Moat Homes Limited (202422401)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422401

Moat Homes Limited

10 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, damp and mould.
The Ombudsman will also consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has occupied the property, a 2-bedroom flat, since 2017. The resident resides at the property with her 4 children, 2 of whom have vulnerabilities that are known to the landlord.
On 5 March 2024, the resident reported a repair to the landlord. She said that water was coming through the living room ceiling and stains had also appeared on both bedroom ceilings. She told the landlord that she believed the leak was originating from the balcony area of the property above.
The same day, the resident made a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of the repairs and expressed her dissatisfaction that the same issues reoccurred “every winter”.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 March 2024. It said:
1. It acknowledged that a “number of works” had been carried out in 2020 and 2021 in relation to roof leaks in the building. However, it had not received any further reports from the resident until 5 March 2024.
2. In relation to the outstanding repairs:
  1. It had visited the resident on 18 March 2024 and confirmed that a decant from the property was not required.
  2. It had attended the property on 19 March 2024 to assess the damp and mould.
  3. The property developer was due to attend on 21 March 2024 to inspect the roof and source where the water ingress was coming from.
  4. It would contact the resident on 25 March 2024 to discuss the outcome of the visits and provide her with a plan to resolve the issues.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 31 July 2024. She said this was because the landlord had resolved the external leak but had not repaired the damaged ceilings in the property. She also referenced her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her request to be moved due to overcrowding.
The landlord responded to the resident on 6 August 2024. It provided her with advice on moving properties and confirmed that it would escalate her complaint to stage 2 in relation to the leaks and follow–on works.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 September 2024. It said:
1. It was satisfied that the developer had acted quickly to resolve the external repairs in June 2024.
2. During an inspection of the property on 2 July 2024, the surveyor had confirmed that following the completion of the external repairs, there was no evidence of any water ingress into the property. However, mould was present, and several repairs were required.
3. Its repair contractor would complete the outstanding actions on 9 September 2024. The mould wash and decoration would be arranged once the plasterwork had dried.
4. It was sorry to hear that the repairs had had an adverse effect on the resident and her child. However, it would not be appropriate for it to determine a direct link between the mould in the property and their health.
5. In recognition of the delays to the internal repairs, it offered the resident £150 compensation. This was calculated in line with its compensation policy.
6. In relation to moving homes, the resident would need to register for a move with the local council or consider a mutual exchange.

Events after the end of the complaint process

On 9 September 2024 and 17 October 2024, the resident informed the landlord that she was dissatisfied with the internal remedial works that had been undertaken by the repair contractor. She had concerns that operatives had previously informed her that the plasterboard was rotten and would need to be replaced. However, she said the affected areas had only been “covered with a bit of wood”.
The landlord attended the property on 2 April 2025 to undertake a damp and mould inspection. The resulting report showed that no dampness was present in the property and the patch repairs carried out to the living room ceiling had been completed to a “good standard”. An area of 1 square metre in the bedroom required a mould wash and repainting using stain block paint.
During a call to this Service in July 2025, the resident confirmed that all outstanding works had been completed. However, she stated that she remained dissatisfied that the landlord had not replaced the affected plasterboard, nor had it provided her with an explanation for not doing so.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The available records indicate that between December 2018 and May 2021, the resident reported leaks in the property on 3 separate occasions. However, we have seen no evidence that she reported any further issues between June 2021 and February 2024. The fact that the problem was a recurring one is not disputed, but the evidence suggests that it was not continuous. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions from March 2024, which were considered within its complaint responses. This is in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy and paragraph 42.c of the Scheme, which states that we may not consider matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period (usually 12 months from the matter arising). However, as the case involves a high level of communication, it has not been possible to detail and assess every event within this report.
In relation to the resident’s reports of a leak, we have seen evidence that the resident and landlord liaised with the property developer responsible for building the property. In accordance with paragraph 41.b of the Scheme, we can only consider complaints that concern matters which relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme. The property developer is not a landlord and, as such, is not a Scheme member. Any references made to communications with the property developer and are for context only and do not form part of the investigation undertaken in this case.
The resident has described how she feels the landlord’s handling of the repairs has negatively impacted on her household’s physical and mental health. While this Service does not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns, it is outside our remit to determine the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, which states that we may not consider complaints concerning matters where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. This matter is best suited for investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.
