Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202529139)

Background

1. The resident reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) to her landlord from a neighbour in the block of flats she lives at. The landlord is a managing agent at the block of flats, with the local authority being the freeholder. The neighbour’s property was managed by a different landlord. The resident’s neighbour lived there under a licence agreement with the local authority. The resident was unhappy at the landlord’s response to ASB which she reported and its failure to resolve the issue, which she felt left her exposed to harm.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
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

6. The landlord took steps to try and resolve the reported ASB. However, the evidence shows it did not follow several parts of its ASB policy. Its record keeping and communication with the resident was poor. While it offered her a remedy, we consider this was not proportionate to the failures we found.
7. The landlord identified its complaint handling failures, at the time of its stage 2 response. It offered the resident compensation for these. However, it did not follow its remedy through to completion.

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 considered

8. The landlord’s stage 2 response said it would continue to work with the neighbour’s landlord to resolve the ASB. The resident has told us that the issue has not yet been resolved. We consider it reasonable to assess the landlord’s actions after its final complaint response.
9. The landlord’s records show that it completed an ASB interview with the resident on 10 January 2024. This was after she reported incidents on 6 and 9 January 2024 where her neighbour had forced their way into her flat and was violent towards her. It completed an ASB action plan. This agreed it would maintain weekly contact with the resident. This was reasonable and in line with its ASB policy.
10. The resident told the landlord on 28 February 2024 her neighbour had pleaded guilty to assaulting her and was given a 2-year restraining order on 26 February 2024. There is no evidence that it completed a risk assessment at this point in line with its ASB policy. There is also no record that it followed fully followed other parts of its ASB policy. For example, its records do not show:
    1. It maintained weekly contact with the resident. Its ASB policy says it will contact victims as specified as part of the action plan.
    2. It completed a risk assessment, which its ASB policy says it will do.
    3. It investigated ASB which the resident reported on 20 May 2024, which it said it would do. Its policy says it will complete a full investigation and gather evidence.
    4. It took prompt and effective action to protect the resident, as outlined in its ASB policy. The further evidence the resident provided shows the landlord told her it had contacted her neighbour’s landlord on 20 February 2024 about the issue. However, she chased it for an update on 28 February and 11 March 2024.
    5. It kept the resident updated on the progress of her case, in line with its ASB policy. The resident’s frustrations grew that she did not know what the landlord was doing to resolve the ASB. She contacted her MP on 9 September 2024 for help. The MP contacted her landlord and her neighbour’s landlord. However, the MP told the resident on 30 October 2024 they had not received an update from either landlord.
11. The evidence shows the resident was becoming increasingly concerned for her safety. She contacted the landlord on 7 and 9 August 2024 to report further ASB. She said her neighbour had approached her property holding a knife. She was concerned the landlord had not contacted her to discuss this. She was worried for her safety and wanted it to review the building’s security and install security cameras.
12. The landlord responded to the resident on 9 August 2024. It said it needed to wait for the police to respond to its enquiries about this. They would say if they felt further security measures were needed. It also told her that her neighbour was not its tenant and it was their landlord’s responsibility to act. This was not reasonable. Given the resident’s reports along with her neighbour being given a restraining order it should have considered taking legal action itself. This was a failure to follow the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2024 that says landlords can apply for injunctions against perpetrators who are not its tenant.
13. The resident provided us with further evidence on 10 March 2026. This shows communication between her and the landlord relating to events in 2024. This information was not included in the landlord’s evidence submission to us, which was a serious record keeping failure that impacted on our investigation. We also found several other record keeping failures by the landlord during our investigation. For example, there is no record:
    1. Of its visit to the neighbour’s landlord on 12 February 2025, which its stage 2 response mentioned.
    2. Of its enquiries to the police, it told the resident of on 9 August 2024 or that it received a response from them. There is also no evidence that the landlord chased the police on this matter. This indicates a lack of oversight.
    3. Of a safeguarding referral it said it had made in August 2024.
    4. It contacted the resident to discuss her “housing situation” which its evidence shows the police recommended it did so in their letter on 20 November 2024.
    5. It responded to the resident after she asked it on 26 March 2025 for an update on what action it and her neighbour’s landlord was taking to resolve the ASB.
14. The landlord’s complaint responses said the resident did not want to work with its safeguarding team. The resident disputed this, as she said its referral did not address her not feeling safe in her property. There is no record in the landlord’s evidence of its referral, so we are unable to determine this issue either way.
15. The landlord’s evidence shows that the neighbour’s landlord and local authority discussed the reported ASB on 13 February 2025. They disputed who, under the terms of the licence agreement, was responsible for resolving the ASB the resident reported. The neighbour’s landlord confirmed to the landlord on 5 March 2025 they were responsible.
16. The evidence shows the neighbour was not engaging with their landlord about the reported ASB. As the neighbour was not its tenant there was little direct action the landlord could take to resolve this. However, it contacted the neighbour’s landlord on multiple occasions on 5 and 11 March 2025 about the issue. It was becoming frustrated they were not acting to resolve the ASB. It said it would consider legal action against them to resolve the ASB if they did not act. This was reasonable and in line with its ASB policy that says it will work with partners to resolve ASB.
17. Although the landlord considered taking legal action, over 12 months had passed from the neighbour being given a restraining order on 26 February 2024 to its discussions about this. Its failure to consider taking legal action earlier left the resident at risk to the point she had to move out of her property. This was unreasonable and a failure to follow its ASB policy that says it will ensure its customers can enjoy a peaceful and safe environment in which to live.
18. The landlord’s stage 2 response said it had installed security cameras in the communal areas. This was in line with its ASB policy that says it will do so where appropriate. However, this was 9 months after the resident had requested this and 6 months after the police asked it to review its CCTV operations on 20 November 2024. There is no record that it kept the resident updated during this time on the issue or explained the reason for the delay. This was not reasonable and a communication failure.
19. As the landlord had incurred costs for installing CCTV it was reasonable that it passed a proportion of its costs onto the resident in line with the leasehold agreement. This says it can charge her a proportion of its expenses for the provision of any other service which it is reasonable to provide. As there was no legal agreement between the landlord and the neighbour’s landlord, it could not pass a proportion of its costs for installing CCTV onto them. However, the CCTV also benefitted the neighbour’s landlord and their tenant. It would have been reasonable for it to have discussed this with them, given the resident’s reported ASB from their tenant was the reason for it installing the CCTV.
20. The evidence shows the resident continued to report ASB to the landlord and the police, after its stage 2 response. She told us it said in October 2025 the neighbour’s landlord was taking legal action to end their tenancy. However, she said it has not updated her further and the issue is ongoing. This was a communication failure that caused her inconvenience as she chased it for answers.
21. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not provide the resident with a clear plan on what it would do to resolve the ASB, some 16 months after she first reported it. There is also no record that it contacted other residents in the block to gather evidence. This was contrary to the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 which says it should consider engaging the wider community in finding solutions to specific local anti-social behaviour issues.
22. The landlord’s evidence shows it knew on 18 November 2025 the neighbour had been arrested for breaching the restraining order. There is no record that it completed a revised action plan or risk assessment with the resident at this point. It would have been reasonable for it to have done so. This was a failure to follow its ASB policy that says it will respond to reports of ASB in a timely manner, based on risk.
23. The resident has told us that she does not currently live at her property. She said she feels it is not safe to return to her home due to the risk of further ASB from her neighbour. As the ASB has not been remedied by the landlord’s complaints procedure we have made a finding of maladministration. The resident told us that the issue has “been life changing and destroyed her independence.” While the landlord has taken some steps to put things right, we do not consider its apology and compensation offer adequately addressed the detriment to the resident.
24. The landlord’s stage 2 response said it could not find any failures in its response to the resident’s ASB concerns. However, we have found several failures by it not to follow its ASB policy. This was not reasonable. It offered the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. While this went someway to addressing the distress caused to the resident, we do not consider it adequate for the further failures we have found.
25. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay a further £500 compensation to the resident. We have also ordered the landlord to contact the resident to discuss her ASB concerns and clearly explain the current situation of the ASB case and what it can and cannot do to resolve the issue.

26. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages. The evidence shows it did this at stage 1, which was reasonable. However, its evidence does not show it did so at stage 2. This was unreasonable and a failure to follow the Code.
27. The landlord agreed a stage 1 extension of 10 working days on 14 February 2025. It sent its response on 21 February 2025. This was reasonable and in line with the Code to tell the resident of its extension and provide a response within its revised timeframe.
28. The landlord sent its stage 2 response 66 working days after the resident had escalated her complaint. There is no record it extended its investigation. This was a failure to comply with the Code to respond at stage 2 within 20 working days. This was not reasonable and caused the resident inconvenience as she chased it for answers.
29. The landlord’s stage 2 response apologised for its delayed response. This was reasonable. It did not provide the resident with an explanation for its delays, which would have been reasonable. However, it offered her £125 compensation for its poor complaint handling. This was in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident.
30. The landlord’s remedies policy says where it has fallen short of its service standards, a remedy will be a suitable method of addressing any customer detriment. Its stage 2 response said it could not find any failures in its handling of the resident’s ASB case. However, it offered the resident £100 compensation due to the distress and inconvenience of it taking steps to resolve the ASB. It is confusing why it did this. Either there were no failures and a remedy was not required or there were failures which it needed to offer a remedy and uphold the substantive part of the resident’s complaint.
31. The landlord’s stage 2 response said it would maintain regular contact with the resident about its progress to resolve the issue. However, its records do not show that it did this. This was a failure to follow the Code which says any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. For this reason, we have made a finding of service failure.
32. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her a further £25 compensation for the failures we found in its complaint handling.

Learning

33. The resident’s complaint provides the landlord with an opportunity to learn on how it responds to cases where the alleged perpetrator is not its tenant. It should use the resident’s case to review how it approaches any such future ASB cases. Where it incurs costs for providing a service such as CCTV because of any reported ASB it should consider discussing with other landlords absorbing some of its costs if there is a benefit of a service to their tenants.
34. There is learning for the landlord in its complaint handling. It should ensure that its responses follow the Code, the reasons for its findings are clear and any remedy it offers reflects the impact on the resident as a result of any fault identified.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. We found record keeping failures by the landlord during our investigation. Maintaining accurate, detailed records of its decisions will help to improve transparency and accountability. That the resident provided us with evidence of contact between her and the landlord, that it did not provide this investigation is a concern. It should ensure that it takes measures to provide the Ombudsman with comprehensive records to assist our investigation of residents’ complaints.

Communication

36. The landlord’s communication with the resident could have been more effective. As outlined in the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2024 it is important victims receive timely and consistent communication regarding their case. The landlord should ensure it follows this for any future ASB cases.