Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202316279)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316279

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

26 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

The complaint is about the:
1. Resident’s request for information concerning his rent and service charge.
2. Landlord’s decision to restrict the resident’s communication to a single point of contact.
3. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a flat.
On 7 March 2023 the resident told the landlord that he had not received his annual review letter about his rent and service charge. This was for the year 2023 to 2024. The next day, the landlord said it would call the resident back within 48 hours.
On 10 March 2023 the landlord emailed the resident a letter which detailed his annual rent and service charges from 1 April 2023 to 5 April 2024. This letter was dated 27 February 2023. The same day, the landlord also posted a revised letter to the one it had emailed the resident which explained it had miscalculated the overall monthly cost equivalent in its original rent and service charge letter. It confirmed the weekly costs had been correct in its original letter dated 27 February 2023.

On 13 March 2023 the resident asked the landlord to provide the following information:
1. Evidence of when it had originally sent the letter dated 27 February 2023 about his annual rent and service charges to his address.
2. Confirmation that it had supplied the above letter within the required 4 weeks’ notice period of increasing his charges.
3. To explain why its management fees had increased significantly compared to the previous year.
The landlord told the resident that it would pass his queries to a manager within its service charge team.
Between March 2023 and April 2023 the resident asked the landlord to respond to his queries about his rent and service charge. On 18 April 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint stating that the landlord had not provided the information he had requested about his rent and service charge.
The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 12 May 2023. It apologised for the delays in responding to the resident’s queries about his rent and service charges for the period of 1 April 2023 to 5 April 2024. The landlord explained that it would be sending out a further revised letter of its updated service charges to residents that same month. It awarded the resident £75 compensation. The landlord also explained that it was unable to comment on disputes about service charges through its complaints process. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his complaint. He asked the landlord to escalate his complaint 3 times between 12 May 2023 and 26 May 2023.
On 26 May 2023 the resident raised a further complaint to the landlord about its complaints team not responding to him. On 8 June 2023 the landlord said it would raise the resident’s further complaint to a manager and then respond to him. The resident continued to chase the landlord about this further complaint between June 2023 and July 2023.
On 30 June 2023 the landlord sent the resident a letter detailing his annual rent and revised service charges for the period 1 April 2023 to 5 April 2023.
On 7 July 2023 the landlord confirmed it had escalated the resident’s complaint about his queries regarding his rent and service charge.

