Moat Homes Limited (202421788)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421788

Moat Homes Limited

18 August 2025

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of concerns regarding the condition of the property when let and its delivery of repairs.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 3-bedroom semi-detached house. She lives there with her children. The landlord has told us it is aware both the resident and her children have vulnerabilities.
The resident moved into the property on 31 July 2023 and reported several repairs to the landlord.
On 8 August 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She said she was unhappy with the condition of the property when she moved in and the issues she reported had not been resolved. On 15 August 2023 the resident informed the landlord she had paid a contractor to carry out some repairs.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 21 August 2023 and apologised for its service failures. It said jobs had been raised to address the outstanding issues and it would consider compensation upon receipt of the invoices for the works carried out.
The resident escalated her complaint on 29 September 2023 and said some of the repairs remained outstanding. On 24 October 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It confirmed the outstanding repairs had been arranged and again requested copies of the resident’s invoices so it could consider compensating her.
On 27 August 2024 the landlord offered the resident £6,258.90 compensation. The resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to us.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In her correspondence with us, the resident has raised other repair matters that have not yet been through the landlord’s complaint process. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 24 October 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before we become involved.
The resident has informed us how the issues have impacted her family’s health. Where we find failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, complaints about personal injury are better dealt with by the courts because they will often have the benefit of an independent medical expert who can give evidence on the diagnosis, prognosis and expert opinion on the cause of any injury. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or personal injury.

