Moat Homes Limited (202446224)

Background

1. The resident is unhappy with the way the landlord has responded to his reports of roof leaks and delays in it dealing with the associated repairs.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of roof repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of roof repairs
   2. reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

Roof repairs

5. The landlord failed to carry out repairs within a reasonable timeframe. It has not evidenced that it has ensured the leak has been resolved.

Complaint handling

6. There were short delays during the landlord’s internal complaints process. However, it apologised and offered appropriate compensation in its stage 2 response.

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.

What we have not considered

7. The resident told us he had experienced problems with the roof since 2016. In its stage 2 response the landlord mentioned previous repairs in 2016 and 2021. We have seen no evidence the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of those repairs at those times.
8. This investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from September 2023 onwards, that the landlord considered during its complaints process. This is because we expect residents to raise complaints with their landlords normally within 12 months of the matters arising. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live,’ and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

Roof repairs

9. On 21 September 2023 the resident reported that water was leaking from the roof above his balcony doors and plaster inside his property was wet. The landlord investigated October 2023, but we have not seen a copy of a report and do not know what it found. The landlord also inspected the property on 12 March 2024, but again we have not seen a copy of a report from this time. It has told us it made recommendations for works in these inspections but did not complete these. This was not appropriate and not in line with its repairs policy.
10. On 26 September 2024 the resident contacted the landlord again to say it had not fixed the roof and his plaster was damaged. It sent a contractor the next day, who found that a specialist was needed. It raised a new work order on 14 October 2024 and completed works on 28 November 2024. It has not provided any evidence of what work it completed and whether it carried out any further check to ensure it had resolved the leak.
11. In its stage 1 response of 18 December 2024, the landlord said it had been unable to make contact with the resident to check the repair had been successful. However, it has not provided contact records to show how many times and via what methods it tried to make contact.
12. On 22 January 2025 the resident emailed the landlord to say it had not fully investigated the leak. He said he had already had to pay for plastering and repainting twice in recent years. As explained above, we have not considered the landlord’s actions in relation to earlier leaks, so have not considered the internal damage from these. The resident subsequently asked the landlord to escalate the complaint.
13. In its stage 2 response of 28 March 2025, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to take action following inspections in October 2023 and March 2024. It apologised and offered compensation. It also said it would assess and repair the internal damage once it had resolved the leak. These were reasonable and proportionate remedies based on its failings at this time.
14. In its stage 2 response the landlord said a new inspection would take place on 4 April 2025. It is not clear from its records whether this went ahead, and we have not seen a copy of a report. The landlord’s records from 10 June 2025 show it asked another contractor to carry out an inspection. Its contractor tried to visit in early July 2025 but could not gain access. The landlord’s records do not show whether it had prearranged this visit with the resident, or whether it made any attempts to rearrange this.
15. In October 2025 a contractor of the landlord inspected the roof and confirmed that previous works had not been completed to a reasonable standard. This contractor said the resident would need to make an insurance claim for the internal work. This was not appropriate, as it had committed to carrying out repairs in its stage 2 response. It told its contractor this, but there is no evidence it made any attempt to move repairs forward at that time.
16. The landlord’s records state that it completed work to the roof on 31 October 2025, but it has not provided any evidence of what work it did. In contact with us in November 2025, the resident said that when a contractor carried out a survey in July 2025, they told him a flat roof above his living room needed to be replaced. He says he was also told insulation was waterlogged and needed to be replaced. We have not seen a copy of the inspection report, so cannot comment on what recommendations it made. However, we have seen no evidence the landlord satisfied itself that it had resolved all water ingress issues.
17. The landlord has provided a copy of inspection report for a survey it conducted on 16 December 2025. This shows that the inside of the property was dry and it set out what work was needed to repair the internal damage. However, we have seen no evidence that it inspected the roof at that time, despite its records saying it was supposed to carry out a post-work inspection. Its records show that it put scaffolding up in January 2026 to carry out further work. It has not provided any evidence to show what that work was, or if it has completed this.
18. The resident has confirmed to us that the landlord completed internal work at the start of April 2026. We are pleased to hear it has now done this, but it is not appropriate that this was more than a year after its stage 2 promise to do so. The landlord’s handling of the roof repairs and subsequent internal damage has been poor overall. While it did acknowledge failings during its internal complaints process, it did not take action to resolve matters within a reasonable timeframe.
19. The landlord has said that it has struggled to engage with the resident at times. We appreciate there may been times it was unable to make contact with him or gain access to the property. However, it has failed to provide evidence that it made reasonable attempts to contact him both to arrange appointments and keep him updated. More than a year after its stage 2 response, the landlord has failed to provide us or the resident with evidence that it has repaired the roof to a satisfactory standard.

20. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the day he raised it (28 November 2024) – in line with its complaints policy timescale of 5 working days
    2. it sent its stage 1 response 14 working days after acknowledging the complaint (28 November to 18 December 2024) – outside its policy timescale of 10 working days
    3. it acknowledged the resident’s escalation request after 7 working days (19 February to 28 February 2025) – outside its policy timescale of 5 working days
    4. it sent its stage 2 response 20 working days after acknowledging escalation (28 February to 28 March 2025) – in line with its policy timescale of 20 working days
21. The landlord acknowledged failings in its complaint handling and communication in its stage 2 response and offered £150 compensation to recognise this. This offer was proportionate to its failings and in line with our compensation guidance.

Learning

Communication

22. The landlord’s overall communication was poor. There was a long delay in it completing repairs and it did not keep the resident reasonably updated during the process. It relied on the resident to chase for updated and remind it that work remained outstanding. It should be more proactive in keeping its residents updated while investigations and repairs are ongoing.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord’s record keeping was poor in this case. As well as its failure to keep good contact records, as noted above, it did not keep good records of inspections and work carried out throughout the repairs process. Poor record keeping made it hard for the landlord to respond proactively and effectively, leading to the need for repeated inspections. It also impacted on its ability to ensure repairs had been completed.
24. Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management highlights that without good data management, landlords may struggle to use or analyse information to improve services. The landlord should take steps to improve how it records and uses data