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

Moat Homes Limited (202233457)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233457

Moat Homes Limited

18 June 2024


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:
    1. Response to reports of damp and mould in the property.
    2. Handling of repairs to a broken/damaged garden fence.
    3. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant. The property is a 2 bedroom mid terraced house. She lived at the property with her son between October 2021 and April 2024. Her son has breathing difficulties which the landlord was aware of.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the resident first reported damp and mould in the property on 13 December 2021. It sent a leaflet with advice and guidance to reduce the causes of damp in the property. It inspected the property on 6 and 18 January 2022. It determined that the gutter was blocked and may have been the cause of the damp. It also found issues with the roof tiles and flashing around the chimney.
  3. The landlord cleared the guttering on 7 March 2022. It returned on 24 May 2022 to apply a sealant to the guttering.
  4. The landlord logged a repair to replace 6 of the front garden panels and 1 rear garden fence panel on 3 May 2022. It attempted to complete the repair on 4 July 2022, however the resident was unavailable.
  5. The landlord inspected the downpipe on 15 July 2022. It found cracks in the pipe causing leaks against the property. It conducted a partial repair to the downpipe on 1 September 2022.
  6. It returned on 1 November 2022 and determined that the down pipe needed to be sanded down, sealed and repainted. The resident emailed the landlord on the same day to say she was unhappy as the operative was unable to complete the repairs. She said that the issue had been ongoing for a year. The landlord repaired the downpipe and replaced the front garden fence panels on 3 November 2022.
  7. The landlord recorded a new job to repair the rear garden fence on 15 November 2022. Its contractor visited on 26 January 2023, but passed it back to the landlord as there was an internal dispute over responsibility to repair.
  8. The resident complained to the landlord on 19 February 2023. She said:
    1. She had raised several complaints regarding the repairs that had not been responded to.
    2. She was told on 27 January 2023 that the landlord would respond urgently. She was told that it would attend the following week, but no one attended and she had no update from the landlord.
    3. The fence repairs were ongoing for around 6 months without resolution. She felt unable to use her garden because of the damaged fence panels.
    4. The drains were blocked and causing a bad smell. She was told that her neighbour was responsible to repair the drainpipe 6 months prior.
  9. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 20 February 2023. It asked the resident for details regarding the call on 27 January 2023 as it had no record. The resident replied the same day to say she had complained in November and had no response. She kept no record of the call and expected that the landlord had not recorded it either.
  10. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 March 2023. It said:
    1. The resident complained about the fence repairs in May 2022. It had issued a stage 2 response previously regarding poor workmanship and agreed to inspect the fence.
    2. On 15 November 2022 its surveyor said that the fence had not been fitted to an acceptable standard. It recommended the replacement of concrete posts and to correct the fittings. The work was passed to its contractor on 22 February 2023.
    3. The resident was unhappy about the quality of work in March 2023.
    4. It logged a new repair for the drains, damp and mould. It would confirm this in a call on 8 March 2023.
    5. It apologised for the communication about appointments and passed comments regarding the quality of workmanship to the contractor. It apologised for the delay to repair the fencing and drains.
    6. It offered compensation of £270. This comprised of:
      1. £220 offered in November 2022 for 6 missed appointments and time and trouble.
      2. £50 for time and trouble.
  11. The resident sought to escalate her complaint on 23 March 2023. She felt the landlord had treated her unfairly. She said:
    1. She was unhappy with the stage 1 response.
    2. She disputed the £50 compensation.
    3. Her son was unable to use the garden.
    4. No appointment had been made to repair the fence following the stage 1 response.
  12. On the same day the landlord offered an appointment to conduct a damp and mould survey on 13 April 2023. The resident said she was unavailable.
  13. The landlord’s records show the rear garden fence was repaired on 1 April 2023.
  14. The landlord attempted to survey the damp and mould on 25 April 2023. The resident emailed to say she would be unavailable and asked for a new appointment.
  15. The resident sought an update regarding the above issues on 5 May 2023.
  16. The landlord surveyed the damp and mould on 16 May 2023. The surveyor found evidence of damp and mould in the kitchen, bathroom, lounge, and bedroom. It provided recommendations to:
    1. Replace some damp plaster in the kitchen and bathroom.
    2. Install an extractor fan in the bathroom.
    3. Mould wash areas of the bathroom.
    4. Reseal the living room window
    5. Erect scaffolding to inspect the roof, chimney and gutters.
    6. Relay slabs in the garden and connect the drain to the external gully.
  17. The resident sought an update from the landlord regarding the damp and mould survey on 31 May 2023. She contacted the Ombudsman on 20 July 2023 to say she had no response to her stage 2 complaint from the landlord. She was unable to use her garden and there was damp and mould in the property.
