Moat Homes Limited (202330131)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330131

Moat Homes Limited

1 October 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 communal garden maintenance.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property, a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. She pays a service charge to the landlord for a ground maintenance service. The resident used a representative throughout her complaint to the landlord. For readability, both will be referred to as the resident throughout this report.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 May 2024. She complained about the level and quality of maintenance carried out to the communal garden at the property.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 6 June 2024. It said the resident had been in direct contact with the Neighbourhood Services Manager who was investigating the matter further.
The resident escalated her complaint on 12 June 2024. She said a further visit for the gardening had been missed. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 13 August 2024 and apologised for the delay in responding. It said it found there had been times when it had not maintained the communal garden and offered the resident £100 compensation for the delays in issuing its response.
The resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to us. She said the communal garden had not been maintained in line with the landlord’s agreement and the same issues were arising after the stage 2 response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Under our Scheme, we may not consider complaints that are made prior to exhausting a landlord’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure. This means for us to consider a complaint it must have completed the landlord’s 2-stage process. The evidence provided shows the resident made several complaints regarding the maintenance of the communal garden from 2018 to 2023, however these were not escalated to stage 2.
Therefore, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions between 2 December 2023 to 13 August 2024. This being the day after the resident’s preceding complaint was resolved stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints process, through to when the landlord issued its stage 2 response for that was the latest complaint which was referred to us. We consider this a fair timescale for both parties using the discretion we have under our Scheme.

