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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202222100)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222100

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

29 January 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s tenancy end date and his request for a refund of the credit on his rent account.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a former tenant of the landlord. The property was a supported independent living property for residents experiencing mental health challenges. The resident received support from a third-party support provider. The resident has a mental health condition.
  2. The resident signed a notice to terminate the tenancy on 11 August 2022. The notice confirmed that his tenancy would end on 11 September 2022. The landlord has provided a letter sent internally via email on 2 September 2022, confirming that the tenancy end date was set for 11 September 2022. The letter said that the resident should return his keys to the scheme manager before 12 noon on the termination date, otherwise he could be liable for additional costs, including rent charges.
  3. On 5 September 2022, the landlord extended the tenancy end date to 25 September 2022 at the service provider’s request as the resident’s new property was not ready for him to move to. The resident handed in his keys on 24 September 2022.
  4. The resident’s rent account statement indicates that a housing benefit payment of £309.66 entered his rent account on 7 October 2022 which left the balance at £376.84 in credit.
  5. The resident has provided evidence that he discussed the credit on his rent account with the landlord in October and November 2022. In summary:
    1. It informed him that the closing balance was £376.84. The local authority had confirmed that there was no overpayment of housing benefit, and it was able to process a refund.
    2. The resident disputed the amount, stating that he was £273.63 in credit when he handed his keys back, meaning the total should be £583.29.
    3. It provided a rent statement with a tenancy end date of 5 October 2022. The rent statement shows that it charged £206.45 to the account between 26 September 2022 and 5 October 2022 for rent.
    4. It enquired with its lettings team as to why the account was not closed sooner as the resident maintained he returned his keys on 24 September 2022. It confirmed it would enquire with its lettings team, then adjust the account and assist further with the refund request.
    5. He pursued an update in November 2022 and the landlord apologised for the lack of response. On 29 November 2022, it said it would need to contact the local authority to confirm there was no housing benefit overpayment.
  6. The resident raised a formal complaint via the landlord’s webform on 13 March 2023. He explained that he had informed the landlord on 21 September 2022 that he was no longer at the property and asked for the balance on his rent account. On 12 October 2022, his new landlord said that it had not received his rent payment. He contacted the local authority (housing benefit) who said it had paid the (former) landlord on 6 October 2022. He was awaiting a refund which was putting him in financial difficulty with his current landlord and causing distress. He asked the landlord to refund him £583.29 from his rent account, noting that the incorrect tenancy end date meant that the credit the landlord believed he was due was incorrect.
  7. In its stage 1 complaint response on 4 May 2023, the landlord:
    1. Apologised for its delayed response. It did not uphold the complaint as it had followed the correct process. It said the support provider extended the tenancy until 30 September 2022, but did not provide the keys until 5 October 2022, and the tenancy ended on this date. It added that tenancies needed to end on a Sunday, which should have been 9 October 2022.
    2. It noted that the resident had handed his keys to his support worker on 30 September 2022 and said if he returned these directly, the tenancy would have ended on 2 October 2022. Given that the delay was not directly his fault, it agreed to credit 1 weeks rent to his rent account (£144.51).
  8. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on the same day as he disagreed with the dates and figures provided.
  9. In its stage 2 complaint response on 19 July 2023, the landlord:
    1. Acknowledged that the tenancy should have ended on 25 September 2022 and through no fault of his own it did not end until 5 October 2022. The supported housing manager did not inform the landlord that he had provided the keys until 5 October 2022, which resulted in detriment to him.
    2. Acknowledged that he was told that it could refund the credit on his rent account and said that the credit was likely due to overpaid housing benefit.
    3. Acknowledged that this had been a challenging time based on its miscommunication, the length of time the matter had been in dispute, and the detriment of falling into arrears with his new landlord. It agreed to reimburse 10 days rent and uphold the end date of 25 September 2022.
    4. Said that its stage 1 complaint was incorrect, and the information was either inaccurate or misinterpreted. It also acknowledged delays at both stages of its complaints process.
    5. Noted it had awarded £144.51 which amounted to 1 weeks rent. It also offered £211.90 comprised of:
      1. £61.90, which would amount to 10 days rent when combined with its previous offer.
      2. £100 for its poor complaint handling at both stages,
      3. £50 for not ending the tenancy on 25 September 2022.
  10. The resident referred his complaint to this Service in December 2023. He said that he has a mental health condition, and the situation caused stress and anxiety. He wanted the landlord to contact him and send the correct amount of money back to his account. He also wanted compensation for his time and its lack of communication.
  11. In its communication with the Ombudsman in April 2024, the landlord said there was an error in its stage 2 complaint response and that 7 days rent would equal £144.54, which was a £0.03 difference. It offered an additional £100 compensation for the confusion caused by this. It had contacted the resident to notify him that it intended to pay the compensation offered and the remaining balance on the rent account, but it had not had a response.
  12. Following a request from the Ombudsman, the landlord provided evidence that it communicated with the local authority in January 2025 regarding any housing benefit overpayment. The local authority confirmed there was no overpayment.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has explained that the landlord’s actions negatively impacted his mental health condition. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, but it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered whether the landlord considered the resident’s mental health condition, and the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused him.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord has not provided the resident’s tenancy agreement. An example tenancy agreement states that the weekly rental period of the tenancy runs from Monday to Sunday. The resident is responsible for paying rent, including via housing benefit. They would also be responsible for notifying the relevant local authority of any change in circumstances that may lead to housing benefit payments being changed or stopped. The resident must give notice at least 4 weeks before they want to end the tenancy using a prescribed form. The notice must end on the last day of the weekly rental period.
  2. The landlord has confirmed it does not have an end of tenancy policy. Its website confirms that keys must be returned before midday on the day after the tenancy officially ends. If a resident does not return keys, it would charge them for the cost of changing the locks. The example tenancy agreement provided also confirms this.
  3. The landlord has a 2 stage formal complaints process. At stage 1, it aims to acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. At stage 2, the landlord aims to respond within 20 working days.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s end of tenancy, including his request for a refund of rent

