Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202205980)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205980

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

04 May 2023

 

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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for a refund of the communal service charge for cleaning services not provided.
    2. The landlord’s communication and complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the property, a flat, owned by the landlord.
  2. On 31 January 2022 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord that communal areas of the property had not been cleaned since 27 November 2021. He asked for all residents to be refunded the service charge for the period when the cleaning services were not provided. The landlord upheld the complaint at stage one of its complaints policy on 8 February 2022, arranged for cleaning to take place, and stated that it would provide a service charge refund for all residents affected. The resident wanted to know when they could expect the refund and how much it would be. He chased the landlord for this information from late February to early April 2022. On 7 April 2022 he requested for the escalation of his complaint.
  3. The landlord issued its final response on 21 July 2022. It upheld the complaint, apologised for the delay in its response, and offered a redress payment of £55. This comprised £40 for the resident’s time and trouble pursuing the complaint and £15 for its complaint handling. It also said it would not charge the resident for the missed cleaning services, it would remove 25% from the resident’s variable charges, and the resident should expect to receive this refund by October 2022. The resident received no further information about the refund so chased the landlord in October and November 2022.
  4. The landlord contacted the resident on 2 February 2023 and stated that the information in its stage two response was incorrect. It stated that he would not receive a 25% refund of variable charges but instead would receive a partial deduction of his communal service charge contribution when the year-end statement for 2021-22 was produced, expected by 31 March 2023. The landlord also offered further compensation of £50 in recognition of the resident having to repeatedly contact it and the inconvenience this caused him.
  5. The landlord provided the resident with a total of £105 compensation but did not provide the service charge refund at the end of March 2023. It contacted him to say that it was supposed to have credited it back to all residents but due to system issues it was unable to credit it on the 2021-22 final account so it would be added to the 2022-23 final account in October 2023. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions and wanted it to confirm when residents can expect the service charge refund, how much it will be, and how it has calculated the refund.

Assessment and findings

Service charge refund

  1. Clause 7 of the shared ownership lease for the property contains the service charge provisions. It states that the service charge is estimated by the landlord before the beginning of the account year (clauses 7.2 and 7.3), and the resident pays the service charge in equal payments in advance at the same time as paying rent (clause 7.1).
  2. Importantly, clause 7.5 says: “As soon as practicable after the end of each Account Year the landlord shall determine and certify the amount by which the estimate referred to in Clause 7.3 (how calculated) shall have exceeded or fallen short of the actual expenditure in the Account Year and shall supply the leaseholder with a copy of the certificate and the Leaseholder shall … pay immediately following receipt of the certificate the Specified Proportion of the excess or the deficiency.”
  3. It would have been helpful if the landlord had referred to the lease and explained in its stage one complaint response that any excess payment of the service charge would be calculated and refunded at the end of the account year. Instead, it did not respond to the resident’s questions about this issue. Its communication with the resident on this issue is discussed in greater detail under ‘complaint handling and communication’ below.
  4. The landlord went on to provide the resident with confusing and contradictory information about the service charge refund in its final response and post-response communications with him. This meant the resident had to pursue the landlord at length for a full response, to include the service charge refund amount, how it had been calculated, and when he could expect it.
  5. The landlord, consequently, offered the resident £90 compensation for his time and trouble pursuing information about the service charge refund. This is a reasonable amount of redress for this aspect of the complaint.
  6. This Service can normally only consider matters that have been considered previously by the landlord through its complaints procedure. The most recent information provided to this Service indicates that the landlord had not yet told the resident how much of the service charge he would be refunded and how this had been calculated. This Service recommends that the landlord do this as soon as possible. If the resident is dissatisfied with the proposed refund amount, he can complain to the landlord about it and if he remains dissatisfied with its response, he may refer the matter to this Service.

