Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202332462)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332462

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

14 May 2025

 

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:
    1. The resident’s request for information relating to her service charge.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder, and the landlord is the freeholder for the property.
  2. On 22 February 2021, the landlord sent a service charge statement to the resident showing the estimated costs for her property for the financial year 2021-22. The resident’s service charge was estimated to be £1,345.20. On 26 September 2022, the landlord sent the final service charge bill in the amount of £1,371.25.
  3. On 13 December 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She said that:
    1. On 11 October 2022, she requested the final account, a breakdown of calculations, receipts, and other documents to support the financial summary provided that related to each item on the service charge statement for the period 2021-22.
    2. Under ‘Section 22’ legislation, she requested that the information was provided to her within 30 days.
    3. The increasing bills and demands for payment without supporting evidence and documentation had been extremely stressful.
    4. This is the third year that she had escalated the same complaint, which took up her time and energy.
  4. On 23 January 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It partially upheld her complaint and included the following:
    1. It acknowledged that the resident was unhappy with the service she had received and apologised for any inconvenience and frustration caused.
    2. It apologised for the delayed response and confirmed that it had emailed a ‘Section 21’ breakdown of expenditure to the resident on 6 January 2023. This included a .zip file with invoices and a word document with evidence of the incurred costs. It said that some invoices were delayed and that it would require until 31 March 2023 to provide the remaining invoices.
    3. It provided its position that Section 22 requests do not have a timeframe of 30 days to be fulfilled and said that it is 30 days to acknowledge the request only.
    4. It offered £30 compensation, which comprised of £20 for the resident’s time and trouble and £10 for poor complaint handling.
  5. On 24 January 2023 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord complaint process. She said this was because she considered that the landlord’s complaint response was factually incorrect. She said that:
    1. The stage 2 response did not address her initial complaint.
    2. The landlord had failed to provide the evidence it has relied upon regarding its position on the Section 22 legislation and associated timescales for providing the requested information.
    3. The landlord had failed to send complete documentation. There were significant amounts of information missing, which made it “impossible to inspect and was a waste of time reviewing.”
    4. The landlord had produced a final statement and made a demand for actual costs without invoices and documentation.
    5. The landlord had quoted a date of 31 March 2023 to provide the requested Section 22 information, which she considered to be out of time.
  6. On 26 January 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
    1. Its understanding was that the complaint had been escalated because the resident considered that the stage 1 final response was factually inaccurate.
    2. All the relevant staff members that have been responsible for investigating the complaint have evidenced that they followed procedure and provided the appropriate outcome.
    3. The complaint is not upheld because although the resident was unhappy with the outcome, a service failure was not identified.
  7. On 13 December 2023, the resident requested that we investigate the complaint as she remained unhappy with the outcome of the stage 1 and 2 complaint response. She said her request for the final account and a breakdown of calculations relating to the service charge statement for 2021-22 had not been fully provided.
  8. As part of the landlord’s information to us, the landlord advised that it has reviewed the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and 2 and its subsequent response. It said that it had identified failings because the escalation of the stage 2 complaint had not been fully understood, and the information provided by the resident had not been taken into consideration. It increased its compensation offer to £900, which comprised of:
    1. £300 in recognition of the missed opportunity to provide a more effective review of the complaint.
    2. £200 for the identified service failures within its communication, which related to the handling of the service charge and documentation requests.
    3. £200 in recognition of the time and trouble the resident experienced in pursuing the matter further due to an unsatisfactory response.
    4. £200 for a delay in compensation being offered.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In April 2022, the Ombudsman investigated a complaint from the resident about the landlord’s delayed response to her request in accordance with Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for service charge information relating to the financial year 2018-19 (reference 202110462). We ordered the landlord to pay a total of £500 in compensation to the resident for service failures identified and to address all of the resident’s queries relating to service charges. The Ombudsman would not reinvestigate matters which we have investigated previously. Therefore, this complaint is not included within the scope of this current investigation and has been referred to for context only.
  2. In March 2023, the Ombudsman investigated complaints from the resident about the landlord’s handling of her request for information and documentation relating to service charges, specifically for the financial year 2020-21 (reference 202211935). We ordered the landlord to pay a total of £600 in compensation for service failures identified and to address all the resident’s queries relating to service charges. The Ombudsman cannot reinvestigate matters which we have investigated previously. Therefore, this complaint is not included within the scope of this current investigation and has been referred to for context only.
  3. It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that Section 22 gives leaseholders the right to inspect “accounts, receipts, and other documents” supporting a summary of service charge expenditure. A request must be made by the lessee within 6 months of receiving the summary of relevant costs, with the landlord having one month to provide the information. Failure for the landlord to provide this information within that time, without reasonable excuse, is a statutory offence. Nevertheless, an investigation into a breach of this requirement would be a matter for the courts or tribunal to decide. As such, this aspect of the complaint is not within the scope of this investigation, which will focus on the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s request for information from a customer service perspective but will not consider whether the landlord breached its statutory obligation, as described above.