The resident informed the landlord and this Service that she is unhappy with how the landlord has handled her request for a move due to overcrowding. We have also had sight of correspondence between both parties in relation to overcrowding. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord investigated its handling of this issue. Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, we will not make an assessment on the handling of the substantive issue but will address any complaint handling failings within the relevant section of this report. If the resident is unhappy with how the landlord has dealt with such issues, she may choose to make a further complaint about this matter. She may then refer this to this Service for separate investigation if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.

Reports of a leak, damp and mould

The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours. An emergency repair is defined as any defect which puts anyone’s health, safety, or security at immediate risk, or which affects the structure of a home or building – for example, burst pipes and total loss of electricity. The policy states the landlord will complete all other repairs within 21 calendar days.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that when it receives a report of damp and mould it will assess the severity of the issue based on the information available, and in accordance with the housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS). These categories include category 1 (severe), category 2 (moderate) and category 3 (slight). The policy further states that the landlord will attend the property within 48 hours for a “severe” case, 14 days for a “moderate” case, and 28 days for a “slight” case. It states that following an inspection, it may change the assigned category.
On 5 March 2024, the resident informed the landlord that there was a leak in the property. The landlord raised an emergency repair to attend to the leak, and to isolate the living room ceiling light. The landlord’s repair records show that its contractor attended the same day. This was appropriate and in accordance with the target timescales outlined in the landlord’s repairs policy.
The landlord requested an update on the repair from its repair contractor the same day (5 March 2024). This too was appropriate and showed it was being proactive. The contractor told the landlord that it believed the leak was originating from the external balcony area of the flat, located directly above the resident’s property. It recommended for the landlord to arrange a specialist contractor to attend “urgently” to address the situation.
On 6 March 2024, the landlord appropriately contacted the developer of the property. The landlord asked the developer to undertake an inspection of the building to confirm if the leak was caused by a construction defect. The landlord provided us with an undated copy of the developer’s inspection report. This includes commentary and photographs relating to 7 inspections undertaken by the developer between 7 March 2024 and 28 March 2024.
During the inspection on 7 March 2024, the developer identified 2 holes in the living room ceiling, with a “slight, but regular drip occurring every 4 minutes”. It said it was “evident that water was dripping through the party floor above the plasterboard ceiling”. It also stated that there was a “thin layer” of black damp starting to form on the internal ceiling plasterboard.
Following the inspection, the resident contacted the landlord on the same day (7 March 2024). She said she had concerns that the property was unsafe following the leak, and that the mould present on the ceilings was making her children poorly. She requested an emergency decant or a permanent move from the property. An internal message was sent to the landlord’s relevant team to return the resident’s call. However, we have seen no evidence that it contacted her to discuss her concerns. This was at odds with the landlord’s damp and mould policy, which states it will “keep in touch” with residents in a way that meets their needs.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 13 March 2024. During the telephone conversation:
1. The resident said that the developer had told her that the black mould in the property would not cause her any harm, and it did not yet know what was causing the leak.
2. The resident told the landlord that mould was also starting to appear in the bedroom, and she was concerned about the impact this was having on her 2-year-old son who had severe asthma.
3. The resident stated that the local authority’s environmental health service had told her that she needed a management move or permanent decant from the property.
4. The landlord confirmed it had arranged a survey to be undertaken by its repair contractor on 15 March 2024. This was to determine what internal works were required and to establish if a decant was necessary.
5. The landlord informed the resident of its priority moves process. It said that if it decanted her due to the leak, it would be to a property of the same size, regardless of her overcrowded living situation.
An inspection was undertaken on 15 March 2024. As the landlord has not provided any evidence that it assigned the damp and mould case with a ‘severity category’, we are unable to assess the timeliness of this inspection.
The inspection report from 15 March 2024 confirmed that a “considerable amount” of mould decay was evident within the roof void and regular checks were necessary to monitor the mould and ceiling structure. It noted that the house was habitable, but the leak needed to be repaired as a priority. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that following a visit to inspect damp and mould, it will provide the resident with a copy of the report within 5 working days. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord did so. This was unreasonable and showed a lack of transparency in its handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould.
