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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202312684)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312684

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

25 November 2024


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:
    1. Request for information regarding her service charge.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord at the property.
  2. On 23 December 2022 the resident raised a Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) request to the landlord. This request was made in writing. The resident asked for the landlord to provide a full breakdown of all costs which had made up her service charge, covering the period from 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022. She also requested a copy of the landlord’s audit certificate for these accounts covering this same period, as she disputed the fees being requested.
  3. On 1 February 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about its failure to respond to her Section 22 request.
  4. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 14 February 2023. It said that it had been unable to provide the information requested by the resident because of a large number of queries it had received from its residents at that time. The landlord said it would provide the resident with her requested information by 17 February 2023. It awarded her £50 compensation for inconvenience caused by the delay.

 

  1. On 17 February 2023 the landlord sent the resident the information she had requested about her service charge. The next day, the resident told the landlord that the information it had sent her was in an unusable format and could not be examined. She asked the landlord to provide the information about her service charges in a clear, and readable format.
  2. Between 18 February 2023 and June 2023, the resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint. During this time, she continued to chase the landlord to provide the information about her service charges in a usable format. She also asked for the landlord to respond to a number of queries raised for her service charge estimate for the year 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024, as she believed it contained a number of errors.
  3. On 27 June 2023 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord acknowledged it had not communicated with the resident and was delayed in providing her with the information she had requested about her service charges. It awarded the resident a further £100 compensation.
  4. On 11 September 2023 the resident raised a further Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) request to the landlord, in writing. She asked for the landlord to provide a full breakdown of all costs which had made up the service charge, covering the period from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023.
  5. On 10 October 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about its failure to respond to her further Section 22 request. She said that the landlord had repeatedly failed to communicate with her and had not provided the information requested within its required timescale of one month for the previous 5 years.
  6. On 27 October 2023 the landlord provided its stage one complaint response to the resident’s further complaint about her request for information regarding her service charge. It acknowledged it had failed to respond to the resident’s request within its one-month timeframe, as required by law. The landlord told the resident that disputes about its service charge were not handled under its complaints policy. It said it would respond to the resident’s requests within 10 working days and awarded her £50 compensation. The next day, the resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint.
  7. On 28 November 2023 the landlord provided the resident with the full breakdown of her service charge costs for the period from 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022. The landlord said it would provide the information requested for the period of 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023 in a separate email.  
  8. On 20 December 2023 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s further complaint about her request for information about her service charge. The landlord apologised for its poor communication and said it had updated its systems in order to improve its service. It awarded the resident an additional £25 compensation which it stated was for its poor complaint handling.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her complaints. The resident brought her complaints to the Ombudsman stating her desired outcome was for the landlord to provide the information she had requested, and for an increase in its overall award of compensation. The resident also wanted the landlord to improve its overall response in its handling of matters relating to her service charge information.
  10. On 17 May 2024 the landlord advised the Ombudsman that it had reviewed the resident’s complaints and wanted to award her a further £250 in respect of its handling of these matters.
  11. On 28 August 2024 the landlord provided the resident with the full breakdown of her service charge costs for the period from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.’
  3. The resident contributes towards the landlord’s costs, broadly maintenance, management, and repair, through annual service charges. The lease agreement shows the parties agree to comply with the provisions contained in the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) in respect of the charges.

Scope of Investigation

  1. Section 42.d. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.

 

  1. The Ombudsman is not able to consider complaints concerning the level of a rent or service charge, including whether the charges represent good value for money, as this falls outside the jurisdiction of this service. The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) can establish whether service charges are reasonable or payable. The Ombudsman can consider the landlord’s communication in relation to the charges and whether it responded to any questions about the service charge appropriately in line with its legal obligations, its internal policies and industry best practice.
  2. Section 42.l. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.
  3. The Ombudsman has taken into consideration that the resident had been reporting the same type of complaints to the landlord since 2018. The Ombudsman has carried out 2 previous investigations about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information regarding her service charges. These investigations were carried out up to 4 August 2022 which was when the landlord provided its previous final response. The Ombudsman will not consider these previous matters as they have already been the subject of investigation by this service, although we may refer back to them in this report for the purpose of context. Therefore, in line with section 42.l. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman has considered the resident’s complaints for this investigation from the period of 23 December 2022 through to the landlord’s latest final complaint response on 20 December 2023. This includes actions which the landlord said it would carry out in its final complaint response, i.e. providing service charge accounts for the period from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023.

The resident’s request for information regarding her service charge.

