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

Moat Homes Limited (202230042)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230042

Moat Homes Limited

17 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 response to the resident’s report of a leak in the communal area.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident has been the shared–owner leaseholder of the property, a 2-bedroom second-floor flat, since 2012. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. On 25 February 2022 the landlord raised a work order to inspect the stairwell and main entrance door ceiling in the communal area following reports of an intermittent leak. It attended on 28 February 2022 and could not establish the source. Works were raised in March, April and May 2022 to make safe the area and establish where the leak was coming from, with a focus on possible external water ingress from the roof, external structures, cladding, and/or vents. Additional exploration was arranged for 20 July 2022. The landlord carried out make safe works but the source of the leak remained unknown.
  3. On 1 August 2022 the resident complained that the leak was left outstanding for months. Contractors who attended left the area untidy and there was poor communication with residents about the repairs and redecoration of the communal area. The landlord noted that the leak had been unresolved since it was first reported for 21 weeks.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 22 August 2022 and further investigated the source of the leak from 24 August to 28 September 2022, with a focus on externally sourced water ingress and structural causes outside the building.
  5. The landlord discussed the complaint with the resident on 8 September 2022 before issuing the stage 1 response on 9 September 2022. After outlining the history of the repair and actions it took since the leak was reported, the landlord stated that the cause remained unknown but it was still working to locate the source. It provided an update on its current focus (to see if water was entering through grill vents) and action plan, including remedial work to repair/clean the carpet, ceiling and hallway. It apologised for previous failures in communication and agreed to update the resident on the progress of its work.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint on 28 September 2022 stating that there was mould growing in the hallway, he felt dissatisfied with the delay in the remedial works taking place 7 months after he had reported the issue, and decoration work remained outstanding. He said the landlord’s communication had improved, but he felt this was only a result of his complaint. The resident and landlord corresponded further in October 2022 and confirmed that the first priority would be to establish the source of the leak and then restore the condition of the communal area.
  7. Accordingly, on 7 October 2022 there was a leak detection survey carried out. The report detailed the investigation and inspections undertaken throughout the building. It concluded that there was no leak detected on the day, no moisture from damp, nor any water escaping into the communal hallway for over 3 weeks. However, there were 2 repairs found with a tap and boiler part in 2 different flats. The surveyor recommended repairs to the 2 flats, as well as monitoring the communal area to spot any future water ingress. If this happened, then the surveyor recommended an analysis to test for whether the source was external or internal.
  8. The landlord provided a copy of the survey report with its action plan and issued its stage 2 response on 31 October 2022, as follows:
    1. It upheld the complaint and found a failure in its previous communication and the delay in addressing the repair.
    2. The leak had stopped and it referred to the surveyor’s findings.
    3. Remedial work would start and the final redecoration work to the ceiling would be undertaken as part of the cyclical work, which it would communicate to the resident about. Costs for works associated with the failure would be deducted from the leaseholders’ bill (£340 for decoration only, and other repairs to be carried out with no additional contribution from leaseholders).
    4. It acknowledged the improvement in its communication since the resident’s complaint.
    5. It offered compensation of £455.06 and explained the calculation as follows:
      1. 20% of the service charge for the duration of the issues, from February to November 2022 (£305.06). This was in excess of the management fee and repair allowance to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused.
      2. A maximum payment of £150 for time and trouble.
    6. It outlined the lessons learned from failures caused by a change of its contractor, misdiagnosing the source of the leak, failure to gain access to all flats to investigate, and failure to communicate adequately. It would set up a complex repair team to manage those repairs which require multiple visits or specialist chain works.
  9. Repairs were arranged for November 2022 and a monitoring period was arranged until the end of January 2023, in line with the surveyor’s recommendation in October 2022.

After the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. A further leak was reported 4 months later on 17 March 2023. The landlord’s tests (as per the surveyor’s recommendation of October 2022) showed the source was internal. Contractors made the leak safe on 18 March 2023 and recorded that all repairs were completed on 20 March 2023. 
  2. There were further discussions between the parties about the level of compensation, for both this incident and further reports about the landlord’s service. The landlord revised its offer of redress multiple times and, in July 2023, offered the resident £1,550 compensation (£750 from November 2022 to the end of January 2023 and £100 for each of the 8 months that additional repairs were outstanding). This was in addition to the costs it had already paid for cyclical decorations.
  3. In August 2023 the communal carpet was replaced under cyclical work and make good works were completed. External snagging work was carried out in September 2023, which gave rise to further concerns. The resident reported his concern about health and safety risks from fumes and materials used by the contractors, and concerns about scaffolding for external related works as well as separate remedial works.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The scope of this investigation is from February to November 2022, in association with the events assessed by the landlord under the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint process. Events after this have not been assessed, though they have been referenced in so far as they relate to the original complaint, such as to show when agreed actions under the complaint process were carried out. If the resident has outstanding concerns about the landlord’s service, the substantive issue would need to be raised to the landlord in the first instance as a new complaint (reflected at paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme).
  2. If the resident raises his concerns about health and safety, specifically the impact of the materials and fumes on his household’s health, to the landlord, it should be noted that these are unlikely to fall within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because the Ombudsman is unable to determine a causal link between the actions of the landlord and any personal injury, and we would direct the resident to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he wishes to pursue this matter further (reflected at paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme).

