Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) — case 202322016

Decision Case ID 202322016 Decision type Investigation Landlord Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Shared Ownership Date 20 February 2026 Background The resident lives in flat. She complained about the landlord’s handling of service charges saying it failed to provide full supporting documents and invoices for the 2021/22 accounts. She also felt it issued incorrect and duplicate costs, overcharged for several services and did not consult leaseholders on long‑term agreements.

What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the: Resident’s concerns about service charges. Complaint. Our decision (determination) We found there was maladministration the landlord’s handling of the: Resident’s concerns about service charges. Complaint. Summary of reasons Service charges The landlord only carried out a full review of the case and offered an appropriate remedy after the resident had exhausted its complaints process and the case was brought to us.

Complaint handling The landlord did not offer a suitable remedy within its complaints process, only doing so after the resident came to us. 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. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident the £75 offered in its 13 March 2023 stage 1 response, if it has not done so already.

This must be paid directly to the resident and the landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment. No later than 20 March 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations The landlord should respond to the resident’s concerns about a potential overcharge in the 2021/22 accounts relating to the long‑term cleaning and insurance contracts. It should provide a clear written explanation of its decision and confirm whether any adjustment is due.

The landlord should carry out a review of service charges from 2023/24 to present and ensure the accounts are accurate. It should remedy any discrepancies and update the resident accordingly. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 19 December 2022 The resident complained that the landlord did not provide full supporting documents for the 2021/22 accounts, saying invoices were missing, disordered, or wrongly dated. She also reported overcharges for services and felt the landlord did not consult leaseholders.

13 March 2023 The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It apologised for not responding to her queries. It confirmed that the 2021/22 accounts showed an adjustment. It acknowledged poor communication and complaint handling, and awarded £75 compensation made of £25 for the delay in responding to her queries, £25 for time and trouble and £25 for poor complaint handling. 13 March 2023 The resident asked to escalate the complaint saying the landlord did not address all her points.

24 March 2023 The landlord issued its final stage 2 response. It said it followed its processes by consulting relevant teams, and noted service charge disputes fell outside the complaints process. It said there was no service failure in how the complaint itself was managed and therefore did not uphold it. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident told us the landlord withheld the 2021/22 service charge invoices and, when provided, they contained errors. She said the landlord did not correct these, failed to consult on long‑term cleaning, gardening and insurance contracts, and charged for services not delivered.

She believed she was overcharged and costs were not explained. She wanted corrections to the service charge accounts. 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. Complaint The resident’s concerns about service charges Finding Maladministration What we’ve not considered The resident felt that, because some services were missing or not carried out properly, some costs were unreasonable.

We will not usually consider complaints about the amount or reasonableness of service charges. If a resident wants to challenge the amount or recover variable service charges, they should consider taking their dispute to The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). However, we can consider how a landlord has handled the administration of the service charges. This includes whether it responded to the resident’s queries, gave enough information to explain the charges, and informed the resident of their options if they remained unhappy.

What we’ve considered The resident complained that the landlord failed to provide supporting documents for the 2021/22 service charge accounts, and that some costs were duplicated, inaccurate or overcharged. She later raised concerns about a lack of consultation on long‑term agreements. In response, the landlord said it had contacted her and adjusted her service charge account. It upheld the delays in responding to her queries and awarded compensation. However, at stage 2 it said service charge matters were excluded from its complaints policy and relied heavily on this exclusion to avoid addressing the wider complaint.

The resident told us her concerns largely centred around a lack of required consultation for long‑term agreements, which she believed limited recoverable costs. She also argued that given the estate’s small size, the landlord should have effective oversight of invoices and service charge records. Good practice requires landlords to explain charges, evidence costs, correct errors and provide requested service charge documents promptly. In this case, the landlord failed to do so.

