Moat Homes Limited (202502553)

Decision
Case ID	202502553
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Moat Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	23 March 2026

 

Background

1. In November 2024 the resident sent the landlord an application form and supporting information asking to be rehoused on medical grounds. She said the landlord did not acknowledge receipt of the information or respond to her request for rehousing. The landlord has advised us that the resident is recorded on its system as being vulnerable due to having limited mobility and hearing difficulties.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an urgent transfer to more suitable accommodation.
3. We have also decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

 

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an urgent transfer to more suitable accommodation.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

 

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord offered fair and proportionate redress for the failings that happened before sending its stage 2 reply. However, it did not assess the resident’s application within the timescale given in the stage 2 response or advise the resident of the delay in completing the assessment.
7. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints within appropriate timescales.

 

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 24 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 for the distress, inconvenience and frustration caused by its response to her request for an urgent transfer to more suitable accommodation. This sum includes the £200 offered at stage 2.   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 24 April 2026

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 February 2025	The resident made a stage 1 complaint. She said the landlord had not responded to an application she had made in November 2024 to be urgently rehoused on medical grounds.
3 March 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 reply in which it apologised for the lack of contact and offered the resident compensation of £75 to recognise the service failure. It said it had asked the Neighbourhood Services Manager to contact the resident regularly.
4 March 2025	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 because she said there had been significant delays, communication breakdowns and a lack of a clear plan to resolve her housing situation.
7 April 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 reply in which it said: On 22 November 2024 the resident had provided medical and other information to support her request for a priority move on medical grounds. The resident chased the landlord for an update in January 2025 and, as a result, the landlord reissued the priority move application form. The landlord had now logged the resident’s application for a priority move and it was awaiting approval by the appropriate manager, which was expected by 11 April 2025. The landlord acknowledged that the delay had caused the resident distress and upset, for which it apologised. It offered total compensation of £200, which was made up of £100 for distress and inconvenience and £100 for the delays, which replaced its offer of £75 at stage 1.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted us to say she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said the ongoing issues were severely affecting her physical and mental health.

 

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 request for an urgent transfer to more suitable accommodation
Finding	Service failure