The resident contacted the landlord on the same day (15 March 2024). She said the inspector had informed her it was “likely” that a planned decant would be necessary during the internal repair works. While we do not dispute the resident’s comments, we are unable to make an assessment of this matter due to the lack of documentary evidence.
The resident further said that a planned decant would not be suitable for her family’s circumstances as her autistic son “would not be able to cope” with the upheaval of a temporary move. The landlord arranged a tenancy visit appointment with the resident for 18 March 2024. This was appropriate and showed that it was taking her personal circumstances into account.
Following the tenancy visit appointment, the landlord appropriately liaised with other internal departments and its repair contractor to establish if a planned decant was necessary. On 18 March 2024, several internal emails confirmed that all internal works could be completed with the resident and her children remaining in situ. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with this update. Given the resident’s concerns about the safety of the property and the impact a temporary decant would have on her son, we find that the landlord’s lack of urgency in providing her with an update was unreasonable.
A further inspection was undertaken on 19 March 2024. The report stated that the resident had concerns that mould was trapped in the void area above the plasterboard ceiing, but “in [the surveyor’s] opinion, this was not conclusive”. This conflicted with the findings in the survey undertaken 4 days earlier (on 15 March 2024). It was again inappropriate that the landlord failed to provide the resident with a copy of this report.
The landlord’s internal records show that the resident requested a call–back from the landlord on 20 March 2024. She said that she was concerned about the safety of the living room ceiling and that of her 4 children. We have seen no evidence that the landlord returned her call. This was inappropriate, and the importance of effective communication is highlighted.
Within an internal email on 22 March 2024, the landlord stated that it had received an email from the resident advising that worms were coming through the holes in the living room ceiling. We have seen no documentary evidence of this email or the landlord’s subsequent phone call with the resident. This is a further record keeping failure. However, it was appropriate that the landlord sought advice internally in how to assist the resident with the issue, and it subsequently raised a job on 26 March 2024 for a pest control specialist to attend the following day.
On 25 March 2024, the landlord informed the resident that based on the scope of works required, a decant was not necessary. As mentioned earlier, we find that the landlord should have informed the resident of this earlier. Nevertheless, based on the evidence available, we are satisfied that the landlord’s decision making during this process was informed by the assessment of its qualified staff, and therefore appropriate.
Throughout March 2024, the developer undertook investigative works to determine the cause of the leak from the property above. In summary, it established that the cause of the leak was a damaged membrane on the balcony area. The evidence suggests that this was likely caused by cigarettes. Within an internal email on 19 April 2024, the landlord stated that it was “not the first time the building’s roof had been damaged by cigarettes”. We therefore would have expected the landlord to provide evidence that it had addressed these issues directly with the perpetrators or otherwise taken steps to prevent the issue recurring.
The first time the landlord updated the resident about the progress of the external works was within its stage 1 response on 19 March 2024. We accept that the required works were complex and required specialist contractors to resolve the issue. However, we would expect the landlord to take reasonable steps to drive the matter forward to a resolution, such as actively chasing the developer for updates. Had it done so, it may have been able to provide the resident with updates sooner.
Between 27 March 2024 and 25 April 2024, we find the landlord’s actions and correspondence with the developer and contractors in relation to the external work was proactive and solution focused.
The landlord provided us with a further inspection report from 5 April 2024. This stated that there was no mould present within the ceiling void and the blackened areas on the rear of the plasterboard were “general construction” that had been dampened by the historic water ingress from the balcony above. As outlined earlier in the report, the landlord also did not provide the resident with a copy of this report, which was at odds with its damp and mould policy.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it stated that the developer completed the external works in June 2024. However, we have not had sight of any documentary evidence that supports the landlord’s claims. This is a further record keeping failure, and at odds with the landlord’s damp and mould policy which states that it will keep accurate records of all damp and mould cases. Nevertheless, it is likely that the works were completed in June 2024 as the resident has not disputed this.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response (5 September 2024), it advised the resident that during a further inspection on 2 July 2024, mould in the property was identified and the following repairs had been recommended:
