Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202441394)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202441394

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

29 July 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. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould.

Background

  1. In November 2023, the resident raised concerns with the landlord that it had not responded to her reports of repair issues. She advised she had sent in pictures of mould and condensation as advised, but the landlord had not made an appointment.
  2. On 31 January 2024, the resident raised a formal complaint. She noted she had contacted the landlord on 4 October 2023 about damp and mould in her property, but it had taken no action in response. She added she had sent multiple images as requested but had received no response.
  3. The landlord sent the stage 1 response on 15 April 2024. It acknowledged both the resident and her son had health issues. It decided the following:
    1. It would inspect the condensation and damp, and the condition of the windows on 18 April 2024.
    2. It would complete any required works within 28 days or non-routine works within the next 3 months.
    3. There was no evidence the resident had reported items damaged by mould within the previous year. She could claim on her contents insurers or through the landlord’s insurers.
    4. It would offer £275 compensation comprising:
      1. £75 – Service failure in recognition of no action being taken when the resident had reported issues with her windows and spiders entering the property.
      2. £100 – Poor complaints handling in recognition of not responding to the resident’s complaint within the allocated timeframe.
      3. £100 – Time and trouble in recognition of any inconvenience these issues may have caused.
  4. On 15 November 2024, the resident escalated her complaint. She complained work was still outstanding to address mould which had been in the property since the previous year. She thought the problems could be related to overgrown bushes and an air vent outside. She wanted the landlord to complete all works.
  5. The landlord sent the stage 2 response on 15 January 2025, and said the following:
    1. It noted it had carried out mould washes in July 2024, but that mould had returned.
    2. It accepted it did not advise the resident of a missed surveyor appointment of 5 December 2024. At the rescheduled inspection, on 18 December 2024, it noted slight condensation and mould to the corners of the window of the main bedroom.
    3. It had raised a mould wash to remove and treat the mould and had booked an appointment for 23 January 2025.
    4. It had advised the resident on 18 December 2024 to leave trickle vents open.
    5. It would reinspect the property in 3 months’ time.
    6. It offered an additional £400 in compensation which comprised:
      1. £175 – Distress & inconvenience as it did not resolve the issues.
      2. £125 – Time & trouble for the inconvenience that it caused.
      3. £100 – Poor complaint handling due to it extending the service level agreement.
  6. On 9 April 2025, the resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She told us there was still damp and mould in her property, and she thought holes in an external wall may be a cause. She also stated the last property surveyor did not want to attend and had asked her to provide pictures. She disputed his finding that she did not ventilate the property. The resident also said that a number of her possessions had been damaged and destroyed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has advised the Ombudsman that she submitted a claim to the landlord’s insurers regarding loss of possessions. In January 2025, the insurers denied that the landlord was liable for the losses. The Ombudsman considers complaints about member landlords, Registered Providers of Social Housing and voluntary members; we do not consider complaints about financial institutions such as insurance companies. Therefore, we cannot consider or overturn the decision by the landlord’s insurer on the claim.
  2. The resident has expressed concern to the Ombudsman about information the landlord provided to its insurers, in particular after an inspection in December 2024. She notes the surveyor reported her trickle vents were closed which she disputes. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this aspect of her case as it did not form part of her complaint to the landlord. A landlord should have the opportunity to respond to and resolve a complaint issue within its complaints procedure before we can assess its handling of the issue. If the resident has concerns about the information provided by the landlord to its insurers, or any other concern about its handling of the claim, she can submit a new formal complaint to it.

