Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202427905)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202427905 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
25 February 2026 |
Background
- The resident lives in a 2-bedroom end-of-terrace house. She moved into the property in November 2023 through a mutual exchange. The resident raised concerns about the conservatory, front door, and windows needing repair, as the property was draughty and her heating costs were high. She also raised concerns about the condition of the garden left by the previous tenant, as she had to clear a significant amount of rubbish.
What the complaint is about
- The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
- Request for repairs to the conservatory.
- Other repairs to the property.
- Request for works to the garden.
- The resident’s complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We found the landlord responsible for:
- No maladministration in its handling of repairs to the conservatory.
- Maladministration in its handling of other repairs to the property.
- No maladministration in its handling of request for works to the garden.
- It made an offer of reasonable redress which resolved the failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
- We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
Handling of repairs to the conservatory
- The mutual exchange paperwork signed by the resident indicates that she accepted responsibility for any repairs to the conservatory.
Handling of other repairs to the property
- The landlord delayed replacing the front door and the kitchen window. It has not repaired the extractor fan, and it is unclear whether some windows still require repairs. The landlord also did not keep the resident updated on the progress of these works.
Handling of the request for works to the garden
- The mutual exchange paperwork states that the landlord is not responsible for clearing the garden, and this responsibility rests with the resident.
Complaint handling
- The landlord did not address one of the issues in its stage 1 response and was delayed in providing its stage 2 response. It acknowledged these failures and offered an apology and reasonable 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.
|
What the landlord must do |
Due date |
|
|
1 |
Completing the works
The landlord is ordered to repair the extractor fan. The landlord must take all steps to ensure the work is completed promptly and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date:
|
No later than 26 March 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 a suitably qualified person. 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:
The survey report must set out:
|
No later than 26 March 2026 |
|
Apology order
The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 26 March 2026 |
|
|
Compensation order
The landlord must pay the resident £400 (in addition to the £110 already offered) to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in handling of repairs to the property. 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 26 March 2026 |
|
|
5 |
Take specific action order
The landlord is ordered to contact the resident to obtain copies of energy bills since she moved in, compare usage, and consider compensation if it is found that energy usage was higher before the repairs were completed. The landlord should provide a clear response to the resident once it has determined whether it will provide further compensation. |
No later than 26 March 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
The landlord is to:
|
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
8 April 2024 |
The resident raised her complaint with the landlord. She said repair issues had not been addressed, including the front door, draughty windows, and the conservatory. She also raised concerns about the garden’s condition after the previous tenant and reported finding rat holes. |
|
19 April 2024 |
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
|
|
11 June 2024 |
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2. She said the conservatory was not gifted, not all concerns had been addressed, and actions agreed at stage 1 had not been completed. The landlord acknowledge the escalation and said it would only consider the original complaint issues in its stage 2 response. It provided information on how to raise a further complaint about new issues. |
|
12 June 2024 |
The landlord’s repair officer and a council environmental health officer inspected the property jointly (after two previous attempts). The repair officer said the front door needed replacement, the windows in the kitchen, bedrooms, and bathroom required repair, and an extractor fan needed to be fixed. He said the conservatory needed repair, but no works would be ordered until responsibility was confirmed. He also said the garden was the resident’s responsibility but would check with the voids team about its condition. The environmental health officer found no signs of rats and confirmed no further action was required. |
|
July 2024-October 2024 |
The landlord replaced the front door, replaced the kitchen window, checked trickle vents on the window frames, and repaired part of the back garden fence. |
|
22 August 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for not addressing garden concerns at stage one and said:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident remained dissatisfied and referred the complaint to us. She said she did not agree to take on and repair the conservatory, which needs significant work. She also said the windows require overhauling, the back garden gate needs repair, the extractor fan is noisy, the garden floods regularly due to poor drainage, and there are large overgrown trees on the property. |
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 handling of request for repairs to the conservatory |
|
Finding |
No maladministration |
- When residents complete a mutual exchange, they agree to accept the property in its existing condition. They also take responsibility for any items that were the previous tenant’s responsibility.
- The landlord has provided a copy of its inspection report dated 24 July 2023. This was completed prior to the mutual exchange in November 2023. This noted that the ‘shed will be left for the resident’. In addition, it notes that the ‘conservatory is a gift to current tenant, new tenant will need to sign as a gift’.
- Following the inspection, a written summary of the inspection was sent to the existing tenant. This noted the following 2 ‘alterations you have made that we may not have previously granted permission for:
- External – Small wooden shed in rear garden.
- Conservatory – New Resident to be responsible for repairs’.
The letter confirmed that the landlord was ‘prepared to grant permission for these items to remain in their current condition. The incoming customer will need to accept full responsibility for the repair and upkeep of these items – MTVH will have no responsibility for maintaining them’. The landlord has been unable to provide evidence to show that a copy of this letter or a letter with similar content was sent to the resident.
