Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202117995)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117995

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

18 January 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 resident has complained about:
   1. The landlord’s response to queries regarding the level and administration of the service charges.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the formal complaints process.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is an assured tenant of a 3-bedroom flat in a block owned by the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 11 May 2017 and is for a fixed term tenancy of 5 years. The resident lives with her partner and three children, one of whom is vulnerable. The flat is situated in a large block of rented accommodation (109 homes) sharing facilities with a smaller block housing leaseholders and shared owners.
3. The tenancy agreement sets out that an Affordable Rent is charged, a part of which includes a fixed service charge. At the time the tenancy agreement was signed the rent level was £208.67 per week, inclusive of the service charge, which was £60.49.
4. The services on the estate are delivered via a managing agent.
5. The resident requested details as to the services that were provided and the apportionment between the blocks. The landlord requested this information from the managing agents and on 18 May 2020 forwarded the anticipated charges provided for 1 October 2020 – 30 September 2021. This included headings for each element of the charge and the overall costs that the landlord would be liable for between the two blocks.
6. Following receipt of the anticipated charges the resident queried how some of these charges applied to residents in her block, raised concerns that social tenants were subsidising the cost of a car park for the benefit of the leaseholders/shared owners who were allowed to park there, and queried the charges for the concierge service in her email of 18 May 2020.  She also expressed her dissatisfaction with the charge for maintaining the communal areas. She expressed surprise that there was no specific service charge officer dealing with the issue and stated that she had no legal relationship with the managing agent.
7. The landlord’s final response confirmed that service charges were apportioned by the managing agents depending upon the floor space of each block and number of residents. The contribution from the resident’s block was therefore roughly 80.5% whereas the neighbouring leasehold/shared owner block contributed roughly 19.5%. The landlord confirmed that this reflected the size of each block and the number of homes. It was satisfied that this was a fair method of allocating costs.
8. In relation to the specific queries raised by the resident the landlord confirmed the following:
   1.  The managing agents had a concierge office on site, a two-minute walk from the property and were available 24 hours a day.
   2. The car park charge related to the bike stores were available to the residents in the block and were located in the car park.
   3. The property was due to be redecorated sometime after July 2021. The resident was asked to report any graffiti immediately to the housing officer.
   4. In terms of communal areas, the landlord confirmed that the lifts and lobby were cleaned twice a day, four floors were vacuumed each day, the bin stores were cleaned daily, and jet washed once a week
   5. Residents also contributed to the cleaning and upkeep of the playground and communal garden.
9. In response to the resident’s concerns regarding the transparency of the service charge the landlord provided details of the checks undertaken by the housing officer and explained that the residents at the block had affordable rent tenancies. This meant that the service charge formed part of the rent and there was no separation. The overall rent level would increase or decrease in line with rent policy. The rent level was not impacted by variations in service charges.
10. The landlord recognised that it had taken too long for it to supply the requested information and that the resident had had to go to some length to obtain this. It therefore upheld the complaint, provided an apology, and offered £50 as redress for the time and trouble the resident had spent.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. A further complaint has been raised regarding the lift at the property. This matter formed part of a separate complaint made to the landlord and has not formed part of this investigation.
12. Our position is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) provides that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Thus, the resident may wish to refer this matter to this Service if she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the issue after its complaints process has been exhausted.

Service charge queries and complaint handling

13. The resident believes that the information provided regarding the service charge lacked sufficient detail and was not transparent. She also questioned whether the residents benefit from all of the items they pay for, in particular, the car park. She has stated that she is aware of instances where managing agents have charged for services that were provided and have accepted and repaid for errors years later.
14. As the landlord has explained, the service charge paid by the resident forms part of the overall rent, it does not vary according to the cost of providing the services. It does not therefore meet the definition of a service charge under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the provisions regarding reasonableness and the provision of information do not apply.
15. The overall rent level, inclusive of the service charge, can only be increased in line with government policy and in accordance with Rent Standard set by the Regulator of Social Housing. This is very different from a variable service charge which is amended over the course of the year to reflect the actual cost of providing a service.  Any deficit or credit will not therefore be paid by, or to, the resident, nor is there any obligation on the resident to contribute towards major works or sinking funds via the service charge. In addition, as an Affordable Rent, the overall total of the rent (inclusive of service charge) cannot exceed 80% of the market rent.
16. The resident’s expectations regarding the level of information the landlord should provide appears to relate to a variable service charge rather than the more limited charge fixed as part of the rent. The landlord did respond to the resident’s queries and provided details from its managing agents showing the areas of expenditure and services that the managing agent provided. It explained how the charges were apportioned between the blocks, why the car park and communal areas were included. It did therefore take appropriate action to answer each of the resident’s queries. The information that the landlord provided to answer the resident’s query was therefore fair in the circumstances.
17. The landlord accepted that it was slow to provide this information and that the resident had to pursue the matter on a number of occasions and make a complaint in order to receive the information. It accepted that this was not reasonable. From the correspondence provided the resident made a number of enquiries from May to July 2020. A complaint was then made in March 2021 and a response was given in the same month. The landlord offered £50 compensation. The landlord has therefore dealt with this matter fairly and has acknowledged and apologised for its initial failings.
18. From the foregoing, this Service concludes that the landlord, by its actions, has made efforts to put things right with respect to the handling of the complaint and in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.

Determination (decision)

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its response to queries regarding the level and administration of the service charges.
20. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily in relation to the handling of the formal complaints process.

Recommendations

21. That the landlord makes appropriate enquiries and ensures its records are up to date regarding the family and accurately reflects the vulnerability of one of the children.