Moat Homes Limited (202341734)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341734

Moat Homes Limited

30 September 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. repairs to an underground leak and subsequent damp and mould in the resident’s property.
    2. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which began on 9 April 2012. The property is a 4-bedroom semi-detached house. The resident lives at the property with her husband and 4 children. The landlord said it is aware that the resident’s son has autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
  2. On or around 15 May 2023, the resident reported a leak in the property. The resident believed that the leak had originated from underneath the downstairs toilet.
  3. On 19 May 2023, the landlord inspected the property. The landlord said:
    1. it suspected that there were issues with the pipework underneath the ground floor of the property.
    2. the downstairs bathroom floor was saturated, and water had started rising up the walls, causing the door frame to rot.
    3. the downstairs floor would need removing and assessing.
    4. a dehumidifier would be needed once the leak had been remedied, to dry the damp in the property.
  4. On 31 May 2023, the resident reported damp and mould in the property.
  5. On 20 June 2023, the resident complained to the landlord. She said:
    1. she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of repairs to an underground leak, and that 5 weeks had passed without a full repair.
    2. a surveyor had attended the property 2 weeks prior, but the landlord had not provided her with any update on the repairs.
    3. the landlord had not returned her telephone calls.
  6. On 10 August 2023, the landlord requested a temporary decant for the household. On 12 October 2023, the resident and her family moved into temporary accommodation.
  7. Between November and December 2023, the landlord identified 3 separate leaks in the property. The landlord said it carried out drying works in the property throughout November and December 2023.
  8. On 12 December 2023, the landlord produced a report which said:
    1. there was damp in the property. However, the property was dry enough for remedial works to take place.
    2. the resident’s kitchen would need replacing.
    3. the resident’s downstairs bathroom would need replacing.
    4. further works were required to the patio doors and guttering.
    5. there were substantial works required to the downstairs area, including new insulation, flooring, plastering and redecoration.
  9. On 7 February 2024, the resident raised a further complaint to the landlord. She said:
    1. she was concerned that the landlord had not completed any remedial works in the property since 5 November 2023, when it installed drying equipment, until 12 December 2023, when it removed the drying equipment.
    2. the landlord had not provided her with a full scope of the remedial works it had completed, together with surveyor reports and timescales for the remaining remedial works.
    3. the landlord had failed to carry out repairs in the property within a reasonable time.
    4. the issue was causing her financial hardship, particularly due to high utility bills, which she said was as a result of the leak.
  10. On 16 May 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It explained:
    1. following completion of internal drying works in the property, a surveyor had visited the property and prepared a specification of remedial works. The landlord had reviewed the specification and issued it to 3 contractors for quotations. The landlord said it made its insurance company aware of a claim in November 2023.
    2. it had received 3 quotations in January 2024, and it had sent the quotations to the insurance company.
    3. the insurance company had requested further details and justifications for the proposed works.
    4. it had met the resident at the property on 2 April 2024, to discuss the remedial works and inspect the property. The landlord said further delays were due to the insurance company requesting additional information.
    5. it was still in negotiations with the insurance company regarding what they were responsible for paying and what the landlord’s contribution would be. The landlord said due to the length of time the works had been outstanding, it had been authorised to proceed with the works whilst the negotiations were still on going.
    6. it would start works on the property on 3 June 2024. The landlord said the works would take 6 to 8 weeks to complete, with a completion date of 2 August 2024.
    7. it had offered the resident £300 compensation, which comprised of:
      1. £200 for distress and inconvenience caused by the delays.
      2. £100 for complaint handling delays.
  11. On 29 May 2024, the resident escalated her complaint because:
    1. she said she had raised a complaint in June 2023 which the landlord did not respond to. The resident said this complaint was about the landlord’s handling of her concerns about a leak and delays in repairing the leak. The resident said the landlord did not remedy the leak for 6 months.
    2. there were delays in the landlord addressing the leak which had caused extensive damage to the property.
