Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202505568)

Decision
Case ID	202505568
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	10 June 2026

 

Background

1. The resident made an initial report of mice within her property in October 2023. Following an initial treatment plan by the landlord’s pest contractor, the resident made a second report in February 2024. In her complaint, she requested the landlord complete additional proofing works to prevent a recurring issue.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of pests.
   2. Complaint handling.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests.
4. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the complaint.

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

 

Summary of reasons

5. We found that:
   1. The landlord did not have an appropriate process in place to follow up on no access appointments. It did not recognise the impact that the incomplete works had on the resident in its complaint responses. It only revisited the outstanding repairs and revised its offer of compensation after the complaint process had concluded.
   2. It recognised the delays in its complaint responses and offered proportionate redress for these.

 

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 08 July 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £240 offered on 26 January 2026 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of pests. 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 made.	No later than 08 July 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident £110 compensation for its complaint handling failures. This reflects £85 offered in its stage 2 response and the £25 offered after its complaints process on 26 January 2026. Our finding of reasonable redress has been made on the basis that this amount is paid.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 February 2024	The resident reported mice within the property to the landlord. She said the initial treatment visits and proofing repairs carried out by its contractor had not prevented the mice from returning.
Between 14 March 2024 to 16 April 2024	The contractor completed an additional 4 visits to the property where it identified new entry points both internally and externally. It completed proofing repairs and placed new bait stations.
18 June 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. She expressed how the recurring pest issues were affecting both her wellbeing and enjoyment of her home. She requested the landlord address this by removing the kitchen cupboards to enable it to complete more extensive proofing works.
22 July 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It summarised the resident’s complaint as follows: She was still experiencing mice within the property. That the contractor had not attended an appointment on 24 June 2024. She wished to know when it would be returning to complete the work. She was requesting the completion of proofing works, including removing cupboards. It found that: Following her report on 19 February 2024, it had made the referral to its pest contractor the same day. Its contractor had attended on 3 occasions to apply baiting and complete internal and external proofing repairs. It could not complete a visit on 16 April 2024 as it could not gain access to the property. When it located new entry points it returned promptly. It removed some kitchen units and completed proofing works on 4 July 2024. It had completed further proofing works to 3 external front vents. Following a visit on 15 July 2024 it advised there were no further sightings of pests. It had not identified any service failure in its handling of the pest issue but offered £35 compensation for complaint handling delays.
4 September 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said on 1 September 2024 she had witnessed a mouse in the kitchen. She had reported this to both the landlord and its contractor but had received no update. She said this issue had been ongoing since October 2023 without a permanent resolution. She requested it remove all kitchen cupboards to allow for a full inspection and further proofing works. She also highlighted several additional areas both internally and externally that could be entry points. She requested it address these at the same time.
1 November 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: Following the residents latest report on 1 September 2024, its contractor confirmed it had completed an initial visit on 13 September 2024. During this visit it had identified 2 new entry points but found no evidence of mice activity. To address the new entry points, it recommended it complete further proofing works in the kitchen. It completed a second visit on 1 October 2024 where it placed further bait stations. A third visit to install proofing under the kitchen units planned for 16 October 2024 did not go ahead due to access issues. Having checked with its contractor, it confirmed it had now closed the job. If she continued to have concerns about mice entering the property, she would need to raise a new repair. Based on its investigation, it had not identified any service failure in its handling of her reports but offered an additional £50 for further complaint handling delays, totalling £85.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy and brought her complaint to us. She said she did not feel comfortable entering her kitchen at night due to the landlord not completing the additional proofing works recommended in October 2024. She said following an additional sighting of mice, its contractor completed a CCTV inspection which identified further entry points. However, no additional proofing had been completed.
26 January 2026	The landlord reviewed its handling of the resident’s complaint and revised its offer of compensation. It offered an additional £25 for complaint handling, increasing its offer to £110. A made a new offer of £240 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to complete the proofing works.

 

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 reports of pests
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

6. The resident has expressed how the situation affected her wellbeing due to the landlord’s handling of her pest reports. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim. The courts handle this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide the cause and duration of any illness. We did not investigate this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

