Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202451324)

Decision
Case ID	202451324
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	20 April 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat in a block that is over 11m tall. In December 2023, the landlord held a meeting with the resident, and all other residents at the block. It gave an update about its assessment of the fire safety of the building and external walls. This is known as an EWS1 form. It explained that due to the risk level at the block it needed to do remedial works. The landlord wrote to the resident in January 2025 and said it expected works to start in September 2025. It said this was due to changes in the construction industry and “regulatory updates”. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the matter and made a complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of building safety remedial works.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of building safety remedial works.
5. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress which resolved the errors in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Building safety remedial works

6. There was an unreasonable delay in the landlord making meaningful progress with the remedial works between March 2024 and January 2025. Its communication during this period was also poor, a fact the landlord accepted. Considering the length of the delays its total offer of £450 in compensation did not fully put things right.

Complaint handling

7. There was a delay in the landlord acknowledging and opening its stage 2 complaint investigation. The £50 it offered in compensation was proportionate to put right the inconvenience caused by the delay.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £600 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the building safety remedial works. It may deduct its offer of £450 from this total if already paid to the resident. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 18 May 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
EWS1 Recommendation We recommend the landlord shares a copy of the EWS1 with the resident if it has not already done so.
Compensation Recommendation We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £50 in compensation it offered for errors in its complaint handling. Our finding of reasonable redress is based on an understanding this was/will be paid.

 Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
6 February 2025	The resident made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the remedial safety works. She said its communication about the works was poor and timelines “constantly” slipped with no updates. She said she wanted the landlord to do the works so an EWS1 could be issued.
18 February 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It said the remedial works were due to start in September 2025, but were now due to start at the end of 2025. It said changes in the construction industry and major regulatory updates had caused the delays. It explained it had appointed an external agent to assist in delivering the project. It explained it would not pass the costs of the works on to residents and an EWS1 would be issued on the completion of the works. It offered £50 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced in chasing it for updates.
18 February 2025	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said its response ignored the fact the works were due to start in 2023. She said she was unhappy it had not committed to a “proper timeframe”. She said the situation was having a financial impact on her as she could not remortgage her property.
25 March 2026	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It said the timescales for the works had changed due to factors outside its control. It said it did not have “recourse” to the original contractor and there were limited contractors with the expertise to do the works. It explained no costs would be passed on to residents. It offered £150 in compensation for its communication and lack of explanation about delays. It offered £50 for the delay in opening its stage 2 complaint investigation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She said she was unhappy the remedial works had not started, and the landlord had missed multiple timeframes. She said she wanted the landlord to start the works and issue a EWS1.

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 handling of the resident’s concerns about building safety remedial works
Finding	Maladministration

