From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202322627)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322627

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

10 June 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 resident’s reports about the miscalculation of the service charge and requests for service charge account information.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner of the property, which is a flat. The resident’s underlease with the landlord started in 2014.
  2. The landlord is the head leaseholder and there is a superior landlord. The superior landlord has an appointed managing agent. The managing agent levies a service charge to the landlord on behalf of the superior landlord.
  3. The landlord began investigating the service charge accounts provided by the managing agent in 2019 after becoming concerned that the service charges levied were incorrect.
  4. The landlord raised a formal complaint with the managing agent in January 2021 about the lack of progress being made to resolve its concerns about the accuracy of the service charge. The landlord remained dissatisfied with the managing agent’s response and raised another formal complaint with the managing agent at the end of July 2021.
  5. The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 24 April 2023. The resident explained that the landlord had been applying incorrect service charges to his account for several years. He expressed dissatisfaction with the length of time it was taking the landlord to resolve this. The resident also said the landlord had not provided satisfactory service charge accounts, invoices, or proof of work, to justify the charges. He said the situation was preventing him from selling the property and was causing him significant financial and emotional stress.
  6. The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 25 May 2023. The landlord upheld the complaint. The landlord:

a.     Explained that information obtained by its service charge team to calculate his service charges had to be revisited due to some irregularities.

b.     Accepted that it had not responded within the prescribed timescale, due to the complexity of the queries and the time taken to collate information. But noted this information had now been provided.

c.      Offered £70 compensation by way of redress, which comprised:

i.        £50 compensation for failure of service.

ii.      £20 compensation for poor complaint handling.

  1. The resident raised the stage 2 complaint on 1 June 2023. The resident said:

a.     The landlord had not fully addressed or resolved his complaint.

b.     It had not explained why the service charge was so high or what the service charge consisted of.

c.      It had not provided any service charge accounts or supporting documents to justify the costs or how the service charge was apportioned.

d.     The landlord should:

i.        Provide a full breakdown of service charges dating back to 2014.

ii.      Ensure his service charges were accurate and justified.

iii.    Provide proof of the services that had been carried out.

iv.    Confirm a timeline for when the issues surrounding the service charges would be resolved.

  1. The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response on 12 December 2023 following intervention from us. The complaint was partially upheld. The landlord:

a.     Accepted its stage 1 complaint response had not addressed all of the issues the resident had raised in the stage 1 complaint.

b.     Set out the action it had taken to address the issues surrounding the service charges and provided a detailed response to each issue the resident raised in the stage 2 complaint. Of particular note, the landlord said:

i.        It had challenged the managing agent over the service charges levied since 2014, as it believed these to be wrong.

ii.      It had been issuing estimated service charges to the resident throughout the timeframe of the active dispute, based on demands made by the managing agent. But said it had not been collecting these charges, as it had been unable to obtain sufficient evidence to substantiate the estimated charges.

iii.    It had instructed its legal team to start legal proceedings against the managing agent and the superior landlord and would be seeking a substantial refund of service charges from the superior landlord dating back to 2014.

c.      Accepted that there had been a lack of communication from its service charge team prior to the complaint, which had left the resident uncertain of the action it was taking.

d.     Offered £600 redress for the failings it identified, which superseded the compensation it previously offered at stage 1. This compensation was broken down as follows:

i.        £200 compensation for the lack of service provided by its service charge team prior to the complaint.

ii.      £200 compensation in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble contacting the landlord to dispute, discuss, and query his service charges, where he got no response or its response was inadequate.

iii.    £200 compensation for not fully addressing the complaint at stage 1, for its delay in closing the stage 1 complaint, and for its delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2.

  1. The resident brought his complaint to us in December 2023 because he felt the resolution did not resolve the substantive issues. He said the landlord should provide audited accounts for historical service charges and amend the current service charge to a reasonable level, so he could sell his property.
  2. After the landlord’s complaint process ended, the following events occurred:

a.     The landlord told us in May 2024:

i.        Its legal team opened a file in December 2023 in preparation for First Tier Tribunal (FTT) proceedings. However, it did not have the staff available to take on the case or understand if the requirements for FTT proceedings had been met, until March 2024.

ii.      Had put the FTT proceedings on hold since then, while progressing another complaint with the managing agent. It said this would strengthen its case against the managing agent in the event the case progressed to the FTT.

