Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202431911)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202431911

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

20 August 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 handling of:
1. Repairs while the resident was temporarily moved out of the property, including the standard of work and damage caused by contractors.
2. Reimbursing the resident for heating costs, including costs incurred while she was living in temporary accommodation.
3. The resident’s request for wheelchair storage.
4. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)
5. The resident’s request for rehousing.
6. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is represented by a family member in the complaint. For ease of reference both will be referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report. The resident is the tenant of the property, which is a flat within a block. The property is accessed from 3 sets of external steps, and 3 flights of stairs. The block has a stairlift but no lift. The landlord is aware that the resident has medical vulnerabilities which affect her mobility.
The resident had an open ASB case with the landlord which involved serious ASB from a neighbour’s guest against another neighbour. This involved threatening behaviour and a physical assault.
On 15 November 2022 the landlord told the resident that a criminal trial against the neighbour and their guest had finished, and it was starting possession proceedings for the neighbour’s property. During November and December 2022, the landlord asked the resident to provide witness statements and other evidence to build its case. It also confirmed that the neighbour and their guest were no longer living in the block. The landlord asked the landlord to consider moving her to another property as she was concerned about her identity being known to the neighbour and their guest.
On 30 March 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s application to be rehoused to another of its properties. She supplied it with medical evidence on 6 April 2023 to support her position that the current property was unsuitable for her medical needs. The landlord told her on 23 May 2023 that it had considered her evidence and awarded her with the second highest priority banding for rehousing on its in-house property bidding website.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 11 September 2023. She said wanted it to change her priority banding to the highest. The resident said that the property was not suitable for her as it had led to her having falls. She added that the ASB issues had left her feeling unsafe in the property.
The landlord gave its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 12 October 2023. It said that the highest priority banding was reserved for “extreme circumstances where customers are facing life or death situations”. The landlord said that the neighbour was not living in the block and provided the details of the officer handling the ASB investigation if the resident wanted further information. It acknowledged its stage 1 complaint response was late and offered £50 compensation for this.
The resident escalated her complaint, which the landlord acknowledged on 17 April 2024. We have not seen the content of the complaint escalation request however, the landlord told us the resident escalated her complaint after being unsuccessful in bidding for a property. The landlord gave the resident its final stage complaint response on 11 June 2024. It reiterated that the highest banding priority for transferring properties was reserved for extreme circumstances. Regarding the reported ASB in the resident’s block, the landlord said “while this did not form part of your escalation request” it confirmed that it was currently working to evict the alleged perpetrator. It acknowledged that it had not responded to the resident’s complaint within its advertised timeframes and offered her a further £100 in compensation for this.
The landlord told us that it had been granted possession of the neighbour’s property by the court on 4 December 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The following complaints are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs while the resident was temporarily moved out of the property, including the standard of work and damage caused by contractors.
2. The landlord’s decision not to reimburse the resident for heating costs, including costs incurred while staying in temporary accommodation.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for wheelchair storage.
Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. This is because the landlord must be given the opportunity to respond to the resident’s dissatisfaction through its complaints procedure. We acknowledge that the resident was unhappy about these issues, however, there is no evidence that she raised the above points in her formal complaint to the landlord. Therefore, in line with the Scheme, these issues will not be considered in this investigation.
The landlord told the resident on 1 July 2025 that the bedroom requirement in her rehousing application had been changed to 2 bedrooms in September 2023. The resident was unhappy as her application was for 3 bedrooms, and she had not been told at the time that this had been changed.
The resident told us on 20 November 2024 that the landlord failed to give her details of available properties before they were advertised on its bidding site. She said it had previously agreed to this. These issues did not form part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord. Therefore, they will also not be considered in our investigation of its handling of her request for rehousing.
The resident may wish to raise the above concerns with the landlord as a new complaint. If the complaint completes the landlord’s complaints procedure, and she remains unhappy, she may be able to bring the complaint to the Ombudsman at that stage.
Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not made to the landlord within a reasonable period of time. This is normally within 12 months of the matters arising. This is because, with the passage of time, historical records may be incomplete or unreliable and the staff involved may no longer be available.
The evidence shows that there was an ongoing ASB case with the resident against her neighbour. There was no evidence that she tried to raise a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the ASB before September 2023. In line with the Scheme, this investigation has only considered events from September 2022 onwards. This is 12 months before the resident made her complaint to the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

There was no evidence of a failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. It was not disputed that the resident’s neighbour had allowed their guest to commit serious ASB against another resident which resulted in criminal proceedings. We have not seen the neighbour’s tenancy agreement, however these typically prohibit tenants from allowing anyone visiting their properties to commit acts of ASB. Given the seriousness of the incident, the landlord acted reasonably to evict the neighbour. It was appropriate for the landlord to begin possession proceedings after the criminal case had ended so that it did not interfere with the ongoing criminal investigation.
While the landlord took appropriate steps to address the ASB, it missed opportunities to communicate effectively with the resident. The resident expressed concerns to the landlord over her identity becoming known through the possession proceedings and concerns over the neighbour and their guest returning to the property. This caused her distress. There was no evidence of the landlord responding to the resident to give her advice on what steps to take if she felt threatened, such as signposting her to the police. The police are the most appropriate agency to lead on criminal matters such as harassment or threats of violence.
While the landlord had limited powers to take action against the neighbour’s guest, as they were not its tenant, the landlord could have explained this to the resident. It could have also been more proactive in keeping the resident informed of the progress of the eviction. When it provided updates to the resident, these were prompted by repeat contact from her, and through her complaint. Proactive communication would have demonstrated that it took her distress at the situation into account.
Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reported ASB. However, we will recommend that it reviews its communication procedures with residents affected by ASB in its properties to ensure that it responds appropriately to their concerns and keeps them updated.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing

