We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202441975)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202441975

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

15 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of water ingress.
    2. The resident’s reports about issues with his front door.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder. He lives on the top floor of a 3-story building.
  2. The resident is blind and suffers from asthma.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 22 January 2024 to report water ingress in his bedroom, which he believed was coming from the roof. The resident then reported on 28 February 2024 that the water ingress had spread to the communal corridor. He said his front door had warped due to the water ingress and was no longer able to close or lock. The landlord attended the same day but mistakenly attended to the front door of the building. The landlord’s contractor followed this up on 29 February 2024 to perform a temporary repair to make safe his door.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 March 2024 to raise a formal complaint. He was unhappy that the landlord had failed to resolve the water ingress. He said the landlord had inspected but had undertaken no repairs. He also said he was concerned that his door could warp again due to the ongoing water ingress. The landlord’s records note that it performed an inspection and leak testing to the roof on 1 May 2024, but it was unable to find the cause of the water ingress.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 5 June 2024. It upheld the resident’s complaint, saying that it should have acted sooner to stop the water ingress and that its communications with the resident had been poor. It offered the resident £850 compensation. This consisted of £350 for its service failures, £350 for his time and trouble and £150 for complaint handling failures.  The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 13 June 2024. He felt that the level of compensation was not sufficient, considering the landlord had still not repaired the roof. He also said his door remained less secure than it had been prior to the water ingress. He also felt the landlord had not considered his vulnerabilities.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 27 August 2024. The landlord said it had replaced the lock on the resident’s door on 12 August 2024 and undertook an inspection of the roof on 22 August 2024. It told the resident that it was unable to find any faults which would have caused the leak. It said that, as the roof was no longer leaking and the door was repaired, it would take no further action. The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £1050. This consisted of £400 for its service failure, £250 for complaint handling failures and £400 for time and trouble.
  7. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 19 January 2025, asking us to consider his complaint. He said the water ingress had started again in January 2025, which he felt was due to the landlord’s failure to perform a permanent repair. He said the ongoing ingress had affected both his physical and mental health. He said to resolve his complaint he wanted a permanent repair to the roof and additional compensation. He wanted the compensation to cover his insurance excesses for fixing his ceiling, as well as for the delays and the landlord’s failure to recognise his vulnerabilities.

Assessment and findings

The scope of this investigation

  1. The resident has said that the effects of the water ingress have had a negative effect on his health. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to decide on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While the Ombudsman cannot assess the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The resident’s lease says it is the landlord’s responsibility to ‘maintain, repair, redecorate, renew…the roof foundations and main structure of the building and all the external parts thereof including all external and load-bearing walls the windows and doors on the outside of the flats within the building’. It is the resident’s responsibility to ‘repair and keep the premises clean and in good and substantial repair and condition’. The premises of the building include ‘the ceilings’ and ‘the whole of the interior doors’.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy has several timescales. For emergency repairs – ‘any repair that may cause significant risk to the safety of our tenants or significant damage to the property’ – the landlord says it will attend to make safe within 24 hours. For routine appointments, the landlord says it will attend within 28 calendar days. For non-routine repairs, repairs which ‘may take longer than the routine period due to complexity, material needs or considerations needed for safety’, it says it will complete the repair within 90 days.

The landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress.

