Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202447347)

Decision
Case ID	202447347
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	14 October 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a first floor flat. He complained that the landlord had not resolved a leak into his kitchen from the roof. He also complained that it had not repaired his kitchen light or responded to his concerns about water entering the light fixture. The resident said he suffered a brain injury in October 2024. The landlord was aware of this by January 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports that:
   1. there was a leak in his kitchen.
   2. his kitchen light was not working.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that there was a leak in his kitchen.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that his kitchen light was not working.
6. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Leak in the kitchen and the kitchen light

7. We found that the landlord:
   1. unreasonably delayed in completing repairs to a leak into the kitchen.
   2. did not respond to the resident’s reports that his kitchen light was not working between January and June 2024.
   3. delayed unreasonably in repairing the light. The landlord failed to consider interim solutions while the repairs were outstanding.
   4. did not record the resident’s vulnerabilities or address reports that the outstanding repairs were impacting his health. Nor did it assess risk or consider his vulnerabilities when assessing the priority of repairs.
   5. did not respond to the resident’s safety concerns about the light or his reports that the leak had damaged his possessions.

The complaint handling

8. We found that the landlord did not complete actions as agreed in its complaint response and unreasonably delayed in issuing a stage 2 complaint response. It offered proportionate compensation for its complaint handling failures but did not acknowledge all its failures or set out any learning.

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 11 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,650 made up as follows: £650 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s reports that there was a leak in his kitchen. £775 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s reports that his kitchen light was not working. £225 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid as offered in its complaint responses.	No later than 11 November 2025
3	Learning order The landlord must write to the resident and set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.	No later than 11 November 2025
4	Specific action The landlord must accurately record the resident’s reported vulnerabilities.	No later than 11 November 2025
5	Specific action The landlord must respond in writing to the resident’s report that the leak caused damage to his possessions.	No later than 11 November 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
17 April 2023	The resident reported a leak due to blocked guttering.
5 June 2023	Contractors cleared the guttering and pipes.
5 January 2024	The resident reported to the landlord that there was a reoccurring leak in his kitchen from the roof and he was worried the ceiling would collapse. He said there was no main light in the kitchen due to water damage, and he was worried it may be a hazard.
10 June 2024	The resident complained to the landlord and said: it had not resolved the leak in his ceiling for 5 years. he had no light in the kitchen for years and had to use a portable light to prepare food. he was concerned about a potential hazard as water from the leak entered the light fixture. the ongoing issues were causing him distress and impacting his health.
31 July 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 response and said: it apologised for not completing the repairs, and the inconvenience caused by the leak and not having a light. sorry for its delay in acknowledging and responding to his complaint and for its lack of communication. repairs to the roof would begin on 2 August 2024. Once these were completed, it said it would raise repairs for any internal damage. it offered £225 compensation. £75 for poor complaint handling, £100 for failing to complete repairs and £50 for time and trouble.
27 January 2025	The resident escalated his complaint and said: the leak was worse and was now in 2 places and he still had no kitchen light. He said this had impacted his health. the leak had caused damage to his possessions. his brain injury caused vision problems, seizures and dizziness. He said the lighting in the kitchen was unsafe for him. He asked to move if the landlord could not complete the repairs.
7 April 2025	Contractors completed works to the roof to repair the leak.
9 May 2025	The landlord issued a stage 2 response and said: sorry for the delay in its response and lack of communication. it offered referrals for support with his health. it had completed leak repairs on 16 September 2024. It said he had reported a leak again and it could not access the property in October 2024. it had completed works on 7 April 2025 and would schedule a post–works inspection within 5 working days. It said it would then schedule routine internal repairs within 28 days. it offered additional compensation of £650. £150 for complaint handling delays, £250 for inconvenience due to reoccurring leak repairs and £250 for inconvenience due to having no light.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us as he was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 response, and it had not repaired his kitchen light. He wanted increased compensation. He wanted the landlord to recognise his vulnerabilities and acknowledge where it had got things wrong.   He said the kitchen leak caused damage to his belongings.
12 August 2025	After its internal complaints procedure, the landlord offered the resident an additional £500 compensation. This included £300 for the prolonged loss of lighting in his kitchen and £200 as it hadn’t arranged a post-works inspection. It also set out further failures and its learning to the Ombudsman.
10 September 2025	The landlord repaired the resident’s kitchen light.