The landlord operates an internal bidding system for residents who wish to transfer between its properties. It prioritises rehousing residents according to priority bandings. Its “Transfers – Priority Banding” guidance sets out the 2 highest priorities as:
1. Emergency. This involves “Safeguarding including Domestic Abuse, Harassment or Hate Crime (to avoid an immediate threat to life and supported by third party evidence).”
2. High priority. The reasons for allocating this band include:
  1. “Medical (the resident is unable to return to the property for medical reasons. This will be supported by a medical professional and assessed by independent medical advisors).”
  2. “Welfare need (security, wellbeing) the resident is unable to live in or return to the property. This will be supported by current evidence from third party professionals.”
The landlord’s award of the second highest priority banding showed that it acknowledged and appropriately considered the resident’s vulnerabilities. The resident’s doctor’s letter, dated 6 April 2023, highlighted that the resident had significant mobility issues and other vulnerabilities. The letter said that the current property was unsuitable for her health conditions. As mentioned above, this is given to residents who are unable to live in their current property due to medical reasons. There was no evidence of a failure by the landlord in its decision.
As part of this investigation, we have asked the landlord for any advice from third parties concerning the reported ASB. There was no evidence to support that there was an immediate danger to the resident’s life from the ASB. If there was an immediate danger, this would typically be supported by a statement from the police confirming that an immediate move was required. Therefore, the landlord appropriately followed its procedure.
There was no evidence of a failure by the landlord in not awarding the highest priority banding for rehousing to the resident. Overall, there was no maladministration by the landlord in this aspect of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy mirrors the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Any landlord which is a member of the Scheme must comply with the Code which sets out our expectations of how it handles complaints.
The Code sets out that complaints and complaint escalations should be acknowledged within 5 working days. At stage 1 of the complaints procedure, the landlord should respond to the resident within 10 working days. At the final stage of the procedure, it should respond within 20 working days. If it is unable to meet any of these timeframes it should explain why to the resident and agree a new timeframe for responding.
The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 11 September 2023. There was no evidence of the landlord acknowledging this. It therefore should have provided its stage 1 response to her by 25 September 2023. However, it did not do so, and told the resident on 29 September 2023, after 15 working days, that it required an extension until 12 October 2023. There was a delay in the landlord’s handling of the stage 1 complaint. It was positive that it recognised this in its stage 1 complaint response and offered the resident £50 compensation. The compensation amount was appropriate for the inconvenience caused by this delay.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation request on 17 April 2024. We cannot determine if the landlord acknowledged the escalation request promptly, although this is not disputed. It then issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 11 June 2024. This was after 38 working days, which was almost twice as long as the timeframe set out in the Code. There was no evidence that the landlord agreed an extension with the resident. This was a failure to respond to the complaint in a timely manner. It was positive that the landlord acknowledged, in its final stage complaint response, that it had provided its response late. It offered £100 compensation to the resident to recognise the inconvenience this caused.
The landlord’s total offer of £150 for its complaint handling failures is broadly in line with our remedies guidance, which is available to view on our website. This say that awards of compensation between £100 and £600 are appropriate when there has been a failing by the landlord but the effect of this on the resident was not permanent. As the delays by the landlord were not excessively long, and the delay did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint, its total offer of £150 was reasonable. We therefore consider that the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident which resolves this aspect of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following complaints are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs while the resident was temporarily moved out of the property, including the standard of work and damage caused by contractors.
2. The landlord’s handling of reimbursing the resident for heating costs, including costs incurred while she was living in temporary accommodation.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for wheelchair storage.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of ASB.
2. Request for rehousing.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the compensation of £150 it offered her in its stage 1 and final stage complaint responses. Our finding of reasonable redress is dependent on it paying this amount to her.
The landlord should contact the resident to discuss her concerns about the ASB to clarify the current situation. It should set out the resident’s next steps if she is concerned about any potential future ASB issues from the neighbour or their guest. It would be reasonable to signpost the resident to services which may be able to provide her with support.
The landlord should respond to the following issues at stage 1 of its complaints process.
1. Its handling of repairs while the resident was temporarily moved out of the property, including the standard of work and damage caused by contractors.
2. Reimbursing the resident for heating costs, including costs incurred while she was living in temporary accommodation.
3. The resident’s request for wheelchair storage.
4. Not informing the resident that her rehousing application had been changed to a requirement for 2-bedroomed properties.
5. The landlord’s agreement to tell the resident about available properties before they were advertised on its bidding website.
The landlord should review its communication procedures for communicating with residents who are affected by ASB to ensure that their concerns are considered and responded to appropriately, and they are signposted to appropriate support services.