1. Reboard approximately 4 square metres of living room ceiling.
2. Plaster living room ceiling and allow drying time.
3. Decorate living room ceiling with 2 coats of white paint.
4. Mould wash, stain block and redecorate bedroom 1 ceiling with 2 coats of white paint.
However, we have seen no documentary evidence of this report, which is a further record keeping failure. We also find it inappropriate that the landlord did not inform the resident of the recommended repairs until it issued its stage 2 response (over 2 months later). This was unreasonable, and the importance of effective communication is reiterated. However, it was positive that the landlord apologised to the resident for the delays within its stage 2 response.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it can offer up to £150 compensation for a minor disruption. It further stipulates that this could be where an inconvenience has been caused by a lack of communication and length of time taken to resolve an issue. We therefore find that for this failure alone (delays between June 2024 and September 2024), the landlord’s offer of £150 compensation was reasonable.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it acknowledged the resident’s concerns about how the mould was affecting the health of her family. We find the landlord’s response (that it was not appropriate for it to determine a direct link between health and damp and mould) fair. However, while not obligated to do so, we find that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident to the relevant advice services. This would have ensured that she had the appropriate support and guidance to allow her to pursue the legal matter further if she wished to do so.
The evidence suggests that the internal remedial works were completed on 9 September 2024 (not including the mould wash and decoration). This was 50 days from the date of the survey (on 2 July 2024). This was unreasonable and exceeded the timescales outlined in the landlord’s repairs policy and damp and mould policy.
On 9 September 2024 and 17 October 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to express her dissatisfaction about the quality of the internal repairs. She said she had concerns because the landlord had previously informed her that the plasterboard was rotten and would need to be replaced. However, the contractors had reportedly only covered the affected areas “with a bit of wood”. As mentioned earlier in the report, we have seen conflicting evidence within the landlord’s inspection reports in relation to the presence of mould on the inside of area of the plasterboard. It is therefore not clear to this Service what the landlord’s stance is in relation to the resident’s concerns.
Additionally, the landlord’s communication in this instance was inadequate. This is because we have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns, nor did it use the information from its damp and mould surveys to provide her with assurance that the area was safe (if this was the case). While we agree that the landlord can rely on the professional competence and opinion of its operatives, it must be able to provide reasoned justification when questioned by residents. In this instance, the landlord has not given the required answers to provide reassurance to the resident that it properly assessed her concerns. We have made an order to address this below.
Emails between the contractor and landlord on 17 October 2024 show that an appointment was arranged for 24 September 2024 to complete the outstanding work (mould wash and painting). This was approximately 7 months from the date the resident first reported an issue, which is unreasonable. However, this appointment did not go ahead due to no access. This was rescheduled for 21 October 2024, and the evidence suggests the work was completed on this date.
Following intervention from this Service, the landlord undertook a further damp and mould inspection at the property nearly 6 months later, on 2 April 2025. It categorised the damp and mould as “slight” and noted that “minor black mould” was visible on the bedroom ceiling. The landlord did not provide us with the date the outstanding repairs were completed, which is a further record keeping failure. However, the resident informed us in July 2025 that the works had “recently” been completed.
Taking all the above into account, we have made a finding of maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, damp and mould in the property. This is because:
1. It took approximately 13 months to fully resolve the internal repairs.
2. It did not adhere to its damp and mould policy.
3. Its communication with the resident was lacking.
4. Its record keeping was poor.
5. As of the date of this report, we have seen no evidence that it provided the resident with an explanation regarding its decision to not replace the affected plasterboard, despite her expressing concerns about its safety on several occasions.
6. Its offer of £150 compensation was low and is not considered proportionate redress for the failings identified in this report.
As such, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident an additional amount of compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. At both stages, if an extension is required, the landlord will seek agreement from the complainant.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 5 March 2024. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint 3 working days later, on 8 March 2024.
Within the landlord’s email (on 8 March 2024), it told the resident that the designated stage 1 complaint handler would contact her by 13 March 2024 to discuss her complaint. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident as agreed, which was inappropriate. The resident contacted the complaint handler directly on 16 March 2024 and requested an update on her complaint. This was an inconvenience and expenditure of her time and effort which should not have been necessary. The landlord responded to the resident on 18 March 2024, but we find it unreasonable that it did not apologise to her for the delay in contacting her.
