Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202217698)

Background

1. The resident’s heating is supplied through a district heating network run by a managing agent that was not appointed by the landlord. The managing agent calculates the heating charges, and the landlord passes these costs to the resident through her service charge. In September 2022, the resident raised concerns with the landlord about the high cost of her heating. She remained dissatisfied after the landlord’s stage 2 response and asked us to investigate. She said her heating was too expensive, she wanted her own meter and provider, and she felt it was unfair to pay double the following year due to a past landlord error.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about:
   1. the level of the resident’s personal heating charge.
   2. the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her personal heating charge.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. the complaint about the level of the resident’s personal heating charge is outside of our jurisdiction.
   2. there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about her personal heating charge.

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 level of the resident’s personal heating charge

4. We do not investigate complaints about the level of service charge, the amount of the service charge increase or whether services provide value for money.
5. The resident’s tenancy agreement allows the service charge to “vary from time to time.’ The landlord says it bases the charge on the previous year’s expenditure and has never recovered uncollected costs from earlier years. This suggests the resident may be paying a fixed rather than a variable service charge, though the agreement itself is unclear. The type of charge affects how the resident can challenge her heating costs. A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to confirm to the resident which type of charge she pays and explain the correct route should she wish to take this matter further.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her personal heating charge

6. The district heating network, that supplies heating to the resident’s property, is the responsibility of the managing agent, not the landlord. Nevertheless, as the landlord passes the costs of the heating on to the resident through her service charge, we would expect it to respond clearly and reasonably to her concerns. These concerns were:
   1. whether a reduction in the charge for 2024 to 2025 meant her personal heating service charge had been historically miscalculated
   2. why she could not have her own meter
   3. why she was unable to choose an alternative utility provider
7. The resident was contacted by both the service charge team manager and through the complaints process about the reduction in her personal heating charge. Both responses explained that when the landlord migrated residents’ accounts to a new system, some charges did not transfer correctly, resulting in the resident’s weekly heating charge being reduced from £30 to £3.50 for 2024 to 2025. Both communications also stated there had been no past miscalculation of her charges.
8. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord told the resident she would be “billed in full” for her 2024 to 2025 usage in the following year, 2025 to 2026. It advised her to save the underpayment to prepare for this future bill. However, this contradicted an earlier email from the service charge team manager on 22 May 2024, which reassured the resident that the landlord would cover her 2024–2025 consumption.
9. These conflicting messages would understandably have caused the resident distress, especially given her existing concerns about high heating costs. The stage 2 response also contradicted the landlord’s later position, shared with us in March 2026, in which it stated that it had “never attempted to recover uncollected costs from a previous year, in the current or forthcoming year.”
10. It remains unclear from the evidence and discussions with the resident whether her 2025 to 2026 heating charge included the costs relating to 2024 to 2025. To resolve this, the landlord has been ordered to confirm whether any such costs were included. If they were, the landlord must arrange a refund to the resident.
11. The resident also wanted to understand why she could not choose her own utility supplier or have an individual meter installed, as she was concerned about the cost of her heating. These matters relate to the district heating network, which is managed by the managing agent rather than the landlord. However, the landlord should still have explained to the resident why these options were not possible or, if it could not, raised her concerns with the managing agent and sought an explanation on her behalf.
12. The landlord’s stage 1 response merely stated that all services were provided by the managing agent and that residents ‘could’ have their costs metered separately depending on the type of system installed. This response failed to answer the resident’s key questions and did not clarify whether metering or choosing a supplier was feasible in her situation.
13. The landlord also failed to seek clarification from the managing agent, despite being aware that the resident’s questions related directly to the operation of the district heating system. This left the resident without any clear explanation or guidance on matters that were important to her understanding of her heating costs.
14. The landlord’s conflicting information about whether charges from 2024–2025 would be carried forward to 2025–2026, together with its failure to give meaningful responses about alternative suppliers or metering have resulted in the finding of maladministration in this case.
15. Whilst we have identified further failures, we have not ordered further compensation in this case. This is because during the complaint process, the landlord offered the resident  £450 for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble and lack of communication. It then later offered the resident an additional £300, which the resident confirmed to us she had received. Overall, the landlord paid the resident a total of £750 compensation. Even taking into account the additional failures identified in this report, this amount is higher than we would usually order given all the circumstances of this case.
16. The landlord has recently explained to us that switching the resident to an individual heating system is technically possible but would be complex and costly. It would also involve disconnecting from the district heating system, installing separate equipment, and meeting regulatory requirements. The landlord said it would work with the managing agent to explore whether upgrading the existing district heating system would offer better long‑term value than installing individual meters.
17. Although it is positive the landlord is now taking steps with the managing agent to address issues with the district heating network, it is unclear whether the resident has been informed of these actions. Given the earlier failures identified in this case, the landlord has been ordered to update the resident on the current position and the actions being taken.

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.