Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202331997)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331997

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

26 March 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a service charge refund following the sale of his property.

Background

  1. The resident was a leaseholder of the landlord, and the property was a 2–bedroom first–floor flat. The resident sold the property on 15 September 2023.
  2. On 22 September 2023, the resident requested a refund of pro rata service charges due to the sale of his property. The landlord emailed the resident the same day saying that following the sale of his property, the home ownership team would be in the process of closing his account and making any monetary adjustments. It noted that this could take a “few weeks” post-sale.
  3. A notice of transfer dated 25 September 2023 was sent to the landlord via the resident’s solicitor. The following day the landlord confirmed receipt of the document and returned it to the solicitor, having been “duly signed” by the landlord.
  4. On 29 September 2023, the resident contacted the landlord asking if the refund had been issued, and if not, what information it was waiting on. The landlord responded on 4 October 2023 explaining that the refund could take a few weeks post–sale to come through, and the resident would be contacted when the refund was ready to issue. It confirmed that at that point, the refund had not been issued.
  5. On 17 October 2023 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. He said that he was extremely dissatisfied at how hard it was to obtain any information from the landlord on most enquiries. He said that on multiple occasions “over the past years”, he had not been able to contact the home ownership team via phone, having been on hold for 10-20 minutes at times and then been automatically cut off. He said he had sold his property on 15 September 2023 and had not been notified of any refund, which was “incredibly frustrating”.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 24 October 2023. It outlined its understanding of the complaint and explained it had liaised with the home ownership team regarding long call waiting times. It provided details on the amount of calls it received and accepted that calls were disconnected after some time of not being answered, for which it apologised. It said that it had not received the notice of transfer and still considered the resident to be the owner of the property. It suggested that he request a refund via its online system and once notified of the sale, it would adjust the account and issue any further refund which might be due. It “sincerely apologised” for the difficulty the resident had faced when trying to contact the home ownership team and said it appreciated that this was frustrating. It offered the resident compensation totalling £60, made up of £40 for its service failure and £20 for the resident’s time and trouble.
  7. On 26 October 2023, the resident provided evidence from his solicitor confirming that the landlord had been notified of the sale on 25 September 2023. The case notes for the same day say that the resident advised the landlord that the home ownership team was “adamant” that it had not received notification of the sale. He went on to say that he had an email from the landlord that it had received the transfer notification, and he was “confused”.
  8. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 30 October 2023. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s lack of clear response. He said that the response was factually incorrect and outlined a summary of events. He said that the level of service he received was “atrocious” and there was no inter-team communication. The landlord responded to the resident on 31 October 2023, confirming that it had raised a stage 2 complaint and “made it evident” that the resident had provided documentation of the notice of transfer as well as his refund request. It said a response would be provided within 20 working days.
  9. On 14 November 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to advise that it was still investigating his stage 2 complaint. The landlord liaised internally on 16 November 2023. It queried why the complaint had not been resolved at stage 1. The home ownership team said that it received the notice of transfer on 25 October 2023, and this was actioned on 26 October 2023. It further explained that there had been a process change that was not a “smooth transition”, but it would be adjusting the account that day.
  10. The landlord sent a stage 2 response to the resident which was undated. It said that:
    1. When the stage 1 complaint closed it had not received the transfer document from the solicitors. It received this document a day after the complaint was closed.
    2. It responded to the solicitors within 24 hours and a receipt was sent on 26 October 2023.
    3. A change in the landlord’s process and systems had contributed to the delay in updating the accounts, and it apologised for the inconvenience.
    4. The complaint had been escalated to the relevant team, which had actioned all outstanding queries. It reassured the resident that there was now a new IT system in place to prevent such issues reoccurring.
    5. It offered the resident compensation totalling £255. This was broken down into the £60 offered at stage 1 and an additional £195 at stage 2, made up of:
      1. £20 for time and trouble.
      2. £150 for the additional delays.
      3. £20 for not closing the complaint within a 20–day timeframe.

Events post complaint

  1. The stage 2 complaint was closed on 21 November 2023. The resident contacted the landlord on 28 November 2023 saying that he still had not received the refund.
  2. The resident advised this Service that, as a resolution, he would like to be compensated. On 11 June 2024 the landlord advised us that after discussing the case further, it had confirmed that the responses provided at stages 1 and 2 were incorrect, and the landlord did in fact receive notice of the sale in September 2023. In light of this it offered the resident a further £150 to reflect the way in which the complaint had been managed, and to acknowledge that vital information was missed during the stage 2 process which may have expedited resolution of the issue.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a service charge refund following the sale of his property

