Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202452898)

Decision
Case ID	202452898
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	28 April 2026

 

Background

1. The resident made a joint complaint with her downstairs neighbour about subsidence in 2018. The landlord investigated, conducted repairs, and followed a period of monitoring. It completed internal repairs for the neighbour but was unable to do the same for the resident. The building received a certificate of structural adequacy in June 2023. The resident reported ongoing concerns about subsidence in July 2023.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about subsidence.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about subsidence.
   2. Complaint.

Summary of reasons

4. There was a delay in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about subsidence. It did not communicate effectively or manage her expectations. However, it has fully accepted its service failings, apologised, and offered proportionate redress.
5. There were avoidable delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. However, it acknowledged its failures and offered proportionate redress.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the £460 compensation it offered during its complaint procedure if it has not already done so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 October 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. She said she had reported concerns about subsidence since 2018 and provided pictures of cracks, broken tiles, and windows and doors not closing. She said the issue had caused damage to personal property, anxiety, health issues, and increased energy costs. She wanted the landlord to complete repairs and provide compensation for the damaged items and increased bills.
14 November 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response and apologised for the delay in doing so. It set out a timeline of reports and repairs for the previous 2 years, and shared planned next steps. It said there had been periods without contact from the resident about the issue but accepted it was on notice of her concerns. It apologised for the delay in addressing the issue and said it had shared feedback internally to learn and take preventative action. It offered £150 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience, and for not setting expectations. It provided the resident with the details of its liability insurance so that she could make a claim for damages and costs.
13 December 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the survey promised in the landlord’s earlier response took place, but it had not done any repairs, and she had not heard from it.
11 March 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It apologised for the delay and for poor communication during its investigation. It said it had shared feedback internally and would provide staff training. It explained it carried out extensive works to address the subsidence 5 years ago, but the issue had recently reoccurred. As a result, it referred the matter to its insurer and a specialist contractor due to the complexity of the structural issues. It said the insurer would manage and deliver the repairs, which meant timescales would exceed those for routine repairs. The landlord reassured the resident that its specialist contractor were qualified structural engineers and had confirmed the property was safe, and that she did not need to move unless this changed. It set out the next steps with timescales, apologised for the inconvenience, and increased the compensation to £460 (£150 for distress and inconvenience caused by delayed repairs, £170 for trouble and upset caused by poor expectation‑setting and communication, and £140 for poor complaint handling).
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy that the landlord had completed repairs for the neighbour’s property but not hers. She said it was placing her in temporary accommodation to complete repairs, and she thought this showed the seriousness of the issue. She reiterated the effect on her health, the stress caused, and the cost of increased bills. She wanted higher compensation and property repairs.

 

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	Concerns about subsidence
Finding	Reasonable redress

 

What we did not investigate

6. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints that were not referred to the landlord and us within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. There is no evidence that the resident referred her complaints to us until March 2025. We have not seen any reasons which prevented the complaint from being referred to us sooner. In this instance the landlord considered the complaint for a 24-month period, and we have done the same. Therefore, we will not investigate the complaints or reports made before the 24-month period of the current complaint. However, where relevant, we have taken account of the earlier history as context when reaching our overall findings.
7. The resident has ongoing concerns about the subsidence. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. Therefore, we have no power to investigate the issues which have occurred since its March 2025 response. If the resident has not already done so, she may wish to log any ongoing concerns as a new complaint with the landlord. Once this has completed its internal process, and if she is still unhappy, she may refer this to us.
8. The resident told us that the landlord’s failures have caused increased bills and damage to her health and personal belongings. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. The landlord provided the resident with the details of its liability insurer to make a claim, which was appropriate. Therefore, we have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

9. The resident’s reports met the definition of routine and non-routine repairs as set out in the landlord’s repair policy. It explained to her during its complaints process why some repairs were non-routine and gave revised timescales. The landlord has accepted that while it completed individual repairs it should have done more sooner to address her concerns and manage her expectations. Overall, our own investigation found the same.
10. The resident contacted the landlord to report issues with her windows in December 2022, and it completed repairs in line with its policy timescale of 28 calendar days. She contacted it in July 2023 and then August 2024 to say she would send pictures of cracks in the property, but we have not seen evidence that she did. However, the landlord was on notice of her concerns, and its policy required it to carry out inspections where necessary. We have not seen evidence it did so until she reported a 1.5m long crack in October 2024. It then raised an inspection, in line with its policy timescale of 28 days. Following the inspection, it encountered contact issues so there was an unavoidable delay in arranging follow-on surveys.
11. We have seen evidence that the landlord continued to engage with the resident after its final response, kept her updated about the promised actions, and has arranged to carry out repairs. While it arranged temporary accommodation, evidence shows this was to avoid inconveniencing her and not because of subsidence related health and safety concerns.
12. The landlord fully accepted its failures. It apologised sincerely and offered £320 compensation and explained what it had learned from the complaint. This was a reasonable response and in line with our remedies guidance at the time.
13. Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord’s offer of £320 is proportionate and consistent with our current compensation guidance. This recommends awards in this range for when there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. We recommend the landlord pays the £320 offered for its failures if it has not already done so. The reasonable redress finding is based on this sum being paid.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

14. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure also complied with the Code.
15. The landlord’s complaint response at stage 1 was issued in line with its policy, but its stage 2 response was not. It communicated about the delays at stage 2, advised extensions, and provided revised dates. However, these exceeded the code timescales, though it correctly referred the resident to us if she was unhappy with the delay. Its complaint responses addressed the concerns raised, provided explanations, identified failures, and offered remedies.
16. The landlord has apologised for the delays in its complaint handling and offered £140 compensation. The compensation it has offered was proportionate for the failures we found and higher than our own compensation guidance. Therefore, we have not made any further orders.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. The landlord did not provide us with all the relevant evidence such as its repair log and contact records. We had to piece together a timeline of reports, repairs, and resident contact using its complaint responses and wider correspondence. Further, its evidence submission unnecessarily duplicated information, such as emails. This added an avoidable delay to our investigation.

Communication

18. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident. It should clearly explain its position and process to manage expectations and explain delays.