b.     The landlord told us in July 2024:

i.        It recognised the resident had been impacted by subsequent failings in its handling of the substantive matter and by not progressing the FTT proceedings as quickly as it indicated. It said this was due to the complexity of the case, along with legal advice being sought in relation to the new Building Safety Act 2022 which came into force in October 2023.

ii.      It was unable to resolve the resident’s queries without engagement from the managing agent, who had given it protracted responses and had continually moved deadlines.

iii.    It would be willing to offer the resident an additional £450 compensation, in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused by additional delays, not progressing the FTT proceedings as quickly as it had promised, and for poor complaint handling.

c.      The landlord told us in September 2024:

i.        It had met with the managing agent in July 2024 who provided it with some complex information, which it was reviewing.

ii.      It was planning to meet the managing agent in early September 2024 and would continue with its queries until these were resolved.

iii.    “This remained a work in progress, which will continue until all of the appropriate information has been provided and accepted as accurate”.

  1. We wrote to the landlord on 3 June 2025 giving it the opportunity to clarify the current position. The landlord has not responded. The resident told us on 4 June 2025 that he had received no updates from the landlord since July 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues between March 2023 and December 2023. This being the first date we have seen, of the resident raising queries with the landlord about his service charges, through to when the landlord’s complaint process was exhausted. However, we note that the landlord had been conversing with residents at the scheme prior to this date, after identifying possible errors in the service charge.
  2. This report may consider events that happened prior to March 2023 that were addressed by the landlord during its own complaint investigation. This investigation may also reference events that happened after the stage 2 complaint response, where relevant to the resolution of the substantive complaint.
  3. As the head leaseholder, the landlord is in dispute with the managing agents appointed by the superior landlord about the service charges levied since 2014. The landlord has said that the managing agents have not correctly calculated the charges payable by the underleases. The landlord has raised complaints with the superior landlord’s managing agent with the intention of progressing to the FTT (Property Chamber). The FTT is the appropriate recourse for disputes about the level and reasonableness of service charges.

The landlord’s handling of reports about the miscalculation of the service charge and requests for service charge account information

  1. The service charges in this case were regulated under the terms of the head lease held between the superior landlord and the landlord. There is also an underlease between the landlord and the resident. The following is not in dispute:

a.     The superior landlord is liable to provide all services to the building’s structure and common parts.

b.     The superior landlord has the right to recover the costs of those services from the landlord.

c.      The landlord has the right to recover charges from the resident that are demanded by the superior landlord from the landlord.

  1. The resident raised a query with the landlord’s service charge team on 6 March 2023 concerning his service charges. The landlord was unable to answer the resident’s query so committed to making internal enquiries. The resident chased the landlord several times between 8 March 2023 and 5 April 2023 for an answer to his queries, creating him avoidable time and trouble.
  2. The resident noted in an email to the landlord on 5 April 2023 that his online service charge account was in arrears, despite him paying by direct debit since the lease began in 2014. The resident:

a.     Said it had reassured him previously that the service charge was incorrect and he was being overcharged by over £800 per month.

b.     Asked the landlord to provide him with detailed service charge accounts from 2014 to prove the historical charges were accurate.

c.      Asked the landlord to provide detailed invoices and proof of services carried out, as the building was in a poor state, and he was unclear what his service charges were being spent on.

d.     Suggested the landlord should:

i.        Have a transparent process for preparing its service charge accounts and a clear timeframe for when those accounts would be ready to review.

ii.      Arrange a fair refund if the information he requested could not be obtained.

iii.    Establish an accurate figure for the service charges going forward and clarity on what his money would be spent on.

iv.    Clarify its timeframe for resolving the matter.

  1. The landlord did not provide the resident with a timely response to his service charge queries, prompting him to raise the stage 1 complaint on 24 April 2023. It is not in dispute that the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not address all of the issues raised by the resident in the stage 1 complaint. The resident raised similar issues and requested similar outcomes in the stage 2 complaint on 1 June 2023, to those he previously raised on 5 April 2023. It is not in dispute that the landlord did not log the stage 2 complaint in a timely manner, which delayed issue of the stage 2 complaint outcome.
  2. The landlord did have a process and timeframe for preparing its service charge accounts and demanding service charges. In summary:

a.     Before each accounting period begins, the landlord and superior landlord must set a reasonable estimated service charge, reflecting the anticipated costs that will be incurred throughout the period. The landlord then provides the resident with a breakdown of the estimate service charges, so it is clear what services towards which he is contributing.

b.     Towards the end of each accounting period, both landlords must compare the estimated service charge values against the costs that were actually incurred during the period. The landlord would then provide the resident with a statement showing the actual costs spent on the block. However, if this were not possible, it would issue a notice under Section 20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

c.      If the landlord were unable to provide a service charge final account within 6 months of the end of the accounting period, it would issue a notice in accordance with Section 20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, stating the estimated costs incurred. The landlord would endeavour to provide the final accounts as soon as possible. But service of this notice would allow the landlord to delay the service of final accounts indefinitely.