Damp and Mould

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy commenced on 28 March 2022, and the property is a 2-bedroom flat. The resident lives in her property with her son.
  2. The landlord’s repair records show that on 4 October 2025 the resident reported external gaps between her double-glazed windows and the wooden frame that were letting in insects. The landlord attended on 17 October 2023. According to the resident, as stated in her complaint of 31 January 2024, the operative stated he would report back so someone else would resolve the issue. In her complaint, the resident stated she also reported a draught under her back door and condensation and damp on 4 October 2023. The landlord’s repair records show that it did not raise a repair order for these issues.
  3. The resident in her complaint stated she contacted the landlord again on 29 November 2023 as she had not heard back about the repairs that she had raised. She stated that landlord agreed to raise a repair order for the back door and consequently carried out works on 18 December 2023. The landlord’s repair records confirm it raised an order for the back door on 29 November 2023 and that on 18 December 2023 it eased and adjusted the door and installed a draft excluder.
  4. However, in her complaint, the resident also stated on 29 November 2023, the landlord told her to send in pictures of the mould and condensation via WhatsApp after which it would make an appointment. She stated she did so the same day and received a WhatsApp message that confirmed receipt; however, she did not hear back from the landlord. The resident has provided the Ombudsman with a screenshot showing that the landlord did acknowledge her photos on 29 November 2023. Therefore, the landlord had the necessary information to act on her report of damp and mould at this point. However, it did not do so which was caused unnecessary delay, and which therefore was inappropriate.
  5. On 24 January 2024, the resident contacted the landlord about a lack of response to her repair reports. The landlord advised her it had not received her WhatsApp photos and asked her to resend them. It would then assess whether an inspection was needed. In her complaint, the resident stated she resent the photos via WhatsApp on 24 January 2024 but did not receive a message that the photos were received, like before. Given that the resident twice unsuccessfully tried to progress repairs by sending information through WhatsApp, we recommend the landlord review its procedure for receiving and acting on information sent by this method.
  6. When raising her complaint on 31 January 2024, the resident resent her photos via email. Regardless of whether the landlord lost the resident’s messages of 29 November 2023 about damp and mould, it was aware of the issue by 24 January 2024. Moreover, it received the photos on 31 January 2024. The landlord’s website confirms after a report of damp and mould, it should be in touch within 5 working days and work with the resident to identify the causes. The landlord did not contact the resident within this timeframe and confirm how it would deal with her report of damp and mould. In fact, it did not immediately refer the report to its repairs team which caused unnecessary delay. Ultimately, it did not confirm an inspection until the stage 1 response of 15 April 2024, 12 weeks later. This was particularly unreasonable as the resident contended she first reported the damp and mould in October 2023.
  7. Moreover, as stated in our Complaint Handling Code, landlords should set out the actions it had already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. In this case, the landlord failed to use the complaint process to expedite investigation and resolution of the substantive issue.
  8. The landlord’s internal records show the delay in arranging an inspection was caused by a surveyor leaving the organisation. It would appear the landlord lacked the capacity, flexibility, and managerial oversight to ensure it investigated the damp and mould in a timely way. We therefore recommend that the landlord explore how it can minimise the disruption and delay to services from staff turnover, especially when dealing with damp and mould cases.
  9. A surveyor did not attend the resident’s property on 18 April 2025 as promised in the stage 1 response; the landlord’s records show that the surveyor attended on 18 May 2024. This exacerbated the delay in investigating and resolving the damp and mould. The delay was particularly unreasonable given that on 15 April 2024, the resident had sent further photos to show that the damp and mould had deteriorated.
  10. The inspection of 18 May 2024 found damp and mould in the corner of a bedroom. The surveyor thought a hole from a fence post bolted on the external wall could be an external influence. He noted the windows and trickle vents were not open and appeared to be painted shut. The surveyor also noted damp and mould in kitchen, above the sink unit. He thought an external influence could be a possible cold spot passing from the external wall, while a possible internal influence could be lack of heating and ventilation. The surveyor further identified damp and mould in the bathroom alongside the sink, due to a cupboard blocking air movement and heating to the area. He recommended:
    1. checking the fence line to the neighbouring property; removing and making good the post bolted to the building; drying out internal wall.
    2. checking the vent and cold spot to kitchen. A mould wash.
    3. the removal of a unit in the bathroom.
    4. opening up all windows and trickle vents that appeared to be painted shut.
  11. On 21 June 2024, the landlord raised an order to carry out a mould wash to walls and ceiling in the kitchen, living room, and bedrooms, then apply a mould resistant paint. It also raised orders to unbolt the fence post from the property, make good the hole, and relocate the post. It raised a further order to overhaul the extractor fans.
  12. On 30 and 31 July 2024, the landlord completed the mould wash and treatment at the resident’s property. It also carried out works to the fans. It therefore completed some of the works identified to eradicate the damp and mould at the property. However, the contractor did not remove the fence post. In the stage 1 response, the landlord said it would complete works identified at the inspection within 28 days. It did not meet this timeframe which was particularly unreasonable as there was a delay in the inspection in the first instance.
  13. On 27 September 2024, the resident sought an update from the landlord. She stated the operative who attended in July 2024 told her the bolts from the fence was not causing mould but a bush that was growing into an air vent. She stated the operative assured her he would put in a report, but nothing had happened since. Ultimately, the landlord had not completed all the works identified to resolve the mould and damp or investigated the reason why its contractor did not remove the post. The resident had to chase up the outstanding works which exacerbated her time and trouble in seeking a resolution. This indicates there was a lack of oversight by the landlord of the repairs and its contractor.
  14. On 15 November 2024, the resident escalated her complaint. She said there was still damp and mould in the property. She thought the problem could be due to an air vent outside and overgrown bushes. She stated she had been chasing this but received no response.
