Moat Homes Limited (202402276)

Background

1. At the time of the complaint, the resident was an assured tenant of a flat owned by the landlord. She has since moved to alternative accommodation. Whilst there is a management organisation for the building, under the terms of the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure of the property. The resident raised concerns about a roof leak which she states had been ongoing since February 2020. This had had caused water damage to the ceiling of the bedroom.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs for the leak from the roof and the resulting damp and mould.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that the landlord offered reasonable redress for:
   1. Repairs for the leak from the roof and the resulting damp and mould.
   2. The associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. From the landlord’s stage 2 response and subsequent correspondence with the resident it offered a total of £2,232.61 for its handling of the repairs and her associated complaint. Whilst we have seen there were a series of significant failures by the landlord, we are satisfied that the amount of financial remedy it offered is proportionate to put things right in line with its compensation policy and our guidance on remedies

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. However, in ‘resolved with intervention’ or ‘reasonable redress’ cases we expect the landlord to take the steps it has promised.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not investigated

5. Our scheme states that we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident has stated that the landlord was aware of the roof leak from February 2020. She raised a formal complaint on 21 September 2023. However, there is no evidence that she raised a complaint before this for its previous handling of the repair. Our investigation has, therefore, focussed on the 12 months leading up to the resident’s complaint.
6. The resident also told us the damp and mould in the property exacerbated her asthma. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury or illness caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have investigated

7. The resident reported to the landlord on 7 November 2022 there was a leak from the roof which was affecting her bedroom ceiling. It attended on 11 November 2022 and confirmed it could not resolve the leak from within the building and the flashing around the chimney stack needed repairs. It referred the repair to its roofing contractor but there is no evidence they acted on this, or that it chased this up within a reasonable timeframe.
8. The landlord re-raised the repair on 13 June 2023. On 3 July 2023 it requested a scaffolder attend so it could access the chimney. There is no evidence it took further action on this until 22 September 2023. On this date it told the resident it was not possible to erect the scaffolding from the rear of the building so it would need to apply for a pavement license from the local authority to erect this on the pavement in front.
9. Following the landlord’s stage 1 response of 4 October 2023 it attended for a damp and mould inspection on 10 October 2023. It recorded the property’s heating and extractor fans were working correctly and the roof leak was the only factor causing the staining on the bedroom ceiling. It recommended it carry out a mould wash and redecoration of the bedroom ceiling. Whilst the landlord acted in line with its procedure for damp and mould by promptly raising an inspection there is no evidence it then treated the mould within 21 calendar days in line with its policy. From the available records it told the resident it had put the repair to redecorate on hold until it completed the roof repairs, there is no evidence it arranged the mould wash separately. We have noted, however, that the resident did not report further concerns about mould in her later correspondence.
10. The landlord told the resident on 22 September 2023 it may take up to 20 calendar days to receive the pavement license. There is no evidence that it or its contractor took action to progress this within the timescale it gave her, which was unreasonable. It updated her on 12 December 2023 that it was still waiting for the pavement license.
11. On 12 January 2024 the landlord contacted the local authority saying its contractor had applied for a pavement licence and not heard back. The local authority advised it that an application was not necessary as the area was private land and not maintained by them. The local authority also said they had originally intended to send this information on 12 December 2023 but the email had not sent correctly. Whilst this delay was unfortunate it was not due to a failing by the landlord.
12. The landlord said the scaffolding was erected around 17 January 2024. It arranged for the scaffold to be modified on 12 March 2024 as it was in the incorrect position. There is no evidence to show how it or its contractors took action to progress the roofing repair during this time. We note the local authority wrote to it on 21 February 2024 saying it had received complaints about the scaffolding restricting access for other tenants of the building and no work had taken place.
13. The landlord noted on 20 March 2024 the scaffolding was still not at the correct height to reach the area of the roof for the repair. It did not act on this issue in a timely manner, from its account of events it did not remove the scaffolding until some point in May 2024.
14. In June 2024 the landlord redesigned the scaffolding to be erected from the rear of the building. This was due to new complaints received from the management company about the impact this was having on other tenants. It told the resident its contractor would attend to complete the roofing repairs on 7 August 2024, it recorded it completed these on 8 August 2024. As such it took approximately 21 months after the resident reported the leak on 7 November 2022 for it to complete this repair. This greatly exceeded its target from its repair policy to complete all non-emergency repairs within 21 calendar days.
15. The resident reported there was an ongoing problem with a leak from the roof on 23 August 2024. The landlord said in its email of 13 September 2024 it considered this was a new repair as the flashing that it had seen was missing had been in place at the time of the previous repair. We have seen no records or an inspection report from the repair on 8 August 2024. As such we have not seen evidence to support its view regarding this as a new repair, separate from the leak she reported on 7 November 2022.
16. We have not seen any evidence to show when the landlord completed the repairs following the resident’s reports of further leaks on 23 August 2024. The available evidence indicates it only completed this shortly before its email of 13 February 2025 and it accepted in its emails to her the repairs to the roof had not been straightforward. As such it took around 174 calendar days to complete this repair, significantly exceeding the timescales of its repair policy.
17. The resident told us the leak from the roof was ongoing until she left the property in September 2025. The landlord arranged to visit the property on 31 March 2025 due to her concerns that the leak may not have resolved following the repair in February 2025. The landlord told us it did not receive any further reports of leaks or water ingress from her following this visit. We have also not seen any evidence that she had reported the leak was ongoing.
18. From the above events there were a series of failings by the landlord over a long period of time which likely had a significant impact on the resident. However, we consider that the compensation it offered her was proportionate to put things right.
19. In the landlord’s compensation offer of 13 September 2024 it explained it had calculated the £1,082.61 it offered for the handling of its repairs based on refunding her for 5% of her rent for each week it had not resolved the repair since February 2020. Its compensation policy says it will consider offering a rent refund if its handling of repairs results in the loss or severe limitation of a room of the property for unreasonable periods. Its policy only specifies percentages of rent refunds it will offer where there has been the complete loss of a room. There is no evidence the resident’s bedroom was made unusable due to the roof leak or that any other rooms were affected. As such we consider its offer of a 5% rent refund was reasonable.
20. In its further offer of £434 on 13 February 2025 it explained it had calculated this based on a rent refund of 5% over the 27 weeks since she reported that leaks were ongoing, plus a further £250 goodwill payment. It agreed to increase its further offer to £1,000 following further discussion with the resident. We consider this was reasonable in line with its complaint policy and covered the resident’s further concerns about an ongoing leak up to 31 March 2025.
21. In total the landlord offered the resident £2,082.61 for its handling of the repairs and resulting damp and mould. This was proportionate to put things right in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

