Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) — case 202417780

Decision Case ID 202417780 Decision type Investigation Landlord Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 29 January 2026 Background The resident reported issues with the occupants of an upstairs flat to the landlord. The resident has informed it of his vulnerabilities. The resident’s complaint concerns two neighbours. For ease of reference in this report, one is referred to as neighbour A and the other is referred to as neighbour B.

Neighbour A moved out of the upstairs flat and neighbour B moved in. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlords response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB). We have also investigated the landlord’s response to the complaint. Our decision (determination) We have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the complaint We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons The landlord identified and acknowledged failings in its complaint responses. The action it took in relation to the ASB cases was appropriate in the circumstances. However, it did not acknowledged the delay in opening an ASB case for neighbour A. Its communication was not reasonable during both ASB complaints. The landlord should have recognised the resident was complaining about its response to the ASB earlier. While its stage 1 response was delayed, the landlord acknowledged this and took steps to put things right.

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 26 February 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £350 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s reports of ASB. 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 paid. No later than 26 February 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations Compensation If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the £70 compensation it offered for its poor complaint handling. The finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 23 May 2024 The resident complained to the landlord because he was unhappy about how it had handled his reports of ASB.

21 June 2024 The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said: It had identified failings in the way it had handled the resident’s reports of ASB. It had closed down the ASB case as the perpetrator had moved. The resident had made reports about the new neighbour improperly accessing the roof. The landlord had contacted the new neighbour about this and visited their property. It was trying to fit window restrictors, so the neighbour could not access the roof above the resident’s property.

It was offering the resident £200 compensation for the failings it had identified. 2 July 2024 The resident requested to escalate his complaint. He was unhappy as the behaviour of the new neighbour had continued. 19 July 2024 The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said it: Was partially upholding the resident’s complaint as it had identified a lack of communication with the resident after the stage 1 complaint. Was currently following its procedures correctly in terms of the new neighbour.

It described what action it had taken. Was increasing the total compensation offered to £245. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident was unhappy at the landlord’s response and what he believed to be a lack of action from the landlord. He has explained that as an outcome he would like the situation resolved and the landlord’s communication to improve. 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB Finding Maladministration The landlord accepted that there were failings in its handling of the resident’s concerns with neighbour A. In its complaint responses it said there was a lack of communication, a lack of action and overall poor handling of the resident’s ASB reports.

The landlord acknowledged the delays that occurred after the ASB case was opened for neighbour A. It investigated the resident’s complaint and identified its failings and looked to put them right. This was reasonable of the landlord. However, the landlord did not refer to any delay in opening the ASB case. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will respond to reports in a timely manner and that it will investigate all reports where the resident is considered to be vulnerable. The resident first reported his issues with neighbour A on 19 May 2023.

He made 3 further reports to the landlord until an ASB case was opened on 17 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged each of these reports, and did check whether the resident had support with his health, but there is no evidence it responded to the reports beyond that. This meant it took nearly 11 months for the landlord to open the ASB case after the resident’s first report. The landlord did not investigate the reports as it should have done, given the resident’s vulnerabilities.

It also did not respond in a timely manner. The landlord did not act appropriately because it did not follow its ASB policy and did not acknowledge this in its stage 1 response. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will undertake action that is reasonable and proportionate. The landlord sent a written warning to neighbour A on 2 May 2024. Around a week later, the landlord also called neighbour A to discuss their conduct. The ASB case was then closed on 15 May 2024 as neighbour A moved out of the property.

Once the landlord began to take action in relation to neighbour A, it acted reasonably. We find that the action it took was in line with its policy. The resident reported concerns about neighbour B, who had moved into the flat vacated by neighbour A, on 20 May 2024. Neighbour B was using the roof in a similar manner to neighbour A. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will contact a resident within 5 days. The landlord contacted the resident on 24 May 2024 to say it was exploring what further action could be taken.

The landlord’s initial contact with the resident was in line with its ASB policy. The landlord completed an action plan with the resident on 10 July 2024. There is no timescale in the landlord’s ASB policy for when an action plan should be completed. Though the policy does say the landlord aims to ensure it can respond to reports of ASB quickly and effectively. The action plan was completed 6 and a half weeks from when the landlord initially contacted the resident on 24 May 2024.

Beyond acknowledging further ASB reports, the landlord contacted the resident about the ASB twice in this period. There is no evidence of the landlord considering the resident’s vulnerabilities here either. Because of this and the commitments in the landlord’s policy, we consider it reasonable to say the landlord should have completed the action plan sooner. We also consider that the contact frequency, taking into account the resident’s vulnerabilities, did not represent the landlord responding quickly and effectively to the ASB.

The landlord’s actions did not align with what is set out in its ASB policy. However, we have seen that the landlord was taking action in this period. On 4 June 2024 it began exploring what measures it could take to stop access onto the roof. The landlord wrote a warning letter that it sent to neighbour B on 14 June 2024. It followed this up with a visit to neighbour B on or around 26 June 2024. We consider that this shows the landlord taking reasonable and proportionate action in relation to neighbour B in the early stages of the ASB case.

The landlord followed its policy here. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £175, this was made up of £100 for the its poor handling of the ASB case and £75 for the inconvenience caused. While the landlord did acknowledge some of its failings and look to put things right, we do not believe this level of compensation is appropriate. This is because the landlord did not recognise how significant the delay was in dealing with the ASB case for neighbour A. For the ASB case concerning neighbour B, the action plan was delayed.

There is no evidence of the landlord taking the resident’s vulnerabilities into account in either case. Considering all of this, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of these ASB cases. The landlord should apologise to the resident. Considering our remedies guidance, we believe an additional compensation payment of £175 is appropriate for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This brings the total compensation to £350. This sum recognises the impact of the delays on a vulnerable resident who did not feel like he was being heard.

Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Reasonable redress The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. The landlord acknowledged both the resident’s complaint and its escalation within its timescales. However, the landlord should have recognised that the resident was complaining earlier than it did. The landlord’s definition of a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation.

The resident contacted the landlord on 25 January 2024 about a lack of action. He also mentioned a lack of action when he contacted the landlord on 17 April 2024. The landlord did not register a complaint on either occasion. Consequently, it failed to follow its policy here. The landlord’s complaints policy says a resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being submitted.

The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint in 13 working days, so in line with its timescales. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint in 19 working days. This was not in line with its policy. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged the delay in registering the complaint and the delay in its response. It offered the resident £70 compensation. The landlord’s policy says it will only apologise for complaint handling failures. In this case, the landlord recognised that financial compensation would be appropriate given the length of the delay and the impact on the resident.

Considering our remedies guidance, we believe this was an appropriate level of compensation given the circumstances. Consequently, we have made a finding of reasonable redress for the way the landlord handled the resident’s complaint. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord’s records were detailed and showed good practice. Generally, they captured the full details of the ASB complaint and the current status of the ASB reporting. This level of detail supports transparency.

This is a positive from the landlord. Communication We have noted in the above and the landlord has acknowledged that the level of communication was not appropriate. The landlord should ensure it engages with resident’s and responds to reports in a timely manner, as is set out in its policy.