The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202212067)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212067

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

31 August 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 request to end her tenancy, including the return of the security deposit.

Background

  1. The resident had an assured periodic tenancy with the landlord that started on 1 December 2013. She paid a security deposit of £1200 at the start of the tenancy to cover any damage. The landlord protected this in a tenancy deposit scheme. The resident informed the landlord verbally on 4 July 2022 of her intention to move home.
  2. On 4 July 2022, the landlord sent the resident a tenancy termination form to complete together with information on the process of leaving. The information booklet explained the resident must give written notice to end the tenancy in accordance with her tenancy agreement. The information recommended the resident look at her tenancy agreement.
  3. The resident signed and returned the termination form on 9 July 2022 and explained to her landlord that she needed to leave by 7 August 2022. The resident signed the form on her own. She asked about the return of the deposit and if she could obtain meter readings for the water and electricity.
  4. The landlord informed the resident on 13 July 2022 that its lettings team would make contact to inform her of the last date of her tenancy and to explain how she could get her deposit back. The landlord informed the resident that she was responsible for obtaining water and electricity meter readings, but it could help with access to the meter cupboards.
  5. On 20 July 2022, the landlord informed the resident that its homes team would be in touch to inform her about the next steps of the process for ending her tenancy. On 26 July 2022, the landlord told the resident to contact the concierge to allow access to the meter cupboards so she could take meter readings.
  6. The landlord further clarified on 27 July 2022 that its surveyor would inspect the property and that following this, it would decide whether it could release the deposit. The landlord told the resident that it would contact the property repairs team to arrange an inspection.
  7. The resident chased the landlord again on 29 July 2022 for the deposit and left the property on 6 August 2022 without the deposit having been repaid. The landlord sent the resident a rent demand on 16 August 2022 for arrears. She complained a day later about a lack of communication and of the landlord’s failure to follow its process.
  8. The landlord informed the resident on 22 August 2022 that the tenancy termination form was missing her husband’s signature and that this had caused a delay in the landlord processing her form. The resident complained about this on 5 September 2022 as well as about receiving rent arrears letters after she had left the property.
  9. The resident was also unhappy that the landlord informed her that she could leave the house keys with the concierge, following which the concierge refused to retain the keys. The resident explained she had contacted her landlord multiple times to see when she would receive her deposit back. The resident also claimed she had to take time off work to chase the landlord and she requested compensation for the alleged service failure, time and trouble, poor complaint handling, poor customer service, and getting into debt.
  10. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaint process on 14 September 2022 stating:
    1. it was sorry for any inconvenience caused to the resident.
    2. normally it required written notice of four weeks signed by all the tenants to end the tenancy but the form the resident submitted in July 2022 only had her signature on it.
    3. as it had not been clear with the resident, it accepted the verbal notice to quit on 4 July 2022 with the last day of the tenancy as 7 August 2022.
    4. it inspected on 13 September 2022, and it would consider if it could return the deposit. It indicated that it usually takes 3 weeks for the return of any deposit after an inspection.
    5. it sent the letters demanding payment for arrears in error and the resident was not responsible for rent after 7 August 2022.
    6. it would ask that the resident not be sent further rent demands for rent arrears before this date.
    7. it upheld the resident’s complaint and offered compensation of £25 for its service failure. It accepted there had been a lack of communication from the lettings team about the return of the deposit and that the communication from its contact centre had sometimes been below standard.
  11. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 16 September 2022.
  12. By October 2022, the landlord established that the resident owed outstanding rent for the period 1 to 7 August 2022 amounting to £306.36. It also established that the property was damaged and required redecoration and a new carpet costing £1341.
  13. On 19 October 2022, the landlord issued a stage 2 response stating:
    1. it accepted it could have done a more thorough review at stage 1. For example, it believed it could have overseen the problems the resident experienced regarding the delay in processing the notice to quit, the confusion over dropping off the keys, and meter readings, in addition to the letters the resident received about rent arrears.
    2. it accepted that its delay in assessing the property condition led to a delay in returning the deposit to the resident at the end of the tenancy.
    3. it explained that the delay in the landlord inspecting the property was because it gave the resident incorrect instructions to leave the property keys with the concierge.
    4. it should have arranged an inspection at the property at the end of the tenancy.
    5. it upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £175 compensation (including the £25 offered at stage 1). This included a further £150 for its service failure, poor complaint handling, and time and trouble.
  14. The landlord further contacted the resident on 18 May 2023, after the internal complaints process had ended, and stated:
    1. it would arrange for the return of the resident’s full deposit of £1200 and it agreed to waive the outstanding rent of £306.36 in addition to the compensation of £175 previously awarded.
    2. it explained that its process for returning a deposit was for a repairs officer to inspect the property to see if there was any damage. If the landlord identified any damage, then the officer would discuss with the resident the amount of the deposit the landlord should return.
    3. it noted that the inspection did not occur before the resident left the property due to its error and that it failed to follow the inspection procedures. This was because the repairs officer did not list which damage the resident caused and which damage was attributable to wear and tear.
    4. it explained that the delay in returning the deposit was due to a disagreement over how it should proceed and whether to return the deposit in full or in part.
  15. The landlord returned the deposit to the resident in May 2023. The resident refused the landlord’s offer on 2 June 2023 on the basis that she felt that the compensation was insufficient and requested this service investigate.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the termination of tenancy request

