Moat Homes Limited (202335827)

Decision
Case ID	202335827
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Moat Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	5 December 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a fourth floor flat. The landlord is not the freeholder of the block of flats the resident lives in. The freeholder uses a managing agent to fulfil its legal obligations in maintaining the structure of the building.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a roof leak at the block of flats the resident lives in.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a leak from the roof at the block of flats the resident lives at, which she believed had caused damage to her ceiling.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs

6. The landlord did not explain its repair responsibilities to the resident at an early stage. It missed opportunities to work with her to find a solution to the repair issues she reported to it. This caused her inconvenience as she had to chase it for answers. Although its stage 2 response offered her compensation, we do not consider it was appropriate for the impact its failures had on her.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint within the timeframe of its complaints policy at either stage. It did not apologise for this or offer her a remedy. Its stage 2 response failed to consider her request for it to refund her service charge payments.

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 14 January 2026
2	Compensation Order The landlord must pay the resident £1100 made up as follows: £200 for its failure in handling of repairs to a leak from the roof at the block of flats the resident lives at, which she believed had caused damage to her ceiling. £100 for its complaint handling failure. £400 it offered the resident in its stage 2 response. The further £400 it offered the resident on 1 July 2025. 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 14 January 2026
3	Starting the works The landlord must take all steps to obtain confirmation from the freeholder when repair works will begin to the block of flats and communicate this to the resident. If possible, provide the resident with a timeline on when it expects the repairs to be completed. If the landlord cannot confirm when repair works will begin it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot confirm when repair works will begin by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. The steps it has taken to obtain confirmation from the freeholder when repair works will begin. It must provide the resident with a revised timescale on when it will be able to confirm the start date of the repair work.	No later than 14 January 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord arranges complaint handling training for its staff to ensure that its complaint policy is followed.
It is recommended that the landlord honours its offer to pay the resident’s excess, should she make an insurance claim.

 

 

 

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 December 2023	The resident raised her complaint with the landlord. She said: She was “disheartened with its attitude towards maintaining the safety of the building.” She found it “perplexing” that she needed to claim on her home insurance for the damage to her property. She felt its negligence over the past 12 months had made the issue worse. She wanted it to resolve the issue promptly.
29 February 2024	We contacted the landlord and asked it to send its stage 1 response to the resident by 8 March 2024.
13 March 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response. It said: She had contacted it in November 2022 about a water stain on her ceiling. She had copied it into emails she had sent to the managing agent of the block of flats asking it to investigate the cause of the stain. However, the managing agent had not responded or taken any action. The managing agent was responsible for maintaining the structure of the building. However, it was unclear whether the stain to her ceiling was from a defect with the structure or services in the loft which was its responsibility. It would inspect the loft space above her flat on 19 March 2024 to find out the cause of the staining to her ceiling. It was sorry that she had to chase it for answers on the issue and its service to her fell below the standards it expects. It would offer her £200 compensation for the time and trouble she had spent chasing it for answers. It would reimburse her costs for making good the water damage to her ceiling. She would need to provide it with a quote for repair works.
13 and 17 July 2024	The resident asked the landlord on 13 July 2024 to escalate her complaint if it could not repair the loft and her ceiling. She contacted it again on 17 July 2024 and said she wanted it to: Escalate her complaint. Repair the loft and the damage to her ceiling which she believed was caused by a rat infestation. Refund her the service charge costs she had incurred from November 2022
30 October 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. It said: The damage to her ceiling had been caused by a misaligned roof tile. It had reported this to the managing agent who was responsible for these types of repairs, and it would keep her updated until the repair was completed. The rat infestation may have damaged some pipes in the loft, but its inspection showed there was no evidence that this contributed to the damage to her ceiling. It acknowledged its communication with her was poor. It would now provide her with regular updates and ensure it resolved the outstanding issues promptly. It was committed to completing repairs quickly. However, the rooftile repair was the responsibility of the managing agent and it was actively trying to get them to repair the roof. It understood the impact the situation had on her. It offered her £250 compensation for the inconvenience caused and £150 for its poor communication.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted us on 27 November 2024. She said: The repair issue was at a standstill, and she was scared a rat may fall on her while she slept. The issue had caused her anxiety and stress. She was seeking further compensation from the landlord and wanted it to resolve the repair issues she had raised.

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	Repairs to roof and ceiling
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not consider

8. We have not considered the resident’s request that the landlord refund her service charge payments from November 2022. Determining liability and negligence are legal matters that require a binding decision from court or consideration via an insurance claim. Similarly, we cannot determine whether the resident is liable for service charges they feel they should not pay due to repair issues. The role of this service is to consider whether the landlord handled the complaint in line with policy and procedure, and whether the resident has been treated fairly, given all the circumstances of the case.

