Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202433437)

Decision
Case ID	202433437
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	25 November 2025

Background

1. As part of planned works, the landlord’s contractor replaced the windows and front door of the resident’s flat. The resident told the landlord that during these works his kitchen worktop had been damaged and the door was fitted poorly. The resident complained because the issues had not been resolved as agreed with the landlord and he disagreed with the landlord’s reports of missed appointments.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
   1. front door repairs and damage to the kitchen worktop.
   2. the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the:
   1. resident’s reports of front door repairs and damage to the kitchen worktop.
   2. associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to the front door repairs and damage to the kitchen

4. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s reports within its repairs policy timescale. In its complaint responses, the landlord said the resident’s actions delayed works but did not provide evidence of this. There was poor record keeping and poor contractor management which likely contributed to the failure to resolve the issues. It did not acknowledge these failings in its complaint responses.

 

 

The associated complaint

5. The landlord did not respond when the resident first complained in 2023 and delayed responding in 2024. It did not acknowledge its 2023 complaint handling failures but offered compensation for its 2024 failings.

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	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 23 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500 made up as follows: £300 for any distress and inconvenience likely caused by its handling of his reports of damage to the worktop and repairs to the front door. £200 for any distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. The £125 previously offered can be deducted if already paid.	No later than 23 December 2025
3	Specific action: worktop damage The landlord must respond in writing to the resident by the due date and explain whether it will replace or pay compensation to the resident for damage to the kitchen worktop. This response should consider its previous commitment to the resident, repairs and compensation policies. This may involve directing him to its insurance details.  The landlord must provide a copy of this to this Service by the due date.	No later than 23 December 2025
4	Completing the works: front door repairs The landlord must take all steps to ensure the work is completed promptly and in any event by the due date. Any appointments offered should be in line with the ‘appointments’ section of its responsive repairs policy. Considering the resident’s circumstances the landlord should clearly explain to the resident what flexible appointments it can offer. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or Explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot.	No later than 23 December 2025

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
As the landlord has terminated its contractor agreement, it may conduct a learning exercise following the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Repairing Trust. The insights gained can be used to improve future contract management practices or inform any re-procurement. This can include how the complaints team will support recovery of any repair’s backlogs.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
June 2023	The contractor installed a new front door and windows. The resident reported damage to his kitchen worktop and that the front door was very poorly installed.
September 2023	The landlord, the contractor and the sub-contractor visited the resident’s home to assess the issues. The contractor agreed to install a new worktop and repair the front door.
October 2023 – January 2024	The resident and contractor communicated about works details and appointments.
March 2024	The resident told the contractor it had not replied to his emails and the repairs were not completed. His complaint was shared with the landlord.
27 April 2024	The contractor attended the property but did not carry out work to the door or worktop.
23 August 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. He said the kitchen worktop damage had not been resolved. He felt the front door was a safety hazard and required significant force to close it. He said the staff members responsible had not responded to his messages. He wanted the door to be fixed and compensation for the worktop.
8 October 2024	The landlord gave its stage 1 response. It said the contractor had offered 3 weekend appointments which were all missed by the resident. It offered a weekday appointment to resolve the issues. It apologised for communication failures and offered £75 compensation for complaint handling and inconvenience.
9 October 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He said he had not missed any weekend appointments and asked why his complaint had not been acknowledged previously. He wanted the issues resolved.
20 November 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It apologised for previously providing incorrect information about missed appointments. It said 2 had been missed by the resident and 1 by the contractor. It reoffered a weekday appointment to resolve the issues and offered £50 compensation for poor complaint handling.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his complaint. He said the issues were causing him stress. He wanted the front door to be repaired on a weekend due to his work commitments and compensation for the worktop. He did not want the contractors previously used to undertake the work.

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 reports of front door repairs and worktop damage.
Finding	Maladministration

6. Under the occupancy agreement the landlord was responsible for the windows, frames and front doors of the property. The resident should allow the landlord’s representatives access for the purpose of repairing the property’s structure.
7. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will assess a repairs priority when the request is received. It classes repairs to rectify or prevent damage as ‘routine’ repairs which it will complete within 28 days. It says it will carry out quality control checks where there have been concerns about the performance of a contractor. It says all complaints will be handled in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.

