Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202451146)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202451146

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

16 September 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 landlords handling of:
   1. Damp and mould, and the associated repairs.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association since September 2020. The property is a 2-bedroom flat and the resident lives with his wife and 3 children.
3. The landlord said that it is aware of a health condition, which affects the resident’s mobility. Reasonable adjustments are flagged on its internal systems. The landlord is also aware that 2 of the resident’s children are asthmatic.
4. On 24 June 2024, the landlord instructed its surveyor to complete a damp and mould inspection, which recommended the following repairs:
   1. Replace monobloc tap to basin.
   2. Replace wooden boxing to back of toilet, this had rotted due to condensation from the w/c cistern.
   3. Treat the bathroom ceiling for mould and decorate.
   4. Bath had rusted on rolled edge, renew bath.
   5. Bathroom floor vinyl to be renewed following completion of the bath.
5. On 6 September 2024, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. He said:
   1. Damp and mould had affected the bathroom for the last 3-years. Contractors treated and redecorated the bathroom in 2023, but the mould returned.
   2. The wooden boxing-in around the w/c had rotted and black mould was found. The area was left open for further inspection. The bath and pipes had also rusted.
   3. All occupants had health issues brought on or made worse by the damp and mould. His sons were asthmatic and his wife was pregnant.
   4. He was frustrated because while many inspections had taken place, the mould and damp remained without resolution. He was told that the bathroom required full renovation.
6. On 23 October 2024, the resident’s GP wrote to the landlord. The GP raised concerns regarding the damp and mould and the effect this had on the resident and his family’s health. The GP requested that the property was checked to confirm it was safe and free from damp and mould.
7. On 7 November 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord apologised for its delay in responding and:
   1. Acknowledged that repairs were raised to address the mould but not completed. It understood that the resident felt let down.
   2. Confirmed that a new contractor had been appointed to manage its in-house repairs.
   3. Acknowledged that an inspection was completed in July 2024. Repairs were raised for the issues identified and had been either completed or scheduled for completion. These included:
      1. On 31 August 2024, it installed a new bath, bath panel, and completed a section of boxing-in behind the w/c.
      2. On 6 September 2024, the resident refused a mould treatment. This was because he wanted the mould, found to the area behind the boxing-in, inspected prior to treatment.
      3. The renewal of boxing-in to the back of toilet was referred for an inspection because it was a re-occurring issue. On 30 October 2024, the repair to the boxing-in was raised again. The expected completion date was 18 November 2024.
      4. On 4 November 2024, a repair was raised to replace the bathroom extractor. The expected completion date was 2 December 2024.
      5. The vinyl flooring works were re-issued to the contractor. A date had not been provided.
   4. Confirmed that it upheld the resident’s complaint due to delays encountered and because mould remained in the property without an action plan.
   5. Apologised for the delay, inconvenience, and inefficiency that the resident experienced over the last 2 years. And for the delay in providing a formal stage 1 response. It offered £200 compensation, which comprised of:
      1. £100 for poor complaint handling.
      2. £100 for the resident’s time and trouble, and for missed appointments.
8. On 10 November 2024, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. The resident said:
   1. He had provided medical evidence, which detailed the affects the damp and mould had on the household. Further, his son had an asthma attack and mould was found in his bedroom.
   2. He said his wife was heavily pregnant and she should not have had to clean the damp and mould or be exposed to the chemicals required to clean it.
   3. On 6 September 2024, a mould treatment was refused because he was told an inspection was required. Despite repeated contact attempts and complaints to the landlord regarding the inspection, he had no response. He was told that it was not an emergency and to be patient.
   4. The contractor would not complete any further repairs to the area behind the toilet because it “was too risky.” And he advised the resident to open the windows.
   5. He had concerns regarding the effect of damp and mould on a baby and his 2 asthmatic children.
   6. He was unhappy with a target date of January 2025 for the replacement of the vinyl flooring.
   7. The previous contractor took many pictures on numerous visits yet offered no communication or a resolution. And he had experienced missed appointments, which had wasted his time.
   8. Damp and mould had destroyed some personal items and clothes.
   9. He wanted to live in a mould and damp free property and although the bathroom was affected the most, all rooms should be treated for mould.
9. On 20 November 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said it had reviewed the case and:
   1. Understood the resident’s continued concerns.
   2. Confirmed that the bath panel was completed on 31 August 2024, and the boxing-in fully replaced on 20 November 2024.
   3. Acknowledged that some repairs remained outstanding, which included:
      1.      A mould treatment. However, the resident had requested that this was applied following completion of all other works.
      2. The floor sheet vinyl scheduled for 27 November 2024.
      3. Extractor fan scheduled for 1 December 2024.
   4. Confirmed that the complaint was upheld, because the repairs had not been completed within a timely manner and because the resident was let-down by its previous contractors.
   5. Apologised for the lack of communication and appreciated the stress that had been caused.
   6. Offered an increase in compensation to £450, which comprised of:
      1. £200 for a service failure because repairs remained uncompleted.
      2. £250 for time, trouble and the inconvenience caused.
10. The resident asked this service to investigate his complaint because he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response. He said the bathroom and other areas of the property had damp and mould, which had affected the health of the household. Further, he said mould and damp had ruined his belongings.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. The resident said that the damp and mould within the property had an effect on the household’s health. While we do not dispute the resident’s position, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury insurance claim or through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue these concerns.
12. The resident raised a further stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 9 December 2024, because the landlord failed to attend to replace the vinyl floor on the date promised within the stage 2 response. This complaint is outside the scope of this investigation because this event has occurred after the period of the complaint, which has been through the landlord’s complaints process. However, the resident has the option to complete the landlord’s internal complaint process with regards to these concerns and refer to this service if he remains dissatisfied with its response.
13. The resident has also referred to damaged items caused by the damp and mould. While we can acknowledge the upset that may be caused by damaged items and personal belongings, it is not our role to consider if the damage was due to any failing by the landlord or its contractors or if it is liable to pay the resident compensation as this is a matter for the parties’ insurers.
14. What we can consider is whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s requests and whether this was timely, clear, and accurate. Where we find a failing, we may award compensation or order an apology.

