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

Moat Homes Limited (202222369)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222369

Moat Homes Limited

11 March 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 response to:
    1. The resident’s concerns about her boiler.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives in the 3-bedroom house with her family.
  2. According to the repair logs provided, on 29 November 2022 the landlord instructed its contractor to inspect the resident’s boiler for a loud noise. An engineer attended 4 days later and noted that the heating and hot water supply were unaffected by the issue. While the engineer did not witness the noise first-hand, they diagnosed the issue being potentially due to the need to clean the system.
  3. In late November 2022, the resident complained to the landlord. It is not clear from the available records when or what she initially complained about. However, in subsequent emails we have seen the resident said:
    1. The issue with her boiler had been recurring over the past 2 years. She said that to stop the noise she had needed to regularly reset the boiler.
    2. She had been inconvenienced by needing to accommodate appointments, some of which had been missed by the contractor.

To resolve her complaint, the resident asked for a new boiler and to be compensated for her inconvenience.

  1. After contact from this Service, the landlord gave its stage 1 decision on 15 March 2023. It said:
    1. It was sorry for not meeting its complaint timescale.
    2. Its heating contractor had attempted to contact the resident several times in December 2022 without success. It advised this contributed to delays in its response and the repairs.
    3. The issue had not been witnessed first-hand by any of the engineers that attended, which made it more difficult to find a fix.
    4. Its policy was to attempt repairs before replacing. The boiler contractor had to go through a “process of elimination” to identify a cause.
    5. None of the engineers had identified safety risks.
    6. An appointment had been scheduled with the manufacturer of the boiler but the resident had cancelled this as they said the issue was no longer persisting. A manager from the heating contractor was still due to attend and this would be booked in directly with them.
    7. It recognised that there had been 3 missed appointments and that this had added to the delays.
    8. It awarded £310 compensation, made up of:
      1. £100 for the delayed complaint response.
      2. £60 for missed appointments.
      3. £150 for the ‘time and trouble’ caused to the resident.
  2. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on the same day as the landlord’s response. She said the compensation was not sufficient and that she was seeking 2 to 3 times more. In response to a request for clarity on her reasons for escalating in May 2023, the resident added that the boiler issue was ongoing.
  3. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 13 June 2023. It concluded that its stage 1 response was reasonable and the compensation was “fair”. The landlord added that the failed appointments were “unacceptable” and that the heating contractor’s performance was being reviewed regularly. It suggested that it could arrange again for the boiler manufacturer attend to inspect.
  4. After the complaints process ended, the resident suggested the engineers were not qualified to resolve the issue and asked for a specialist to attend. In response, the landlord arranged for the boiler manufacturer to assess it for repair or replacement. The resident advised us that this appointment went ahead in late June 2023 and the manufacturer resolved the noise.
  5. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman because she was unhappy with the compensation awarded. She said she has been caused prolonged distress and inconvenience by having to turn the boiler off and accommodate repair appointments. The resident advised she is seeking more compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident complained that she had been experiencing problems intermittently with the boiler for 2 years prior to making a complaint. She sent us screenshots of some notes she made on her phone. According to her notes, she recorded that she needed to report a boiler issue to the landlord on 30 September 2019 and 16 March 2020. She also recorded that a boiler engineer attended her home 3 times in June 2022.
  2. We are unable to verify from the screenshots that these notes are contemporaneous. In addition, we have seen no other evidence, of the investigations into the boiler problem prior to 29 November 2022. Neither of the landlord’s responses mentioned how long the issue had been ongoing. However, the landlord did acknowledge that it had been a “long time” and there were multiple attendances. There is also a note on the landlord’s system that we have seen which refers to the heating engineers trying to make an appointment with the resident in July 2022.
  3. The Ombudsman makes evidence-based decisions. We usually rely on records that were made at the time of the events complained about, such as emails, system notes, repair logs, and reports. Where absent we may decide what is more likely to have happened using the information available.
  4. Based on the available information, we accept that the boiler issue is more likely than not to have been occurring prior to November 2022. While this is the case, there is no indication that it was a continuous problem from 2019. This is because, according to the resident’s notes, there was over 2 years between the occurrences. There are time limits on when issues can be investigated. We would usually expect a complaint to be raised within 12 months of the problem presenting. This is because the quality and availability of any evidence that may have existed at the time may not be present now. Our report will therefore focus on the events from mid-2022 until the complaints process ended in 2023.
  5. The resident told us that the landlord’s investigations into the boiler problem were insufficient. She said that she believes the fact the problem was fixed by the manufacturer shows that previous attempts by the heating contractor were flawed. The Ombudsman is not able to comment on whether the landlord made the right diagnoses from its inspections. The focus of this investigation is on the reasonableness of the landlord’s actions, with reference to its obligations under the tenancy agreement, and explanations in response to the complaint. We will base this on the relevant policies, guidance, and good practice available.