Damage to the worktop and repairs to the door

8. The resident reported the contractor caused accidental damage to his kitchen worktop. The contractor told the resident it would install a new worktop 2 months later. Although assessment was needed to determine who was responsible for the worktop damage and replacement, the response was outside of the repairs policy timeframe.
9. The resident said he reported the front door did not shut properly, 2 weeks after it was installed. The landlord and contractor visited in September 2023. When assessed against the repairs policy, there was an unreasonable delay in visiting the property to assess the door and quality of works.
10. Evidence from Autumn 2023 and then March 2024, showed the resident regularly requested updates from the contractor and asked it to respond to his previous messages. Incomplete evidence shows there was some communication between the resident and the contractor about potential appointment dates. It is unclear why these appointments did not go ahead.
11. The contractor offered the resident an appointment without seeking his confirmation on 21 March 2024, then cancelled it because he had not confirmed. This approach was unreasonable and likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience. It was the landlord’s responsibility to manage the contractor and to ensure its repairs policies were being followed.
12. The contractor missed an appointment on 13 July 2024. A day later the operative apologised for not attending but did not offer to book another appointment. This likely caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
13. The landlord recognised the information about missed appointments was partially incorrect at stage 2. It said the resident had 2 missed appointments on 18 November 2023 and 27 April 2024.
14. There is no evidence of the November appointment, for example confirmation or missed appointment calling cards. The contractor told the landlord this was a no access appointment. The resident told the landlord that work to his extractor fan was completed on this date and the contractor told him it was unable to carry out work to the door and worktop as they were a “2-man job”.  The landlord was unable to provide evidence related to when the extractor fan work took place in order to consider these events.
15. The landlord made some attempts to put things right during the complaints process. However, it is unclear what evidence the landlord relied upon when determining if the resident was responsible for the delay to repairs. The focus on the resident’s responsibility for the missed appointments in its complaint responses likely contributed further to the breakdown of trust.
16. The landlord offered a next day appointment, which the resident declined because of the lack of notice. The resident also said he did not want the original contractor to complete the works. As part of its responses, the landlord said the offer of a weekday appointment with the contractor was still open. The landlord was entitled to employ a suitably qualified person to attend repairs. However, the complaint response did not address the resident’s concerns about the contractor’s quality and conduct. This was a failing when assessed against its repairs and complaint policies. 
17. The resident continued to report his front door did not close properly and that the worktop damage was not resolved. The resident has said the situation is significantly impacting his mental health and wellbeing. He said he didn’t feel the landlord listened to his concerns about the contractor and he felt it implied he was lying. He said the door could only be closed with extreme force and this had affected his relationship with his neighbours because he works shift patterns and worried about disturbing them coming home late at night.
18. In its complaint responses, the landlord did not acknowledge it had failed to follow its repairs policy. This was not in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles of be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. We have made an order of compensation for any distress or inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s response to the issues raised. This is in line with our Remedies Guidance for failures which have had an adverse effect on the resident, which may include distress, inconvenience or time and trouble.
19. We have also made orders for the landlord to work with the resident to find a mutually beneficial solution about the damaged worktop and so it can complete the necessary repairs to the front door.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

20. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition. Our findings are:
    1. the landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the Code in respect of timescales.
    2. the resident told the contractor he was dissatisfied with the work it had carried out in June 2023. The contractor said it had shared this complaint with the landlord and all communication about the issue would be handled by the landlord. The resident expressed dissatisfaction again in March 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge either of these reports, which was not in line with its policy.
    3. the resident complained directly to the landlord in August 2024. The landlord incorrectly recorded the date the complaint was received and acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint after 18 days. It responded 14 days after its acknowledgement. This was not in line with its policy timescales.
    4. the landlord acknowledged and responded to the stage 2 complaint within the timescales laid out in its policy.
21. While the landlord offered £125 for the complaint handling delays, it did not apologise for the failure to raise the 2 complaints made via the contractor. This was a missed opportunity to put things right and learn from previous outcomes. Had the landlord done so, this may have prevented the resident time and trouble as he had to raise the complaint via multiple channels over a prolonged period. We have therefore ordered an apology and additional compensation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation. Since this complaint, the landlord said it has terminated its agreement with the contractor due to ongoing concerns about service quality. The landlord has said it is therefore unable to access full repairs and appointment records for this time. This poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Communication

23. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight: Repairing Trust highlights the importance of landlord’s putting in place good contract management processes, recognising when things have gone wrong and providing evidence-based responses to build trust with residents. If the landlord had followed these recommendations, it may have resolved this complaint earlier.