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

Moat Homes Limited (202428185)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202428185

Moat Homes Limited

3 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 handling of bathroom repairs.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bed flat with 1 bathroom and 1 additional toilet. The landlord is not the freeholder and the building has a managing agent.
  2. The resident lives at the property with her children and has informed the landlord that there are disabilities within the household. She has specified that one of her children is autistic.
  3. The resident requested that the landlord repair her bathroom on 5 March 2024. She said that the room was unusable due to repair issues including 2 large leaks. She said that the situation was having a negative impact on her vulnerable child.
  4. The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 19 March 2024. She said repair works conducted in her bathroom to date had been poor and unnecessarily delayed due to staffing issues at the landlord. She said having no use of her bathroom was not acceptable due to her child’s disability. She requested that her family was moved to alternative accommodation while the repairs were completed.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 2 April 2024. It said a surveyor had attended the property on 18 March 2024 and identified a list of works required to repair the bathroom. It said the inspection determined that moving to alternative accommodation was not necessary. It said it would gather quotes for the work and inform the resident of when works would take place.
  6. The resident requested for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 on 10 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged this request the same day.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 10 September 2024. It apologised for complaint handling delays and offered £100 compensation for this. It also acknowledged delays in progressing the repairs and offered an additional £150 compensation. It said the repairs were completed by early May 2024.
  8. The resident escalated the complaint to this Service on 11 October 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The landlord noted that issues related to leaks had been reported by the resident periodically since 2022. However, we encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, while the issues are live. This is because the quality and availability of any evidence that may have existed at the time may not be present now. The focus of this investigation will therefore relate to the reports of repairs made at the time of the complaint on 19 March 2024. 
  2. Following the resident’s stage 2 escalation she informed the landlord about repair issues related to the balcony at the property. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint and the landlord’s stage 2 response from September 2024. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any further complaints as part of its internal complaints process, prior to the involvement of this Service. As such the issue relating to the balcony at the property will not be considered within this report.
  3. The resident said that the repairs affected the health and wellbeing of herself and her family. The Ombudsman sympathises with the resident. It is understandable that she has concerns about the impact of their living conditions on their health. It is important to explain that this Service cannot establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, the Ombudsman will give consideration to the general impact of the living conditions on the resident and consider what the landlord did when it was informed of health concerns. 

