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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202318553)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318553

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

11 February 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 handling of the resident’s:
    1. Request for information regarding his service charge.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord at the property.
  2. On 1 April 2022 the resident raised a Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) request to the landlord. The resident asked for the landlord to respond to a number of queries in relation to the costs which had made up his service charge, covering the period from 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021.
  3. Between May 2022 and August 2022 the resident contacted the landlord 3 times. He asked the landlord to respond to his previously submitted queries regarding the costs that made up his service charge.
  4. On 23 August 2022 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about its failure to respond to his Section 22 request.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 31 October 2022. It apologised for its delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. The landlord said that it would hold a meeting the following day and that the resident’s queries would be treated as urgent. It awarded the resident £235 compensation.
  6. On 2 December 2022 the landlord apologised for its delay and responded to the resident’s queries about his service charge. That same day, the resident told the landlord that it had not answered his queries about the costs relating to his service charge in full. He also asked for the landlord to respond to a number of further queries about his service charge, in relation to its demand letter dated 26 September 2022.
  7. Between February 2023 and March 2023, the resident raised a number of further queries about his service charge and continued to chase the landlord for it to respond. On 3 April 2023 the resident requested that the landlord escalate his complaint as it had not responded to him.
  8. On 14 May 2023 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint about his request for information about his service charge. The landlord also said the following:
    1. It apologised for its delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.
    2. The landlord was aware that the resident had raised further queries which it had not yet responded to. It was working to ensure it provided the further information requested by the resident within its service level agreement of 28 days.
    3. Awarded the resident a further £100 compensation.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to his complaint. The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman stating his desired outcome was for the landlord to improve its communication. He also wanted the landlord to respond to his future requests for information about his service charge within its required timescales.
  10. The landlord has advised the Ombudsman that it has since carried out a further review of the resident’s complaint about his request for information regarding his service charge. The landlord accepted that it had not responded to the resident’s further communication about his service charge after its final written response to the resident’s complaint on 14 May 2024.
  11. The landlord said it wished to review its offer and has awarded the resident the following additional compensation as part of his complaint:
    1. £75 for its handling of the resident’s complaint.
    2. £350 for its record keeping and the time and trouble taken by the resident in seeking for the landlord to respond to the information about his service charge.
    3. £350 in recognition of its service failure after its final complaint response.

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 of his building, 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.
  4. 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.
  5. The Ombudsman will not 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 and in line with its legal obligations, its internal policies and industry best practice.

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

  1. The resident raised his Section 22 request to the landlord on 1 April 2022. His request related to costs that made up his service charge for the period between 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021. 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.

 

 

 

  1. We have reviewed evidence that shows that the resident chased the landlord for it to respond to his queries about his service charge on the following dates:
    1. 12 May 2022
    2. 15 July 2022
    3. 10 August 2022
  2. The resident has said that during this time that the landlord confirmed it had received his requests but did not respond with the information requested. 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 he had requested about his service charge. If any information was not available, the landlord should have explained why it was not available.
  3. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 31 October 2022, it said it would raise a meeting and treat the resident’s queries as urgent. It was appropriate that the landlord did this. However, the landlord took a further 33 days to respond to the resident. It also failed to provide the resident with all of the information he had requested. We understand that this will have caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience, as by that time, he had been waiting 246 days for the information he had requested. This is evidence of poor communication, as well as poor handling of the landlord’s service charge requests.
  4. On 2 December 2022 the resident raised a number of additional queries about costs relating to his service charge. This was after the resident had received a further demand letter from the landlord dated 26 September 2022. The resident then raised a number of further queries to the landlord’s service charge team on 7 February 2023. The resident continued to chase for the landlord to respond to all of his outstanding service charge queries into March 2023.
  5. The landlord provided a partial response to the resident’s queries about his service charge on 4 May 2023. We understand that this response related to queries raised on 7 February 2023. This was not reasonable, as the landlord should have responded to all of the resident’s requests about costs relating to his service charge, in full within one month, as required by law.
  6. On 21 May 2023 the resident asked the landlord to respond to his service charge queries originally raised in December 2022. In July 2024 in the landlord’s communication with the Ombudsman, it accepted that it did not respond to the resident’s further request.

