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

Moat Homes Limited (202316242)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316242

Moat Homes Limited

18 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports about the standard of communal services, namely:
      1. Grounds maintenance.
      2. Communal cleaning.
    2. Complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident has been the leaseholder of the property since June 2021. The property is a 2 bedroom, first floor flat.
  2. From around 2 February 2022 the resident began to report to the landlord that the communal cleaning and ground maintenance was not being carried out properly. She reported that there were issues with the cleaning of the hallways, windows and bin store as well as garden maintenance not being carried out.
  3. The resident raised her complaint on 5 May 2023. During a call with the landlord on 10 May 2023 she said:
    1. The cleaning maintenance at the block was of poor standard and she felt she was paying a service charge for something that was not meeting expectations.
    2. The grounds maintenance was not being carried out as the grass was really tall and weeds were coming through the patio.
    3. The maintenance program included cleaning the bin store and that was not being carried out.
    4. She was told a deep clean would happen in March 2023 but it was not carried out.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 May 2023. It said:
    1. It said it was aware that the communal cleaning was always not being carried out due to its cleaning contractor being short staffed. It had reported the lack of cleaning to the contractor and had been informed that the cleaning would be carried out weekly. The landlord confirmed it would be monitoring this.
    2. It said that during its last inspection it had not found any issues with the binstore. However, it said it would liaise with the cleaning contractor to ensure it is being cleaned.
    3. It acknowledged that its contractor was behind on carrying out the grounds maintenance. It said that they had confirmed they would aim to catch up by the next week and the service should be up to date by June 2023.
  5. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response on 23 May 2023. She said the deep clean of the common parts had still not taken place, the bin store had not been cleaned since she moved in and the garden maintenance issues had been going on for a year. She said the week before the landlord had not cut the grass properly, the weeds had not been dealt with and dead plants had been left in the garden. However, the landlord did not escalate the complaint until the resident brought the complaint to this Service and we contacted it on 11 October 2023.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 November 2023. It said:
    1. It acknowledged that the complaint should have been escalated the complaint sooner and offered £50 compensation in recognition of this.
    2. Its contract was for grounds maintenance and not landscaping. It said the contract was for hedges and shrubs to be trimmed 2 to 3 times a year. However, it confirmed that it had removed the overgrown shrubs, had requested a quote for replacement shrubs and a new planting scheme.
    3. It said a deep clean had been carried out in May 2023 and confirmed that another would take place between the 20 and 23 November 2023. It said it had been carrying out monthly inspections of the cleaning in the block and reporting back any sub-standard cleaning to its contractor as well as any reports from residents. It said the contractor had confirmed that since September 2023 only 1 week had been missed and this would not be charged to residents.
    4. It said the decorations for the block are cyclical and due in 2023/2024. It confirmed the resident would be contacted before April 2024 with an update on when the decorations would be carried out.
    5. Its monthly inspections had shown that the bin store was clean, although it had noted on occasion that some bulk waste had been dumped. It confirmed that when this had been reported it had arranged removal of this waste.
  7. The resident confirmed that she wanted this Service to investigate the complaint on 22 January 2024. She said the landlord did not provide the services she was paying for with regards to garden maintenance, painting of common parts and communal cleaning. She said the landlord made promises in its stage 2 response and said it would contact her, but neither of these things had happened.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

  1. This Service can only consider and determine upon the landlords actions in the delivery and charging for a service which has demonstrably not been provided. We cannot determine upon instances where the service has been provided but the resident believes it was not to a satisfactory standard. However, we can consider, where appropriate, suitable remedies including compensation in respect of the cost of the service not provided, but we cannot determine upon instances where it is technically impossible to retrospectively confirm or not if the service was actually delivered.

