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

Moat Homes Limited (202450882)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINTS 202450882 & 202336961

Moat Homes Limited

31 July 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of a request for a disabled parking bay.
    2. Handling of antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports including staff conduct and discrimination.
    3. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy of a 3-bedroom property which started in March 2023. The resident lives in the property with her 3 children. The resident told the landlord on 5 October 2023 that she and 1 child have vulnerabilities.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord ASB since June 2023 on an ongoing basis. The reports involved multiple neighbours and their visitors. The resident told the landlord her neighbours or their visitors recorded her, used substances, parked inconsiderately, shouted at her, made threats against her, used foul language, dumped rubbish, threw stones at her property, allowed dogs to bark and defecate or urinate on her property, leaked confidential information on social media, and damaged or stole her property.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 22 June 2023 about the conduct of its staff in their handling of her ASB case. She added on 11 July 2023 a complaint about another employee of the landlord. The resident clarified with the landlord on 21 August 2023 that her complaint was also about the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports. On 2 October 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about the professionalism of a staff member. The resident contacted us on 19 January 2024 about her ASB complaint. The landlord provided its first stage 1 response in relation to this on 22 January 2024 and said:
    1. it offered mediation and met with the police and council monthly and was investigating the possibility of installing CCTV.
    2. the resident needed to record incidents using diary sheets or its ASB app.
    3. it offered details of where the resident could access support.
    4. it dealt with the ASB appropriately but awarded £50 for the delay in complaint handling.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint on the same day stating she felt the landlord’s response was misleading. She expressed continued dissatisfaction at its handling of the ASB. The landlord provided its first stage 2 response to the ASB complaint on 14 February 2024 and said:
    1. it was looking to see if it could install CCTV by working with a managing agent.
    2. it could not arrange mediation as not every party was agreeable to this.
    3. there was a case review meeting on 11 October 2023, and it provided weekly updates initially which moved to fortnightly.
    4. it awarded the resident £50 for the delayed stage 1 response, and £50 for its communication over ASB.
  5. The resident complained to the landlord again on 24 April 2024 about its handling of ASB reports and said she felt discriminated against. On 14 May 2024 she asked the landlord for a change of case handler. On 24 May 2024 the landlord decided to provide another stage 1 response in relation to its handling of ASB and said:
    1. it opened an ASB case on 18 March 2024 and made contact on 25 March 2024 to discuss 8 incidents.
    2. it provided an action plan on 26 March 2024.
    3. it could not fairly investigate ASB after the resident withdrew her consent for the landlord to contact neighbours on 27 March 2024.
    4. it would monitor the case monthly, take proportionate action, log any new reports of ASB, and work with the police to see the outcome of their investigation.
  6. The resident escalated her ASB complaint on 24 May 2024 without giving a reason. On 24 June 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 response and said there was no evidence it acted outside its policies or procedures, and it could not reassign a case officer. It reiterated it needed clear evidence and freedom to approach neighbours to investigate reports of ASB.
  7. The resident continued to report ASB to the landlord after the final response. On 15 April 2025 the landlord told the resident there was no live ASB and it had closed its case. On 2 June 2025 the resident told us that she continued to experience ASB and wants the landlord to re-open her ASB case and investigate her ongoing reports. She would also like compensation to resolve her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is outlined in the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. Under paragraph 41.b of the Scheme the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints that do not relate to the actions or omissions of a landlord.
  2. We acknowledge the resident requested a disabled parking bay from the landlord. On 14 May 2024 she complained about the length of time it took to consider this. The resident’s tenancy agreement did not include a designated disabled parking space. It is also evident it was not within the landlord’s gift to provide one as it does not own the land where the bay would need to be located. A managing agent owns the land and therefore the landlord had no power to agree to the resident’s request without the managing agent’s permission. As the landlord had no control over this decision this was not an act or omission of the landlord. Therefore, the resident’s complaint about her request for a disabled parking space is outside jurisdiction under paragraph 41.b. of the Scheme. We have however made a recommendation the landlord update the resident on any further communication it has had with the managing agent on this.