  1. The resident first reported water ingress into the property on 22 January 2024. The earliest evidence of the landlord’s attendance to inspect the water ingress is on 5 April 2024. This was outside of the timescale for it to attend to a routine repair. Given the resident’s vulnerability and the fact that there was water ingress from the ceiling of the property, the landlord should have treated this as an emergency and attended within 24 hours. The landlord’s failure to treat the resident’s report with the appropriate severity represented service failure.
  2. By the time of the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord had performed no repairs to the roof, nor had it discovered the cause of the water ingress. Its inspection on 22 August 2024 found no signs of water ingress. However, the landlord’s internal records from its inspection note a failure of the substructure of the roof. Despite this, the landlord told the resident it would not be taking any further action.
  3. This again represented a clear service failure on the part of the landlord. It was aware of structural problems yet closed the repair before it had completed any in-depth inspections or surveys to diagnose the cause of the water ingress. Considering the resident believed the water ingress was the result of rain, the landlord should have considered this when investigating.
  4. It is unclear to the Ombudsman why, despite telling the resident it had closed the repair as part of its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord undertook a further inspection on 13 September 2024. This inspection noted that the leak had likely returned and noted the presence of standing water on the roof and the top coating ‘delaminating’. The fact that the landlord’s own records indicate the water ingress remained ongoing only 2 weeks after its stage 2 complaint response clearly highlights that the landlord failed to respond adequately to the resident’s reports and to communicate openly about the steps it was taking. The evidence suggests the landlord undertook a surveyor’s report in November 2024, but that it has not yet completed any permanent repairs.
  5. The landlord also failed to provide evidence to demonstrate it took into consideration that it was dealing with a vulnerable resident’s reports. The resident told the landlord that he had difficulties discerning exactly where the water ingress was located due to his disability, and this was causing him significant distress and inconvenience. The landlord also should have considered the potential health hazards of leaving a resident with asthma in a property that had ongoing water ingress. Considering these vulnerabilities, the landlord should have treated his reports with the appropriate severity and attended to the repairs in appropriate timescales, which it failed to do.
  6. The resident’s lease puts the responsibility on him to repair his ceilings. The resident told the Ombudsman he went through his own insurance to get the remedial works paid for, which would be the usual process in the circumstances. Whilst this may usually be the case, given the delays on the landlord’s part (which it acknowledged), the landlord should have confirmed with the resident if it would be willing to take perform any remedial works to his ceiling, or if it would pay his insurance excess.
  7. As the landlord has not completed repairs to stop the water ingress, the landlord should also consider its position on its actions towards any outstanding remedial repairs. It should write to the resident providing details of its own liability insurance if he wishes to claim on this. It should also confirm if it would be willing to perform any outstanding remedial repairs or if it would be willing to pay the resident’s insurance excess.
  8. The resident also reported that water ingress had spread to the communal corridor ceiling. The resident said he reported this on 12 February 2024, but the landlord’s records do not have any evidence of reports about this until 28 February 2024. This water ingress damaged the plastering and required repainting. This repair would be the landlord’s responsibility under the resident’s lease. The landlord made good the damage to the communal corridor on 15 July 2024. It took the landlord over 5 months from the date the resident reported damage to complete the repair. This fell outside of the timescales specified in the landlord’s repairs policy and again represented service failure.
  9. The landlord’s records indicate that it is seeking to repair the roof through its insurance. Whilst the landlord can repair the roof through whatever means it sees fit, it should ensure that this does not result in unreasonable delays. In this instance, there have been unreasonable delays in repairing the roof, which have resulted in the resident suffering from additional distress and inconvenience caused by the ongoing water ingress. It remains unclear from the evidence provided by the landlord if it has now identified the root cause of water ingress to the resident’s property. It is also unclear if the landlord has any further plans for investigations, a schedule of works for repairs or any temporary repairs in the meantime. The landlord’s failure to demonstrate a clear plan to repair the roof represents ongoing service failure and the lack of a timeline for repairs undoubtedly has caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience.
  10. The landlord has recognised in its complaint responses that it fell short in dealing with the resident’s reports, offering compensation for this. This amount was £800. Considering the resident’s vulnerabilities, the length of the delays in its initial investigations and the fact that the landlord has still failed to complete a repair, this is not a large enough offer of compensation.
  11. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress represents maladministration. The landlord should increase its offer of compensation to £1200. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which recommends figures in this region where there has been a failing which had a significant impact on the resident.
  12. The landlord should also calculate a new offer of compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its ongoing failings. The landlord should consider this from the date of the stage 2 complaint response to the date it estimates it will complete repairs to the roof to stop the water ingress.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about issues with his front door