  1. The landlord suspected the managing agent was over-charging and began investigations in 2019. It attempted engagement with the managing agent in January 2020 concerning this. It is evident that the landlord experienced difficulty obtaining accurate service charge information from the managing agent, related to the correct apportionment of the service charge and fire safety related charges.
  2. As the head leaseholder and the resident’s landlord, the landlord was obliged to offer clear and accurate information on the charges being passed on to him. We accept that the resolution of the resident’s concerns about the service charges was not entirely within the landlord’s control. This is because the landlord required information from the managing agent in order to assure itself, and the resident, of the accuracy of the service charge. Nonetheless, we were encouraged that the landlord took responsibility during its internal complaint process, for delays in being able to provide this information to the resident in a timelier manner.
  3. It is not in dispute that the landlord had been unable to reconcile the 2018/19 estimated service charges, or any of the estimated service charges thereafter. Therefore, the landlord had to issue the resident with annual estimated service charge statements and notices under Section 20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, in line with its procedure.
  4. The landlord raised 2 complaints with the managing agent in 2021, which shows it was endeavouring to resolve the issue. The landlord explained in the stage 2 complaint response, that the superior landlord changed its managing agent during the coronavirus pandemic without notifying it, which resulted in a breakdown of communication. It said it was unable to establish who the new managing agent was until March 2023 and by this time had found extensive problems with the service charges, which it had disputed ever since.
  5. However, we have seen evidence that the original managing agent told the landlord in an email on 9 November 2021 that they were no longer appointed by the superior landlord and provided the landlord with the name of the new managing agent. The resident has also provided us with some emails between the landlord and another resident from the same scheme dated 8 December 2022, where the landlord references the name of new managing agent.
  6. The landlord’s records do not reflect that the landlord was actively trying to resolve the substantive issue between December 2021 and February 2023 as it has suggested. It was unreasonable that the landlord was not proactive during this period. We noted that the landlord did not contact the new managing agent to progress the earlier complaints made until 31 March 2023.
  7. The resident was clearly concerned by the level of service charges he was being billed for over the timeframe of the complaint and that the landlord was unable to provide such little explanation, or justification, for the charges. However, the landlord would have been restricted as to what response it was able to give the resident, due to the lack of information provided to it by the managing agent.
  8. In mitigation, the landlord did advise the resident on 26 April 2023, prior to it issuing the stage 1 complaint response, that it had:

a.     Raised a complaint with the management agent about the apportionment of the service charge and fire safety related costs, which was appropriate.

b.     It would arrange an independent review of the dispute should the managing agent not provide a satisfactory response by 12 May 2023, which shows its commitment to resolving the substantive issues.

c.      It would not enforce collection of the disputed charges, which it repeated several times thereafter. The landlord’s approach was fair in the circumstances. But it is evident that the resident continued to worry about what the final charge was likely to be and whether he would be able to attract a buyer for the property while the issues remained unresolved.