  18. The resident emailed the landlord on 8 August 2023 asking for an update on her repairs and her stage 2 complaint. She also contacted the Ombudsman on the same day seeking assistance with her complaint.
  19. The landlord’s records show that the resident used its web chat on 12 August 2023. She said she was being “ignored” by the landlord. She had no response to 7 emails sent since November 2022. She had outstanding repairs and did not receive the compensation offered in its stage 1 response. The landlord apologised for the delay and passed the concerns onto the investigating officer.
  20. The resident sent 3 further emails between 21 August and 19 September 2023. Each asking for updates on her complaint and outstanding repairs.
  21. On 20 September 2023 the contractor resolved the following repairs:
    1. Installation of a new vent and extractor fan in the bathroom.
    2. Repairs to the external gully.
    3. A mould wash and redecoration in the bathroom.
  22. The contractor also said:
    1. It erected scaffolding and inspected the chimney. It found some missing tiles and lead flashing that required replacement.
    2. It recommended the landlord replace the downpipe.
    3. It found evidence of damp behind the kitchen cupboards. The units would need to be removed for investigation.
    4. The toilet was leaking, the lights were flickering, and the door lock was broken in the bathroom.
  23. On 9 October 2023 we wrote to the landlord and asked it to issue its stage 2 response. The landlord replied on 11 October 2023 and said it issued its stage 1 response on 3 March 2023. A further complaint was raised regarding repairs. When it contacted the resident to discuss the complaint its contractor had scheduled repairs and the resident asked it to close the complaint.
  24. We contacted the resident on 12 October 2023. We said that the landlord informed us that she did not pursue her complaint to stage 2. She provided us with evidence to show that she had asked for her complaint to be escalated in March 2023.
  25. The resident emailed the landlord the same day. She forwarded the emails she had sent since March 2023 asking for a response to her complaint. She was unhappy that the landlord told the Ombudsman that she had asked for her complaint to be withdrawn. She believed that this was untrue. There were outstanding complaints and she had not received any compensation.
  26. The landlord replied to the resident on 21 October 2023. It apologised for its lack of response. It said it had opened a new complaint on 14 September 2023 as the repairs had not been resolved. It said it spoke to the resident on 18 September 2023 and confirmed that works were scheduled for 20 September 2023.
  27. The resident responded on 24 October 2023 to say she had not spoken to the landlord since March 2023. She asked for details regarding the calls in September 2023.
  28. The landlord acknowledged the request for stage 2 on 30 October 2023. It apologised for the confusion and assigned the case for investigation.
  29. The landlord’s internal records show that on 31 October 2023 it had arranged to conduct repairs while the resident was out of the property. She had left a key with neighbours for access. It provided details of each repair conducted since the damp and mould survey in May 2023. It listed the following works as outstanding:
    1. Hack off plaster and replaster the kitchen.
    2. Repairs to the living room window.
    3. The gutters had been blocked from a neighbour’s property.
    4. An inspection to the damp course in the kitchen.
    5. Repairs to the leaking toilet.
  30. The landlord’s internal emails on 15 November 2023 referred to a discussion with the resident about access to the property. There had been delays to conduct repairs as it could not do work while the resident’s son was at home. It considered decanting the resident and said it could be done urgently if necessary.
  31. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 November 2023. This was around 8 months after the resident first asked for her complaint to be escalated. The landlord set out details of the complaint. It said:
    1. It escalated the complaint in October 2022.
    2. The fence repairs in May 2022 had been closed in error. A further instruction was passed to contractors in October 2022. It had inspected the work and found problems with the fitting of the fence. It resolved the repairs to the garden fence in April 2023.
    3. It surveyed the damp and mould on 16 May 2023. It made recommendations for external and internal repairs. Its contractor had conducted all external repairs, but internal repairs to plaster the kitchen, bathroom, and lounger were outstanding. It had an appointment to begin the work on 27 November 2023.
    4. It recognised that the work would impact the resident’s son due to the amount of dust it would produce. The resident had arranged for a neighbour to provide access while the resident and her son were away from the property. It offered to provide temporary accommodation to conduct the works.
    5. It apologised for the delay to conduct repairs. It recognised that despite issues with access caused by the neighbour, it could have progressed the repairs sooner.
    6. It offered compensation of £420. This was comprised of:
      1. £50 for time and trouble (offered at stage 1).
      2. £220 for missed appointments (offered at stage 1).
      3. £150 for delays to conduct repairs.
  32. The resident emailed the landlord on 11 and 20 December 2023 to say she had not been paid compensation and had no response from the landlord. It replied on 15 January 2024 and said it had reviewed the offer of compensation and would consider the additional heating costs while plaster was drying in the property. It scheduled a further survey of damp and mould for 1 February 2024.
  33. The landlord’s repair history shows that a new repair was raised to replace 15 fence panels in the back garden on 11 January 2024. The fencing was replaced on 6 February 2024.