    3. there was damp and mould in the property which had impacted her daughter’s health.
    4. she was unhappy with delays in the landlord completing remedial works. The resident said she had been temporarily decanted with her family for 8 months, against an original timescale of 12 weeks.
    5. she had lost faith in the landlord’s ability to complete the repairs.
    6. she was unhappy with the level of communication from the landlord and that there had been a change of personnel dealing with the repairs.
    7. she did not want the locks to be changed in the property as she still needed access to personal belongings inside.
  12. On 1 July 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It explained:
    1. it was hoping to return the resident to the property by early August 2024.
    2. it was sorry for any lack of communication regarding a change of personnel. The landlord said the resident had a single point of contact who was overseeing the works.
    3. it had noted the resident’s requests for reinstatement of equivalent floor finishes.
    4. there were numerous missed opportunities to address the leak prior to the point of decant and as a result of that, the state of the resident’s home continued to deteriorate.
    5. the delays with its insurer were outside of its control, but had the issue been addressed earlier, the bulk of the remedial works would not have been necessary. The landlord said it was also evident that its communication had been poor, and it did not meet the standards it expected.
    6. it had increased its offer of compensation to £1,070 which comprised of:
      1. £500 for disruption.
      2. £200 for distress and inconvenience.
      3. £50 for complaint handling.
      4. £320 for additional electrical usage at £8 per day for 40 days.
  13. On 9 August 2024, the landlord produced a report which said the repairs were 60% complete.
  14. In referring her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said she wanted:
    1. the landlord to complete the repairs so that she can return to the property.
    2. compensation and reimbursement of expenditures including rent, council tax, and water bills.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In correspondence with the landlord, the resident said that there were leaks affecting the property since 2019.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this service may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
  3. Therefore, the scope of this investigation is limited to considering events from June 2022 onwards, which was 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint in June 2023.
  4. The resident said the issues in her property have had a significant impact on her physical and mental well-being. The resident said the damp and mould also affected her child’s breathing.
  5. In this case, while the Ombudsman has no reason to disbelieve the resident, it is not within this service’s role to determine whether the property conditions impacted the resident’s health. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court as a personal injury claim. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident in the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
  6. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord made a claim to its insurers for the cost of the remedial works in the property. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of the insurance claim as it can only consider the actions of the landlord. However, the Ombudsman can assess how a landlord has dealt with the reports it has received and whether it had followed correct procedure and followed good practice, taking account of the circumstances of the case.
  7. The Ombudsman understands that the resident has instructed a legal representative to bring a claim but that no claim has been filed at court. This means that we can consider this complaint under our Scheme.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to an underground leak and subsequent damp and mould in the resident’s property

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will:
    1. attend emergency repairs within 24 hours. An emergency repair is defined as:

      “Repairs to remedy any defect which puts anyone’s health, safety or security at immediate risk, or which affects the structure of a home or building – for example, burst pipes, total loss of electricity.”

    2. complete all other repairs within 21 calendar days.
  2. The landlord’s decant (temporary move) policy states it will:
    1. provide the resident with a lead contact. The lead contact will:
      1. agree on how and how frequently they will keep in touch to keep the resident updated on the progress of work in the property.
      2. explain what the resident is responsible for, for example rent and utility payments at the temporary address.
      3. discuss and arrange payment of any out-of-pocket expenses the resident may incur while in a temporary home.
  3. The landlord’s repair records show that the resident reported a leak in the property on or around 15 May 2023. The records show that the landlord attended the property on 19 May 2023. This was 4 days after the resident reported the leak.
  4. The landlord’s repairs records did not categorise the repair. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to assess whether the landlord considered the repair as an “emergency” or whether it assessed if the issue had affected the household’s health and safety, or the structure of the property. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to determine if the landlord’s response time was reasonable. This was not appropriate and a failure in the landlord’s record keeping.
