Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202511861)

Decision
Case ID	202511861
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	15 January 2026

Background

1. After completing its annual gas safety inspection, the landlord raised a repair to replace the resident’s gas fire with a new electric fire. There were delays in it installing the electric fire and the resident was left without a working fire which she was unhappy about. The landlord told us that it did not have any vulnerabilities for the resident recorded on its systems. However, its complaint responses acknowledged it was aware that the resident’s son had vulnerabilities due to learning difficulties.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the installation of an electric fire at the resident’s property.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the installation of an electric fire at the resident’s property.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Electric fire installation

6. The landlord’s response lacked oversight and its communication with the resident was poor. Although its complaint responses identified this, the remedy it offered the resident was delayed and lacked ownership.

Complaint handling

7. The standard of the landlord’s responses was reasonable. However, there is no evidence provided to show when the resident raised her complaint, or that it provided her with acknowledgement of this.

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 12 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £800 made up as follows: £225 it offered in its stage 2 complaint response. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the installation of an electric fire. £25 for its complaint handling failures. £500 further compensation it offered the resident on 27 October 2025. 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 12 February 2026
3	Recording the resident’s vulnerabilities The landlord must ensure that it records the resident’s household’s vulnerabilities on its systems and update its records accordingly so it can take them into consideration when responding to her, in line with its policies, it must provide evidence of this by the due date.	No later than 12 February 2026

 

Recommendation

Our recommendation is not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow this.

Our recommendation
It is recommended that the landlord arranges complaint handling training for its staff to ensure that its complaint policy is followed.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
16 January 2025	The landlord’s stage 1 response said that the resident raised her complaint on this date. It said her concerns were: A letter it had sent her for breach of her tenancy, relating to gas servicing. Its replacement of a gas fire for an electric fire in her living room.
5 February 2025	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response. It said: It had to rearrange its gas safety check on 23 December 2024, due to staff sickness. It called and texted her to tell her the new appointment was 8 January 2025. She told it that there was someone home on 8 January 2025. Its engineer did not take a photo of the property when there was no answer but did say her property had a wooden door. It sent her an automatically generated letter following this. It recognised that its letter had annoyed her and acknowledged its missed appointment had left her without a working fire. It completed its repair on 16 January 2025, when it disconnected her fire and capped the gas for safety reasons. Its contractor would contact her to arrange a time for it to install her new electric fire. It upheld her complaint as she did not receive the level of service expected. It was sorry for this and had sent her complaint to a senior manager for learning so it can take future preventative action. It offered her £150 for the distress and inconvenience it had caused her.
30 May 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: The service the landlord had provided her was poor. Its communication was poor, and it had no respect for its customers. It had condemned her fire in January 2025, and she had to chase it for answers about when it would install a new one. The landlord was “disorganised.” It had told her that her fire hadn’t been uninstalled so it could not fit a new one.
6 June 2025	The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. It said: It was due to fit her new fire on 13 June 2025. It was sorry for the delays, which had been caused by the issue being transferred between departments. It was actively overseeing the installation of her new fire, and it would monitor this until completion. Its systems showed that it had disconnected her gas, and its electrical team should have known this. This was a communication failure, and it was taking steps to improve information sharing. Poor coordination between its teams led to confusion and setbacks, including the oversight of it disconnecting her gas. It recognised her frustration and was taking steps to improve its processes. It upheld her complaint and offered her a further £75 compensation due to the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays. It had sent her complaint to a senior manager for learning so it could take future preventative action.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us on 15 September 2025. She said: The landlord should have acted quicker in arranging contractor to install an electric fire. The landlord made excuse after excuse, leaving her to phone and chase its subcontractor who fobbed her off. The landlord should have checked with her that it had completed the repair. That 2 members of her household have long term health issues. Her stress levels were high, and she did not need this adding to.
27 October 2025	The landlord told us that it reviewed the resident’s complaint. It found that there were additional failures, which caused further delays in it installing the electric fire. As a result, it offered her a further £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to her.

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	Installation of electric fire
Finding	Service failure