Assessment and findings

Policy and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repair policy said that it will conduct urgent repairs within 7 days and routine repairs within 30 calendar days. It conducted complex repairs that required specialist parts or works under a programmed schedule within individually agreed timescales.
  2. The landlord operated a 2 stage complaint process. It states that it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
  3. The tenancy conditions show that the resident was responsible for maintaining the fencing in the garden and yard of the property.

Response to reports of damp and mould in the property.

  1. Sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair, and to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation throughout his tenancy. Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards.
  2. Damp and mould are potential category 1 hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. They are expected to conduct additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
  3. During the above timeline the landlord did not have an active damp and mould policy. It was undergoing a review of the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould report published in October 2021. It has since introduced its damp and mould policy in March 2024. There was an unreasonable delay of around 3 years following the publication of the spotlight report to produce a damp and mould policy. This showed a lack of appreciation of the impact that damp and mould can have.
  4. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published in October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords. The recommendations include:
    1. Having a risk-based approach to damp and mould.
    2. Responding to reports of damp and mould in a way that reflects the urgency of the issue.
    3. Regularly and clearly communicating with residents regarding actions taken.
  5. The landlord’s records show that there were reports of damp in the property from 13 December 2021 caused by a leaking radiator in the bedroom. The landlord inspected the property within a reasonable period on 6 January 2022 and repaired the radiator on 31 January 2022. The repairs were conducted in accordance with its routine repairs policy.
  6. During the inspection on 6 January 2022, it noted that the gutter was blocked and could cause damp in the property. When it returned on 18 January 2022 it found that there were further issues with the roof including damaged tiles and missing flashing around the chimney. It demonstrated an intention to resolve the cause of any damp and mould in the property. However, there was an unreasonable delay to clear the gutters, which it did around 60 calendar days later on 7 March 2022. There were no records that show the landlord offered dehumidifiers or conducted any intermediate works to alleviate the impact on the resident. It did not consider reasonable adjustments given the vulnerabilities present in the household, particularly the respiratory issues for the resident’s son.
  7. The landlord should have surveyed the property once it was aware of the issues with damp and mould in January 2022. It was not until it issued its stage 1 response on 3 March 2023 that it determined a survey was required. This was around 14 months after the initial reports of damp and mould. Once it issued the stage 1 response, there was a delay of around 2 weeks to schedule the survey on 23 March 2023. This was followed with further delays to conduct the survey that were outside of the landlord’s control. The resident was unavailable for the appointments offered on 13 and 25 April 2023. The delays caused additional time and trouble to the resident, but it was fair for the landlord to pursue the appointments.
  8. The damp and mould survey on 16 May 2023 found evidence of damp that required repairs. Many of the recommendations were for routine repairs (such as the installation of a fan in the bathroom) and should have been resolved within 30 calendar days. However, there was a delay of around 3 months from the date of the survey to install a fan, repair the gully and mould wash the bathroom. These delays were unreasonable. The landlord’s records show that the resident repeatedly sought updates for the repairs in May, July, August and September 2023. The delays caused time and trouble for the resident and the worry of the possible impact on her son caused distress and inconvenience.
  9. The delays were not limited to the internal repairs. It took the landlord around 1 month to inspect the down pipe when it fell off on 15 June 2023. There was a delay to conduct temporary repairs on 1 September 2022 and further delays to replace the downpipe on 3 November 2022. Overall, it took around 5 months to complete the repairs to the downpipe. This was an unreasonable delay and above the 30 calendar days timescale. The delays caused further time and trouble for the resident in chasing appointments.
  10. When the contractor found missing tiles and lead flashing on 20 September 2023 it passed these repairs back to the landlord on the same day. The landlord provided a response within 5 working days and approved the works to replace the tiles and lead flashing on 25 September 2023. This response was reasonable and demonstrated the landlord’s intention to resolve the substantive issues causing the damp and mould.