7. The landlord’s pest policy states that upon receiving a report, it will arrange for its contractor to contact the resident by the end of the following working day. It will then schedule a visit within 5 working days of the initial referral. Upon receiving the resident’s initial reports of mice on 19 February 2024, it made a referral to its pest contractor the same day. This is in line with the timescale stated in its policy.
8. However, the evidence shows the contractor did not complete its initial inspection visit until 14 March 2024, 13 working days outside of the landlord’s response timescale. The landlord has not provided any evidence to demonstrate if this delay was due to resident or contractor availability.
9. During the initial inspection visit, the contractor recommended the installation of 4 air vent covers on the exterior of the building. The evidence shows it completed this work during the second visit 14 days later. This is an appropriate response and demonstrates it did not delay in completing recommended actions. While completing this work it made a further recommendation to investigate an area behind the kitchen cupboards. Again, the evidence shows it completed this and applied the required proofing repairs during the next visit, 4 working days later. This demonstrates a proactive approach to thoroughly inspect the property and applying an appropriate resolution.
10. However, the evidence then shows the contractor was unable to complete a follow up appointment, recording that the resident did not allow access. It has provided no evidence to demonstrate it attempted to reschedule this appointment. This would have been a reasonable action considering there was no confirmation that the proofing works had resolved the issue.
11. After getting access, the evidence shows the contractor completed its final inspection after the resident raised her complaint. Due to the resident having to chase the landlord for a response, it may have been reasonable for the landlord to provide more proactive monitoring to reduce the impact to her.
12. The evidence shows the pest contractor completed a further visit on 4 July 2024. The records show it completed substantial works during this visit. These included the removal of kitchen cupboards, application of treatment to wall cavities along with proofing work to entry points. This demonstrates the landlord’s commitment to providing a permanent resolution.
13. The resident made a further report to the landlord on 2 September 2024. It referred this to its pest contractor the same day. The contractor responded appropriately by contacting her within 2 working days and completed the initial visit 7 working days later. This was broadly in line with the timescales in its policy.
14. The evidence shows that during its second scheduled visit it identified additional proofing required in the kitchen. It advised that it had arranged to complete these during the next visit. However, the evidence shows this visit did not go ahead, recording that the resident was not available. While the landlord sent an email to the resident the following day, it is unclear if she responded. However, there is also no evidence the landlord monitored the outstanding work or attempted to reschedule the visit.
15. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had acted within its timescales and completed the necessary proofing works. However, the evidence shows that some recommended works were not completed due to access issues, and it did not attempt to rearrange these. This meant the issue remained unresolved. It is therefore unclear why it did not recognise this at the time.
16. The resident made a new report to the landlord in February 2025, which the contractor failed to act upon. This prompted the landlord to revisit its offer of compensation. It acknowledged the outstanding works and apologised. The landlord offered £240 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. It has confirmed its contractor completed the final proofing repairs on 5 February 2026.
17. While the total sum offered of £240 is consistent with our compensation guidance, the landlord’s offer came after the completion of its complaints process. In such circumstances, our outcome guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot therefore be determined.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

18. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. If a resident escalates a complaint to stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days. These timescales align with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
19. The resident raised a complaint on 18 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged this within 5 working days before requesting an extension 8 working days later on 5 July 2024. These are in line with the Code.
20. However, the landlord did not issue its stage 1 response until 22 July 2024. This represents a period of 11 working days which is outside of the timescale stated in its policy.
21. The resident escalated her complaint on 4 September 2024. The landlord acknowledged the request the same day before requesting an extension 19 working days later on 1 October 2024. These are in line with the timescales stated in its policy.
22. However, the landlord did not issue its stage 2 response until 1 November 2024. In its response the landlord acknowledged these delays. It apologised and offered £85 compensation. This was a proportionate amount and in line with our compensation guidance for a failure which adversely affected a resident.
23. Overall, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress to resolve its complaint handling failure. The landlord used the complaints process to identify where the failing had occurred and has provided us with feedback on the learnings it had taken. It apologised and offered an appropriate level of redress.
24. Upon review of its offer in January 2026, the landlord offered an additional £25 for complaint handling. As we find that the landlord’s initial offer of £85 was proportionate, we will recommend that it pays its total offer of £110.

 

Learning

Complaint handling

25. After reviewing this case, the landlord identified its own learning and actions. The complaints team now completes daily and weekly checks on response times and extensions. It ensures it only agrees extensions when necessary and issues responses within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord has strengthened its processes so it informs residents of each extension and keeps clear records on its system.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The evidence highlights gaps in the landlord’s record keeping and oversight. It did not keep clear records to explain delays between referral and inspection, or to show whether these arose from contractor or resident availability. It also failed to record any attempts to rearrange missed visits, despite access issues and ongoing reports. This limited its ability to demonstrate it acted in line with its policy and to monitor whether works had resolved the issue. We recognise it has since made improvements to its processes which will mitigate this moving forward.

Communication

27. The landlord has made positive improvements to its communications processes. It has strengthened its communication standards to ensure residents receive clear updates on the progress of repairs, confirmation of appointment outcomes, and advice on next steps if issues persist. It has reminded its staff of the importance of providing reassurance and clarity, particularly where pest issues may impact wellbeing.