Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202333995)

Decision
Case ID	202333995
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	27 November 2025

Background

Having received his new service charges for 2023 to 2024, the resident raised a number of queries with the landlord about the charges for that year and the actuals from 2021 to 2022. The resident made his formal complaint to the landlord as it had not responded to his queries. The resident is a variable service charge payer.

What the complaint is about

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about his service charges.
We have also considered how the landlord handled the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s queries about his service charges.
2. There was maladministration by the landlord in how it handled the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

There were excessive and unreasonable delays in the landlord responding to the resident’s queries about his service charges. The landlord acknowledged this in its final response and offered the resident compensation. However, ultimately it failed to take steps to reasonably resolve the complaint. Its response to the resident’s queries remained outstanding and no commitment was made as to when these would be provided.
There was an excessive and unreasonable delay in the landlord providing its stage 2 response which would have understandably caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord offered the resident compensation for this failure but this was not proportionate to the level of its failure in this case.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 06 January 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £600 made up as follows: The £300 offered in its stage 2 response for the inconvenience and frustration to him as a result of the excessive and unreasonable delays in it responding to his queries. A further £200 for its failure to ultimately resolve the complaint as the queries remained outstanding and no commitment was made as to when these would be provided. £100 for the inconvenience and frustration as a result of the delay in the landlord responding to his complaint at stage 2. This is inclusive of the £25 previously offered by the landlord. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 06 January 2026
	Take action order If it has not done so already, the landlord is to provide the resident with responses to all the queries he raised with it on 17 April 2023. The landlord must provide us with evidence that this has been done by the due date.	No later than 06 January 2026
	Review order The landlord must carry out a review of how it responded to the resident’s service charge queries and how it handled the resident’s formal complaint about this matter. This review should include, but is not limited to: Its extended use of automated responses and failure to either provide a response or provide the resident with updates in line with the timescales set out in its service charge dispute process. Why it was the resident’s queries remained outstanding, with no commitment as to when responses would be provided, despite him taking his complaint about its lack of response through its formal complaints process. The landlord is to confirm what the result of its review was, what learning it has taken from this case and what action it intends to take to improve its service and to prevent similar failures going forward. The landlord must provide us with evidence that this has been done by the due date	No later than 20 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 August 2023	The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. The resident said he had submitted a number of queries on 17 April 2023 about his service charges but had still not received a response. The resident also complained that he had had a similar situation the previous year and there had been no improvement.
17 August 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint due to the length of time taken to answer his queries for which it apologised and offered him £50 compensation. The landlord said the issue had been escalated and answers would be provided.
25 September 2023	The resident escalated his complaint on 25 September 2023 as he still had not received a response to his queries. The resident said it had been 107 working days since he submitted his queries, this was an unacceptable amount of time for him to have to wait and this was not the first time this had happened. The resident said in response to a previous complaint the landlord said it would learn from that complaint, but that had clearly not happened.
24 November 2023	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. The landlord apologised for the ‘extended delay’ in its response to his queries. The landlord said it understood its service charge team had contacted the resident, by phone, on 16 August 2023 and that it had been agreed they would respond to his queries by 25 August 2023, which they did not do. The landlord offered its service charge team’s ‘sincerest apologies’ for the delay and explained that they were experiencing a ‘significant increase’ in enquiries. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and increased the compensation offered to £325. This was made up of: £150 for failure of service. £150 for ‘poor customer service’, time, and trouble. £25 for its poor handling of the complaint. The landlord said that as the resident’s rent and service charge account was in arrears the compensation would be credited to his account.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate his complaint on 1 January 2024. In his referral the resident said he had still had no response to his queries. The resident said he would like the landlord to respond to his queries and provide a plan of action as to how it would avoid similar issues going forward. The resident said he would also like further compensation.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about his service charges.
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s website confirms that if a resident raises a dispute about their service charge it will respond within 20 working days. The website goes on to say:
