Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202341680)

Decision
Case ID	202341680
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	16 December 2025

Background

1. The resident lived in a mixed-tenure complex owned by a superior landlord and managed by its appointed management agent. The resident’s landlord conducted a review of the management agent’s service charge mechanism, resulting in the resident’s account being approximately £1,000 in arrears. She asked the landlord to explain these charges.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for service charge information.
3. The Service has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s request for service charge information.
   2. The associated complaint.

We have therefore made no orders.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for service charge information.

5. Through its complaint process, the landlord acknowledged a delay in responding to the resident’s concerns. It apologised, offered compensation, and provided her with the contact details of her new service charge officer. It retrieved the information from the management agent and provided the resident with a full and detailed explanation of all charges. It then reviewed its compensation offer again to better reflect the resident’s inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

6. The landlord acknowledged that its initial complaint responses should have been clearer. It improved its communication with the resident following its final response letter and took action to put things right for the resident.

Putting things right

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the total compensation of £700, comprising: £100 offered in its stage 2 letter. £450 offered during the mediation process. £150 offered in its evidence submission.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
3 May 2023	In her stage 1 complaint, the resident said she had been waiting over a month to receive the breakdown of her service charges. She said she did not believe the outstanding balance was correct or justified.
24 May 2023	In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord apologised for the delay. It explained that, due to the complexity of the queries, it took longer to review the resident’s service charge account. It offered £50 for the inconvenience caused. It said that its team was working on this as a matter of priority.
20 September 2023	In her escalation, the resident said her account showed £1,176.52 for extra charges from 2021–2022. She asked what these charges were and for proof, but the team did not provide an explanation for many months. She said the ongoing issue may disadvantage her should she wish to sell the property.
24 October 2023	In its final response letter, the landlord said: It found no unanswered queries from the resident and no errors in its accounting. However, it accepted that due to staff shortages, there were delays in responding to the resident. It had since appointed a new service charge officer. It said it undertook an investigation into the management agent’s administration of the service charge, which resulted in the balancing charge. It provided the resident with a breakdown of the adjustments on her account and confirmed the balance was correct. It said that it would speak with the resident to arrange a payment plan. It upheld the complaint due to the delay in responding to her queries in a timely manner. It offered an additional £50, bringing the total compensation to £100.
30 October 2023	The landlord continued to liaise with the resident after its final response letter. It explained in November 2023 that it had changed its accounting method across its business, which meant the balance on the resident’s account covered 21 months, including the estimated charge for the next financial year. It contacted the managing agent on the resident’s behalf to obtain a full breakdown of all costs incurred over the past 3 years. In February 2024, it raised a formal complaint with the managing agent for failing to provide the information within the statutory time.
Referral to the Ombudsman 25 February 2024	The resident told us that: There were 14 shared ownership properties. Only 2 properties had not staircased to 100%. Residents with full-ownership leases were billed directly by the managing agent, and these properties did not receive a demand for an extra £1,000. She believed the problem was due to administrative failures at the landlord, not the agent. She said that due to delays in reconciling the account, the landlord was making her and the other shared ownership property cover the entire amount, and she thought the landlord should pay the amount instead. The information from the landlord was vague and confusing. She would like to see the evidence for the charge.

What we found and why

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 on whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for service charge information.
Finding	Reasonable redress

7. After waiting nearly two years for the landlord to complete its service charge review, the resident was entitled to expect that the outcome would be free of errors. However, the landlord’s revised end-of-year adjustments in March 2023 for the previous two financial years were inaccurate. It made further adjustments in March, April, May, and June 2023. While the total arrears remained around £1,000, the errors undermined the resident’s trust in the landlord’s administration of her service charge. She subsequently requested a full breakdown of all credits and debits applied to her, along with copies of the invoices.
8. In its October 2022 final response letter, the landlord acknowledged that it had initially been slow to respond to the resident’s queries due to staff sickness. It apologised and offered £100 in compensation. It confirmed the charges were accurate and provided an explanation and a breakdown of the adjustments made on the resident’s service charge account. It also provided the resident with contact details of her service charge officer to address remaining concerns she had about her service charges.
9. Following on from this, based on the landlord’s complaint response, there were several email exchanges between the resident and the landlord throughout November 2023. It explained that the arrears resulted from changes in the organisation’s accounting methods, which meant the £1,000 arrears covered a period of 21 months, including past charges and estimated future charges for the current financial year. Throughout this process, the resident requested further information. As a result, the landlord raised a formal complaint with the managing agent in February 2024 because the managing agent had failed to provide the information required to respond to the resident within the statutory timeframe, which was appropriate.
10. The landlord reviewed the information received from the managing agent in March 2024. It responded to the resident in April 2024, providing a comprehensive, detailed response to her queries. These events coincided with the resident bringing her complaint to us in February 2024. We contacted the landlord about this case in April 2024. It is therefore evident that the landlord’s actions were independent of this service’s involvement and were a follow-up from its stage 2 actions.
11. When we contacted the landlord in April 2024, it informed us that it had provided the resident with the information in full. In May 2024, it engaged in mediation with the resident, and in June 2024, it offered a total compensation of £550, comprising:
    1. £100 offered in its final response letter
    2. £250 for time and trouble for poor communications
    3. £100 for underestimating the resident service charge, resulting in a backdated charge of 3 months.
    4. £100 for its complaint handling.
12. As well as recognising its shortcomings, the landlord also identified learning from the complaint and said the situation was unlikely to recur as its new system had built-in checks and balances to ensure that errors were minimised in the future. It should be noted that we have reviewed the information provided to the resident, and we are satisfied that it reasonably addressed the resident’s concerns.
13. These actions resolved the complaint reasonably. We appreciate that the resident informed us in September 2024 that the issue had not been resolved for her. We are satisfied, however, that, based on the evidence submitted, the landlord provided a sufficient explanation and redress for its handling of the complaint. We have referred the resident to other organisations, such as the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) and Citizens Advice, who may be able to offer additional support and advice.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

14. The landlord responded to the resident’s formal complaints within the timeframe specified in its policy.
15. In its final response letter, the landlord explained the details of the resident’s account accurately. However, the explanation was somewhat convoluted. As a result, the resident asked the landlord to answer her question with a simple “yes” or “no.” A clearer response in plain English, without accounting jargon, would have been more helpful.
16. The landlord offered £100 for its complaint handling. During its evidence submission to us, however, it explained that upon reviewing the case, it wished to provide the resident with an additional £150 in compensation to reflect that its internal complaint process should have resulted in a better outcome for the resident. In our view, this was reasonable and satisfactory in resolving the complaint. We therefore recommend that, if the landlord has not paid this already, it does so now. 

Learning

17. The repeated adjustment of the resident’s service charge account could have been avoided if a better internal quality assurance system had been implemented. 

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. We found no issues with its record keeping.

Communication

19. The landlord could enhance its communication
20. n by responding to complaints clearly and concisely in plain English.