Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Moat Homes Limited (202345146)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345146

Moat Homes Limited

9 May 2025

 

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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of water ingress in the property causing mould.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a flat owned by the landlord, a housing association. The landlord is aware a young child lives in the property who has eczema.
  2. Between October 2023 and July 2024, the resident contacted the landlord on several occasions about ongoing water ingress causing mould within her home. The landlord identified that the flat roof and pitched roof of the block required large-scale repairs.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord in July 2024 to express her dissatisfaction that the matter remained unresolved.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 23 August 2024. It said that it had arranged to erect scaffolding at the block so it could inspect the roof. Once it received the report, it would advise of the follow-on works and make a compensation offer.
  5. On 24 December 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It stated it completed the roof repair in September 2024 and passed the internal repairs to its contractor to complete. It asked the resident to let it know if any works were outstanding and it would chase these with its contractor. It offered her £1,165 compensation comprised of £965 for the delays and £200 for its complaint handling.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response and referred the matter to this Service. She said she was still experiencing mould in her property.
  7. The landlord informed this Service that on 24 March 2025, it increased its compensation offer to £1,617 for the repair delay and £200 for its complaint handling – a total redress of £1,817. It explained the contractor attended on 26 March 2025 to complete the remaining work.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied. She said the landlord washed the mould off the second bedroom, but did not repaint the walls, leaving them unsightly. She stated the mould remained untreated in the storeroom and the carpets were left in a poor condition. She does not feel the redress is sufficient.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident was concerned about the impact the living conditions had on the health of the occupants. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident. However, the courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. Further, the court can examine oral testimony. Therefore, it is more appropriate for the courts to deal with concerns about the health impact of the issues.
  2. Within the resident’s recent correspondence with this Service, she said furniture was damaged during the remedial works. This did not form part of her initial complaint. Therefore, we cannot investigate the landlord’s response to this allegation within this determination. The landlord needs to have an opportunity to investigate and respond under its internal complaint procedure.

Water ingress and the associated mould

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
  2. Once on notice of a repair, the landlord must conduct the works it is responsible for within a reasonable period, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is – this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
  3. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states it aims to attend emergency repairs within 4 hours to make safe and to complete the repair within 24 hours. It aims to complete all other repairs within 21 calendar days.
  4. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould states a landlord should have a zero-tolerance approach and must ensure its response to reports of the above are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. The landlord evidenced that it self-assessed against our recommendations set out in the spotlight report. It also published a damp and mould policy in March 2024. The Ombudsman recognises the importance of having a defined procedure when addressing reports of damp and mould.
  5. Within its policy, the landlord sets out that it will assess the severity of damp and mould as either category 1 (severe), category 2 (moderate) or category 3 (slight). It will agree a date and time to inspect the mould within the following timescales:
    1. 48 hours for category 1
    2. 14 days for category 2
    3. 28 days for category 3
  6. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will contact the resident 12 weeks after completing remedial work to check that there is no damp and mould. It will ask residents if they want it to contact them again in a further 12 weeks.
  7. Where a landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In investigating this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  8. It is not disputed that the resident initially reported the water ingress from the roof in October 2023. The landlord informed this Service that the roof of the block is in 2 sections – 1 area flat, and 1 area pitched. Both areas needed repairs during the timeline of this case. We appreciate this was an extensive program of works. From the evidence available, it is not clear what area of the roof affected the resident’s property.
  9. The landlord explained within its complaint response that its contractors investigated a roof leak in January 2024, and this was the earliest its contractors could attend. However, it provided copies of inspection reports for the flat roof from 6 December 2023 and 13 December 2023, which demonstrates works were in progress. Therefore, the Ombudsman is minded that while its communication with the resident could have been better, it was arranging and undertaking some works in the background.
  10. In the interim, the landlord evidenced it arranged for an electrician to make the electrics safe in the resident’s property. It treated this as a priority. This was appropriate and in line with the timescales in its repair policy. The landlord’s records demonstrated another contractor discussed the water ingress with the resident on the same day. They said that as she lived on the third floor with no loft, there was no way of reducing the impact internally, but it would stain block the ceiling when it completed roofing works in approximately 4 months. While the landlord has not evidenced that it explored all options for a potential temporary repair, it was entitled to rely on the opinion of its staff and contractors.
  11. The resident reported the initial water ingress in October 2023. Records show she contacted the landlord about mould in her home and the outstanding repairs from November 2023 to date. The landlord evidenced that it inspected the property in December 2023, March 2024, and August 2024. In its stage 2 response, it also referenced a surveyor’s visit in September 2024. It set out a scope of works with its contractor and agreed to replace the bedroom carpet which the water ingress had damaged. It noted it was the resident’s responsibility to replace the lounge carpet, and it was of the view the damage to this area was due to wear and tear. This was in line with the tenancy agreement which sets out she is responsible for fixtures and fittings that do not belong to the landlord. However, we recognise further remedial work took place after the landlord inspected the carpets in March 2024. The resident has since requested professional cleaning of the carpets. We have ordered the landlord to respond to this request.
  12. In the report from August 2024, the landlord said it considered the mould to be category 3 (slight). It confirmed that once it had resolved the water ingress, it needed to replace the ceiling and insulation in the affected room. From the information available, it is not clear whether the landlord communicated this to the resident or managed expectations regarding timescales.
  13. Records show the resident repeatedly chased the landlord for updates and explained the impact that the repair issues had on her and her family. The Ombudsman finds the landlord failed to communicate effectively with her throughout. She did not receive clear and concise updates and spent time trying to progress the works. It is evident she was concerned about the impact on her young child. Further, there were delays responding to emails. The Ombudsman determines that the communication failings exacerbated the situation and worsened the impact on the resident. This further undermined the landlord/resident relationship.
  14. The landlord said it completed the flat roof repair in February 2024. Notes from the final roof inspection state it was of a high standard and installed to the correct specification. The landlord informed us that it completed repairs to the pitched roof in September 2024. Its records show the most recent roofing repair took place in November 2024. The resident maintains the roof was still leaking in December 2024. Based on the lack of evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to make a finding in relation to the repair completion date of this area.
  15. At stage 2, the landlord said that due to the scale and design of the roof, it had taken much longer than anticipated to diagnose and resolve the issue. It accepted the process faced delays and it had not provided updates. It recognised the resident had experienced the loss of enjoyment of her home, particularly the bedroom, due to the delays in the roof repairs. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failings here.
  16. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will offer compensation calculated using 20% of rent for the complete loss of use of a living room or 1 or more bedrooms. In this case, while mould and water ingress affected the bedroom, the surveyor categorised the mould as slight, and the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident experienced a complete loss of use of it. However, we agree she experienced loss of enjoyment. Therefore, the landlord’s decision to calculate compensation based on 10% of rent was proportionate in the circumstances.
  17. At stage 2, the landlord offered the resident £965 compensation for the repair delays (based on 10% of her weekly rent from October 2023 to September 2024). It also offered £200 for its complaint handling failings which we have addressed below. The landlord informed this Service that it was only aware the damp and mould persisted from further communication by the resident following its stage 2 response. In our view, it missed an opportunity here to contact the resident as part of its stage 2 investigation and check whether matters were resolved. This was a shortcoming.
  18. Following the resident’s dissatisfaction post-stage 2, the landlord inspected the property on 16 January 2025. It found high moisture readings and decided to strip and dry the walls using dehumidifiers. Once dry, it aimed to complete final works by 21 March 2025. The resident said that as of 1 May 2025, the internal repairs are not complete. We have not received documentary evidence about the actions undertaken post-stage 2.
  19. On 24 March 2025, the landlord made an increased offer of compensation of £1,817, comprised of £1,617 for the repair delays and £200 for complaint handling. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website, sets out compensation ranges we consider when determining cases. The increased offer falls within our highest range of compensation for situations where there has been a severe and long-term impact on the resident. However, the internal works are not fully complete, and the resident has expressed concerns about the lack of redecoration in the second bedroom, untreated mould in the storeroom, damaged carpets, and damaged personal items. This indicates the landlord did not learn sufficient lessons from the complaint and failed to put things right within a reasonable period. As such, while the landlord offered significant redress, we cannot determine that it resolved this complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
  20. After considering the impact on the resident and the period involved, the Ombudsman finds that the amount offered in compensation is significant. Clarification about the remedial works remains outstanding. Thus, the required resolution at this stage is not more monetary compensation. We, therefore, have not ordered further compensation but have ordered specific action.

