Moat Homes Limited (202407211)

Decision
Case ID	202407211
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Moat Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	12 March 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in first floor flat. The landlord’s records state that she has anxiety. The resident complained about scaffolding erected to repair windows in another of the landlord’s flats in her block. She required the removal of the scaffolding and was unhappy with the length of time it took to do so. She also had concerns about security. Unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint, she brought it to this Service.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s enquiries related to scaffolding.
   2. The resident’s associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries related to scaffolding.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Scaffolding

5. Overall, the landlord took an unreasonable extended period of time to remove the scaffolding and communicated poorly with the resident. It did not recognise the resident’s distress and inconvenience caused by the lack of advance notice about the scaffolding. It also did not consider temporary security measures that could have reduced the resident’s safety concerns. The landlord also did not address the resident’s enquiry about the scaffolding inspections.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord delayed registering and replying to the complaint at stage 1. It failed to apologise and offer compensation for those delays. At stages 1 and 2 the landlord did not fully address all issues of the complaint. These failings caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident.

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 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 09 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500 made up as follows: £350 for the distress, and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s scaffolding enquiries. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 09 April 2026
3	Procedure review If it has not already sone so, the landlord must conduct a review of its procedures to ensure that residents who will be affected by the erection of scaffolding are notified in advance, advised of the timescale for its removal and provided with details of a contact point. The review must be undertaken by a suitably senior manager unconnected with this case. The improvement opportunities it identifies will include a timescale for their being brought into day-to-day operation. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman and the resident with documentary evidence of the completed review and details of any resulting changes by the date specified.	No later than 09 April 2026

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should consider additional security measures, for example scaffolding alarms and removal of ground floor access, in instances where the timeframe for scaffolding being in place is extended beyond the timeframe originally envisaged communicated to residents.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 March 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about scaffolding it had erected to facilitate its repairs to windows in the flat above hers. She said: The landlord hadn’t given her advance warning that it was being erected. It remained in place despite the windows having been fixed and she queried the ongoing cost. It prevented daylight from entering her flat, her windows from being cleaned and her from enjoying the use her balcony. She was concerned someone would climb the scaffolding and break into her flat.
18 April 2024	The resident repeated her complaints to the landlord and said her earlier complaints had gone unanswered. She wanted LL to explain: Who was paying for the scaffolding. Why it had been up for so long. How much longer it would remain in place. Whether weekly inspections were being completed and who was responsible for their payment.
19 April 2024	The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint.
10 May 2024	The landlord responded at stage 1. It said: It had erected the scaffolding to repair windows in another flat. One window had been replaced but an issue with the other was delaying its removal. It had enquired whether one of the two scaffolding towers could be removed while the remaining works were completed, and that it would continue to pursue an update. It apologised the resident had been given cause to complain. For the inconvenience, discomfort and distress, and time it was taking to remove either one or both scaffolding towers, it offered compensation of £150 made up as to: £100 for the distress and inconvenience. £50 for the delay in removing the scaffolding.
21 May 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She was unhappy with the complaint outcome and compensation offered.
23 May 2024	The landlord acknowledged that it had escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process.
31 May 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said: The delay was caused by difficulty sourcing the required window units. It apologised for the inconvenience and resident’s security concerns. It should have taken the scaffolding down pending a supplier being found. A supplier had now been found, and it anticipated the window would be installed within 8-12 weeks’ time. That timescale meant it would not be appropriate to remove the scaffolding in the meantime. Residents would normally be responsible for costs associated with the scaffolding through their service charges, limited to the period it was reasonable to complete the repair, and not charge resident’s the excess. Due to the delay, it had waived the total cost of the scaffolding from the residents’ service charge. It offered further compensation of £100 for her time and trouble in respect of the delays. It said it would be reviewing how it monitored scaffolding associated with repairs, to arrange for its temporary removal when not in use for long periods.
31 July 2024	In response to an email received from the resident (which we have not seen), the landlord emailed the resident and apologised her complaint remained unresolved. It said it would review its compensation offer once a date for the removal of the scaffolding had been agreed.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint and brought it to us on 19 June 2024. She said the scaffolding remained in place and the landlord’s compensation offer was insufficient.
24 October 2024	The landlord made a revised compensation offer of £500 to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay removing the scaffolding until approximately 16 September 2024. That replaced the compensation it offered during its internal complaints process.

