From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202345735)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345735

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

30 August 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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the residents’ requests for information regarding cyclical works to their building.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

  1. The complaint has been brought jointly by 2 leaseholders of separate properties in a low-rise building. Both properties are 2-bedroom flats. The building is located within a conservation area and is therefore subject to planning restrictions. The landlord has advised that it does not have any vulnerabilities listed for either resident.
  2. Between April and November 2022, the landlord carried out cyclical works to the residents’ building and the schedule of works showed that the work included window repairs to both properties, works to facias, soffits, rainwater goods, replacement of communal carpets and internal/external decorations. In October 2022, one of the residents contacted the landlord and requested information regarding the cyclical works, including details of the contractor, the estimated timeframe for the works and information regarding the specification and costs of the works.
  3. During November 2022, the project manager met with the residents on site and he sent them a copy of the works he said had been consulted on and had been completed. However, the residents continued to request additional information about the works during December 2022 to February 2023. On 28 March 2023, the residents wrote to the landlord and said they were concerned about being charged for works that had not been carried out. They said that residents had not received customer satisfaction survey forms and they had been requesting information about the works since November 2022 but had not received a satisfactory response. They asked the landlord to confirm the following:
    1. A list of the works from the original quote that had been completed.
    2. When the project manager would meet with residents on site to discuss any outstanding work.
    3. Whether the cost of the works had been applied to residents’ service charge accounts.
  4. The landlord logged the residents’ letter of 28 March 2023 as a stage 1 complaint and sent its stage 1 reply on 18 April 2023 in which it stated the following:
    1. The landlord said the project manager had shared a list of the works to the block with the residents on 9 March 2023 and at the same time had also shared a customer satisfaction survey form.
    2. The landlord said the project manager had already met with the residents on site but was happy to meet with them again.
    3. The costings were shared with residents during the consultation phase and would be applied to residents’ accounts once the end of year accounts were finalised.
    4. The landlord partially upheld the complaint because it said some residents had not received the customer satisfaction survey forms. It offered each of the residents £30 for their time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
  5. The residents wrote to the landlord on 5 May 2023 and asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 because:
    1. They wanted to know which works from the original quote had been signed off as completed and asked when the project manager would meet with them on site to discuss the outstanding works.
    2. They said the list of completed works had not been shared with them on 9 March 2023, despite the landlord asserting this in its stage 1 reply. They also said that the landlord had not attached it to the stage 1 reply.
    3. They asked again whether the costs of the works had been applied to their service charge accounts.
    4. The residents said that although the project manager had met with them on site on 28 November 2022, he had not shared with them any details about works that had been completed. They had discussed some of the works that had not been completed satisfactorily and the residents said that the project manager had agreed to arrange a follow-up meeting to discuss the work that had been completed.
    5. The residents said they were unable to provide their concerns about the works until they received a list of the completed works.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 8 November 2023 in which it stated the following:
    1. The landlord agreed that the list of works had not been provided to the residents, despite the landlord stating it had in the stage 1 response. It accepted this had been a service failure and attached a copy to the stage 2 response.
    2. The landlord said that an inspection of the site had been carried out following the completion of the works and no further issues warranting action by the landlord had been highlighted.
    3. In terms of the costs incurred, the landlord said these would only be applied to the residents’ accounts once the works were completed and there were no further actions needed. It said that residents had been made aware of the costs during the consultation stage.
    4. The landlord apologised for the delay in providing the list of works and for the delay in replying to the complaint. It offered compensation of £250 (£100 for not providing the list of works and £150 for its complaint handling).
  7. The residents contacted us on 23 January 2024 and said they were dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 response. They said that although they had received the original list of quoted works, they had not received the list of works that had been completed. They said the landlord had given a commitment to jointly post-inspect the works with the residents. They said they had received the list of completed works on 2 October 2023, which was 2 months after receiving the final costs. They believe they have been charged for some works that were not carried out.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Although the cyclical works started in April 2022, we consider it faiir and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s response to the residents’ requests for information from October 2022 onwards. Reference to the events that occurred prior to October 2022 is made in this report to provide context.
  2. The residents also advised us that on 2 October 2023 they had received the list of actual works completed from the landlord, however, they disagree with the list presented to them. As the residents’ disagreement with the list of works was not part of their stage 2 complaint made on 5 May 2023, it did not form part of the landlord’s stage 2 reply dated 8 November 2023. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by us as part of its complaint response. We therefore do not consider it fair and reasonable to investigate the residents’ disagreement with the list of works presented by the landlord.