The landlord’s handling of bathroom repairs

  1. The landlord’s Repair and Maintenance Policy says it aims to complete repairs on the first visit with minimal disruption. It says it aims to complete all repairs that are not emergencies within 21 calendar days of a report. It says it will proactively investigate repairs issues and provide clear information to residents about works that are identified and timescales for completion.
  2. The policy also sets out its commitment to make reasonable adjustments for residents with a disability and recognises that a failure to do so may cause a detriment to those residents. It says it will take into account individual circumstances and needs when providing its repair service. It identifies autism as an example of a condition which can make a resident more vulnerable.
  3. The resident reported an issue with a leak in her bathroom on 23 January 2024. The landlord logged this report and scheduled an appointment to conduct the repair on 25 January 2024.
  4. The following day, the resident requested that the appointment was cancelled as she wished to seek further advice on the damage from a surveyor. The landlord cancelled the job at her request. This was in line with the cancellation guidance in its repair policy.
  5. The resident contacted the managing agent on 5 March 2024 to make a further report of repair issues in her bathroom. She said her bathroom was not usable and provided photographs of damage. She said that 2 leaks had not been repaired due to reporting errors by the contractors who had been due to complete the work. She said the leaks were impacting neighbouring properties. She also said the condition of her bathroom was having a negative impact on the wellbeing of her children and noted that one of them was vulnerable. She received no reply from the managing agent.
  6. The resident followed this report up on 7 March 2024 with an email directly to the landlord. The landlord asked if the resident had formally reported the repair to it, which she had not. The resident said that she had previously made reports of repairs to the landlord which had not been dealt with. The landlord clarified that the repair should have been logged with it to allow it the chance to investigate the issue and determine whose responsibility the repair was. This showed that it understood the processes it had set out and took the time to confirm this process with the resident.
  7. The landlord said it would chase the managing agent to resolve the issue, despite clarifying that under normal circumstances it would send its own contractors to inspect. It should have been proactive in logging the reported repairs and sending its own contractors to identify whether it was responsible for the work, as it said it would. It risked damaging the landlord tenant relationship by not providing an effective response to a report of repairs. It also meant the landlord did not have oversight of the issue at the time of the report. It sent its own surveyor to inspect the property on 18 March 2024.
  8. The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 19 March 2024. She said she was unhappy with the repairs in her bathroom. She said the room was unusable as the floors were sticky and both the toilet and sink were out of use. She said that the Surveyor had identified water ingress and damp. She said she planned to contact Environmental Health as she felt the property was not habitable. She said that only having use of her bath and a separate toilet in the property was inadequate due to the impact on her child’s disability.
  9. In its Decant (Temporary Move) Policy, the landlord says a temporary move may be necessary where complex repairs mean it is unsafe for a resident to remain at home. It says it will talk through options available to residents once it has established their individual needs.
  10. The resident made a request by email following her stage 1 complaint on 19 March 2024 for her family to be temporarily moved to a different property so repair works could be carried out. She said the condition of the bathroom made it unusable. She said that her child’s disability meant that they required a comfortable washing environment that could be used multiple times a day. She said not having access to a functioning bathroom negatively impacted their living standards as a family.
  11. The landlord replied that the surveyor who had visited the property on 18 March 2024 had found that despite the fact that the toilet and sink did not work in the bathroom, the bath itself was usable. It said that as the resident had a separate toilet and a functioning bath, a decant was not required. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the individual needs of the resident or her children in its response.
  12. The resident responded and said that the surveyor sent by the landlord to inspect the property had not been made familiar with her family’s individual circumstances before arriving. She felt that this was a breach under the Equality Act as their medical needs had not been considered in the inspection.
  13. Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 highlights a landlord’s duty to make reasonable adjustments to help disabled people. It says reasonable steps should be taken to change practices or provide extra help to prevent disabled people being at a disadvantage.
  14. The landlord failed to offer any response to concerns the resident raised about the health and wellbeing of her family or the injuries the resident said they had sustained as a result of the repair issues. It failed to demonstrate that it had considered adjustments that could have been made in its approach to the repairs. It did not use its prior knowledge of vulnerabilities in the household when conducting its inspection of the property. It also failed to consider any alternative support for the resident and her family to make their living situation more comfortable after refusing her request for a decant. It should have shown that it was considering the impact of the repairs on the individual circumstances of the resident as its policy said it would. This caused the resident distress as the concerns she had raised were not given due consideration.
  15. The landlord conducted an information gathering call with the resident on 20 March 2024. The resident said that the poor condition of the floor had caused her children to fall and injure themselves, including on the day of the complaint. The resident said that she was considering making a repairs claim against the landlord. The landlord showed a proactive response to the complaint by starting a conversation with the resident early in the process.
  16. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 2 April 2024. It said that following the surveyor’s visit on 18 March 2024 it had identified an extensive list of repairs required in the bathroom. The list included the location and repair of leaks, replacement of damaged flooring and skirting board, and redecoration of the room. It said the surveyor would be seeking quotes for completion of the works listed and that an update would be provided on 28 March 2024.
  17. It was positive for the landlord to conduct a full survey of the damage and to provide an extensive list of repairs required to return the space to a good condition. It showed it understood the extent of the work and what was required.