- The resident has queried the reference to a shed as there was not one present when she moved in. The photographs of the garden from the inspection report dated 24 July 2023 do not show a shed. However, there is a small wooden structure at the front of the house. This appears to be either a log store or a shelter for plants.
- The landlord has provided a copy of the condition of mutual exchange document. This states: I confirm that I understand the conditions of the exchange and am therefore aware that once I have exchanged tenancies Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing will not maintain, repair or replace anything which has been altered or added to the property by the previous tenant. This will be my responsibility. This includes but is not limited to the following items identified during a recent inspection of the property: small wooden shed in rear garden; conservatory.’
- The record indicates that the resident signed this document, along with the deed of assignment, via Docusign (e-signature) on 22 November 2023. The landlord’s Docusign records indicate that the resident viewed the following documents in person at 9.17am on 22 November 2023:
- Deed of assignment and license to assign
- Mutual exchange – setting up a tenancy checklist
- Mutual exchange – getting to know you
- Mutual exchange – understanding conditions and disclaimer
- Mutual exchange – sign up checklist
- Repairs guide
- New tenancy welcome pack – assured
- Tenancy agreement
- Proof of rent
- The landlord’s Docusign records indicate that the resident signed the deed of assignment and conditions of mutual exchange on a mobile device at 9.22am. Copies of the documents were sent to her by email. The resident has provided a screenshot from her email account which confirms that she received a Docusign email dated 27 November 2023. The email included a link to the documents. The records show that the documents included ‘Mutual exchange – understanding conditions and disclaimer’.
- The Docusign records indicate that the resident opened and viewed the documents on 27 and 28 November 2023. The resident also opened, viewed and downloaded the documents on 5 June 2024. The Docusign records do not show that these documents were amended at any time between November 2023 and June 2024.
- It is acknowledged that the resident has stated that she was not shown the conditions of mutual exchange document and it was not sent to her. The resident has confirmed that she did not agree to sign this document.
- The resident has provided testimony from the former tenant who also confirms that the conditions of mutual exchange document was not provided to them or signed by them during the mutual exchange process. They have explained that the conservatory pre-dated their tenancy and they were not informed that the upkeep of this part of the property was their responsibility when they resided there.
- We accept that the reference to a garden shed within the conditions of mutual exchange is difficult to explain. A garden shed does not appear to exist. As such, if either the resident or the other tenant had read the conditions of mutual exchange document, it is likely that this would have been queried. In addition, the landlord should have sent the resident a copy of the letter summarising the outcome of the inspection from July 2023. It has been unable to show that it took this step.
- It is not possible for us to determine whether the content of the ‘Mutual exchange – understanding conditions and disclaimer’ document was made explicitly clear to the resident on the day she signed the deed. However, the available evidence shows that the resident signed her agreement to the documents related to the mutual exchange. These documents were also sent to the resident by email and it appears that she accessed them and viewed them.
- Unless there is clear evidence to show documents have been doctored or fabricated, we accept the evidence we receive from either party in good faith. We appreciate that the resident’s recollection of the mutual exchange differs from the documentary evidence, but there is insufficient evidence for us to determine conclusively that the landlord failed to inform the resident that she was responsible for the conservatory.
- Ultimately, the mutual exchange process places a responsibility on the incoming resident to accept the property in its current condition and agree to the upkeep of any non-standard decorations or improvements made to the property. This is confirmed in the landlord’s mutual exchange policy.
- The resident referred to the tenancy agreement, which states the landlord is responsible for buildings attached to the property. While the conservatory is attached, the signed mutual exchange document clearly assigns responsibility for it to the resident. By signing this document, the resident agreed to these conditions, meaning the landlord does not have responsibility for the conservatory.
- We have recommended that the landlord writes to the resident to confirm its position on alterations to the conservatory. It should explain what formal steps the resident needs to take to arrange for the conservatory to be removed. The landlord should also confirm what help, if any, it can offer in arranging for the conservatory to be removed..
|
Complaint |
The handling of other repairs to the property |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- The landlord’s repairs policy says that routine repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days. Repairs requiring ordered components or more complex work should be completed within 90 calendar days.
- On 4 December 2023, shortly after moving in, the resident reported that the front door did not fit properly and was letting in cold air. The landlord attended on 5 January 2024 and recommended a replacement door. However, it did not take steps to replace the door at that time. After the resident raised a formal complaint in April 2024, the landlord said it would inspect the property to determine any repairs it needed to complete. Following an inspection in June 2024, the landlord raised a job to replace the door, even though this need had been identified in January 2024. The door was replaced on 26 July 2024, almost 8 months after the resident reported the problem. This delay was not reasonable.
- The evidence shows that the landlord raised an inspection request on 8 February 2024 regarding draughts from wooden-framed windows. There is no evidence it booked an inspection at that time, which was not reasonable. During the June 2024 inspection, the landlord identified a need to replace the seal in the kitchen window and overhaul the windows in the bathroom and both bedrooms. This included ensuring the trickle vents could open. A job was raised to complete these works.