Boiler fault

  1. The landlord has an obligation under the tenancy agreement to repair or maintain the resident’s building, including the boiler. The repair policy states the landlord will respond to emergency repairs, such as total loss of heating (in winter months) or hot water, within 24 hours. It would respond to non-urgent issues within 21 working–days. Records show that both the resident and the heating contractor reported that the heating and hot water supply was unaffected. She did, however, report that these were temporarily affected by resetting the boiler, which she said she did to stop the noise. Although clearly inconvenienced by the issue, the resident was not without heating or hot water for any sustained length of time. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to respond under its routine timescale.
  2. In the period concerned, and based on the available records, the resident reported the boiler problem in the summer of 2022. When the resident complained around 5 months later, in late November 2022, she was unhappy that the issue was unresolved.
  3. As mentioned earlier, we do not have repair or contact records from before the resident made a complaint, despite us requesting all relevant records. Of those provided, there is limited information, particularly the repair logs. The lack of these records means the landlord has not been able to demonstrate to us that it responded within appropriate timescales, as defined in its repair policy, to the initial report in 2022. As such, we consider this to be a failing. While true, the resident reported it was intermittent as it happened when the heating and hot water was in use. Therefore, we cannot say the resident was significantly adversely affected during the summer months, when heating was less likely to be needed. We recognise she would have been caused some distress and inconvenience. Our report will consider the cumulative impact of failings on the resident when deciding if the level of compensation was proportionate.
  4. The landlord’s heating contractor inspected the boiler on 2 December 2022, within a week of her making a complaint. This prompt response was appropriate, in the circumstances, and it was well within the routine timescale. The engineer who inspected the boiler suspected that the issue could be caused by debris in the system and planned to clean it with chemicals. The resident asked the landlord instead to consider replacing the boiler. In the stage 1 response, the landlord said its policy was to repair something before considering replacing it. This explanation was in-line with the approach set out in its repairs policy. In this it states it will “balance expenditure” from repairs with larger, costly works under its “planned maintenance” programmes. There was also no obligation under the tenancy agreement for the landlord to replace the boiler if it believed the existing one was repairable, as was the case here.
  5. In December 2022, the landlord made 4 unsuccessful attempts to schedule a follow-up appointment with the resident. According to the resident’s email on 3 January 2023, she tried to return these but could not get through. We recognise that there were problems on both sides with contact. This may have been due to the fact it was over the Christmas period. Nevertheless, we cannot conclude that the landlord was solely responsible for the delay in arranging the follow-up appointment, based on the available records.
  6. After a failed appointment on 6 January 2023, the landlord arranged for a senior engineer to attend. They inspected a few days later and, according to the repair logs, cleaned parts and tightened the heat exchanger plate. On       17 January 2023, the resident reported that the noise had reduced. It is apparent then that there were improvements from the work the engineer carried out.
  7. Around a month later, the resident said that she had been offered £50 compensation to resolve her complaint, which she said was not enough. She said the boiler problem, while still occurring sometimes, was better but questioned why the cleaning could not have been done sooner. In the landlord’s initial response, it explained that the problem with the boiler was difficult to diagnose. It said this was because none of the engineers witnessed it first-hand and it could have been caused by various parts. While we cannot comment on the technical appropriateness of the response, it is our view that the landlord is entitled to rely on the findings of its specialists. There is no reason, therefore, for this Service to come to a contrary conclusion about the difficulties in diagnosing the boiler issue.
  8. The landlord advised in its response that it had arranged an appointment with the boiler manufacturer and that the resident cancelled this because she said the problem had been fixed. There is reference to the boiler manufacturer potentially assessing the boiler, but the records do not show when this was arranged. The resident has not challenged the accuracy of this in her escalation to stage 2 or to this Service. So, we have seen no reason to question the landlord’s account. Involving the boiler manufacturer was reasonable as it may have given further insight into the possible cause of the problem.
  9. The landlord awarded £60 compensation for 3 missed appointments. While the records seen refer to only 2 missed appointments, it was appropriate for the landlord to award compensation. Its compensation policy allowed for £20 for each missed appointment, which means the amount awarded was correct.
  10. It also awarded £150 for the ‘time and trouble’ the resident had been caused. This amount was at the top end of the range its compensation policy said it would pay for service failures that have caused “minor disruption”. It explained that in reaching this figure it had considered that not all the delays were caused by its actions (or lack of). The landlord also stated that the resident had not been without access to heating or hot water, and none of the engineers had identified a health and safety concern. In the circumstances, the amount of compensation awarded for the inconvenience caused was reasonable for the delay of around 4 months (between July and November 2022). It was also within the range the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies recommends for distress and inconvenience where there was no serious detriment, as was the case here.
  11. After the initial response, and the resident’s request for her complaint to be escalated, the senior engineer attended her home on 21 March 2023. The repair log states that the resident advised the boiler had been “working fine” since their visit 2 months prior. The landlord did then follow-up with the resident, as it said it would, to check if there was anything further it could do. This showed an ongoing commitment to resolving the problem, which was appropriate in the circumstances.
  12. In the landlord’s mid-June 2023 stage 2 response, which it explained was a review of its initial reply, it did not find cause to increase the compensation awarded. It did, however, add that the missed appointments were “completely unacceptable” and that an improvement plan had been introduced to prevent it from reoccurring. This was appropriate and is in the spirit of learning that the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) encourages landlords to adopt.  
  13. The landlord also offered to rearrange an appointment with the boiler manufacturer. This was reasonable because the resident reported that the issue, while not as bad, was still occurring. The resident advised that this appointment took place on 29 June 2024 and that the work that was carried out has resolved the issue. She said she believes this shows that the repairs the landlord did before were ineffective. However, we do not agree that this demonstrates that the landlord’s were inappropriate. It was reasonable for it to explore the repair of the boiler through its specialist contractor.
  14. We are satisfied that the landlord has taken accountability for delays and poor service due to missed appointments and the impact this had on the resident. We are also satisfied that its improvement plan will address the systemic issues. Therefore, we will not be awarding compensation above the £210 the landlord offered but will ask the landlord to pay this if it has not already.

