Moat Homes Limited (202441540)

Decision
Case ID	202441540
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Moat Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 November 2025

Background

The resident reported concerns about the windows in her child’s bedroom and about the landlord’s handling of the necessary repairs. The landlord subsequently agreed to replace the windows, and the resident expressed concern about the time taken to complete the replacement works.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs and replacement works to the bedroom windows.
We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs and replacement works to the bedroom windows.
2. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs and replacement work to the bedroom windows

The landlord took 10 months to replace the windows. It caused delays by not responding to the external contractor’s quote in a timely manner. It did not keep the resident updated.

The landlord’s complaint handling

While the landlord offered the resident compensation both during and after the complaints process, the basis for its offer was unclear. In addition, it failed to put things right by the end of the complaints procedure and did not do what it said it would to resolve the matter

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 06 January 2026
2	Compensation Order The landlord must pay the resident £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failure. The landlord must pay the resident £200 compensation it offered in its stage 2 response if it has not already done so. This is in addition the £650 compensation it offered in April 2025. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 06 January 2026
3	Learning Order The landlord should review the complaint, and its management of the replacement works. It should ensure that any lessons around being proactive and retaining oversight of outsourced works are shared with relevant departments and staff.	No later than 06 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
2 July 2024	The resident reported the top floor bedroom roof window would not open.
11 July 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about its response to her report and asked a senior member of staff meet with her.
30 July 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said 2 managers would visit the property on 31 July 2024.
31 July 2024	The landlord visited the property and spoke with the resident. It noted the window frames had swollen and one of the windows was not shutting which was allowing water into the property. The landlord assigned the repair to an external contractor.
5 November 2024	The resident told the landlord the external contractor had measured the windows to be replaced “months ago”. There had been no progress, and she had not had any further follow ups. She asked what was going on.
17 November 2024	The resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said she had lost count of how many times she had complained and there had been no improvement in the service received.
26 November 2024	The landlord sent its acknowledgement letter. It said it would provide its stage 2 response by 24 December 2024.
27 November 2024	The resident reported the window again to the landlord. She said it would not close properly.
10 December 2024	The landlord carried out a temporary repair to the window. It replaced the handler and fitted a draught excluder.
20 December 2024	The external contractor told the landlord they had sent the quote 6 weeks prior but had not received approval for it.
24 December 2024	The landlord issued it stage 2 response: It apologised for the delay caused by the approval process. It offered £200 compensation for not effectively managing the repairs of the window and another repair the resident had reported. It said it would follow up with the external contractor on 2 January 2025 and contact the resident to confirm the window fitting appointment.
10 January 2025	The resident asked if there was an update from 2 January 2025.
March 2025	The resident asked the landlord for an update on the window replacement on 3 occasions. She also added she had not received the compensation offered previously.
1 April 2025	The landlord apologised for the delay in the repair and not processing the stage 2 compensation. It offered the resident £650 compensation made up of: £200 for the time and effort spent contacting the landlord. £300 for not managing the repair effectively. £100 for poor communication. £50 for the delay in processing the stage 2 compensation payment. The landlord said the external contractor had been instructed to proceed but it had a 4-6 week wait.
1 April 2025	The landlord raised a works order for the windows.
1 May 2025	The windows were installed.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate her complaint on 15 January 2025. She wanted the landlord to replace the window and offer her more compensation for distress and inconvenience caused.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of repairs and replacement works to the bedroom windows.
Finding	Maladministration

Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairing the window frames and fastenings. The landlord’s repair policy says it will complete non-emergency repairs within 21 calendar days.
It is unclear how, or if, the landlord responded to the resident’s initial report of repair on 2 July 2024. However, the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s response on 11 July 2024. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it would visit the property to talk about the resident’s concerns. The landlord went to the property on 31 July 2024 and following this assigned the window repair to an external contractor. The evidence suggests that the landlord was prompted to act as a result of the resident’s complaint. This should not have been necessary. However, it was a positive action by the landlord to progress matters through its complaints process given the concerns that had been raised.
The evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord took steps to confirm the likely timescales associated with the repair. In failing to do so, and by not providing an action plan, the landlord missed opportunities to be transparent. It is also unclear at what point the resident was informed that the windows would be replaced, as opposed to repaired. This information should reasonably have been recorded and again information about the likely timescales associated with replacement works should have been shared. While the work was outsourced to an external contractor, the landlord retained ultimate responsibility and should reasonably have ensured that steps were taken to communicate clearly.
The resident chased the landlord on 5 November 2024 for an update. She then escalated her complaint on 17 November as there had been no further work after the external contractor had measured the windows for replacement. She also said she had to spend time chasing and arranging appointments. This was the cause of time and trouble which could reasonably have been avoided if the landlord had been proactive in keeping the resident updated.
During this period the resident reported a further repair about the window to the landlord saying it would not close and she was concerned because of the weather. The landlord attended within its policy timeframe and carried out a temporary repair. This was appropriate by the landlord. It was good practice, and in line with its repairs policy, to ensure the windows were safe and any interim repairs completed while awaiting the replacement.
The landlord explained in its stage 2 response the delay in commencing the replacement works had occurred because the quote from the contractor had not been approved. It offered the resident £200 compensation. It was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and to offer some compensation. However, we are unable to assess whether the amount was proportionate as it was inclusive of compensation for another repair the resident had complained about. A breakdown should reasonably have been provided so that there was transparency around the offer.
The landlord said it would contact the external contractor in January 2025 and then update the resident. The resident then chased the landlord at least 4 times between January and March 2025 for an update as she had not received one. It is unclear why the landlord failed to update the resident, but this a further failing. It had also provided an assurance within the stage 2 response and failed to keep this.
As there was a continued failure to proactively manage the works, the resident was caused further time and trouble. It is unclear why the landlord did not change its approach despite the resident’s complaint. Its lack of action – or failure to ensure that it was adequately monitoring the works – shows that it had not learnt from the complaint.
On 1 April 2025 the landlord apologised for the continued delay and told the resident the window replacement had been authorised, but the contractor had a wait time of 4-6 weeks. It offered the resident a total of £650 compensation. The windows were replaced on 1 May 2025. This was 10 months after the issue had first been reported.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident further compensation, it is noted that it had told the resident that it would contact the contractor in January 2025 to progress the replacement works. We have not seen evidence that it did so, and the works were not approved until 1 April 2025. The reason for the further delay is unclear. The landlord also failed to do what it said it would and as a result, delayed the replacement works by another 4 months. This was inappropriate. It is also noted that the further offer of compensation was prompted, in part, by the resident referring her complaint to us for consideration. The landlord therefore failed to put things right during the complaints process; and as such we have found maladministration.
It is unclear whether the landlord’s offer of £650 was in addition to, or inclusive of the £200 it offered in its stage 2 response. However, we consider that a total offer of £850 is overall proportionate in the circumstances – and broadly in line with what we would have ordered with reference to our remedies guidance. As such, we have not ordered further compensation. But the landlord should review the complaint, and its management of the replacement works. It should ensure that any lessons around being proactive and keeping oversight are shared with relevant departments and staff.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaints policy and the Code required it to issue its stage 1 response to the complaint within 10 working days and stage 2 response within 20 working days. Both timeframes are calculated from the date of its acknowledgement of receipt. The landlord responded within its policy timeframes for its stage 1 and stage 2 responses.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said it would contact the resident to confirm when the window replacement had been arranged. It did not do this until the resident contacted a senior member of staff. The resident also said the £200 compensation offered in the stage 2 had not been paid. This meant that it did not follow through and complete all remedies proposed within its stage 2 response, which is a requirement of the Code. This was not reasonable.
The stage 2 compensation it awarded was for “not effectively managing the repairs” as the resident had complained about another matter, in addition to the windows. As noted above, the landlord should have provided a breakdown demonstrating how the compensation had been apportioned. Not only would this have helped the resident to understand how the figure had been calculated, but it would have also demonstrated that the landlord had given due consideration to the circumstances of the complaint.
While it appropriately awarded further compensation after its stage 2 response this was in response to the resident’s escalation to a senior member of the landlord’s staff and us. As such we are not satisfied the landlord took all reasonable steps under its complaint procedure to resolve the complaint. The resident was also exposed to further distress and inconvenience as she had to chase the landlord multiple times and contact us. Given this we have found service failure in its complaint handling.
Given this and in line with our Remedies Guidance we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a further £150 for the time and trouble caused by its failings. This is in addition to the compensation it offered in its stage 2 response and April 2025.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord has not provided any evidence that shows what the resident was told about the window repair/replacement after it instructed the external contractor. There are also limited records on the information provided by the external contractor about the repair/replacement. The landlord may wish to review this and consider how it can improve its record keeping practices in the future.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. The resident had to often chase and ask the landlord for updates or responses. The landlord also did not respond promptly to quotes provided by the external contractor. This led to delays in the windows being replaced. We have made an order in relation to reviewing this case, which should help the landlord to identify how it may improve its communication going forward.