Moat Homes Limited (202424890)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424890

Moat Homes Limited

30 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

The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of structural defects, damp and mould in the property and the resident’s request for a permanent move.

Background

The resident had an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association. The property was a two-bedroom flat in a block.
The resident’s tenancy came to an end when she moved out of the property in in May 2025.
The resident occupied the property with her child.
The landlord had been monitoring the resident’s block and another block close by for subsidence for many years by undertaking structural and CCTV surveys. Contributory factors in the buildings’ movement were considered to be shrinkage of the clay substrata exacerbated by the presence of adjacent trees. This had caused cracks to the exterior brickwork of the resident’s block. Some crack damage was also noted to walls in 2 rooms in the resident’s flat but not considered significant. Some nearby trees were removed in 2023.
In February 2024 the landlord contacted the resident to book in a home improvement (HIP) survey. This took place in April 2024. The report dated 16 April 2024 referenced the cracks to the exterior brickwork and crack damage to walls within the resident’s flat. It also noted a dip in the lounge/diner floor and highlighted dampness found to 2 walls in the same room. The report recommended remedial works. The landlord instructed its contractor to undertake the recommended works. The works were put on hold in June 2024.
On 3 July 2024, the resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to address the structural defects and damp and mould. She said:
1. There was no radiator, a hole in the floor, broken flooring, and the plastering and decoration left unfinished. She was unable to use her lounge/diner.
2. The subsidence issues had “forced” the floor up.
3. She had seen concrete over the damp course. This explained “rotten skirting boards” and the “cold walls”.
4. The property was not fit for habitation. She was told residents in the block would need to be moved for the type of works needed. She requested that the landlord permanently move her.
5. Leaking gutters had caused dampness to walls. She placed a water butt and black bin outside to collect water.
On 26 July 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. This stated:
1. Following a HIP survey, its contractor was instructed to carry out works to address the floor level deviation.
2. Upon commencement of works it was determined that the deviation to the floor surface finish was greater than first considered. Due to this works were put on hold.
3. It appreciated this had left incomplete investigations at her home.
4. An appointment for a structural engineer to attend had been arranged for 30 July 2024.
5. Regarding damp and mould, it did not have an outstanding report about this issue but this would be investigated during the inspection on 30 July 2024.
6. It would provide her with an update once it received engineer’s report.
7. It had not received any report regarding defective guttering in the past 12 months.
8. Any works in relation to the guttering would be considered by its surveyor on 30 July 2024.
On 6 November 2024, the resident requested escalated of her complaint to stage 2 of its process. She said the landlord had not contacted her with an update about how the flat would be fixed and when, despite her repeated requests.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 13 November 2024. On 11 December 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 final complaint response. Within this the landlord:
1. Apologised for the “delays, disruption and misdiagnosis” the resident had experienced whilst trying to get the problems in her home resolved.
2. Acknowledged that the level of communication and support had also fallen “well below” its expected standards.
3. Said it understood that, despite its stage 1 commitments, works had not recommenced.
4. Confirmed that the level of works now required to her flat were such that she needed a temporary move. As discussed with her it would look to move her in the new year.
5. Said a refurbishment to the flat above her was due to be completed by 24 January 2025 and, if acceptable to her, it would relocate her to this flat while work to her flat was being undertaken.
6. Stated that if she wanted to move earlier, it could look to source other alternative accommodation. It would be back in touch with her by 6 January 2025.
7. Said it had checked with colleagues in its management move team, and structural defects would not make her eligible for a permanent move.
8. It offered the resident total compensation of £1,030.07.
On 8 April 2025 the resident told us the repairs to her flat were still outstanding and landlord had not adhered to its promise to move her, despite her requests. On 20 April 2025 she told us she had terminated the tenancy with the landlord (on 18 April 2025) due to the lack of resolution provided to the situation.
The resident subsequently told us she wanted compensation for the issues experienced including damage caused to her furniture (by dampness).

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In her communications to us, the resident said the situation with outstanding disrepair in her flat had an adverse impact on her and her child’s health.
It is not our role to investigate if there was a causal link between reports of health issues experienced by the resident and the actions of the landlord. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of the complaint. As these claims are more appropriately dealt with by a court or other procedure, this element will not be investigated.
In her complaint the resident said there had been a subsidence issue for “many, many years”. Records we have seen confirm this, however, the resident did not bring to complaint to us until September 2024. Therefore, the focus of this investigation will be from February 2024 when the landlord contacted the resident to arrange to undertake surveys of the resident’s flat which was subject to monitoring due to historic subsidence. This is within a reasonable timeframe of the resident’s formal complaint dated 3 July 2024. Also prior to this, there is no evidence of the resident reporting any structural issues or damp and mould during the previous 12 months.