  11. The landlord had difficulty conducting the plastering works in the property due to the impact these could have on the resident’s son’s health. It would have been aware of his vulnerabilities when it conducted the survey in May 2023. It could have discussed the arrangements with the resident sooner. It is unclear if the contractor was liaising with the resident about these issues as the records do not include the correspondence between them. The records do show arrangements in October 2023 for the resident to provide access while she and her son were away from the property.
  12. The landlord did consider the impact on the resident’s son in its stage 2 response on 20 November 2023. Its offer to decant the resident for the duration of the works was reasonable. It recognised the detriment the works could cause and was fair to make this recommendation. It was also fair to apologise to the resident for the delays to conduct repairs. It recognised that it could have progressed the repairs sooner. However, its offer of £150 compensation for the delays was not reflective of the detriment caused. It appeared to combine its previous offers for missed appointments and time and trouble with the issues that had arisen since March 2023.
  13. The records suggest that the repairs were resolved on 27 November 2023. Following the completion of the works the resident emailed the landlord on 15 January 2024 and said the damp issues were still present. A further damp and mould survey was scheduled for 1 February 2024, but there were no records of the survey available to the Ombudsman. In the absence of any evidence of this survey, we have been unable to make a determination regarding any additional detriment caused.
  14. The Ombudsman finds severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to damp and mould. It was fair for the landlord to make adjustments to conduct the eventual repairs. However, it did not consider reasonable adjustments earlier in the timeline to reduce the impact of damp and mould on the resident’s vulnerable son. There was a delay of around 14 months to conduct a damp and mould survey of the property. There were substantial delays to conduct both internal and external repairs to the property. The lack of communication between May and September 2023 caused frustration to the resident. The landlord’s offer of redress in its stage 2 response did not reflect the impact caused by delays and poor communication. The landlord should offer £1,000 in additional compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Handling of repairs to a broken/damaged garden fence.

  1. The records show the fence was reported to be in disrepair on 3 May 2022. The landlord attempted to conduct repairs around 42 working days later on 4 July 2022. It provided reasonable notice of the appointment and reminders prior to its attendance. It was not responsible for the failed appointment on 4 July 2022.
  2. It is unclear why there was no second repair raised before 15 November 2022. When it did visit in November 2022, the landlord passed the repairs to its contractor. It took around 49 working days for the contractor to inspect the fence. On 29 January 2023 it determined that the company responsible for its construction needed to return to resolve the repairs. These delays to conduct inspections and decision making caused the resident additional time and trouble.
  3. There was a further delay of around 17 working days for the landlord to pass the repair back to the original contractor. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 3 March 2023, it apologised for the delays to repair the fencing. At this point there had been around 10 months from the date it knew about the fencing issues. Its offer of £50 compensation for time and trouble was a combined offer for the fencing and drainage repairs. Although it was fair to apologise for the delays, its offer of compensation did not reflect the detriment caused to the resident.
  4. The landlord’s records show that the garden fence was repaired on 1 April 2023. In total, it took around 11 months to complete the repairs to the garden fence. This was an unreasonable delay and substantially outside of its 30 days timeframe to conduct routine repairs. The timeline shows that the resident told the landlord she had been unable to use the garden because of the missing panels. She had a young child and the delays resulted in a loss of use of her garden for a considerable period.
  5. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a broken/damaged garden fence. The landlord acknowledged the delays to conduct repairs in its complaint responses. It made an offer of compensation and scheduled repairs to put things right for the resident. It demonstrated learning it its handling of further repairs to the garden fence in January 2024 when it conducted repairs within its published timeframes. However, the offer of redress did not reflect the detriment to the resident. The landlord should pay the resident additional compensation of £600. This is comprised of:
    1. £150 for time and trouble.
    2. £450 for lack of use of the garden for around 11 months.