  3. The residents wrote to us on 23 January 2024 and stated that they had received the landlord’s final accounts letter on 16 August 2023,butthe landlord had not explained to residents the works that were completed and what residents were paying for. We are unable to decide whether the charges in the landlord’s final accounts letter were correct or reasonable as this would be a matter for the First-Tier tribunal (FTT). The FTT can make determinations on liability to pay a service charge, including the appropriate level and amount of service charges recoverable by a landlord. The FTT can also decide if the charges were reasonably incurred. The residents should contact the FTT if they want a binding determination as to whether the charges are reasonable and payable. We have focussed our investigation on the landlord’s communication in relation to the residents’ requests for information about the cyclical works carried out to their building.

The landlord’s response to the residents’ requests for information regarding cyclical works to their building

  1. Under the terms of the lease agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping the common parts in a good state of repair and condition. This includes maintaining gutters, downpipes and drainage.
  2. Under Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, after obtaining a summary of service charge accounts, a leaseholder has the right to request and inspect further, more detailed information about the costs. This could include documents, invoices, receipts, and contracts. These documents should be made available to leaseholders for 2 months.
  3. The landlord’s website states that it will send residents a service charge statement each year in April and this includes an estimate of the amount to be paid for the year ahead. Leaseholders have a ‘variable’ service charge, which means the amount they pay for the year can change depending on the cost of the services. The landlord lets leaseholders know the actual annual cost of their service charge within 6 months of the end of the financial year (usually around September or October).
  4. One of the residents wrote to the landlord on 10 October 2022 regarding the major works that had started in April 2022. She said that some of the residents on the estate had not received introductory letters from the contractor and she asked for information, such as the name of the contractor, the time period for the works, the detailed specification for the works and the costs. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s email. This was unreasonable as she had asked for specific information regarding the works that were in progress.
  5. The landlord wrote to residents on the estate on 21 November 2022 and said it wanted to visit the majority of homes affected by the works to inspect the works carried out by the contractor to ensure they met the specification requirements. This ‘sign-off’ of the completed works was in line with the landlord’s process for planned works and was therefore appropriate.
  6. The landlord’s Project Manager met with the residents on site on 28 November 2022 to discuss any concerns about the works. This was reasonable as it gave the residents the opportunity to engage with the landlord regarding the works and to raise any concerns about the quality of the works.
  7. One of the residents wrote to the landlord and requested a copy of the specification of works. She said this had been promised by the landlord at the site meeting on 28 November 2022. She also requested the landlord to send the customer satisfaction forms to residents. The landlord replied on the same day and attached the list of works that it had consulted with residents on and had carried out. The landlord had therefore provided the specification of works as requested by the residents and therefore this was reasonable. However, the landlord did not address the resident’s request for the customer satisfaction forms, which was inappropriate.
  8. The residents wrote to the landlord on 30 November 2022 and asked the landlord whether it had details of when and where each element of the work had been carried out. They also requested the cost of each of the jobs. The residents followed up their enquiry with further emails dated 1, 4 and 7 December 2022. They also requested the landlord to send the customer satisfaction forms to all residents. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to the residents’ requests, which was unreasonable. As the landlord was project managing the works, it was responsible for responding to the residents’ requests for information. We are not in a position to decide whether it was reasonable or proportionate for the landlord to supply the level of detail requested by the residents. However, we would expect the landlord to reply to the residents either agreeing to send the information or explaining why it would not send it.
  9. The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 January 2023 and said there were still unresolved issues, snags and queries outstanding. They asked when the contractor would return to complete the works. The landlord replied on 26 January 2023 and said the painters would attend next week to address the snags it had identified and the floor fitters would attend the week after. It advised the resident that the cost of works had been broken down in the documents that had been sent to residents during the consultation period.
  10. In our view, the information supplied by the landlord was reasonable because it had provided the timescale in which the contractor would address the snags it had identified and advised the residents that the cost of works had been sent out during the consultation. At this stage, the landlord’s records show that it had not yet received the contractor’s final invoices or final accounts for the works. Therefore, it would not have been able to supply the final costs of the works until this information was received. The landlord’s frequently asked questions (FAQs) leaflet that had accompanied the Section 20 consultation letters stated: “Once the works are complete and signed off, we will then bill you the final costs within 12 months of the completed works”.
