Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202427194)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427194

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

24 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of water ingress from the communal loft.
    2. Reports of suspected water ingress from the gutter and roof, and damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The property is on the top floor of a mid-rise building.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 29 September 2023 to report water ingress into her kitchen from the upstairs communal loft. The landlord inspected on 12 October 2023 but was unable to locate a leak. The resident re-raised the water ingress on 23 October 2023. The landlord attempted to attend on 3 occasions but was unable to gain access to the loft due to not having the necessary key. The resident’s kitchen ceiling collapsed on 6 December 2023, and the landlord attended the same day to complete a temporary repair and did a further repair the following day.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord to report further water ingress, damp and mould on 5 January 2024. She believed that this water ingress was the result of issues with the roof and guttering. The landlord attended on 30 January 2024 but did not have the necessary key to inspect. The landlord re-arranged the appointment for 15 February 2024 and later 12 March 2024 but failed to attend on both occasions.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 18 March 2024 to raise a complaint. She said that she believed there was an ongoing roof and gutter leak causing damp and mould in her property every time it rained. She was unhappy with the landlord’s failure to attend. She also said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the September 2023 water ingress from the loft.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 23 April 2024. It upheld the resident’s complaint providing £270 compensation. This consisted of £100 for the time and trouble caused, £100 for service failure in not completing the outstanding repairs, £20 for missed appointments, and £50 for complaint handling delays. The landlord said it had inspected on 15 April 2024 and that it had raised a quotation for roof works to trace and repair the cause of the current water ingress.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 2 June 2024. She remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of both of her reports. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 1 July 2024. It said it had now booked in roof repair and guttering works for August 2024. The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £450. This consisted of £200 for the time and trouble the resident had experienced, £200 for the service failure in not completing the repair, and £50 for the stage 1 complaint handling delay.
  7. The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 14 October 2024 to ask us to consider her complaint. She was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports saying that she felt it had not taken these seriously. She said she was continuing to experience water ingress, damp and mould. She said she wanted the landlord to resolve all of the outstanding issues.
  8. The landlord wrote to the Ombudsman on 6 May 2025 and increased its offer of compensation to the resident. It increased this to £1,000, consisting of £400 for its handling of the September 2023 water ingress, and £600 for its handling of the ongoing water ingress, damp and mould in the resident’s property.  

Assessment and findings

The scope of this investigation

  1. The resident reported that she has experienced water ingress, damp and mould in her property for several years. In this instance, the Ombudsman has seen a break of around 5 months in the resident’s reports about water ingress from the gutters and roof from July 2023 (when guttering works were done) to January 2024 (when she began to report new concerns). Our investigation into the roofing issue has therefore begun from January 2024 and includes the period she mentioned when raising her complaint. We have considered the separate loft leak from September 2023 onwards.

Policies and procedures

  1. The resident’s lease states that it is the landlord’s responsibility to ‘maintain, repair, redecorate, renew, amend…the structure of the building’. This includes ‘the roofs, foundations, external and internal walls’ of the building. The landlord’s responsibilities also extend to gas and water pipes and supply lines.
  2. The lease also puts several obligations on the resident to complete repairs as a leaseholder. This includes ‘the ceilings (but not the joists or beams or concrete floor to which the said ceilings are attached)’. It is also the resident’s obligation to repair the ‘interior plastered coverings and plaster work tiling and other surfaces of floors ceilings and walls’ of the property.
  3. The landlord’s repair policy has several different timescales for completing repairs. For emergency repairs, the landlord says it will attend and complete a repair within 24 hours. For routine repairs, it will attend within 28 calendar days. For bespoke repairs, those where ‘there is either a component that needs replacing that must be ordered or more complex work that involves multiple trades to complete’, the landlord will complete these within 90 calendar days.

The landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress from the communal loft

  1. The resident first reported water ingress into her kitchen on 29 September 2023. The landlord has said that at this time the leak was containable as the resident was collecting the water in a bucket. It therefore treated this as a routine repair.
  2. The landlord attended to inspect on 12 October 2023 – this was within the 28 calendar days for routine repairs specified in the landlord’s repair policy. The landlord’s contractor found no evidence of a leak on this date although it is unclear if they checked the loft for leaks also. Given the landlord noted that the resident was collecting water in a bucket and a ceiling later collapsed, it is unclear how no leak was identified.
  3. The resident again reported water ingress on 23 October 2023. The landlord attempted to attend on 3 occasions to inspect but due to issues providing a key to contractors, they could not access the loft. This meant it was unable to perform the necessary inspections to determine the cause of any water ingress. There was a clear failure by the landlord to pro-actively ensure its contractors could access the required areas and this caused an unreasonable delay.
  4. Throughout this period, the resident continued to contact the landlord. On 27 November 2023, she asked it to attend as an emergency as she was concerned about the effects of the ongoing leak. The landlord told the resident that it would not. Considering the length of time the leak had been ongoing and its failure to fully inspect to that date, the landlord should have taken the resident’s requests for an emergency inspection more seriously. Its failure to consider the wider context of the resident’s reports and escalate the repair again represented service failure. 
  5. The resident reported on 6 December 2023 that a ceiling had collapsed as a result of the leak. The landlord attended on the same day to make safe and returned the following day to complete a repair. The response to the resident’s ceiling collapse report was in line with its emergency repair timescales. The cause of the leak was a leaking stopcock in the communal loft. Under the lease, this was the landlord’s repair responsibility. Had the landlord acted in line with its repair policy and ensure full access for its inspections, it could have identified this fault earlier and potentially prevented the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, including the collapse of her ceiling. 
  6. Following this, the resident contacted the landlord on 8 December 2023 asking it to make good the damage to the ceiling. The landlord’s records from this date show that it told the resident that any damages in the property were her responsibility. Whilst this may usually be the case, given there were delays on its part (which it later acknowledged), the landlord should have considered taking responsibility for the remedial works.
  7. The landlord’s leak investigation report from 7 December 2023 states that ‘reinstatement of the damaged ceiling is required’. The resident reported to the landlord, on various occasions following the ceiling collapse, that she was left with a hole in her ceiling which it had only covered. We have seen no evidence that the landlord gave the resident advice on the potential of an insurance claim. It since acknowledged this to the Ombudsman and suggested it would cover any insurance excess charges for the resident. The resident has however told us that she paid for the remedial repairs herself.
  8. The landlord has not provided evidence that it completed any repairs or works to the resident’s electrics following her reports. Considering the potential hazards associated with wet and damaged electrics, the landlord should have treated this under the emergency timescale specified in its repair policy. This again represented a failing on behalf of the landlord to make safe the resident’s property following the water ingress.
  9. As part of its original complaint responses, the landlord did not offer the resident any compensation for its handling of the water ingress from the communal loft. When submitting evidence to the Ombudsman, it reviewed its handling of this matter and offered £400 for its failings in dealing with the leak. This consisted of £100 for its failure to provide contractors with the correct key, £100 for failing to identify the cause of the leak during its initial visit and £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports. When a landlord makes an offer significantly after the conclusion of the complaints process, the Ombudsman will not make a finding of reasonable redress as this should be delivered through the complaints process.
  10. In any case, this offer of compensation was insufficient given the circumstances of the case. The landlord failed to treat the resident’s reports with the appropriate severity. It also did not perform a full inspection in a reasonable timeframe after the resident made her second report which led to an unreasonable delay. There is no evidence that it considered the need for remedial works and it failed to signpost the resident on insurance claim options. The landlord’s handling of this matter therefore represented maladministration.
  11. The landlord should increase its offer of compensation to £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures in this range where there have been failings by the landlord which have had a significant impact on the resident. We have also made an order relating to the ceiling remedial works.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of suspected water ingress from the gutter and roof and damp and mould