Communal garden maintenance

On 15 May 2024 the resident complained to the landlord that the communal garden was not being maintained to the standard she expected. She said:
1. Contractors had ignored the guidance on the work that needed doing.
2. In particular, the weeding had not been completed, and many young sycamore saplings could be seen.
3. Leaves had not been removed from the site which added to a damp problem experienced by the ground floor flats.
4. The new service level agreements had not been issued to any resident.
5. She was withholding her payments for ground maintenance as she had not received the service expected.
The landlord’s grounds maintenance schedule states it will maintain communal gardens fortnightly. The schedule sets out the nature of the tasks that will be completed and the frequency. This includes:
1. On a fortnightly basis:
  1. Litter picking and leaf clearing.
  2. Grass cutting (except during winter months).
  3. Maintaining borders and soft landscaping.
  4. Weed control, including the removal of any tree seedlings.
2. Less often:
  1. Hedge cutting and removal of brambles should be carried out a minimum of twice a year to ensure there is never an obstruction to pedestrians, fences or vehicles.
The resident pays a service charge towards grounds maintenance. The terms of the lease set out the resident’s obligation to pay any service charges in full. The landlord has not provided any records to us of when its contractor carried out maintenance of the communal garden in the months leading up to the resident’s complaint and the nature of the work carried out.
The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy states it will carry out estate inspections at “regular intervals” throughout the year to ensure its tenants do not pay for poor service. It says during these inspections it will assess the performance of its grounds maintenance contractor. The landlord’s records show the contractors work was assessed once a month and given a score from A to D. In January and March 2024, it scored the contractor’s work as below standard.
It is unclear how the landlord dealt with the work that it considered to be below standard. However, the evidence shows a new contractor took over the grounds maintenance of the estate after the resident had made her complaint.
On 22 May 2024, the resident contacted the landlord and reiterated the tasks that had not been completed to standard. On 5 June 2024 the resident reported she had cut back the bushes next to her parking space to avoid both her and her vehicle getting scratched.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 6 June 2024. The landlord confirmed it was responsible for maintaining the garden. It said the resident had spoken to the Neighbourhood Services Manager who was investigating the matter, but it had been unable to get an update from them. The landlord said it would try and obtain a copy of the current grounds maintenance contract.
A review of the landlord’s complaint response shows a lack of information from the landlord in regard to its investigation into her complaint. It did not confirm to the resident whether its contractor had fulfilled its obligations or not under the schedule and what measures it had taken to assess this. Furthermore, it failed to inform the resident of the steps it would take to ensure she did not pay for poor service, as per its policy.
On 12 June 2024 the resident escalated the complaint with the landlord. She said a visit had been missed, the lawn had not been mowed as there were still daisies present, and a bramble overhang was obstructing the path to the gas meter.
Between 14 June and 2 August 2024, the resident contacted the landlord 4 times to report further issues with the work of its grounds maintenance team. These included:
1. Tree saplings had not been removed.
2. The contractor did not attend on the dates the landlord provided and often the resident had washing on the line that was affected by the mowing / strimming.
3. Lawn mowing had been missed.
4. Despite a new contractor taking over, the operatives were the same and the work continued to be substandard.
5. Property of the resident, such as planters, had been damaged by the operatives when strimming.
6. An operative was seen urinating in the estate bin store.
The landlord has not provided any records to us of when its contractor attended the estate from the resident making her complaint on 15 May 2024, to 5 August 2024. Without this information we are unable to determine the landlord acted in accordance with its responsibilities and obligations for this period.
A report dated 6 August 2024, shows the landlord’s contractor attended the estate and carried out work such as grass cutting and weed and moss removal. The report does not confirm the saplings were tended to or the leaves were removed from site in line with its ground maintenance schedule. It is also unclear whether the landlord took any action to clarify the contents of the report.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 13 August 2024. It said:
1. It had allowed it’s a new contractor a settling in period to bring the site “up to scratch”. It expected some teething issues during this time and encouraged residents to let it know so any issues could be addressed.
2. The issue raised by the resident had been passed onto the contractor and it committed to working with the resident to ensure the work was carried out correctly.
3. It understood the resident’s frustration and lack of confidence. It reiterated service charges should be paid under the lease agreement and any changes to expenditure would be paid back with the year-end service charge adjustments.
4. It offered a face-to-face meeting with the resident and its contractor to ensure all parties were aware of their obligations to deliver the correct level of service.
The landlord’s complaint response addressed the level of service provided following the start of its new contractor’s tenure. It committed to refund the resident for the service she had not received and offered to meet with the resident to ensure service standards were maintained in the future.
However, the landlord’s response did not account for why a settling in period was needed when the same operatives were in attendance, in addition to the resident’s reports from the 5-month period that led up to the resident making her complaint. It also did not address the resident’s specific concerns namely the removal of saplings, the removal of leaves from site and the behaviour of its contractor’s operatives, which the resident had repeatedly reported.
The resident informed us that to date, no meeting has taken place and the standard of grounds maintenance received did not improve until August 2025. The resident told us it has taken up a lot of her time to repeatedly report the same issues to the landlord.
In summary, the landlord’s record keeping has made it difficult to establish whether the contractor has fulfilled the terms of the grounds maintenance schedule. Until August 2024, the contractor did not appear to submit reports containing any detail of the work carried out. There was also no evidence provided of how the landlord handled the resident’s reports with its contractor. The resident’s repeated reports of similar issues suggest whatever action the landlord took, it was ineffective.
The evidence shows the landlord’s complaint responses did not acknowledge the inconvenience of the resident having to raise the matter through its complaints process. The responses also failed to confirm whether or not the service standards had been met by its contractor. This was frustrating for the resident, who has then taken further time and trouble to bring the complaint to us.
The evidence shows the landlord has failed to evidence its grounds maintenance met the standard required. The action it took when it was established the standards were not met was inappropriate to make an effective change. It failed to acknowledge the inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of its failures to provide the service that could be reasonably expected. These failures taken together leads to a determination of maladministration. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £250 compensation to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there have been failings that had no permanent impact on the resident, but where the landlord has made no attempt to put things right.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy sets out the timescales in which the landlord will deal with complaints:
1. It will acknowledge and record a complaint within 5 working days.
2. It will issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days from when the complaint was recorded.
3. It will issue its stage 2 response within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint.
The resident complained to the landlord on 15 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint 3 working days later in line with its policy.
On 6 June 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. This was 2 days later than the timescales set out in its policy.
The resident escalated her complaint on 12 June 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 13 August 2024. This was 44 days after the resident had escalated her complaint and outside of the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaint policy.
The policy also states that if the landlord is unable to provide a response within the timescales it will explain to the resident why this is needed and seek their agreement. It further states an extension should not exceed 20 working days at stage two. There is no evidence the landlord informed the resident of the delays or agreed to an extension.
The landlord’s response acknowledged its failure to meet the expected timescales and offered the resident £100 compensation.
In summary, the evidence shows there were delays in the landlord issuing its complaint responses. The delay to its stage 1 response was small. However, the delay to the stage 2 response was greater, causing the resident time and trouble in pursuing her complaint. The landlord’s offer of compensation was proportionate to the level of its failing and in line with our remedies guidance for failings that would not have affected the overall outcome for the resident. This leads to a determination of reasonable redress. This means the landlord has made an offer of redress which satisfactorily resolved the issue.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of communal garden maintenance.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident £250 compensation for its failings in the handling of communal garden maintenance. This must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears.
2. Arrange meeting with the resident and its contractor, as promised in its stage 2 response, to ensure all parties are fully aware of the requirements under the grounds maintenance schedule and expectations are managed.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident £100 for complaint handling, offered in its stage 2 response, if not done so already.