It misapplied its complaints policy by treating all service charge issues as excluded, despite the resident challenging administrative failings rather than the level of charges. In May 2022, the resident reported that cleaners were not carrying out works. She requested invoices and explanations of charges in June 2022. The landlord did not appear to provide copies of invoices promptly missing the one‑month statutory aim to provide these. When provided, the resident said the documents lacked supporting invoices and appeared incomplete.

Several concerns – including duplicate charges – were left unanswered, despite repeated chasing. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not fully address the complaint and appeared dismissive. This caused distress and led to resident pursuing a new complaint and approaching us causing time and trouble. The delays and lack of comprehensive responses caused avoidable inconvenience. Although the landlord apologised and offered compensation, this was not proportionate to the detriment.

The resident said she continued to experience similar issues in later years, indicating persistent service charge management problems. The landlord undertook a review in August 2024. It acknowledged it had not properly addressed concerns about duplicate charges, identified learning around systems and staffing, and paid a further £300. However, this review took place more than a year after its final response and only occurred after our involvement. As the landlord did not fully identify its failings nor offer suitable remedies during its own process, we find maladministration.

While we are satisfied the latest redress offer is fair, the handling of this case demonstrates learning points. We have seen that the landlord paid this £300 compensation in late August 2024, however the landlord told us the compensation awarded at stage 2 has not been paid. An order has been made. In February 2026, the landlord said there were no outstanding issues with the 2021/22 service charge accounts. The resident accepted that some expenses had been refunded but still believes the estate was overcharged because the landlord did not consult on the long‑term cleaning and insurance contracts.

She said a credit of £44.25 was still due for the 2021/22 accounts. She also reported similar problem for 2023/24 service charge accounts. In view of this, we have made recommendations. Complaint Handling of the complaint Finding Maladministration The landlord operates a 2‑stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days, and provide a stage 2 response within 20 days after escalation. If delays were anticipated, it should have informed the resident at the earliest opportunity, explained the reason, and provided a revised timescale.

Its complaints policy complied with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The resident complained on 19 December 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint late, only doing so in January 2023 after the resident chased. It notified her of delays to the stage 1 response on 8 March 2023, but this was already well outside its 10 working day policy timescale. It then issued the stage 1 response on 13 March 2023 – over 50 working days late. After the resident escalated the matter, the landlord issued its stage 2 response within its policy timescales.

The landlord apologised for its complaint handling failures and offered £25 compensation, but this did not adequately reflect the delay or the additional time and effort the resident spent pursuing a response. Its failure to follow its policy and the Code, caused inconvenience and required extra effort from the resident who made a further complaint to the landlord in June 2023. In August 2024, the landlord told us that, as part of a further review, it also paid an additional £150 for its poor complaint handling.

It also identified learning from the complaint and outlined steps to improve, including refresher training, increased staffing, and regular best‑practice reviews to strengthen case management and communication. This remedy should have been offered at stage 2. By not doing so, the landlord caused further inconvenience and additional time and trouble for the resident, who then approached us. Although late, the landlord eventually put right its complaint handling errors. We consider it has now made a reasonable offer of compensation in line with our remedies guidance.

However, the adverse finding in this case should support its future learning. Learning The landlord did not review the information it held in response to the resident’s concerns and did not comprehensively address all points raised in her complaint. This limited its ability to identify discrepancies or provide reassurance. The landlord should clearly explain its actions, give timely updates, and provide transparent information on how charges are calculated. It should respond to every complaint point and avoid partial or dismissive replies.

Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord’s record keeping appeared broadly satisfactory, but should strengthen systems to ensure invoices and supporting documents are complete, accurate, easily retrievable, and supplied within statutory timeframes. Communication The landlord’s communication was poor. It failed to respond on more than one occasion. Better communication could have reassured the resident that her concerns were taken seriously. The landlord should review our Spotlight report on complaint handling.

The report highlights how delays, poor communication, and lack of ownership can escalate issues and stresses the need for clear accountability, timely responses, and proactive engagement. The landlord must also distinguish challenges to the level of service charges from complaints about administration, errors, delays, missing evidence, or duplication.