Landlord’s handling of structural defects and damp and mould in the property and the resident’s request for a permanent move

The resident’s complaint concerns the condition the landlord left her flat in after it placed remedial works started in mid-June 2024, on hold. The resident said she had no radiator (in the lounge/diner), a hole in the floor, and that the plastering and decoration was left unfinished. She requested a permanent move due to the disrepair in her property.
In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property. This includes ceilings, walls and floors and the landlord is required to carry out repairs within a reasonable amount of time of being notified of them.
The landlord had been monitoring the resident’s block for subsidence for many years. Cracks to the exterior brickwork as well as some crack damage to walls within the resident’s flat were previously identified but were not considered “significant”. During a HIP inspection in April 2024, the landlord’s project surveyor referenced both cracks to the external brickwork of the building as well cracks to the walls in the resident’s lounge/diner. The report dated 15 April 2024, also identified a dip (approximately 5 square meters) in the flooring (up to 55 mm) and “damp penetration” in 2 walls in the same room. Water penetration in the flat was also noted during a damp survey carried out to the resident’s flat on 20 March 2024. This survey attributed the water penetration to defective brickwork.
Damp and mould is a category 1 hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Therefore, the landlord has a duty to ensure the property is free of damp and mould. This is echoed in the landlord’s damp and mould policy which states it has adopted a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and that it will act in a timely manner to deal with any damp and mould issues and communicate with residents to resolve the issue.
The HIP report dated 15 April 2024 recommended remedial works to rectify both the structural issues in the flat and the damp issue and also to address the cracks in the external brickwork. The landlord raised a job for the recommended works on 3 May 2024, and its contractor attended the resident’s property in mid-June 2024 (the exact date is unclear from the available evidence) to commence these works. By raising repairs to address the issues identified during its HIP and damp surveys, the landlord acted appropriately.
The landlord’s contractor however did not complete the remedial works started in June 2024 as during these works, they found the defect to the resident’s lounge/diner flooring was more complex than initially thought. In its stage 1 complaint response dated 26 July 2024, the landlord acknowledged that works at the resident’s home had been left incomplete. However, it said its structural engineer would attend on 30 July 2024 to assess what further works were required to address the issues. It told the resident that, once it had the structural engineer’s findings, it would contact her about the next steps. While the landlord’s commitment to addressing the issues was appropriate, it did not provide a timescale in its response for its contact with her. This would have been reasonable in the circumstances to manage the resident’s expectations. This was also important given the extent of the disrepair her home had been left in.
Although the inspection took place on 30 July 2024, there is no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident over the next few weeks to inform her of the findings or plan of action. The landlord was aware that the resident had no use of her lounge/diner, as such the lack of action here was unreasonable. The landlord’s internal records show that on 27 September 2024, it contacted the structural engineer to chase for the report after contact from the resident requesting an update.
The landlord however did not receive the report until 24 October 2024. This noted some ongoing ground movement which had resulted in 1 point of the resident’s block “dropping”. Externally, the report recommended that the landlord remove further trees and shrubs and carry out repairs to the brickwork. In relation to the resident’s flat, the report again referred to cracked brickwork and damp and condensation issues which it attributed to drain water running down the external wall adjacent to the lounge/diner (due to a gutter leak). It also found issues with the quality of the remedial works in the lounge/diner carried out in June 2024, noting that the damp proof course to the perimeter wall had “most likely” been bridged (making it ineffective). The report recommended 4 further tests including a full damp survey to enable then to develop “a suite of remedial works” to make the resident’s flat “serviceable and habitable”.
It is clear from the landlord’s internal communications that, on receiving the report, it immediately took steps to obtain a quote for the recommended repairs to the external brickwork and for further tests and investigations regarding the issues within the resident’s flat. While this was appropriate, the lengthy delay in taking this action from when it undertook the survey on 30 July 2024, was unreasonable. It is recognised that much of this delay was because the landlord was awaiting the report from its structural engineer (who told the landlord he had been in hospital). However, the landlord should have done more to prioritise finding a resolution for the resident. There were unfinished remedial works in the resident’s flat which meant she had no use of her lounge/diner with items from this room stored elsewhere in the flat. Furthermore, the landlord had been aware since works were halted in June 2024 that more extensive structural repairs would be needed.
In these circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider temporarily moving the resident to alternative accommodation. This would have been in line with its repairs and maintenance policy which provides for temporary moves where appropriate depending on the required repairs. However, there is no evidence of it doing so or of it addressing the resident’s request for a permanent move.
