Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202405596)

Decision
Case ID	202405596
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	8 January 2026

Background

The resident contacted the landlord on 8 March 2023 with concerns about the estimated service charges he had received for the upcoming year. He said the estimated costs had increased by 45.7% compared to the previous year and wanted the landlord to investigate the increases.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of requests for information about service charges.
2. The landlord’s handling of the agreed refund and revision of the 2023–2024 service charge account.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of requests for information about service charges.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the agreed refund and revision of the 2023–2024 service charge account.
There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord delayed in fully replying to the resident’s request for an explanation for increases in April 2023.
The landlord delayed in completing the agreed refund and revision of the 2023-2024 service charge account and failed to give a reasonable explanation for the 6-month delay.
The landlord missed complaint response deadlines and did not sufficiently compensate for repeated complaint handling failures.

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 05 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay any compensation previously offered that has not already been paid. In addition, the landlord must pay the resident a further £300 made up as follows: £50 for poor communication in the handling service charge information requests. £150 for delays in applying the refund and revising the 2023-2024 account. £100 for complaint handling failures. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 05 February 2026
3	Action order The landlord must contact the resident to offer a review of the invoices and any associated receipts for 2023-2024 actuals as previously offered in stage 2 response dated 02 January 2024. If the landlord cannot provide the information in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it is unable to provide the information within time and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will be able to provide the information ordered.	No later than 05 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 October 2023	The resident complained he had been asking to inspect the accounts for 7 months. He said the landlord had not replied to his requests. He wanted to inspect the accounts and to understand the reasons for the charges and increase.
22 November 2023	The landlord gave its stage 1 response. It said the service charge team manager had been asked to investigate but had not replied. The resident declined an extension on 18 November 2023, and the complaint was escalated to stage 2.
2 January 2024	The landlord gave its stage 2 response. It explained the difference between estimated service charges and actual costs. It also said: The increase mainly related to the managing agent costs between 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 but it could not inspect the 2023-2024 accounts as the costs were estimates. After the end of the financial year, it would reconcile the accounts and would be able to offer invoice review opportunities. Accounts would be revised from 1 April 2023. It identified poor communication and awarded £300 compensation, including £150 for complaint handling and £150 for time and trouble.
14 April 2024	The resident raised another complaint. He said the landlord had not revised the account or provided the refund as promised in the stage 2 response.
3 June 2024	The landlord gave its stage 1 complaint response and said: Service charge queries and disputes are handled by the leasehold and service charge team. If that team failed to respond on time, the landlord would investigate this as a service delivery failure. It could not establish reasons for the team’s delay. It was escalating the complaint to stage 2 at the resident’s request. It upheld the stage 1 complaint and awarded £225 compensation. This included £50 for service failures, £100 for time and trouble and £75 for poor complaint handling.
3 July 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It explained the reconciliation process. It said: A refund was applied on 19 June 2024 for revised 2023-2024 costs and sent an attachment with details. It said it had sent a breakdown of the estimated service charges on 25 June 2024, based on the previous year’s cost. It said it had sent the actual expenditure statement for the period 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023, explaining the balancing charge. The complaint was upheld. The earlier award had not been accepted and a further £75 was awarded. The total award was £300, including £125 for time and trouble, £75 for service failures, £100 for poor complaints handling.
18 July 2024 Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate. He said housing costs had increased by 50% in a year, and the landlord had not explained the management fee increase.

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 handling of requests for information about service charges.
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

We understand that the resident’s underlying concern was with the level of increase in the service charges. However, we do not investigate complaints about the levels of increases or reasonableness of service charges. For consideration of the reasonableness of the charges and level of increase, a court or First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is best placed to consider this.