The scope of the investigation

  1. We note the resident continues to report ASB from neighbours and has made several complaints about the landlord’s handling of ASB. This investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint in its final response of 24 June 2024, relating to reports of ASB before then. During this investigation the landlord informed us that the resident made an additional complaint after this. The resident has said that she wishes this later complaint to also be investigated by this Service. Following receipt of a copy of the landlord’s final response dated18 June 2025we have opened a further case and will be contacting the resident and the landlord to confirm if this case can proceed to an investigation.
  2. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns throughout the complaint process that the landlord allegedly discriminated against her in relation to its handling of her ASB reports and in its dealings with her.  Unlike a court the Ombudsman is unable to make findings under the Equality Act 2010. The allegation is therefore a legal matter that likely needs considering by a court. However, we can consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s allegation and whether it considered its legal equality duties.
  3. The resident told this Service her complaint includes the landlord’s decision to take enforcement action against her. The landlord told the resident that it would consider enforcement action against her after it provided the formal responses we investigated. Therefore, we did not consider this as part of our investigation.
  4. The Ombudsman may not investigate complaints that fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body. We note the 3 complaints the resident made on 18 June 2023, 11 July 2023, and 15 July 2023 related to allegations of staff making data protection breaches. These will not be investigated as complaints about alleged data protection breaches come within the remit of the Information Commissioners’ Office (ICO).
  5. Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said the situation had a detrimental effect on the health and well-being of her and her family. 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. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of ASB

  1. It is evident this situation has been distressing for the resident. There remains a dispute between the resident and the landlord regarding whether the landlord responded appropriately to reports of ASB. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the acts the resident reported occurred or whether they amounted to ASB. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the residents reports of alleged ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy states it:
    1. will assess each report it receives to see if it meets the definition of ASB and is unreasonable.
    2. may regard reports of verbal or physical threats, abuse, vandalism, persistent, deliberate or targeted noise, dogs barking or fouling, parking disputes, assault, and substance misuse as ASB.
    3. will work in partnership with the police and council.
    4. will complete an initial risk assessment and review it periodically, interview perpetrators, issue warnings, make referrals for support, and use mediation when appropriate.
    5. will take enforcement action if it is proportionate.
    6. will provide residents with a contact and regular updates via an action plan.
  3. During the complaint process the landlord:
    1. visited the resident on 22 June 2023 and 10 July 2023 and visited a neighbour the resident said was involved in ASB on 10 July 2023.
    2. offered to refer the resident to victim support on 1 September 2023 and offered to signpost her to specialist services on 13 October 2023.
    3. attended an ASB case review in October 2023.
    4. considered mediation.
    5. attended professional meetings about the ASB reports on 17 July 2023, 14 September 2023, 7 January 2024, 1 February 2024 and 30 April 2024.
    6. completed an ASB action plan on 26 March 2024.
  4. These steps were reasonable as they were in line with its ASB policy. It was also reasonable of the landlord to ask the resident to complete diary sheets or use its ASB app to gather evidence. When the resident told it the ASB app was not working on 17 July 2023 and 11 August 2023 the landlord offered to get it installed for her on 1 August 2023 and 4 October 2023 respectively. The landlord explained to the resident that it needed to support her ASB reports with evidence. It offered support to the resident when it became aware there was a problem with her using the ASB app which was reasonable.
  5. The resident complained that the landlord had not investigated her reports of ASB and said it failed to take action against neighbours. We have seen evidence that when it assessed there was ASB it took action in line with its ASB policy, for example:
    1. it explained to the resident on 27 October 2023 it sent the resident’s neighbour a warning letter, this was in September 2023 after an incident on 31 August 2023.
    2. it told the resident on 31 May 2024 it gave the resident’s neighbour a verbal warning related to an incident reported on 6 May 2024.
  6. We have also seen the landlord explained to the resident incidents why it did not consider some reports to be ASB, for example it:
    1. assessed the resident’s reports of ASB in early September 2023, after consulting with the police, and found the evidence did not substantiate the reports.
    2. explained in October 2023 it could not provide a full response to the incident reported on 2 October 2023 until the police investigation concluded as there was an absence of evidence.
    3. noted on the 3 November 2023 that the neighbour’s use of CCTV did not amount to an invasion of privacy.
