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

Moat Homes Limited (202319013)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319013

Moat Homes Limited

25 April 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 reports that the heating system was not working properly.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord from July 2015 to 2023. The property is a 3 bedroom, semi-detached house. The resident lived in the property with his wife and 3 children. There were no known vulnerabilities.
  2. On 23 February 2022 the resident informed the landlord that the heating system was not properly heating the property. He also said that the “work around” he had found to heat the property had increased his electricity bill.
  3. The landlord inspected the heating system on the 5 April 2022. It found that the location of the thermostat was causing it to receive false readings. It said this in turn was causing it to turn off before reaching the desired temperature. The landlord relocated the thermostat on 26 April 2022 but it arranged a second visit on 27 June 2022 to complete the rewiring.
  4. The resident raised his complaint on 1 June 2022. He said he had been complaining about the heating system since the first winter after he moved in but the landlord had done nothing to fix it. He said the engineers the landlord had sent round to resolve heating issues in previous years had not told him what they had done. He said they would only tell him the heating was fine and that it was a ‘complicated’ system. He said it was not until his most recent report that the landlord then sent an engineer that was familiar with the system. He said the engineer had confirmed the thermostat should not be located in the airing cupboard because it would pick up incorrect readings from the temperature inside. The resident said he wanted compensation for the all the years he had been unable to properly heat the property due to this issue.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 30 June 2022. It said that it had actively addressed the complaint by installing a new thermostat in a different location on 27 June 2022. It said that it had also adjusted the fixed flow rate on the main controller to allow adequate heat to be supplied to all areas of the property. It said that as such, it had decided not to uphold the resident’s complaint.
  6. The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 July and 10 August 2022. He confirmed he was dissatisfied with its complaint response and it did not conclude his complaint. He said the engineer that attended in April 2022 had confirmed the heating system was not set up to run properly nor was the water tank big enough for that property size. He said he had repeatedly complained about the heating system since he moved in, but it had taken 7 years for the landlord to identify and fix the problem. He said that as a result, the landlord had allowed him to live in a property that could not be heated above 18 degrees. He said this had also caused him to pay increased heating bills over those 7 years. He said that he wanted £5,500 in compensation to reflect the increased bills and loss of earnings. The landlord logged the escalation of the complaint on 12 August 2022.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 31 March 2023. It acknowledged that it should have fixed the heating issues in 2016 when the resident first reported the lack of warmth. In recognition of this, it offered a total of £1,970 compensation. However, it confirmed it would not compensate for any loss of earnings as this was not in line with its complaints policy.
  8. On 14 May 2023 the resident responded to the landlord and said he believed the compensation offered was inadequate. He said the landlord was offering compensation for having a warm home not a hot one. When he felt it should be compensating him for the lack of competence in its staff to find and fix faults.
  9. The landlord replied to the resident on 31 July 2023. It said it had reviewed the amount of compensation and evaluated it against its policy for compensating residents that had had no heating. It said that following this review it had decided to increase the total compensation offered to £3,035.60.
  10. The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 August 2023 and confirmed that he did not accept the increased offer of compensation. He then contacted this Service on 2 December 2023 and confirmed that he wanted us to investigate the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Heating system

