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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202426967)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202426967

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

23 May 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 communication during the sales process for the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was the shared owner of the property, which is a one-bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association. There are no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. In early 2024 the resident decided to sell his share in the property and asked the landlord to find a buyer. On 1 May 2024 it emailed him to introduce a named member of staff who would assist him through the sales process. On 1 July 2024 the resident emailed the landlord and asked why the sale was taking so long. It replied to explain the process and the steps that had been taken by it, his and the buyer’s solicitors up to that point. He emailed it on 14 August 2024 and received an automatic out of office reply stating the named member of staff was on sick leave. He emailed it again on 19 August 2024 and said he had been trying to contact the landlord for a month. It replied that day and provided an update on the sales process.
  3. On 29 August 2024 the resident emailed the landlord and said if he did not have a date for exchange of contracts by 2 September 2024, he would readvertise the property for sale. The landlord replied on 30 August 2024 that it had chased the buyer and her solicitors for an update. On 3 September 2024 he forwarded a new valuation for the property to the landlord, which showed his surveyor had also sent it a copy on 28 August 2024. He emailed the landlord on 11 September 2024 for an update. It replied on 18 September 2024 and apologised for the delay which was due to annual leave. The resident and landlord exchanged further emails between 19 and 20 September 2024 about the sales process. The landlord said it had been chasing the buyer’s solicitors. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 20 September 2024, which was about:
    1. The landlord’s conduct of the sales process over the previous 2 months including a lack of communication and non-responsiveness.
    2. The landlord failing to follow his instructions.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 26 September 2024. It exchanged emails with the resident that day, and both confirmed the sale was to go ahead at the new valuation. On 8 October 2024 it emailed him and said it had extended the complaint response deadline by 10 working days. It provided its stage 1 response on 22 October 2024, in which it:
    1. Set out the timeline and explained it had been trying to get updates from the buyer’s solicitors. It appreciated that he felt there was a lack of communication, but it had been liaising with all parties involved to try to be able to provide updates to him.
    2. Apologised for the delays in its complaint handling and upheld the complaint due to this. It offered £25 compensation.
  5. The resident asked to escalate his complaint the same day, and the landlord acknowledged escalation on 29 October 2024. It said he had said the information in its stage 1 response was incorrect. He emailed it on 1 November 2024 for an update on the sale and the landlord replied that day. He emailed it again to clarify his complaint on 5 November 2024. The resident and landlord exchanged further emails between 4 and 21 November 2024 about the sale. The resident confirmed the property he wanted to buy was no longer available and the buyer said she would wait and still wanted to buy the property.
  6. On 28 November 2024 the landlord emailed the resident and said it had extended the date for its stage 2 response by 10 working days. It emailed him again on 31 December 2024 to extend the date again by a further 10 working days. He emailed it on 3 January 2025 and explained the financial losses he had incurred by the delays in the sales process. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 20 January 2025, in which it:
    1. Did not uphold the complaint about lack of communication. It also explained its stage 1 response was not factually incorrect.
    2. Explained it had not told the buyer that he would accept a lower valuation and had checked the correspondence with her solicitors to confirm this.
    3. Said it was not responsible for delays caused by the external solicitors.
    4. Partially upheld the complaint due to its poor complaint handling and delays. It apologised for this and offered £200 compensation.
  7. The landlord confirmed, in an internal email, that the property sale was completed on 28 March 2025.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s communication during the sales process for the property

  1. Under its resales policy a shared owner wishing to sell must in the first instance use the landlord’s sales department to sell the property. The landlord will act as an agent. If the landlord is unable to find a buyer within 8 weeks the resident can then use an estate agent. Its policy says, “clear and concise communication between [all parties] is essential throughout the process.”
  2. The landlord provided a named member of staff at the start of the sales process. The policy does not give a timeframe in which it will respond to communication. However, the evidence shows it provided updates when it was able and responded promptly to the resident’s emails. The only exceptions were during a period of sick leave, when a different member of staff responded, and a short delay due to annual leave. In addition, the landlord kept in regular contact with the buyer, her solicitors and the resident’s solicitors throughout the sales process. The landlord correctly explained this within its stage 1 response.
  3. Within its stage 2 response the landlord correctly confirmed again it was trying to obtain updates to keep the resident updated. The evidence shows it did provide the correct valuation figure to the buyer and did not say he would accept a lower valuation. It was also correct for it to explain the delays had not been caused by it, which can be seen from the evidence and its communication with the buyer’s solicitors. There was no maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. When the resident made his stage 1 complaint the landlord acknowledged it within its 5 working day complaints policy timeframe. This was also in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It correctly said it needed an extension of time, before its response was late, and asked for 10 working days in line with its policy. However, it did not provide a good reason for this. It then provided its stage 1 response within its 10-working day extension timeframe. Within its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for the delay and offered compensation.
  2. The landlord has not provided a copy of the resident’s escalation request but said he made it on 22 October 2024. It acknowledged this within its 5 working day policy timeframe and in line with the Code. It extended its response date by 10 working days on 28 November 2024, but this was after 23 working days had already passed and was a failing. The landlord had 20 working days to respond under its policy and the Code. It asked for a further extension 22 working days later, which was a further failing. It provided its stage 2 response 57 working days after it acknowledged escalation. This was in excess of the 20 working days, and additional 20 working days, provided for under its policy and the Code. However, it correctly accepted its failings and apologised for these within its stage 2 response. It also offered £200 compensation.
  3. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  4. The landlord demonstrated the dispute resolution principles, apologised and offered appropriate compensation. There was reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s communication during the sales process for the property.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay directly to the resident the £200 compensation it offered within its stage 2 response if it has not already done so.