    4. told the resident on 1 December 2023 a report from 13 November 2023 relating to parking was not ASB.
    5. told the resident on the 18 December 2023 that the evidence she provided relating to an alleged damage to her car by a neighbour’s relative did not show this was ASB.
    6. explained on 26 January 2024 that the footage of her neighbour brushing leaves onto one side did not amount to ASB.
    7. said on 17 April 2024 that the footage which showed a visitor referred to something stinking and which made reference to “a tramp’s house” did not relate to the resident.
    8. said on 31 May 2024 there was no evidence to substantiate the following reports made between 30 April 2024 and 23 May 2024 amounted to ASB:
      1. of a neighbour looking and pointing towards the resident’s home.
      2. neighbours laughing, parking outside the resident’s property, and littering.
      3. children screaming and noise from cars.
      4. a visitor waving at the resident’s CCTV.
  7. The landlord’s ASB policy required it to assess if reports of ASB amounted to ASB. Therefore, the landlord acted in line with its ASB policy in assessing these reports and explaining to the resident it had decided they were not ASB. The resident asked the landlord to apply for a community protection notice (CPN) on 26 June 2023. She also repeatedly asked the landlord to apply for an injunction against her neighbours from June 2023. The landlord explained to the resident on 27 June 2023 that only the police could issue a CPN. The landlord’s solicitor also wrote to the resident on 13 September 2023 to explain its reasons why it was unable to apply for an injunction. It considered the evidence and decided applying for an injunction was not proportionate, but it agreed to monitor the case.  This was reasonable as the landlord sought legal advice, and its decision was in line with its ASB policy as this stated it could only take formal action if it judged this was proportionate.
  8. We note the landlord continued to assess the evidence the resident provided and concluded that this either did not amount to ASB or, where it did, it was not serious enough to justify applying for an injunction. This was reasonable as the landlord’s ASB policy only allowed it to take action where it assessed there was ASB, and, as set out in the previous paragraph, it could only take formal action if it judged this was proportionate. It also told the resident on 27 October 2023 why it decided mediation was not suitable. The landlord said it was unable to provide mediation as the resident’s neighbour had refused it, which was a reasonable explanation.
  9. The landlord explained to the resident on 5 April 2024 it could not fairly investigate her reports of ASB after the resident told it on 26 March 2024 not to directly contact her neighbours. It agreed to monitor her case monthly and await the outcome of the police investigation of her reports. The landlord’s position was reasonable as without being able to contact alleged perpetrators it was unable to fully assess the reports itself. It therefore follows that it was reasonable of the landlord to await the outcome of the police investigation into the resident’s reports before deciding what action, if any, to take. The resident reported a neighbour filming her coming out of a shower and a neighbour damaging her car in June 2024. The landlord was unable to raise these with the neighbour and investigate and reasonably awaited to hear from the police.
  10. The resident complained to the landlord on 22 June 2023 about a staff member making an appointment the day before. She also complained about the professionalism of a staff member in response to an incident on 2 October 2023. The landlord explained to the resident on 1 December 2023 that it had found no fault in its investigation of the latter. The landlord also added on 22 January 2024 its staff had acted in line with its ASB policy. In its response on 24 June 2024, it reiterated it had not seen evidence its staff had failed to comply with its policies or procedures. It was appropriate of the landlord to investigate the resident’s complaints about staff conduct and respond.
  11. The resident expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had not allowed her to erect a fence as she felt this was a reasonable safeguarding measure. It is unclear when the resident first requested a fence, but based on the evidence it appears to have been before 4 July 2023. While it took steps to consider this between 11 August 2023 and 13 September 2023 it told the resident on 13 October 2023that it could not agree to the erection of a fence. This is because the legal documents relating to the estate prohibited the erection of fences on the front. Therefore, the landlord acted reasonably in not agreeing to this as it could not act contrary to this legal prohibition. While the resident complained the landlord had not taken steps to safeguard her this was on account of its decision not to apply for an injunction against the neighbours. However, as set out above we have found this was reasonable and in line with its ASB policy. We have seen the landlord offered to make safeguarding referrals and considered if the council could install CCTV. These were reasonable steps to help safeguard the resident.