What we did consider

9. The resident’s lease with the landlord says it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of communal areas at the block of flats she lives at. The landlord’s lease with the freeholder states that the freeholder is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the building, including the roof. The lease includes a clause that prevents the landlord entering the roof space without the written permission of the freeholder.
10. The landlord’s records show that it raised an urgent inspection on 27 March 2023 to find out if there was an active leak in the loft that had caused the damage to the resident’s ceiling. Its repair records show that it deleted this inspection. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 April 2023 for an update on the issue. It raised another urgent inspection on the same day, which its repair records show it also deleted. It is unclear whether it cancelled the appointments due to the managing agent being responsible for inspecting and repairing the roof. However, it knew of the repair responsibilities it and the managing agent had, yet there is no record that it explained these to the resident until 29 January 2024. Had it explained these clearly to her, it may have been able to manage her expectations at an earlier stage. As there is no record it did this, it caused the resident inconvenience as she had to chase it for answers.
11. The landlord’s repair records show that it raised a further urgent inspection of the issue on 2 August 2023. There is no record that it told the resident of this. This was not reasonable and caused her inconvenience as she chased it for answers on 26 August 2023. Although it told her that its inspection was booked for 29 September 2023, there is no record that it completed an inspection on this date, so it is unclear whether this took place. This was a record keeping failure. 
12. The landlord contacted the resident on 30 October 2023. It gave her an insurance claim form and said it was the resident’s responsibility to repair her property. She disagreed with its view on 2 November 2023 when she said that it was responsible for repairing her ceiling as its failure to repair the roof had caused the damage to her ceiling. It was reasonable that the landlord gave the resident information on how she could claim against its building insurance. However, at this point there is no record that it had inspected the roof. It would have been reasonable for it to have fully diagnosed what had caused the damage to the resident’s ceiling before telling her that an insurance claim was the only remedy it could offer her.
13. The resident told the landlord on 9 December 2023 that the stain on her ceiling had worsened. She asked it to find out what was causing the issue and repair the damage to her ceiling. The landlord raised a repair to inspect the issue on 11 December 2023. Its evidence shows that on 18 December 2023 it found that it needed scaffolding to assess the repair. However, there is no record that it told the resident of this. This was unreasonable and led to a further delay she experienced in it resolving the issue.
14. The resident contacted the landlord about the issue on 20 December 2023, 2 January and 13 January 2024. She said that its attitude towards the safety of the building was “disheartening” and that the level of service it provided her was “unsatisfactory.” On each occasion the landlord responded to her and said it would provide her with an update. However, there is no record that it did so. This was unreasonable and is likely to have caused the resident frustration.
15. On 16 February 2024 the resident’s solicitor made a legal disrepair claim against the landlord. This shows that the resident had become increasingly frustrated by the landlord’s response to the issue. The landlord stage 1 response arranged for an inspection of the loft and resident’s ceiling on 19 March 2024. This was reasonable, although it is unclear whether it had received written permission from the freeholder to do this. Its surveyor’s report recorded 4 actions:
    1. A further inspection of the loft space with crawl boards would be needed. This was because they were unable to complete a comprehensive inspection due to space restrictions in the loft.
    2. Replace a section of the resident’s ceiling with new plasterboard and redecorate.
    3. Connect two pipes in the loft together, as they may be allowing water in when it rained.
    4. Ensure insulation was put back correctly to prevent any future cold spots.
16. The landlord advised the resident’s solicitor on 19 April 2024 that it was not liable to inspect the roof and carry out repair works, so there was no basis for the disrepair claim against it and it should contact the freeholder to arrange an inspection. Although it was reasonable it disputed her solicitor’s claim, it had already inspected the loft, so it is confusing why it said they should contact the freeholder to arrange this.
17. There is no record that the landlord provided the resident with information about the repairs its surveyor had found on 19 March 2024. As it was aware of the legal disrepair claim, the repair responsibilities of the managing agent and repairs needed, it would have been reasonable for it to have worked with the resident to find a solution to resolve the issue.
18. The landlord contacted the managing agent on 19 July 2024. It told them that the resident’s solicitor had made a legal disrepair claim against it and asked them to inspect the roof as it could not enter without permission. This shows that it was taking steps to try and resolve the issue for the resident. However, it would have been reasonable for it to have done this after it had responded to the resident’s solicitor on 19 April 2024. It is unclear why it did not do this which was a further delay the resident experienced. There is no record that it told her that it had contacted the managing agent before its stage 2 response on 30 October 2024. It would have been reasonable for it to have informed her of this at an earlier stage. This was a communication failure.
19. There is no record in the landlord’s evidence that it acted at the time of its surveyor’s report. This was not reasonable and caused the resident further inconvenience as she chased it for answers on 4 July 2024. The landlord raised a repair job on 6 August 2024 for the actions that its surveyor had recorded. However, its records show that this job was deleted. It is unclear when it did this or what the reasons were, which was a record keeping failure. There is also no record that it told the resident of this, which was not reasonable and caused her further inconvenience.
20. The evidence shows the resident grew increasingly frustrated by the situation, as she continued to chase the landlord for answers, on 28 August, 14 September and 30 September 2024. She said it was ignoring her and not fulfilling its responsibilities to repair the loft and her ceiling.
21. The landlord’s stage 2 response told the resident that its inspection had confirmed that damage to the roof had caused the damage to her ceiling and not a rat infestation. However, the only record of an inspection by it was the one it did on 19 March 2024. The surveyors report said they had been unable to complete a full inspection to fully diagnose the cause of the issue, so it is unclear how its stage 2 response had concluded a rat infestation was not related to her ceiling damage.
22. The landlord’s stage 2 response did acknowledge its communication failures. It explained it was working with the managing agent to resolve the issues the resident had reported. This was reasonable. It offered her £400 compensation due to delays in resolving the issue and its communication failures. While this went some way to acknowledge the impact on the resident, we do not consider it was sufficient to put right the impact of its overall response. The landlord missed opportunities to work with the resident and managing agent to find a solution to resolve the issues. It had been almost 2 years since the resident had reported the issue, and she was still left without an answer as to when the repair would be completed. She has told us that the landlord’s failure to resolve the issue has caused her anxiety and distress.
23. The landlord contacted the resident on 1 July 2025. It said it had reviewed the compensation its stage 2 response had offered her. It acknowledged that it had not been proactive in taking action against the managing agent to ensure they completed the repairs. It said that it had issued a formal notice for the managing agent to carry out the repairs and offered her a further £150 compensation for the delays and a further £50 for its poor communication. It also said it would pay the £200 excess should she make a buildings insurance claim.
24. Although it was reasonable that the landlord increased its offer of compensation to the resident, this came after our involvement. This is not in the spirit of our dispute resolution principles. Due to this and the evidence showing the issue is still unresolved a finding of reasonable redress is not appropriate.
25. With consideration to the circumstances of the case, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for failures that adversely affected the resident, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £200 in further compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, in addition to the compensation its stage 2 response offered her. We have also ordered that it informs her of the progress on its pursuit of the managing agent to complete the repairs.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

26. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of sending its acknowledgement and within 20 working days at stage 2.
27. There is no record that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1. This was not reasonable and a complaint handling failure.
28. When the resident contacted the landlord on 13 July 2024 it should have considered contacting her to ask why she remained dissatisfied. There is no record that it did this. She then contacted it again to request it escalated her complaint on 17 July 2024. It sent its stage 2 acknowledgement 7 working days after she had originally said she wanted to escalate her complaint on 13 July 2024. This was 2 working days over its published timeframe. Although the delay caused minimal detriment to the resident it was still a complaint handling failure.
29. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response 57 working days after she had raised her complaint. This was 32 working days over its complaints policy’s published timeframe. This caused the resident inconvenience as she had to ask this Service to intervene and request the landlord send her its stage 1 response. This was not reasonable and a complaint handling failure.
30. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response 70 working days after it sent her its acknowledgement. This was 50 working days over its complaints policy’s published timeframe. This was not reasonable and a complaint handling failure.
31. Overall, the landlord’s complaint responses were of a good standard. It set out its response in a clear manner and gave details of the remedy it felt would put things right for the resident. However, its complaint responses did not apologise to the resident for its delay in responding to her complaint at either stage, offer her compensation as a remedy for this or say whether it had upheld her complaint or not. This was unreasonable and a complaint handling failure.
32. When the resident escalated her complaint, she asked the landlord to refund her service charge payments from November 2022 onwards. Its response did not address this point and provide her with an answer. This was unreasonable and a failure to follow the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which says landlords must address all points raised in a complaint.
33. The landlord’s review of its compensation on 1 July 2025 also offered the resident £200 compensation for its delay in raising, escalating and responding to her complaint. It was reasonable that the landlord identified this. However, the compensation it offered her came after our involvement and is not in the spirit of our dispute resolution principles. As a result, a finding of reasonable redress is not appropriate.
34. The landlord told us that its delay at stage 2 was due to its complaint handler taking leave. However, there is no record that it agreed with the resident to keep her updated about the progress of her complaint at regular intervals. This was a failure to follow the Code that says landlords must do this when they know a complaint will fall outside of the timescales set out in the Code.
35. With consideration to the circumstances of the case, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for failures that adversely affected the resident, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Learning

36. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will investigate potential legal disrepair claims and provide clear information about what repairs are needed along with a timescale for completion. As it was not responsible for repairs to the structure of the resident’s building, its repairs policy limited its ability to fulfil this requirement. It should consider reviewing its policy so that it accounts for any future situations it faces that are similar to the resident’s complaint.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

37. The landlord’s record keeping was poor which was evident by the resident having to regularly chase it for answers.

Communication

38. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. However, it was positive that it recognised this in its complaint responses and its further email to her on 1 July 2025.