Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) — case 202427931

Decision Case ID 202427931 Decision type Investigation Landlord Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 9 February 2026 Background The resident has mental health, which the landlord was aware of. She reported that it damaged the cupboard door frame and the area around an electric socket in the hallway whilst completing repairs. The landlord acknowledged her reports and carried out repairs to rectify the issues.

What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Repairs to the cupboard door frame and hallway wall. The complaint. Our decision (determination) The landlord has offered redress to the resident in relation to her complaint about its handling of repairs to the cupboard door frame and hallway wall, which resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This results in a finding of ‘reasonable redress’. The landlord has offered redress to the resident in relation to its handling of the complaint, which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

This results in a finding of ‘reasonable redress’. We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Repairs to the cupboard door frame and hallway wall The landlord failed to keep records of some of the repairs it had completed, which raises concerns about its recordkeeping. This omission contributed to it incorrectly informing the resident that it had no evidence of completing a repair to the area around the electric socket wall, despite having carried out a postrepair inspection of this work in April 2024.

It also wrongly advised the resident that it had already responded to her concerns about the cupboard door frame in an earlier complaint response.Additionally, the landlord did not attend the scheduled inspections in September and November 2024, and it failed to complete the agreed repairs within the 28day timeframe set out in its policy for routine repairs. While we identified additional failings beyond those acknowledged by the landlord during the complaints process, it offered compensation to the resident, prior to this investigation, which appropriately reflected the impact of the failings.

It also demonstrated learning as a result of the resident’s complaint which was a positive step to avoid repeating such failures in future. Complaint handling The landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s complaints and issued its stage 1 response within its published timeframe. However, it extended the timeframe to issue its stage 2 response on 3 occasions. It acknowledged this delay and offered compensation to the resident which reflected the impact on her. 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. Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations We recommend that the landlord clarifies to the resident why it believes it completed the door frame and hallway wall repairs to the required standard. We recommend that the landlord pays the £415 compensation it offered to the resident prior to this investigation, if it has not already done so.

We make our finding of reasonable redress on the basis that the landlord pays this amount. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 23 August 2024 The resident complained that the landlord caused damage in her property. She said it damaged the cupboard door frame while repairing the water pump. She also reported that, during a repair the previous year, it pulled an electric socket from the wall and had not returned to fix the wall. 2 September 2024 The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.

17 September 2024 The landlord issued the stage 1 response. It said it had previously responded to the resident’s complaint about damage to the door frame. It found no evidence of any repairs related to painting or replacing an electrical socket in the hallway. It confirmed it would inspect on 19 September 2024 and raise a job for any required repairs. It acknowledged its complaint handling failings and offered £45 compensation to the resident. 30 September 2024 The resident escalated her complaint because she remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the cupboard door frame and the hallway wall.

She also said that the inspection did not take place on 19 September 2024. 30 September 2024 The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. 25 October 2024 The landlord said it needed longer to respond to the complaint and would do so by 22 November 2024. 22 November 2024 The landlord said it was waiting for information and would issue its stage 2 response by 20 December 2024. 20 December 2024 The landlord informed the resident of a further delay in issuing its stage 2 response and said it would provide it by 22 January 2025.

13 January 2025 The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It explained that, due to an administration error, the inspection scheduled for 19 September 2024 did not go ahead. It inspected on 28 November 2024 and agreed to repair the cupboard door frame and the hallway wall around the electric socket. It apologised, acknowledged its failings and increased its compensation offer to £415, made up of: £205 for its complaint handling failings. £100 for distress and inconvenience.

£100 for time and trouble. £10 for the missed appointment. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident brought her complaint to us as she remained unhappy with the standard of the repairs completed by the landlord. 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 Repairs to the cupboard door frame and hallway wall Finding Reasonable redress The landlord inspected the property on 19 April 2024, and the resident confirmed that it had repaired the wall around the electric socket. We saw no evidence that the resident raised dissatisfaction about this repair before making her complaint in August 2024. However, we also saw no evidence of this repair or inspection in the landlord’s repairs log. This likely contributed to the landlord informing the resident in its stage 1 response that it found no evidence of attending such a repair.

While this did not affect the overall outcome, it raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping. In its stage 1 response, the landlord incorrectly informed the resident that it had already addressed her complaint about the cupboard door frame in a complaint response issued on 30 August 2024. We saw no evidence to support this. Although it issued a complaint response on that date, it did not refer to the cupboard door frame. Its failure to identify this meant it did not address this part of the resident’s complaint on 17 September 2024.

