Moat Homes Limited (202346722)

Background

1. The resident lives in a block of flats with a communal heating system. She reported noise from the heating system pipes after the freeholder completed boiler upgrade works. She brought her complaint to us because she was unhappy with the landlord’s response.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise linked to heating system pipes.
3. We have also investigated its complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise linked to heating system pipes.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord did not coordinate the case, communicate clearly, or progress internal steps, which led to prolonged delays, repeated chasing, and avoidable time and trouble.
7. The landlord did not recognise early dissatisfaction as a complaint, gave late and incomplete stage 1 handling, and did not offer remedies or learning, which fell short of the Code.

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 have not looked at and why

8. A third party manages the communal heating and hot water system for the block. The freeholder, not the landlord, appointed this contractor. We cannot make findings about the freeholder or the contractor’s actions because they are not members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This investigation looks only at the landlord’s actions and responsibilities.
9. The resident told the landlord that the living situation harmed the household’s wellbeing. We do not doubt this account. However, we cannot decide whether the complaint caused physical or mental harm. This falls outside our role. If the resident believes the landlord’s actions, or lack of action, harmed the household’s wellbeing, the resident may wish to seek independent advice, including advice on a personal injury claim.

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.

10. The landlord’s repairs policy says it must repair and maintain the areas it is responsible for. It must investigate issues, give clear information, and work with contractors. It should complete non‑emergency repairs within 21 days, keep residents informed, and recognise vulnerabilities.
11. The resident first reported loud noise coming from pipes within the property on 6 March 2023. She made 5 further reports of noise between 14 March and 27 June 2023. The landlord recommended that she speak to the building concierge. It contacted the boiler contractor to ensure it was aware of the reports.
12.  On 29 June 2023, the landlord raised a works order to inspect the pipes. This was 79 working days after the resident’s first report. A joint visit took place on 8 August 2023 with the landlord and the boiler contractor. The visit found that the pipework had been installed to a good standard. The contractor suggested fitting clips with rubber inserts to reduce vibration. The evidence does not show whether this work was completed.
13. In August 2023, the resident arranged an independent survey. The report identified high water pressure and movement in the pipework and limited insulation or fixings. It recommended increased insulation, additional pipe clips, and reduced pressure. The evidence does not show that the landlord considered these findings or progressed those recommended internal measures that were within its control.
14. Between 7 September and 1 December 2023, the resident made 15 further reports. She described increasing stress, loss of sleep, and feeling that she “could not take any more.” The landlord’s records reflect her reported distress. In her stage 1 complaint, she reported poor health, stress‑related conditions, and caring responsibilities for her disabled son.
15. The evidence shows that on at least 4 occasions the landlord did not make call‑backs that it had promised. On 27 November 2023, the resident reported that the landlord had told her several times that she would receive a call‑back, but none took place. On 4 December 2023, she refused to have another call‑back task raised, saying that the landlord “never calls back,” which suggests an ongoing pattern. She raised the same issue again on 17 January 2024 and 5 February 2024. These failures show poor communication. They caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble through repeated chasing. This added to her distress and inconvenience, particularly as the reported underlying issue remained unresolved for a prolonged period.
16. On 12 September 2023, the landlord recorded “we need to find a resolution for the customer.” It arranged another joint visit in October and referred her to the EHO. This was 153 days after the resident’s first report. However, the EHO visit found that the noise did not meet the statutory nuisance threshold. It was reasonable for the landlord to take this into account.
17. The resident continued to contact the landlord about the noise. Between 4 December and 8 March 2024 she made 7 further reports. She sent the landlord videos she had recorded on her phone of the noise. On 5 March 2024, the landlord recorded that the noise was a very loud vibration. Its stage 2 response still said it could do nothing further and suggested she contact the EHO again.
18. We recognise that the landlord did not control the heating system, the contractor, or the communal pipework. It was not directly responsible for the source of the noise or contractor performance. However, it still had duties to the resident. These included investigating reports, giving clear information, working with the freeholder, taking steps within its remit, and making referrals.
19. The landlord logged reports, contacted the contractor, and arranged joint visits. These actions were appropriate initial responses. However, its overall approach remained reactive. Staff often redirected the resident to the concierge or the contractor rather than leading communication. This limited ownership and left the resident without a clear route to resolution. A more coordinated approach was merited from an earlier stage.
20. Alongside these initial steps, the landlord took further constructive action to progress the matter. It arranged repeated visits by its heating contractor, held joint inspections, and involved the EHO. It escalated the case, explored noise monitoring equipment, and raised queries with the contractor. These steps show engagement and an effort to address the concerns. However, clearer coordination and more consistent communication would have strengthened the effectiveness of this response.
21. Despite these actions, the resident continued to report ongoing noise and health impacts over a prolonged period. The evidence does not show that the landlord set out a clear, structured plan that might bring the matter to an enduring resolution. Nor is there evidence that it assessed the cumulative impact of the ongoing reports or considered and enacted mitigation measures within its control.
22. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Noise Complaints highlights the need for landlords to take ownership, coordinate between organisations, and keep clear records. It also stresses the need to recognise persistent low‑frequency noise. The landlord relied on short visits to assess the levels of noise and did not conduct a joint inspection until 5 months after the first report. It did not escalate enquiries despite the high number and frequency of reports from the resident.
23. The evidence shows that the landlord could have acted more decisively. It needed stronger coordination. It should have sought earlier and further input from the EHO. It also should have explored mitigation measures such as insulation, noise‑dampening steps, or a specialist acoustic visit. Its final position, that it could do nothing because it did not own the pipes, did not reflect its duty to take reasonable steps and advocate for the resident.