  12. The resident has alleged the landlord discriminated against her in its handling of her ASB reports. This was because she felt the landlord had not considered her evidence, acted against her neighbours, or considered her vulnerabilities. We found the landlord’s conduct was in line with its ASB policy because it explained why it could not take action on some reports, and it took steps against the neighbour when it was satisfied ASB had occurred and found sufficient evidence. While the landlord explained its position it did not specifically address the resident’s concerns of discrimination or show it had fully considered its equality obligations. We have not seen the landlord completed a risk assessment with the resident until 25 October 2024 which was after its final response. This delay was not in line with its ASB policy which required it to complete an ‘initial’ risk assessment. Therefore, it ought to have completed one earlier as the resident told it on 5 October 2023 of her household vulnerabilities. This failure to complete a risk assessment sooner is evidence of the landlord’s overall failure to show it fully considered its equality obligations in dealing with the reported ASB.
  13. The resident complained about the level of the landlord’s communications. The landlord said it would update the resident weekly from 13 October 2023 and then fortnightly from 17 November 2023 and after 5 April 2024 committed to monthly monitoring. The landlord provided the resident with regular updates in line with its ASB policy and its commitments except on 4 occasions. It said it would update the resident by 15 September 2023 but did not do so until 18 September 2023. This was a short delay which caused no detriment. While it did not provide the resident with its weekly update on 20 October 2023 it reasonably explained that it could not offer an update due to staff leave. We have not seen that it offered an update that was due on 29 December 2023. It also provided an update on 12 February 2024 instead of 9 February 2024 due to staff leave. The landlord accepted there were delays in communication on 14 February 2024 and awarded £50 compensation for this.
  14. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles require landlords to act fairly, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord’s acknowledgement of failure and the compensation were in line with our dispute resolution principles: act fairly and put things right. While the level of compensation of £50 was proportionate to the communication failures we have found the landlord failed to complete an ‘initial risk’ assessment within a reasonable time. It did not acknowledge this during the complaint process or show it had due regard to its equality obligations. This amounted to a service failure.
  15. We note the resident continued to complain between April and May 2024 that the landlord had not taken into account her vulnerabilities. The delay in completing a risk assessment likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Therefore, we have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £50 compensation to reflect the detriment caused to the resident by this. This is in line with our remedies guidance which allows for payments of this amount where the landlord has made an offer of compensation, but it is not quite proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. As the resident reports the ASB is ongoing we have also made an order concerning this.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. We have identified the following failures in the landlord’s complaint handling as it:
    1. took the landlord 147 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint about ASB at stage 1 of its complaint process (22 January 2024) from when she complained (22 June 2023), against a target of 10 working days. This was inappropriate as the landlord’s complaint policy required it to log a complaint when the resident asked it to
    2. took the landlord 21 working days to respond to the resident’s second complaint about ASB at stage 1 (24 May 2024) from when she complained (24 April 2024), against a target of 10 working days
  2. The landlord acknowledged the delay in complaint handling in its complaint responses on 22 January 2024 and 14 February 2024 and it offered £50 for this. While it was appropriate to offer some compensation to put things right the compensation was not proportionate to the level of failure found. This is because there were further delays in it dealing with the resident’s second complaint which amounted to service failure. We have therefore made an additional award of compensation of £50 to reflect the likely distress and inconvenience caused by this. As set out above this amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations where the landlord has made an offer of compensation, but it is not quite proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 41.b of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of a request for a disabled parking bay is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB to include staff conduct and discrimination.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must:
    1. review the resident’s ASB reports made since it closed her ASB case on 15 April 2025, if it has not done so already, to see if there are any reports that amount to ASB and update the resident on if it will re-open her ASB case, explaining its reasons. If any reports amount to ASB the landlord must update the risk assessment and action plan and provide the resident with a copy of these within 2 weeks of its review.
    2. pay the resident directly (without any deductions) £100 made up of:
      1. £50 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of ASB to include staff conduct and discrimination.
      2. £50 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord contact the resident to update her on any further communication it has had with the managing agent concerning her request for a disabled parking bay.