Moat Homes Limited (202329049)

Decision
Case ID	202329049
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Moat Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	4 June 2026

Background

1. The resident occupied her property with her children. She had reported a number of ongoing repair issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about:
   1. The condition of her front door, a sewage upsurge and external works.
   2. Delays to repairs to streetlights and the standards of ground maintenance.
3. We have investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found:
   1. Reasonable redress was offered by the landlord for the resident’s complaint about the front door, sewage upsurge and external works.
   2. Maladministration for her complaint about the streetlights and the standards of ground maintenance.
   3. Reasonable redress for the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord acknowledged and explained its delays in relation to the front door repair, sewage upsurge and external works and offered reasonable redress.
6. The landlord acknowledged there was poor ground maintenance but it did not follow through with its offer of a service charge refund. It did not recognise the impact of its delays to the streetlight repair on the resident.
7. The landlord’s complaint handling was satisfactory overall. The landlord acknowledged its failings, identified some learning, gave an explanation for its delays and offered compensation.

 

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise her distress and inconvenience for the delays to the repairs to the streetlights. 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 02 July 2026
2	Refund order The landlord must calculate a service charge refund to reflect the poor ground maintenance and sends her the refund with its calculation. If the landlord has adjusted the service charge then it must provide its calculation and date refunded/credited with evidence. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment and its calculation by the due date.	No later than 02 July 2006

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should carry out an investigation in order to ensure, as far as possible, the sewage upsurge incident does not reoccur. It should provide a copy of the investigation report to the resident.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 September 2023	The resident submitted a complaint about delays to repairs to the communal streetlights and her front door.
5 October 2023	The landlord responded with its stage 1 response as follows: It had taken a while to identify who was responsible for the repairs to the streetlights. It was chasing the managing agent responsible. It had instructed its contractor regarding the front door and marked it as urgent. It would consider ways to improve its record keeping in order to avoid delays.
16 October 2023	The resident wrote to the landlord stating she did not wish it to close her complaint as the issues, as well as other issues, including external repairs, had not been resolved.
5 December 2023	The resident added to her complaint she had not been able to use her bathroom due to an upsurge of raw sewage into her bathroom on 19 November 2023. She was also awaiting a response to her stage 2 complaint.
8 December 2023	The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint.
25 January 2024	The landlord responded with its stage 2 response as follows: It acknowledged the delays to the repairs to the streetlights and front door. It had not arranged an environmental clean to the bathroom. It did not arrange access so there was a delay to the repair to the guttering. It was progressing repairs to the fence and garden gate lock. It had arranged a post inspection to external works. It would adjust the service charges due to poor ground maintenance.  It had changed its ground maintenance contractors. It offered £563.86 consisting of: Refund of cost of environmental clean: £180. Loss of use of bathroom (25% of the daily rent): £133.86. Impact of the delay to carry out repairs to the front door: £150. Complaint response letter overdue: £100.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident felt that it was not sufficient to apologise. The landlord should learn from its failings. The flooding of her bathroom happened again. She wanted reassurance that the landlord had investigated the matter so that it did not reoccur. She also told us that the landlord did not reimburse her with the service charges as promised.

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 reports of the condition of her front door, a sewage upsurge and external works.
Finding	Reasonable redress

8. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
9. While the incident of flooding to the bathroom with sewage water was distressing, we consider that the landlord addressed this satisfactorily by its offer of compensation for the loss of use of the bathroom  (£133.86) and a refund of the environmental clean (£180). We did not see any evidence that the  could have reasonably foreseen the incident,
10. While it was not part of the complaint, we will make a recommendation that the landlord commissions a report to find out the cause of the leak and any remedies, in order to ensure, as far as possible, the incident does not happen again. It should also provide a copy to the resident. This is because the upsurge reoccurred. The resident reported that this had a significant impact her, given her concerns about the family’s health and safety and what may amount to a hazard under the Housing Act 2004.
11. Our view is the offer of compensation sufficiently recognised the delay from the beginning of September to 27 October 2023 to the repairs to the front door and the resident’s concerns about the lack of security. The £150 offered reflects the landlord’s own compensation policy and our own guidelines.
12. We did not find evidence of significant impact on the resident for delays to the external works including her fence, gate and post inspection.  We find that the update sufficiently addressed the resident’s concerns.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of delays to repairs to streetlights and the standards of ground maintenance.
Finding	Maladministration

13. The landlord recognised the delays to the street light repair from August to October 2023. It also took steps to address its record keeping as the cause of the issue. However, it did not recognise the impact on the resident, given her concerns about security and that she had children. The evidence showed that she had to chase the landlord on a number of occasions. We consider that it’s appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 for the delays and we will make an order accordingly.
14. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer a service charge refund for ithe poor ground maintenance in its stage 2 response. However, there was no evidence it followed this through. If it did, it did not communicate this with or make any calculations clear to the resident. In the circumstances, we find maladministration and will make an order that the landlord calculates a fair refund and pays her that amount.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

15. There may have been a misunderstanding about the resident’s request to escalate her complaint which was rectified on 8 December 2023. We did not identify a specific request by the resident to escalate her complaint but to keep it open.
16. The landlord recognised its delay to its second stage response. It offered reasonable compensation of £100 in line with its policy and our compensation guidance. The landlord’s complaint handling was otherwise satisfactory overall. The landlord acknowledged and explained the delays. It identified some learning. It sought to rectify its failings. Except in relation to the street lighting, it considered the impact on the resident.

Learning

17. The investigation identified a need for the landlord to review its repair service overall in order to avoid delays.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. The landlord identified a need to improve its record keeping for who was responsible for repairs and maintenance on its sites.

Communication

19. We had no concerns about the landlord’s communication.