What we have not looked at and why

The Ombudsman may not consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. The resident has raised with us that her security concerns surrounding the scaffolding arose due to youths congregating in and around the resident’s block. She told us she had reported her concerns about that to the landlord prior to her complaint about the scaffolding being erected. She failed however to define that in in her complaint. The landlord should have the chance to act on the report then respond to any dissatisfaction with its response through both stages of its complaints procedure. For that reason, we will not investigate the complaint about that issue. We do though recommend that the landlord investigate the reported issues and respond to the resident who may wish to consider pursuing a complaint should she remain dissatisfied.

The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlord in a timely manner. This is so the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to investigate the issue whilst it is still ‘live’ and sufficient evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion. In view of the time periods involved in this case, considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to March 2023, which is 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint. Anything that happened before this is considered for context but not formally assessed or determined as part of this investigation.

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 resident’s enquiries related to scaffolding
Finding	Maladministration

7. Under the tenancy and in statute, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the properties in the block. It should carry out repairs it is responsible for within a reasonable time and meet its policy expectations.
8. The landlord’s records state it erected scaffolding on 6 February 2024 to carry out a planned repair to two windows in the flat above the resident’s property. Two scaffolding towers were erected to the front and side elevations of the resident’s property. The landlord did not notify the resident in advance of the scaffolding being erected.
9. There would undoubtedly have been prior consideration of the practicalities involved in carrying out the works, and that the associated scaffolding would undoubtedly adversely impact upon the use and full enjoyment of other residents in the block. It is a failing by the landlord that it did not act on giving advance notice to the resident about the erection of the scaffolding or the expected timeframe for it to remain in place.
10. The resident called the landlord on 8 February 2024 to request an update on when the scaffolding would be removed. The landlord noted that it did not have a timeframe for its removal. She called the landlord again on 15 February 2024 to ask whether it had received an email she had sent, which it confirmed it had. It did not reply to that email causing the resident avoidable time and trouble contacting it again. The resident made a further call on 22 February 2024, when the landlord informed her that it had emailed the contractor to request a removal date for the scaffolding. We have not seen that the landlord replied to the resident’s email or her subsequent telephone calls. These communication failures resulted in the resident experiencing uncertainty, and unnecessary time and trouble in having to chase the landlord. Also, the landlord was unable to provide a copy of the email to this Service. This demonstrated poor record keeping.
11. On 29 February 2024, the resident called the landlord and said she understood the windows in the flat above had been replaced. She asked again when the scaffolding would be removed. The landlord called the resident on 1 March 2024, advising that it had asked the contractor to remove the scaffolding. As the works related to a different property, it said it could not provide further details. The basis for withholding this information is unclear, given that the nature of the works was plainly visible. The supplied landlord’s records from that time indicate that one of the window replacements remained outstanding due to difficulties sourcing the required type of window.
12. The resident emailed the landlord on 11 March 2024 and said the windows had been repaired. She asked when the scaffolding would be removed and said it was preventing light entering her home, causing her safety concerns and preventing her from using her balcony. In response, the landlord apologised that the resident hadn’t been given advance warning of the scaffolding being erected. It said it would only remain in place for as long as necessary.
13. Following the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 18 April 2024, she called the landlord again on 19 April and 29 April 2024. She wanted an update on when the scaffolding would be removed. On both occasions, the landlord failed on its promises made during those calls to update her, causing time and trouble for the resident. She called again on 1 May 2024 and was told there was no news. The landlord’s records indicate it was aware that there were ongoing issues with the second window replacement, yet it did not explain this to the resident. It is unclear why this information was not communicated. The resident also queried why the scaffolding was not being inspected on a weekly basis, ‘as required by legislation’.
14. During its investigation, the landlord referred the resident’s enquiries to its contractor. In its stage 1 response it apologised that a reply from the contractor was still awaited. The landlord also apologised that the resident had been caused to complain. It offered £100 for the distress and inconvenience arising from the scaffolding remaining in place, and a further £50 for the disruption caused. Given the residents expressed concerns regarding security it would also have been reasonable for the landlord to ensure that the scaffolding was alarmed, either from the outset or when its continuance in situ was clear, and that the ground‑floor access steps were removed each evening. In response to our enquiries, the landlord explained that the company which supplied the scaffolding had since ceased trading. Therefore, it said it could not confirm whether the scaffolding had been alarmed. Notwithstanding this, it remains unclear whether the specification issued to the contractor originally included a requirement for an alarm.
15. On 17 May 2024, the landlord informed the resident that there was an issue with the new window. It said it had asked its contractor to confirm that day whether the scaffolding could be removed until the window was ready to be fitted. While this was a positive step, the landlord did not subsequently chase the contractor when no response was received. Nor did it keep the resident updated. Also, once it became clear that delays were ongoing, the landlord should have reviewed whether temporary security measures were required.
16. At stage 2, the landlord responded to the resident’s enquiries about the timescale for removing the scaffolding. However, its explanation did not clarify why the installation works were expected to take up to an additional 12 weeks. The landlord’s decision to waive the cost of the scaffolding demonstrated a commitment to putting things right. However, its delay in confirming this position unnecessarily prolonged the resident’s distress and uncertainty. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s concerns about whether the scaffolding was being inspected on a weekly basis. It should have confirmed that inspections had been completed and inspection records were affixed to the scaffolding tower. The landlord made a positive commitment in its stage 2 response to review how it monitors scaffolding that remains in situ during prolonged repair periods. It has told us that its current contractor has upskilled its engineers to use mobile scaffolding towers, which can be dismantled quickly.
17. The outstanding window was replaced on 29 August 2024, and the scaffolding was removed during the week commencing 16 September 2024. That was a minimum of 156 working days after it had first been erected. Consequently, the resident had been left feeling unsafe for an avoidably extended period. She also experienced inconvenience in having to pursue her concerns and complaints over a prolonged timeframe.
18. In summary, the landlord acknowledged some failings and took steps to address the issues. However, it did not fully recognise the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced due to the lack of advance notice that the scaffolding would be erected and that it remained in place for longer than was reasonable. The landlord also failed to consider or investigate temporary security measures that could have mitigated the resident’s safety concerns. Nor did it did acknowledge its instances of poor communication or explain the position with the scaffolding inspections.
19. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for awards of up to £500 where it has missed multiple opportunities to resolve an issue, which has caused a significant level of inconvenience over a prolonged period. At stage 2 of the complaints process, the landlord offered the resident £100, in addition to the £150 it had previously offered at stage 1. However, this level of redress was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. We have therefore found maladministration in this case and order the landlord to award the resident compensation of £350.
20. On 26 October 2024 the landlord increased the compensation previously offered to the resident to £500. This payment fell outside the landlord’s internal complaints process and subsequent to this Service’s involvement. Therefore, it cannot be considered as fulfilling the requirement for a finding of reasonable redress.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

