Moat Homes Limited (202335768)

Decision
Case ID	202335768
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Moat Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	6 November 2025

Background

At the time of the complaint, the resident lived in a 2-bedroom first–floor flat with her child. The resident had poor mental health, and the landlord was aware of these vulnerabilities.
The resident gave consent for the landlord to discuss the complaint with her mother, and for ease within the report, we will refer to both the resident and the resident’s mother as ‘the resident’.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlords:

a. Offer of compensation for items disposed of due to a bedbug infestation.

b. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. no maladministration in the landlord’s offer of compensation
2. service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

In summary, the Ombudsman found that:
1. the landlord was proactive and responsive to the bedbug infestation
2. the landlord was fair and reasonable in moving the resident and her child to a hotel for 3 months and paying expenses
3. the landlord did not accept liability for the infestation, its offer of £1,250 compensation to replace contaminated items was a goodwill gesture and was reasonable
4. it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with its insurance details
5. the landlord’s compensation policy says that it does not cover damage to residents’ personal items, which a resident should cover through a home contents policy
6. it would have been reasonable for the landlord to treat the additional matter of lost bags of clothes as a separate complaint, and it is unclear why the landlord did not direct the resident to do this
7. as the landlord addressed this additional matter in an email to the resident and identified actions it would take, it is unclear why the landlord did not include it in its stage 2 response
8. the landlord made reasonable redress for their late 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.

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 08 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £75 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This includes an additional payment of £25 due to the failings identified during our investigation. 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 08 December 2025

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

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

08 December 2025

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £75 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This includes an additional payment of £25 due to the failings identified during our investigation.

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

08 December 2025

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord provides the resident with its insurance details so she can decide to make a claim for compensation.
The landlord updates the resident following its enquiries with the contractor regarding the alleged missing bags of clothing.
To complete and publish its pest control policy.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 June 2023	The landlord was aware of a bedbug infestation in neighbouring flats. It contacted the resident to advise it needed to carry out a survey of her flat and would be carrying out blockwide treatment.
25 July to 22 November 2023	The resident asked for a temporary move due to the infestation. The landlord moved the resident and her child to a hotel for the duration of the infestation preparation and treatment.
2 August 2023	The resident confirmed that her mother had collected all items from the flat, ready for infestation treatment to start on 7 August 2023.
5 August 2023	The resident consented for all parties to speak to her mother about the issues and complaint.
15 August 2023	The resident sent a list to the landlord of all contaminated items she wanted removing from the flat, which the landlord would remove at no cost to the resident.
August to October 2023	Professional heat treatment of the resident’s and neighbouring flats took place.
7 October 2023	The contractors removed bedbug infested furniture from the resident’s flat, and any items left outside. They sent photographs of how they left the resident’s flat on completion.
16 November 2023	The landlord told the resident that treatment of her flat was successful, and she could return to live there. The resident did not want to return to the flat as she said she felt too traumatised by the incident. The landlord agreed to extend her hotel stay until 22 November 2023.
20 November 2023	The landlord said it did not accept any liability for the infestation. It offered the resident £1,250 as a goodwill gesture to replace contaminated items. The resident sent the landlord a list of items she needed to purchase which totalled £1,900.
20 November 2023	The resident made her formal complaint to the landlord. She said: the trauma of the infestation led her to seek rehousing she wanted more compensation than the £1,250 offered by the landlord.
20 November 2023	The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint.
23 November 2023	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said: it had offered £1,250 in vouchers for replacement furniture which it felt was enough that the resident was on the priority moves list.
28 November 2023	The resident told the landlord that 2 bags of clothing and cushions were missing from the flat and that she wanted more compensation. The landlord told the resident that it had contacted the contractor and was waiting for a reply and would update the resident. It said it would not be able to offer any further compensation.
28 November 2023	The contractor told the landlord that they had only removed items indicated for disposal from the resident’s flat. The contractor provided photographic evidence at completion of the job, showing the resident’s bags present in the flat, marked as ‘keep’.
28 November 2023	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2.
30 November 2023	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
12 January 2023	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said: it moved the resident and her child to a hotel for 3 months and paid expenses it carried out heat treatment of the resident’s home to address the infestation it kept in regular contact with the resident during this period it feels it acted in a fair, timely and reasonable manner it apologised for miscommunication about a potential home that later became unavailable, and offered £50 compensation for this it identified learning and improvements to its communications it accepted that its stage 2 response was 8 days late and offered £50 for the delay the resident was on the priority moves list to move home it had already offered £1,250 in Amazon vouchers to replace items it cannot offer more compensation given all it had done to date
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman on 12 January 2024. She said: the landlord had resolved the infestation £1,250 compensation given was not enough she wants the landlord to investigate who is responsible for her missing bags of clothing.
26 May 2024	The local council rehoused the resident.
29 October 2025	The resident told the Housing Ombudsman that she had received the £1,250 in Amazon vouchers from the landlord.

