Moat Homes Limited (202423790)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423790

Moat Homes Limited

30 April 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a reported leak and the subsequent damage caused.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder, they have held the lease since 2015. The landlord is a housing association.
The property is a two-bedroom flat located on the top floor of a block of flats.
The resident first reported a leak to the landlord on 5 October 2021 when the resident told the landlord that water was leaking into their bathroom. Following the resident’s report the landlord cleared the gutters, there is no evidence of the landlord conducting any additional repairs until 2024. On 12 February 2024 the resident told the landlord the leak had gotten worse and had caused severe damage to the plastering in their bathroom. The resident has said the leak was a result of faulty brickwork which the landlord had not repaired.
In their complaint dated 28 May 2024 the resident said:
1. In 2021 they had informed the landlord of a leak from an external wall which was causing water ingress into their bathroom. The landlord cleared the external guttering and said someone would attend to fully rectify the issue.
2. The landlord had not resolved the leak, and it had gotten worse.
3. They had contacted the landlord in February 2024 about the leak, and they had to chase the landlord to provide a response.
4. The landlord had missed 3 pre-planned appointments to inspect the leak.
In its stage one response dated 8 July 2024 the landlord said:
1. It cleared the guttering in October 2021, and it believed this had rectified the issue.
2. It had no further contact with the resident about the leak until February 2024.
3. It had arranged 3 appointments which its contractors failed to attend.
4. A roofer had attended the property on 20 June 2024 and put a temporary fix in place. The roofer was limited in the work they could conduct due to concerns about the presence of asbestos. It was in the process of arranging an asbestos survey.
5. It offered the resident £300 in compensation. This figure was broken down as £150 for the resident’s distress, £100 for any disruption experienced and £50 for its complaints handling.
On 17 July 2024 the resident escalated their complaint as they wanted the landlord to provide its insurers details. The resident also wanted the landlord to explain how it planned to repair the internal damage caused by the leak.
On 18 September 2024 the resident contacted this Service as they were concerned about the damage caused by the leak and how the landlord was handling their complaint.
In its stage 2 response dated 9 October 2024 the landlord said:
1. It was sorry for the length of time this matter had been ongoing.
2. It provided the resident with the outcome of an asbestos survey.
3. It apologised for its contractor sending the wrong trades person on 15 August 2024, and it offered £20 compensation.
4. It committed to completing the repair and said it would confirm a schedule of works for the repair on 16 October 2024. It was waiting for the outcome of an inspection on 14 October 2024 before it could confirm a repairs date.
5. It provided the resident with the contact details for its insurers.
On 10 February 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident and apologised for its lack of communication. It said it had passed the repair onto a contractor who would provide the resident with a schedule of repairs. It also offered the resident additional compensation of £200 for its complaint handling failures, and £149.90 for its lack of communication and because it had not provided a schedule of repairs as promised. It calculated this amount by offering the resident 10% of the average rent for the time in which the landlord had not communicated with the resident.
The landlord has said it is currently arranging for the soffits, fascias and gutters around the resident’s property to be fully replaced.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a reported leak and the subsequent damage caused