Between July 2023 and August 2023 the resident contacted the landlord on a number of occasions asking for it to respond to his further service charge queries as follows:
1. Why its revised service charge letter dated 30 June 2023 had not given him 4 weeks’ notice, and what had been the reason the revised charges had been backdated to 1 April 2023.
2. Why were his charges paid for by housing benefit being reduced whilst the charges not covered by housing benefit had been increased.
3. Why the landlord had made an alteration to an entry on his rent account on 6 July 2023 from £163.78 to £221.78. He asked the landlord to confirm what the charge was for and why it had been altered.
During this time the landlord asked the resident to allow it time to investigate his concerns about his service charges. It said it would respond to him once it had completed its investigation. On 3 August 2023 the landlord told the resident that it needed to extend the deadline for its final response to his complaint about its handling of his request for information about its service charges by a further 10 working days.
On 8 August 2023 the resident chased the landlord about it not responding to his further requests for information regarding his service charges within 20 working days. The landlord advised the resident that he could raise a complaint about this which he did the next day.
On 15 August 2023 the resident chased the landlord about the further complaint he had raised on 9 August 2023. The landlord said it would respond to the resident’s new complaint within its final response to his earlier raised complaint. This was because they both related to information about his service charges. The resident agreed with the landlord’s approach stating he wanted the landlord to resolve all of his concerns about his service charges.
On 16 August 2023 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaints. The landlord said it had posted the letter dated 27 February 2023 the following day. It said this letter had detailed an increase in rent and service charges that were due to commence on 1 April 2023, providing the resident with the required one month’s notice. The landlord said it then sent a revised letter on 30 June 2023 that showed a reduction in his service charge element only. The landlord said it was not obliged to provide any notice for this reduction to take place. The landlord apologised for not responding to the resident’s email dated 10 July 2023. It also apologised that its stage one complaint response had not addressed part of his complaint. The landlord increased its award of compensation to the resident to £225.
Between August 2023 and September 2023 the resident asked the landlord to respond to his further complaint about its handling of his request for information about his service charges. He said this was the complaint he had previously raised on 9 August 2023. The resident said he was continuing to raise this because the landlord had not addressed this aspect of his complaint in its final complaint response, as previously agreed. The landlord responded that the resident had withdrawn this complaint and that it believed it had addressed his concerns in full in its final written complaint response on 16 August 2023.
On 28 September 2023 the landlord sent the resident a warning letter in which it alleged he had demonstrated unreasonable behaviour. The landlord explained that this was because the resident’s contact had been excessive towards it. The landlord advised the resident that he was to communicate with the landlord through a single point of contact (SPOC). The resident raised a complaint to the landlord about this.
On 16 October 2023 the landlord provided it stage one complaint response about its allegation that the resident had demonstrated unreasonable behaviour. The landlord apologised that it had not provided the details in its previous communication on how the resident could contact his SPOC.
On 6 December 2023 the Ombudsman advised the landlord that it had not fully addressed the resident’s complaint raised on 9 August 2023. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to complete either of the following actions:
1. Provide a revised final response that included its handling of the resident’s request for information about his service charges after 10 July 2023.
2. Raise a new complaint about the above and provide a stage one complaint response.
On 20 December 2023 the landlord provided a further final response to the resident’s complaints about his rent and service charge. The landlord accepted it could have been clearer in its communications with the resident. The landlord revised its offer of compensation as follows:
1. £300 for its identified service failure in responding to the resident’s queries about his rent and service charges.
2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the length of time it had taken to resolve his concerns.
3. £300 for its poor handling of his complaint.

On 29 April 2024 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint about its allegation that the resident had excessively contacted the landlord. The landlord apologised it had not provided the resident with the evidence of what it had said was excessive contact in its stage one complaint response. It awarded the resident £100 compensation in view of this.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to his complaints. He brought his complaints to the Ombudsman, stating his desired outcome was for the landlord to respond to any future communication, including emails and pre-arranged call backs in line with its service level agreements. He also wanted the landlord to explain the entry on his service charge account which it altered on 6 July 2023 to £221.77 because he still unaware what this charge was for.

Assessment and findings

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.
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.’

Scope of Investigation

This service is not able to consider complaints concerning the level of a rent or service charge, 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.

The resident’s request for information concerning his rent and service charge.

The resident’s tenancy agreement with the landlord states that it may increase or decrease the resident’s rent or service charge by giving him not less than 4 weeks’ notice in writing of the increase or decrease. The landlord will also not vary the service charge more than twice in any 12-month period.

The resident contributes towards the landlord’s costs, broadly maintenance, management, and repair, through annual service charges. The landlord states it will respond to resident’s queries abouts its service charges within 20 working days.
On 7 March 2023 the resident told the landlord that he had not received his annual letter about his rent and service charges for the upcoming period of April 2023 to April 2024. The next day, the landlord arranged to call the resident back within 48 hours. It did not do this. The landlord should have telephoned the resident back within the time it had arranged to do so.
On 10 March 2023 the landlord emailed the resident a copy of the letter dated 27 February 2023 about his annual rent and service charges. The landlord said it had previously posted this letter to the resident’s address. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to think the resident had received this letter until the resident had contact it on 7 March 2023.
On 13 March 2023 the resident raised a number of queries about the letter dated 27 February 2023 as referred to above. He also asked the landlord to explain why the management fees within the service charge had increased significantly from the previous year. The resident chased this information on 2 further occasions before raising a complaint on 18 April 2023. It was inappropriate that the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s repeated requests for this information. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have responded to the resident during this period, setting out that it would respond to his queries within 20 working days, as per its working agreement. If it was unable to provide a response within this deadline, it should have communicated this to the resident. This is evidence of poor communication by the landlord.
On 2 May 2023 the landlord apologised for its delay in responding to the resident’s requests for information about his service charges. It said it was investigating his queries. It was right the landlord apologised for its delay. However, it should have gone further by setting out a timescale for when it would respond to the resident’s requested information.
On 12 May 2023 in the landlord’s stage one complaint response, it apologised for the delays in responding to the resident and for its breakdown in communication. The landlord explained it would be sending out a further letter that same month detailing further revised changes to the resident’s service charge. It was appropriate the landlord apologised for its delays. It also provided accurate information that it could not comment on disputes in respect of the level of its service charge in its complaints process.