8. The landlord’s stage 2 response said that it would oversee the installation of the electric fire at the resident’s property, to ensure it completed this in a timely manner. The evidence shows that it completed the installation on 2 December 2025. We have therefore considered the landlord’s actions in its handling of the repair up until this date, which we consider reasonable.
9. The landlord’s gas safety procedure says that:
   1. When appointments are more than 7 days away it will tell residents that the process is automated, and it would send a warning letter if it could not gain access to their property’s.
   2. It will record all attempts to gain access to properties.
   3. It will issue residents with a landlord gas safety record within 28 days of its safety inspection.
10. The landlord has told us that the installation of the electric fire was part of a project of works to replace all gas fires in its properties. Its repairs policy defines a component that needs replacing and ordering in a property as a bespoke repair, which it will complete within 90 calendar days.
11. The landlord’s stage 1 response said that it had arranged for a gas safety check at the resident’s property on 23 December 2024. It rearranged this to 8 January 2025 due to staff sickness, and it had sent her a text message to inform her of this. However, there is no record of the gas safety check appointment or the message it said it had sent her. This was a record keeping failure.
12. The resident was unhappy that the landlord sent her an automated warning letter, after it did not gain access to her property on 8 January 2025. Its evidence does not include a record of its attempt to access her property or a copy of the warning letter. There is also no record that it explained to her its gas safety process before it visited her property. This was not reasonable, a record keeping failure and a failure by it to follow its gas safety procedure. This says that when appointments are more than 7 days away it will tell the resident that the process is automated.
13. The resident told us that her property does not have gas central heating and that she has been using an electric radiator to heat the living room. The landlord told us that it offered to install gas central heating at her property, which she declined. The resident told us that the landlord did not offer her any temporary heating. There is also no record that it contacted her to discuss a temporary solution. This is a concern given her sons vulnerabilities which it was aware of. This was not reasonable.
14. The landlord’s stage 1 response said that it completed its gas safety check at the resident’s property and disconnected her gas fire on 16 January 2025. It is assumed that this was the date that it decided to replace the resident’s gas fire with an electric one. However, there is no record of this visit in its evidence. This was a record keeping failure.
15. There is no record that the landlord sent the resident a copy of its gas safety record, after it completed its gas safety check. This was a record keeping failure as its gas safety procedure says it will do this within 28 days of its inspection.
16. The resident chased the landlord for answers on 28 February, 17 March and 21 March 2025, as to when it would be installing her electric fire. However, there is no record that it responded to her to update her on this. This was not reasonable and caused the resident further inconvenience as she complained about its poor service on 30 May 2025.
17. The landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged its warning letter to the resident had caused her son upset. It explained the reason why it had sent the letter and also recognised the service it had provided her was poor and its oversight of the installation was lacking. This was reasonable.
18. The landlord’s stage 2 response told the resident that it would install her new fire on 13 June 2025. However, its records show that on that date it cancelled its visit to install the fire and there is no record that it told the resident of this. It is unclear why it did this and it caused the resident further inconvenience.
19. The landlord’s records show that it made limited attempts to reschedule its installation of the fire. On 16 June 2025 it called the resident but there was no answer. On 17 June 2025 it sent her a text message to book an appointment. This was not reasonable, given that its stage 2 response had said it was actively overseeing the installation process.
20. It is unclear from the landlord’s evidence when it completed the installation of the electric fire. It has told us that it did this on 15 October 2025. However, the resident told us on 27 October 2025 that the fire was not working and its repair records state it completed its repair to install the fire on 2 December 2025. It is reasonable for this investigation to use this date as when it completed the repair. From the landlord completing its gas safety check on 16 January 2025, it was 320 calendar days until it fully completed the installation of the electric fire at the resident’s property. This was not reasonable and a failure to follow its repairs policy timeframe for completing a bespoke repair.
21. The £225 compensation it offered the resident was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance for the failures it had identified, at the time of its stage 2 response. However, the evidence shows that it did not actively oversee the installation process of the electric fire effectively as it had promised. There is also no record that it acted to resolve the poor coordination between its teams that its complaint response identified. It was a further 179 calendar days after its stage 2 response that it fully completed the installation of the fire. There is no record that it contacted the resident to explain the reason for this delay or keep her updated as to when it would be installing the fire. This is likely to have undermined the landlord and tenant relationship.
22. Although it was reasonable that the landlord identified its further failures and offered the resident a further £500 compensation, this came after our involvement and following the completion of its complaints process. This is not in the spirit of our dispute resolution principles. Due to this a finding of reasonable redress is not appropriate.
23. With consideration to the circumstances of the case, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for minor failures we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay her a further £50 compensation.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

24. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of sending its acknowledgement and within 20 working days at stage 2.
25. Although, the landlord’s stage 1 response said the resident raised her complaint on 16 January 2025, there is no record in its evidence of this. This has meant that we have been unable to determine if the landlord correctly set out the complaint definition. This was a record keeping failure.
26. There is no record that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at either stage. This was a failure to follow its complaints policy timeframe for acknowledging complaints.
27. The landlord provided the resident with both its responses within its complaints policy timeframe. This was reasonable.
28. The landlord’s stage 2 response said that it was taking steps to prevent similar issues happening again. It would have been reasonable for it to have explained to the resident how it was doing this, or that it would inform her at a later date once it had agreed this.
29. The landlord’s stage 2 response was of a good quality. It has demonstrated that it used its complaints process as an effective resolution tool. It used clear, plain language, explained the reasons for its decision to the resident and offered her a remedy to put things right. This was reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
30. With consideration to the circumstances of the case, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for minor failures we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay her a further £25 compensation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. We found record keeping failures in the landlord’s response to the issue the resident raised. The repair records it provided us were incomplete. Maintaining accurate, detailed records of its decisions will help to improve transparency and accountability.

Communication

32. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor, which led to her having to chase it for answers and updates.