Condition of property and repairs

The landlord completed an inspection of the vacant property on 19 January 2023. Its notes only recorded additional fencing was needed at the front. An electrical inspection and gas inspection were completed in March and June 2023. On 2 June 2023 the landlord completed a further inspection of the property. The extent of the inspection as defined by the landlord’s processes, did not require it to inspect the loft space of the property. Its report noted the property was in generally good condition, but a few repairs were needed. These included:
1. Overhaul or replace bathroom extractor fan.
2. Repair garden gates.
3. Remove rubbish from rear garden.
Void properties are those which are vacant, awaiting a new tenant. The landlord’s voids management policy states it will identify and carry out all repairs needed in order to achieve its lettable standard. It will also ensure properties are issued with electric and gas safety certificates prior to being let.
The evidence shows the landlord obtained the relevant certification and inspected the property in line with its policy. However, the landlord has been unable to provide evidence the identified repairs were completed prior to the property being let. In the absence of this evidence, we are unable to conclude the landlord acted in line with its policy.
The resident moved into the property on 31 July 2023. On the same day, she reported to the landlord:
1. The contractors had left rubbish at the property that needed to be cleared.
2. The driveway was blocked off by a fence and she was unable to use it.
On 7 August 2023 the resident reported further issues to the landlord which were:
1. The loft space was infested by wasps due to a hole in the roof.
2. Holes in the living room wall.
3. The bathroom wallpaper was coming off.
4. A crack in the stair tread and a door frame.
5. The back fence and gate needed to be repaired.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for repairing the exterior and structure of the property. Its website clarifies it is also responsible for repairs to internal walls and doors. The landlord’s policies do not refer to responsibilities for dealing with pest infestations or fencing. The landlord raised a job to complete the repairs the same day.
The resident has told us that upon removing the wallpaper in the bathroom and living room, holes were visible in the walls. This suggests these repairs would not have been noticeable when the landlord conducted its void inspections. Due to the extent of those inspections, the landlord would also have been unaware of the issues in the loft. However, the landlord had previously inspected the fencing. Its failure to complete the repairs to the gate prior to the resident moving in was unreasonable as this repair should have completed under its voids policy.
On 8 August 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about the condition of the property when it was let. She said was having difficulty contacting the landlord about the issues she was facing and wanted the repairs completed. The landlord contacted the resident the following day to discuss her complaint.
On 14 August 2023 pest control attended and removed the wasps’ nest from the loft. The landlord does not have a pest policy by which to assess the reasonableness of its response time. However, its response time for routine repairs is set at 21 days. Based on the circumstances, the landlord’s response was within 7 days of the wasps’ nest being reported and was reasonable.
On 15 August 2023 the landlord visited the resident’s property to discuss her complaint. The resident told it she had paid a contractor to complete some repairs in her property that had already been reported, such as the plastering. The resident also said additional repairs had been completed such as the installation of 3 new radiators. Three days later the resident told the landlord she had spent more money on repairs, totalling £6,700. It is unclear what date these repairs took place.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states it is her responsibility to promptly report any repair or defect for which the landlord is responsible. A landlord is only obligated to act when it is made aware of a repair and cannot be held responsible for repairs it is unaware of. Furthermore, at the point the resident’s contractor completed the repairs, the landlord had not gone over the timescale set out in its repairs policy.
On 18 August 2023 the resident reported she was unable to fit her gas oven. The landlord attended the property 5 days later and identified a part needed to be ordered. The repair was completed 22 days later. This was just outside of the landlord’s policy timescales. The landlord issued the resident with a £50 supermarket voucher to help her with costs.
The landlord attended the property on 19 August 2023 and completed some of the works it had previously raised. This included the rubbish removal, sealing a gap in the roof, and some timber work. The rubbish removal had been identified in the landlord’s earlier inspection. Its failure to complete this prior to the resident moving in was unreasonable. The repairs to the roof and timber were completed in line with the landlord’s policy timescales. There is no evidence the landlord completed the repairs to the gates, despite identifying the repair 2 months earlier. This was unreasonable.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 21 August 2023 and said:
1. It was sorry for the lack of contact regarding her ongoing issues.
2. It would apply 2 weeks rent credit to her account and would send her decorating vouchers.
3. It had arranged for the rubbish to be removed and the roof to be repaired.
4. It would remove the fence that was blocking her driveway, and it was waiting for a quote from its contractor.
5. It would arrange for a further property inspection to be completed.
6. It understood the resident has spent money on completing repairs and it would consider compensation if she could provide them with receipts of the money spent.
The resident contacted the landlord on 24 August 2023 and said the impact of the ongoing repairs was affecting her mental health and she felt suicidal. The landlord offered the resident emergency intervention which she declined. The resident informed the landlord on 31 August 2023 she was not living at the property. It is unclear from the documentation provided how long the resident was away from the property or the steps the landlord took to find out why she felt she could not live there. However, the evidence shows the landlord made wellbeing calls to the resident in the following weeks.
On 1 September 2023 the resident told the landlord the wasps had returned as there were further holes in the roof. Pest control attended the property 5 days later and noted there was no sign of wasps in the loft. This was a reasonable response time. The landlord inspected the roof the following week. The roof inspection was in line with its policy timescales. The job was closed as completed but there were no job notes to document the results of the inspection.
On 9 September 2023 the landlord raised a job to inspect the faulty extractor fan in the bathroom. This was previously identified as a repair during the landlord’s inspection in June 2023. This strongly suggests the repair was not attended before the resident moved in. The fan was replaced the following month, 4 months after the landlord became aware of the need for a replacement. The time taken to resolve the issue was outside of its policy timescales and unreasonable.
On 29 September 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. She said the roof and fencing repairs were still outstanding.
The landlord carried out a visit to the resident’s property on 16 October 2023. The visit was scheduled to take place earlier in the month but was rearranged at the resident’s request. The landlord’s notes recorded during the visit that the resident showed it pictures of gaps in the roof where daylight was visible. This suggests the landlord’s previous loft inspection was ineffective. The landlord raised a further inspection of the roof.