However, the Ombudsman considers that it would have been reasonable for the information sought by the resident, as referred to above, to have been provided in the landlord’s stage one complaint response. This was because the resident had asked for information that related to its communication, and working in accordance with policy and procedures which it could consider.
The Ombudsman has seen correspondence that the landlord wrote to the resident on 30 June 2023 setting out that the resident’s service charges had been revised and backdated to April 2023. The service charge element only had been decreased by £42.04 per week for the year to April 2024. As per the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is entitled to vary these charges twice within a 12 month period. It was appropriate that the landlord had informed the resident of the revised service charge in writing, this included that it directed the resident to the First-Tier Tribunal if he disagreed with the proposed revised charges.
The resident has said that he was unhappy that the landlord had not given him 4 weeks’ notice following the letter issued on 30 June 2023. Although the landlord’s policy says notice should be given, the Ombudsman considers that it would have been impractical for the landlord to have given its residents 4 weeks’ notice in this instance, as it would have meant its residents paying more that they needed to, for a longer period. We do not consider that the lack of notice would have caused significant inconvenience to the resident as he was not asked to pay a higher amount.
On 10 July 2023 the resident raised a number of further queries about his service charges, as referred to above in this report. This included that a specific entry on his rent account had been altered on 6 July 2023. The resident wanted to know what the specific charge was for. This had been added on his rent account on 3 July 2023. He also wanted to know why this entry had been altered from £163.78 to £221.78. Correspondence reviewed by the Ombudsman show that between this date and August 2023, the resident made a number of attempts to communicate with the landlord’s service charge team about his further queries. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not respond to the resident’s queries during this period. The landlord should have responded to the resident’s further queries within 20 working days.

On 16 August 2023 in the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaints, it said it had sent his annual charges letter on 28 February 2023 by post. It said this gave the resident the one month’s required notice of the changes to his charges. This information was provided 108 days later. This information should have been provided to the resident within 20 working days. Therefore this was a significant delay. The landlord also said it was not obliged to give a further 4 weeks’ notice following the decrease in the revised service charge element in June 2023. This was a reasonable response by the landlord as giving 4 weeks’ notice would have been impractical on this occasion, as explained above.
Between August 2023 and September 2023 the resident continued to chase the landlord about the service charge queries he had first raised on 10 July 2023. The landlord told the resident it had already provided a response to the resident about these matters. The evidence reviewed by the Ombudsman show that the landlord’s final complaint response issued on 16 August 2023 had not addressed the resident’s further concerns he raised in July 2023. The Ombudsman understands from the resident that this poor communication by the landlord exacerbated his frustration, as well as the distress and inconvenience caused to him at that time. The landlord should have provided a further final response as previously agreed in which it addressed the resident’s concerns. The Ombudsman ultimately intervened and advised the landlord to do this in December 2023.
On 20 December 2023 the landlord provided a further final response to the resident’s complaints. This was positive and demonstrated that the landlord was willing to engage with the resident to resolve his concerns. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised for its delays and recognised it should have communicated more effectively for the resident.
However, within the landlord’s further final response it did not answer the resident’s original query in respect of the following:
1. What was the debit entry added to his account for on 3 July 2023, for the amount of £163.78?
2. Why was the above amount increased to £221.77?
In the landlord’s final response it addressed the above by telling the resident it did not require his permission to make or change entries on his rent account. The Ombudsman has reviewed the resident’s rent statement, and this entry is unclear, as it differs to other regular debit amounts on the resident’s account. The Ombudsman considers that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained to the resident what he was being asked to pay for and why it needed to later increase the amount requested.
The Ombudsman will make an order as part of this report for the landlord to provide this explanation. If it is unable to explain what this is for, the landlord should provide further compensation of £221.77 to the resident in addition to other compensation it has awarded him. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s explanation of this charge and does not consider the charge to be valid, once it has been explained, he may be able to approach the First Tier Tribunal to take the matter further.
For the reasons described above the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information concerning his rent and service charge. This includes delays, poor communication, and that one aspect of the resident’s query remains unresolved. Although it was positive that the landlord apologised to the resident and offered an award of compensation as referred to below, it failed to fully put things right for the resident as it should have answered his question about the charge on his service charges account.
The Ombudsman has considered our own remedies guidance (published on our website) in respect of compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s errors. In the landlord’s further final response issued on 20 December 2023 the landlord awarded the resident £600 compensation for its handling of this aspect of his complaint. This level of compensation is within the range the Ombudsman would issue in this case, based on the evidence we have seen. Examples of this level of compensation in the guidance include where the landlord has made errors which caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. Therefore, the Ombudsman makes no further award in compensation for this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s decision to restrict the resident’s communication to a single point of contact.

