Moat Homes Limited (202311576)

Background

1. The resident reported rodent infestation in her property and believed a building defect caused it. The landlord inspected the property but found insufficient evidence to support a warranty claim. The landlord considered it had done enough to investigate, but the resident disagrees.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Report of a building defect and associated rodent infestation.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the residents:
   1. Report of a building defect and associated rodent infestation.
   2. Associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Report of a building defect and associated rodent infestation

4. The landlord appropriately recognised and put right that it delayed its investigations prior to our investigation.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord acknowledged that it delayed its complaint responses and offered reasonable redress.

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.

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 cannot look at

6. We do not investigate complaints where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the court, tribunal or other procedure. In this case, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s failure to carry out its legal obligations before handover, and the developer’s failure to ask the water company to adopt the shared sewer is better dealt with by court. This is because these issues relate to alleged negligence, which we cannot determine. For these reasons, we have decided not to investigate these aspects of the complaint.

What we can look at

7. Under the shared ownership lease the resident is responsible for repairing and maintaining the property. This includes pest control. The landlord’s website also says the resident will be responsible for managing pests within their home.
8. The resident reported a rodent infestation in May 2022, after arranging private inspections by pest control, the water company, and the council to check for pest activity. At this time, the water company identified an unsealed manhole in the neighbour’s garden, which she said allowed rodents to burrow into the property’s foundations. The resident has told us she did not have any evidence of the private inspections, or provide this information to the landlord. However, the landlord was on notice and there is no evidence that it appropriately communicated with the resident at that time. This caused the resident time and trouble re-reporting the issue.
9. The resident emailed the landlord several times between May 2022 and December 2022. She wanted the landlord to help to establish the source of the rodent infestation. In her email of 13 October 2022, she said she believed a defect caused the issue and asked the landlord to make a warranty or insurance claim. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident during this time, which led to her chasing. However, the landlord used its discretion to inspect the property at least 4 times between 19 December 2022 and 22 June 2023 but found no evidence of rodents or a defect. The landlord positively tried to assist, but delayed action in its investigations about the defect. It also communicated poorly with the resident, causing avoidable frustration, time, and inconvenience to her.
10. During the complaint process, the landlord appropriately told the resident that it did not have sufficient evidence to claim through the warranty. While the landlord did not explain that the resident could make a direct claim under the warranty, the resident purchased the property herself. As part of the conveyancing process, she would have had the opportunity to be advised about her rights and responsibilities in relation to the warranty.
11. We recognise the resident found the landlord’s outcome disappointing. But based on the failures we found, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for delays and poor communication. It also offered £200 compensation, which was proportionate and in line with our compensation guidance for the level of failure and detriment caused.

12. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) published in 2022 applied when the resident made her complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy appropriately adopted the definition of a complaint and the response timeframes set out in the Code.
13. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint but issued its stage 1 response 198 working days later. This was an unreasonable delay. It was not in line with its complaint policy and the Code, which require a response within 10 working days. This significant delay caused avoidable distress to the resident.
14. The Code and the landlord’s policy required a stage 2 response be issued within 20 working days of escalation. The landlord acknowledged the escalation after 14 working days and issued its stage 2 response 51 working days later. Its unexplained delay and poor communication prevented the resident from referring the complaint to us sooner. This caused further distress, inconvenience and frustration to her.
15. The landlord acknowledged its failures in its stage 2 response and appropriately apologised. It offered the resident reasonable compensation of £150. This was sufficient to address the failures we identified and proportionate to the compensation we may have ordered in line with our compensation guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

16. The landlord’s record keeping was appropriate, and we have not identified any concerns.

Communication

17. The landlord could improve its communication with residents by providing timely updates of progress to avoid the resident having to chase.

Complaint handling

18. The landlord did not address the resident’s complaint in a timely manner. It could reflect on this and consider any learning and staff training needs.