 

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints process at the time, according to its policy, may involve 3 stages. Its first was an informal one intended for a “quick resolution” within 2 working–days and did not require a written response. Its aim was to provide a “solution at the first point of contact.” Available records show that the resident made a complaint in late November 2022. The landlord dealt with this under its informal process in arranging an inspection of the boiler. It was reasonable and in-line with the policy to attempt to resolve the complaint through practical actions, such as a repair.
  2. If a complaint could not be resolved, there was then a formal process to follow. This adhered to the timescales set out in the Code. At stage 1, it would acknowledge complaints within 5 working–days and respond within 10 working–days of the acknowledgement. The policy states it may need to extend the timescales and, if so, it would advise the resident. It was apparent by 16 December 2022 that the issue was unresolved, when the resident said she was unhappy with the solution offered and wanted the boiler to be replaced. We have seen no formal acknowledgment letter or records of discussions about extending the timescale. It is more likely than not that the landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint through its formal process. This was a failing which led to the resident contacting the Ombudsman to intervene.
  3. Appropriately, the landlord acknowledged its failing in its stage 1 response. It also awarded £100 compensation. This was reasonable to account for exceeding its timescales by around 40 working–days. It was also reflective of the inconvenience the resident was caused in chasing things up with the landlord herself and via this Service. The amount is in–line with the scale the Ombudsman would recommend for service failure with a short-lived impact.
  4. While the landlord took some appropriate actions to remedy its complaint handling failure, it did not recognise at stage 2 that it had repeated its mistake. Based on the records seen, the resident asked verbally on 15 March 2023 to escalate her complaint because she was not happy with the amount of compensation and was seeking more. The resident had fulfilled the landlord’s criteria for escalation. This included an explanation of the reason for remaining unhappy and the outcome being sought. Even if the landlord considered that the resident had not provided enough information, it should have sought this from her, as it did on 17 May 2023. The evidence shows that this contact was only prompted by a further intervention from this Service, which was inappropriate. This would have understandably caused the resident further time and trouble in trying to progress her complaint
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 timescale was to respond within 20 working–days. Its failure to escalate the complaint was a departure from its own policy and the Code. This contributed to a delay of concluding the complaint of around 40 working–days. The landlord has not acknowledged its failure or taken any steps to remedy it. A finding of service failure has been made and further compensation has been awarded.
  6. The findings in this report are consistent with those identified in an earlier investigation from the Ombudsman. In that case, the events occurred around a similar time to those the resident complained about. We found failings in the landlord’s response times and the robustness of its investigation. We also found failings with the landlord’s record-keeping, which has also been a factor in this case. Due to the findings in that investigation, the Ombudsman made a wider order for the landlord to review its complaints and record-keeping processes and procedures. It complied with our orders and informed us of several service improvements. As such, no orders had been made for the landlord to take any specific actions to improve its complaint handling and record-keeping. It is though encouraged to consider any learning from this case to use in any ongoing work.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the landlord has offered redress to the resident, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the response to her reports that her boiler was faulty.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is required to provide evidence showing it has complied with our orders to:
    1. Write to the resident apologising for failing to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
    2. Pay compensation of £410 (or £100 if the original award of £310 has been paid), made up of:
      1. £210 (or £0) for the inconvenience from repairs to the boiler.
      2. £200 (or £100) for the impact from failings in the handling of the complaint.