  5. During the inspection on 19 May 2023, the landlord said:
    1. it suspected that there were issues with the pipework underneath the ground floor of the property.
    2. the downstairs bathroom floor was saturated, and water had started rising up the walls, causing the door frame to rot.
    3. the downstairs floor would need removing and assessing.
    4. a dehumidifier would be needed once the leak had been remedied, to dry the damp in the property.
  6. The landlord’s records did not specify when it would complete further inspections of the flooring, or what, if any, interim works it had completed. On 31 May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and said:
    1. the boiler was losing pressure.
    2. her water supplier had identified excessive water usage, which indicated a large leak. The resident said 3 operatives had attended the property, but no remedial works had taken place. The resident said she was unhappy that the landlord had not properly investigated the leak.
    3. there was a damp smell in the downstairs bathroom. The resident said there was damp and mould on the walls of the bathroom.
    4. there were slugs in the kitchen.
  7. The landlord said it arranged for a surveyor to attend the property on 5 June 2023. This was 21 days after the resident had reported the leak. The surveyor identified high moisture levels in the property, as well as a leak coming from the pipework underneath the downstairs floor. The surveyor recommended to dry the property, lift the floor coverings and carry out further investigations.
  8. While the Ombudsman understands that delays can occur when trying to locate and repair complex leaks, landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of water ingress and damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
  9. The resident repeatedly contacted the landlord on at least 8 occasions between May and June 2023. The resident asked for a copy of the surveyor report, as well as an update on the remedial works. The evidence shows that the landlord emailed the resident on 28 July 2023 and said it was waiting for quotations to remove the resident’s flooring and check for the source of the leak.
  10. The resident had to repeatedly chase for updates and on multiple occasions explained the impact that the leak had on her and her family. While the Ombudsman understands that complex repairs may require additional time for the landlord to complete them, there is an expectation that the landlord keeps in communication with the resident and updates them on the progress of the repairs. The evidence shows that between May and July 2023, this was not always the case. This was not appropriate.
  11. The landlord requested a decant for the resident and her family on 10 August 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord considered any interim solutions between May and August 2023 to mitigate the impact of the housing conditions on the resident, such as dehumidifiers, mould washes or an emergency decant.
  12. Given the resident’s concerns about the water ingress and subsequent damp and mould in the property, and the impact this was having on the household, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered whether a temporary decant, mould washes or the installation of dehumidifiers was necessary.
  13. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord completed any substantial remedial works between May and October 2023. However, the household was not decanted until 12 October 2023. The landlord said it completed leak detection works on 17 November 2023.
  14. It is unclear if the landlord considered a decant prior to August 2023, after the resident had notified it of a leak affecting the property. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord may have been unable to detect the leak whilst the resident was still residing in the property. The landlord also said it had difficulty sourcing suitable accommodation for the resident and her family.
  15. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s communication with the resident became more frequent from November 2023 onwards, when the landlord provided the resident with a single point of contact. This was in line with its decant policy. The resident raised queries regarding the temporary decant and subsequent out-of-pocket expenditures. The evidence shows that the landlord generally responded to the resident’s queries within a reasonable time.
  16. The resident said she was unhappy that the landlord told her that she would be temporarily decanted for 6 weeks. The evidence shows that the landlord initially estimated that remedial works would take 6 weeks to complete. The Ombudsman understands that remedial works are still ongoing, almost 11 months after the resident was temporarily decanted.
  17. The landlord frequently changed the timescales for completion of the repairs. This left the resident feeling uncertain when the landlord would complete the repairs, and when she could return to her home. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that whilst the landlord acknowledged the delays in its complaint responses, it perhaps did not appropriately manage the resident’s expectations about the extent of the remedial works at the outset.
  18. The landlord said the delays were largely due to issues with its insurers. Given the complexity of the leak and the damage to the resident’s property, the landlord was entitled to refer the issue to its insurance provider. While the Ombudsman cannot comment on the actions of the landlord’s insurer, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to ensure that it updated the resident at regular intervals about the position of the insurance claim.