On 28 September 2023 the landlord sent a warning letter to the resident in which it said he had demonstrated unreasonable behaviour, by contacting the landlord excessively. The landlord advised the resident that it was to direct all communication through a single point of contact (SPOC). The landlord did not provide the resident with details on how he could contact his SPOC in its communication. This was an error by the landlord as it should have been specific with how the resident could communicate with its SPOC. This is evidence of poor communication.

In October 2023 the resident asked the landlord to provide evidence to him to support its allegation that he had contacted the landlord excessively. On 29 April 2024 the landlord provided its evidence of what it had based its decision on, in order to issue the warning and assign the resident with a SPOC. The landlord said the resident had sent 38 emails and made 17 telephone calls over 113 days between June 2023 and September 2023. The Ombudsman has taken into consideration that during these 113 days, the resident was frustrated and chasing the landlord. This was because of the landlord’s poor response to the resident’s communication in addressing his concerns, as referred to overall, in this report. Therefore, the Ombudsman does not consider that the implementation of the SPOC to have been a proportionate and reasonable response by the landlord on this occasion.
The landlord awarded the resident £50 compensation for his time and trouble in chasing the landlord. It also provided an apology. It is positive that the landlord attempted to put things right, but the Ombudsman does not consider that the landlord went far enough in seeking to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint. Therefore, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of its decision to restrict the resident’s communication to a single point of contact (SPOC). This includes the poor communication, and the fact that it took 7 months to provide the evidence that the resident had contacted it excessively. In line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance the landlord should pay the resident a total of £250 in addition to the £50 offered by the landlord on 29 April 2024. This is a total award of £300 compensation for this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
The resident has also stated that he currently does not know if he is still allocated a SPOC. Therefore the Ombudsman will make an order for the landlord to communicate whether this is the case. The landlord should set out to the resident in writing why there is still a SPOC in place and the date when this arrangement will be reviewed. We would generally expect a review to take place at least every 6 months and the restriction should be lifted unless there has been recent evidence of excessive contact by the resident.

The associated complaint.

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.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it will not consider complaints about rent increases or service charges or their reasonableness through its complaints process.
On 18 April 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about its handling of his request for information concerning his rent and service charge. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint 7 working days later, on 26 April 2023. It then provided its stage one complaint response 12 working days later, on 12 May 2023. The landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days, and then it should have provided its stage one complaint response within 10 working days.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response failed to fully address the resident’s complaint. Therefore, although the landlord’s delays in its stage one complaint response were not excessive; when combined with the poor complaint response, the Ombudsman understands that this will have exacerbated the frustration caused to the resident.
On 12 May 2023 the resident requested the landlord escalate his complaint concerning his rent and service charge. He then attempted to raise a further complaint on 26 May 2023 about a member of the landlord’s staff not responding to his requests concerning his complaint. On 26 June 2023 the landlord responded to the resident that it would escalate his original complaint. This was 36 working days later. The landlord should have acknowledged this request within 5 working days. It also should have communicated with the resident about his further complaint. The landlord should have ensured the resident understood that his further complaint would be addressed within its final response, or it should have raised a further stage one complaint. The landlord should have also set out that the resident’s further concerns about its handling of his complaint would be investigated by an independent member of its staff. This is evidence of poor complaint handling.
On 9 August 2023 the resident was advised by the landlord that he could raise another complaint after it had not responded to a further request concerning his rent and service charges. The landlord then said it would address these concerns in its final response which it provided on 16 August 2023.
The landlord provided its final complaint response 76 working days after the resident first requested the landlord escalate his complaint. The landlord should have responded within 20 working days. During that time it did explain that it needed to extend its complaint response by 10 working days. It was appropriate the landlord told the resident it needed more time to respond to his complaint.

