From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202306482)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306482

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

19 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:
    1. Level and increase of service charges.
    2. Handling of requests for information about service charges.
    3. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a flat. The landlord is a housing association and owns and manages the building.

Summary of events

  1. On 6 March 2023 the resident complained about the landlord’s failure to respond to his emails asking for further information about the 2021/22 service charge accounts. The landlord issued it stage 1 response on 29 March 2023. It apologised for its delayed response and said its service charge team had an increased workload. It said the member of staff handling the resident’s matter would contact him on 6 April 2023. It offered the resident £30 compensation to recognise the time and trouble caused.
  2. The resident escalated his complaint on 6 April 2023 and told the landlord that it had not contacted him as agreed. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 15 June 2023. Within its response it apologised that it did not contact the resident and said it would respond to his queries by 16 June 2023. It said it paid the compensation of £30 offered at stage 1 and offered the resident additional compensation of £55.
  3. The resident raised a further complaint on 17 April 2023 about an increase in his service charge payments. He told the landlord to explain why his service charge payments had increased over 2 years. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 May 2023. It said its service charge team would provide a response. It acknowledged its delay and offered the resident £50 in compensation.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the further complaint on 20 September 2023. It had provided a full response on 30 June 2023 for 2021/22 queries. Its service charge team would provide a breakdown of the 2022/23 estimates by 5 October 2023. It said it had paid the resident £50 compensation offered at stage 1. It apologised for the delay and offered the resident a further £400 compensation. It said this was made up of:
    1. £200 for service failure.
    2. £100 for inconvenience.
    3. £100 for complaint handling.
  5. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked this Service to consider his complaint further.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Within the resident’s complaint he raised concerns about an increase in monthly service charge payments and charges applied for financial years 2021/22 and 2022/23. He told the landlord to explain why his payments had increased over 2 years.
  3. The resident also told this Service, on 3 September 2023, that he would like the Ombudsman to limit the increase of his service charge to 35%. He said he wanted the Ombudsman to order the landlord to refund charges over 35% and give a written undertaken about clawback.
  4. Paragraph 42d of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:
    1. Concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
  5. The Ombudsman can not determine whether service charges are reasonable in themselves or if they are at a reasonable level. After careful consideration of the information available, the resident’s complaint about the level and increase of service charges is outside of jurisdiction.
  6. The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is better placed to consider issues relating to the setting of service charges. It is acknowledged that the resident may be disappointed with this outcome. He may wish to seek independent legal advice and may also want to consider contacting the leasehold advisory service (LEASE) for further advice.

Handling of requests for information about service charges

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out its compensation awards for service failures, and time and trouble payments. It says a payment between £50 to £159 is for medium failure and £151 to £350 is for high failure.
  2. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, section 21 allows for leaseholders to ask for a summary of the service charge account. A landlord must provide this information within 1 month or within 6 months of the end of the 12-month accounting period, whichever is later. Section 22, allows for leaseholders to inspect documents relating to the service charge. A landlord must provide facilities to inspect such documents within 1 month of the request.
  3. The above aspect of the resident’s complaint relates to 2021/22 and 2022/23 service charge accounts. For ease both timeframes have been considered separately with the overall conclusion at the end.

2021/22 accounts

  1. Following receipt of the service charge account for 2021/22, the resident raised queries and asked for invoices for certain items on 9 January 2023. The landlord treated the request as a section 21 request and provided the invoices on 2 February 2023. This timeframe was appropriate.
  2. The resident raised further queries on 6 February 2023 about specific invoices. He chased for a response on 13 February 2023 and raised a complaint about the landlord’s lack of response in March 2023. While the landlord apologised for the delay and said it treated that request as a section 22 request, it took until 30 June 2023 to provide the resident with the invoices. This timeframe of 4 months was not appropriate.
  3. On 3 July 2023, the resident told the landlord he specifically wanted invoices for items mentioned within his email from February 2023. The landlord took until 3 October 2023 to respond to these points. This timeframe of around 3 months from July 2023, to respond to queries was not reasonable.

