Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202512350)

Background

1. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s investigation into her reports of antisocial behaviour at the property. She raised concerns about the conduct of its staff in response to her reports.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour
   2. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour
   2. no maladministration in its complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour

4. The landlord gave a clear explanation of the steps it was taking to investigate the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour. It responded to most of her concerns but failed to explain how it would investigate her reports about staff conduct. Its communication about the progress of the antisocial behaviour case was poor.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord gave clear complaint responses that kept to policy timelines.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not looked at

6. The resident said that she had been reporting issues with antisocial behaviour for 19 years. Our investigation focuses on November 2024 onwards and the reports that were being investigated at the time of her formal complaint. We have not considered the landlord’s handling of historical events due to the lapse of this time.
7. The resident raised a further report of antisocial behaviour in early 2026. The landlord acknowledged these concerns and has investigated them as a new and separate matter. This investigation will focus on the reports referenced in the landlord’s stage 1 response of 4 December 2024 and the actions it took afterwards.

What we have looked at

8. The resident said in her complaint on 15 November 2024 that ongoing issues with antisocial behaviour that she reported were unresolved. She said she wanted reassurance from the landlord that it was taking steps to make her and her family safe.
9. The landlord’s Antisocial Behaviour Policy says it will respond to reports of antisocial behaviour in a timely manner based on risk. It says it will liaise with partner organisations to find solutions to reports and will stay in touch with victims to keep them informed of its progress. It says personal information may be shared between agencies without the consent of the person concerned while complying with its data protection policies.
10. The landlord said in its stage 1 response on 4 December 2024 that it was still investigating the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour as part of a live case. It confirmed it had met with her at its offices on 1 November 2024 and had produced a risk assessment and an action plan for investigating the issue. This was appropriate and showed that it was acting in line with its policy.
11. The landlord sent a letter to the resident following its meeting on 1 November 2024 which confirmed it had completed an action plan. It gave her an incident diary to complete if she faced further antisocial behaviour. It explained these were important in helping it understand the nature of the behaviour and could also be used as evidence if it needed to take legal action against the perpetrator at a later stage. This was reasonable as it showed it took her reports seriously and was looking for evidence to progress the case.
12. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response on 4 December 2024 that the resident had not been contacted with an update since the meeting on 1 November. It said it would arrange contact with the resident to discuss steps it was taking. It was appropriate that it identified this error as a failing of its policy and made a plan to improve its communication as a result.
13. However, the resident said in her escalation on 27 March 2025 that she had still not been contacted by the landlord with an update on the progress of its investigation. Its case records show that it failed to speak directly to her about the case until 28 March 2025, the day after her escalation. It did not show that it was prioritising regular contact with a victim of antisocial behaviour as its policy says it will. This shows the landlord failed to take learning from its stage 1 response, where it had already identified poor communication as a failing. It should not have taken a further prompt from the resident to encourage it to act. She faced avoidable time, trouble and distress as she waited for the landlord to update her.
14. Following the completion of an action plan on 1 November 2024, the landlord recorded the key steps it took while investigating the antisocial behaviour reported. It completed an interview with the alleged perpetrator on 6 November 2024. Its Tenancy Enforcement Lead reviewed the case on 12 December 2024. It conducted a review of the case on 28 March 2025 and agreed it would continue to monitor the case for an additional period despite the resident reporting no further incidents. It said it would close the case after a further case review on 27 June 2025 which showed no more incidents. Its records showed it had taken action in line with the agreed plan.
15. The landlord sent letters to the resident and alleged perpetrator on 14 November 2025 saying it was closing the antisocial behaviour case as there had been no further reports of problems. It noted it had interviewed the alleged perpetrator and monitored the case for a 12 month period, in line with the action plan it agreed. It was reasonable that it asked to close down the case after this period of investigation.
16. The resident mentioned specific concerns about the landlord’s handling of her personal data in the stage 1 complaint on 15 November 2024. She said this included improper handling of sensitive information and breaches of her confidentiality. She was also concerned that it had asked the police to conduct a check on her without letting her know why.