  1. The resident first reported water ingress from the roof (causing damp and mould) on 5 January 2024. The landlord’s first appointment on 30 January 2024 was unsuccessful due to the contractors lacking the appropriate key to inspect. Contractors then failed to attend 2 follow up appointments – on 15 February 2024 and 12 March 2024 respectively. The landlord failed to properly manage these appointments, leading to an unreasonable diagnosis delay.
  2. The landlord finally inspected on 15 April 2024 but it is unclear from the evidence exactly what this inspection entailed. Where a resident has been reporting damp and mould for a significant period of time, the Ombudsman would expect to see evidence of a thorough inspection or survey of the property, interior and exterior, to establish the cause and form an action plan to remedy any faults. In this instance, the landlord appears not to have done so.
  3. Although the landlord attended in April 2024, the note from its operative mentioned that it required water testing on the gulley flashing and the external wall. There is no evidence that the landlord performed this testing at any point in the period covered by the complaint. The landlord has therefore failed to demonstrate that it followed up on all of the recommendations made to fully establish the cause of water ingress.
  4. The landlord has also not provided evidence that it inspected the inside of the property. Although the internal decorations are the resident’s responsibility, the Ombudsman would still expect to see evidence that the landlord checked the interior as part of its diagnosis of any water ingress and damp and mould. It is of concern that, despite the repairs identified and later completed, the resident has recently told us that the problems are ongoing. This indicates that the landlord’s diagnosis was flawed.
  5. The landlord has also failed to take action in response to the resident’s reports that water ingress, damp and mould affected her electrics. The landlord was responsible for resolving the water ingress and ensuring that there were no hazards in the meantime. There is no evidence that it assessed whether the water ingress – which it acknowledged went on for too long – impacted the electrics despite the resident’s concern. This was unreasonable. 
  6. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord informed the resident it had booked in the repair works for August 2024. It said that it would complete roofing repairs and guttering works. This was around 8 months after the resident reported these problems. This was significantly outside of the timescales specified in its repairs policy.
  7. These repairs included clearing the drains and gulleys on the roof of the building. The landlord’s notes also mention that it completed further works on 4 September 2024. The evidence demonstrates that the resident again reported water ingress to the landlord on 7 October 2024 and has continued to experience water ingress, damp and mould in her property. Again, this suggests that the extent of repairs the landlord undertook were not sufficient to eradicate the water ingress, or the underlying causes of the damp and mould.
  8. The resident has not mentioned to the Ombudsman any damaged furniture or other items. However, the landlord has said that it would cover any insurance excesses the resident experienced when claiming on her insurance to put right any internal damage caused by the water ingress, damp and mould. This is a fair offer from the landlord. Given the water ingress remains ongoing, it is unlikely that, at this stage, the resident would be able to proceed with a claim on her insurance. The landlord first needs to ensure that it has resolved the root causes of water ingress, damp and mould.
  9. When it submitted evidence to the Ombudsman, the landlord increased its compensation offer for this element of the complaint to £600. This consisted of £300 for the delays in addressing the roof leak and £300 for its poor communication with the resident about these delays. The landlord said it worked out the delays at £50 per month beginning in March 2024.
  10. However, the evidence available to the Ombudsman demonstrates that the landlord was first on notice of the water ingress, damp and mould in January 2024. Further, it has not demonstrated it learned lessons from its handling of the case given how quickly the resident had to continue her reports of water ingress after completion of the roofing and guttering works it identified.
  11. Given the extent of the landlord’s failures and the subsequent distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result, the landlord’s offer of compensation was insufficient. The landlord should increase its offer of compensation to £800 and assess whether additional compensation is warranted for its handling of any further reports since August 2024.
  12. The landlord should also undertake a full survey of the resident’s property, considering both the interior and exterior. It should provide the resident with the causes of water ingress, damp and mould and provide her with an action plan for resolving these.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about water ingress from the communal loft.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of suspected water ingress from the gutter and roof, and damp and mould.

Orders

  1. It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident £1,400, inclusive of its previous offers of compensation, consisting of:
      1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in handling her reports about water ingress from the communal loft.
      2. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in handling her reports of suspected water ingress from the gutter and roof and damp and mould.
    2. Assess it handling of any reports of water ingress, damp and mould from the resident since August 2024 and decide what additional compensation is warranted.
    3. Write to the resident to:
      1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
      2. Advise her if it is willing to reimburse her for the costs of any ceiling remedial works and what evidence it may need from her to do so.
      3. Confirm the level of compensation it is willing to pay to the value of any insurance excess (as per its correspondence to us in May 2025).
      4. Offer her any additional compensation for the period August 2024 to date.
    4. Arrange a full damp and mould survey of the exterior and interior of the resident’s property. This survey should include a diagnosis of the causes of water ingress, damp and mould.
  2. Within 2 weeks of this inspection, the landlord must write to the resident to provide a copy of this survey report alongside an action plan (with timescales) for completion of any recommended repairs. It should provide the resident with a named point of contact who will oversee those repairs. The landlord should also provide a copy of this report to the Ombudsman.
  3. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has completed all of the above orders within the relevant timescales.