- The landlord’s contractor attended 5 July 2024 and determined the kitchen window needed replacement. It was replaced on 22 October 2024. This timeframe was not reasonable given the landlord agreed to inspect the windows in February 2024.
- Repair notes show the contractor opened all trickle vents it could reach but was unsure if a replacement could be sourced for the missing vent. There is no record of further works on the other windows after this visit.
- It is reasonable for a landlord to try to repair rather than replace windows where possible. However, the resident expected further works on the windows, and draught issues remain.
- We are not satisfied that the landlord has ensured all windows are in a reasonable condition. This is a failure of service. The contractor appeared to focus only on the kitchen window and trickle vents, rather than assessing other necessary repairs. Notes also confirm some vents were not accessed because they were out of reach.
- During the June 2024 inspection, the landlord identified a need to fix an extractor fan and raised a work order. Repair records show no evidence this was completed, and the resident reports the fan remains noisy. It is not reasonable that the landlord identified this need in June 2024 and has not yet completed the repair.
- We have therefore ordered the landlord to repair the extractor fan and inspect all windows to identify any further repairs required.
- The delays have impacted the resident. She has spent time chasing the landlord, lived with a noisy extractor fan, and experienced periods where the front door and kitchen window required replacement.
- It is reasonable to assume that the delays contributed to increased energy usage to heat the home, although the exact extent is unknown. In April 2024, the landlord requested copies of the resident’s energy bills for the same period over the previous two years. However, the resident had only moved into the property in November 2023 and therefore could not provide bills from before that time. It is unclear why the landlord made this request at that time. Now that the resident has lived in the property for nearly two years, she should have access to energy bills that reflect her usage over time. This information can help determine whether the delay in repairs led to higher energy consumption. We have ordered the landlord to contact the resident to obtain these bills, compare usage, and consider compensation if it is found that energy usage was higher before the repairs were completed.
- The landlord has offered £110 for the time, trouble, and delays in repairs. Given that some repairs remain outstanding and were identified approximately 18 months ago, and considering the impact on the resident, we do not consider £110 sufficient. We have ordered the landlord to pay £400 in total (including the £110 already offered) for delays in completing repairs.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the request for works to the garden |
|
Finding |
No maladministration |
What we did not investigate
- The resident raised new issues about the garden that were not considered during the landlord’s internal complaints process. These include concerns about large trees potentially causing property damage, signs of asbestos in the garden, and the need for drainage works. We cannot consider issues that have not been through the landlord’s complaints process, so these matters are outside the scope of this investigation. The landlord has provided the resident with information on how to raise formal complaints about new issues.
What we did investigate
- The resident raised concerns about the condition of the garden when she moved in. She said she rented 3 skips to clear garden rubbish, including a wooden shed, and asked the landlord for assistance. She also reported signs of rats in the garden.
- The tenancy agreement states that residents are responsible for garden beds, sheds, plants, bushes, vegetation, paving, and paths. The mutual exchange conditions signed by the resident confirm that the landlord will not repair damage caused by the previous tenant or remove any rubbish or items left behind. The agreement specifically states the resident was responsible for the wooden shed left in the garden.
- In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord carried out an inspection with the council’s environmental health officer. This was a positive step to confirm any works for which the landlord was responsible. The inspection found no signs of rats and identified that the landlord needed to repair a fence, which is completed.
- The landlord’s repair officer told the resident he would ask the voids team to review records about the property’s condition when the previous tenant left. There is no evidence this was followed up, and it would not have changed the outcome because of the mutual exchange terms. The landlord could have communicated this more clearly to the resident at the time.
- The landlord explained in its stage 2 complaint response that it was not responsible for clearing or maintaining the garden. It later suggested a competitively priced local skip hire service to assist the resident. This was a reasonable response, as the landlord is not responsible for garden maintenance or clearing items left by the previous tenant under the mutual exchange agreement.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response within its published timeframes. However, it did not address the resident’s concerns about the garden in that response, which was not reasonable.
- The landlord provided its stage 2 response approximately 7 weeks late. While it informed the resident that more time was needed, the response was further delayed without additional updates. This delay was not reasonable and caused inconvenience to the resident, who had to chase the landlord for a response.
- In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that the stage 1 response missed an issue and apologised. It offered £125 for its complaint handling failures. We consider the apology and compensation offered to be fair and reasonable to recognise these failures. We have recommended that the landlord pay this amount if it has not already done so.
Learning
Communication and record-keeping
- The repair records do not clearly show when the resident first raised concerns about the windows or whether the issue has been fully resolved. There was also a lack of follow through in raising and completing certain repairs. This is an area the landlord could improve on to ensure outstanding repair needs are tracked and addressed.
- The landlord did not provide regular updates to the resident on the status of repairs. It also did not gather feedback from the resident or carry out a post inspection to confirm the work was completed satisfactorily, despite the resident continuing to raise concerns. Had it done so, some of the failures identified in this report may have been avoided.