Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202344342)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344342

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

14 November 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property. The property is a 2-bedroom flat in a low-rise block. Evidence provided to this Service shows that the resident had told the landlord that service charge issues caused her to develop anxiety and depression.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 1 January 2024. She said:
1. Her service charge statement included a charge for the replacement of a neighbour’s front door in 2019. However, she had to replace her own front door at her own cost. She asked it to pay money owed to her of £800.
2. The landlord had charged her rent despite owning her property.
3. Different homeowners on the estate paid a different service charge.
4. The landlord overcharged her for works and it billed her incorrectly.
5. It harassed her for payments despite it not addressing her concerns with the service charge.
6. Its handling of her service charge caused her to develop anxiety and depression, including suicidal thoughts. She felt it did not care about homeowners.
7. She wanted to be provided with service charge statements for the previous 5 years. She said the landlord had increased the charge but not informed her of this.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 3 April 2024. It upheld the complaint. It said:
1. It did not investigate service charge disputes within its complaints process. However, it would investigate how it delivered its service.
2. It acknowledged a breakdown in communication from its service charge team and the delays in responding to her queries. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to her.
3. In response to the reported impact on her mental health, it advised of support available to her through the landlord.
4. It offered her £250 compensation. £100 was for the delays in the service charge teams response. £150 was for its poor complaint handling.
Attached to the initial complaint response, the landlord included a response from the service charge team regarding the resident’s queries. It said:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint.
2. It had now placed her service charge into dispute. She would not receive further letters about arrears until it closed the complaint and lifted the dispute.
3. It did not have any records relating to recharges of a front door. It confirmed it had not charged her for the repair or replacement of her neighbour’s door. It outlined that homeowners are responsible for replacing their own doors.
4. It confirmed it had not charged her rent since she completed her final staircasing in February 2018.
5. It attached a copy of her service charge letters for the last 5 years as requested.
6. It would inspect the block of flats regarding her concerns about overcharging for communal utilities. It would update her on its findings.
The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 3 April 2024. Within her correspondence she:
1. Said the landlord paid to replace her neighbour’s front door. She believed she paid this amount back in her service charge.
2. Reiterated her concern regarding a different service charge paid by different homeowners.
3. Raised additional issues. These included fly tipping, operatives trespassing for repairs without notice, a locked gas meter door, and noise issues from the upstairs neighbour.
4. Said she was unhappy that she had to chase for updates due to its delayed complaint response.
5. Asked it again for service charge statements for 2019 to 2021.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 24 June 2024. It upheld the complaint. It said:
1. It apologised for its delayed complaint response and the concerns caused by this.
2. It was sorry to hear that the issues regarding the service charge had impacted the resident’s mental health. It offered to provide advice or signposting to local agencies who could support her further.
3. It could not further investigate concerns about its handling of her neighbour’s front door replacement. This was because the issues occurred in 2019, which was outside of its complaints period.
4. It said it could not investigate any new issues which she had not raised in her initial complaint. This included complaints about fly tipping, operatives trespassing, access to a gas meter, and noise issues caused by a neighbour’s laminate flooring. It also included concerns with a different service charge between different homeowners.
5. It acknowledged a previous delay in providing the response from its service charge team. It said it had apologised for this within its initial complaint response, which it had upheld.
6. It acknowledged it had missed an opportunity to be clearer regarding why it could not investigate service charge disputes through its complaints process.
7. It also acknowledged that it missed an opportunity to address its communication about her arrears, which she described as harassment. It confirmed that it had not received instruction from its service charge team regarding placing her account into dispute. It therefore followed its process to discuss arrears with her. It would review its dispute process between its internal teams to learn from its mistakes.
8. It increased its offer of compensation to £350. £100 was for its communication delays from its service charge team. £250 was for its poor complaint handling at both stage 1 and stage 2.