Events after the complaint process

24. The EHO’s report of 26 March 2024 found vibrations and constant noise that could amount to a statutory nuisance. It confirmed noise could be heard in the bedrooms and suggested adding insulation.
25. The resident told us the landlord did not add insulation. However, the contractor is now regularly checking and managing the water pressure. She reports that this has improved the situation and she can now sleep.

Summary

26. The landlord undertook some investigative actions but did not respond in a prompt, coordinated, and resident‑focused manner. The resident experienced prolonged uncertainty, repeated chasing, and significant distress over around 12 months. Given the volume of reports, recorded vulnerability, and later confirmation of noise impacts, the landlord’s response fell short. For these reasons, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of noise linked to heating system pipes.

27. The landlord’s complaints policy reflects the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It requires complaints to be acknowledged within five working days and a stage 1 response to be issued within 10 working days. At stage 2, it requires an acknowledgement within 5 working days and a final response within 20 working days. The policy also states that any expression of dissatisfaction should be treated as a complaint.
28. The resident expressed dissatisfaction on 27 June and 25 September 2023. The landlord did not treat either contact as a formal complaint. A complaint was not opened until 1 December 2023. As a result, the resident did not receive formal responses, complaint updates, or access to escalation for approximately 6 months.
29. The landlord logged the stage 1 complaint on 1 December 2023. We have not seen a record of an acknowledgement. The landlord provided the stage 1 response on 19 December 2023, 12 working days after it logged the complaint. While this was slightly outside policy timescales, there is no evidence that the short delay caused harm.
30. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 12 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged this within 5 working days and issued the stage 2 response on 8 March 2024. This met the policy timescales.
31. The complaint responses demonstrated some good practice. The landlord set out the issues and gathered evidence. It spoke to contractors and the EHO. It reviewed the resident’s videos and sought further professional input.
32. However, the responses relied heavily on the actions and conclusions of third parties. They did not explain what steps the landlord itself could have taken. They did not set out any plan to support the resident, offer remedies, or show learning from the case.
33. In summary, the landlord met some elements of the Code, including the stage 2 timescales and the investigation steps. However, it failed to recognise early expressions of dissatisfaction as complaints, did not acknowledge the stage 1 complaint, and issued a slightly late stage 1 response. It also did not offer remedies or show learning. These gaps show it did not fully meet its duties to act fairly, put things right, and learn from outcomes. This amounts to service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

34. Early expressions of dissatisfaction can act as important indicators of unresolved issues. Logging these at the right time helps form a clearer picture of emerging concerns.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. Clear records of enquiries, actions, and outcomes can help staff track progress and avoid repetition.

Communication

36. Missed call backs and delays can create extra time and trouble for residents. Accurate and timely updates help reduce this impact.