Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202409722)

Background

1. In March 2023 the resident queried with the landlord why no sinking fund payments were being taken. She repeated this query in March 2024 and raised a complaint stating that her lease specifically says that a contribution to a sinking fund would be taken. After investigation the landlord found that a system error had caused sinking fund payments to stop.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. a query about sinking fund payments
   2. the resident’s complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s query about sinking fund payments.
4. We have found there was reasonable redress in its response to the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Reasons

Response to sinking fund query

5. The resident’s lease required her to pay a contribution toward a sinking fund as part of her service charge. However, no sinking fund contributions were collected from at least the 2023/24 financial year. The resident first raised this issue with the landlord on 12 March 2023, but the landlord was unable to evidence that it provided any response. This was not in line with its own commitment to reply to communication within 5 working days..
6. The resident raised the same concern again on 18 February 2024. The landlord again failed to respond within its stated timescale, which led the resident to submit a formal complaint simply to obtain an update. This lack of basic communication was unreasonable and caused the resident inconvenience.
7. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord explained that sinking fund contributions had stopped at the end of 2022/23 and said it had contacted its Service Charge Team to investigate. It apologised for earlier delays. However, it did not follow up as promised, and the resident escalated her complaint on 30 April 2024. This continued failure to communicate caused further distress and inconvenience.
8. In its stage 2 response on 23 July 2024, the landlord again apologised and confirmed the failure to collect contributions was caused by a system error. It said an assessment would be undertaken within 3 weeks, followed by a resident meeting to discuss the results. These steps were appropriate in principle, as any increase to the contribution would need to be agreed with all resident’s affected. The assessment was completed in July 2024, recommending an increase in the sinking fund contribution from £18.07 to £61.29.
9. Despite this, the landlord took 6 months to arrange a resident meeting, which did not take place until 20 February 2025. This was an unreasonable delay. Only one resident attended the meeting, and the landlord confirmed that no new sinking fund contributions were implemented.
10. As part of our evidence request, the landlord confirmed that no communication took place with the resident about this issue between February 2025 and February 2026. It said a new meeting is currently in the process of being arranged to consult with resident’s. However, it provided no explanation for why it waited over 12 months to arrange a new consultation or why it failed to keep the resident updated, despite her ongoing complaint.
11. The landlord’s repeated failure to proactively communicate, combined with extensive delays between key stages of the process, was unreasonable. These actions fell short of its own complaint handling policy, which states that complaints should be resolved quickly and effectively.
12. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord offered £200 for the failure in service relating to the sinking fund contribution. We do not consider this to be proportionate to the failings identified and have ordered the landlord to pay a further £200 on top of the £200 already offered.
13. This total of £400 compensation more accurately reflects the impact to the resident. She has told us that for 3 years she has been worried that the lack of sinking fund payments will mean she will receive a large bill if works are required. She has said that this worry was increased by the failure to communicate and she has lost trust in the landlord to deal with the issue effectively. This payment aligns with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affect the resident but have no permanent impact. We have also made a communication order for the landlord to follow.

Complaint handling

14. The landlord uses a 2‑stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It must then send a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at both stages on time. This showed it followed the early steps of its process, which was reasonable.
15. At both stages, the landlord did not meet the initial response timescales. However, it asked for more time in line with the Complaint Handling Code and explained why it needed the extension. It then sent its responses within the new timescale. The landlord clearly explained the reasons for the extension.
16. The landlord offered the resident £150 to recognise the delay and the time and effort she spent making the complaint. This offer matched its compensation policy and our remedies guidance for failures which last a short time. Our view is the landlord acknowledged the impact on the resident and offered proportionate compensation.

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.