2022/23 accounts

  1. On 26 January 2023 the resident asked the landlord for the current year service charge forecast. The landlord provided an estimate of accounts on 18 February 2023. This was appropriate.
  2. On 4 July 2023 the resident asked for the actual service charge figures for 2022/23. At that time he was told the landlord would provide the information by 5 October 2023. While it took the landlord until 25 September 2023 to provide the actual accounts, this timeframe was appropriate as it was within 6 months of the end of the accounting period and following its audit.
  3. Overall, the landlord’s handling of request for information about 2022/23 accounts was appropriate. However, it was not appropriate for the 2021/22 service charge accounts. Its delayed responses meant it took 8 months to respond to the resident’s specific queries about the 2021/22 service charges. It is accepted that this delay would have caused the resident some frustration, especially as he was regularly asking for a response.
  4. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response from 20 September 2023, it appropriately apologised for the delay and accepted it did not respond within a reasonable time. It explained how it had implemented a new system that would help it better manage its responses and offered the resident £200 compensation to recognise its failings. The amount of £200 falls within the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance and the “high failure” banding of the landlord’s compensation policy. When considering this, the landlord has offered reasonable redress and the compensation amount satisfactorily resolves this aspect of the complaint.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says a stage 1 response will be responded to within 10 working days and 20 working days for a stage 2 response. As mentioned previously, the landlord’s compensation policy sets out its compensation banding for service failures, and time and trouble to include payments between £151 to £350 for high failure.
  2. The resident initially complained on 6 March 2023 about the landlord’s lack of response to his emails from February 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 29 March 2023. This timeframe was not appropriate.
  3. Within its response the landlord apologised, said it would contact the resident on 6 April 2023 and offered £30 compensation for the time and trouble caused. The landlord did not contact the resident on 6 April 2023, this was not appropriate. Following this, the resident escalated his complaint on 6 April 2023 and the landlord took until 15 June 2023 to issue its stage 2 response. This timeframe was also not appropriate. However, within its response the landlord appropriately apologised and offered the resident additional compensation of £55 (£85 in total).
  4. The resident raised a further complaint on 17 April 2023. The landlord took until 17 May 2023 to respond to this complaint. This timeframe was not appropriate. However, it acknowledged its delay and offered the resident £50 in compensation.
  5. The landlord confirmed it had escalated the further complaint to stage 2 on 28 July 2023. However, it did not issue its stage 2 response until 20 September 2023. This timeframe exceeded the 20 working days stated within its complaints policy. This was not appropriate.
  6. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate. It repeatedly failed to meet response timeframes set within its policy, despite the resident’s regular contact for a response. However, its responses did acknowledge its delays, apologised and explained the improvements and learning it had adopted to its services. This included the implementation of new systems and centrally recording customer interactions. The stage 2 response from 20 September 2023 offered the resident a further £200 in compensation for the inconvenience caused and to recognise its poor complaint handling.
  7. When considering an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered alongside what the landlord has already offered and its compensation policy. The total amount of £335 falls within the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance and “high failure” banding of the landlord’s compensation policy. The amount of £335 has been decided as appropriate in the circumstances.
  8. The landlord has offered reasonable redress in relation to its complaint handling and the compensation amount satisfactorily resolves this aspect of the complaint. Had the landlord not increased its compensation offer, the Ombudsman would have found some level of maladministration. It is noted that the landlord has said it paid the resident £30 from its stage 1 response (29 March 2023) and £50 from its further stage 1 response (17 May 2023). These payments have not been disputed and have been removed from the recommendation calculations.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42d of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the level and increase of service charges is outside of jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of requests for information about service charges.
    2. Complaint handling.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pays the resident £455 it previously offered, if it has not done so already. This is made up of:
    1. £55 from its stage 2 response from 15 June 2023.
    2. £400 from its stage 2 response from 20 September 2023.