Moat Homes Limited (202404257)

Background

1. The resident lives in a first floor flat. In June 2021 she reported that the guttering outside her window was blocked and overflowing. She complained in August 2023 because the landlord had still not repaired it.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

a.             Guttering repairs.

b.             The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of guttering repairs.
   2. Service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. We found that:
   1. The repairs were delayed by contractor changes and the landlord’s internal processes. The landlord did not review earlier records and needed repeat visits. It did not update the resident about the repair or monitor its contractor. The repair took nearly 4 years to fully complete.
   2. The stage 1 response was late. The landlord did not acknowledge how long the unresolved repair affected the resident or set meaningful outcomes. The landlord handled stage 2 well but did not complete the actions it set.

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.

5. The landlord provided us with copies of its current and previous repairs policies. We have considered all versions that were in place during the period of the resident’s complaint. Both policies set a 21-day target for standard repairs. The 2023 policy says that the landlord aims to get repairs right first time and that it will conduct post repair inspections and desktop checks to monitor the standard and quality of the work.
6. In June 2021 the resident reported blocked and overflowing guttering to the landlord. The landlord acknowledged the repair and said it would attend within 14 days. The landlord has no records from that period. Therefore, we have not been able to assess whether it attended or acted in line with its policy.
7. The evidence shows that the resident made multiple reports about the guttering. The landlord did not record these consistently. By August 2024, it had logged 16 repairs for the block and 4 for the resident’s address. The inconsistent records show that the landlord did not monitor the repair effectively or link related reports. As a result, it did not keep the resident updated or progress the repair in a timely way.
8. The landlord raised a repair in October 2022, cancelled it, then re-raised in December 2022. The evidence shows that the landlord cancelled the older repair instead of the newer one, which may have led to more delays for the resident. The landlord said it attended in January 2023. This exceeded the landlord’s 21-day target for standard repairs and demonstrates ineffective record keeping.
9. In March 2023 the landlord recorded that it had cleared the gutters but needed to do other work. It said it required specialist equipment and approval from a different department. In May 2023, a member of the landlord’s staff reported that the gutters were still blocked. However, evidence shows the landlord marked the corresponding repair as ‘no longer required.’ This further indicates ineffective monitoring of the resident’s repair.
10. However, the landlord raised a new repair for the gutters on 8 June 2023. During this time the resident was in regular contact with the landlord. The landlord also visited the resident to discuss the issues she was having and carried out a walkabout on the estate, where it identified blocked guttering. It is unclear on what basis the landlord found the job in May 2023 was not required. The landlord missed further opportunities to act on the resident’s reports or put things right.
11. An operative attended on 28 June 2023, which was within 21 days of the repair being raised. The landlord reported that the work could not be completed because bushes prevented safe access. This showed that the landlord had not planned the visit effectively, as it had not ensured access before sending the operative. The operative recommended a 2‑person job with specialist equipment. The landlord had been on notice of this since March 2023 but did not act on the earlier recommendations. This further shows poor record keeping and monitoring practices.
12. The landlord raised a new repair in July 2023. Throughout August 2023 it was in contact with its contractor about this work and asked its contractor to contact the resident to update her. The resident made her complaint in August 2023 as there was no progress and after learning about internal processes which had contributed to the repair delays.
13. The landlord raised a further work order on 12 September 2023, after the resident had escalated her complaint. The contractor attended on 13 March 2024, 128 working days after it had raised the job, but again did not complete the work. The landlord carried out other repairs in March 2024, using its own operatives which it responded to in line with its policy timescales. It did not always communicate with the resident about the ongoing contractor appointments, which caused confusion. The evidence shows that whilst the landlord completed the bulk of the work in July 2024, it was not finally completed until February 2025.
14. Although the landlord took steps to resolve the issue by considering different contractors and using its own operatives, there was a significant delay in it completing the repair post complaint. The resident spent further time and trouble asking for updates, reporting back after visits, and providing information to support the landlord in instructing its new contractor. Given the history of the unresolved repair, it is unclear why the landlord did not consider a joint site visit with the contractor to minimise further delays or repair failures. This would have shown that it had learned from the complaint and the issues the resident had experienced.
15. There was an improvement in the landlord’s communication from January 2024, and it showed empathy, understanding, and care towards the resident. The resident benefitted from having a single point of contact for repairs and for her complaint. This showed that the landlord had taken steps to learn from its previously poor communication. However, there is also communication showing that the landlord had not yet paid the compensation it had offered in September 2023. This indicates further gaps in the landlord’s monitoring of the resident’s situation.
16. We find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the guttering repairs. The evidence shows that the landlord attended several times but repeatedly failed to act on earlier findings. Poor record keeping and ineffective internal processes led to unsuccessful repeat visits. The landlord failed to adequately monitor its contractor in line with its policy and the resident spent considerable time and trouble making reports and chasing for updates after the complaint.
17. Our remedies guidance states that compensation amounts over £100 can be proportionate to put right maladministration where there may be no permanent impact on the resident. The gutter repair was communal and did not have a direct impact on the resident’s property. The landlord recognised failings through its complaint process and apologised. Its offer of £175 recognised the time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing the repair at the time of the complaint and went some way to putting things right. However, it did not resolve the guttering repair within a reasonable timeframe, resulting in additional time and trouble spent by the resident. We have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £100 compensation to recognise the additional impact on the resident following the complaint. We have also included an order for the landlord to confirm how it plans to maintain or monitor the guttering in the future to prevent a repeat of these delays.

18. The landlord’s complaint policy set targets of 10 working days for stage 1 complaints and 20 working days for stage 2 complaints. These targets aligned with The Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2022.
19. The landlord sent its stage 1 response 1 day late. This had little detriment on the resident. It apologised for its handling of the repair but did not recognise the resident’s 2021 report or explain why it excluded it. As a result, it underestimated the duration and impact of its failures on the resident.
20. The landlord’s stage 2 response met its policy and the Code. It apologised again to the resident and made a further offer of £175 compensation. While it was empathetic and tried to put things right, it did not provide a date that it would complete the work. This caused the resident further time and trouble raising the matter and the repairs remained outstanding for a long time.
21. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered to pay the resident £175 directly or add it to her rent account. The resident disputes that either option happened. However, the landlord says it paid the resident its offer of £175 compensation in October 2023, but it provided no evidence to confirm this. The resident continued to dispute receiving this payment throughout 2024, before bringing her complaint to us.
22. Based on our findings we find service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord’s failure to complete stage 2 actions undermined the resident’s trust in its complaint process and caused her avoidable time and trouble. We order the landlord to provide the resident and us with evidence that it paid its offer of £175. We also order it to pay additional sum of £100 for the time and trouble caused dealing with the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. In this case, the repair was left unresolved for several years. The evidence shows that the landlord’s inconsistent record keeping affected its ability to manage the repair. It did not keep clear or connected records of the resident’s reports or the actions it took. The landlord may benefit from reviewing our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023), available through our website’s Centre for Learning.

Communication

24. The evidence shows that the landlord did not have effective systems in place to track contractor attendance or monitor follow-on work across the duration of this repair. Clearer communication between the landlord and its contractors may have reduced delays and repeat visits.
25. In this case, the records do not show that the landlord kept the resident updated at the early stages of the repair. When it did, the resident took the time to thank the landlord for its communication.
26. The landlord may benefit from reviewing our spotlight report recommendations. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that complaints can be avoided when landlords:
    1. let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule
    2. gather feedback from residents and conduct inspections to ensure the work is satisfactory