  1. When the water ingress from the roof spread to the communal corridor, it damaged the resident’s front door. The resident reported that his front door and doorframe had warped, and that as a result, he was unable to properly close and lock his door. As this was a ‘door on the outside of the flat’ this would be the landlord’s responsibility to repair.
  2. The landlord logged this as an emergency repair and sent someone out within 24 hours as per its repairs policy. However, it failed to correctly arrange this repair, resulting in its operative attending to the front door of the building, rather than the resident’s front door. The landlord’s failure to ensure that it logged the job correctly resulted in a failure to attend to this repair in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy. This caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience.
  3. The landlord attended on 29 February 2024 and performed a temporary repair to the resident’s front door. Notes from its contractor about this appointment mention that it performed a repair to ‘make safe’. However, it also mentioned that the resident may require a new door and frame.
  4. The landlord failed to follow up on this repair despite the resident continuing to inform the landlord that he was concerned the door was not as secure as it was previously. It’s unclear from the evidence if the landlord ever undertook any further inspections to determine if it needed to replace the door. The landlord’s failure to evidence a follow-up repair in a reasonable timeframe represents service failure.
  5. The landlord should write to the resident to confirm if it would be willing to reimburse the resident for the cost of replacing the door.
  6. The landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response that it replaced the lock on the resident’s door on 12 August 2024. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence of this appointment. Its repair records do not feature this repair. The resident has told the Ombudsman that he had to have the door replaced at his own expense. Given the lack of evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to say that the landlord acted to complete all of the necessary follow-up repairs to the problems the resident reported with his door.
  7. The landlord awarded £800 compensation through the complaints process. We have assessed this above against the failings in its handling of the reports of water ingress. Given the landlord’s failings in following up the door repairs in a reasonable timeframe, we have found maladministration and ordered additional compensation.
  8. The landlord should therefore pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in handling the resident’s reports about issues with his front door. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which recommends figures in this range where there has been a failure which had an adverse effect on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy has 2 stages. At stage 1, the landlord says it will acknowledge the resident’s complaint within 5 working days of receiving the complaint. It then says it will provide its stage 1 complaint response within a further 10 working days. At stage 2 of the complaint process, the landlord says it will acknowledge a resident’s escalation request within 5 working days and provide its complaint response within a further 20 working days. At both stages of the complaints process, the landlord says that if it needs further time to investigate it will agree further extensions with residents.
  2. The resident made his complaint to the landlord on 2 March 2024. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response 64 working days later on 5 June 2024. The landlord did inform the resident of delays, extending its response date on 5 occasions. Whilst it was good practice from the landlord to inform the resident of delays, the number of extensions was excessive.
  3. The size of the delay in providing its response and the excessive number of extensions the landlord sent the resident undoubtedly caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience. Its handling of the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process, therefore, represented service failure.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 13 June 2024, and the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 27 August 2024. This was 53 working days later. The landlord again informed the resident of the delays, sending extension letters on 2 occasions. The time it took the landlord to provide its response was outside of the timescales specified in its complaints policy.
  5. The landlord itself recognised that its handling of the resident’s complaint, and its delays in providing its complaint responses, fell short of its expected service standards.  At stage 1 of the complaints process it offered the resident £150 compensation for its handling of his complaint. It then increased this amount to £350 in its stage 2 complaint response.
  6. The landlord’s offer of compensation for its complaint handling failures represents a reasonable offer of redress. This is in the range of figures recommended by the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a failing from the landlord which adversely affected the resident.

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 of water ingress.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs to his front door.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this letter the landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident £1400 compensation consisting of £1200 compensation for its handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress (inclusive of its previous offer of £800), and £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in handling of the resident’s reports about issues with his front door.
    2. Write to the resident to:
      1. Apologise to the resident for the findings identified in this report.
      2. Assess its handling of any reports of water ingress since its stage 2 complaint response in August 2024 and decide what additional compensation is warranted.
      3. Outline its position in relation to any outstanding remedial repairs. The landlord should provide the details of its insurer if the resident wishes to raise a claim against it. The landlord should also confirm if it would be willing to perform any remedial repairs or pay any associated costs such as insurance excesses.
      4. Confirm if it has now identified the cause of the water ingress. If it has the landlord should provide the resident with a full explanation of the cause of the water ingress and provide a schedule of works for completing any necessary repairs.
    3. If the landlord has not diagnosed the cause of the water ingress it should organise a full survey of the roof. This should provide a diagnosis of the cause of the water ingress. Within 2 weeks of this survey the landlord should provide a written copy of this, as well as a full schedule of works for completing any recommends works, to the resident and the Ombudsman.
    4. Provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has carried out the orders as set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should reoffer the resident the £250 it offered in its stage 2 complaint response for its failures in handling his complaint if it has not already paid this amount. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based upon this amount being paid to the resident.

The landlord should review its record-keeping practices to ensure that it has an accurate record of all repair appointments that it undertakes.