From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Moat Homes Limited (202418213)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202418213

Moat Homes Limited

8 September 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of kitchen repairs.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom maisonette. She has lived there since July 2018 with her children.
  2. On 30 October 2023 the resident reported her kitchen ceiling and wall had started to bubble. She chased the repair on 8 January 2024. The landlord inspected the property on 16 January 2024 and identified a specialist contractor was needed.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 3 April 2024. She said she was frustrated she had to chase the repair and was unhappy with the landlord’s communication.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 17 April 2024 and apologised for the delays in completing the repairs. It said it had arranged for the kitchen ceiling to be replaced in May 2024. The landlord said it would look at compensation once the repairs had been completed.
  5. On 10 July 2024 the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 4 September 2024. It said it had found failings in its communication and delivery of repairs and offered the resident £500 compensation. It also offered £50 compensation for a minor delay in the stage 2 response.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to us. The resident said to resolve the complaint she wanted the compensation to be increased and for the works to the ceiling to be further inspected.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In her correspondence with us, the resident has raised other 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 4 September 2024. 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.
  2. The resident has informed us how the issues have impacted her health and her finances. Where we find failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, complaints about personal injury or loss of income are better dealt with by the courts. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts, personal injury, or loss of income.

Repairs to the kitchen

  1. On 30 October 2023 the resident reported her kitchen ceiling and wall had started to “bubble” and she was concerned it would deteriorate. The resident chased the repair request on 8 January 2024. The landlord attended the property on 16 January 2024 and noted the works needed to be referred to a specialist contractor.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out the repair responsibilities. The agreement states the landlord is responsible for the structure of the property. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will complete all non-emergency repairs within 21 days.
  3. The landlord attended the resident’s property 78 days after she reported the issue. This was outside of the timescales set out in its policy and unreasonable.
  4. On 3 April 2024 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She said she was frustrated by the lack of communication received from it and she had to repeatedly chase the repair.
  5. The landlord raised for the works to be undertaken with its asbestos contractor on 10 April 2024. This was almost 3 months after it had identified the need for a specialist contractor and was unreasonable.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 17 April 2024. It apologised for the delays to the repairs and said:
    1. The resident’s initial report had not been acted upon. This had been fed back to the team as a training issue.
    2. The inspection noted a specialist contractor was needed.
    3. The works would begin on 8 May 2024. It provided a schedule of the repairs, including the works to be undertaken each day, and the amount of time the works would take.
    4. It had taken learning from the feedback it had received in order to improve its service and communication.
    5. It would calculate any compensation owed when the repairs had been completed.
  7. The landlord’s stage 1 response was thorough and reasonably addressed each aspect of the complaint. The response explained the actions the landlord had taken and would take to resolve the issue.
  8. On 8 May 2024 the landlord sent an electrician to the property to check the electrics before the works started. The landlord had not informed the resident of the visit in advance. As such the resident could not allow access as she needed to take her children to school. This landlord’s failure to communicate effectively with the resident caused the works being cancelled and rebooked for 17 June 2024.
  9. The works to the ceiling were completed on 25 June 2024. The resident contacted the landlord the same day and stated she was unhappy with the finish. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 10 July 2024 to carry out further works and complete an inspection report. The report noted there was no damage or defects present.
  10. The resident escalated her complaint the same day. She said she was unhappy with the operative who attended as he did not show his identification badge, and she wanted compensation. In further emails to the landlord during July 2024, the resident also said:
    1. She was disappointed with the communication from the landlord.
    2. The repairs had not been completed in the timescales set out in its stage 1 response.
    3. Another operative was unprofessional and took photos in areas where no work had been conducted.
    4. She wanted a further post inspection of the works to be carried out.
  11. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 4 September 2024. It apologised again for not acting on her report sooner and said:
    1. The repairs to the kitchen were completed on 10 July 2024. A post inspection report had been completed by the operative and subsequently reviewed by the landlord and its contractor. It was satisfied the repairs had been completed to a good standard.
    2. It was not possible to inspect every completed repair in person, but if any further issues were raised it would attend the property.
    3. It had spoken to its staff members regarding the issues the resident raised and had provided feedback and training. It apologised the resident’s expectations were not met during interactions with the staff members.
    4. It apologised for its communication throughout the process and for the inconvenience caused.
    5. It increased its compensation offer to £500, made up of:
      1. £200 for failing to raise the repair in a timely manner.
      2. £200 for delays in raising the work with the specialist contractor.
      3. £100 for poor communication.
  12. The landlord offered the resident an additional £50 compensation for a delayed stage 2 response. It had previously told the resident she would response by 3 September 2024. The response was 1 day late. The evidence shows the compensation offered by the landlord was proportionate to the level of its failure.
  13. The landlord’s stage 2 response was thorough and reasonably addressed the issues the resident raised. It acknowledged its failings in dealing with the repair issue at various stages and accepted its communication failed to meet the standard the resident could reasonably expect.
  14. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for a further post inspection. However, it explained it was satisfied that having viewed the original post inspection report, that a further, in person inspection was not required. Given the resident had not raised any further issues following the post inspection on 10 July 2024, the landlord’s response was reasonable.
  15. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out the level of awards that may be given for service failure. The policy defines the highest level of service failure as extensive disruption, with a maximum award of £500. It states this would be applicable where there have been numerous missed opportunities to resolve the issue, which have caused a significant level of inconvenience over an extended period. The landlord’s offer of compensation was in line with its policy as it appropriately reflected the circumstances of the case.
  16. The resident informed the landlord she was unhappy with the compensation offer and wanted to be compensated for loss of earnings due to the delays. The landlord explained its compensation policy did not allow for it to provide compensation in this regard but invited the resident to submit the amount she was seeking. The landlord said it would review her request in line with its policy. The resident said she wanted £1,500.
  17. On 27 March 2025 the landlord contacted the resident and increased its offer of compensation to £800.
  18. In summary, the evidence shows the landlord failed to act upon the resident’s first report of the issue. When it identified a specialist contractor was needed, it further failed to arrange for the works to be completed until the resident made her complaint.
  19. This cycle of avoidable delays and poor communication from the landlord, caused the resident distress and inconvenience. The extent of the distress experienced by the resident would have been obvious to the landlord through the communications the resident sent. The work was completed in July 2024, almost 9 months after the resident’s first report. This was significantly outside of the landlord’s repair policy timescales and was an unreasonable delay.
  20. When failures are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes, as well as our guidance on remedies.
  21. The landlord’s final offer of compensation was made after its final complaint response. The Ombudsman’s approach to redress means it is unusual for us to consider offers of compensation made outside of the landlord’s internal complaint process to result in a determination of reasonable redress. This is because a referral to us is not to be seen as another opportunity for landlord’s to provide increased compensation that should have reasonably been able to have been made as part its 2 stage complaints process. However, on this occasion the landlord:
    1. Made a reasonable offer of compensation at stage 2, that was in line with our remedies guidance for failures that had adversely impacted the resident.
    2. Proactively reviewed the resident’s complaint in light the resident’s request for increased compensation.
    3. Apologised for the mistakes that were made.
    4. Reviewed its compensation offer and increased that offer taking into consideration factors which were not provided for as part of its compensation policy or previously considered in its original offer.
    5. Demonstrated learning from the complaint by:
      1. Providing feedback and training to its staff members.
      2. Improving inter-department communication.
      3. Reviewing its arrangements with repair contractors.
  22. These exceptional circumstances lead to a determination of reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of kitchen repairs. This means its offer of redress satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of kitchen repairs.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended the landlord pay the resident the £800 compensation it offered following its review of the complaint if it has not done so already.