Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202413837)

Background

1. In March 2023, 2 leaseholders, who live in the same block, jointly raised a number of queries with the landlord about their 2021 to 2022 service charge actuals. They raised a joint complaint in July 2023 as they were not satisfied with the landlord’s response. The complaint exhausted the landlord’s formal complaints process. The residents remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked us to consider their complaint further.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the residents’ queries about their 2021 to 2022 service charge actuals.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. There was service failure by the landlord in its response to the residents’ queries about their 2021 to 2022 service charge actuals.
   2. There was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

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.

The landlord’s response to the residents’ queries about the 2021 to 2022 service charge actuals

What we have not considered

5. We do not investigate complaints about the level of service charge or the amount of service charge increase. We will also not investigate whether the service or the costs of works themselves are ‘reasonable’ or whether the service or works provide value for money. If the residents want to pursue their concerns further, they may wish to challenge the charges by applying to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) or the court.

What we have considered

6. While we will not consider the above matters, we expect the landlord to provide clear and transparent responses, supported by evidence, and to engage constructively so residents can understand their charges and, where appropriate, challenge them.
7. On 21 March 2023, the residents raised several queries with the landlord about their service charge actuals for 2021 to 2022. The residents have explained to us that they remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses to the following queries.
8. In relation to gardening and grounds, the residents asked the landlord to clarify which areas on their estate were classed as communal gardens. The landlord explained these were the open spaces around the blocks and provided a plan showing the communal areas for which the residents were charged. However, the landlord did not provide the requested attendance records for the gardening contractor. It also did not address the residents’ question about why the front and rear gardens of houses were included, which the residents did not think they should pay for.
9. With regards to how their charges were apportioned. The landlord confirmed the apportionment set out in the lease and acknowledged it had made an error, which it agreed to rectify. However, the landlord did not address the residents’ query about how differing apportionments of 5% and 7.5% across leases totalled 100%, despite the residents explaining that their own calculations identified a 2.5% shortfall.
10. For asbestos/inspection concerns, the landlord reasonably explained an earlier asbestos inspection was required after asbestos was suspected during a June 2021 survey and that this was a chargeable matter. It also acknowledged the residents’ concerns about multiple inspections and said all testing was necessary to ensure resident and operative safety. However, the landlord did not respond to the residents’ request for clarification about where and when asbestos was identified.
11. In response to the residents’ request for a copy of the Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) certificate and the associated invoice for their block, the landlord provided a copy of the EICR certificate with its stage 2 response. It stated the invoice related to the residents’ block but did not supply a copy. When we spoke with the residents, they said they were unsure whether they had subsequently received the invoice. We have therefore recommended the landlord resend this.
12. The residents also asked how they could verify that communal utility invoices related to their block, as the invoices did not include block numbers. The landlord said it had asked the local housing manager and the officer responsible for the electrical supply to investigate. The landlord said it would update the residents once the investigation concluded. However, at the time of its stage 2 response, the landlord had not provided any update. When we recently contacted the residents, they confirmed they were still waiting for this.
13. In relation to communal estate utility charges, the residents asked the landlord to identify the locations of communal lighting on the estate. They also asked it to explain the significant reduction in costs between 2021 to 2022 and 2022 to 2023, which they believed indicated an error. The landlord explained it provided lighting in corridors, stairwells, landings, car parks, and gardens. However, it did not address the residents’ concerns about the cost discrepancy or offer an explanation for the reduction.
14. The residents also asked for a breakdown of a fire prevention servicing invoice and for attendance records for their block. At stage 1, the landlord provided a breakdown and confirmed the charges related to fire alarm servicing. The residents then queried why their block had been charged £1,894.29 when the breakdown indicated a cost of £190.70. The landlord did not address this discrepancy in its stage 2 response. Instead, it repeated its earlier explanation that the charges related to fire alarm servicing.
15. In response to the residents request for clarification about “non‑technical in‑house checks,” including what was done during each visit and why the invoice totals varied. The landlord explained the checks covered items such as emergency lighting, fire doors, exit doors, and ensuring communal areas were free of obstructions. The landlord explained that at that time additional services were required and the checks were carried out by its own staff, with the associated costs added to the service charge. It confirmed it had since transferred these responsibilities to contractors managed by its Fire Safety team. The landlord also explained the cost variation, stating its staff carried out checks at a cost of £30, compared with £37.44 when contractors completed them.
16. Overall, the landlord responded to the residents’ queries by providing some explanations and documents but did not fully address all concerns. It explained which areas were treated as communal gardens and supplied a plan. It confirmed service charge apportionment was set out in the lease and acknowledged an error it agreed to correct. It also reasonably justified separate asbestos testing charges on safety grounds. It provided the EICR certificate, details of fire alarm servicing, and explanations about “non‑technical in‑house checks,” including why duties and costs varied over time.
17. However, it did not provide requested attendance records for gardening and ground, failed to address several escalation-stage questions, and did not fully explain apportionment discrepancies. It also did not update residents on investigations into communal utility charges or explain cost discrepancies, leaving a number of issues unresolved.
18. When considering all these points combined a finding of service failure has been made. We have made orders for the landlord to take action to address the outstanding issues.

How the landlord handled the complaint

19. The residents submitted a joint complaint to the landlord on 9 July 2023 after remaining dissatisfied with earlier responses to their service charge queries. Although the landlord logged the complaint, it failed to provide a stage 1 response. After more than 8 months with no resolution, the residents approached us for assistance.
20. We contacted the landlord on 13 March 2024, but it still did not respond within the required 10 working days. The landlord eventually issued its stage 1 response on 16 April 2024, around 9 months after the complaint was first raised.
21. Following continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response, the residents contacted the landlord again on 27 June 2024 to escalate their complaint. When they received no response, they once more had to seek our intervention. We wrote to the landlord on 27 August 2024. However, it again failed to meet its published timescales and did not issue its stage 2 response until 10 October 2024, 12 working days late.
22. In view of these repeated and significant delays at both stages of the complaints process, the landlord appropriately apologised and offered compensation. It offered £500 to each resident, comprising £250 for the time and trouble incurred and £250 for poor complaint handling. We are satisfied that this offer represented reasonable redress for the complaint handling failures, as it aligns with the levels of compensation we would expect where sustained delays have had a notable impact on residents.

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.

Recommendations

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