Grounds maintenance

  1. The landlord has not provided a copy of the ground maintenance schedule agreed with its pervious contractor. In its submissions to this Service it said the contract said hedges and bushes were trimmed 2 to 3 times a year. It said that generally hedges and shrubs would not be trimmed during the bird nesting season which is from March through to the end of August/start of September. It said the hedges were to be pruned 2 or 3 times a year and this was generally at the start of the season, towards the end of the growing season (October through to November). It also said that trimming would take place at the end of May/early June unless birds were found to be nesting, in which case the hedge/shrub would be left until the autumn. The landlord has not provided details about the frequency of more general grounds maintenance such as grass cutting and weeding.
  2. The landlord has also said in its submissions that it carries out monthly inspections of the grounds maintenance. It said that if any sites that are graded ‘C’ or ‘D’ then it sends an automated email to the contractors within 24 hours. The contractors then have 5 working days to reattend site to rectify the issues raised.
  3. The landlord has provided 9 inspection reports from February 2022 to January 2023. The majority of these inspections graded the quality of the ground maintenance as ‘B’. However the reports from June and July 2022 graded the quality of grounds maintenance as ‘C’. The landlord has provided copies of the emails it sent to the contractor following these inspections. The issues the landlord identified were with shrubs/bushes and hedges needing to be cut back as well as weeding and grass cutting.
  4. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its inspection reports when looking into the quality of the grounds maintenance. It was also appropriate that it contacted its contractor following the inspections which found issues. However, the landlord has not provided evidence to confirm whether the contractors reattended the site within 5 working days and resolved the issues found. This indicates a failure in the landlord’s monitoring systems. The landlord should proactively monitor the progress of any reported issues to ensure the contractors reattend within the allotted timescale and resolve the issues. It is not reasonable for it to wait until the next monthly inspection to see if the cleaning had improved or for resident’s to report ongoing issues.
  5. It is not in dispute that the grounds maintenance was not always carried out as expected. In its stage 1 response the landlord said the contractor had advised that they were behind with works in the area due to bank holidays and the change in season. The landlord said it had been told the grounds maintenance would be back on schedule by June 2023.
  6. However, in June 2023 the resident continued to make reports regarding the lack of grounds maintenance and the state of the grounds. On 22 June 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and apologised for the time and effort she had had to put in to try and get the grounds maintenance carried out. In recognition of the poor service it offered her £100 compensation. It was reasonable for the landlord to have offered some form of compensation for the time and trouble taken by the resident to report the ongoing issues with grounds maintenance.
  7. The evidence seen by the Ombudsman shows that from July 2023 onwards the contractors began to attend on a more regular basis. The landlord’s inspection notes for July 2023 say that it saw an improvement in the quality of the gardening and it was satisfied with the works. On 7 August 2023 the landlord informed the resident of the improvements it had seen in its last inspection and said it would be closing her enquiry. The resident responded on the same day and disputed that the quality of the grounds maintenance had improved at all. She said the contractors had only removed half the dead plants and had not dug out any of the roots.
  8. On 10 August 2023 the landlord spoke with the contractors regarding the large gaps where they had pruned the shrubs. In response the contractors confirmed that the purpose of this type of pruning was to encourage regrowth and was a normal practice for replacing dead with new shrubs. They recommended that the shrubs be given the chance to regrow and if they had not done so by the autumn then they could be removed and replaced.
  9. On 22 January 2024 the resident said to this Service that she believed the landlord should do a complete replant of the gardens and replace the dead plants it had chopped down. The Ombudsman appreciates that the method used by the contractors may not have left the gardens in a visually appealing manner. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expertise of its contractors in determining what the best course of action was for regrowing the shrubs.
  10. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that as cutbacks are only done at certain times of the year this can lead to shrubs/hedges becoming overgrown and affecting residents access to the utility meters. It said that whenever it identified this during a monthly inspection it would inform its contractor and ask them to carry out an additional cutback. It confirmed the contractors had removed the overgrown shrubs and it had asked for a quote for replacement shrubs and a maintenance scheme. The landlord also said that it was aware there had been some missed appointments and it had asked the contractor for these dates so it could ensure they were not charged for. The landlord also confirmed that it was currently reviewing its grounds maintenance contract and all complaints received about the quality of the service were being taken into consideration as part of that.
  11. Overall the evidence seen by the Ombudsman shows that generally the grounds maintenance was carried out, albeit with some delays and missed appointments. It is appreciated that the resident believes the grounds maintenance was not carried out to a good standard. However, the landlord was entitled to rely on its monthly inspections in determining whether or not the grounds maintenance was achieving a satisfactory standard using its grading system. That said, the landlord failed to proactively monitor the grounds maintenance and relied heavily on reports from residents about areas of concern. This was unreasonable and caused the resident time, trouble and inconvenience over an extended period of time as she had to make regular reports to the landlord about the ongoing issues.
  12. Overall the landlord’s failures, as set out above, can be summarised as a failing to proactively monitor the frequency and quality of the cleaning services. Therefore, the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure.
  13. In its submissions to this Service, dated 10 July 2024, the landlord acknowledged that it should have taken a more proactive approach and increased the schedule of inspections at this block. It said that following customer feedback sessions it entered into a new grounds maintenance contact with a new provider in May 2024. It confirmed it is now taking a regional delivery approach with different contractors, which it said offers more flexibility and additional services such as lawn clippings being collected and maintenance of hard standing areas.
  14. It also said it has since introduced 3 estate officers within its neighbourhoods team which are responsible for overseeing the services delivered by the grounds maintenance contractors to ensure a more consistent service and that it identifies and resolves any issues quickly.
  15. In view of this, the Ombudsman will be ordering the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this report and pay £100 compensation. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings where there was no permanent impact on the resident and the landlord made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident. As the landlord has since reviewed and changed its processes, the Ombudsman will not make any orders for a process review.

