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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202309638)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309638

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

12 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Request for a refund of rent overpayments.
    2. Correspondence from 29 August 2023 onwards.

Jurisdiction

  1. We are not free to investigate every complaint brought to us. The rules by which we operate, called the Scheme, set out what we can and cannot investigate. Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states that:

“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: (a) are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.”

  1. The complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s communication from 29 August 2023 onwards occurred after the landlord’s final complaint response. We cannot investigate complaints which have not exhausted the complaint procedure, under paragraph 42.a of the Scheme. As we have not seen evidence that these complaints have fully exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure, they will not be investigated as part of this complaint.

Background

  1. The resident was a shared ownership. The resident sold her share in May 2022.
  2. The resident asked the landlord on 13 June 2022 for a refund. She said that her rent account was £483.06 in credit when she sold her property. The landlord told the resident on 30 June 2022 that she was not due a refund. It said that her rent account was £2.67 in debit. The resident asked for a breakdown of her charges. She chased the landlord for this information between 30 June 2022 and 17 July 2022. The resident asked for this information again on 6 March 2023.
  3. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 31 March 2023. She said that the landlord had not provided the information she had requested. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 17 April 2023. It confirmed that the resident’s rent account was £443.06 in credit in May 2022. It explained it had amended her rent account following the property sale. This left her account £2.67 in debit following a solicitor transfer. The landlord acknowledged failures in its communication with the resident. It offered her compensation of £50. The resident escalated her complaint on 15 May 2023. She said that the landlord had not answered 4 questions she had asked after its stage 1 response.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 21 August 2023. It answered the 4 questions the resident asked. It explained that the solicitor transfers were not money paid to her solicitor but were transactions added to her rent account as per the invoice/completion statement. The landlord provided a copy of this statement to the resident. The landlord acknowledged delays in it providing the resident with the information she had requested. It increased its compensation offer to £400. This included £150 for the delay in its stage 2 complaint response.
  5. The resident asked us to investigate her complaint on 4 September 2023. She explained that the £400 compensation does not cover what the landlord owed her. The resident said she would accept £400 compensation plus a refund of £464.81 for her rent overpayment.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Paragraph 42.f of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure.
  2. The transactions on the resident’s rent account, including her credit balance were factored into the sales process. If the resident considers that the final balance owed following the sales process has been calculated incorrectly, she will need to raise this with her solicitor. It is not within our remit to determine whether these charges were calculated correctly through the sales process.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a refund of rent overpayments.

  1. The resident asked for a breakdown of her rent account on several occasions in June and July 2022. She requested this again on 6 March 2023. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 31 March 2023 as the landlord failed to provide a breakdown. It is a failure in service that the landlord did not provide the information the resident requested.
  2. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord gave an explanation of the changes to the rent account figures and explained it was satisfied there had been no “financial mismanagement” of her account. The landlord’s response was reasonable, as it provided the resident with the information she requested and confirmed its view.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 15 May 2023, as the landlord had not responded to the questions she had raised. It is a failure in service that the landlord again did not provide a response to the resident’s request for further information.
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 response was reasonable in providing answers to the questions raised along with evidence.
  5. The landlord acknowledged that there was a significant delay in it providing a breakdown. It also acknowledged poor communication and apologised for its failures. It explained what steps it was taking to improve its communication. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised in both of its complaint responses for its failures and explained how it intended to improve its communication going forward.
  6. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £250 for failures in its communication. This amount reasonably reflected the delays in the landlord’s responses and demonstrated the landlord’s appreciation of their effect on the resident. In addition, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays in its stage 2 response. It compensated the resident a total of £150 for the delay. This was a fair resolution for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
  7. The landlord’s recognition of the impact its failings had on the resident, along with its apology and financial redress, reasonably put things right and resolved the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint about its handling of the resident’s request for a refund of rent overpayments.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £400 compensation it offered in its complaint responses. The finding of reasonable redress has been based on the landlord making this payment to the resident.