Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202216914)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216914

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

23 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 regarding:
   1. changes made to the resident’s weekly rent amount and the landlord’s subsequent response to his rent account queries; and.
   2. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident has occupied the property under an assured tenancy since May 2008. The property is a one bedroom flat.
3. In April 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that he was concerned about changes being made to his rent account. The resident followed up this complaint numerous times with no response from the landlord.
4. The landlord responded to the resident on 6 June 2022, apologising for the delay, stating it had been attending several backlogs of emails. The landlord explained the cause of the change in charge was due to the resident only paying 51 weeks of his service charge, the additional week had been added to his weekly rent, increasing the amount by £4.34. The landlord accepted that the resident had not been informed prior to this charge and credited his rent account by £4.34, effectively removing the additional charge. The landlord also stated that all future changes would be communicated.
5. The landlord issued its stage one response on 16 June 2022. The landlord advised that it would not investigate service charge disputes but would investigate the service received whilst disputing the charge. The landlord accepted the delay in response from the Service Charge Team and stated this was due to a “high volume of queries”. It further explained that the delay was due to a “back log of emails since a change of policy with regards to the management of the Service Charge inbox”. The landlord upheld the complaint on the basis that there was a delay in correspondence and offered compensation of £25 for poor complaint handling.
6. The resident requested his complaint be escalated to stage two on 22 June 2022 on the basis that the stage one response did not address the issue of repeatedly changing entries on the rent account.
7. The landlord subsequently issued a stage two response on 30 August 2022. It reiterated the reason for the additional charge and confirmed it had since been credited to the residents account. It did not uphold the complaint regarding the management of the stage one complaint. The landlord acknowledged that the service received by the resident was outside of its standard response times and offered to increase the compensation to £30.
8. After this Service became involved the landlord has conducted a review of its position. The landlord accepts that timescales were not met at either stage one or stage two. The landlord states the case was poorly managed with a lack of communication, unnecessary extensions and its complaints handling policy was not followed. The landlord acknowledges its stage two response did not provide a formal outcome of upheld, partially upheld or not upheld. It therefore offered compensation of £150 for poor complaint handling and £100 for poor communication following the initial service request.
9. The resident remains dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaint. As a resolution the resident wishes for confirmation that the landlord will input correct details into his rent account moving forward.

Assessment and findings

Changes made to the resident’s weekly rent amount and the landlord’s subsequent response to his rent account queries

10. Schedule one of the landlord’s tenancy agreement, titled Variable Service Charge, states “(b) any increase or decrease in the rent on account of varying the Service Charge shall be subject to the Association giving the Tenant 4 weeks’ notice in writing of the increase or decrease”.
11. The landlord added an additional £4.34 to the resident’s weekly rental charge on 1 April 2022. This Service has seen no evidence of the landlord advising the resident of the change to this charge. This Service would not expect the landlord to add any additional charges to the resident’s rent account without prior notice, as this is contrary to the tenancy agreement. As such it was inappropriate for the landlord to add the charge.
12. The resident requested clarification of these charges in April 2022 and was advised he would be contacted within 20 working days. A response was sent after 33 working days. In this time the resident contacted the landlord on numerous occasions, via telephone call and email, with no response.
13. This Service acknowledges that the landlord did provide a clear explanation of what the additional charge was for and had it credited back to the resident the day of its response.
14. In its stage two response, the landlord did acknowledge the added charge to the resident’s rent account and the reasoning behind it. Compensation was offered for poor complaints handling but no redress was offered regarding the changes made.
15. The landlord’s compensation policy states compensation can be awarded for “Time and Trouble – Payment is to compensate a customer for the time taken to complain (writing letters/phone calls chasing) which wouldn’t have happened if the service failure didn’t occur”.
16. In not offering compensation, this Service’s view is that the landlord had not proportionately acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident due to its service failure.
17. The Ombudsman is aware that in March 2023, the landlord acknowledged this for itself upon completed a review of its position. The landlord recognised the case was managed poorly with a lack of communication and unnecessary extensions. It acknowledged that its stage two response did not provide the resident with a formal outcome, which would have offered more clarity. Noting this and its poor communication following the initial service request, an offer of £100 compensation was made.
18. This Service expects the landlord to undertake a sufficient investigation and review all circumstances of the case at stage two. Had this been done, the landlord would have identified its failings at an earlier time and had the opportunity to put things right at an earlier stage. It appears to this Service that the landlord only undertook a further review after the issue had been brought to the Ombudsman for investigation. Had the landlord made the offer of redress during the complaints process it would have been satisfactory in putting things right.
19. As it did not, however, this Service has determined that there was a service failure. This Service is content that the landlord has made a fair offer of redress and so will not be seeking to make a further award, however the adverse finding in this case should encourage future learning for the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

20. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC) is a guidance document which sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The CHC recommends that landlords operate a two stage complaints policy as “this ensures that the complaint process is not unduly long”.
21. The landlord’s complaints policy makes reference to a three-stage complaint process, with an initial “local resolution” stage. The landlord’s complaints policy states “if a local resolution isn’t suitable, we will contact the customer and log a formal Stage One complaint”. It appears to this Service that this would constitute a formal third stage in the complaints process.
22. This Service acknowledges that an initial “local resolution” can be beneficial in some circumstances. However, in this case this initial step led to the complaint not being raised formally until long after the initial expression of dissatisfaction.
23. The resident initially expressed dissatisfaction on 12 April 2022. The landlord responded by explaining the complaints process and passing the resident to the complaints team. Its response suggests that the landlord accepted this expression as a complaint. As such this service would expect the landlord to begin its formal complaints procedure.
24. The landlord’s complaints policy states that at stage one the complaint will be acknowledged within five working days and responded to within 10 working days. At stage two the complaint will be acknowledged within five working days and responded to within 20 working days.
25. This service has seen no evidence that the landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s stage one or stage two complaints. An acknowledgement could have better set the resident’s expectations as to who will be dealing with the complaint and when they could expect to receive a full response, in accordance with its complaint policy.
26. The landlord’s stage one response was issued on 16 June 2022, 44 working days after the initial expression of dissatisfaction.
27. The CHC states landlords must respond to a stage one complaint within ten working days, with any delays communicated and not exceeding an additional ten working days.
28. The resident requested the complaint be escalated to stage two on 22 June 2021. The landlord issued its stage two response on 30 August 2022, 50 working days following the request for escalation.
29. The CHC states landlords must respond to a stage two complaint within 20 working days, with any delays communicated and not exceeding an additional ten working days.
30. By failing to acknowledge and respond to the resident’s stage one and stage two complaint within an appropriate timeframe, the landlord contributed to the residents uncertainty about whether the complaint was being taken seriously and extended the overall time it took to resolve the situation.
31. The landlord offered compensation of £30 for poor complaints handling. The landlord’s compensation policy states compensation of up to £150 depending on the severity of the failure can be awarded for poor complaints handling.
32. In its later review in March 2023, the landlord acknowledged that the residents complaints were not raised or acknowledged within its timescale and its complaints handling policy was not followed. The landlord offered compensation of £150 for poor complaint handling at both stage one an stage two.
33. As above, this Service expects the landlord to undertake a sufficient investigation and review all circumstances of the case at stage two. Had this been done, the landlord would have identified its failings at stage one and not repeated those at stage two. It appears to this Service that the landlord only undertook a further review after the issue had been brought to the Ombudsman for investigation. Had the landlord made the offer of redress during the complaints process it would have been satisfactory in putting things right.
34. As it did not, however, this Service has determined that there was maladministration. This Service is content that the landlord has made a fair offer of redress and so will not be seeking to make a further award, however the adverse finding in this case should encourage future learning for the landlord.

Determination

35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was service failure in the changes made to the resident’s weekly rent amount and the landlord’s subsequent response to his rent account queries.
36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

37. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is:
    1. To pay the resident £250 (as offered following its review in March 2023), comprised of:
       1. £100 in recognition of the contradiction of policy with changes made to the rent account and the subsequent handling of the rent account queries.
       2. £150 in recognition of the complaints handling failures at stage one and stage two.
    2. To provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

38. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord provide the resident with a formal apology and written confirmation that only accurate information will be added to his rent account and only with his prior knowledge.