Communal cleaning

  1. It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that the landlord’s cleaners are contracted to clean the communal areas on a weekly basis. The landlord’s information leaflet about communal cleaning says the windows are cleaned every 8 to 10 weeks (totalling 6 visits a year). The leaflet also says that communal areas and bin stores are deep cleaned twice a year.
  2. The landlord has also said in its submissions that it carries out monthly inspections of the cleaning. It said that if any sites that are graded ‘C’ or ‘D’ then an automated email is sent to the contractors within 24 hours. The contractors then have 5 working days to reattend site to rectify the issues raised.
  3. The landlord has provided several inspection reports from February 2022 to June 2023. The majority of these inspections graded the quality of the cleaning as ‘B’. Although there were 4 inspection reports that graded the quality of the cleaning as a ‘C’. The Ombudsman has also noted that among these 4 inspection reports only 2 of them graded the cleaning of the bin store as a ‘C’, these were in July 2022 and June 2023. The landlord has provided copies of the emails it sent to the contractors on the day of these inspections highlighting the issues found.
  4. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its inspection reports when looking into the quality of the cleaning services. It was also appropriate that it contacted its contractor following the inspections which found issues with the quality of the cleaning. However, the landlord has not provided evidence to confirm whether the contractors reattended the site within 5 working days and resolved the issues found. This indicates a failure in the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord should proactively monitor the progress of any reported issues to ensure the contractors reattend within the allotted timescale and resolve the issues. It is not reasonable for it to wait until the next monthly inspection to see if the cleaning has improved or for resident’s to report ongoing issues.
  5. Additionally, it is not in dispute that the cleaning services were not always carried out. The landlord’s notes from its stage 1 investigation show that it identified that there had been 12 missed appointments between 2022 and 2023 as well as 2 missed appointments in April 2023. However, these notes also confirm that residents were not charged for the missed appointments. In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged that there were issues with the cleaners attending as expected due to sickness and staff shortages. It also said it had spoken to its contractor about the issue and they had confirmed the cleaning would now take place once a week. However it also acknowledged that as its inspections were only once a month it relied on residents to report any issues and asked that the resident continue to do so.
  6. While the landlord’s stage 1 response assured the resident that the contractors would carry out the cleaning on a weekly basis, the resident continued to report that it was not being carried out or was not to a satisfactory standard. In a response to these reports, dated 8 June 2023, the landlord said that having visited the block it had noted that the cleaning had not been carried out. It said it had reported this to the contractors, requested credits for the missed visits and that they attend as soon as possible. The information seen by the Ombudsman indicates that at that time the cleaning had not been carried out since 12 May 2023.
  7. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that a deep clean had been carried out in May 2023 and that a second had been scheduled for November 2023. It said it had continued to carry out monthly inspections of the cleaning and reporting back any sub-standard cleaning to its contractor. It also reiterated its reliance on weekly reports from resident due to it only carrying out inspections once a month. It confirmed that its contractor had advised it that since September it had only missed 1 week and this would not be charged to residents.
  8. The Ombudsman appreciates that with services such as cleaning there may sometimes be missed appointments due to, for example, illness. However, the evidence seen indicates that from around February 2022 to September 2023 there were persistent failings in the performance of the weekly cleaning. Additionally, the landlord’s monitoring system was heavily dependant on reports from residents about any issues with the cleaning services. This was unreasonable and caused the resident time, trouble and inconvenience over an extended period of time as she had to make regular reports to the landlord about the ongoing issues.
  9. Overall the landlord’s failures, as set out above, can be summarised as a failing to proactively monitor the frequency and quality of the cleaning services. Therefore, the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure.