Response to the repair

  1. The lease states that the landlord will maintain and repair: structural parts of the building including the roof, external walls, and those parts of the building that are not the responsibility of the leaseholder, service media and water apparatus under and upon the building except those which serve exclusively an individual flat, and the common parts. The landlord has not disputed its repairing responsibilities in respect of the leak reported in the communal hallway. The Repair Policy states that the landlord aims to complete repairs within 21 days and maintain the property through planned maintenance and cyclical decoration.
  2. Following reports of the communal leak in February 2022 the landlord appropriately raised work orders to make safe the ceiling and leak and initiated investigations within 21 days. However, it failed to establish the source and complete the repair within that timeframe. It engaged different types of contractors such as plumbers and roofers in its investigations, focusing on external water ingress. However, the landlord ultimately failed to establish the true source of the leak and the repair service was delayed from March to October 2022 when the repair was eventually diagnosed. This was unreasonable.
  3. The landlord reasonably took steps to engage with expert opinion in October 2022, which was resolution focused and appropriate given the time spent by its internal repair teams to explore and investigate the cause without resolution. The expert opinion identified no leak at the time of the survey, no damp or excess moisture, but it found internal repairs and recommended action the landlord could take if the leak recurred, which evidence suggests it then did. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have engaged with the expert leak detection survey sooner than it did. By not doing so, its response to the resident’s report about the communal repair was delayed unreasonably. 
  4. Following the inspection of October 2022 internal repairs were established and then promptly carried out within the Repair Policy timescale, in November 2022. The landlord experienced an access issue at one point in one of the flats for the repairs, but this was resolved. The decoration works were completed in January 2023, and the work to the carpet was completed in August 2023, under planned and cyclical repairs, as set out in the complaint response. This was reasonable as the Repair Policy states that the landlord will maintain the property through planned maintenance and cyclical decoration.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the service failures, upheld the complaint, and set out its learning identified as a result of it. It was reasonable for the landlord to recognise its failure and to seek to establish service improvements, such as how it would approach complicated repairs in future. This upholds the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principle of learning from outcomes, and was therefore reasonable.
  6. In respect of the communication, this was improved following the initial complaint and the improvement was corroborated by the landlord and resident’s feedback. Though the resident considered that this only improved due to his complaints, it was reasonable for the landlord to remedy any failure or shortcoming in its communication, once it was notified of this.
  7. The landlord apologised for the failures, identified the reasons for this, and set out its plans to prevent this from recurring, which was reasonable. The landlord took reasonable steps in also arranging redress for the failures it identified. This is because it recognised that it should not only put right the repair and communication failure, but it should also put right the impact of its service failure, and this upholds the Despite Resolution Principle of putting things right. 
  8. The landlord’s explanation of its calculation of redress that included a percentage of service charges and costs for decoration (which it stated as £340 plus £305.06) was reasonable. This is because the resident took reasonable effort to notify the landlord and the repair became outstanding for an unreasonable length of time, so it would not be fair for the resident to be responsible for any additional damage caused outside of the appropriate repair timescale. The principle applied by the landlord in its calculation of the redress therefore reflects the landlord’s acknowledgement of its own partial responsibility for the damages which were caused, which was resolution focused.
  9. The landlord offered £150 for time and trouble which aligns with the maximum amount for service failure in time spent resolving the issue, under the its Compensation Policy. The landlord’s offer of compensation was proportional to the detriment the resident experienced in the delay between March 2022 (when the repair should have been completed following the resident’s report) and October 2022 (when the repair was finally diagnosed and the communication issues addressed). Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress is made for failures in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of the leak in the communal area.
  10. While noted for context, the discussions about compensation which took place after October 2022 and the subsequent amendments have not been assessed in this investigation. The landlord and resident reasonably engaged in local resolution for the subsequent issues and the resident may raise a new complaint if he remains dissatisfied with the outcomes to those discussions.

Complaint handling

  1. The Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that the landlord should respond to complaints about its service within 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2.
  2. In this case the landlord did not comply with the timescales expected of it. Following the resident’s complaint on 1 August 2022, there was a delay in the landlord logging the complaint until 22 August 2022. It then issued the stage 1 response on 9 September 2022, beyond the 10 day timescale set out in the Code. While the landlord communicated with the resident before the stage 1 response was issued, it should have issued its response sooner. If the landlord needed to discuss the concerns raised with the resident, it should have done this within the prescribed timescales of the stage 1 process.
  3. The resident escalated the complaint on 28 September 2022 and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 31 October 2022, 3 working days outside of the Code’s timescales.
  4. The landlord and resident corresponded in between, and after the complaint. The resident was updated about how the landlord was going to progress the repairs and what was happening and he worked in partnership with the landlord to guide its priorities, in resolving the repair before moving onto the decoration and remedial works. However, due to the delayed formal responses, in all the circumstances of the case, there was service failure in the complaint handling. An order is made for the landlord to apologise to the resident for its complaint handling and to review the timescales under the Code as learning from the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress in response to the resident’s reports about the communal leak which has resolved the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of the communal leak was initially reasonable but it delayed taking appropriate steps to diagnose the cause of the leak and to fully address the repair. The landlord subsequently offered redress in compensation which was proportional to the impact of its service failure and demonstrated its learning from the complaint, which was reasonable.
  2. The landlord did not follow the prescribed complaint handling standards in its response times.

Orders and Recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for delays in the complaint response in 2022 and to review the timescales under the Code for its own future reference.
  2. If it has not already been paid, the landlord is recommended to pay the resident the redress that it offered under the stage 2 complaint response for the acknowledged service failure.