  19. The evidence shows that the landlord did regularly liaise with its insurance provider between January and April 2024. However, the landlord did not appear to always provide updates to the resident. In April 2024, the resident had to frequently chase for an update from the landlord. The landlord subsequently updated the resident in its stage 1 response regarding the status of the insurance claim.
  20. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord started remedial works in June 2024. The landlord initially said it hoped to complete the works by early August 2024. The landlord said remedial works are still ongoing. However, it is unclear what works are outstanding. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to contact the resident and update her with a completion date for the remedial works. The landlord must also complete a postworks survey to confirm that all of the remedial works have been completed to a reasonable standard.
  21. The resident said the delay in the landlord repairing the leak contributed or caused further damage to the property and her belongings. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 that there were numerous missed opportunities to address the leak prior to the point of decant and as a result of that, the state of the resident’s home continued to deteriorate. It is unclear if the resident has submitted a claim to the landlord’s insurer, or if the insurer has made a decision regarding the resident’s claim. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to contact the resident to discuss the damage to her belongings, including whether a claim is being considered by its insurer.
  22. The resident has requested reimbursement of her rent for the period she was not living in the property. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord offered the resident a decant in October 2023. The landlord’s decant policy explains that when a decant is offered, the resident would remain responsible for the payment of rent. The property remained the resident’s main and principal home. There appears to be no reason why the landlord should be responsible for the resident’s rent between October 2023 and August 2024. However, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience caused by the leak between May and October 2023, together with any loss of enjoyment of the property during this period.
  23. The resident has also requested reimbursement of her council tax for the period she was not living in the property. Council tax liability would be payable regardless and is an obligation on homeowners and tenants in an area, unless there was an exemption that applied by the local council. There appears to be no reason why the landlord should be responsible for the council tax.
  24. The resident said her utility bills had increased as a result of the leak. In correspondence with the landlord, the resident said she was also unhappy with the landlord’s contribution towards electricity costs. It is unclear if the resident has since incurred any additional expenditures. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord has offered to cover the cost of additional mileage from the temporary accommodation, as well as removal costs and a contribution towards the resident’s electricity bill.
  25. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the resident’s electricity and water costs before and after the repairs, or copies of any survey reports to establish the extent of any electrical or water loss in the property. Based on the evidence provided, this service is not able to accurately assess the likely impact of the repairs on the overall utility costs of the property.
  26. Where we are satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, a resident has incurred costs but has not been able to evidence this and it is not possible to provide a reasonable estimate, we may say that a landlord should pay an amount in recognition of the fact that the resident has incurred costs that would not have arisen had the maladministration not occurred.
  27. As such, it would be reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss:
    1. any additional utility costs incurred as a result of the leak.
    2. whether the resident is able to provide evidence of her energy and water bills to show any additional costs incurred.
    3. whether the resident has incurred any additional expenditure, such as mileage costs.
    4. whether it should offer a contribution towards the costs.
  28. In it stage 2 response on 1 July 2024, the landlord offered the resident compensation to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in it resolving the leak and subsequent damp and mould. However, the offer of compensation perhaps does not reflect that the resident’s enjoyment of her home was affected from at least May to October 2023. In addition, the resident remains temporarily decanted, 10 months after she moved out of the property, which was beyond the initial timescale set out in the landlord’s complaint responses.
  29. Overall, there were several failings in the landlord’s handling of repairs in the resident’s property. The Ombudsman understands that some repairs are still outstanding. In response to the delays and failures in communication the landlord offered compensation and said that it would monitor the work. However, the Ombudsman considers the landlord was at fault because:
    1. it has been unable to evidence that it responded to the leak in May 2023 within a reasonable time.
    2. its communication with the resident between May and October 2023 was sporadic. The resident had to repeatedly chase for updates about the remedial works.