  1. The resident handed his key to his support provider on 24 September 2022, the day before the agreed (extended) tenancy end date of 25 September 2022. However, the support provider did not inform the landlord until the afternoon of 4 October 2022, leading to the tenancy ending on 5 October 2022. This meant that the landlord charged him a further 10 days rent. The local authority made an additional housing benefit payment to the landlord rather than to his new landlord.
  2. While the delay in the third-party support provider providing the keys to the landlord was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control, it acted reasonably by acknowledging that the matter was not the resident’s fault directly and confirming that it would reimburse the 10 days rent paid following the intended tenancy end date on 25 September 2022. It apologised for the impact and detriment caused to him and offered £50 compensation for this aspect of the complaint.

End of Tenancy

  1. A letter sent via email to the support provider generated on 2 September 2022 confirmed the resident’s key should be handed to “the scheme manager” and that it reserved the right to recharge the resident for any costs incurred, including additional rent charges. It is unclear whether the resident received this instruction directly or had clear instruction about who he needed to give the key to. Reference to “the scheme manager” may have also caused confusion where a support provider manages aspects of the accommodation locally.
  2. In its communication with the Ombudsman, the landlord said that it intended to provided refresher training to its lettings team to ensure it provided clearer instructions to customers in future. This is a reasonable approach, although it would have been beneficial for the landlord to have acknowledged any confusion its communication may have caused to the resident at the time of the complaint.
  3. The landlord has maintained that it followed the correct process regarding the end of tenancy, and it was not at fault. It has also said that it did not have an end of tenancy policy. The landlord’s approach to charging residents continued rent payments until keys are returned is not clearly set out in the tenancy agreement or the landlord’s website. The Ombudsman has not seen clear documentation outlining its process and is unable to conclude that the landlord followed the correct process as a result.