Complaint handling and communication

  1. The landlord responded to the complaint within the ten-day timescale at stage one of its complaints policy. It partially resolved the complaint in that it immediately reinstated the cleaning service. It also said it would provide residents with a refund of the service charge, but it did not explain when this would happen and how much it would be. There were, therefore, outstanding issues from stage one that the landlord should have addressed as quickly as possible, but this did not happen. This is contrary to paragraph 4.1.3 of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure which says: “If actions are agreed as part of the resolution of the complaint, the [landlord] will liaise with the customer to ensure the actions are arranged prior to closure of the complaint, however with complainant’s agreement complaint may be closed if action is booked to be undertaken.”
  2. Instead, the resident had to keep chasing the landlord for the requested information. After two emails chasing an update, the landlord provided him with an email address for the team considering the service charge refund. When the resident emailed that team, he received no response. Between 23 February 2022 and 7 April 2022, the landlord failed to respond to four emails chasing an update on the refund. The resident indicated on 7 April 2022 that he would escalate his complaint to this Service the following day if he continued to not receive an update; he subsequently received a response from the landlord on the same day, albeit one that did not provide him with the information he requested.
  3. Due to the landlord’s lack of communication, the resident requested his complaint be escalated to stage two on 7 April 2022. The landlord escalated the complaint 29 working days later, on 23 May 2022. It is unclear what caused this delay, but it would seem to be contrary to the landlord’s complaints policy which states: “If our customer remains dissatisfied with our Stage One response, they are able to raise this, and the complaint will be escalated to Stage Two.” This delay also understandably added to the resident’s dissatisfaction, as he had been under the impression the complaint had moved to stage two on 7 April 2022, and had been chasing the landlord for its final response.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy has a 20-working day timescale for stage two, so the final response was due on 20 June 2022. It was unable to meet this deadline but did not contact the resident beforehand to update him and to agree an extension for its response. This is contrary to clause 4.2.2 of its internal complaints process: “If we need further time to investigate, we will agree a further extension with the customer up to 30 days in total”.
  5. Instead, on 21 June 2022 the landlord emailed the resident apologising for its delay and said it had extended the complaint response time to gather information. It did not agree an extension with the resident, nor did it tell him when he could expect its final response. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code requires landlords to provide a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. Additionally, if an extension beyond 20 working days is required, this should be agreed by both parties. It was therefore unreasonable of the landlord not to contact the resident before the stage two response deadline to discuss and agree an extension.
  6. The landlord eventually issued its final response on 21 July 2022, 41 working days after the stage two escalation, following this Service’s involvement. It apologised to the resident for this delay but given the complaint was originally raised on 31 January 2022, the delay was unreasonable.
  7. The landlord’s communication with the resident and its poor complaint handling was contrary to good service. It failed to adequately respond to reasonable requests for information, meaning the resident had to keep pursuing the matter. It gave him email addresses of other teams for him to follow up the service charge issue when it should have taken ownership and pursued this internally. It provided misleading and incorrect information in its final response, including saying it had received the stage two complaint on 16 April 2022. It said the complaint was closed when there were outstanding issues. In terms of stage two timescale extension, it did not follow its own complaints policy, internal complaints procedure and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It unreasonably delayed in dealing with the complaint at stage two, both in accepting the complaint at that stage and providing its final response.
  8. The landlord offered the resident £15 for poor complaint handling. Given its complaint handling failures detailed above, it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to have offered the resident a higher sum of compensation for this part of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has provided reasonable redress to the resident for his time and trouble in pursuing the matter of the service charge refund.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of communications and the associated formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident the amount of £200 in compensation for its handling of communication and the formal complaint on the issue, excluding the amount of £90 already offered within its complaints process.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should reoffer the resident the amount of £90, as mentioned above, as this sum recognised genuine elements of service failure, and the sufficient redress finding is made on that basis.
  2. If it has not done so already, the landlord should provide the resident with a statement covering his service charge final account for 2021-22. As soon as possible, it should also provide him with an estimated statement for 2022-23 and information about how the service charge refund was calculated. This will enable him to ascertain whether there will be a service charge refund for the missing cleaning services and how much it will be.
  3. The landlord should review its processes to ensure that it responds to reasonable enquiries about complaints with accurate information in a timely fashion. Similarly, the landlord should ensure that information provided in its complaint responses is accurate.
  4. The landlord should ensure it takes full ownership of organising the resolution of complaints rather than providing residents with different email addresses within its organisation so they have to pursue the resolution themselves.