Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202526600)

Background

1. The resident said she was unhappy the landlord had not resolved her reports of noise disturbance which she said started in September 2024. Also, she said it had not repaired the ceiling following a leak from the property above.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of noise disturbance.
   2. Report of damage following a water leak.
   3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was:
   1. Service failure for the landlord’s handling of the reports of noise disturbance.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the report of damage following a water leak.
   3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord acknowledged the impact to the resident following its failure to follow its anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy. The delay impacted the resident. To put this right it apologised, offered compensation of £225 and agreed to carry out a sound transmission test.
5. Given the leaseholder of Property A failed to make good the damage to the resident’s property, it was reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to its insurers.

The landlord acknowledged the failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint. For this it apologised and made a reasonable and proportionate award of compensation.

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.

Recommendations

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

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.

6. It is appreciated the resident has been upset and distressed by the ongoing noise disturbance from her neighbour. She was also frustrated by the landlord’s handling of the reported noise disturbance. The resident’s feelings are understood and is not disputed that dealing with such situations is stressful.
7. The landlord has shown that it responded to the noise disturbance reports received. The noise disturbance was described as thuds, items dropped, furniture dragged after 10pm into the early hours of the morning. There was also reports of children playing and shouting.
8. The landlord took the following steps to investigate the reports: it liaised with the leaseholder of Property A on 2 December 2024 about the installation of carpets. It collaborated with the police about mediation between the two residents. The mediation started in May 2025. It told the resident to use the noise app so it could show the noise disturbance and the leaseholder of Property A served a warning letter on his tenant on 24 June 2025.
9. It was reasonable for the landlord to take an informal approach to the first reports of noise disturbance from the resident. A landlord should generally only consider taking formal action if informal attempts have not successfully resolved the issue, as is set out in its ASB policy. In its complaint response the landlord said it would serve a Section 146 notice on the leaseholder if the noise disturbance continued. This raised the resident’s expectation about the action it would take. There is no evidence of its communication with its legal team or whether it received advice on whether or not it had the evidence to support such an approach.
10. The landlord in its complaint responses acknowledged it had not managed the resident’s reports of noise disturbance in line with its ASB policy. It recognised it had not risk assessed the resident’s noise disturbance reports or made an action plan; and that it did not refer the resident to the local council’s environmental health team. Had it done so the council would have had an opportunity to consider if the reported noise met the threshold to be considered a statutory nuisance.
11. There is also no evidence the landlord made the resident aware of her right to request an ASB case review (formerly known as a community trigger) whereby there is an independent assessment by a multi-agency panel of the actions taken to resolve the reported noise. As the resident had reported noise over a been sustained period of time, it would have been reasonable for it to have done so. Although the case might not have met the threshold for an ASB case review, it would have at least given her the opportunity to have made that request.
12. The resident said the landlord had not considered the impact to her son who was affected by the noise. We are an informal alternative to the courts but are unable to establish legal liability. We also cannot assess whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. We are unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.​ Nonetheless, we have considered the distress and inconvenience that might have been caused to the resident.
13. The landlord was informed in July 2025 the occupant of Property A denied the allegations of noise disturbance and made a counter allegation of harassment. In addition, the leaseholders managing agent said the reports of noise disturbance had not been proven. The landlord in its case review noted the noise recordings were low and faint. It was reasonable it decided there was a need to evidence the type of floor coverings in Property A to assess the level of noise transmission.
14. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response acknowledged the failings in its handling of the noise disturbance. For this it apologised and asked the resident to allow it access to carry out a sound test. The resident did not agree and told us the landlord only suggested this because of our involvement. The resident’s position is understood. However, the landlord needs to assess the level of sound transmission between the 2 properties to decide if any further actions are necessary. We have made an order has for the landlord to make re-offer this sound test.
15. Overall, the landlord offered £225 for its failings. In the complaint process it offered £100 for the inconvenience experienced by the noise disturbance. After the complaint process ended, it offered a further £125 for the frustration caused by the noise disturbance. Our remedies guidance states that payments between £100 to £600 are payable when a resident was adversely affected by the landlord’s actions. The landlord’s late offer of compensation is not sufficient to avoid an adverse finding. This is because it should have offered the compensation at the earliest opportunity at the appropriate stage of the complaints process.
16. The landlord also did not take into account the impact of the failings identified in this report: raising her expectations about the S146 notice and not informing her of the option of an ASB case review. Whilst these failings might not have affected the outcome, we recognise the frustration these likely caused. For the reasons given above we have made a finding of service failure.

17. The landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord’s responsive repair policy states leaseholders are generally responsible for all internal repairs. This extends to pipework that services the property.
18. It was reasonable for the landlord to contact the leaseholder of Property A in May 2025 once it became aware a leak had damaged the resident’s property. This showed its willingness to help the resident get the ceiling repaired.
19. Once it became clear the leaseholder was not going to repair the damaged ceiling, the landlord informed the resident she could make an insurance claim. It was reasonable it provided the details of its insurer. The resident can make a claim for damage to their property as insurance covers unforeseen and unknown events.
20. The resident has told us the insurer has said an excess is payable and she does not believe she should pay this. We can only investigate complaints which have completed the landlord’s internal complaint process. The issue about the excess she was asked to pay was not part of her original complaint so we cannot consider this as part of the investigation. The resident can make a new complaint to the landlord about the payment of the excess for the damaged ceiling. If she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response she can refer the complaint to us for consideration.
21. The landlord in its complaint response informed the resident it could not force the leaseholder to rectify the damage to the property. The landlord tried to manage the resident’s expectations by explaining the action it could take. It explained the responsibility for the repair to the ceiling was with the leaseholder for Property A. This was reasonable.
22. Given the resident’s responsibility for internal repairs and the landlord’s referral to its insurers, we have made a finding of no maladministration.

23. The resident complained to the landlord on 26 May 2025 and the landlord took 45 working days to provide its stage 1 complaint response on 29 July 2025. This represented an unreasonable delay as its complaint procedure and our Complaint Handling Code states landlords should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. The landlord’s delay caused uncertainty and inconvenience to the resident.
24. The resident escalated her complaint on 7 August 2025. The resident reminded the landlord it had agreed to address her concerns about the leak into her property within its complaint response and had not done so. The landlord took 10 working days to acknowledge the complaint on 21 August 2025. This was not reasonable as it should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. This is to confirm to residents it had received the complaint and to give the date they will receive a response.

The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 18 September 2025, taking 20 working days. This was in line with the timescale outlined in its complaints procedure. The landlord in its complaint review acknowledged the failings in its complaint handling. To put thing right, it made a compensation award of £100. This was made up of £25 for its delays at its first stage, £25 for its lack of consideration of the leak at the first stage and £50 for the distress and convenience experienced. Our remedies guidance says that payments up to £100 is payable when there has been a service failure by the landlord which did not significantly affect the overall outcome to the resident. The landlord apologised for its failing and its compensation award is considered sufficient and proportionate. For those reasons we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

Learning

25. The landlord:
    1. Had clear ASB records which demonstrated the actions it took regarding the resident’s reports.
    2. Handled communication well between the leaseholder and managing agent regarding reports of noise disturbance.
    3. Should check residents can use the noise app and give appropriate advice especially when noise reports involve intermittent noise.