 

  1. We understand that the resident has since received this information which is almost 2 years later. This is a significant delay, and we understand that this has caused a lot of frustration to the resident. The Ombudsman expects landlords to have sufficient resources to be able to meet the needs of its functions including its requirements to fulfil its legal obligations.
  2. For the reasons described above the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information regarding his service charge. This includes the significant delays, and the landlord’s poor level of communication.
  3. We have considered our own remedies guidance (published on our website) in respect of compensation. The landlord awarded the resident £300 compensation for its handling of the resident’s request for information regarding his service charge. In July 2024 the landlord has advised us that it had carried out a review of the resident’s complaint and wanted to award him an additional £700 compensation. This is a total award of £1,000. This is slightly above the range we would issue in compensation in this situation. This revised offer reflects that the resident suffered distress and inconvenience whilst waiting for a significant time for the landlord to fully respond to his requests about his service charge. An example of this level of compensation in our guidance includes where there has been a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. Therefore, we will not award any further compensation.
  4. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the landlord’s handling of complaints through their internal complaint procedures. Whilst it is positive that the landlord has now made a reasonable offer and has since provided the resident with information he requested, this offer was not considered until some 15 months after the time of the landlord’s original final response. Therefore, the landlord 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. As such, the landlord did not act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. For this reason, the determination remains maladministration for this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

Review of policy and practice

  1. The Ombudsman has several complaints awaiting investigation, where similar issues have been identified. It would have been appropriate to issue a wider order under paragraph 54.f. of the Scheme, in respect of the landlord’s request for information regarding his service charge. However, we will not do so because we have already issued such an order.

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54.f. of the Scheme, the landlord was advised its senior management must carry out a review of its practice 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. It was given 16 weeks to update us that it had done so.

The resident’s 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 1 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 23 August 2022 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord after it had failed to respond to his multiple requests for information regarding his service charge, for the period 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response 49 working days later, on 31 October 2022. This was not appropriate and was not in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, which sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. The landlord should have provided its stage 1 written complaint response within 10 working days. We acknowledge that this delay will have frustrated the resident, who was also still waiting for the information regarding his service charges during this time.
  3. On 21 February 2023 the resident requested the landlord escalate his complaint. The landlord responded the same day stating that it would follow up his concerns about his service charge. We have not been provided with any evidence that the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint at this time. The landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days, in line with the Code as referred to above. This is evidence of poor handling of the resident’s complaint.
  4. On 3 April 2023 the resident repeated his request for the landlord to escalate his complaint. The landlord provided its final written response to the resident’s complaint 27 working days later, on 14 May 2023. This was also 56 working days after the resident initially requested the landlord escalate his complaint. The landlord should have provided this response within 20 working days. 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.
  5. For the reasons described above the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  6. We have considered our own remedies guidance in respect of compensation. The landlord apologised and awarded the resident £35 compensation for its handling of his complaint. It was positive that the landlord attempted to put things right, but we do not consider that the landlord went far enough in respect of its level of compensation.
  7. However as referred to above, the landlord has advised us that it will award a further £75 compensation for its handling of the resident’s complaint. This is a total award of £110 compensation. This is within the range we would issue in compensation for this aspect of the resident’s complaint based on the information we have seen. The remedies guidance gives examples of an award in this range where there has been a minor failure in the service provided by the landlord and its action to put things right did not fully reflect the detriment to the resident.
  8. Therefore, we will not award further compensation, subject to the landlord paying the resident the additional £75 compensation for its handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s increased offer of compensation was not made during its internal complaints process, as referred to above. For this reason this compensation will not alter the Ombudsman’s determination of service failure for the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

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

Orders

  1. The landlord is to apologise to the resident in writing. The apology is to be in line with this service’s guidance that it acknowledges the maladministration for which it expresses a sincere regret for its handling of the resident’s request for information regarding his service charge.
  2. The landlord is to pay the resident the £335 it awarded him in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint response unless this has already been paid.
  3. The landlord is to pay the resident the additional £775 it advised us that it was looking to award him following its review of his complaint unless this has already been paid.
  4. The landlord is to communicate with the resident in writing and confirm if it has any outstanding requests relating to his queries regarding his service charge. It is to then provide this information in line with its statutory obligation, within one month of the date of the resident’s Section 22 request.
  5. 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.