Damp and mould

15. The landlord has a statutory duty under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It is obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
16. Under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, the landlord must ensure the property is fit for habitation throughout the tenancy. It must also ensure that the homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard. Section 5 of the standard says the landlord should ensure that its properties are free of category 1 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould is listed as a potential category 1 hazard. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under this legislation.
17. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it adopts a zero-tolerance approach to mould and does not impose blame on the resident. It will work with households, medical teams, and GPs to support with requests. If a technical assessment is required, before a repair can be raised, an inspection is booked within 20 calendar days of the initial report. It says the effect of the damp and mould on residents is considered to support the prioritisation of the works and residents will be kept updated on progress.
18. The landlord’s repairs manual says that routine repairs will be carried out in 28 days, depending on the type of repair, and planned works will be completed within 90 days. It also says repairs for vulnerable tenants will be prioritised.
19. On 13 September 2023, the resident reported damp and mould. The resident said that despite numerous inspections and photos taken, repairs were not completed and appointments missed. The landlord agreed, it apologised for the inefficiency of its contractor and delay to repairs. Further, it said the contractor had been replaced. It is evident that the contractor leaving the landlord’s employment left it unaware that repairs remained outstanding. However, the landlord should have robust systems in place to appropriately record this information. The failure to create and record information accurately has resulted in the landlord not taking appropriate or timely action, which had a detrimental impact on the resident.
20. On 29 April 2024, the landlord raised an inspection. On 24 June 2024, the inspection was completed. This was a reasonable first step for the landlord to take, as it was required to identify the cause of the damp and mould before it could carry out the relevant repairs. It is noted that the landlord’s inspection was attended 56 days after the inspection was raised. This was unreasonable because it did not meet its policy standard of 20 days.
21. On 9 July 2024, the landlord raised the recommended works. It applied a planned works (90-day) priority to the repairs. The replacement tap was completed on 20 August 2024. And a section to the boxing-in around the w/c and the replacement bath and panel were completed on 31 August 2024. These works were all completed within the landlord’s 90-day timescale, which was reasonable and appropriate of the landlord.
22. The landlord scheduled the treatment and re-decoration of the bathroom ceiling for 6 September 2024. However, it was refused by the resident until all other repairs were completed. This would be considered a reasonable request from the resident and it was right of the landlord to postpone this repair in line with the resident’s wishes. Further, within its stage 2 response, the landlord advised the resident on how to book the repair, when ready. This was a reasonable response from the landlord.
23. The remaining repairs to the bathroom was the renewal of the floor vinyl and the completion of the boxing-in around the w/c. Both repairs were due for completion by 7 October 2024. The landlord’s stage 2 response confirmed that the boxing-in to the w/c was fully completed on 20 November 2024 and the vinyl was scheduled to be installed on 27 November 2024. The delay to the repairs was inappropriate and not in line with the landlord’s policy of completion within 90 days. The resident would have felt frustrated and disappointed with the continued delays.
24. Within the resident’s stage 2 complaint, he provided information regarding the damage caused by damp and mould to personal possessions and clothes. The landlord failed to acknowledge this within its complaint response and therefore did not provide any advice and guidance regarding the resident’s right to make a claim on its liability insurance. It was unreasonable of the landlord not to provide this information, furthermore, this should have been provided at the earliest opportunity (within the stage 1 response).
