Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202320298)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202320298
Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)
4 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
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
- The resident’s queries about her service charge account.
- The associated complaint.
Background
- The resident is a leaseholder of the property, and the landlord is the freeholder.
- In December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord with queries about some of the service charge costs on the final statement.
- On 4 February 2023, the resident submitted her complaint to the landlord. She explained she received her finalised service charge summary statement and identified incorrect calculations. She also stated some of the service charge costs were 10 times more than the cost referenced in the estimated service charge bill. The resident explained she had not received a response in writing to her service charge queries.
- The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 15 March 2023. It explained it had upheld the resident’s complaint because of the delay in responding to her service charge queries. The landlord apologised for the delay and stated its leaseholder and service charge officer recently contacted her and responded to her service charge queries. It also confirmed the leaseholder and service charge officer could help with any further queries the resident may have.
- On 28 June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of its complaints process. The resident explained after the landlord responded to her service charge queries, she sent some further queries about the documents provided and sent 2 chaser emails to the landlord, but did not receive a response. The resident stated the landlord’s statement of what she was supposed to pay in service charges and what she has actually paid was wrong and the landlord had not investigated this.
- The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 29 August 2023. It apologised for the delays in responding to her complaint and her service charge queries. The landlord explained it recently sent a response to her queries. However, the resident did not receive the response. Therefore, it resent the information to her during August 2023. The landlord told the resident she could raise the further queries she had directly with the service charge officer. It explained it had provided feedback to the relevant teams and individuals about the delays in communication so it can improve the service it delivers in the future. The landlord offered the resident £300 compensation, which included £150 to recognise the delays in the resident receiving her stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. Also, £150 for delays in responding to the resident’s service charge queries.
- The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman She explained that her desired outcome was for the landlord to respond to her service charge queries, correct her service charge statement and apologise. In addition, she stated she would like the landlord to review her query about 1- and 2-bedroom properties in the area paying the same service charge costs.
Assessment and findings
Scope of Investigation
- This report will consider whether the landlord sufficiently responded to the resident’s service charge queries. Disputes about the level of rent or service charge or level of increase are outside the remit of the Ombudsman and are better suited for consideration by the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). This is in line with paragraph 42 (d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (available on our website). Therefore, the Ombudsman will not respond to the resident’s concerns about the level of service charge, including whether the service charge was too high.
Policies, Procedures, and legislation
- The resident’s lease agreement states that the leaseholder agrees with the landlord to pay the service charge during the term by equal payments in advance on the first day of each month.
- In addition, the lease agreement states the service charge provision shall contain a sum, including the estimated expenditure likely to be incurred in the account year by the landlord and the manager in terms of the additional heating services.
- Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 also sets out the statutory timescales when landlords are expected to respond to service charge enquiries. A landlord is expected to respond within one month of the request or 6 months of the end of the period to which the query relates, whichever is later.
The resident’s service charge queries
- On 7 December 2022, the landlord issued the resident with her annual service charge account statement for the financial year of 2021/2022. Following this, the resident emailed the landlord at the end of December 2022 with a query about some of the service charge amounts. She asked the landlord to explain why the cleaning costs were so high in the final service charge statement. The resident also requested copies of invoices for some of the service charges. This included cleaning, structural repairs and maintenance, lift maintenance, door entry systems and fire maintenance.
- There was a delay in the landlord responding to the resident’s query. Due to this, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 4 February 2023. She stated some of the service charge costs appeared incorrect and some were 10 times more than the cost referenced in the estimated service charge bill. In addition, she explained she was still waiting to receive a response to her service charge queries.
- On 10 March 2023, the landlord emailed the resident with a spreadsheet of a service charge breakdown. It also, provided copies of invoices relating to cleaning, repairs, and ground maintenance. The landlord also explained during the financial year, the resident pays an estimated monthly cost for the services provided. Then, at the end of the year, the landlord would reconcile all the costs incurred during the financial year period and send a statement to advise if the costs were an overestimation or an underestimation. It was positive that the landlord responded to the resident and sent her the requested invoices. However, the delay was unreasonable, and it failed to explain the significant change in the cleaning costs.
- On the same day, the resident responded and asked about the service charge cost for a 1–bedroom and 2-bedroom flat in her block. In addition, the resident asked about the requested adjustment figure, which seemed incorrect. She stated the landlord did not respond to these questions.
- The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 15 March 2023. It acknowledged that there had been a delay in its service charge team responding to the resident’s query. The landlord apologised for the delay and the inconvenience caused. It also confirmed its service charge team could help with any further service charge queries. The landlord acted appropriately by apologising for the delay.
- The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s email when she explained the service charge team had not responded to her queries about the total service charge adjustment figure and the service charge cost for a 1- and 2-bedroom property. The resident stated she emailed the landlord in March and May 2023, chasing for a response. In addition, she explained she sent additional service charge queries. The queries included a question about structural repairs and building insurance, and why the cleaning costs referenced in the estimated service statement had increased considerably in the resident’s actual service charge statement. The delay in responding to the resident’s service charge queries was unreasonable.
- On 28 June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of its complaints process. She explained she was still waiting to receive a response from the landlord to her service charge queries.
- On 11 July 2023, the landlord emailed the resident responding to her queries. However, the resident stated she did not receive the email, so the landlord resent this on 24 August 2023. Although the landlord acted appropriately by resending the email to the resident, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to respond sooner than it did.
- The landlord responded to 4 queries in its email sent in July 2023. The resident’s first query was about the total service charge amount and that she was paying more than the figure referenced on her service charge statement. The landlord forwarded the resident’s query to one of its staff members to answer. It asked them to provide details on what had made up the figures the resident referenced, including when amounts were added to her transactions statement and why. It was reasonable for the landlord to refer the questions to the appropriate staff member to answer. However, from the information the landlord provided. There is no evidence that the landlord’s staff member responded to the resident. In addition, the resident has told the Ombudsman that this query remains unresolved. This was unreasonable and would have inconvenienced the resident. Therefore, the landlord is required to respond to the resident’s query that she was paying more than the figure referenced on her service charge statement if it has not already done so.
