Moat Homes Limited (202325016)

Background

1. The resident first requested that the landlord contribute to his patio door replacement in October 2022. He made his request after he had arranged replacement. Having received no response, the resident submitted a second request in April 2023, before approaching us for assistance.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s request for a contribution toward replacement patio doors.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a contribution toward replacement patio doors.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. We found that:
   1. The landlord appropriately relied on and referred the resident to the relevant sections of his lease agreement.
   2. The landlord did not use or learn from its complaint handling process.
   3. The landlord did not communicate with the resident throughout the complaints process.

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.

Recommendations

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

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.

5. The lease agreement states it is the resident’s responsibility to keep the property repaired and maintained. The only exception to this is where the damage caused would require an insurer’s involvement.
6. The records show the resident did not inform the landlord of the replacement patio doors until after the installation. He said the doors required replacing due to their age and ongoing wear and tear. There is no evidence to show he had previously notified the landlord of the deteriorating condition of the doors. As such, this did not provide the landlord with the opportunity to inspect and explain its position regarding a replacement.
7. The landlord has relied on the lease to inform its complaint responses. It provided a copy of the lease and explained the sections referenced in its response. This was an appropriate response to provide the resident with evidence to support its decision.
8. We find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a contribution toward replacement patio doors. It clearly communicated its position regarding the lease and repair obligations. It also appropriately signposted him to a solicitor for further advice if needed.

9. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2024. The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
10. The resident raised his complaint on 22 October 2022. Having received no response from the landlord, he approached us on 27 November 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 January 2024. However, the response contained no reference to its delays. This is a period of around 14 months from when he first complained. This is significantly outside of the timescale stated in its policy.
11. The resident responded, expressing his continued dissatisfaction on 5 January 2024. The landlord responded the same day and acknowledged the delay in issuing the stage 1 response. It offered £100 compensation in recognition of its service failure. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s compensation guidance for a delay by weeks or months, affecting timely resolution of the dispute.
12. The resident responded on 13 January 2024 to decline the landlord’s compensation offer. He reiterated his request to escalate his complaint. Having received no response, he approached us on 29 February 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 March 2024. This response period is significantly outside of the timescale in its policy causing him time and trouble bring the complaint to us. Its response contained no reference to this delay. There was no offer of redress for this delay.
13. Overall, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Its complaint responses failed to acknowledge or address the resident’s time and trouble chasing a resolution. It did not use its complaint handling as an effective tool to learn and put this right following its initial service failure. We may have found service failure but for the landlord’s repeat failures to show any learning. The landlord repeated its failures causing him additional time and trouble.  As such, the landlord must pay the resident an additional £25 for the time and trouble caused to him in having to ask for our assistance.

Learning

General learning

15. The landlord failed to learn throughout its complaint handling process. Where delays occur, it should acknowledge them, explain the reasons, and offer proportionate redress in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance. The landlord should also recognise the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint and use the process as an opportunity to resolve issues at the earliest stage. Strengthening its approach in these areas will support fair complaint handling and help maintain residents’ confidence in its service.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

16. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint. It should keep clear and accurate records of all complaint activity, including when a resident first raises a concern and the actions taken in response. Effective record keeping would have enabled the landlord to track the resident’s contacts, identify delays, and address them at each stage of the process. Consistent and reliable records also support transparent decision‑making and help the landlord provide timely updates to residents. Strengthening its record‑keeping practices will assist the landlord to meet its policy requirements and maintain accountability in its complaint handling.

Communication

The landlord failed to provide updates to the resident throughout the complaints process, which resulted in him approaching us. Clear and timely communication would have helped manage expectations, reduced uncertainty, and demonstrated that the landlord was actively progressing the complaint. By providing regular updates and acknowledging delays when they occur, the landlord can support a more transparent and resident‑focused complaints service.