Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Moat Homes Limited (202322845)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322845

Moat Homes Limited

5 June 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 handling of the resident’s complaints about shower issues, a bathroom refit, and associated move to temporary accommodation.

Background

  1. The resident’s assured tenancy began in 2008. The property is a ground floor flat. The landlord was aware of the resident’s disabilities and serious health issues, and that he has a fulltime carer.
  2. From early 2022, the resident reported to the landlord various issues with his electric shower and its unsuitability for his needs. He chased the landlord for progress over the following months. In August 2022, following contact from us, the landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response. It confirmed that it would install a mains shower, which it did in November 2022.
  3. From November 2022 to January 2023, the resident reported further shower and bathroom issues. The landlord attended several times and confirmed that a bigger water cylinder was needed. On 18 January 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that the issues had been ongoing for months. Later that month he was admitted to hospital for a planned operation. Following his discharge in February 2023, he continued to chase the landlord.
  4. On 18 February 2023, following the landlord’s attendance, it recorded that tiles had fallen from the resident’s bathroom wall. It said that this had revealed damp which, due to the resident’s health conditions, rendered the bathroom unusable. It decided to fully refit the bathroom. It arranged a hotel for the resident and his carer, while it adapted temporary accommodation for him.
  5. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response on 23 March 2023. It apologised that it had been unsuccessful in resolving the shower and bathroom issues he had reported since January 2022. It stated the works would be completed shortly. It offered £855.92 compensation, of which it said £705.92 represented 10% of 64 weeks rent.
  6. The resident returned to his property in April 2023. He escalated his complaint on 9 May 2023. He said the landlord had not responded to his previous escalation request. He highlighted the health impact and stress that its delays and his move had caused him, and his continued frustration with its poor communications.
  7. The resident chased the landlord for a stage 2 response from June to August 2023. It sent its response on 30 August 2023. It apologised for its complaint handling and service failures. It stated its learning and the changes that this had resulted in. It increased its compensation to £1555.92. The following day the resident said that its offer did not reflect the impact on his health, nor his additional fuel costs from the greater distance travelled to hospital and other commitments.
  8. On 4 September 2023 the landlord explained why it could not “determine link to health” but asked the resident to provide details of his fuel costs. In November 2023 the resident told us that the landlord had offered him a payment towards his fuel costs.
  9. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate the matters above. He maintained that the landlord’s compensation did not reflect the impact on his health or the recovery from his operation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. A large element of the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman is the impact on his health from the landlord’s actions or inaction. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, medical matters. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim. The resident could consider taking independent legal advice in that regard. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the resident’s vulnerabilities, time, trouble, and distress.

Shower issues, bathroom refit, and associated move to temporary accommodation

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to complete non-emergency repairs within 21 calendar days. Its complaints policy states that it aims to respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints, within 10 and 20 working days respectively.
  2. The evidence shows the resident’s reports of shower issues, and the landlord’s repairs, from April 2022 until July 2022. However, it later acknowledged that the resident had been reporting the issues since the very start of 2022. While it also later highlighted its efforts to resolve the matter, it accepted its communication and service failings through this whole period.
  3. The landlord raised the works to replace the resident’s shower in July 2022. It confirmed this to him the following month in its response to his previous complaint. It is unclear why the landlord then took until November 2022 to complete this work, which was far beyond the timeframe in its policy. It was aware that the resident’s health issues made ready access to a shower especially important. The landlord later acknowledged its poor service but did not explain how the delay occurred, and nothing in the evidence shows its consideration of his vulnerabilities in its planning of the work.
  4. The resident began reporting insufficient hot water and other issues, shortly after his new shower was installed. He provided us a copy of his handwritten diary, including from November 2022 to March 2023. It showed his frustration and distress at the amount of chasing he found necessary while trying to balance his hospital commitments. It further showed his efforts to seek support from other agencies, regarding the landlord’s lack of timely responses.
  5. This resulted in the local council contacting the landlord on 20 February 2023. It was only from this point that the evidence shows the landlord’s recognition of the seriousness of the matter. It was notable that, during this period, its internal communications emphasised the importance of understanding what had gone wrong, in order that it could learn from it.
  6. The resident experienced further significant disruption and distress from then, until he returned to his property in April 2023. The landlord later acknowledged that it could have done more to recognise this, and the resident continued to highlight its poor communications. Nonetheless, throughout this period, the evidence shows the landlord’s urgent efforts to arrange the works and temporary accommodation, as well as its consideration of his specific needs.
  7. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response on 30 August 2023. It took 47 and 81 working days respectively, to send its stage 1 and 2 responses. It accepted that this was far beyond the timeframes of its policy. It also accepted that there had been failings in its previous complaint handling, in the second half of 2022. It appropriately apologised for its “poor complaint handling”, and attributed £350 of its total compensation to this. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where “there was a failure which adversely affected the resident”.
  8. The landlord’s stage 2 response was empathetic. It acknowledged and apologised to the resident for the impact of its service failings. It stated its learning, which included the introduction of a new role to proactively manage temporary moves for vulnerable residents. It has since told us about its further learning and the range of changes it has implemented. This includes ongoing complaint handling and other staff training, which uses the resident’s timeline and experience as its basis.
  9. The landlord offered the resident £1205.92 compensation for its service failings (excluding its £350 for complaint handling). This amount is in line with the recommended range of the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, where there has been a “series of significant failures which have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident”. The landlord also later agreed to pay the resident’s £300 additional fuel costs.
  10. Overall, from January 2022 to February 2023, the resident experienced significant time, trouble, and distress from the landlord’s delays, and its poor communication, complaint handling, and general service failings. While it acted with greater urgency from that point, the resident’s temporary move also caused him severe disruption at a time when he should have been convalescing. Nonetheless, the landlord demonstrated its learning from his complaint, and its redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident its total £1555.92 award, and the £300 that it agreed for fuel costs, if it has not already done so.