Moat Homes Limited (202516544)

Decision
Case ID	202516544
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Moat Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	19 December 2025

Background

1. The resident contacted the landlord in October 2024 to report anti-social behaviour (ASB) by one of her neighbours. In January 2025 she reported that one of her other neighbours was causing ASB. The landlord’s records show that the resident has vulnerabilities, including agoraphobia.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of ASB and her request for it to appoint a new investigating officer.
   2. The associated complaints.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and her request for it to appoint a new investigating officer.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the associated complaints.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord largely followed its ASB policy and maintained regular contact with the resident. It took reasonable steps in its response to her reports of ASB, such as working with the police and local council, offering mediation, offering to improve the security of the property and offering to rehouse the resident.
5. There was a delay in the landlord acknowledging the resident’s stage 2 complaint and it did not apologise for this delay.

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 delay in acknowledging the resident’s stage 2 complaint. 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 30 January 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
8 April 2025	The resident made a complaint to the landlord because she said: She had experienced 2 years of ASB and harassment from one of her neighbours and their family members. She had previously expressed concerns about the ASB investigating officer having a conflict of interest. She wanted the investigating officer to be replaced with a new, independent officer.
1 May 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 response in which it said: The officer she had referred to in her complaint had been the resident’s main point of contact in relation to her reports of ASB and had responded in line with its ASB policy. It was unable to offer an alternative point of contact due to resource constraints. An ASB case review meeting had been held on 7 April 2025 and a manager from the local council had independently chaired the meeting. The landlord had now closed the resident’s ASB case. It had offered her and the neighbour mediation and she should let the landlord know if she was interested in this option.
1 May 2025	The resident contacted the landlord to say she did not accept the outcome of her stage 1 complaint as the landlord had failed to acknowledge the long-term distress, harassment and intimidation she had experienced. She asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
18 June 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 reply in which it said the following: Its staff had followed its ASB procedures in responding to the resident’s reports of ASB. Where appropriate, its staff had raised safeguarding concerns by making referrals. The evidence showed that it had engaged with the neighbour and with the police but had not identified sufficient evidence to take enforcement action against the neighbour. The independently chaired ASB case review on 7 April 2025 had concluded that the landlord had put appropriate support in place for the resident, including offering alternative accommodation. The landlord had proposed ‘shuttle’ mediation between the resident and her neighbour. The resident had declined the offer of alternative accommodation and the proposal for mediation. The landlord confirmed that it did not agree to appoint a new ASB investigating officer because it said there was no evidence to show any mismanagement of the case. The landlord said it had previously written to the resident about concerns regarding the volume of contact from the resident. It was therefore limiting contact to one email per week from the resident regarding ASB.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate her complaint because she said the landlord had failed to protect her as a vulnerable person. She said her neighbour had harassed and victimised her and the landlord had failed to handle her complaint in accordance with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

 

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 response to the resident’s reports of ASB and her request for it to appoint a new investigating officer
Finding	No maladministration

6. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will:
   1. Assess each report it receives to see if it meets the definition of ASB and the behaviour is unreasonable.
   2. Work in partnership with the police and council.
   3. Complete an initial risk assessment and review it periodically, interview perpetrators, issue warnings, make referrals for support, and use mediation when appropriate.
   4. Provide residents with a contact and regular updates via an action plan.
7. In her stage 1 complaint dated 8 April 2025, the resident said she had experienced 2 years of ASB by her neighbour. We carried out a previous investigation under case reference 202450882, which considered events up to the landlord’s previous stage 2 reply dated 24 June 2024. We consider it fair and reasonable not to re-investigate the events that were part of our previous investigation. Therefore, our investigation has considered events after 24 June 2024 until the landlord’s stage 2 reply dated 18 June 2025.
8. The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 May 2025 and said she was dissatisfied because the landlord had not properly addressed her complaints, particularly regarding her request for a disabled parking bay and fencing around her garden for security. As we considered these matters as part of our previous investigation reference 202450882, we have not included them in this investigation.
9. Our role is not to establish whether the ASB reported happened or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
10. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 October 2024 to report that her neighbour had posted the resident’s address on social media. She asked the landlord to apply for an injunction to stop the neighbour harassing her. In response, the landlord phoned the resident on 25 October 2024 to discuss the reported incident. The landlord had therefore contacted the resident 4 working days after she reported the incident. This was longer than the 2 working days stipulated in its policy and was therefore a shortcoming on the landlord’s part.
11. The landlord completed a risk assessment on 25 October 2024, which was appropriate as this was in line with its policy. It also agreed an action plan with the resident during the interview on 25 October 2024 and wrote to her on the same day confirming the action plan. It was appropriate that the landlord had agreed the action plan with the resident as this was in line with its policy. It was also helpful that the landlord had written to the resident on the same day outlining the actions in the plan so she had a record of them.
12. The action plan included the following:
    1. Interviewing the alleged perpetrator.
    2. Making an appointment to carry out a security assessment of the property.
    3. Arranging a professionals meeting with the local council and the police to discuss the reported incident.
    4. Arranging for the landlord’s domestic abuse specialist to contact the resident during the following week.
13. The measures that the landlord included in the action plan were reasonable because they would help the landlord gather more information about the reported ASB, including by working with its partners. They would also enable it support the resident by looking at the security of the property and by referring her to its domestic abuse specialist.
14. The professionals meeting took place on 29 October 2024 and was attended by representatives from the landlord, the police and the local council. It was positive that the landlord had arranged the meeting to take place shortly after its interview with the resident.
15. It was agreed at the professionals meeting that the landlord would consider awarding the resident priority status for rehousing. The landlord subsequently agreed the resident’s application for priority rehousing and wrote to her on 26 November 2024 confirming this. As the resident had written to the landlord on 23 October 2024 requesting a ‘management move’, it was reasonable that the landlord had discussed this option with its police and local council partners at the meeting. It was positive that the landlord had then acted promptly in agreeing to award the resident priority status for rehousing.
16. The landlord’s records show that during October and November 2024, the landlord took other positive steps to support the resident, including its domestic abuse specialist writing to her and the landlord offering to carry out safety enhancements to the property, which the resident accepted.
17. The evidence shows that the landlord worked in partnership with the police and the local council, for example, by attending ASB case review meetings with them on 5 July 2024, 13 December 2024 and 7 April 2025. It was appropriate for the landlord to work closely with the police and local council as this was in line with its policy. It was therefore useful for it to participate in the ASB case review as this was an opportunity to share information and work collaboratively towards a solution.
18. The resident contacted the landlord on 12 January 2025 and reported that she had overheard one of her other neighbours in his flat using abusive language towards his children. She said she had concerns about the safety of the neighbour’s children. The landlord’s record’s show that it appropriately produced a risk assessment in line with its policy. The landlord emailed the resident the next day and asked her various questions about the incident, such as the time and date and whether she had reported the matter to the police. As the resident had not provided this information when she reported the matter, it was reasonable for the landlord to request further details.
19. After receiving the resident’s response to its questions, the landlord wrote to her on 17 January 2025 and said it did not consider the incident to be ASB and therefore it was closing the case. However, it advised the resident that it would follow up her concerns about the children’s safety. It was reasonable for the landlord to have assessed the information and promptly advised the resident of its decision. The landlord was entitled to rely on the judgement of its manager in making the decision not to categorise the resident’s report as ASB and close the case.
20. The landlord’s records show that it took follow-up action in relation to the resident’s concerns about the safety of the neighbour’s children. This was appropriate given the landlord’s safeguarding obligations and the concerns expressed by the resident.
21. In February 2024 the landlord offered the resident alternative accommodation. The resident refused the offer as she said it was unsuitable. We have not investigated the suitability of the property offered by the landlord. However, it was appropriate that the landlord had followed up its agreement to award priority rehousing status and had offered an alternative property within a short period.
22. The landlord’s records show that it offered mediation to the resident and her neighbour on 27 January, 7 February  and 11 March 2025. However, its notes state that both of them either declined the offer or did not respond. It was reasonable that the landlord had offered to use mediation, which is included in its policy as one of the measures it can use to resolve ASB issues. The landlord used its stage 1 and 2 responses to ask the resident whether she would be interested in mediation. It was reasonable for the landlord to remind the resident that it was offering this option.
23. On 1 April 2025 the resident contacted the landlord to report that she had overheard an argument in her neighbour’s property involving abusive language, drug use and threats. The resident confirmed that she had reported the incident to the police and they had attended. The landlord wrote to the police on the same day and requested information on any police action regarding the incident. The landlord said that as the incident was a safeguarding and police matter, it would be guided by their actions/advice. As the police had attended the incident, it was reasonable for the landlord to ask them for information and to say it would be guided by their advice.
24. As part of her stage 1 complaint, the resident asked the landlord to replace the ASB investigating officer with a new independent officer as she said the officer had a conflict of interest. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it had investigated the resident’s reports about a conflict of interest and said it had not found any evidence of personal bias or inappropriate conduct by the officer. It said the officer had signed a declaration confirming she had no personal relationship with any party involved in dealing with the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord said it was satisfied with the officer’s written declaration.
25. The landlord added in its stage 2 reply that it had investigated the resident’s reports of bias by interviewing the ASB investigating officer and her line manager and reviewing various historical records regarding the resident’s reports of ASB. It concluded that there was no evidence the officer in question or other staff had failed to investigate the resident’s ASB or safeguarding concerns. Therefore, it said it would not replace the officer as the main point of contact for the resident to report ASB incidents. However, it said from 13 May 2025 it had put in place a peer review approach for responding to the resident’s complaints so that one person would no longer be responsible for making case management decisions.
26. The evidence shows that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns about its staff member by carrying out interviews, reviewing its ASB records and then advising the resident of its conclusions. Although the landlord said it found no evidence to justify replacing the officer as the resident’s main point of contact, it was reasonable that it had introduced a system for case management decisions to be taken by more than one person. This would provide additional scrutiny in relation to the resident’s ASB case.
27. It is important for landlords to maintain regular communication with residents who have reported ASB. This reassures them that the landlord is making progress and allows the landlord to provide any updates. In this case, the landlord agreed as part of the action plan in October 2024 that it would contact the resident at least once a week. It was appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident about the frequency of contact. This was in line with its ASB policy which says it will use the action plan to show how it will maintain regular contact with the reporting parties to update them on the progress of their case. The landlord’s records show that it maintained reasonable contact with the resident until she wrote to the landlord on 25 February 2025 and asked the ASB investigating officer to stop contacting her.
28. Overall, we have found that the landlord took reasonable steps to respond to the resident’s reports of ASB by:
    1. Logging the reports of ASB.
    2. Interviewing the resident and the neighbour.
    3. Carrying out risk assessments.
    4. Producing action plans.
    5. Working with the police and the local council, including arranging and participating in meetings and ASB case reviews.
    6. Offering mediation.
    7. Offering security enhancements to her property.
    8. Providing support from its domestic abuse specialist.
    9. Offering rehousing.
29. Our investigation has shown that the landlord followed its ASB policy and maintained regular communication with the resident. We have therefore found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour and her request for it to appoint a new investigating officer.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the associated complaints
Finding	Service failure

30. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says at both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. It will then reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord may need to extend the timescales at stage 1 or stage 2. In such cases, it will provide the resident with a clear explanation for this and seek their agreement. Any extension should not exceed 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2.
31. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 8 April 2025 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 15 April 2025, which was 5 working days after receiving the complaint. It therefore acknowledged the complaint appropriately in line with its policy.
32. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 1 May 2025, which was 11 working days after acknowledging the complaint. The landlord took slightly longer to respond than the timescale given in its policy and this was therefore a shortcoming on its part.
33. The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 1 May 2025 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 20 May 2025, which was 12 working days after receiving it. The time taken by the landlord to acknowledge the complaint was inappropriate as it was longer than the 5 working days stipulated in its complaints policy and in the Code.
34. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 18 June 2025, which was appropriate as it was within the 20-working day timescale stipulated in its policy. However, as the landlord had delayed acknowledging the stage 2 complaint, it meant that overall the resident had to wait longer for her stage 2 response than otherwise would have been the case. Furthermore, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord apologised for the delay. Therefore, we have found there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
35. We have not seen any evidence that the delay in acknowledging the stage 2 complaint caused specific detriment to the resident, particularly as the landlord was in contact with her during this period. Therefore, in our view, an apology is sufficient to put things right and we have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident for the delay in acknowledging her complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

36. The landlord used its ASB system to keep good records of contact, risk assessments and action it had taken in response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

Communication

37. We found that the landlord’s overall communication with the resident was good as it agreed the frequency of contact and maintained regular contact with her.