1. During busy periods, it may take longer but if this is the case it will keep the resident updated.
2. It will try to resolve the resident’s dispute within 4 weeks. However, complex disputes may take longer. The web site states the landlord will contact the resident if the dispute would take longer than 4 weeks to resolve.
In this case the resident emailed the landlord on 17 April 2023 regarding a number of his charges:
1. The resident asked the landlord, with regards to the previous years (2021 to 2022) service charge actuals:
  1. What the managing agent charge was for and how this differed from the management fee. The resident said this was not budgeted for in the service charges and so he was surprised to see this.
  2. Why there were a number of items that had been budgeted for which had no costs in the actuals. The resident referred to heating, safety harnesses, fire equipment, door entry, and lift maintenance.
  3. To confirm that the fire equipment existed and that lift maintenance was being done as the lack of costs suggested otherwise.
2. With regards to his 2023 to 2024 service charge estimates. The resident:
  1. Said he had noticed ‘significant jumps’ in costs for a number of items and that these increases were ‘way beyond’ inflation and so he was keen to ensure these were accurate. The resident referenced the following charges: door entry system, building insurance, management and auditing fees, block cleaning, and lift maintenance.
  2. Queried why there had previously ‘been a line’ for lift insurance which was not in the current accounts. The resident asked the landlord why and if this was correct.
An automated email was sent to the resident the same day to say its service charge team were currently dealing with ‘a very high’ level of enquiries and there could be a delay in responding to him. The resident was advised the service charge team would aim to respond to him within 20 working days, which would have been in line with the information set out on its website.
By 4 July 2023, the resident had had no response. He had also received no update from the landlord, despite its website saying it would keep residents updated if it was likely to take longer than 20 days to respond. The resident was again sent an automated reply from the landlord’s service charge team advising they would aim to respond to him within 20 working days.
By 1 August 2023, the resident had again received no response nor had he been contacted by the landlord to update him about any delays. This was despite almost 4 months having passed since he initially raised his queries. Instead, the resident was once again sent an automated reply from the landlord’s service charge team advising they would aim to respond to him within 20 working days. This would have been understandably frustrating for the resident. At this point he raised his formal complaint with the landlord about its lack of response.
Despite taking the complaint through the landlord’s formal complaints procedure, the resident was still not provided with a response to his queries. As the resident said when he escalated his complaint this was not acceptable and it should not take the landlord so long to respond.
It is acknowledged that in its final response the landlord apologised to the resident for the ‘extended delay’ in its response to his queries and offered him £300 compensation for its service failure, its poor customer service and his time and trouble.
However, we expect landlords to not only acknowledge and apologise where there has been a service failure but also to set out what it intends to do to put things right, which the landlord failed to do in this case. The resident’s queries remained outstanding and no commitment was made as to when these would be provided.
Further, when he referred his complaint to us on 1 January 2024, he still had not received a response to the queries he had originally raised in April 2023, some 9 months earlier.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 Edition (March 2022). Our findings are:
1. The landlord had a published complaints policy which complied with the terms of the 2022 Code in respect of timescales.
2. The landlord has since updated its complaints policy in line with our 2024 Code (April 2024).
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 1 August 2023, which the landlord acknowledged on 4 August 2023. The landlord would then have been expected to provide its stage 1 response by 15 August 2023, within the next 10 working days.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 August 2023, 2 working days outside of the expected time frame.
The resident escalated his complaint on 25 September 2023, which the landlord acknowledged the same day. The landlord confirmed the resident would receive its stage 2 response by 23 October 2023, in accordance with the 20-working day timescale set out in its complaints policy and the Code. The landlord also advised the resident that if it was not able to respond within those 20 working days it would contact him to discuss a new response time. This was again in accordance with its complaints policy and the Code.
However, it neither provided its response by 23 October 2023 nor contacted the resident to discuss with him why it was unable to do so.
On 24 November 2023, the resident chased the landlord for its stage 2 response, which the landlord provided the same day. This exceeded the 20-working day timescale set out in its complaints policy and the Code by 24 working days.

Learning

In its stage 2 response, the landlord referenced using the resident’s experience ‘as feedback to help (it) improve the level of service (it) deliver(ed) in future’. However, it gave no indication of what feedback it had given or how it hoped this would result in an improvement in its service. This was despite it acknowledging that the resident had had a similar experience the previous year, which had also resulted in a stage 2 complaint. The review order in this report has been made to address this shortfall.