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 offer of compensation for items disposed of due to a bedbug infestation
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord informed the resident that it did not accept liability for the infestation and offered her £1,250 as a goodwill gesture to replace items.
In its stage 2 response the landlord detailed all actions it had taken to ease the resident’s situation during the infestation and treatment. This included moving the resident to a hotel, paying expenses, and agreeing to rehouse her. The local council rehoused the resident in May 2024.
The landlord felt that its offer of £1,250 was fair and reasonable, given all the actions it had taken.
The landlord acted responsively to the infestation caused within its block and sought to remedy the situation to the best of its ability. The landlord did not accept liability, and there is no evidence of any wrongdoing. It offered a goodwill gesture of £1,250, instead of the resident claiming on her home contents insurance, which is reasonable.
While the resident did not feel this amount was enough, there is no evidence of wrongdoing by the landlord. Any disagreement with the landlord’s gesture of goodwill would require a decision by a court or insurer. The resident could seek independent legal advice for this.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it is the resident’s responsibility to have home contents insurance. Its compensation policy does not cover damage to a resident’s personal items. The policy does not refer to circumstances when a resident may need to make an insurance claim.
If the resident felt that the landlord was at fault for the infestation, then it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with its insurance details.
The landlord did not advise the resident to make a claim on her own home contents insurance, and it did not provide the resident with its own insurance details for an insurer to investigate and decide on the matter.
We found that the landlord has acted reasonably and therefore have found no maladministration in the landlord’s offer of compensation. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to provide the resident with its insurance details, should she choose to submit a claim.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) effective as of 1 April 2022 required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
The landlord acknowledged and responded to the stage 1 complaint within the expected timeframes.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint within the expected timeframe, but its stage 2 response was 8 days late. In that response, the landlord admitted the delay and offered the resident £50 in compensation, which was reasonable.
The resident raised an additional issue of missing items from her flat after the landlord had sent their stage 1 response. The Code says landlords should treat new issues raised after stage 1 as a new complaint.
The landlord could have directed the resident to make a separate, formal complaint regarding this issue and treated it as a stage 1 complaint. However, the landlord responded to the resident about this matter in an email and told the resident that it would update her, following its enquiries.
The landlord demonstrated it quickly investigated this matter, responding the same day to the resident and requesting photographic evidence from the contractor. However, it is unclear why the landlord did not treat this matter as a stage 1 complaint or include it in its stage 2 response.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord updated the resident following its enquiries with the contractor. It is unclear how the landlord brought this matter to a conclusion. The landlord does not appear to have followed its own policies and procedures.
The outcome of this new matter would require a decision by an insurer or the courts. It identifies a training need for the landlord to handle additional matters raised by residents in line with the Code.
Due to the late stage 2 response and the lack of clarity given to the resident for the additional matter raised after the stage 1 response, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping overall was good. But there were gaps in its accurate recording of feedback to the resident about the new matter raised. Also, in providing its insurance details to the resident for issues that fall outside of its compensation policy.

Communication

Overall, the landlord’s communication with the resident was good. It also identified areas where it can improve its communication with other agencies.