Service charges

  1. The resident made her Section 22 request on 11 October 2022. It is not evident that the landlord responded, which led the resident to have to expend time and trouble raising a formal complaint. While it accepted it had failed to acknowledge the request, for which it offered some compensation, it once again missed the opportunity to provide its response as part of its stage 1 response on 13 December 2022. This was unreasonable in the circumstances.
  2. On 6 January 2023, the landlord apologised for its delayed response and sent via email a Section 21 breakdown of expenditure and a .zip folder which contained evidence of the costs attributed to the resident’s block. The landlord acknowledged that not all invoices were present and requested until 31 March 2023 to provide the remainder. The resident responded and said a significant amount of information was missing which made it impossible to inspect. We have not been provided with evidence that the remaining invoices and missing information was provided by 31 March 2023. Given that it had raised the resident’s expectations it would provide the required documents, its failure to justify the time needed or adhere to its promised timeframes was unreasonable.
  3. As noted above, the Ombudsman has previously investigated complaints from the resident about the landlord’s delayed response to her Section 22 requests. Within our March 2023 report, we noted the failings found in our April 2022 report, and stated, “it is disappointing to see that this complaint has re-occurred which indicates that there could be a systemic issue in the landlord’s handling of requests for service charge information.” We also recommended that “the landlord should create a procedure for effectively responding to Section 22 requests within 30 days of receiving the request.” While we would not reopen our previous investigations, the repeated failure to correct mistakes following the Ombudsman’s previous investigations has been considered.
  4. As part of her complaint escalation, the resident specifically queried the landlord’s understanding about the timeframe for responding to a Section 22 request. However, the landlord failed to address this point, which would have added to her frustration.
  5. Following the commencement of our investigation, the landlord revisited its handling of the complaint. It appropriately identified that there had been failings, for which it offered further compensation.
  6. The landlord’s guidance on awarding compensation states that compensation payments are set out into 3 categories of ‘mandatory’, ‘quantifiable loss’, and ‘discretionary’ payments, which includes poor complaint handling, delays in providing services, failure to provide a service, and failure to meet target response times. Compensation is offered from £50 for a ‘low’ level failure, £51-£160 is suggested for a ‘medium’ level failure, and between £161-£350 for a ‘high’ level failure.
  7. The landlord has acknowledged that its original offer of compensation was inadequate given the failings it has since acknowledged. The landlord informed the Ombudsman that it had reviewed its offer of compensation to put things right and increased its offer of redress to £900.
  8. The increased level of compensation is in keeping with our remedies guidance and we would have found reasonable redress, but we have to consider that the landlord made its revised £900 compensation offer after its stage 2 final response. However, it should not take a resident to have to escalate their complaint to this service for a landlord to take action. In such circumstances, our outcome guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot therefore be determined.
  9. Given the failings identified, a finding of maladministration has been made. While the landlord’s offer has not been accepted as reasonable redress, the Ombudsman has made a matching order for £900 compensation on the same basis as the issues identified by the landlord in its previous offer. This effectively replaces the landlord’s previous offer; however, the landlord may deduct any amount already paid as part of its previous offer.
  10. During our investigation, the landlord has said that it has taken the time to extensively review the resident’s case and has subsequently acknowledged a number of failings within its service charge process. It said it has undergone a service charge management restructure and undertaken extensive measures to address past challenges with service delivery. It is in the process of developing an improved service charge database, which will provide easier access to information and increased transparency. With its history of reoccurring failings within this area, it was right of the landlord to review its service charges process and make the required changes to improve its service delivery, which aligns with our dispute resolution principles of be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. We have therefore not made any further orders in relation to this.
  11. From our communications with the resident, it is understood that, in her opinion, some paperwork that has been requested remains outstanding. An order has therefore been made below for the landlord to liaise with her, understand what is missing, and provide the required documents.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to investigate and respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and if escalated to stage 2, a response is provided within 20 days. If the landlord requires longer to respond to a complaint, it will let the complainant know by providing a revised timescale of up to 10 additional days.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will send an acknowledgment of the complaint within 5 working days of receipt and include, the complaint handler’s name and contact details. The resident’s stage 1 complaint was acknowledged 3 working days late, which is a failure of the service standards set out within its complaints policy.
  3. The landlord requested an extension to its stage 1 response due to the original complaint handler being unavailable. The response was sent to the resident outside of the landlord’s extended deadline, which is a further failure of the service standards set out within its complaints policy.
  4. As noted above, the landlord has reviewed its complaint handling processes following its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses and has acknowledged its communication and complaint handling failures. It says it has implemented a new customer reporting system and quality assurance system, which includes monthly quality checks to review process adherence and compliance with the code. Further, it says it has recently delivered training aimed at its complaint handling team. It was appropriate that the landlord reviewed and acknowledged its failings and implemented new processes, which it says has improved its services.
  5. Given the above failings, a finding of service failure has been made. The landlord’s offer of compensation included an amount for its overall failures in handling the complaint. As noted above, while we cannot accept this offer as reasonable redress, the Ombudsman’s subsequent matching order has accounted for the failings found in relation to its complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for information and documentation relating to service charges for the financial year 2020-21.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
    1. Apologised to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Paid the resident £900 compensation as offered post internal complaints process.
  2. Compensation payments should be made directly to the resident and not credited to the resident’s rent or service charge account.
  3. Within 6 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence that it has obtained from the resident a list of missing information required to satisfy her Section 22 request relating to the financial year 2021-22 and provide the missing information.