8. The resident has reported that the situation has affected her health and wellbeing and has cost her financially. She says that she was unable to remortgage or sell her property and that she had to live elsewhere after having her baby. The resident’s concerns about the impact on her health and financial loss would be best considered by either a court or insurer. This is because we cannot make liability decisions, and we do not have the benefit of independent medical or financial advice. While we have not considered these matters further, we have assessed whether the landlord’s actions or omissions have been the cause of distress and inconvenience for which financial compensation should be paid
9. The resident previously complained that the landlord failed to issue an EWS1. We investigated matters until January 2022, at which point we issued a determination. Given that matters pre-January 2022 have already been decided upon, our investigation of this complaint has focused on matters from December 2023 onwards. This was when the landlord set out its programme for the next steps to address the concerns around building safety
10. We recognise the process to achieve compliance with government guidance around cladding is complicated and requires input from experts. When it was established remedial works were needed the landlord said it would conduct regular update meetings with residents in the block. The landlord held update meetings in December 2023 and March 2024. There is no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with an update between March 2024, and January 2025. This is a failing in the landlord’s communication about the issue. We accept the issue was complex and would likely take time to find the appropriate contractor and then commence the works. Better communication about its progress may have helped reassure the resident it was progressing with the matter as quickly as it could
11.  There was a gap of 9 months where it did not progress with the issue. The resident was inconvenienced by the delay. She was evidently distressed about the safety of her property. The unreasonable delay combined with a lack of communication about any progress that was made may have increased her distress. During this investigation, we asked the landlord for evidence of the actions it was taking during the above period. It did not provide any. This further supports the conclusion it was not progressing with the issue with the appropriate urgency
12. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response lacked detail and failed to offer appropriate redress for the delays and failures in communication up to that point. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response went some way to putting this right by giving a more detailed breakdown on the reasons for the delays in progressing the remedial works. It was also appropriate to explain its plans to issue an EWS1 once works were completed and that it would not pass costs on to residents. This approach was in line with that set out in the Building Safety Act 2022.
13. The matter was outstanding at the time of the landlord’s final complaint response. We have therefore extended the scope of our investigation beyond the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response to assess its handling of the issue up to March 2026. This is when our investigation started and the landlord made a further offer of compensation to the resident.
14. After the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it gave more regular updates to the resident about its progress. It gave biweekly updates via letter/email. It communicated a plan about the proposed works in September 2025 giving a timeline for milestones in the project and when it hoped to complete each stage. This showed transparency and was an improvement in its communication about the issue. It also held a virtual meeting for all residents in October 2025 explaining it had appointed a contractor and an explanation about next steps. This included further intrusive surveys within properties at the block. It was appropriate to hold a meeting so the resident had an opportunity to ask questions about the proposed next steps.
15. After the landlord’s contractor did the intrusive surveys it wrote to the resident in January 2026 and explained it was now awaiting a scope of works. It followed up with a more detailed plan about the works in February 2026. This is further evidence the landlord was more proactive in providing updates. This showed learning from its earlier communication failings.
16. The landlord told us in April 2026 that it is now in a position to issue an EWS1, and it can share it with the resident. We have not seen evidence the landlord shared the certification with the resident. We note its comments that the resident did not attend a recent update meeting where its position was explained. However, considering the basis of the resident’s complaint it would have been appropriate to proactively share the certificate with her. We recommend it does so now.
17. We welcome the fact the landlord hopes to begin the works in April 2026. It is accepted the situation has been frustrating and distressing for the resident. The landlord’s communication improved after its final complaint response, which showed learning. We welcome the fact it also revisited its offer of compensation in March 2026 to reflect the further delays. As this offer was outside the complaints process, this impacts on the degree to which the offer put things right. The landlord offered £150 as part of the complaints process. This was not proportionate, considering its errors up to that point. and a further £300 in early 2026.
18. We consider the delay between March 2024 and January 2025, and its poor communication during this period, had a significant impact on the resident. While we have not seen evidence that the resident was chasing updates during the period in question, she was evidently concerned about the safety of the building. The lack of proactive action and communication from the landlord had a significant impact on the distress she experienced. We therefore do not consider its further offer of £450 proportionate to put things right. We order the to pay the resident an additional £150 in compensation, taking the total order to £600 in compensation.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

19. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response within the 10-working day timeframe set out in its policy and our complain handling code. The landlord did not open its stage 2 complaint investigation or acknowledge the complaint for 8 days. The landlord appropriately apologised for the error and offered £50 in compensation. Given the duration of the delay, this was a proportionate offer in the circumstances.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord’s records between March 2024 and January 2025 lack detail of any actions it was taking. This led us to make adverse inferences based on the lack of information. The landlord’s complaint responses suggest it was taking some actions to progress the matter during the above period. But the lack of corroborating records are an error in its record keeping. Better record keeping from around that time may have helped the landlord give a better explanation to the resident around the actions it had taken and reassured her it was taking the matter seriously.

Communication

21. The landlord’s communication leading up to the resident’s complaint was poor. This caused avoidable distress and inconvenience as the resident was left unsure about the progress of the remedial works project. The landlord showed learning and its communication improved significantly after its final complaint response.