Moat Homes Limited (202514334)

Decision
Case ID	202514334
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Moat Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	16 December 2025

Background

1. The resident has been a shared-owner of the property since April 2023. The property is a ground floor, 2-bedroom flat. Since October 2023 the resident has reported a persistent, foul smell coming from the drains. The landlord has inspected and cleaned the drains on several occasions, but the resident has said this has not resolved the issue. The resident has also asked on several occasions for the landlord’s contractor to update her directly. However, she said she had never been contacted by them. As a result, the resident raised her complaint on 16 May 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of ongoing issues with the communal drainage.
3. This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of reports of ongoing issues with the communal drainage.
5. There was service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord followed its repairs policy by inspecting and/or jet cleaning the drains following the resident’s reports of a foul smell. However, the landlord caused delays in arranging the CCTV survey and did not keep the resident adequately updated. It also did not learn from these errors and caused further delays by not doing what it said it would in its stage 2 response.
7. The landlord issued its complaint responses within its complaint policy’s timescales. However, it did not address all the concerns raised in the resident’s complaint. It also failed to acknowledge its complaint handling failures.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by the landlord’s management team. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 13 January 2026
	Compensation Order If it has not already done so, the landlord must pay the resident the £150 compensation offered in its stage 2 response. The landlord must pay the resident an additional £100 to recognise the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 13 January 2026
	Review order The landlord to review the failures and delays identified in this report. Through this review it must identify learning opportunities regarding oversight and monitoring of its repairs procedure as well as its communication with residents. Following the review the landlord must write to the resident and this Service to set its findings and learning from the review, as well as its action plan for preventing similar failings occurring in the future.	No later than 13 January 2026

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should update the resident with the CCTV survey’s findings and provide her with a copy of the survey report.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
16 May 2025	The resident raised her complaint. She said the issue with the smell from the drains had been ongoing for a year and a half, but the landlord had failed to resolve it. She also said the landlord’s contractors had been asked to update her directly on multiple occasions, but it had failed to do so. She said to resolve the complaint she wanted the landlord to fix the drainage issues, raise a formal complaint against its contractor and offer compensation.
4 June 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It explained what works it had carried out following each of the resident’s reports that the smell had not been resolved. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by the resident having to report the same issue multiple times. It also said that it would discuss descaling the drains when they are jet washed with its contractor.
4 June 2025	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said the landlord had failed to address any of the things she said she would consider as a suitable resolution to the complaint. She said the landlord’s response indicated that it had not investigated the complaint at all. She said it had only recapped its actions in the last few months. She said it had failed to address its failure to act, lack of communication and the impact this had had on her over the entire 18 months period. She also said it had made matters worse by contacting her and discussing another person’s complaint with her.
2 July 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It acknowledged that the repeated reports and visits should have prompted it to carry out a more thorough investigation sooner. It said that while physical works had been carried out on a number of occasions, the underlying issue remained unresolved. It also acknowledged that the resident had had to chase updates and there has been a breakdown in communication from its contractor. It said to resolve the issues it had arranged a full CCTV inspection of the drains. It said it would keep the resident informed of the outcome and confirmed the cost would not be charged back to residents. It also offered the resident £150 compensation in recognition of the continued contact the resident had had to make to get this matter resolved.
17 September 2025	The resident confirmed that she wanted this Service to investigate the complaint. She said she remained unhappy with the landlord’s responses because the drainage issues remained unresolved. She said she wanted the landlord to finally resolve the issues and offer more compensation.

 

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.