8. The landlord’s priority move policy says:
   1. A resident may qualify for a priority move if they can no longer live healthily in their home because, for example, of reasons related to age, disability, or health.
   2. Once the landlord has all the information it needs, it will let the resident know in writing that they are being considered for a priority move.
9. The resident advised the landlord in her stage 2 complaint that the ongoing delay had severely impacted her health and daily life. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a claim through insurers or the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent advice if she wishes to pursue this option.
10. On 5 November 2024, the resident sent the landlord information from her Occupational Therapist (OT) saying that her property was unsuitable for her needs due to medical conditions. She asked the landlord to help review her current housing and provide advice about available options. The landlord appropriately acknowledged receipt of the information on 13 November 2024 and said it would contact her within 5 working days.
11. The landlord sent the resident a medical assessment form on 22 November 2024, which it asked her to complete and return along with supporting medical evidence. It said it would then review the information and decide whether to award ‘priority move’ status. As the resident had provided information from her OT that the property was unsuitable for the resident’s needs, it was reasonable for the landlord to send the resident a medical assessment form so she could be assessed for a priority move. This was in line with the landlord’s priority move policy.
12. The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 November 2024 and provided the medical information by email as she said she had not been able to submit it using the landlord’s online system. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord acknowledged receipt of the medical information or arranged for this to be assessed after receiving it. This was unreasonable as the resident had explained in her email the difficulties she was experiencing in the property and had provided supporting evidence.
13. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 and 23 January 2025 to say she had not received an acknowledgement or a response regarding the information she had submitted. The landlord sent an acknowledgement on 24 January 2025 and said it would respond within 5 working days. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s enquiries and this prompted her to make a stage 1 complaint on 10 February 2025. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not responded to the enquiries she sent in January 2025, particularly as she had emphasised the difficulties she was experiencing due to her medical condition and the distress this was causing.
14. On 12 February 2025, the landlord reissued the rehousing application forms by email and post and agreed that it would collect the forms in person from the resident when she had completed them. The landlord also phoned the resident on 18 February 2025 to offer to collect the completed forms. Given the delays that had already occurred, it was reasonable that the landlord had sent the forms by post and email to ensure the resident received them and that it had agreed to collect them in person to save time.
15. The resident said she was waiting for some additional supporting information and therefore the landlord collected the forms on 14 March 2025. As part of its stage 2 reply on 7 April 2025, the landlord confirmed that it had registered the resident’s application for a priority move and the relevant managers would assess the application. It said it would complete this assessment by 11 April 2025. However, the landlord’s records show that application was not approved until 29 April 2025.
16. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not kept to its commitment to assess the application by 11 April 2025 and had not contacted the resident to let her know of the delay. The landlord was aware from previous correspondence with the resident that she was very anxious and distressed about her housing situation and therefore it was incumbent on the landlord to advise her of any further delays. As a result of the landlord’s lack of communication, the resident contacted us on 17 April 2025 to say that the landlord had agreed to make its decision by 11 April 2025 but had not done so.
17. The landlord’s records show that various events regarding the resident’s housing situation happened after it approved the priority move application. We have not investigated these events because a key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information we are investigating as part of its complaint response.
18. In summary, we have found the following failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an urgent transfer to more suitable accommodation:
    1. The landlord did not acknowledge receipt of the medical information submitted by the resident on 22 November 2024 or arrange for it to be assessed.
    2. It did not respond to the resident’s enquiries on 20 and 23 January 2025 within its agreed timescale of 5 working days.
    3. It did not assess the resident’s application for a priority move by the deadline given in its stage 2 reply and did not contact the resident to let her know of the delay.
19. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
20. In this case, the landlord acted fairly by using its stage 2 response to acknowledge its failings and the “distress and upset” caused by the delay in dealing with her application for a priority move. It acknowledged the impact on the resident, including difficulties attending hospital appointments and not being able to carry out everyday tasks, such as the ‘school run’.
21. It sought to put things right by apologising for the service it had provided to the resident and by offering compensation. The landlord’s records show that it also tried to put things right by backdating the registration date to 1 November 2024 when it approved the application. This ensured its system showed that the resident had been waiting for a priority move since November 2024.
22. In terms of learning, the landlord said in its stage 1 response that it would ensure the Neighbourhood Operations Manager monitored enquiries more closely to ensure residents receive progress updates in relation to their enquiries.
23. We have considered the landlord’s offer of compensation, which was £200. It’s offer was in the range of sums shown in its compensation policy for cases where there has been a high level of service failure leading to a high level of inconvenience. In this case, the information submitted by the resident in November 2024 had made it clear she was experiencing significant distress due to her current living conditions. The landlord’s delay in processing her application for a priority move added to her distress. Therefore, we agree that it was appropriate for the landlord’s compensation offer to have recognised there had been a high level of service failure leading to a high level of inconvenience for the resident.
24. We are unable to say whether the resident missed out on an offer of alternative accommodation as a result of the delay in processing the priority move application. As previously stated, we are also unable to assess the impact on the resident’s health and wellbeing. We have therefore focussed our assessment on the distress, inconvenience and frustration experienced by the resident due to the delays and lack of communication from the landlord.
25. We have concluded that the landlord’s offer of compensation at stage 2 was reasonable and proportionate and was in line with its policy. However, we consider the landlord should make an additional offer of compensation as it did not approve the application within the timescale given in its stage 2 reply and did not contact the resident to advise her of the delay. We have therefore found there was service failure and have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation in addition to the £200 offered at stage 2.
26. The additional £100 reflects the additional distress, inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to meet the timescale in its stage 2 reply and its failure to advise her that the decision was delayed. The award is in line with our Remedies Guidance for findings of service failure.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

27. 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 sending the acknowledgement. The landlord may need to extend the timescales at stage 1 or stage 2, in which case it will provide the resident with a clear explanation for this. Any extension will not exceed 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2.
28. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 10 February 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 18 February 2025, which was 6 working days after receiving the complaint. It was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that it did not acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. However, as it sent its response on 3 March 2025, which was 9 working days after acknowledging the complaint, we have not identified a service failure in its handling of the stage 1 complaint.
29. The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 March 2025 and asked it to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint on 11 March 2025, which was 5 working days after receiving it.
30. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 7 April 2025, which was 19 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. It therefore responded to the stage 2 complaint within an appropriate timescale.
31. We have found that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling as it responded within appropriate timescales.

 

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. We have not identified any specific issues regarding the landlord’s record keeping. However, the landlord should review its systems for alerting its staff about overdue enquiries.

Communication

33. There was a lack of communication by the landlord in response to the resident’s enquiries.