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	Response to the resident’s reports that there was a leak in the kitchen.
Finding	Maladministration

9. There is a history of the resident reporting a reoccurring leak in his kitchen since 2019. He raised previous complaints with his landlord about this. Our investigation has focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from April 2023. This is also the period the landlord investigated in its internal complaints procedure. We may refer to events before this for context.
10. The resident reported that the guttering was blocked and causing a leak when it rained on 27 April 2023. Contractors attended on 12 May 2023, within the landlord’s 28-day timescale for routine repairs. They rescheduled works as they needed increased resources and cleared the gutter and pipes on 5 June 2023, which was reasonable. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to assess and record the severity of the leak to be able to decide whether interim measures were required in the 2 months between the resident’s report and the landlord’s completion of the works.
11. The landlord said the resident reported that there was a leak when it rained on 1 August 2023. It said it repaired the pipes and cleared the gutter on 16 August 2023. It has not provided evidence of the resident’s report or the works it completed. We therefore cannot assess its actions in relation to this.
12. When the resident reported a leak from the roof into his kitchen on 5 January 2024, the landlord attended within its timescale for routine repairs, but the resident cancelled an appointment on 29 January 2024. On 13 February 2024 contractors attended and confirmed scaffolding was required. The landlord raised scaffolding works on 14 February 2024 which was reasonable. It is unclear from the landlord’s records whether scaffolding was erected and works were completed, which is a record keeping failure.
13. That the landlord did not assess the severity of the leak or consider interim repairs whilst the repair remained outstanding was unreasonable. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord raised another job to inspect the leak. It said a surveyor inspected on 3 July 2024 but has not provided evidence of this, or of the outcome of the inspection. In its complaint response, the landlord attempted to put things right by offering redress. It said roof works would begin on 2 August 2024, and the resident confirmed that it completed some works to the roof in 2024. However, the landlord has not provided evidence that it completed works as agreed.
14. On 29 August 2024 the resident reported that the leak was ongoing when it rained. The landlord raised further works on 11 September 2024. The delay in raising works was unreasonable. The landlord said it completed works on 16 September 2024. However, its records are unclear. They suggest the walls were dry on inspection on this date and that contractors took pictures of previous works but do not confirm the works completed.
15. The landlord raised roof repair works on 23 September 2024. Its records contain no details about the repair. It was unable to access the property on multiple occasions in October 2024 despite reasonable attempts. It rebooked an appointment with the resident and contractors attended on 28 October 2024, confirming “major issues” with water coming into the kitchen.
16. Although the resident said contractors attended in January 2025, the evidence suggests the landlord took no action to repair the leak for 3 months from October 2024, until the resident escalated his complaint. This was an unreasonable delay. The resident requested an update on scaffolding being erected in November 2024 and January 2025. It did not provide him with timely updates, which was a communication failure.
17. The landlord raised a recall repair on 27 January 2025, with a target deadline of 3 months, which suggests it was raised as a major routine repair. It is unclear how it assessed the priority of these works. The landlord’s repairs guide confirms it may be necessary to complete major works in a shorter timescale and/ or to temporarily rehouse residents for major repairs works. That the landlord did not consider the resident’s reported vulnerabilities or the reported impact of the leak on his health when assessing the priority of works was unreasonable. It was also unreasonable for it not to respond to the resident’s request to move.
18. On 26 February 2025 the landlord told the resident the target date for completion was 3 March 2025 but did not complete works within this timescale. It completed repairs to the roof on 7 April 2025. It is unclear from the landlord’s records what works were completed and whether they were effective.
19. The resident said the ongoing repairs caused him distress and that he was at “breaking point.”
20. The landlord attempted to put things right by offering additional redress and agreeing to carry out a post-works inspection in its stage 2 response. However, it did not set out any learning or complete this inspection as agreed. We found that the amount of compensation it offered was not proportionate to the amount of service failures, the length of time the repairs were outstanding and the impact on the resident and have ordered it to pay additional compensation.
21. The landlord later completed a post-works inspection on 5 August 2025, and the resident confirmed there had been no further leaks following recent heavy rainfall.