Complaint	Drainage issues
Finding	Maladministration

8. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend emergency repairs within 4 hours to make safe and complete any works within 24 hours. It says that for all other repairs it aims to complete these within 21 working days.
9. In the resident’s correspondence, she has referred to historical issues with drains going back about 18 months before she complained. However, we have not seen evidence that she raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the issues until 16 May 2025. We encourage residents to bring complaints to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable time of the problem occurring, usually within 12 months, so the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to resolve the issues. Therefore, the scope of this investigation focusses on events from May 2024 (12 months before the complaint was made) up to the point the resident’s complaint completed the landlord’s internal complaints process (2 July 2025). Anything that happened before this is considered for context purposes only.
10. Additionally, the resident has said that having to live with the smell for so long has had an impact on her mental health. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any effect on health and wellbeing. Personal injury claims must, ultimately, be decided by the courts, as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, we can consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident.
11. Between 16 May 2024 and 2 July 2025, the resident reported a foul smell coming from her drains on at least 9 separate occasions. She was also in regular contact with the landlord about updates on works during this period. Following each report the landlord raised an inspection and/or jet cleaning of the external drains to try and resolve the issues. All of these visits took place within 21 working days of the residents reports that the smell remained. As such, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports.
12. We have also noted that the visit notes from 19 August 2024, 6 and 27 November 2024, 4 March 2025 and 28 April 2025 say there was no foul smell from the drains. They also suggest the smell being reported was coming from the bin store. We appreciate the resident has disputed this and said the smell from the drains had persisted since it was first reported. However, landlords are entitled to rely on information provided by their contractors and representatives in the absence of independent third party evidence to the contrary.
13. On 4 March 2025 the landlord carried out a further inspection of the drains. The visit notes say that more information was needed as the only bad smell found came from the bin store. The landlord jet washed the drains on 19 March 2025 and the engineer recommended that it carry out a CCTV survey. Based on the evidence seen the CCTV survey was not arranged until 8 August 2025. This was despite the landlord’s stage 2 response which said it would contact the resident on 11 July 2025 to arrange an appointment date. The CCTV survey took place between 18 and 19 September 2025. The landlord has not provided an explanation for the delay in arranging the CCTV survey of the drains. This was unreasonable and not in line with its policy timescales. It also indicates poor record keeping and monitoring of repairs on the part of the landlord.
14. The evidence seen shows that during the period considered in this report the landlord was not proactive in keeping the resident updated. On multiple occasions the resident contacted the landlord for updates about the inspections and works because she had not heard from it in some time. This was unreasonable and caused the resident time, trouble and inconvenience as she had to chase the landlord for updates.
15. Additionally, from 11 March 2025 the landlord responded to some of the resident’s update requests by saying it had asked its contractor to update her directly. However, no evidence has been seen to show the landlord’s contractor ever contacted the resident directly. The resident has said that part of her desired resolution was for the landlord to raise a complaint against its contractor for not updating her directly. We appreciate the inconvenience caused by the contractor not updating the resident and her having to constantly contact the landlord. However, we are unable to order the landlord to raise a complaint against its contractor. That said, the contractor was acting as an agent of the landlord. Therefore, its failure to update the resident directly is the landlord’s failure to keep her updated.
16. Overall the landlord’s failures, as set out above, can be summarised as a failing to:
    1. Carry out the CCTV survey within a reasonable timeframe.
    2. Keep the resident adequately updated.
17. In identifying whether there has been maladministration we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has used the complaints process to fully acknowledge any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
18. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged it should have carried out a full inspection of the drains and find the cause of the smell sooner. It also acknowledged the resident had been in regular contact with it for updates and to try and get the issues resolved. In recognition of this the landlord offered £150 compensation. It said it would contact the resident by 11 July 2025 to arrange the CCTV survey and this would not be charged back to residents.
19. Overall, it was appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged its failure to arrange the CCTV survey sooner and its poor communication. Having taken into consideration the delay and the impact this had, we find that the total compensation of £150 offered for the failures is proportionate to the impact on the resident. This is because the landlord has addressed its failings and adequately compensated the resident for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused.
20. However, the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles state that when resolving complaints landlords have to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In this instance, the landlord failed to learn from its previous mistakes and caused further delays to the CCTV survey. On 19 July 2025 the resident contacted the landlord because the stage 2 said it would contact her by 11 July 2025 about the CCTV. She said she had not received any updates from it about the survey. The evidence seen shows the landlord did not arrange the CCTV survey until 8 August 2025 and it did not take place until 18 September 2025. This was not in line with its repairs policy and the landlord has not explained why there was a further delay. As such we have found that there was maladministration in this respect.
21. In view of this, we order the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this report. We also order the landlord to review the failures and delays identified in this report. Through this review it must identify learning opportunities regarding oversight and monitoring of its repairs procedure as well as its communication with residents. We are aware that the CCTV survey took place in September 2025. As such, we have not made an order relating to the survey itself. However, if it has not already done so, we recommend the landlord update the resident with the survey’s findings.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

22. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and then respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. It also says the landlord will acknowledge escalation requests within 5 working days and then respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The policy says that should more time be needed at either stage, the landlord will inform the resident and an extension will not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2.
23. The resident raised her complaint on 16 May 2025 and the landlord acknowledged it on 21 May 2025. The landlord then issued its stage 1 response on 4 June 2025. This was within its complaints policy timescales.
24. The resident escalated her complaint on 4 June 2025 and the landlord acknowledged this the same day. It then issued its stage 2 response on 2 July 2025. This was within its complaints policy timescales.
25. In its stage 1 response the landlord gave a break down of residents reports of bad smells since February 2025, its responses and the findings of its visits. It acknowledged that the resident had reported the same issue multiple times and the frustration this had caused her. It also said it had responded to her reports in-line with its policies but that it would recommend its contractors descale the drains when they are jet washed. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the impact on the resident and confirm what it would do next to try to resolve the issue.
26. However, this response did not address all of the concerns raised by the resident in her complaint. Namely, it did not address the resident’s request for a breakdown of drain works since she first reported the smell in October 2023 and its contractors failure to keep her adequately updated. Landlords are required to address all points raised in a complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. Therefore it was unreasonable for the landlord not to respond to all the resident’s complaint points in its stage 1 response.
27. In the resident’s escalation request she said the landlord’s stage 1 response did not address all of her complaint points. She also said that after she raised her complaint the landlord contacted her to discuss it. However, it was not hers but someone else’s complaint that it tried to speak to her about.
28. The landlord’s stage 2 response failed to address both of these complaint handling failures. These failings caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience. For this reason we have found that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
29. In view of this, we order the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this report and pay the resident £100 compensation. This sum is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which did not have an impact on the outcome of the complaint nor a lasting impact on the resident.

Learning

Communication

30. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords let residents know what to expect regarding repairs.
31. In this case, the landlord failed to keep the resident adequately updated about the inspections and works it carried out. Had it done so it might have avoided the resident contacting it as much as she did for updates.

Complaint handling

32. The landlord must ensure that it adequately addresses all the concerns raised by residents in their complaints.