Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202413755)

Decision
Case ID	202413755
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	27 November 2025

Background

In June 2023 the landlord sent the resident a letter advising there would be a charge for carrying out a fire risk assessment (FRA). In October 2023 the landlord sent the resident a letter stating that an updated rent charge would be backdated to April 2023. In January 2024 the landlord sent the resident an invoice for cyclical works that had taken place in September and October 2022.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the:
1. Management of the rent account.
2. Reasonableness of service charges relating to cyclical works and a FRA.
3. Handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found that there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s:
1. Management of the rent account.
2. Handling of the complaint.
We have found that the complaint about the reasonableness of service charges is not one we can consider and is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.

Summary of reasons

Management of the rent account

In October 2023 the landlord realised that it had forgotten to apply a new rent charge to the resident’s account and backdated it to 1 April 2023. The landlord apologised for its error and awarded the resident £50 in compensation in its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord later reviewed its handling of the issue and recognised that it should not have backdated the charge. It made an adjustment to the account so that the increase applied from a month after it gave notice. This resulted in the resident receiving a credit for the wrongly applied amount. The landlord’s actions have put the resident back into the same financial situation as she would have been in if it had not tried to backdate the charge. The landlord’s apology and compensation are reasonable redress for the detriment caused.

Reasonableness of service charges relating to cyclical works and an FRA

The tribunal or court would be better placed to consider the complaint about the reasonableness and level of the resident’s service charge. This matter is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Handling of the complaint

The landlord admitted during the complaint process that it had delayed sending out its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses and offered compensation. The landlord also delayed its acknowledgement of the resident’s escalation to stage 2 and failed to acknowledge this until after the complaint process. However, the landlord has offered the resident a total of £325 compensation for its complaint handling failures. This sum is reasonable redress from the landlord on this issue.

Putting things right

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should re-offer the resident the compensation from its stage 2 response and letter dated 3 July 2025, if not already paid. Our finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s complaint handling is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
12 March 2024	The resident complained to the landlord that it had delayed in charging her rent for 2023-2024 until 31 October 2023, which had resulted in arrears. The resident advised the landlord that errors have resulted in a lack of confidence in its handling of her rent account.
18 March 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
11 April 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised that the rent notice sent in February 2023 did not have information about the rent charge for 2023-2024, and for the time taken to correct it. The landlord offered compensation of £50 for its service failure and for the time and trouble caused to the resident. It also offered £25 compensation for its delayed stage 1 response.
24 April 2024	The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated because she was not happy with the landlord’s response to her service charge issues.
9 May 2024	The landlord acknowledged the escalation to stage 2.
3 July 2024	The landlord extended the deadline to respond to the stage 2 response by 20 working days.
16 August 2024	The landlord apologised for the delay and said it was waiting for information.
12 September 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It stated that it had compensated the resident appropriately for complaint handling delays at stage 1. However, it acknowledged there had been further delays at stage 2 and awarded additional compensation of £250.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to us because of the landlord’s delay. She wanted the issue of errors on her rent account investigated and for the landlord to pay further compensation for its complaint handling failures.
25 June 2025	The landlord carried out a review of the complaint. It applied a credit to the resident’s account to cover the rent increase it had backdated.
3 July 2025	The landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge it had delayed in escalating her complaint to stage 2 and offered her an additional £50 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 management of the rent account
Finding	Reasonable redress