    3. there is no evidence that it considered any interim solutions between May and August 2023 to mitigate the impact of the housing conditions on the resident, such as dehumidifiers, mould washes or an emergency decant.
    4. it did not appropriately manage the resident’s expectations about the extent of the remedial works at the outset.
    5. the remedial works are still outstanding, 15 months after the resident reported a leak in the property.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) states landlords must respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of the complaint and at stage 2 within 20 working days of a request for escalation. The landlord’s complaint procedure aligns with the Code.
  2. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord about the leak on 20 June 2023. The landlord’s records acknowledge that a complaint was made, but it did not provide any formal response to the resident. This was a significant failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to resolve the resident’s complaint.
  3. The resident raised a complaint again on 7 February 2024. The landlord did not respond to the resident within the timescales set out in its complaint procedure. Consequently, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 30 April 2024 and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint by 8 May 2024. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint by this date. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord again on 9 May 2024 and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint by 16 May 2024.
  4. The Ombudsman expects landlords to communicate with resident without the intervention of this service. Further, there is evidence that the resident had to chase for a response to her complaint on numerous occasions. There is an expectation that the landlord keeps in communication with the resident and updates them on the progress of their complaint. However, the evidence shows that the landlord did not do this.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 16 May 2024. This was 229 working days after the resident’s complaint on 20 June 2023, and 66 days after her complaint on 7 February 2024. This was not appropriate and significantly in excess of the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaint procedure.
  6. Further, the landlord’s complaint responses did not fully address the resident’s concerns that she was suffering financial hardship as a result of being temporarily decanted from the property. This was a failure by the landlord. Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. 
  7. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 29 May 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 1 July 2024. This was 23 working days later. While the delay was not excessive, the landlord did not inform the resident that it would provide its stage 2 response later than the 20-working day timeframe set out in the Code.
  8. The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns. The delay in responding to the resident’s complaint would have delayed the resident in progressing the complaint through the landlord’s process. It would have also prevented her from exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure so that she could bring the matter to the Ombudsman for an independent investigation.
  9. Overall, there were several failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. While the landlord has apologised for the inconvenience caused, it failed to put matters right by addressing all the resident’s concerns at the earliest opportunity and taking steps to put things right.
  10. The landlord initially offered the resident a total of £100 for delays in its complaint handling at stage 1. It later changed this to £50 in its stage 2 response. It is not clear why the landlord reduced its offer of compensation. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the level of compensation does not reflect the failings identified above. As such, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay compensation to the resident for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the failures outlined above.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to an underground leak and subsequent damp and mould in the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must, within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination:
    1. provide a full apology in writing for the errors identified in this report. The apology must come from a senior member of staff.
    2. pay the resident an additional £1,300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience likely caused by the failures identified in this report (£2,370 in total). This is comprised of:
      1. an additional £1,000 to recognise the failures by the landlord in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the leak, as well as the loss of enjoyment of the resident’s home in handling the repairs.
      2. an additional £300 for the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.

The compensation must be paid directly to the resident. The total compensation can be reduced by any of the £1,070 already paid to the resident.

  1. contact the resident to discuss any damage to her belongings, including how she can make a claim and whether a claim is being considered by its insurer.
  1. contact the resident and inform her of a completion date for the remedial works.
  2. complete a postworks survey to confirm that all the works have been completed. A copy should be provided to the resident and this service within 10 working days of the date of the property inspection.
  3. contact the resident to discuss:
    1. any additional utility costs incurred as a result of the leak.
    2. whether the resident is able to provide evidence of her energy and water bills to show any additional costs incurred.
    3. whether the resident has incurred any additional expenditure, such as mileage costs.
    4. whether it should offer a contribution towards the costs.
  4. provide evidence of compliance with all orders within 56 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord should consider re-training its staff on complaint handling, having regard to the Code.