21. The landlord’s Complaints Policy is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It sets out that complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days at stages 1 and 2. Its responses will be issued within 10 working days of acknowledgement at stage 1. At stage 2, its responses will be issued within 20 working days of acknowledgement.
22. The Code requires landlords to recognise and log complaints when a resident expresses dissatisfaction. It also requires landlords to escalate complaints in line with their policy. The landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint of 11 March 2024, even though she clearly expressed dissatisfaction. This was a failing in its stage 1 complaint handling. The resident then had to raise her concerns again, which caused avoidable time and trouble.
23. After it registered the resident’s complaint of 18 April 2024, the landlord acknowledged it within its timescales. However, it issued its stage 1 response after 15 working days. This was outside its policy timescale and non-compliant with the Code. The landlord did not acknowledge this delay. It also did not offer compensation for the complaint handling failures identified. The landlord’s compensation policy provides for awards between £50 and £150 for complaint handling failures. That it did not offer compensation at this stage was a further failing. Its acknowledgement and response at stage 2 complaint were within its timescales.
24. A landlord’s complaint handling process should give residents a timely resolution that covers all issues raised. The landlord did not achieve this in this case. It accounted for the delays in responding to the complaint. However, it did not address several of the resident’s key issues. These included the lack of advance notice of the scaffolding and the absence of information about its inspections. The landlord’s investigation was also not sufficiently proactive or thorough. It did not consider temporary measures that could have reduced the resident’s concerns during the delay. The failings had a clear impact on the resident. The lack of focus on resolving the issues prevented an effective outcome to her complaint. It also created considerable uncertainty and avoidable time and trouble for the resident, who had to chase up elements of her complaint. Taking these failings into account, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. We order the landlord to award the resident compensation of £150.

Learning

25. The landlord should undertake monitoring measures to satisfy itself that it has an appropriate level of confidence in the efficacy of scaffolding works carried out on its behalf by its contractors, including the effectiveness of any recent upskilling.
26. The landlord may wish to remind staff of its complaint policy and procedures, particularly the need to log complaints when dissatisfaction is first raised and to ensure that responses address all issues.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord’s records supplied to this Service did not contain the email it stated it had received on 15 February 2024. The landlord may wish to remind staff of the importance of maintaining accurate records of communications with residents.