17. The landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response on 4 December 2024 that its management had investigated her concerns and found no breaches of confidentiality or data protection guidelines. It also said it found no evidence that the police had contacted her but that the police would not share information with the landlord if it had, due to the protection of her confidentiality.
18. The resident escalated her complaint on 27 March 2025 and said there was no evidence to support the landlord’s claim that there were no breaches of her personal data. She said its lack of records showed an unprofessional approach to her reports. The landlord did not respond to this in its stage 2 response on 25 April 2025. While the landlord was not required to disclose detailed data records, it should have clearly explained the steps it took to investigate the concerns. Without this, it failed to provide adequate reassurance that the concerns had been properly considered.
19. The resident raised ongoing concerns throughout the complaint about the conduct of landlord staff investigating her antisocial behaviour case. She said staff had threatened her for raising reports of antisocial behaviour and were dismissive of her concerns. She said staff were also seen having loud conversations about the case with alleged perpetrators. She wanted the staff concerned to be held accountable and taken off her case.
20. The landlord responded to these issues in its stage 1 response. It said a number of the staff the resident had raised concerns about no longer worked for it so it would not be able to include them in any investigation. It apologised if she felt there had been any dismissive responses to her reports and reassured her that conversations about confidential matters would always be held in private. It asked her to provide further evidence of any of the concerns she had raised so it could investigate.
21. The landlord’s Code of Conduct for staff sets out the behaviours it expects from its staff. It says its staff must treat residents and service users with courtesy, dignity and respect. It says a failure to observe these conduct standards may be considered a disciplinary matter.
22. The landlord gave an inconsistent response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct. It said it could not investigate some staff because they had left, but did not explain which concerns it would investigate, if any. It then asked the resident to provide further evidence about staff it had already said it would not investigate. This lack of clarity was confusing and did not reflect the importance its Code of Conduct places on respectful behaviour.
23. The resident gave an example of what she considered to be unprofessional behaviour from a specific member of staff in her escalation request on 27 March 2025. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response on 25 April 2025 but gave no response to the accusation or any reassurance that it would investigate the report. This was not appropriate and showed it did not have sufficient oversight of the reports of poor staff conduct. It missed a further opportunity to reassure the resident, who faced further distress and inconvenience as her concerns went unanswered.
24. The landlord gave information about additional support options that were available to the resident in both of its complaint responses. It acknowledged that the antisocial behaviour might have impacted her wellbeing and offered to help her access local support agencies if she felt this would be helpful. This was appropriate and showed it was considering the potential wider impact of the issue on her.
25. The landlord also set reasonable expectations around the resident’s application for alternative housing. It said she would be able to upload documents related to the antisocial behaviour case to her application but that it would not be able to directly influence or change her banding as this was allocated by a different organisation. It was reasonable that it tried to offer support with a house move while being clear about its limitations. It showed it was trying to find positive outcomes from the situation.

26. The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code.”)
27. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord gave its stage 1 response within 9 working days (21 November 2024 to 4 December 2024) which was in line with the 10 days the Code allows
    2. the landlord gave its stage 2 response within 11 working days (9 April 2025 to 25 April 2025) which was in line with the 20 days the Code allows
28. The landlord handled the complaint efficiently, keeping to its timeframes and following the standards set out in its Complaint Policy. It responded clearly to most complaint points that were raised. While some aspects of the responses could have been more detailed, this did not significantly affect the overall handling of the complaint.

Learning

29. The landlord was clear about the steps it was taking in response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour but could have provided fuller responses to some of the additional issues she raised. It could reflect on how explaining the steps taken to investigate concerns about data handling and staff conduct may have improved the resident’s overall experience.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord referenced its records accurately in its responses, which showed good oversight of its investigation into the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.

Communication

31. The landlord could reflect on how maintaining more regular communication throughout the case may have provided the resident with greater reassurance and reduced the likelihood of a complaint being raised.