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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202316180)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316180

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

25 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. This complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s request for a management pack during the sale of her property.
  2. We have also considered how the landlord handled the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident occupied her property under a shared ownership lease. She completed the sale of her property on 29 September 2023.
  2. The resident made a complaint on 10 July 2023. She said her solicitors had asked the landlord for a management pack on 22 February 2023, but it had not sent the pack. She said she had chased a response weekly, and that it was the only thing holding up exchange and completion on her sale. She said she wanted it to provide the pack as soon as possible.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 7 August 2023. It accepted there had been delays in sending the management pack (which it sent on 12 July 2023). It offered £50 compensation for inconvenience, and said it would waive its management pack fee and admin fee (totalling £480).
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 16 August 2023. She said the landlord had caused at least 3 months of delays in her sale, and should compensate her for her outgoings (rent, mortgage payments and council tax) and time off work for stress.
  5. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 15 September 2023. It apologised for its delays and offered £240 compensation. This was £200 for time and trouble, and £40 for complaint handling. It said it would waive its fees as set out in its stage 1 response, and would refer the resident’s request for it to waive her rent to its rent and service charge team for investigation.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response, so referred her complaint to us.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. We can only investigate complaints which have completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. When referring her complaint to us, the resident raised concerns with the handling of her rent account and delays in the landlord’s investigation into the arrears. This was not part of her original complaint, so we cannot consider it as part of this investigation.
  2. She also told us about the effect the landlord’s delays in sending the management pack had on her mental health. She said it should pay compensation for time she took off work due to stress. We cannot determine liability for any harm to health or wellbeing, or award damages in the way a court does. As such, we will not consider whether or not the landlord should pay any compensation for loss of earnings or harm to health. However, we will consider any general distress or inconvenience any failings by the landlord caused the resident.

Delays in sending the management pack

  1. The landlord’s resale policy outlines the process it will follow when a shared owner sells their property. It does not contain any specific timescale for providing the management pack, but says it will do so once it has approved a buyer.
  2. The resident accepted an offer on the property at the start of February 2023. She then requested a management pack on 22 February 2023. The landlord approved the buyer in April 2023, and sent the management pack on 12 July 2023. The resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord and make a complaint before it sent the pack.
  3. The evidence provided does not explain why it took 2 months for the landlord to approve the buyer. It kept little to no records of its actions around that time. It speculated that it may have been waiting for information from the agent. However, it has provided no evidence to show this was more than speculation, and in its internal notes it says delays from February to May 2023 were the result of internal staff changes.
  4. The evidence shows the landlord ignored the resident’s request for a management pack until 6 June 2023, when it asked for an undertaking from her solicitors. It then took a month after they gave that undertaking for it to provide the management pack. This was in part because it incorrectly told the resident that its managing agent (who managed the estate, not the block) needed to provide the management pack, despite its managing agent having already explained that was not the case.
  5. While the landlord’s resales policy does not give a timescale for it to provide management packs, it said in correspondence that it aims to provide a management pack within 2 weeks. This would be in line with standard industry practice. In this case, it took 4 months and 3 weeks for the landlord to provide the pack. Taking the time needed to approve the buyer and to produce the management pack into account, this is a delay of 3-4 months.
  6. The landlord recognised its failings in its complaint response, and upheld the complaint. It said the delays were the result of a buyer not being approved until April 2023, issues with an ESW1 certificate, internal staff changes, and confusion over whether it or its managing agent needed to provide the pack. It apologised and offered £200 compensation. It also offered to waive its admin fee (£250 plus VAT) and its management pack fee (£180 including VAT), totalling £480. As the landlord has recognised its failings, we have considered whether it has done enough to put things right.
  7. The resident believes the landlord should increase the compensation offer to include time she says she took off work due to stress, the cost of the rent, mortgage and bills for the property, and the distress and inconvenience caused. We do not award damages in the way a court does, and as set out above we do not determine either causation or liability for any impact on health and wellbeing. As such, we cannot consider any compensation for stress, or  related time off work.
  8. The resident said in her complaint that the management pack was the only thing holding up exchange and completion for her sale. She said she did not believe she should have to pay the rent or other outgoings for the property as a result. She said the landlord should reimburse 3 months’ worth of those costs.
  9. While we expect landlords to offer redress for their failings, we do not expect them to pay costs residents are required to pay under their lease or tenancy. This includes the cost of rent or bills for the property. We would only expect a landlord to offer compensation for those outgoings if the evidence showed it was a financial loss incurred solely because of failings by the landlord, and not as a result of any other factor.
  10. The conveyancing process can create uncertainty and be stressful. While the resident said her solicitors told her that the usual timescale for a chain-free sale would be 8-10 weeks, that is not guaranteed. There are various factors which can arise and cause delays or unexpected expenses. The resident experienced frustration and inconvenience as a result of the landlord’s delays in providing the management pack, and it is important for the landlord to improve its communication in future.
  11. However, the evidence shows that any delays in the sale of the property were not solely due to the landlord’s delays in sending the management pack.
  12. It is not our role to analyse the full conveyancing process to work out the cause of every delay. We can only look into the landlord’s actions, and not those of everyone involved in the conveyancing process. However, the evidence we have seen shows the conveyancing process was still ongoing up to the end of September 2023 (more than 2 months after the landlord provided the management pack).
  13. The landlord received the buyer’s mortgage offer for approval on 4 July 2023 and 18 enquiries from the buyer (through the resident’s solicitor) on 5 July 2023. There was also further information the landlord needed from the buyer, which it did not receive until the latter half of August 2023, despite it chasing that information. The landlord was ready for completion on 23 August 2023, but the sale did not complete until 29 September 2023.
  14. The evidence provided shows that the management pack was not the only thing preventing exchange and completion. This means we could not reasonably expect the landlord to pay the rent, mortgage payment or bills the resident had to pay during that time.
  15. The resident is also unhappy with the compensation the landlord offered. This was £200 compensation, with the landlord also waiving £480 of fees. As the resident would be required to pay the fees as part of the sale regardless of any delays, the fee waiver is also redress. The total redress offered is therefore £680.
  16. As the evidence shows the landlord’s delay was not the only thing holding up exchange and completion, any detriment the landlord needs to put right would be limited to the inconvenience of chasing the management pack.
  17. The landlord’s offer of £200 is in line with its internal compensation guidance for significant failings with a serious impact on a resident. The value of the waived fees means its total offer significantly exceeds the limits in its compensation guidance. It is also in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident.
  18. As such, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress to resolve the complaint prior to our involvement, and it does not need to do anything else to put things right.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. Under its policy, it needs to issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days, and stage 2 responses within 20 working days of an escalation request.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 response was delayed, as it took 20 working days to issue a response. It acknowledged this delay in its stage 2 response, and offered £40 compensation.
  3. The level of compensation offered is in line with both its compensation guidance and our published remedies guidance for failings of a short duration which do not affect the overall outcome. As such, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress for its complaint handling delay, and it does not need to do anything further to put things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to our involvement which satisfactorily resolves:
    1. Its handling of the resident’s request for a management pack during the sale of her property.
    2. Its handling of the complaint.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord pay the compensation offered in its stage 2 response within 4 weeks of the date of this report, if it has not already done so. Our finding of reasonable redress is dependent on that payment being made.
  2. The landlord should contact us within 4 weeks of the date of this report to let us know its intentions regarding the above recommendation.