25. It is evident the landlord was informed by both the resident and the resident’s GP that the property conditions had an adverse effect on the resident and his children. It was aware they have suffered with respiratory illnesses since the mould and damp occurred. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged or addressed these concerns in line with its statement on supporting vulnerable residents. Nor did it risk assess the situation or seek to prioritise repairs in line with its policy. This was inappropriate and was detrimental to the landlord and tenant relationship.
26. Further, the GP requested that the landlord confirm that the property is a safe environment. There is no information contained within the landlord’s evidence that it considered re-inspecting the property in line with the recommendation from the GP. This was inappropriate and not in line with the landlord’s commitment within its damp and mould policy to work alongside medical teams, and GPs to support with requests. This was inappropriate and unreasonable of the landlord.
27. It is noted that the landlord admitted some failings with regards to the delay to repairs and it offered £450 compensation. Where there are admitted failings, as in this case, it is our role to determine whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
28. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was inappropriate. The resident reported damp and mould in September 2023, an inspection was not completed until June 2024 and repairs remained outstanding until November 2024, a delay of 14 months. This was unreasonable, inappropriate and has had a detrimental impact on the resident, who spent longer than reasonably expected dealing with the issue.
29. Further, despite having a damp and mould policy, it failed to consider applying many of the principles in this case and failed to consider the vulnerabilities of the household.
30. The failings with regards to the landlord’s handling of damp and mould and the associated repairs amount to maladministration. Our remedies guidance suggests that compensation is appropriate where there was a failure by the landlord, which had a significant impact on the resident. Further, the landlord’s compensation offer of £450 has failed to fully address the detriment and the offer was not proportionate to the overall failings identified by our investigation.
31. Having considered all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should pay the resident a total of £600. This can be broken down as £400 for the distress and inconvenience and £200 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of damp and mould. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance.

Associated Complaint

32. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. Complaints are acknowledged within 5 days and responded to at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. If it cannot respond within 10 working days, it will keep the resident informed and new response times agreed.
33. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 7 November 2024, which was 45 working days after the complaint. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with its policy and no explanation or request for an extension was provided.
34. The stage 1 response apologised for the delay and offered £100 compensation for poor complaint handling. This demonstrated a willingness to learn from its outcomes, be fair and put things right. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress is made. This finding is made on the basis that the £100 compensation as stated within the stage 1 complaint response is paid.

Determination

35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould, and the associated repairs.
36. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

37. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
    1. Apologised to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Paid the resident a total of £600 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
    3. The landlord may deduct from this any payments already made in respect of this complaint.
    4. Compensation payments should be made directly to the resident and not credited to the resident’s rent or service charge account.
38. Within 2 weeks, in line with the recommendation from the resident’s GP, the landlord must arrange to visit the resident with a qualified professional to complete an up-to-date damp and mould inspection of the property.
39. Within 2 weeks of the inspection, the landlord must complete an action plan. The action plan must be provided to the resident and this service and include a list of all works required and a timeline for all outstanding repairs.

Recommendations

40. The landlord should provide details of its insurers should the resident wish to pursue a claim for damage to his possessions.
41. The landlord should pay £100 compensation for poor complaint handling as offered within it stage 1 response if it has not done so already.