  1. It was reasonable of the landlord to send the resident a tenancy termination form, letter, and information booklet on 4 July 2022. This provided the resident with useful information about ending her tenancy.
  2. It is unclear whether the resident read this booklet as she asked her landlord on 9 July 2022 what her last date would be, how and when it would return her deposit, and about meter readings. The landlord’s information booklet addressed all these issues, and it would have been reasonable for the resident to have read it.
  3. It was also open to and the responsibility of the resident to consider the terms of her tenancy agreement. Clause 1.4 of the resident’s agreement outlines the circumstances in which a landlord may withhold a deposit or part of it. Clause 3.30 explains the need for the resident to give one month’s written notice and on the date it must expire. Clause 3.33 of the agreement explains the obligations on moving out. It is reasonable for landlords to expect residents to consider agreements a resident has entered.
  4. However, this service notes that in July 2022 the landlord promised to provide the resident with information on the last day of her tenancy, her rent and how she could get her deposit back. It also agreed to arrange for a surveyor to come out to inspect the property.
  5. It was reasonable for the resident to expect her landlord to get back to her about the tenancy end date, to cancel her rent payment and to arrange an inspection given the promises made to her. Despite this, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted her to address any of her questions before she left the property. This was an unreasonable failure to follow its process and its promises which caused the resident undue stress and anxiety.
  6. The landlord did explain to the resident that she needed to take meter readings herself and informed her on 26 July 2022 that the concierge could allow access to the meters. The information and support the landlord offered to allow the resident to take meter readings was satisfactory.
  7. However, the landlord’s delay in arranging an inspection was far from satisfactory. In August 2022, the resident left the keys with the concierge at the property and the landlord requested an inspection in the previous month. Despite this, the evidence shows that the landlord had not arranged an inspection of the property until 13 September 2022, and this was without the resident. The landlord accepted that it provided the resident with incorrect information about the keys and that this caused a delay in the inspection.
  8. It was also unreasonable for the landlord to send the resident demands for arrears threatening legal action. This was unacceptable given that it promised her on 20 July 2022 that the available homes team would contact her about her rent. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have contacted the resident to discuss the situation before sending a formal rent demand threatening legal action. Had it done this it would have become aware that the resident had understood her tenancy had ended and that no rent was due.
  9. The landlord, having received the notice on 9 July 2022, failed to progress it until 22 August 2022 because only one of the residents had signed the termination of tenancy. This was 44 days after the resident submitted the form. It is clear from the information booklet accompanying the notice sent to the resident that it expected all residents to sign the form.
  10. The failure of the landlord to identify that only one resident had signed was unreasonable. The landlord only identified this after the resident chased her landlord. This form also contradicts the information provided by the landlord in its information booklet as it states that signing the form by one tenant ends the rights of all those named on the tenancy. This conflict could potentially have caused confusion.
  11. In a joint tenancy, where there are two or more tenants, if one tenant serves a valid notice then this will end the tenancy for all tenants. However, the landlord’s processes did not reflect this.

The landlord’s handling of the request to return the deposit

  1. The landlord was required to inspect the property to assess whether it could return any deposit. If there was any dispute between the landlord and resident about the return of the deposit, then this should have been resolved through the processes set out in the deposit protection scheme. The landlord has not provided evidence to this investigation to show what communications it had with this scheme.
  2. However, what is clear is that the landlord’s inspection of the property was flawed because the resident was unable to participate and because the repairs officer failed to note what damage was attributable to the resident. The landlord deprived the resident of the opportunity to comment on or challenge any damage identified during the inspection process. Given this serious failure to follow procedure, with the inherent unfairness caused to the resident, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer to return the deposit to the resident in full.
  3. The landlord should have returned the deposit during the complaints process but failed to and this was unreasonable. It was aware that the inspection was defective, and it would have been unfair therefore to withhold the deposit. The landlord’s failure to reach an agreement with the resident over the return of her deposit caused her stress, and anxiety and involved her in time and trouble chasing it.

Remedies

  1. Overall, the landlord’s offer of redress put the resident back into the position she would have been in. Specifically, it amended the tenancy end date, returned the deposit and wrote off the alleged arrears. It also offered £175 compensation for its poor handling of the matter. This was, however, delayed. This redress ought to have been offered to the resident during the complaint procedure in October 2022. For this reason, the landlord was at fault.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to end her tenancy, including the return of the security deposit. This is primarily due to the length of time it took the landlord to put its errors right until May 2023.

Orders

  1. The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. return the resident’s full deposit to her, free from any deductions;
    2. pay the resident the £175 compensation it offered her during the complaint procedure;
    3. write to the resident to confirm that no rent is owed for the property; and
    4. pay the resident an additional £300 for the delay in putting things right.

 

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. provide residents with a direct contact for its lettings team.
    2. review how it processes notices to quit from joint tenants and the advice it offers residents. This is to ensure these comply with the law.
    3. introduce checks to ensure inspections are conducted at the start, during, and at the end of a tenancy, with residents present to identify any damage.