  1. The resident raised her Section 22 request to the landlord on 23 December 2022. The landlord had a statutory responsibility to provide the information requested by the resident for the last accounting year, within one month. The landlord did not comply and therefore it did not act in accordance with the law.
  2. In January 2023 the resident raised a number of additional queries about her service charges for the period of 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022. She also chased the landlord during this time, asking it to respond within the one month as required. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s communication during this period. This was unreasonable and is evidence of poor communication. The landlord should have responded to the resident. If it was unable to meet its deadline, it should have explained this to the resident and provided a timescale of when it would be able to provide the information she had requested about her service charge.
  3. On 17 February 2023 the landlord provided the resident with what she described as being incomplete, and unusable records in response to her Section 22 request. The resident raised this to the landlord the next day. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident about this issue. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord had provided information in a similar unusable format to other resident’s during this time. This was not appropriate, and the landlord should have responded and rectified the unusable information it had provided to all its residents, following the resident’s contact about the issue. It should have provided accurate data to the resident about her service charge in a format that would have allowed her to examine its records as per her Section 22 request. The Ombudsman understands that being provided with inaccurate and/or unusable information will have exacerbated the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident at that time. 
  4. The resident continued to chase the landlord between February 2023 and June 2023. On 27 June 2023 in the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaint, it apologised for its failing to communicate to the resident during this period. The landlord said that the continued delay was due to the large number of queries it received for information at that time. This is evidence of poor handling of the landlord’s systems in handling its service charge information. The Ombudsman would expect landlords to have sufficient members of staff, as well as effective systems in place in order to handle the amount of information it receives. It should be able to carry out its function in a timely manner in line with industry best practice, and in accordance with the law.
  5. The landlord provided the information requested by the resident on 28 November 2023. This was 11 months (341 days) later. This was a significant delay for information that should have been provided within one month.
  6. The resident raised a further Section 22 request on 11 September 2023. She requested for information regarding her service charge for the period of 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022. On 3 October 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request. It then explained that due to its service charge officer being on leave, it would be unable to provide the information requested within one month as was required by law. The landlord told the resident that she would be updated once its member of staff had returned from leave. This was unreasonable. As referred to above, the Ombudsman expects landlords to have sufficient resources to be able to meet the needs of its functions. It should have cover in place to fulfil its legal obligations when staff members are on leave. The landlord should have provided the resident with the information regarding her service charge for the requested period within one month. This is evidence of poor handling of the landlord’s systems in place to manage information requests.
  7. The landlord provided the further information requested by the resident on 28 August 2024. As with her earlier request, this was 11 months (352 days) later. The Ombudsman has carried out 2 previous investigations about this same issue raised by the resident. On these previous occasions there were also significant delays in the landlord’s response to her requests for information about her service charge. The resident has said that she feels that the landlord has only ever provided the information after she has contacted the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is not commenting on whether this is the case. However, we do understand that the resident’s frustration is exacerbated by the landlord’s continued delays, each year the resident requests this information that should be provided within one month, by law.
  8. For the reasons described above the Ombudsman makes a finding of severe maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information regarding her service charge. This includes the significant delays, and its poor level of communication.
  9. Following the Ombudsman’s last investigation in July 2023 when the resident made a complaint about the same issue, the Ombudsman made a recommendation for the landlord to formulate an action plan for how the provision of service charge information and the responses to questions on service charges will be improved. The evidence above in this report demonstrates that the landlord has not fully considered this recommendation. Therefore, as part of this report, the Ombudsman will make a wider order under paragraph 54.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme for the landlord to action our previous recommendation. This is so that the landlord handles these requests in line with its own legal requirements going forward, and also improves its overall service to residents on this issue.
  10. The Ombudsman has considered our own remedies guidance (published on our website) in respect of compensation. The landlord awarded the resident £150 compensation across both complaints for its handling of her request for information regarding her service charge. In May 2024 the landlord said that it had carried out a review of the resident’s complaint and that it would award the resident a further £250 compensation. This is a total award of £400.  It is positive that the landlord attempted to put things right, and that it carried out a review of the resident’s complaint. However, the Ombudsman does not consider that the landlord went far enough. It also failed to effectively put things right during its complaints process and missed the opportunity to learn lessons from the outcome at the time of its original investigation.