The resident’s request for a refund of credit

  1. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide evidence relevant to the complaint, including notes and communication regarding the tenancy end and rent account. It provided limited evidence of its communication with the resident prior to the complaint. The resident has provided screenshots (some undated) of his communication with the landlord in October and November 2022 regarding a refund of the credit on his rent account. It is evident that this does not include every communication, and the landlord is responsible for providing a clear audit trail as to its actions.
  2. The landlord initially confirmed to the resident that there had been no housing benefit overpayment on 16 October 2022, and it could process a refund. He maintained that this should be £583.29 due to the tenancy end date error. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm that it would need to check this again on 29 November 2022 given the dispute. However, there is a lack of evidence to demonstrate that it investigated the matter further or communicated between November 2022 and March 2023 – when the resident raised a complaint.
  3. The lack of response was likely to have caused inconvenience and distress to the resident given the financial impact on him at the time. The landlord acknowledged the length of time the matter had been in dispute and its miscommunication in its stage 2 complaint response but failed to adequately consider the lack of follow-up communication to his requests for a refund. It did not explain why there was inaction on its part between November 2022 and March 2023.
  4. Where a resident’s rent is paid via housing benefit (and they have made no direct payments into the account), any credit on the rent account would likely be repayable to the local authority as a housing benefit overpayment. Refunding the credit to a resident directly could have an impact on their housing benefit payments if the local authority determined that money was owed back later. It is important for landlords to consider how the credit occurred before refunding any credit on a rent account. Nonetheless, the credit on the rent account at the end of a tenancy would not belong to the landlord.
  5. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that it would credit 1 weeks rent to the rent account but failed to comment on whether this would be payable directly to him. This was likely to cause the resident frustration and confusion in view of the financial difficulties he had explained. Within its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord confirmed that it would uphold the tenancy end date of 25 September 2022 and refund him 10 days rent amounting to £206.44. However, failed to comment further on the credit the resident believed it owed him (£583.29).
  6. The landlord briefly mentioned that the credit on his rent account was “likely” the result of overpaid housing benefit in its stage 2 complaint response. It would have been appropriate for it to have checked this with the local authority at the time to prevent any further delay or detriment to the resident and provide a full response to his concerns. The response was unclear as to the amount he would receive directly, which was likely to cause frustration, confusion and distress in view of the financial difficulty he had explained.
  7. There is a lack of evidence to support that the landlord adequately considered the resident’s mental health condition or sought to gain an understanding of any adjustments he may have needed to tailor its response to him. While we cannot comment on the resident’s specific requirements, the landlord was aware that he required a support provider. As such, it is understandable that the landlord’s lack of clarity may have caused a greater level of uncertainty and distress to the resident, alongside his financial concerns, in view of his mental health condition.
  8. There is a lack of documentary evidence to show that the landlord took steps to investigate the credit on the rent account with the local authority following the complaint. The landlord should have established whether there was an overpayment and returned this within a reasonable period given that the tenancy had ended, and the credit is a substantial figure. The Ombudsman asked the landlord in January 2025 to provide evidence that it had investigated the possible housing benefit overpayment and to confirm the total amount payable to the resident. It provided evidence it checked this with the local authority in January 2025, indicating that it had not done so sooner despite stating that it intended to pay him the full balance in April 2024.
  9. The local authority confirmed that there was no overpayment, and the landlord has subsequently confirmed that it is able to refund the rent account balance of £521.38 alongside the offers of compensation it made within its stage 2 complaint response.