This was unreasonable and caused inconvenience to the resident, as she had to raise the issue again with the landlord. The evidence shows that the landlord scheduled an inspection within 11 days of the resident reporting the repairs in August 2024. While this was reasonable, it failed to carry out the inspection on 19 September 2024. In its stage 2 response, it correctly acknowledged this failing and provided an explanation. However, it did not explain the delay in rescheduling the inspection.

The resident informed the landlord on 1 October 2024 that the inspection had not taken place. The landlord did not show that it rescheduled the inspection until 6 weeks later. This was unreasonable and not in line with its repairs policy to inspect within 20 days of being made aware of a problem. The resident informed the landlord that it also failed to attend the inspection scheduled for 21 November 2024. Although we did not see evidence that an inspection was bookedfor that date, the landlord did not dispute her account.

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that it repeated its failure to attend a scheduled appointment. The likely caused inconvenience to the resident and delayed the resolution of the problem. In addition, although the landlord subsequentlycarried out aninspection on 28 November 2024, we did not see evidence of either inspection on its repairs logs. This raises further concerns about its record keeping and the accuracy of its repairs records. The landlord failed to complete the repairs it identified during the November 2024 inspection in line with its 28 day repairs policy timeframe for routine repairs.

The evidence shows that it completed the repairs to the cupboard door frame on 24 January 2025 and the repairs to the wall on 31 January 2025. This was 29 and 36 days outside its policy timeframe. The delays were unreasonable and caused further frustration to the resident, who had raised these issues 5 months earlier. Additionally, although it offered compensation to the resident for the delays, it failed to adequately acknowledge and explain these in its stage 2 stage response.

In January 2026 the resident informed us that she remained unhappy with the standard of the repairs. However, we cannot assess the landlord’s actions beyond its stage 2 response as it has not had the opportunity to review these concerns through its complaints process. The resident may therefore wish to raise a new complaint for the landlord to investigate its handling of the matters since January 2025. The evidence shows that, after she reported further dissatisfaction to the landlord in July 2025, it carried out a post‑inspection and signed off the repairs as complete.

We did not see evidence that it explained to the resident why it considered it had completed the repairs to the required standard. We therefore recommend that it provides this explanation to her. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered to pay £210 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact of its repairs failings on her. Its offer was in line with its compensation policy which allows awards of up to £100 for distress and inconvenience and up to £100 for time and trouble in cases where its failings had a limited impact on a resident.

It also says that it would compensate residents for missed appointments. The compensation is within a range that the Ombudsman would recommend where a landlord’s failings had an adverse impact on a resident. Given the adverse impact to the resident between August 2024 and January 2025, the landlord’s compensation offer was reasonable. While we recognise that we have identified additional failings by the landlord, we determine that the level of compensation it offered was sufficient alongside lessons it has apparently taken from the case.

Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Reasonable redress The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process, and its complaint policy mirrors the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It aims to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive formal responses to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgements. If it needs longer to respond to a complaint, it will inform the resident and agree a new timeframe.

The landlord promptly acknowledged the resident’s complaint at both stages, which was reasonable and in line with the Code. It responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint 1 day outside its published timeframe. This was a short delay, and we did not see evidence that this adversely impacted the resident. After acknowledging the resident’s stage 2 complaint, the landlord extended its response timeframe on 3 separate occasions, each by 20 working days. This resulted in a significant delay, with the landlord finally issuing its stage 2 response 72 working days after acknowledging the complaint.

We recognise that the landlord kept the resident informed of the delays and explained that it was awaiting information about the repairs. However, the extension period went beyond the Code’s 20–day extension for stage 2 complaints. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failings. It offered £205 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact on her. We determine that the compensation offer was reasonable and proportionate to the adverse impact on the resident, particularly as she was kept informed and agreed to the extensions.

Learning Repairs The landlord shared with us the learning it took from the resident’s complaint and the measures it has implemented to prevent a recurrence. This includes the introduction of a team to monitor repairs and update residents, weekly reporting of outstanding actions and addressing blockages within its service delivery. Knowledge information management (record keeping) We found record keeping failures in the landlord’s repairs logs. It should keep records of all repairs.

Maintaining accurate, detailed records of its decisions and actions will help to improve transparency and accountability. Communication While the landlord extended the timeframe to issue its stage 2 response beyond its complaint policy timeframe, it kept the resident informed and appropriately explained the reasons for the delays.