Within the landlord’s email to the resident on 18 March 2024, it informed her that it would contact her about her complaint after it had spoken to the neighbourhood team the following day. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response the following day (on 19 March 2024), it thanked the resident for “taking the time to discuss [her] complaint”. However, we have seen no evidence that it had contacted her about her complaint, which is a record keeping failure. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) stipulates that all records of correspondence with the resident regarding the complaint must be kept. It also states that that at each stage of the complaints process, complaint handlers must give the resident a fair chance to set out their position. While it is not always necessary to visit the resident to discuss a complaint, it is good practice to do so.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 March 2024. This was 7 working days after it had acknowledged the resident’s complaint and was therefore in line with the timescales outlined in its complaints policy.
On 31 July 2024, the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 because the issues “had been going nowhere since the beginning of the year”. An effective complaint resolution requires a process designed to put things right. The landlord’s failure to undertake the repairs within target timescales has already been assessed within the previous section of this report. However, this is also a failure within its complaint handling, as following the closure of the complaint the landlord failed to take ownership and monitor the outstanding actions through to completion. This was unreasonable and caused further inconvenience for the resident.
On 6 August 2024, the landlord informed the resident that it was “happy” to escalate her complaint. It also said that the stage 2 complaint handler would “contact [her] soon” to discuss the complaint further. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident about her complaint until it issued its final response on 5 September 2024. This is a further record keeping failure and effective communication would have improved the resident’s experience.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 September 2024. This was 27 working days from the date the resident requested to escalate her complaint. We would not consider this an excessive delay. However, as we have seen no evidence that the landlord agreed an extension with the resident, we find that it acted inappropriately. This is particularly relevant because the landlord had departed from its anticipated timescales at stage 1, causing some obvious uncertainty for the resident, and ensuring it communicated any further delays in a timely way would have demonstrated learning.
A stage 2 complaint is the final opportunity for the landlord to review its handling of the substantive issue, as well as the complaint handling process, and to put things right for the resident. However, we find that the landlord did not appropriately assess its handling of the case. This meant it missed an opportunity that may have led it to identify some of the additional failures highlighted by this investigation. Although not obligated to do so, it is good practice for landlords to provide a timeline of events within formal complaint responses. This allows them to demonstrate that they have undertaken a comprehensive investigation and considered all the facts within the case. It would have also been appropriate for the landlord to explain how it had responded to the resident’s reports of repairs in line with its legal and policy obligations.
The Code states that landlords must use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes to service delivery. It therefore would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain in its final complaint response what action it had taken to ensure that the failings it had identified (delays in carrying out the internal remedial works) would not happen again. In not doing so, the landlord has not evidenced that it learnt sufficiently from the complaint.
The Code defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord”. The landlord’s complaints policy also adopts this definition and confirms that the landlord follows the Code in its approach to complaints. On 10 April 2024, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction that the landlord had failed to respond to her concerns about the property being overcrowded. She also mentioned this again within her request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 (on 31 July 2024). It is positive that the landlord provided the resident with some advice about overcrowding and moving properties on 6 August 2024, and again in its stage 2 response on 5 September 2024. However, we find it inappropriate that the landlord failed to recognise her comments as dissatisfaction and confirm whether she wished to escalate the issue to a formal complaint.
Overall, the landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the complaint process was poor. It also did not offer her any compensation at stage 2 for its handling of her complaint. Therefore, we have made a finding of maladministration in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.
Accordingly, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation which is proportionate to the failings identified. It has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy as well as our own remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman by the same date:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified within this report.
2. Inform the resident of the reason(s) why it did not replace the plasterboard of the affected areas following the leak. This explanation must include why it believes there is no damp or mould behind the plasterboard that requires more extensive exploration or repairs.
3. Pay the resident £600 compensation. This must be paid directly to her and is made up as follows:
  1. £400 for its handling of her reports of a leak and subsequent concerns about damp and mould. This includes the landlord’s offer of £150 at stage 2, plus an additional £250 in recognition of the failures identified in this report.
  2. £200 for its handling of her complaint.
  3. For the avoidance of any doubt, if any of the compensation has already been paid to the resident, it can be deducted from the total amount.
4. Contact the resident to ask if she would like it to open a formal complaint about its handling of her request for a property transfer due to overcrowding.