The landlord’s calculations

  1. In its communication with this Service, the landlord said that the calculation in its stage 2 response was incorrect by £0.03, noting that 7 days rent should have read £144.54 not £144.51. It said that instead of paying an additional £0.03, it had paid compensation. It was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge confusion caused regarding its calculations and offer £100 compensation. However, its explanation at this stage was also inaccurate as the weekly rent figure was £144.51 as initially stated. The inaccuracy was in the explanation of its calculation.
  2. For completeness, the rent statements show that the landlord charged £206.45 after 25 September 2022 (£144.51 + £144.51 – £82.57). This is 1p more than 10 days rent. Having agreed to uphold the tenancy end date of 25 September 2022, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to put the resident’s rent account into the position it would have been had the tenancy ended on that date. As such, it should have referred to the rent statements and refunded the £206.45 that it had charged. It refunded £144.54 on 17 May 2023 (instead of £144.51), meaning that the remaining amount to correct the account would be £61.91. The £0.01 difference in its calculation was unlikely to cause a significant overall impact.

Conclusion

  1. There were failures in the landlord’s communication with the resident regarding the refund which was likely to cause confusion. It did not demonstrate that it fully considered his circumstances or seek to return the credit to either him or the local authority within a reasonable timescale despite being aware of the financial implications on the resident. While it somewhat acknowledged the length of time the matter had been in dispute within its stage 2 complaint response, its overall offer of £50 compensation for this aspect of the complaint is disproportionately low given the impact on the resident.
  2. The landlord offered an additional £100 compensation in its communication to the Ombudsman. The amount goes some way to put right the resident’s experience. However, this is not considered to be a reasonable offer of redress as the landlord did not make this offer within its internal complaints process or adequately identify all of its failings when making the offer.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The resident raised a complaint on 13 March 2023 and the landlord responded at stage 1 on 4 May 2023, a period of 36 working days and outside of its policy timescales. The landlord’s records show that it acted in line with its policy by updating the resident on 5 and 24 April 2023, explaining the reason for the delay. It said that it had not received a response to its requests for relevant information and provided a revised response timescale on each occasion. While it apologised for the delay in its stage 1 response, it could have done more to acknowledge the impact of this on the resident at the time.
  2. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 4 May 2023 and the landlord confirmed it would respond by 5 June 2023. The landlord did not communicate with the resident further until 4 July 2023, when it explained that it had reallocated the complaint due to resourcing issues. It subsequently provided its stage 2 complaint response on 19 July 2023. While this was within 20 working days of the complaint being reassigned, it was 52 working days since his initial request. 
  3. The landlord has acknowledged that its complaint responses were issued outside of its policy timescales at both stages of its process following the initial complaint on 13 March 2023, and the escalation request on 4 May 2023. It also acknowledged that the information it was provided with, and relayed, at stage 1 was inaccurate. It offered £100 compensation to account for its poor complaint handling.
  4. Overall, the landlord’s offer of £100 is considered proportionate to acknowledge its complaint handling failures in this case. This amount was within a range that the Ombudsman considers reasonable in cases where there has been a failure to meet service standards for actions and responses which had an impact on the resident. As such, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress for this aspect of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s tenancy end date and his request for a refund of the credit on his rent account. 
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in relation to its handling of the complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to:
    1. Pay the resident £250 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced, and time and trouble spent in pursuing his concerns related to his tenancy end date and refund. This includes the landlord’s previous offers of £50 (within its complaint response), and £100 (in its communication to this Service).
    2. Write to the resident to:
      1. Apologise for the failings outlined in this report.
      2. Confirm it has credited £61.91 to the rent account to reflect the total rent charges applied to the account since 25 September 2022.
      3. Confirm the total balance on the rent account and how it can process the refund.
  2. The Ombudsman understands that the resident has updated his contact details since the time of the complaint. The resident may need to contact the landlord directly in the first instance so that it is able to communicate with him.
  3. The landlord is to provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the specified timescales.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
    1. Pays the resident £100 compensation as previously offered for its complaint handling as the finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis that this was paid.
    2. Develops clear instructions and guidance for residents (and third-party support providers) regarding the end of tenancy process to prevent similar situations happening in the future.
    3. Develops an end of tenancy policy.
    4. Considers adding reference to tenant liability for additional rent charges to its tenancy agreements and website to provide clear expectations for residents where keys are not returned.
  2. The landlord is to confirm its intentions in relation to the recommendations made within 4 weeks.