  11. The landlord also attached a copy of the works specification and advised the residents that it was a list of the works it had carried out. This aspect of the information sent by the landlord was, in our view, unhelpful and inappropriate. The residents had requested a list of the actual works carried out, whereas the landlord had attached a copy of the specification that had been used by the contractors to submit their quotes. The document included several provisional items and costs, which would not necessarily have been included in the actual works carried. The evidence seen by us indicates that the landlord provided the list of actual works to the residents on 2 October 2023, which was almost a year after they had requested it in November 2022. The delay in providing the information was unreasonable as we have not seen any information explaining why it could not have been provided sooner.
  12. During February 2023, the residents wrote to the landlord requesting information about the works carried out, the costs of each item and the customer satisfaction forms. On 3 February 2023, the landlord asked the residents to provide their lists of snags or works they believed had not been completed so that it could investigate them. In our view, this was a reasonable and proportionate request because the landlord’s records show that it had inspected the completed works in September and November 2022, taken photos of the completed works and identified snags, such as the communal floor covering. It was therefore reasonable to request the residents to supply details of any works they believed had not been completed to the required standard. This would enable the landlord to focus its efforts on checking the specific works that the residents were concerned about.
  13. We have noted, however, that the residents had continued to request the landlord to send customer satisfaction forms to residents. For example, they had requested this on 30 November 2022, 1 December 2022, 7 December 2022, 1 February 2023 and 28 March 2023. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not responded to the residents’ requests by either issuing the forms or explaining why it could not do so.
  14. The residents wrote to the landlord on 22 March 2023 and said some works were still outstanding, including issues with the door paint and guttering. They also said the lock on the refuse door was rusty. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to the residents regarding these issues, which was unreasonable. The resident’s had raised concerns about specific defects and therefore as the work was still within the defects period, the landlord should have investigated them and responded to the residents. If necessary, the landlord could have requested further details about the location of the defects or met the residents on site to obtain more information. The lack of communication in relation to the specific defects raised by the residents was unreasonable.
  15. The residents made a stage 1 complaint on 28 March 2023 and said they were requesting the landlord to list the works from the original quote that had not yet been completed. They also asked whether the costs had been applied to their service charge accounts and when the Project Manager would meet with them on site to discuss outstanding works. They added that customer satisfaction forms had not been given to all residents. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 18 April 2023 and said the costs of the works would be applied to residents’ accounts once the end of year accounts had been finalised and shared with residents. The landlord’s response on this point was appropriate as it was in line with its Service Charge Policy, which states that the charges are reconciled at the end of the accounts year before being applied to residents’ accounts.
  16. The landlord also attached a copy of the customer satisfaction form to its stage 1 reply and accepted that some residents may not have received the form. It offered the residents £30 compensation for their time and trouble in pursuing this aspect of the complaint. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not arranged for customer satisfaction forms to be given to all of the affected residents, particularly as the residents had been requesting this since 2022. It meant that the landlord had missed an opportunity to obtain feedback from residents which could be used to improve future planned works programmes.
  17. The landlord stated in its stage 1 response that the Project Manager had already shared the list of works undertaken in the block with the residents and had met them on site. The residents disputed these points on 5 May 2023. In its stage 2 reply dated 8 November 2023, the landlord accepted that it had not provided the residents with the list of works, despite stating this in its stage 1 reply. It therefore attached the information to its stage 2 reply. It was unreasonable that the landlord had provided incorrect information in its stage 1 reply and had not shared the list of works completed with the resident when it said it had. The landlord apologised for this error.
  18. The landlord said that it had carried out a site inspection following completion of the works and had not identified any issues requiring further action. The landlord’s records show that it had carried out handover inspections with the contractor on 28 September and 16 November 2022. It was therefore reasonable for it to advise the residents that it had inspected the works. However, the landlord had identified some snagging works during the inspection on 22 November 2022, including the communal carpet being too loose, a missing stair nosing, damage to the stair skirting and a resident’s door that had been painted shut. It was a shortcoming that the landlord had not mentioned these issues in its response.
  19. The residents advised us on 23 January 2024 that they were concerned the works had not been post-inspected and that any post-inspection should have involved residents. The landlord’s records show that it had carried out a joint handover inspection, which was appropriate as it was in line with its Planned Programmes Process Map. Whilst we agree that it is desirable to involve residents in inspections, this is not a requirement set out in the landlord’s process. Therefore, we have not identified the landlord’s decision to inspect the works without the involvement of residents as a service failure.