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will aim to respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours, and for non-emergency repairs it aims to attend within 21 days. There may be occasions where the need for specialists, materials and equipment may affect its response times.
If the landlord cancels a repair appointment it will try to provide as much notice as possible. If an appointment is cancelled or rescheduled by the landlord 24 hours before the appointment, it will offer a resident £20 compensation and an apology.
The landlord’s compensation policy says if a resident wants to make a claim from the landlord’s insurers they should put this request into writing and the landlord will send this onto their insurers.
The landlord can provide discretionary compensation for a service failure. Compensation will be considered using the following scale:
1. Up to £150 if a resident experiences minor disruption from a service failure that causes them inconvenience.
2. Up to £250 if a resident experiences moderate disruption which causes a high level of inconvenience.
3. Up to £500 if a resident experiences extensive disruption from a significant service failure where numerous opportunities to resolve the matter have been missed.
The resident’s lease says the landlord is responsible for keeping the roof, drains and exterior walls in good repair.
On 12 February 2024 the resident told the landlord the leak was getting worse, and it had caused damage to internal plastering in the property. The landlord did not acknowledge this report or take any actions until the resident chased the landlord on 8 April 2024. On 12 April 2024 the landlord inspected the roof and drains.
The landlord arranged for the leak in the resident’s property to be inspected. However, the landlord cancelled this inspection on three occasions between April and May of 2024. The landlord did not warn the resident that it needed to cancel the appointments, and it did not reschedule the appointments until the resident contacted the landlord. It did not offer the resident compensation for the cancelled appointments. The landlord’s actions were unreasonable, as it did not act in-line with the commitments in its repairs policy.
After the resident made a complaint, the landlord took steps to address the leak. It arranged for a roofer to put a temporary fix in place on 20 June 2024 until it could establish further details on the suspected asbestos. This was a fair and appropriate decision. However, the landlord should have conducted this temporary fix at an earlier date, considering the resident had reported the leak on 12 February 2024.
The landlord arranged for an asbestos survey to occur on 11 July 2024, this was appropriate. After receiving the asbestos report the landlord should have taken steps to action the repair urgently, as the resident had reported the leak 5 months earlier. This did not occur.
On 15 August 2024 the landlord sent a plumber to attend the property. This was inappropriate as a plumber could not address the leak or roofing issues as this fell outside of their professional scope. Following this mistake the landlord did not arrange for the correct professional to attend, this was a failing and it led to further delays. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for sending the wrong tradesperson and offered the resident £20 in compensation.
In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for how long the repair had been outstanding. It committed to conducting a further survey of the roof, and to confirm a schedule of works with the resident on 16 October 2024. However, the landlord did not arrange for an inspection to occur, and it did not contact the resident until 10 February 2025, this was 118 days later. The Ombudsman considers this to be an unreasonable delay, and it would have caused further uncertainty for the resident. This delay also prolonged the period in which the leak had not been repaired, and this could have caused further damage to occur to the resident’s property.
The resident asked the landlord to include in its stage 2 response its insurers details from 2021 so they could make a claim for damage caused by the leak. The resident has said the landlord provided its current insurers details. The landlord also did not offer to submit the resident’s claim on their behalf, which was not in-line with its policy.
In its complaint responses the landlord did not address the resident’s request for it to explain how or if it would repair the damage caused to the interior of the property by the leak. This was inappropriate given this was a reasonable question from the resident.
The landlord has since told this Service it is currently organising for a survey to occur to assess the damage to the resident’s property. This is a positive step, although the landlord should have done this much sooner.
The lease states that the resident is responsible for keeping the inside of the property in good condition, and it is the responsibility of the landlord to keep the roof and external structure of the block in good repair and condition.
The resident put the landlord on notice about a leak from the exterior of the property on 12 February 2024. The resident also told the landlord that the leak was damaging plastering in the property. Following the resident’s report, it was the landlord’s responsibility to address the leak within a reasonable timeframe to prevent further damage from occurring.
However, the first occasion where the landlord addressed the leak was 20 June 2024 when it put in place a temporary fix. It was unreasonable for the landlord to take four months to address this issue, and the time it took to address the leak could have made the damage worse. The landlord is responsible for rectifying the damage caused, as it did not fulfil its obligation to keep the exterior of the block in good repair after it was notified that repairs were required. To rectify this the Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to repair the damage caused by the leak.
In its stage one and 2 responses the landlord offered the resident compensation totalling £270. At the time of its stage 2 response it had been 8 months since the resident reported the leak, and there were multiple delays caused by the landlord. Although, the landlord’s compensation offer was within its compensation guidance, the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified, and the impact this had on the resident.
After the resident contacted this service, the landlord made an additional compensation offer on 10 February 2025. The landlord said as it had not been in contact with the resident since 14 October 2024 it would provide the resident with additional compensation of £149.90. While it was positive that the landlord identified its failings and attempted to address them, it should have followed through on its commitments at stage 2 and ensured that matters were fully put right at this time.
This brought the total compensation amount offered by the landlord to £419.90. The Ombudsman considers this offer went some way to resolving the issues identified, but it did not fully rectify the resident’s concerns about the repairs and the damage caused to the resident’s property.
The Ombudsman has determined maladministration occurred after considering:
1. Under the lease it was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure the roof and external walls were kept in good repair.
2. The landlord did not address or repair the leak within a reasonable timeframe.
3. The landlord did not communicate with the resident or progress the repair from October 2024 to February 2025 and this would have caused further damage to the resident’s property.
4. The landlord’s offer of compensation went some way to provide redress for the failings identified, but it did not fully recognise the failures and it should have been accompanied with further details about how the landlord planned to address the repair and damage caused.
The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay a total of £600 in compensation, and to take specific action to address the leak.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy outlines the timescales in which it will respond to a complaint. The landlord commits to acknowledging complaints within 5 working days, and to provide its stage one response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. If the resident wishes for their complaint to be escalated to stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge this request within 5 days and provide its response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
The resident made their complaint on 28 May 2024, the landlord acknowledged the complaint 10 working days later. This was outside of the timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord sent its stage one response on 8 July 2024, this was 21 working days after the landlord acknowledged the complaint. In its stage one response the landlord apologised for not producing its stage one in-line with the timescales in its complaints policy, and it offered the resident £50 in compensation. This was appropriate.
On 17 July 2024 the resident escalated their complaint to stage 2. The resident had to chase the landlord twice before the landlord acknowledged the escalation request 33 working days after the resident escalated the complaint. This was inappropriate and would have been frustrating for the resident.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 9 October 2024, this was 29 working days after it had acknowledged the escalation request. This was outside of the timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy. In its stage 2 the landlord apologised for how long the issue had remained unresolved. However, it did not acknowledge that its complaint responses were late, and this could have contributed to delays. This was unreasonable.
On 10 February 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident following a review of its handling of the resident’s complaint. In this letter the landlord offered the resident an additional £200 in compensation, bringing the total compensation offered for the landlord’s complaints handling to £250.
The Ombudsman considers £250 to be an appropriate attempt to put matters right considering the failings which occurred. However, it offered this amount after its internal complaint procedures were exhausted, and given the timing this offer could have been prompted by the Ombudsman’s involvement. This would be inappropriate.
The landlord should have offered the £250 compensation during its internal complaints procedure. As such, the Ombudsman considers a service failure to have occurred, as the landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable, but it should have been offered during the landlord’s internal complaints process. We have therefore ordered an apology from the landlord to remedy this failing.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the leak and damage caused.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, a service failure occurred in respect of the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £600 to the resident. The compensation previously offered of £419.90 can be deducted from this amount if already paid.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to provide the resident with a planned schedule of works to complete the roof repairs and to address the leak.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to arrange for a survey to occur to inspect the damage caused to the resident’s property. The landlord is to follow through on completing all required repairs identified during this survey.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to provide its current and previous insurers details to the resident and to support them in making a claim if they wish to do so.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the complaint handling failures identified.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with our orders within 4 weeks of the determination date.