However, the overall delay in the landlord providing its response was excessive. This delay was also not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (which sets out our service’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling). This states that any extension to respond to a resident’s complaint must not be longer than 10 working days, without good reason. The Ombudsman has not reviewed any information to evidence a ‘good reason’ that would require an extension beyond a further 10 working days. The landlord also failed to fully address the resident’s further complaints in this response. This is evidence of poor complaint handling.
On 3 October 2023 the resident raised a further complaint to the landlord after it claimed the resident’s contact with the landlord had been excessive and it had decided to restrict the resident’s communication to a single point of contact. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response 10 working days later, on 16 October 2023. This was reasonable and in line with its complaints policy, as set out above.
On 20 December 2023 the landlord provided a further final response to the resident’s complaints concerning his rent and service charge. This was after intervention from the Ombudsman that same month. The Ombudsman advised the landlord to address the resident’s outstanding complaints concerning his rent and service charge. The Ombudsman, therefore, considers that it had taken the landlord 96 working days to address the resident’s further complaints. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider it could merge the resident’s complaints as they were about similar matters and it understandable that this may result in a slightly longer complaint investigation. However, it is a failing that it did not communicate its intentions clearly to the resident, and that it did explain this within its own timescales or in line with the Code as referred to above.
On 1 April 2024 the resident requested that the landlord escalate his complaint about its decision to restrict the resident’s communication to a SPOC following excessive contact. The landlord said it did not receive the resident’s complaint until 12 April 2024 and provided its final response on 29 April 2024. The Ombudsman has seen correspondence that the resident escalated his complaint on 1 April 2024. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint 21 working days later. This should have been provided within 20 working days.
There is evidence of failings as described above in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints. This includes delays and poor communication. Whilst some delays were relatively short, the overall number of delays, as well as its lack of clear communication in its responses cumulatively caused a significant amount of distress and inconvenience to the resident, who also had to seek help from the Ombudsman to progress his complaints.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s final responses to the resident’s complaints, which included an apology and a combined compensation award of £350 to be a reasonable and proportionate response to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint. As above, this is in line with what the Ombudsman would have awarded if the landlord had not made an offer. Therefore the landlord does not need to do anything further to put right its failings in complaint handling in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the:
1. Resident’s request for information concerning his rent and service charge.
2. Landlord’s decision to restrict the resident’s communication to a single point of contact.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is to pay the resident the £900 it awarded him in its stage one and stage 2 complaint responses unless this has already been paid.
The landlord is to respond to the resident’s following query about his rent account in writing:
1. What was the debit entry added to his account for on 3 July 2023, for the amount of £163.78?
2. Why was the above amount increased to £221.77?
If the landlord is unable to provide the above explanation in writing, it is to pay the resident £221.77 compensation. This is in addition to other awards of compensation issued as part of this investigation.
The landlord is to pay the resident £250 compensation in addition to its own previous offer of £50, bringing the total to £300 for this issue. This is for the distress and inconvenience caused by its errors in its handling of its decision to restrict the resident’s communication to a single point of contact.

The landlord is to contact the resident and advise him if he is currently required to make contact through its designated SPOC. If so, it is to confirm that the resident has the correct contact details for it to contact its SPOC. The landlord should also carry out a review of its decision. This is to ensure it considers that this is still a proportionate and reasonable response. It should update the resident in writing of its decision. If applicable, this update should include the reasons why the SPOC remains in place and the date when it will next be reviewed.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 28 days of this report.