  10. In its submissions to this Service, dated 10 July 2024, the landlord acknowledged that it should have taken a more proactive approach and increased the schedule of inspections at this block. It said that it has since introduced 3 estate officers within its neighbourhoods team which are responsible for overseeing the services delivered by the cleaning contractors to ensure a more consistent service and that it identifies and resolves any issues quickly.
  11. In view of this, the Ombudsman will be ordering the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this report and pay £100 compensation. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings where there was no permanent impact on the resident and the landlord made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident. As the landlord has since reviewed and changed its processes, the Ombudsman will not make any orders for a process review.
  12. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident has said that she does not believe that the landlord has cleaned the bin store in the past 4 years as it is constantly filthy and smells. She also mentioned that the bins themselves are in a poor state and have holes in them.
  13. However, the information seen by the Ombudsman shows that when the cleaners attended they did carry out cleaning on the bin store. Additionally, evidence has been seen which shows that when the landlord found that bulk waste had been left in the bin store it requested that this be removed. With regards to the issues with the bins themselves, these are owned by the Council and as such the landlord has no control over their condition. It is recommended that the resident contact the Council with any issues with the bins.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and respond to it within 10 working days of acknowledgement. It also says the landlord will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days from the date of the escalation request. The policy says that should more time be needed at either stage, the landlord will inform the resident and an extension will not exceed a further 10 working days unless agreed.
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 5 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 9 May 2023 and then issued its stage 1 response on 23 May 2023. This was within the timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 May 2023. However, by 11 October 2023 she had not received the landlord’s stage 2 response and so she re-escalated her complaint via this Service. The landlord acknowledged this escalation on 11 October 2023 and issued its response on 7 November 2023. This was a significant delay and not in keeping with the landlord’s complaints policy.
  4. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged it should have escalated the complaint sooner. It also acknowledged that during stage 1 of the complaint it did not adequately communicate with the resident. It said that it had given the case handler additional training and offered £50 compensation for the delay.
  5. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  6. Having taken into consideration the delay and the impact this had on the resident, the Ombudsman finds that the total amount of £50 offered for these heads of compensation is reflective and proportionate to the circumstances of the case. This is because the landlord’s complaint handling failures did not have an impact on the outcome of the complaint nor a lasting impact on the resident, and it has compensated her for the inconvenience caused by the delays. Therefore, the Ombudsman has made a finding of reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports about the standard of the grounds maintenance.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports about the standard of the communal cleaning.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for its failures. This written apology must be from a member of the landlord’s senior management team and may wish to refer to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance on our website.
    2. Directly pay the resident £100 compensation for its handling of the grounds maintenance.
    3. Directly pay the resident £100 compensation for its handling of the communal cleaning.
  2. The landlord is to reply to this Service to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £50 compensation it offered through its complaints process. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress determination is made on the basis that this amount is paid.
  2. If it has not already done so, the landlord should provide opportunities for residents to be included in inspections.
  3. If it has not already done so, the landlord should illustrate and exemplify the quality standards it considers in its grading framework in order to promote understanding.
  4. The landlord should write to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to set out its intentions regarding the above recommendation.