  18. It also reiterated that, since the resident had another toilet and basin in the property and the bath remained usable, a decant was not required. Its formal response did not reflect the values of its policies. It did not take the opportunity to show it had considered that the impact of the repairs may have been greater for the vulnerable people in the property. It could have considered other options for supporting the resident in a situation that was challenging for her despite refusing the decant.
  19. The landlord emailed the resident on 2 April 2024 to say that the repair appointment had been scheduled for 8 April 2024 pending confirmation from its contractor. This was proactive and showed that it wanted to provide reassurance to the resident and resolve matters as quickly as possible.
  20. The resident emailed the landlord on 9 April 2024 following the contractor’s visit. She said works remained incomplete following the visit. She said she did not agree with the contractor’s intention of putting down wood instead of tiles as she said this was not an appropriate material for a bathroom that was used multiple times a day. She also said that the inspection conducted by the contractor was poor as she had to prompt them about repair issues they had missed. She noted that silverfish were present in the bathroom due to the damp.
  21. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 10 April 2024. The landlord sent an email acknowledging this request on the same day and said the deadline for its response was 8 May 2024.
  22. Following the acknowledgment, evidence provided to the Service shows that there were a number of visits to the property by the landlord to attempt to conduct repair work. The resident raised a number of concerns about the quality of the work conducted during this period which ran from 10 April 2024 to 25 May 2024.
  23. The request for a decant was not raised again by the resident in the lead up to the stage 2 response. This was because the repairs took place over the course of April 2024 with the resident and family in the property. Emails sent by the resident during this period show that there were further concerns raised about the impact of the repairs and the planned works on the health and wellbeing of her children, including concerns about asthma being impacted by dust. The resident sent emails chasing updates on the status of the work, which ran for the whole month before completion in May 2024. There is no evidence that the landlord offered any response to the resident’s concerns during this period.
  24. The landlord should have been clear about the length of time the repairs would take. It should have considered the individual circumstances of the resident and her family when communicating its plans for completion of the work. This would have allowed the resident the opportunity to prepare any vulnerable household members accordingly. Given that it said a decant was not necessary, it should have planned for how it would accommodate the needs of vulnerable residents in its approach to the repairs. Its failure to do so caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and her family.
  25. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 10 September 2024. It apologised for the substantial delay in bringing its response and offered an explanation and compensation of £100 for poor complaint handling. It was appropriate to offer an apology and compensation. Had we considered the landlord’s complaint handling separately, we would have made a finding of reasonable redress. For this reason the decision has been made to address this as part of the substantive issue.
  26. The landlord acknowledged its delay in sending a surveyor to the property to inspect the damage when it was reported on 7 March 2024 and said this should have been organised sooner. It was appropriate to apologise for this and showed that its complaint investigation reflected properly on events. It said that the repair work was conducted throughout April 2024 and all works were completed by the beginning of May 2024.
  27. The landlord apologised for the confusion around responsibility for repairs throughout the process and reiterated its position prior to the initial complaint that all repairs should first have been raised with it rather than the managing agent. It explained that this was to ensure fair treatment of residents and consistency of tracking works, which was appropriate. It went on to say that, despite this, there was more it could have done to progress the repairs sooner. It recognised this as a failure which showed a desire for learning.
  28. It offered an additional £150 compensation for the resulting delays in completing the repairs. It was appropriate to offer compensation, but the amount offered did not reflect the amount of disruption faced by the resident. The stage 2 response made no mention of the concerns the resident had raised about the wellbeing of her family as a result of the repairs. This was a significant consideration given that the landlord knew there were vulnerable people in the property. There should have been some acknowledgement that the resident had faced distress as a result of the impact of the ongoing repairs on her children and that this would have been made worse by the length of time taken to complete the repairs.
  29. In summary, the landlord took steps to try and address the repairs but it could have done more to progress things more efficiently. It should have responded sooner to the report of repairs when it was raised. It should have considered ways in which it could offer support with the impact of the repairs on the resident and her family. It should have considered making adjustments to its approach since it knew there were vulnerable people in the property, such as reviewing its timeframe for completing the repair. While it offered an explanation for its refusal to temporarily move the family, it failed to consider any additional support for the resident. It did not demonstrate it had properly considered the individual circumstances of the family as its policies say it should. When it did organise completion of the work, it documented its approach clearly and showed that it wanted a lasting repair which was appropriate for the number of issues identified. Though it is acknowledged the landlord did some things well, a finding of maladministration has been made as a result of the significant failings outlined above.
  30. In considering compensation, an amount of £400 inclusive of the amount already offered is appropriate. This includes an additional £250 for the distress and inconvenience the resident and her family experienced as a result of the landlord’s failure to consider the impact of the repairs on their vulnerabilities. This amount has been considered with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance in mind for circumstances where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident, but no permanent impact. It also takes account of the fact that the landlord acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right..

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of bathroom repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £400, inclusive of amounts already offered, for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the bathroom repairs.
    3. Provide evidence to this Service of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord considers how it will evidence its intention to take the individual circumstances of residents into account when planning repair work.