  1. The landlord’s repair policy says that it aims to complete all non-emergency repairs within 21 calendar days.
  2. The resident reported issues with the heating system on 23 February 2022. The evidence provided by the landlord shows it inspected the heating system on 5 April 2022. However, it has not explained why it took nearly 2 months to carry out the inspection. In the absence of any explanation for the delay, the Ombudsman can only conclude that they were both unreasonable and avoidable. The delay caused the resident avoidable time, trouble and inconvenience as he remained in contact with the landlord about the heating issues. Additionally, emails with the contractors confirm that while they relocated the thermostat on 26 April 2022 they were unable to complete the rewiring until 27 June 2022. However, the emails also say that this date had been agreed with the resident.
  3. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that it should have investigated the heating system properly and identified why the radiators where not getting adequately hot in 2016. In recognition of these failings it offered £1,320 for inadequate heating from 2016 to 2023 and £300 for the delay in moving the thermostat. It explained it had calculated the compensation for inadequate heating by using 15p kWh and the energy performance certificate’s estimated heating of 2515 kWh per year. It said it had then reduced this by 50% to account for the heating the resident did have during the period in question.
  4. Additionally, in its email of 31 July 2023, the landlord said it had reviewed the amount of compensation and evaluated it against its policy for compensating residents that had had no heating. It said that following this review it had adjusted the figure down to 40% of what the resident would receive if he had had no heating. It explained that under its compensation policy it only pays for loss of heating from 1 October to the 1 May for customers who have no heating at a rate of £4 a day. It gave a breakdown of the calculation and confirmed that it was now offering £2,385.60 compensation for the inadequate heating between 2016 and 2023. It confirmed this was in addition to the £300 for the delay in moving the thermostat. Therefore, the total increased amount the landlord offered for its failings regarding the thermostat was £2,685.60.
  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. Generally the Ombudsman would not make a determination of reasonable redress where the landlord makes an offer of compensation after its complaints procedure. However, in this instance, it was reasonable for the landlord to review the complaint and increase the compensation offered following further information provided by the resident on 14 May 2023. Additionally, the landlord offered the increased compensation within a reasonable time of the complaints process having been completed. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord did this with the aim of resolving the complaint in a way that was satisfactory to the resident and there is no evidence to suggest that it did so in any effort to prevent or dissuade him from bringing his complaint to us by doing so.
  7. The nature and level of the failings by the landlord in this case would usually amount to a finding of maladministration. The Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance recommends compensation in the region of £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by such a level of failing. In this instance, the landlord offered the resident £2,638.60 compensation for not having identified the issue sooner and the delay in relocating the thermostat. The compensation offered by the landlord is significant and demonstrates the landlord took its failings and the resulting effect on the resident seriously.
  8. Overall, it took just over a year from when the resident first complained in June 2022 to when the landlord made its final compensation offer in July 2023. However, the landlord had resolved the substantive issue in June 2022 and negotiations were live between the parties to affect a reasonable resolution. Part of this required further information from the resident, which he provided on 14 May 2023 and the landlord then refreshed its offer accordingly. As such, the Ombudsman considers that the compensation offered is sufficient to put things right and is therefore an offer of reasonable redress.
  9. The Ombudsman has noted that the resident asked for the landlord to compensate him for loss of earnings due to its failings. In general, the Ombudsman would not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a complainant for their time off work, loss of wages or loss of employment whilst repairs are carried out. Whilst such works will inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents, the tenancy agreement requires the resident to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed. The landlord does not have a contractual or policy obligation to reimburse for loss of earnings. The resident did not show evidence of provable, actual losses as opposed to nominal losses. Residents also have a responsibility to mitigate losses and he did not provide evidence that it was totally necessary for him to lose income, for instance providing evidence that his partner could not have provided access for contractors. Therefore it would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to pay a resident reimbursement for loss of earnings to attend repair appointments. However it is appropriate for landlords to offer redress for the inconvenience caused, for example where repairs appointments are repeatedly missed or fail to resolve the repair issue.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) requires landlords to respond to a resident’s stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of logging it. It also says landlord’s must respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the date of the escalation request. The landlord’s complaints policy also says that if it needs more time to investigate a complaint, it will agree an extension of no more than 10 working days with the resident.
  2. The resident raised his complaint on1 June 2022 and the landlord acknowledged this on 4 June 2022. However, the landlord did not issue its stage 1 response until 30 June 2022. This was 19 working days after the complaint was raised. This was not in line with its complaints policy or the Code. However, while this response was 9 days late, this was a short delay and there is no evidence seen that the delay had a significant impact on the resident.
  3. The resident then contacted the landlord on 7 July 2022 and confirmed that its stage 1 response had not resolved the complaint. It was at this point that the landlord should have escalated his complaint to stage 2. However, in this instance, the resident contacted the landlord again on 10 August 2022 and provided additional information about why he wanted the complaint escalated. Following this email the landlord escalated the complaint on 12 August 2022. The landlord has not explained why it escalated the complaint over a month after the resident first confirmed the stage 1 response had not resolved matters. In the absence of such an explanation, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that the landlord acted reasonably under the circumstances.
  4. The landlord then issued its stage 2 response on 31 March 2023. This was around 8 months after the resident first escalated his complaint. This was a significant delay and not in keeping with either its complaint policy or the Code. Additionally, the landlord has not provided an explanation as to why it took 8 months for it to issue its stage 2 response. In the absence of such an explanation, the Ombudsman can only conclude that this delay was both avoidable and unreasonable. Such a delay can not but have caused the resident time, trouble and inconvenience as he remained in contact with the landlord about the issues raised in the complaint.
  5. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that there had been a delay in it responding to the resident’s complaint escalation and offered £350 compensation.
  6. Having taken into consideration the delay and the impact this had on the resident, the Ombudsman finds that the total amount of £350 offered for the delay in responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint is reflective and proportionate to the circumstances of the case. This is because the substantive issue was resolved in June 2022 and the subsequent delay in the stage 2 response being issued was while an agreed resolution was sought. This delay did not have any significant adverse impact on the resident and the landlord has compensated him for the inconvenience caused.

Determination (decision)

  1. 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 reports that the heating system was not working properly.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Recommendation

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should directly pay the resident the total compensation of £3,035.60 it offered through its complaints process. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress determinations are made on the basis that this amount is paid.
  2. 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.