The resident escalated her complaint to this Service. She remained unhappy with the information provided in response to her service charge complaint. The complaint became one that the Ombudsman could investigate on 20 September 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has expressed concerns about the level of her service charge, namely that she has been overcharged. While the serious nature of this is acknowledge, the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent or the increase of service charge or rent. The resident may wish to seek advice from the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) regarding this aspect of her complaint.
The resident said that the landlord’s handling of her service charges affected her mental health. This Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about their health. However, it is outside our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. We will instead consider whether the landlord acted appropriately in response to the concerns raised.
As part of the resident’s complaint escalation to the landlord, she included new complaint issues. This included issues with fly tipping, operatives trespassing for repairs without notice, a locked gas meter door, and noise issues from the upstairs neighbour. In the interest of fairness, we cannot investigate matters that the landlord has not had the opportunity to investigate and respond to. It is acknowledged that the landlord declined to investigate these matters while the matters relating to this investigation were at stage 2 of the complaints process. The landlord’s handling of this has been assessed further in this report. However, for clarity, these issues have not been considered as part of this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge complaint

The resident purchased the property through the shared ownership scheme. She completed her final staircasing in February 2018. She remains a leaseholder of the property. Her lease states that she pays a variable service charge to the landlord.
The landlord’s complaints policy outlines when it cannot consider a complaint. This includes complaints about service charges or their reasonableness. Within its initial complaint response, the landlord told the resident that it could only assess how it delivers a service. It said it could not investigate service charge disputes within its complaints process. It instead attached a letter from its service charge team regarding her queries.
The landlord’s final complaint response acknowledged that it could have been clearer within its initial complaint response. It said it could have explained further about why it did not investigate service charge disputes. It was appropriate for it to reflect on its previous response and learn from its mistakes. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles – to be fair, put things right, and learn from mistakes.
The landlord’s decision to not respond to the service charge query within its initial complaint response itself was in line with its complaints policy. However, doing so caused avoidable confusion to the resident. The distinction between the complaints and service charge teams was not of significance to the resident. She simply asked the landlord for a response to the concerns she had raised. It would have been reasonable for it to have provided the service charge information within the complaint response. This would have confirmed its position regarding her queries without causing her to read two separate letters.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out our expectations for landlords. The Code states that landlords must not take a blanket approach to excluding complaints. Instead, it must consider the individual circumstances of each complaint.
Additionally, the Ombudsman produced an insight report on service charges in December 2023. Within this, it outlined key learning for landlords. This included the need for complaint responses to deal with the issues raised. It is therefore a shortcoming that it provided the service charge information as an attachment to the complaint response. If it has not already done so, the landlord should read our insight report to further its learning on responding to service charge complaints.
Part of the resident’s complaint included concerns with paying for a neighbour’s replacement door in 2019. The initial complaint response attachment confirmed the landlord had no records of this. It therefore concluded that it had not recharged this cost. It was appropriate for the landlord to rely on its records when reaching its conclusion.
The resident’s reiterated her concerns as part of her escalation request. In response, the landlord said it could not investigate the matter further within the complaint. This was because the issue occurred outside of its complaint investigation period. In line with the landlord’s complaints policy, it cannot consider issues where the cause of the complaint occurred over 6 months ago. Its decision to not investigate this further was therefore reasonable and in line with its policy.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s calculations of her service charge, and whether it had overcharged her. Within its final complaint response, it said such issues are the jurisdiction of the FTT. This response was correct. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide such advice, so she knew how to investigate these concerns.
Following the resident’s request for service charge statements over the last 5 years, the landlord provided this to her. This was appropriate and showed it had taken steps to help with her concerns. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord failed to provide these to the resident at the relevant times.
Within the landlord’s final complaint response, it listed multiple aspects of the escalation request that it could not investigate. This was because it did not form part of the resident’s initial complaint. The Code states that where a resident raises new issues after the landlord issues its initial complaint response, it should log the issues as a new complaint. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that it responded to such issues as part of other complaints. Its decision to not investigate these issues at stage 2 was therefore appropriate and in line with the Code. The landlord should contact the resident to confirm whether it needs to raise any additional complaints that it may not have addressed yet.