On 20 February 2023 the landlord sent the resident a letter about her service charge estimates and rent charge from 1 April 2023. The sum was £122.07 per month.
The landlord has informed us that an error occurred when this letter was sent. The £122.07 related to the service charge only, and the new rent charge was accidentally missing.
On 31 October 2023 the landlord sent the resident a letter to explain the error it had made. It apologised and told her that rent of £79.45 was due from 1 April 2023. The landlord backdated the rent to 1 April 2023 on the resident’s account, resulting in arrears of £556.15.
The resident responded to this letter by calling the landlord on 22 December 2023. She agreed to pay the arrears over 6 months and the landlord increased her monthly direct debit to pay for the rent and arrears.
On 8 September 2023 the landlord applied a charge of £415.69 to the resident’s rent account in error. On 11 September 2023 the landlord removed the charge.
In her initial complaint the resident said that because of the errors made by the landlord, she now lacked confidence that future charges were being applied correctly.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident for its error in managing the rent account. It offered the resident compensation of £50 for its service failure. This sum is within the range set out in the landlord’s compensation policy for a low to medium-level failure in service.
The resident’s lease says that the landlord will give notice to the resident on or before the review date of the amount of rent payable. Therefore, it was inappropriate that the landlord applied a backdate of rent that would have been charged during that time. The landlord did not acknowledge this in its stage 1 complaint response. Also, it did not acknowledge the resident’s concerns made in her initial complaint that another error had occurred.
We have not seen evidence of the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not reference the issue.
However, the landlord carried out a review of its handling of the resident’s complaint in June 2025. It stated that it should have kept the rent charge at the pre-existing amount until a month after it had given notice to the resident of the increase. The landlord adjusted the rent charge on the resident’s account and charged the new amount from December 2023. This resulted in a credit being applied to the resident’s account of £41.52.
The landlord sent the resident an apology for its error on 31 October 2023, and in its stage 1 complaint response in April 2024. The landlord has applied a credit to the resident’s account that puts her back into the same financial position as she would have been if the error had not occurred. The landlord awarded £50 in compensation for its service failure and the resident’s time and trouble, which the resident has received. This sum is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for a service failure that caused distress and inconvenience but did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident.

Complaint	Reasonableness of service charges relating to cyclical works and an FRA
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

The resident’s complaint is about whether the landlord is able to charge her for cyclical works that took place, and whether FRAs are included in her service charge. We do not investigate complaints about the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. As such we will not investigate the elements of the resident’s complaint about the level or reasonableness of the service charge. If the resident wanted to pursue her concerns about these matters, she may wish to apply to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) or the court.
As part of her complaint about service charges, the resident has raised issues that came about during the conveyancing process of her property purchase. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice about how to proceed with a case, should she wish to do so.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (April 2024) (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure refers to those in the Code.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was sent 8 working days outside of the timescale set out in the complaint policy. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 1 complaint response and offered £25 to the resident for poor complaint handling.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation request 6 working days outside of the timescale in the complaint policy.
The Code says that an extension to the response timescales must be for no more than 20 days and with good reason. The landlord extended the deadline for its stage 2 complaint response twice because of having insufficient information to respond. It sent its final response 51 working days outside of the timescale set out in the complaints policy. During this time, the resident contacted us for help in getting her complaint resolved.
The landlord acknowledged its poor complaint handling in its stage 2 complaint response. It offered the resident additional compensation of £250 for delays, which included £50 for the resident’s time and trouble spent chasing a response.
On 3 July 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident following its review of the complaint. It stated that it had failed to acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 escalation request within the timescales of the Code. It offered the resident a further £50 in compensation. While we welcome that the landlord recognised its failing and attempted to put it right, it should have recognised this during the complaint process.
When the landlord wrote to the resident in July 2025, it acknowledged that it had not yet paid the resident the compensation it had offered in its stage 2 complaint response. However, the landlord’s stage 2 response had advised the resident how to receive the payment of compensation. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer the compensation to the resident again and we have made a recommendation that the landlord re-offers the compensation, if not already paid.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of: be fair (follow fair processes and recognise what went wrong), put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The landlord has offered the resident a total of £325 compensation for its complaint handling failures. This sum is within the range of compensation offered by the landlord for high levels of service failure. It is also within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration. This is reasonable redress from the landlord when considering the inconvenience and loss of confidence caused to the resident for this issue.

Learning

The landlord voluntarily reviewed its stage 1 and 2 responses to the resident’s complaint in June and July 2025. Although failures recognised in its review should have been identified during the complaint process, it is positive that the landlord openly communicated what it had found and sought to put it right.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord sent us sufficient records to evidence its actions and communications in this case. The landlord used its rent collection process effectively, with each interaction with the resident clearly recorded. The landlord did not use its CRM system for complaint handling as effectively, resulting in delays.

Communication

The landlord was responsive to the resident’s calls to discuss the payment of the rent charge and arrears.