- The resident’s second query was about her paying the same monthly service charge as larger–sized flats in her block. She requested the landlord to provide her with a copy of the service charge costs for a 1-, 2- and 3-bedroom flat, so she could compare them with her service charge costs. In response to the query, it explained due to data protection, it could not provide her with information about other residents’ service charges.
- In addition, the landlord explained each property would have a lease agreement which guides the payments and apportionments governing their property. It also stated each lease agreement may not be exactly the same for a variety of reasons. The landlord’s explanation that it could not provide information about other resident’s service charge costs was correct. A landlord would not be expected to provide specific information which relates to or identifies other residents, as this would be confidential. In addition, it was correct to state that the share of service charge paid is based on a resident’s lease. However, it would be appropriate for the landlord to provide an explanation specific to the resident’s lease and confirm whether she is paying the correct amount of service charge based on her lease.
- The resident’s third service charge query was about structural repairs and building insurance. She explained she had been charged for a few repairs, which she believed were covered under the 10-year building warranty. The resident asked the landlord to answer the following questions:
- What does the 10 years building warranty cover?
- What does the building insurance cover?
- Why is there a sinking fund besides the 10 years warranty, which seems to cover the same repair?
In the email response, the landlord stated her lease agreement confirms what the sinking fund covers. It also confirmed it had referred the resident’s questions to its insurance team to answer. The landlord acted reasonably by asking its insurance team to respond to the resident’s questions. As the queries were in relation to building insurance and warranty, it was the appropriately qualified team to respond. However, based on the information provided by the landlord, it has not provided evidence that it responded to the resident. Therefore, the landlord is required to respond to the resident’s questions about the building warranty and insurance, if it has not already done so.
- The resident’s final service charge query was about the cleaning costs. She asked why there was a significant increase in the cleaning costs from the estimated service charge statement to the actual service charge statement. In response to the resident’s query, the landlord explained that its service charge officer previously provided her with invoices. The landlord also asked in its email response for the service charge officer to contact the resident and confirm the internal cleaning costs receipts. The landlord acted appropriately by sending the resident the cleaning invoices.
- However, we have looked at copies of the resident’s estimated and actual service charge statements for 2021/2022. The internal cleaning costs on the estimated summary stated the annual cost of £1,638 and the resident’s share as £50.28. Whereas the actuals summary stated the annual internal cleaning cost as £7,669.76 and the resident’s share as £235.59. The external cleaning costs on the resident’s service charges statements also had figures, which included a substantial change. Considering the significant change in the figures, it would be reasonable for the landlord to provide a written explanation of why the cleaning costs were significantly different in the resident’s actual service charge statement compared to the estimated statement.
- On 29 August 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It acknowledged there were delays in its communication. It also confirmed that it had not responded to her queries in line with its service delivery timeframes. The landlord also offered the resident £150 compensation to recognise the delays in its communication. It’s positive that the landlord recognised the errors in its communication and offered the resident compensation for this. However, the landlord did not sufficiently respond to some of the resident’s service charge queries. Therefore, there has been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s queries about her service charge account.
- It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident a further £100 compensation. This is in addition to the £150 compensation that the landlord already offered in its stage 2 response for its communication delays. The amount of compensation is appropriate to recognise the inconvenience the resident experienced. It also complies with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website), which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The Remedies Guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident, but there was no permanent impact. In this case, there may be no permanent impact on the resident, as the resident eventually received a partial response from the landlord to her queries and the landlord is ordered to respond to other queries, which it should respond to.
The associated complaint
- The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also explains that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy includes the timescales referenced in the Code.
- On 4 February 2023, the resident submitted her initial complaint to the landlord. Following this, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 15 March 2023. The response was approximately 18 working days late and not in line with the timescales referenced in the Code or the landlord’s complaints policy.
- On 28 June 2023, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. There was a delay in the landlord providing its stage 2 complaint response to the resident, which was approximately 23 working days late. This would have caused inconvenience for the resident, as she was delayed in progressing her complaint to the Ombudsman because she needed to wait for the landlord’s final response before contacting our service.
- The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint response that there were delays in issuing its complaint responses. The landlord apologised and offered the resident £150 compensation in its stage 2 complaint response for its complaint handling errors. The compensation offered to the resident complies with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance referenced above. The compensation proportionately reflects the impact of the delay on the resident, and it amounts to reasonable redress for this aspect of the complaint.
Determination (decision)
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about her service charge account.
- 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, resolves concerns about the landlord’s complaint handling satisfactorily.
Orders
- The landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the resident’s service charge queries.
- The landlord must comply with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
- The landlord to provide a letter to the resident in relation to her service charge queries which answers:
- The resident’s query that she was paying more than the figure referenced on her service charge statement. If it has already responded to this query, the landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of this.
- The resident’s query about her service charge costs based on the size of her property. The landlord to provide an explanation specific to the resident’s lease and confirm whether she is paying the correct amount of service charge based on her lease.
- The resident’s queries about the building warranty and insurance. If it has already responded to this query, the landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of this.
- The resident’s query about the significant change in cleaning charge costs. The landlord to provide an explanation of why the internal and external cleaning costs were significantly different in the resident’s actual service charge statement compared to the estimated statement.
- The landlord must comply with the above order within 6 weeks of the date of this determination.
Recommendations
- It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident its original offer of £300 compensation made during its complaint process if it has not already done so. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for complaint handling is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.