Moat Homes Limited (202336014)

Background

1. The resident’s flat is on the 2nd floor in a 4-story block of flats. He reported water ingress from the building roof which caused leaks in his ceiling. He said the landlord was a freeholder and was responsible for the roof repair. He said the roof leak was due to failed cladding, which the developer planned to replace.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Roof leak.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s roof leak.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak

4. The landlord’s overall handling was reasonable. It was not responsible for the repair under its lease obligation but liaised with the managing agent about the repair and updated the resident where it could.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

5. The landlord did not send the resident a stage 1 complaint response in writing.

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.

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 did not investigate

6. The resident said the leak and delay in the repair had a detrimental impact on him and his family. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
7. We have not investigated the terms of the contractual relationship between the landlord, managing agent, right to manage company and the developer. The landlord obtained legal advice about its complex management structure, which confirmed it was not responsible for the repair. As such, we have looked at how the landlord handled the resident’s concerns overall.

What we did investigate

8. The resident reported a roof leak to the landlord on 3 November 2023. He said water was leaking in several places from his ceiling which damaged his wall and ceiling. The landlord contacted the managing agent and emailed the resident the same day. It explained it was not responsible for the repair because it did not own or manage the building. It said the management agent was liaising with the developer following a survey to confirm responsibility for the repair and consider temporary measures.  
9. Following the resident’s report, the landlord made enquiries with the managing agent and chased it for updates. It also made the managing agent aware of the resident’s safety concerns because the leak affected his electricity. It asked the resident for photos of the damage to stress the urgency to the managing agent. It also sought legal advice to see if there was anything further it could do because of the lack of progress from the managing agent.
10. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s information about its 1% freehold ownership. It obtained legal advice about the right to manage company and its repairing obligations under its lease, which found it was limited in what it could do. The landlord shared this advice with the resident, explained actions he could take to progress the repair and offered its support if he pursued the matter. It also advised him to seek independent legal advice.
11. The managing agent repaired the roof leak in April 2025, and the developer is due to start fire safety works to replace the cladding in 2026. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns was reasonable. It liaised with the managing agent, requested escalation to directors and asked for regular meetings, which the managing agent did not provide. It updated the resident where it could. Its updates were not frequent, which may have caused frustration. However, the managing agent’s responses and survey outcomes were out of the landlord’s control. The landlord said it learnt from this complaint and introduced improvements. This is positive as we encourage landlords to learn from complaints. In view of this, we found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s roof leak.

12. The landlord’s complaints policy said it would respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days of an escalation request. This was in line with our complaint handling code (the Code) in use at the time (2023).
13. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in writing. This was not in line with the Code which said at completion of the stage 1, landlords must confirm in writing the complaint stage, definition, decision with reasons, any remedy or outstanding actions and escalation details. By failing to issue a stage 1 response, it missed an opportunity to resolve the complaint at an earlier stage. This caused the resident time and trouble in escalating his complaint.
14. The landlord sent its stage 2 response 22 working days after the resident’s escalation.  This was not in line with its policy or the Code unless it agreed an extension. However, the 2-working day delay was unlikely to have caused a significant impact to the resident or affect the overall outcome.
15. Due to the landlord’s failure in not sending the resident a stage 1 complaint response in writing on completion, we found maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation which is in keeping with our remedies guidance for failings which the landlord did not acknowledge but had no permanent impact on the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

16. The landlord’s record keeping was reasonable. However, it did not provide copies of its monthly inspections prior to the resident’s report. It should ensure it has complete and accurate records of inspections.

Communication

17. Overall, the landlord’s communication was reasonable, and it updated the resident when it could.