 

 

  1. The Ombudsman increases the award to £700. In addition to the significant delays, and continued poor communication, the Ombudsman has taken into consideration that the resident’s distress and inconvenience has been exacerbated further by her having to contact the Ombudsman repeatedly about the same issue, which the landlord has failed to address over a number of years and following recommendations by the Ombudsman. This is evidence that the landlord has not taken effective action to learn and improve its overall service for resident’s over the last 5 years on how it handles requests for service charge information.

The associated complaint.

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a resident’s complaint within 5 working days. It will then provide a written response at stage one within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord will provide a resident with an explanation if it requires more time to respond to a resident’s complaint, at either stage.
  2. On 1 February 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord after it had failed to respond to her request for information regarding her service charge, for the period 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response 9 working days later, on 14 February 2023. This was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy, as set out above.
  3. On 22 February 2023 the resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint. The landlord provided its final written response to her complaint 85 working days later, on 27 June 2023. The landlord should have provided this response within 20 working days. The Ombudsman acknowledges that this significant delay will have frustrated the resident, who was also still waiting for the information regarding her service charges during this time.
  4. On 10 October 2023 the resident raised a further complaint to the landlord after it had failed to respond to her request for information regarding her service charge, for the period 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023. The landlord logged the resident’s complaint on 12 October 2023 and provided its response 11 days later, on 27 October 2023. This should have been provided within 10 working days, but the Ombudsman acknowledges that this delay was not excessive.

 

 

 

 

  1. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 28 October 2023, which it acknowledged 3 days later. The landlord then escalated the resident’s complaint the following day. This was reasonable and in line with its complaints policy as set out above. The landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaints 35 working days later, on 20 December 2023. Whilst this overall delay was not excessive, it is evidence of poor complaint handling which the Ombudsman understands exacerbated the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident at that time.
  2. In the landlord’s stage one and stage 2 complaint responses it advised the resident that service charge disputes did not form part of its complaint’s procedure. It was right that the landlord explained this to the resident, and it was reasonable it provided her with its complaints policy explaining where it set this out. However, the landlord should have gone further by explaining her right to access the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) if she had a dispute regarding the level of her service charge.
  3. For the reasons described above the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints. This includes the delays, and poor level of communication. The landlord’s final response dated 27 June 2024 also contained a typo in respect of the level of compensation it had awarded the resident. The resident raised this at the time but the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident about this.
  4. The Ombudsman has calculated that the landlord has awarded the resident £75 in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaints. It is positive that the landlord attempted to put things right, but the Ombudsman does not consider that the landlord went far enough. Therefore, as referred to above, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the Ombudsman increases this amount of compensation to £200 for distress and inconvenience. This amount includes the £75 compensation awarded by the landlord in its stage one and stage 2 complaints processes.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information regarding her service charge.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

 

 

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is to apologise to the resident in writing, from a senior member of the landlord’s staff. The apology is to be in line with this service’s guidance that it acknowledges the severe maladministration, and service failure, for which it expresses a sincere regret for its handling of:
    1. Request for information regarding her service charge.
    2. Associated complaint.
  2. The landlord is to pay the resident a compensation payment of £900. The breakdown of this compensation is as follows:
    1. £700 for its maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information regarding her service charge. This includes the £400 it awarded during and after its complaints processes, which it may deduct if this has already been paid.
    2. £200 for its maladministration in its handling of the resident’s associated complaints. This includes the £75 the landlord awarded the resident in its stage one and stage 2 complaints processes, which it may deduct if this has already been paid.
  3. The landlord is to share evidence with the Ombudsman confirming that it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this report.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 54.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman makes the following wider order, which the landlord must complete within the next 16 weeks:
    1. Carry out a full review and to formulate an action plan for how the provision of its service charge information and its responses to questions on service charges will be improved. The review should be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation and should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
      1. An exploration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred in respect of the significant delays in providing information regarding service charge, which it is required to provide in one month by law.
      2. Identification of all other residents who may have been affected by this similar issue, but not necessarily engaged with its complaints procedure. This is to confirm that each resident is being provided with their information request in line with the law.
    2. Following the review, the landlord should produce a report which it is to share with the Ombudsman within these 16 weeks setting out:
      1. Its findings and learning from the review.
      2. Recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future.
      3. The number of other residents who have experienced a similar issue.
      4. The steps it proposes to take to provide redress at the earliest opportunity to the residents who have been similarly affected by the identified failings. This should include consideration of compensation commensurate to the level of detriment a particular resident has experienced if caused by a failing on the part of the landlord.
    3. This wider order is to include oversight from the landlord’s governing body and member responsible for complaints.