Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202118823)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118823

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

16 October 2023

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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the management fee.

Jurisdiction

2. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint about the level of the management fee charged between the financial years 2016 to 2019 is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate. This is in accordance with paragraphs 42c and 42e of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.

Summary of events

4. At the time the complaint was made, the resident was a shared owner of the property. The resident staircased to become a leaseholder in early 2022.
5. The resident complained on 27 May 2021 about the landlord’s lack of management of his property. The resident explained he was disappointed by the service that he had received over the past ten years. He advised that the landlord had acknowledged the poor service he had received during the financial year 2017/2018 by refunding the management fee for that year. However, the management fee service charge account was in arrears as he was waiting for the landlord to award the further compensation that he was owed.
6. The resident also explained that he had requested the refund of the management fee as he had received a poor service from the landlord and the current property manager had failed to respond to his communication.
7. The landlord sent its complaint response on 21 June 2021, informing the resident that it could not find a failure in its service delivery. It explained that its investigation had shown that its staff had communicated with him and it had actioned the repairs he had raised.
8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response and escalated his complaint on 23 June 2021. Among other things, the resident informed the landlord that his dissatisfaction with their services went back to 2016 and remained unresolved. He advised that he had received a refund of the management fee for the financial year 2017/2018. However, he was disputing the management fee that was charged for the financial years 2016/ 2017 to 2019/2020. The resident went on to explain that, during the previous year, he had raised a dispute about the management fee to the landlord. The landlord had accepted that he had not received support and apologised but had not applied the refund of the management fee to his service charge account.
9. The landlord informed the resident on 30 June 2021 that it would not investigate his complaint about the refund of the management fee for the financial years 2016/2017 to 2019/2020. The landlord explained that the resident had taken too long to raise his concerns. As an alternative, the landlord informed the resident that he may be able to raise a service charge dispute if he had not received the services he had paid for. Again, the landlord explained that as the resident’s concerns related to services provided five years prior, the service charge dispute may not be accepted.
10. On 10 September 2021, the landlord provided its final complaint response. It advised that it had checked and it did not have any evidence that there was an agreement to refund the management fee for the disputed period of the financial years 2016 to 2019.
11. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to this Service.

Reasons

12. Paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not bought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matter arising.
13. The resident’s dissatisfaction relates to services provided by the landlord over the past ten years, more specifically between the financial years 2016/2017 to 2019/2020. This matter was therefore raised beyond the reasonable timescale set out in the Scheme given the complaint about the refunding of the management fee was made to the landlord on 21 May 2021. Also, there is no evidence that the resident had made a formal complaint to the landlord (about the management fee between 2016 to 2019) that had exhausted its complaint process or that such a complaint had been escalated to this Service.
14. Furthermore, paragraph 42e of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
15. The First Tier Tribunal assesses residents’ liability to pay service charges, including the management fee. It would consider the reasonableness of the service charges that have been applied to the resident’s account for the management of his lease.