The resident told the landlord that she felt it had harassed her to pay her service charge arrears. The landlord’s initial complaint response failed to address this aspect of the complaint. However, it was appropriate for it to acknowledge this failing within its final complaint response. It said it had missed an opportunity to address her concern. It confirmed that it had acted in line with its processes but would learn from its mistakes by encouraging further communication internally. It was appropriate for the landlord to have reflected on its handling and put things right for her by investigating this.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about her neighbours paying a different service charge. It said that it could not investigate this aspect as she had not raised it within her initial complaint. This was not correct as she included this as part of her complaint to the landlord. It therefore missed an opportunity to provide her with relevant information to address this concern.
To help address the resident’s concern, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have explained how it apportions service charge costs. The landlord has told the Ombudsman that it apportions cost based on the number of bedrooms within the block. If it had explained this, it could have explained why differences may occur. For example, neighbours may have differing property sizes or different repairs completed in different blocks which could have impacted costs. It is a failing that the landlord missed an opportunity to put things right in this regard.
The resident told the landlord that its handling of her service charge impacted her mental health. This Service does not underestimate the impact that this may have caused her. However, the landlord acted appropriately in response to her concerns. It acknowledged the impact on her health and offered advice and signposting to support services. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The Code states that landlords must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of logging the complaint. At stage 2, it must provide a response within 20 working days of the complaint escalation. If needed, landlords can extend this by 10 working days at both stages. However, it must not exceed this and provide a clear date of when it would provide a response.
The landlord acknowledged delays in responding to the complaint at both stage 1 and stage 2. It took 65 working days to provide its initial complaint response. During this time, it contacted the resident on 3 occasions providing a different date that it expected to provide the response by. After the final extension on 4 March 2024, the resident expressed her concerns with the repeated extensions. It still did not provide the response for another month. This far exceeded the time set out in the Code.
The resident escalated her complaint on 3 April 2024. The landlord took 56 working days to provide its final complaint response. It acknowledged the complaint escalation on 9 April 2024 and said it would respond within 20 working days. It then extended this by 10 working days on 8 May 2024.
Due to the lack of response, the resident asked this Service for support in escalating her complaint. The resident should not have to chase the landlord or contact this Service to receive a response to her complaint escalation. It was not appropriate for the landlord to delay in providing its response. This would have caused inconvenience to her because of the time and trouble spent in chasing the response. She would have also understandably thought that the landlord was not taking her complaint and concerns seriously during this time.
On 17 June 2024, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord regarding the resident’s complaint escalation. We asked it to provide its complaint response within 5 working days. On the following day, the landlord told the resident that it would provide its complaint response within a further 20 working days. It is unclear why it advised of this, given we had asked it to provide it much sooner. Ultimately, the landlord did provide its response within the period set out by this Service. However, its handling of this would have understandably caused further confusion and frustration to the resident.
The landlord offered the resident a total of £350 compensation. It said that £100 was for the delays caused by receiving the information from its service charge team. It said that the remaining £250 was for its delayed complaint responses at stage 1 and stage 2.
It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failings and offer redress for these. However, the amount offered was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. In summary, there were further failings such as a missed opportunity to respond to an aspect of the complaint. Additionally, there were further complaint handling failures as it effectively provided 2 initial complaint responses through attaching a letter regarding the service complaint findings.
Given the above, the landlord should pay a further £300 compensation to the resident. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, this is an appropriate award for failings which adversely affected the resident. This award reflects the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s service charge complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge complaint.

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing regarding the failures identified within this investigation. It should include specific examples of such failures.
2. Pay the £350 compensation offered within its final complaint response if it has not already done so.
3. Pay a further £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s service charge complaint.
4. Contact the resident to confirm whether there is a need to raise any additional complaints that it may not have addressed yet.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should read the Ombudsman’s insight report on service charges. This is to further its learning on responding to service charge complaints.