  15. Following the complaint, the landlord raised another inspection. The parties confirm the surveyor failed to attend an appointment for 5 December 2024, without informing the resident in advance; she only found out he would not be coming when chasing up the appointment on the day. The landlord then attended a rearranged appointment on 18 December 2024. The inspection was over 4 months after the contractor visit, therefore unreasonably delayed. The missed appointment compounded the resident’s inconvenience. The landlord’s Compensation Procedure allows it to compensate for missed appointments after it has considered “personal impact whilst considering aggravating factors”. It is therefore unreasonable that the landlord did not consider compensation for the missed appointment.
  16. According to the landlord’s inspection report, the surveyor found “slight” condensation to a window frame and no sign of internal damp. He found no issue with the fencing attached to the wall. He also found that the trickle vents were closed. After the visit, the surveyor raised an order for another mould wash to the main bedroom at the window. In the stage 2 response of 15 January 2025, the landlord advised the resident of the surveyor’s findings. It confirmed it would carry out the mould wash on 23 January 2025. Its repair records confirm it did carry out the mould wash on or around this date. This was appropriate as it prevented the risk of mould at that time.
  17. Its website states “We’ll monitor the work we’ve done or the support we’ve provided over a 12 month period.”  This recognised the need for landlord to consider the effectiveness of its interventions to eradicate damp and mould. In this case there were 2 mould wash in 6 months. It was therefore important for the landlord after the mould wash of January 2024 to investigate to what extent the mould recurred and how it could prevent further mould. The landlord in the stage 2 response committed to reinspecting around 3 months after the second mould wash. This was in line with the advice on the website. However, there is no evidence the landlord carried out the further inspection. It therefore did not carry out the follow up action to resolve the mould outlined in the stage 2 response.
  18. In summary, there were various delays by the landlord in completing inspections and works to eradicate mould in the resident’s property. A missed appointment compounded the resident’s distress and inconvenience. It has also failed to carry out a follow-up inspection after the second mould wash. The landlord was aware that the resident and her son had health issues, therefore the delays may have an elevated impact on them; however, there is no evidence it took into account to what extent they were vulnerable. For these reasons, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord.
  19. The landlord when providing information for this investigation, reviewed the case. It accepted that it delayed in taking action to resolve the mould, in particular after the resident made a complaint. It wished to offer further compensation of £350. Within the complaints procedure, the landlord offered £475 for its failings in its handling of the damp and mould, £175 at stage 1 and £300 at stage 2. The increased offer amounts to £825. We consider that this sum is more proportionate to the circumstances of the case. It better reflects the delay in dealing with the damp and mould at stage 1 and the fact that the stage 1 compensation offer covered other issues. The increased offer also is within the range of compensation in our Remedies Guidance for cases of maladministration where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. We award a further £20 compensation for the missed appointment of 5 December 2024 which makes an overall award of £845.
  20. The landlord has also advised the Ombudsman that on review of this case it has now introduced new steps to improve its handling of damp and mould cases. They include enhanced contractor oversight, improved communication between departments to expedite complaint resolution, prioritised vulnerable cases, and a dedicated property experience team to manage incomplete repairs related to closed complaints. We acknowledge the improvements which follow our dispute resolution principle of “Learning from Outcomes”. However, we noted that in another complaint concerning damp and mould with delayed repairs, 202326605, we recently ordered the landlord within 8 weeks of the date of that determination, to undertake and complete a strategic review of that case setting out and including learning and improvement opportunities. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the case already determined. We therefore recommend that the landlord consider whether there are any additional issues and learning from this case that can inform and augment the strategic review already ordered.
  21. Regarding complaint handling, the landlord’s complaint procedure states “when investigating and responding to your complaint, we will abide by the timeframes set out in the relevant ombudsman’s code of practice”. This states landlords should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. They should explain the reasons for any extensions, which should be no longer than 10 working days. Landlords should respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. They should explain the reasons for any extensions, which should be no longer that 20 working days.
  22. In this case, the landlord did not meet its timeframes for responding the complaint at both stage 1 and stage 2. It offered compensation of £100 for the delay at each stage. We note that the landlord sent holding responses at both stages, on 19 February 2024, 16 March 2024, 2 April 2024, and 12 December 2024. This managed the resident’s expectations on the progress of the complaint and mitigated the distress and inconvenience from the delays. We therefore consider the £200 that the landlord offered within the complaint procedure for complaint handling failures to be proportionate redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within the next 4 weeks, to:
    1. send the resident an apology for the failures identified in this report. It should take into account our guidance on apologies.
    2. pay the resident compensation of £1,045 which comprises:
      1. the £675 offered at stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaints procedure. if it has not already paid it to the resident
      2. a further £350 to fully reflect the resident’s distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble that arose from the failings in its handling of her reports of damp and mould.
      3. £20 for missed appointment of 5 December 2024.
    3. undertake a further damp and mould inspection. The survey report must:
      1. identify the location, type, and severity of any damp and mould still present within the property.
      2. outline any works identified to rectify the damp and mould.
      3. outline what mitigations are appropriate while the damp and mould is resolved.
    4. The findings of this survey and any works identified must be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman. The landlord must also agree appointments with the resident for completion of the works and ensure adequate oversight through to effective resolution within 6 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
    1. consider whether there are any additional issues and learning from this case that can inform and augment the strategic review of repair issues already ordered for case 202326605.
    2. review its procedure for receiving and acting on information sent by residents on WhatsApp regarding repair issues.
    3. explore how it can minimise the disruption and delay to services from staff turnover, especially when dealing with damp and mould cases.