The associated complaint

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies that a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with no more than a further extension of 10 days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with a further extension of 20 days if required. A landlord should not exceed these timescales without good reason.
  2. The Code defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents. A resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such. Whenever a resident expresses dissatisfaction, landlords must give them the choice to make complaint.
  3. The resident’s communication with the landlord on 22 November 2023 expressed dissatisfaction about the delay completing the repairs and the impact on her property. She followed up about this on several occasions over the following months, however the landlord did not acknowledge a complaint until 8 August 2024. Complaints can provide insights into service provision, function as an early warning system for potential problems, and be a catalyst for organisational learning. The landlord’s delay in recognising a complaint was a failing in its complaint handling. This impacted the landlord/resident relationship as the resident was unsure how seriously the landlord was taking her concerns.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 8 August 2024. It issued its stage 1 response 15 working days later. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 September 2024. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 24 December 2024 – 123 working days later. The Code serves to illustrate that the landlord kept this complaint open for an unreasonable duration at stage 2. The landlord recognised and apologised for the delay within its final complaint response, which was appropriate.
  5. The Code expects a landlord to address all points raised in the complaint and provide reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate. The landlord must set out the decision on the complaint, the reasons for any decisions made, the details of any remedy offered to put things right and the details of any outstanding actions. Outstanding actions must be tracked and actioned expeditiously with regular updates provided to the resident. The landlord failed to do this. This was a shortcoming.
  6. Under our dispute resolution principles, it is good practice for a landlord to identify clear learning points and outline actions to ensure similar service failures will not occur in the future. While the landlord apologised for the delays in its complaint handling, it could have done more to reference specific learning from the resident’s experience within its complaint response to improve its service provision.
  7. The landlord’s compensation policy suggests redress of £50 to £150 for poor complaint handling. Its final complaint response identified its failings and offered £200. We recognise this was more than the amount suggested within its policy. In the Ombudsman’s view, compensation of £200 was appropriate and in line with our remedies guidance to reflect the extent of its shortcomings and the impact on the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress causing mould within the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter about the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, we order the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident the £1,617 it awarded for repair delays, distress, and inconvenience.
    2. Contact the resident to establish what works she maintains are outstanding or not completed to a reasonable standard. It should then inspect these areas and produce a statement setting out its findings. It must share a copy with this Service and the resident, and include estimated completion dates for any outstanding work, if applicable.
    3. Consider and respond to the resident’s request for it to arrange professional cleaning of the carpets.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £200 previously offered for its handling of the complaint if it has not yet done so. This recognised genuine elements of service failure. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis that it pays the above compensation.
  2. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord contacts the resident to discuss her allegation of damaged furniture.
  3. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should consider whether any additional compensation is due to the resident for any further delays resolving the issues. We recognise it may decide to open another complaint instead to assess this in more detail.