The landlord completed a further inspection of the property the following day and noted the work the resident’s contractor had completed. The inspection did not identify any further repairs.
Between raising her complaint and the landlord issuing its stage 2 response, the resident reported several additional repairs that were not apparent when the resident moved into the property in July 2023. These repairs included a problem with the boiler, a leak from the bathroom, low water pressure and problems with the upstairs doors. It is reasonable to assume these repairs were either not observed or did not present during the landlord’s pre-let inspections. However, the evidence shows the additional repairs were subsequently completed in line with the landlord’s repairs policy after they were reported.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 24 October 2023. It apologised again for the service failures caused and said:
1. A further repair had been raised to address the light coming through the tiles in the roof. Its contractor would arrange the repair directly with the resident.
2. It was waiting for a copy of the invoice from the resident’s contractor before calculating the compensation owed.
The landlord’s contractor completed the repairs to the roof on 13 November 2023. This was 2 months after the landlord had first been made aware there were further problems with the roof and was outside of the timescales set out in its repairs policy. It was 3 months since the resident first reported issues with holes in the roof that had allowed pests to enter the roof space. The amount of time taken to fully resolve the issue was unreasonable.
The removal of the fencing from the driveway was completed on 4 December 2023. This was 4 months after the resident raised the issue. The resident told us she has limited mobility and needed access to her driveway. Based on the description of the works being to remove a fixture from the grounds of the property, rather than mend something that had fallen into disrepair, it is reasonable to assume the works to the fence were an adaption request rather than a repair.
The landlord’s adaptions policy is silent on timescales in which it will complete work. Given the nature of the work involved, the landlord’s need to obtain quotes, and the works being carried out by a third party, the time taken to complete this work was reasonable.
The repairs to the rear fence and gate were completed on 6 December 2023. This was 6 months after the landlord identified the issue with the gate during its inspection and 4 months after the resident reported problems with the fence. This was outside of the timescales set out in its repair policy and was unreasonable.
The landlord clearly stated in both complaint responses it would consider compensation, but it needed proof of the money spent by the resident. The resident provided the landlord with an invoice dated 6 December 2023 which was for £5,258.90. It is unclear when this was provided to the landlord. The invoice contained only a brief overview of the works carried out and a total cost.
The evidence shows the landlord repeatedly asked the resident for a detailed breakdown of the costs from her contractor during the following 6 months. The landlord is obligated to provide value for money to its tenants with its services and to protect against the potential risk of fraud. Therefore, it was a reasonable request for the landlord to request a breakdown of the works conducted for the amount of money the resident stated had been spent, if the expectation was that it would repay the funds.
On 27 August 2024 the landlord made its offer of compensation to the resident, based on the invoice she had previously provided. It offered the resident a total of £6,258.90 compensation, made up of:
1. £5,258.90 to fully reimburse the invoice provided by the resident.
2. £500 for inconvenience.
3. £500 for delays to the repairs.
The landlord’s compensation policy states an award of up to £500 may be appropriate to remedy high levels of service failure where there has been an extended period of inconvenience for the resident. The policy allows compensation for delays at £10 per week up to a maximum of £50.
The landlord’s compensation offer for inconvenience was the highest its policy could award. Its offer for delays was above the amount recommended in its policy. The landlord also reimbursed the invoice in full, which contained repairs it had not been made aware of. In these circumstances the landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable to the extent it went beyond its obligations.
The landlord has told us it has taken learning from this case. It identified its inspection form was ineffective. The landlord is in the process of creating a new inspection form that is more explicit about the requirements a property must reach to meet the lettable standard.
In summary, the evidence shows the landlord’s pre-let inspection was ineffective. It failed to identify the problems with the loft and roof, and when it did identify repairs, some of these were not completed before the resident moved in. This caused the resident inconvenience, time, and trouble, in having to repeatedly report issues.
The evidence shows the resident reported many repairs during the first 4 months of her tenancy. This caused the resident distress which was evident in her communications with the landlord. Some of the repairs could have been negated by a more thorough pre-let inspection and the landlord has taken learning from the case and subsequently recognised this. Other repairs could not have been identified at an earlier stage. When the landlord was informed of these repairs, in the main, it responded within its policy timescales.
However, there were delays in completing repairs to the fence, gate, and extractor fan. Furthermore, an ineffective inspection of the roof in September 2023 led to delays in those repairs being completed also.
The evidence shows the landlord offered support to the resident throughout the complaints process, in addition to the compensation it awarded. This included multiple vouchers for decoration and food, 2 weeks rent credit, and referrals to support agencies for financial and wellbeing help. The landlord’s approach demonstrated its commitment to supporting the resident while it resolved the outstanding issues.
In relation to the failures identified, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes, as well as our guidance on remedies.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies suggests that an award of £1,000 compensation may remedy failings that had significant impact on the resident.
It is unusual for the Ombudsman to consider reasonable redress for offers of compensation made outside of the landlord’s internal complaint process. However, on this occasion the landlord:
1. Apologised for the mistakes that were made.
2. Proactively reviewed the resident’s complaint following receipt of the resident’s invoice.
3. Reviewed its compensation offer.
4. Reimbursed the resident in full for the invoice she submitted, despite the lack of itemisation upon which it was reasonable to expect.
5. Demonstrated learning from the complaint by putting in place measures to ensure the same mistakes would not be repeated.
These exceptional circumstances lead to a determination of reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of concerns regarding the condition of the property when let, and its delivery of repairs. This means its offer of redress satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of concerns regarding the condition of the property when let, and its delivery of repairs.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident £6,258.90 compensation it offered in its complaint responses if it has not done so already.