Complaint	Response to the resident’s reports that his kitchen light was not working.
Finding	Maladministration

22. Although the kitchen light repair was outstanding before 2022, our investigation has focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from April 2023. This is also the period the landlord investigated in its internal complaints procedure. We may refer to events before this for context.
23. The landlord attempted to repair the resident’s light in 2022 but said it could not access the property. The resident reported that the light was still not working on 5 January 2024. The landlord took no action until after the resident complained on 20 June 2024, which was unreasonable. It did not respond to the resident’s concerns that the water entering the light fixture may be a hazard.
24. On 28 June 2024 the landlord raised works to repair the light. It said a surveyor inspected on 3 July 2024. It noted internally that the light had been isolated. However, it has not provided evidence of this, or that it responded to the resident’s safety concerns, which is unreasonable.
25. The resident said he was unable to use his kitchen to prepare food when it was dark and felt the property was unsafe for him.
26. In its stage 1 response it was reasonable for the landlord to confirm the action it would take to repair the light and offer redress to attempt to put things right. However, it did not repair the light as agreed.
27. At stage 2, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer increased redress and offer to refer him for further support due to his vulnerabilities. However, we have ordered it to pay additional compensation as the amount offered was not proportionate to the length of time the repairs were outstanding and the impact on the resident.
28. The landlord did not set out specific learning in its stage 2 response. Nor did it address the resident’s concerns that the lighting in the property was unsafe due to his vulnerabilities. Given that it did not complete the lighting repair for almost 8 months after he escalated his complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to:
    1. complete a risk assessment
    2. assess whether it was appropriate to offer any interim measures to temporarily resolve the resident’s lighting issue.
29. The landlord did not complete the light repair for a further 4 months after its stage 2 response. Although it made various attempts to complete the repair and could not access the property in August and September 2025, this was an unreasonable delay.

Complaint	Handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

30. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 20 July 2024, 3 working days outside the timescales in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It apologised and offered compensation for this in its stage 1 response. On 3 and 17 July 2024 it provided timely updates to let the resident know it was extending the timeframe to respond by 10 working days. It provided reasons for its extensions in line with the Code. It issued a stage 1 response on 31 July 2024, within the timescales agreed.
31. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 2 on 3 February 2025, within the Code’s timescales. On 27 February 2025 it provided a timely update by letting the resident know it was extending the timeframe to respond by 10 working days. It provided reasons for its extension in line with the Code.
32. It did not provide a further update until 21 working days later, which was a communication failure. On 28 March 2025, it extended its timescales to respond by a further 20 working days and issued a stage 2 response 28 working days later, which was an unreasonable delay. That it did not provide an update in the meantime was a communication failure.
33. The landlord apologised for its complaint handling delays and communication. It offered redress for its complaint handling delays at stages 1 and 2. However, it did not set out any learning.

Learning

34. In its complaint responses the landlord said it would feed back internally and to its contractors but did not outline any meaningful learning from the substantive issue or complaint handling. It set out additional failures and learning to the Ombudsman on 12 August 2025, which is positive. It would have been in line with our dispute resolution principle of putting things right for the landlord to set these out to the resident within its internal complaints procedure.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. The landlord has not provided evidence of all reports of repairs or completed works. Some of its repairs records are unclear and do not detail the nature or outcome of the works completed. At times, this has impacted our ability to assess its actions. It also failed to record the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Communication

36. The landlord did not keep the resident updated about the repairs whilst they were outstanding. It demonstrated a lack of oversight of its contractors which may have contributed to the failings identified. It did not keep the resident updated when its stage 2 response was further delayed.