22. The resident complained to the landlord on 21 September 2023. It acknowledged her complaint on 27 September 2023, 4 working days later. It issued its stage 1 response on 4 October 2023, 5 working days after it had acknowledged the complaint. This was in line with the timescales of its complaint policy and the version of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which was in effect at the time.
23. The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 12 December 2023 which it acknowledged the same day. It issued its stage 2 response on 15 January 2024, 21 working days later. This is slightly outside of the timescales of its complaint policy and the Code which say the stage 2 response should be issued within 20 working days of the acknowledgment. That said we do not consider this delay was so significant to constitute a failing.
24. As part of the stage 2 response the landlord told the resident it would keep her updated about the progress of repairs. From the records there is little evidence it corresponded directly with the resident about the issues with proceeding with the repair (as outlined in the previous section) from 15 January 2024 up until the completion of the repair on 8 August 2024.
25. The landlord explained in its revised compensation offer of 13 September 2024 that the complaint handler who was monitoring the complaint following its stage 2 response had been away from the organisation on sick leave for a long period. It accepted it should have taken action to reassign her complaint sooner and offered £150 in recognition of the inconvenience. We consider this was a reasonable remedy to put right the impact of its lack of communication during this time

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord should ensure that it creates written reports for the repairs it completes, including post-inspection reports where appropriate (e.g. for major repairs). This will allow it to better demonstrate how it responded to repair requests and provide assurance about whether its attempts to resolve long-standing repairs have been successful.

Communication

27. There was multiple third parties involved in the circumstances of this case including the management company for the building, the local authority, the landlord’s contractor and their subcontractor. The landlord’s communication between these was generally poor with several of these not appearing to be informed about how it was dealing with the repair (in particular the erection of the scaffolding) and raising queries or objections to the planned work. It should ensure that in repair situations where multiple organisations are involved it maintains clear oversight and ownership for how it communicates with all relevant parties