  1. The landlord sent regular updates to the resident between 2 June 2023 and 24 August 2023 on the progress it was making with resolving the substantive matter and its likely next steps. Of particular note, the landlord gave the managing agent until 1 July 2023 to provide it with a satisfactory a response. This was fair, as the FTT would want to see that the landlord had exhausted the managing agent’s complaints process before proceedings were initiated. The landlord referred the matter to its legal team when the managing agent did not respond by the specified deadline. The landlord’s legal team asked the landlord to collate some additional information before progressing to the FTT.
  2. The managing agent responded to the landlord belatedly on 8 August 2023. The landlord asked the managing agent the next day if it would agree to meet in September 2023 to discuss its response. The landlord added on 14 August 2023 that it would be challenging every service charge applied since 2014 and was looking to commence proceedings in the FTT, as the service charges were unreasonable. This shows that the landlord was applying some pressure on the managing agent to reach a resolution.
  3. The landlord updated the resident on 24 August 2023. It explained that it had asked for the audited annual service charge accounts, supporting transaction listings, and contractor invoices to be disclosed. It tried to manage the resident’s expectations, by explaining that it would continue issuing statutory notices until the matter had been brought to a satisfactory conclusion. And that it would reconcile the service charge accounts as soon as its investigation completed. The landlord also clarified that the resident could exercise his right to view the audited annual service charge accounts when they were published. It was positive that the landlord made the resident aware of this. But the landlord might have explained this to the resident sooner, given he asked the landlord to provide this information in April 2023.
  4. There is no evidence that the managing agent agreed to meet the landlord in September 2023 as the landlord had requested. This was unhelpful to the resolution of the matter. While this would have been outside the landlord’s control, we were unable to verify that the landlord actively chased the managing agent when it did not agree to meet. We note the landlord told the resident on 5 October 2023 that the managing agent had not engaged, so had asked its legal team to prepare an application to the FTT. This was appropriate.
  5. The landlord provided its next update to the resident on 1 December 2023. It was positive that the landlord apologised for not providing the resident with an update in November 2023. It confirmed that it had instructed its legal team to commence the FTT pre-action protocol, which shows that the matter was progressing. For clarity, a pre-action protocol is a process that a claimant must follow before starting court proceedings, to satisfy the FTT that the parties have tried to settle the dispute before issuing proceedings.
  6. The landlord tried to manage the resident’s expectations in the stage 2 complaint response on 12 December 2023, about the speed at which the FFT process was likely to take. But pointed out this was necessary step to secure a resolution for everyone concerned. It explained that the FTT would decide if any amendment of the service charges was required.
  7. The landlord recognised in the stage 2 complaint response, that the resident had been impacted by the lack of service provided by its service charge team prior to the stage 1 complaint. It recognised that the resident had been caused avoidable time and trouble disputing, discussing, and querying the service charges. It also accepted there had been delays in its complaint handling and it had failed to issue the resident with a complete response at stage 1.
  8. The landlord tried to put things right by offering the resident £200 compensation for each failing, which amounted to an overall figure of £600. This amount was within the range we would recommend where failures of service have been identified, which had a significant impact on the resident. The landlord’s overall offer of compensation was proportionate to the failings we identified between March 2023 and when the landlord’s complaint procedure was exhausted.
  9. While we have not assessed the landlord’s action after the landlord’s complaint process was exhausted, the resident has confirmed the substantive matter has not been resolved. The landlord has confirmed that it did not progress the case to the FTT as quickly as it intended. And according to its latest communication with us, it may have now changed its position. We note the landlord did itself recognise there had likely been further detriment to the resident.
  10. Regardless of level of redress the landlord offered in its final stage 2 complaint or the extent of future actions, the substantive issues must be resolved before we can say they have been adequately addressed. We recognise that the landlord was reliant on the managing agent and the superior landlord to be able to resolve the substantive issues. But it is unreasonable that these issues remain unresolved nearly 18 months after landlord’s internal complaint process was exhausted and the resident is unclear on the current status of the case. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds maladministration the landlords handling of the resident’s reports about the miscalculation of the service charge and requests for service charge account information.
  11. The landlord is ordered to pay the £600 compensation it previously offered the resident in its final stage 2 complaint response if it has not done so already.
  12. The landlord should reflect on its handling of the substantive matter from 13 December 2023 onwards and assess the ongoing the impact to the resident. The landlord should consider if any further compensation is due to the resident and confirm its intentions. A recommendation is made later in relation to this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports about the miscalculation of the service charge and requests for service charge account information.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must pay the £600 compensation it previously offered in the final stage 2 complaint, if it has not done so already, which must be paid directly to the resident.
  2. The landlord must write to the resident:

a.     Explaining what it has done since the final stage 2 complaint response, to resolve the substantive issues and confirm the current position.

b.     Setting out an action plan, with timescales, for resolving the substantive issues. The landlord must commit to keeping the action plan under review with the resident at regular intervals, at a frequency to be agreed by the parties, until such time as the substantive issues have been resolved.

  1. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

 

 

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should carry out a review of its handling of the substantive matter from 13 December 2023 onwards. The landlord should consider if there has been any ongoing impact to the resident and whether further compensation might be due. The landlord should consider opening a new service complaint if the resident remains dissatisfied.