Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202200961)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200961

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

22 April 2024

 

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 the resident’s service charge account, and the associated complaint.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, we have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The resident purchased the lease to the property in June 2021. At the time the purchase of the lease was completed, the previous occupier’s service charge account had a credit of £312.41.
  2. In September 2021, the landlord paid the previous occupier the credit on the account.
  3. In October 2021, the solicitor who represented the resident for the purchase of the lease enquired why she was being chased for payment when they understood that the resident had inherited the credit on the rent account at the time of the purchase. The responded and explained that “apportionments of service charges must be dealt directly between the solicitors”. It advised the resident’s solicitor to discuss the matter with the previous occupier’s solicitor.
  4. The resident’s solicitor made a further enquiry about the matter in February 2022 and said that the resident had paid the previous occupier the amount the service charge was in credit, they were of the view the credit would be transferred to the resident’s account when she purchased the lease. The landlord responded in March 2022 and said it had made “no agreement” to transfer the credit, or had it received any instruction/requests from the previous occupier’s solicitor.
  5. The resident made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the matter in August 2022. The landlord’s response explained that it was for the resident’s solicitor to liaise the seller’s solicitor around funds relating to service charge amounts, and it did “not get involved” in such matters.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response and asked her complaint to be taken to stage 2. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response in October 2022 and said its “management pack sent to [the resident’s] solicitor had clearly outlined the service charge credit would be refunded to the seller”. It restated its position it had received no such request for the credit to be transferred to the resident’s service charge account.
  7. The resident contacted this Service on 20 January 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint, as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to the matter.

Reasons

  1. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) sets out the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider complaints brought before this Service. In particular, paragraph 42 sets out an exhaustive list of the type of complaints the Ombudsman will not consider.
  2. Paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concerns matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
  3. The substantive issue in the resident’s complaint relates to an alleged agreement between her solicitor, and the previous occupier’s solicitor in relation to the service charge credit on the account, and the understanding the landlord would transfer the service charge credit over to the resident.
  4. As the resident’s complaint relates to the landlord’s actions in relation to “retentions”, as part of the conveyancing process, it is not within our jurisdiction to investigate. Challenges related to conveyancing are more appropriate to be decided through pursuing a legal claim, or through the Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC).
  5. In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handing of the resident’s service charge account, and the associated complaint, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.