The landlord also failed to provide the resident with any action plan after receiving the report on 24 October 2024, as per its promise in its stage 1 complaint response. On 6 November 2024, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated stating that she had asked the landlord “many times” for an update as to how the flat will be fixed and when.
In its final response issued approximately 5 weeks later, the landlord apologised to the resident for the “delays, disruption and misdiagnosis” she had experienced whilst trying to get the problems to her home resolved. It also acknowledged that the level of communication and support it provided had fallen “well below” its expected standards. The landlord said the structural defects would not make her eligible for a permanent move. However, it confirmed she would need to be temporarily moved to alternative accommodation to enable it to complete necessary investigations and appropriate works. The landlord said she had the option of moving temporarily into an alternative flat (above her home) once a refurbishment to this flat was completed (on 24 January 2025). Or if she did not want to wait this long, it said it would look into sourcing other alternative accommodation. The landlord said it would get back in touch with her in the week commencing 6 January 2025 to discuss the move. It also offered the resident compensation of £1,030.07 made up of:
1. £500 for disruption
2. £200 for distress
3. £330.07 for loss of facilities.
Therefore, in acknowledging and apologising for its failings in its handling of structural repairs and damp issues identified at the property and offering compensation and a temporary move, this went some way to putting things right. This is also evidence of the landlord acting in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. However, considering the full circumstances of the case, and in consultation with our remedies guidance, the level of compensation offered was lower than we would expect for the extent of the failings identified.
We also expect landlords to follow through with any actions agreed in its final response. In this case, the landlord did not arrange a temporary move for the resident to the alternative flat (in her block) mentioned in its stage 2 final complaint response. The landlord recently told us this was because the remedial works to this flat were not completed on time. However, there is no evidence of it taking steps to move the resident elsewhere while the works to her flat remained outstanding during the next few months. This situation continued until 18 April 2025 when the resident gave notice to end her tenancy with the landlord. At this time, the repairs to her flat and the property building remained outstanding. The resident vacated the property and moved into private accommodation within the next month. The resident told us she was unable to live in the flat any longer because of the level of disrepair.
Therefore, the landlord’s failure to temporarily move the resident or complete repairs during the 4 to 5 months after its final response, demonstrates that it failed to do what it agreed with the resident. It is also evidence of it not acting in line with its repair obligations under the tenancy agreement. This was despite the resident’s ongoing requests for action. Due to the ongoing lack of any resolution provided, we would expect in the circumstances for the landlord to have considered the resident’s request for a permanent move. The resident told us that, within a few weeks of its final response, the landlord verbally agreed to her request for a permanent move. However, again there is no evidence of the landlord acting on this over the next few months.
The landlord’s failure since mid-June 2024 to either address the structural defects and damp in the property or temporarily move the resident, had a seriously detrimental impact on her. This results in an overall finding of severe maladministration by the landlord.
In the circumstances, it is reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £1,688.65 made up of:
1. £888.65. This is based on £1,218.72 for the loss in use of 1 room from mid-June 2024 until the resident vacated in mid-May 2025 (48 weeks). This equates to approximately 20% of the rental payment for this period (£126.95 per week). However, the compensation offered in its final response of £330.07 for loss of amenity has been deducted from this figure.
2. £400 for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
3. £400 for the time and trouble caused to the resident.
The resident also told us she wished to pursue a claim on the landlord’s liability insurance for damage caused to possessions. It is unclear if the landlord has provided the resident with details of its insurers therefore, an appropriate order has been included below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord of in its handling of structural defects, damp and mould at the property and the resident’s request for a permanent move.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord within 4 weeks:
1. Provides the resident with a written apology from the chief executive for the failings identified in this review.
2. Pays the resident compensation of £1,688.65 (£2,718.72 including the compensation offered during the complaints process) for loss of amenity, distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for failings in its handling of structural defects, damp and mould at the property and the resident’s request for a permanent move.
3. Contact the resident regarding her insurance claim, providing her with details of how to make a claim if required.
Within 8 weeks:
1. Complete a senior management review of the failings identified in this report and provide us with a report of its findings. The review should be independent of the service area involved, and the learning report and actions be shared with its governing board. The review should include:
  1. Its delay in providing the resident with an action plan to address repairs after promising to do so after these were left unfinished in June 2024.
  2. Its failure to arrange a temporary move.
  3. Its failure to communicate adequately with the resident.
  4. A summary of improvements it can make which will address failings identified and address structural issues at the block going forward.
2. Provide us with evidence of compliance with the above orders.