures which required remedy.
2. Contacts the resident to discuss how it can progress works to level the floor and replace the doors. It should outline what support it will provide and consider how it can minimise disruption by coordinating works at a convenient time for the resident, where possible.
3. Shares details of its insurer with the resident so he can make an insurance claim for any damages incurred because of the uneven floor.
4. Reviews this Service’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management and considers how it can embed the recommendations made. It should review how it records information relating to its handling of repairs, including communications, repair logs, and surveys, and ensure it keeps accurate and detailed reports.
5. Updates its systems and records the family’s vulnerability in line with the information he shared in his complaint. It should contact the resident for clarity on the family’s circumstances if it is unclear.