  1. In relation to disputes about service charges, the landlord’s website says it will respond to residents within 10 working days and resolve disputes within 4 weeks. However, it notes that complex disputes may take longer. Residents will be advised of any delay. While this is in relation to disputes, it is reasonable to apply it in this case, given the landlord’s service charge policy does not provide timescales for such queries and the version provided to this Service was in draft form.
  2. Following the sale of the resident’s property, the evidence shows that on 22 September 2023 he requested a refund of the service charges. The landlord responded the same day saying it would begin the process of closing his account and make any monetary adjustments, but this could take a “few weeks”. This was a prompt response from the landlord that sought to manage the resident’s expectations in relation to the likely timescale.
  3. A notice of transfer was provided to the landlord on 25 September 2023, and the evidence shows that the landlord acknowledged receipt of this on 26 September 2023. The resident chased the refund on 29 September 2023. He asked the landlord if there was any further information it was waiting on in order to issue the refund. The landlord’s home ownership team responded 3 working days later. It again explained that the refund could take a “few weeks” post-sale to come through and as yet had not been issued. The landlord responded within its advertised timescale of 10 working days. However, the response did not go far enough to address the resident’s concerns in relation to any additional information that may be needed. This was not appropriate and a missed opportunity by the landlord to clarify matters for the resident and satisfy itself it had all the necessary information. 
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 October 2023 saying he was extremely dissatisfied with how difficult it was to obtain any information from the landlord. He raised a stage 1 complaint the same day, reiterating that it was “incredibly frustrating” not getting the requested information in response to his queries and that he still had not received the refund. He said that he had tried several times to contact the home ownership team “to no avail”. It is evident that the landlord’s failure to fully address the resident’s query regarding any additional information needed to progress the refund was frustrating for him.
  5. The landlord contacted the resident on 20 October 2023 to discuss the complaint. This was good practice and an appropriate step to ensure it had a good understanding of the issue. On 24 October 2023 the home ownership team contacted the resident to say that it had not received the notice of transfer, and therefore could not close the account and issue a refund. This was not appropriate, as the evidence shows that the landlord had received the notice of transfer on 25 September 2023 and had confirmed receipt of it on 26 September 2023. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, highlights the importance of good record keeping practices. It is vital for landlords to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events, which the landlord failed to do in this case.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 24 October 2023. It said that the home ownership team was an “extremely small team” and had long hold lines, which may account for the delay the resident experienced. It acknowledged that the “sheer number of calls” it received meant that some were automatically dropped, for which it sincerely apologised. This was a positive response from the landlord, as it explained to the resident the reason for the difficulty he had in making contact, accepted the failing, and apologised. It reiterated that it had not received the notice of transfer and still considered him as owning the property. This again demonstrated a record keeping failure and the landlord’s failure to fully investigate the complaint before providing its response, as it had evidently been notified of the transfer in September 2023. This was not appropriate and caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
  7. The landlord offered the resident £60 compensation at stage 1, made up of £40 for service failure and £20 for his time and trouble. While this was a positive step to put things right, it did not provide a resolution to the complaint, which was unfair to the resident.
  8. On 26 October 2023, the resident’s solicitor provided him with evidence that they sent the notice of transfer to the landlord. The case notes show that, the same day, the resident contacted the landlord saying that the home ownership team was “adamant” it was not aware of the sale, and he was “extremely confused” by this. The resident then raised a stage 2 complaint on 30 October 2023. Had the landlord responded swiftly and adequately investigated the matter following the resident’s contact on 26 October 2023, the need for escalating the complaint may have been avoided.
  9. The landlord’s case notes for 30 October 2023 said that the resident had provided information to “suggest that the home ownership team were aware of the sale”. On 14 November 2023, the landlord advised the resident that it was still investigating his stage 2 complaint. It is unclear when the landlord sent its stage 2 response as it was undated. However, it is reasonable to conclude it was after 14 November 2023. This was another example of its failure to keep clear and accurate records, which was not appropriate.
  10. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it had not been aware of the notice of transfer before 24 October 2023. However, the case notes of 30 October 2023 appear to show it accepted it had in fact been made aware of the sale prior to 24 October 2023. Therefore, as the evidence shows, the stage 2 response was sent at least 2 weeks after it appeared to accept it had prior knowledge of the sale. Consequently, its response was not factually correct. The landlord would presumably have identified this had it fully investigated the complaint and kept accurate records.
  11. The landlord also said that it had undergone a change in its process and systems which contributed to the delay in updating the accounts. In order to ensure continuity of effective service delivery, a landlord should have robust measures in place so that residents are not disadvantaged by any changes in systems.
  12. In total the landlord offered the resident £255 compensation, made up of £60 offered at stage 1 and an additional £195 at stage 2. This was solution focused and a positive step by the landlord to put things right.
  13. The evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord on 28 November 2023 saying he had still not received the refund. He later advised this Service that the refund was received on 12 December 2023.
  14. In summary, the landlord’s failure to keep accurate records delayed the resident being paid the refund he was owed. The landlord was made aware of the sale and received the relevant documentation on 25 September 2023. Despite this, it took almost 3 months to pay the refund. This was contrary to its advertised timescale, which says disputes will be resolved within 4 weeks. This was not a complex case and therefore should not have required any additional time to resolve.
  15. It is evident that the situation caused the resident distress and inconvenience, and that he spent a considerable amount of time and trouble chasing the matter. He had said he was confused and frustrated at the landlord’s poor communication and lack of satisfactory answers to his queries. It was not reasonable that due to the landlord’s failure to accurately interrogate its records and the changes in operating systems, the resident was disadvantaged. We would expect a landlord to have robust measures in place to mitigate for events such as this.
  16. The landlord increased its offer of compensation by an additional £150 on 24 June 2024. While this was a positive step, this cannot be considered reasonable redress. This is because the increased offer took place after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and only after the involvement of this Service. Therefore, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a service charge refund following the sale of his property. The revised financial offer of compensation totalling £405 was, however, reasonable, and this Service has not made a further order of compensation in this matter.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a service charge refund following the sale of his property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay the resident the £405 already offered to him for the distress and inconvenience in relation to its response to his complaint.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord familiarises itself with this Service’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) and considers assessing its internal recording procedures against the recommendations. It should also consider arranging for relevant staff to complete this Service’s free online training in relation to KIM, if this has not been done recently.