  20. In summary, we have found the following failings in the landlord’s response to the residents’ requests for information regarding cyclical works to their building:
    1. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s email sent in October 2022 requesting information about the cyclical works.
    2. The landlord did not respond to the residents’ requests for information sent on 30 November 2022 and their emails sent in December 2022 chasing a response.
    3. In response to the residents’ request in January 2023 for a list of the works carried out, the landlord sent them the specification of works, rather than the actual works carried out.
    4. The landlord did not provide the list of works carried out until October 2023.
    5. The landlord did not respond to various requests from the residents for customer satisfaction forms to be sent to residents.
    6. The landlord did not respond to the residents’ email sent in March 2023 which identified specific defects.
    7. The landlord incorrectly stated in its stage 1 reply that it had shared the list of completed works with the residents.
  21. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  22. In this case, the landlord acted fairly by using its stage 2 reply to acknowledge some of its failings. It then sought to put things right by offering the residents compensation of £30 in its stage 1 reply for not sending the customer satisfaction forms to all residents and £100 in its stage 2 reply for its failure to provide the list of works carried out.
  23. We have considered the level of compensation offered by the landlord and do not consider it adequately reflects the time and trouble spent by the residents chasing the landlord for information about the cyclical works. There were examples where the landlord did not respond to their correspondence and other times where it did not supply the information requested. We have therefore made a finding of service failure and ordered the landlord to pay £150 additional compensation. Our finding of service failure reflects our view that the landlord had made an offer of compensation but it was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. The amount of compensation we have ordered is broadly in line with the levels of financial redress suggested in our Remedies Guidance for service failures.
  24. As it is unclear whether the defects previously reported by the residents were addressed by the landlord, we have ordered the landlord to meet with the residents to identify any further remedial work. As previously indicated, questions regarding service charge refunds for outstanding defects are outside the scope of this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days of receipt and will reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord will acknowledge the stage 2 complaint within 5 working days and provide a full response to the complaint within 20 working days. The policy states that if the landlord cannot respond within these timescales, it will keep the resident informed and agree new response times.
  2. The residents submitted a stage 1 complaint on 28 March 2023 regarding planned works. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 3 April 2024, which was 4 working days after it was received. The landlord had therefore acknowledged the complaint within an appropriate timescale.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 18 April 2023, which was 10 working days after acknowledging the complaint. This was in line with its policy and therefore the time taken to respond was appropriate.
  4. The residents wrote to the landlord on 5 May 2023 and asked it to escalate their complaint. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 22 May 2023, which was 10 working days after receiving the stage 2 complaint. The time taken by the landlord to acknowledge the complaint was inappropriate as it was longer than the 5-working day timescale stipulated in its policy.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 8 November 2023, which was 121 working days after the landlord had acknowledged the complaint. During the intervening period, the landlord had contacted the residents on 16 June, 14 July, 17 July and 12 September 2023 to advise it needed more time. Our Complaint Handling Code issued in March 2022 stated that extensions of time should not exceed a further 10 days (after an initial 10-day extension) without good reason. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord had ‘good reason’ to delay responding to the complaint for as long as it did. The time taken to respond to the complaint was therefore inappropriate.
  6. In its stage 2 reply, the landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and offered compensation of £150 for its complaints handling. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that it may award compensation of between £51 and £160 for “significant failures to follow the complaint procedure”. In this case, we consider the length of time taken to address respond to the stage 2 complaint to have been a significant failure to follow the procedure. As the compensation offered for the landlord’s poor complaint handling was in line with its Compensation Policy and it contacted the residents during the period about the delay in responding, we consider the landlord’s offer of compensation to have been reasonable to put things right. We have therefore made a finding of ‘reasonable redress’ in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the residents’ requests for information regarding cyclical works to their building.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Written to the residents to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Paid the residents a total of £280 compensation for its response to the residents’ requests for information regarding cyclical works to their building. This includes the £30 offered at stage 1 and the £100 offered at stage 2.
    3. Arranged to meet with the residents to identify any issues relating to the cyclical works (beyond normal wear and tear) that require remedial work. The landlord should then write to the residents setting out how these works will be addressed.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should reoffer the residents the £150 offered in its stage 2 reply for complaint handling if this has not already been paid.