What we did investigate

On 8 March 2023, the resident asked about the service charge estimates and requested a breakdown. He raised concerns that he was being charged for CCTV despite there being none and could not understand the rationale for the rate of the increase in costs. The landlord replied on 22 March 2023 and said it had investigated his concerns and a charge for CCTV would be removed from the service charge estimate. No breakdown was provided, and no further explanation to enable him to understand the increase. This was not reasonable, the landlord should have explained if a breakdown could not be provided.
On 2 April 2023, the resident asked for further information and the rationale for increases. The landlord replied on 3 and 6 April 2023 and said it had asked the managing agent for information. It said it would respond fully once the managing agent replied. This response was reasonable as the landlord did not hold the information requested but contacted the managing agent to request the information promptly.
The resident requested updates on 7 and 25 April 2023. The landlord did not respond until 3 May 2023, when it sent the managing agent’s breakdown and notes of explanation for the resident’s block. The landlord should have responded to update requests and provided clearer communication.
Following receipt of the breakdown, the resident asked further questions about the increases and specific costs. The landlord did not reply to the resident until he raised a formal complaint and requested an inspection of the accounts on 13 October 2023. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to provide clarity and avoid escalation.
The landlord’s stage 1 response dated 22 November 2023 said it was unable to provide the information requested and escalated the case to stage 2. The stage 2 complaint response dated 2 January 2024 explained that the accounts could not be inspected until the actual costs were produced. It confirmed that it would offer the resident the opportunity to consider the costs when these were and said increases mainly related to managing agent costs and how estimates are made. It had requested revised costs be applied from 1 April 2023. The resident had also raised queries about the balancing costs and whether the new estimates for 2024-2025 were correct. The landlord offered an explanation of the estimated costs and confirmed that the invoices from the managing agent would be shared. It later did this. It confirmed how it had arrived at the new cost.
The landlord’s response acknowledged failings and awarded £150 towards the time and trouble. However, the landlord could have explained earlier in the complaint’s process that an inspection of accounts was not possible at the estimate stage. This poor communication was not acknowledged in the response.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the agreed refund and revision of the 2023–2024 service charge account.
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s stage 2 response dated 2 January 2024 confirmed that it had requested a revision to the resident’s account. However, the account was not revised until 19 June 2024, a period of almost six months. During this time, the landlord failed to provide proactive updates on progress. The resident contacted the landlord on several occasions to request updates. The landlord provided assurances that it had referred the matter to the relevant team and would provide further contact. However, the landlord did not provide the updates as promised. This resulted in the resident expending time and effort chasing the landlord, and uncertainty about whether the new estimated charges were correct.
On 14 April 2024, the resident submitted a further complaint about the landlord’s failure to complete the actions agreed at stage 2. The resident said the outstanding revision affected the accuracy of the most recent service charge estimates. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 June 2024. It awarded £225 in compensation, which included £100 for time and trouble and £50 for a failure of service. The response did not address the length of time taken to revise the account after the stage 2 decision.
The landlord applied the refund and revised the account on 19 June 2024. In its stage 2 response dated 3 July 2024, the landlord awarded a further £75 in compensation, which included £25 towards the failure of service. The response did not acknowledge the period between January 2024 and June 2024. It also did not explain why the landlord took that length of time to complete the agreed actions. As a result, the compensation offered did not adequately reflect the overall service failure and the avoidable inconvenience caused to the resident.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint.
Finding	Service failure

The resident made a formal complaint on 13 October 2023. No evidence of an acknowledgement was provided. This did not comply with the landlord’s complaint policy which said it would acknowledge complaints within five working days.
On 30 October 2023, the landlord told the resident it was extending the timescale by a further 10 working days. This was another failure to comply with the landlord’s complaint policy which said that if it was unable to respond within 10 working days, it would agree new timescales with the resident. The landlord did not discuss an extension with the resident at that stage.
On 10 November 2023, the resident asked for an update, and the landlord replied the same day. The landlord asked if the resident would agree to extend the timeframe a further 10 days or if he wanted to escalate the complaint to stage 2. On 18 November 2023, the resident asked to escalate the complaint and a stage 1 response was issued on 22 November 2023. That action complied with the complaint policy by seeking agreement and escalating when not agreed.
The stage 2 response was issued on 2 January 2024. The complaint policy said that a stage 2 complaint response would be provided within 20 working days, or a new response time would be agreed with the resident. The escalation was acknowledged on 22 November 2023, and the response issued 26 working days later. No evidence was provided of agreeing new timescales with the resident.
The landlord acknowledged delays and complaint handling failures and awarded £150 compensation. This has been deemed reasonable redress for the overall failings identified in the earlier complaints process.
On 14 April 2024, the resident made another complaint about actions promised on 22 November 2023. It was acknowledged on the same day, and a stage 1 response was issued on 3 June 2024. The response was outside timescale, being 33 working days after acknowledgement. No updates were provided or timescales agreed until 31 May 2024, when escalation occurred. This was a clear failure to follow policy and delayed the resident’s ability to progress the complaint.
The stage 2 response was issued on 3 July 2024. On 1 July 2024, the landlord advised it was extending timescales without agreement. This did not comply with the complaint policy as the landlord did not request an extension with the resident, and the response was out of timescale.
Within the stage 2 response, the landlord awarded £100 for complaint handling delays. In our view, given that there had been several failures in the application of the complaints process, this offer did not go far enough to put things right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The records provided were adequate in the case.

Communication

The landlord did not respond to the resident on several occasions. Communication with residents should be regular and consistent while issues are ongoing.