Complaint handling.

  1. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure, good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by what is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case.
  2. The landlord’s policy states that an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the landlord will be recorded as a complaint. It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, and that it complies with the timeframes set out in its policy.
  3. The evidence shows the landlord’s complaint at stage 1 was issued in line with the timescales set out in its policy and procedures. It demonstrated intention to address the substantive issues with repairs. It provided timescales when repairs would be conducted and apologised for the delays to conduct repairs. It referred to a compensation offer of £220 from a previous complaint response in November 2022 for missed appointments and an additional £50 for time and trouble. It is not clear from the records available what the November complaint related to, however the landlord’s offer of £50 was not reflective of the detriment caused. The landlord did not follow through with the resolutions proposed in its stage 1 response and did not resolve the substantive issues.
  4. The landlord’s handling of the complaint at stage 2 was not reasonable. There was no evidence to show that it responded to the 23 March 2023 escalation request. The resident sought help from the Ombudsman in July 2023, because she had no response from the landlord. When we wrote to the landlord in October 2023 it said it had not progressed the complaint following a discussion with the resident. This was quickly disputed by the resident, who showed around 7 emails between March and October 2023 asking for updates regarding her stage 2 complaint. The resident said that she felt ignored and treated unfairly by the landlord.
  5. Overall, there was a delay of around 8 months to issue a stage 2 response. This was substantially above the 20 working day timeframe set out in its policy and procedures. In reviewing the evidence, the landlord’s record keeping contributed to its poor management of this complaint. It failed to recognise the resident’s requests to escalate her complaint. It provided inaccurate information to the Ombudsman regarding its complaint handling. Its failures to accurately record the contact from the resident caused the resident undue time and trouble pursuing her complaint.
  6. There was a lack of oversight of the case which impacted both its ability to resolve the substantive issue as well as the associated complaint. This caused delays, as well as further annoyance and frustration to the resident in his pursuit to resolve matters.
  7. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused and for the time taken to chase repairs. However, it did not provide any means of redress for its complaint handling failures. There was no learning provided to prevent similar delays in the future. As a result, it was not fair, did not put things right, and did not learn from outcomes.
  8. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Its responses broadly sought to address the substantive issues. However, it did not keep clear or accurate records of its communication with the resident. It did not address the delays to issue its stage 2 response. There delays caused avoidable time and trouble, as well as distress and inconvenience to the resident. It should pay £200 compensation for its complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Severe Maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould in the property.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a broken/damaged garden fence.
    3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide an apology from the chief executive for the failings identified in this report. Provide a copy to the Ombudsman.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £2,220. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous compensation of £420 awarded in November 2023. If the landlord has already paid the resident compensation set out at stage 2, this should be deducted from the compensation ordered. The compensation is comprised of:
      1. £420 offered in its stage 2 response.
      2. £1,000 for distress and inconvenience.
      3. £150 for time and trouble.
      4. £450 for lack of access to the garden.
      5. £200 for complaint handling failures.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review conducted by a senior manager to ensure to identify lessons it has learnt from this case and service improvements it has identified. This review should be presented to its senior leadership team and shared with the Ombudsman. The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 10 weeks of the date of this report.
  3. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within the timescales set out above.