Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202424716)

Background

1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord’s. He owns a flat in a block with 4 similar homes. The landlord provides various services to the block’s shared areas. The resident contributes to its costs through annual service charges. The resident’s complaint concerns related billing issues. Some of these arose after the landlord changed its energy provider.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s queries and concerns about service charges.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s queries and concerns about service charges.
4. There was reasonable redress by the landlord in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. We found that the landlord:
   1. Did not recognise the full extent of its service charge related failures during its complaints procedure or the adverse impact to the resident.
   2. Took reasonable steps to address the complaint handling delays and failures it identified.

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.

The complaint procedure

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 of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The landlord supplied an incomplete document which suggests it is drafting a service charge policy. Its website includes a policy library. From the information seen, it is not clear that the landlord’s part-finished document applied to the period in question.
7. Between October 2023 and early-April 2024 the resident contacted the landlord around 10 times about service charge issues. For example, in February 2024 he supplied it with meter readings. This was because he felt he had been overcharged for communal electricity costs. Overall, it is likely this level of contact was inconvenient for the resident.
8. During this period, the landlord was broadly responsive to the resident’s queries. For example, in late-March 2024 it issued him a revised service charge statement for 2022-23. It said the landlord would credit his account based on information he had provided. It also said the resident could ask for a refund instead. This was a reasonable approach.
9. In his complaint to the landlord, the resident referenced unacceptable increases in some of its actual and estimated service charge costs. He felt there were ongoing errors in its calculations. He used percentages to illustrate his point. He said his monthly payments had been inflated unfairly. He asked the landlord to promptly complete 3 actions (broadly, correct 2 sets of calculations and provide a refund). His comments were understandable.
10. In its stage 1 response, the landlord accepted responsibility for a service failure. It said the resident had been trying to resolve matters since October 2023 without success. It awarded the resident £25 in related compensation for time and trouble. In the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to compensate the resident for his time and trouble.
11. The landlord’s compensation policy includes guidance about proportionate award levels. It shows the landlord can award up to £50 in cases which involve some impact to a resident. It was reasonable for the landlord to follow its guidance. However, given the duration and impact of the delay, it could have awarded more than £25 to address it.
12. In relation to the resident’s requests, the landlord said its complaints team could not respond to these directly. This was on the basis that service charge disputes were governed by separate processes. The landlord did say it could investigate the parties’ related communication and consider its response times. It is noted that service charge complaints can be complex, and many landlords have a specialist service charge team.
13. The landlord said it had consulted its service charge team about the complaint. It also said it had asked this team to respond to the resident’s points. It relayed some related information to him. It said he should direct any follow-up queries to its service charge team. Its response shows it had overestimated the block’s communal electricity costs by around £1,050. Similarly, a credit of £726.38 was still outstanding and the landlord would not process this for several months. The above were significant amounts of money.
14. Ultimately, the landlord did not comply with the resident’s specific requests or fully explain why it had not done this. This was inadequate. It could have listed the resident’s requests in its response, along with its service charge team’s individual replies to these. This would have been a reasonable and proactive approach in the circumstances.
15. In his escalation request, the resident said the landlord had done “nothing to resolve his requested corrections”. He also said the issues had been “going round in circles” with its service charge team. As indicated, he had previously highlighted significant billing issues. His comments suggest the landlord’s limited response added to his distress.
16. The landlord reiterated its previous approach at stage 2. With reference to its complaints policy, it said the resident should contact its service charge team. It supplied information about the team’s response timescales. It said its stage 1 response had acknowledged that the resident received responses outside of these timescales at times. It is noted the landlord did not make any similar comments at stage 1. As a result, there was some inconsistency between its responses. This may have caused confusion for the resident.
17. The landlord’s complaints policy excludes some types of complaint. These include “complaints about rent increases or service charges or their reasonableness”. The landlord’s approach was consistent with its policy. However, the evidence points to problems with its policy. The resident’s complaint broadly related to the landlord’s administration of service charges. The landlord did not address his core complaint.
18. Our insight report on service charges (from December 2023) details various learnings from our casework. It says landlords should have adequate processes in place to ensure there is effective communication between teams about service charge issues.
19. In line with this approach, the landlord could have used its complaints process to ensure that its service charge team responded to the resident’s requests and concerns in full. Ultimately, it missed an opportunity to help him. The landlord’s approach may have reduced its chances of resolving matters satisfactorily through its own internal procedures.
20. The resident updated us following the landlord’s stage 2 response. He said he was mainly concerned about his electricity charges. He felt the issue was simple to resolve. He wanted the landlord to correct its bill in line with the block’s actual (rather than estimated) energy usage. He said his complaint was not about the reasonableness of the charges. This suggests he felt that the landlord had misrepresented his concerns. It is unclear if he had contacted the landlord’s service charge team again at this stage.
21. In June 2025, the landlord reviewed the resident’s complaint. Its review was prompted by our involvement in the case. In related internal correspondence, it said it would amend its final accounts for 2023-24. This was to include an electricity credit of £726.38. This shows a key issue was still ongoing around 14 months after the resident had complained.
22. The landlord contacted the resident at this point. It awarded him another £100 in compensation. It said this was for the length of time it had taken to provide a full response to his service charge queries. The evidence suggests it believed that it should have awarded him more compensation during its internal complaints procedure.
23. While the landlord’s additional compensation was welcome, it was late and stemmed from our intervention. As a result, it cannot be fairly considered part of the landlord’s internal complaints process. We cannot use it to reach a reasonable redress finding.
24. The resident updated us again in October 2025. He told us the landlord had resolved some aspects of his original complaint (relating to other estimated service charges). He also said some of its electricity charges were still incorrect. It is unclear if further issues have arisen since the landlord amended its final accounts. Typically, we can only consider issues that have completed a landlord’s internal complaints process. We have made a recommendation to help the parties progress matters.
25. Overall, the evidence shows the landlord did not fully address the resident’s concerns through its complaints process. It showed a lack of proactivity, and its approach was unreasonable at times. It added to the resident’s distress and missed an opportunity to help him. Its approach may have contributed to the overall duration of the billing issues.
26. The landlord has not recognised the full extent of its failures or the related adverse impact to the resident. The compensation it awarded him during its complaints process (£25 in relation to his substantive complaint) was disproportionate given what went wrong. Given the above, we find there was maladministration by the landlord. It is noted the issues may have stemmed from problems with its complaints policy.
27. To date, the landlord has awarded the resident £125 in related compensation (including its late award in 2025). This level of award is consistent with the moderate impact category in its relevant compensation policy. The evidence suggests this category is relevant in this case. The landlord’s total award is also consistent with our remedies guidance. As a result, we have not ordered it to pay any additional compensation.

28. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (effective April 2024). Unlike its current policy, the landlord’s relevant complaints policy does not mention the Code.
29. The landlord’s relevant policy shows it will log and acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at each stage. At stage 1, it will issue a response within 10 working days after it has sent an acknowledgement. At stage 2, the relevant timescale is 20 working days. If it cannot respond within these timescales, the landlord will agree new response times and keep the resident informed. These provisions are broadly consistent with the Code.
30. In this case, the landlord received the resident’s complaint on 18 April 2024. It issued a stage 1 response on 6 June 2024. This was around 7 weeks later. There is a lack of evidence to show the landlord kept the resident updated during the interim period. Ultimately, the landlord’s approach was not consistent with its policy or the Code.
31. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its response. It rightly awarded the resident some compensation to address it. Its award of £75 was consistent with the moderate impact category in its compensation policy. Given the duration of the delay and its adverse impact to the resident, this was a reasonable category for the landlord to apply.
32. Based on the period between 18 June and 15 October 2024, it took the landlord around 4 months to issue a stage 2 response. It issued the resident several updates during the interim period. However, it departed from its stated policy timescale and the resident was adversely impacted by a significant delay. This was a complaint handling failure.
33. The landlord rightly acknowledged the additional delay at stage 2. In its response, it awarded the resident another £300 in compensation for complaint handling delays. This was consistent with the high impact category in its compensation guidance. This was a reasonable category for the landlord to apply.
34. Overall, the landlord considered its own complaint handling at each stage. Having done so, it took reasonable steps to address the procedural delays and failures it identified. This was appropriate complaint handling. There is no indication it has overlooked any additional failures which adversely impacted the resident. As a result, we find there was reasonable redress by the landlord. In other words, it did enough to put things right.
35. In the previous section, we identified a potential problem with the landlord’s complaints policy. The Code says landlords must have processes in place to ensure that a complaint can be remedied at any stage of its complaints process. This is further evidence that the landlord’s complaints policy may include a flawed approach to service charges.
36. From April 2024 onwards, we have a legal duty to monitor compliance with the Code. Given the above, we have notified our compliance team about the potential issue with the landlord’s policy.

Learning

37. If it awards compensation without addressing a resident’s core complaint, it is unlikely that the landlord will be able to resolve matters. If necessary, it can use its complaints process to direct another team’s interactions with a resident.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

38. The landlord was able to supply key case evidence. Our investigation did not highlight any record keeping issues.

Communication

39. Aspects of the landlord’s complaint communications lacked clarity. The landlord could avoid this by clearly measuring any identified delays in its complaint responses. This will help with its compensation calculations. It will also help to explain its decisions.