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

Moat Homes Limited (202320833)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320833

Moat Homes Limited

20 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 move to her current property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow. The resident has vulnerabilities which the landlord is aware of.
  2. During COVID-19, the resident’s dad passed away in her previous property. The resident’s doctor wrote to the landlord on 5 July 2022. The doctor supported the resident’s request to be moved as she was having flashbacks and it was causing distress. On 21 September 2022 the landlord approved that the resident would be added to its priority move list and sent her an acceptance letter.
  3. On 9 December 2022 the landlord offered the resident a new property (what is now her current property). On 13 December 2022 the property that was offered to the resident had a pipe burst. On 14 December 2022, due to the burst pipe and leak, the landlord classified the repairs to the property as major void works. These were due to be completed by the middle of January 2023. The landlord told its contractors not to attend the property as it was unsafe.
  4. The resident called the landlord on 3 January 2023 and said she wanted to accept the property. The landlord provided the resident the application documents. These were completed and returned by her on 12 January 2023.
  5. The landlord’s records note that as of 30 January 2023, the property was damp and needed to be dried. By 1 March 2023 the landlord told its contractors it was safe to attend the property. The resident called the landlord on 29 March 2023 wanting an update about her priority move. On 12 April 2023 the landlord noted the property’s external stopcock had failed. It spoke to the resident on 12 April 2023 about her move, but it had not documented what update it provided.
  6. The resident then called it on 8 June 2023, and she was told that snagging issues need to be confirmed. Once any works were completed, it would arrange sign-up. The resident said was previously told this, there had been a lack of communication, and lack of action. It told her on this call that it was unable to update all priority move nominees about each step it was taking, and the property had to be in a liveable condition.
  7. On 21 June 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about her priority move. The resident said:
    1. There was a lack of communication from the landlord and there were unexplained delays to moving.
    2. She visited the property by herself and observed a leak. She said the landlord had not told her about this, but the neighbours did.
    3. The priority move was approved because of her circumstances, but she felt the landlord was not helping her, instead making her feel worse.
  8. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 23 June 2023 and said its staff would contact her in 2-working days. The resident called the landlord on 29 June 2023 and said no one from the landlord’s team had contacted her and she wanted to relay her concerns to the Chief Executive Officer. The landlord documented the resident was distressed on this call regarding her dad passing away and the delays with the priority move. The landlord wrote to the resident after this call and said its staff would contact her in 3-working days.
  9. On 1 July 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord and said:
    1. That no one from the landlord had contacted her as it committed to on 2-occasions (23 June 2023 and 29 June 2023).
    2. She was previously told by a call handler that as it had numerous void properties, it could not call everyone. She stated that she did not think it was too much to ask for 1-call. She stated she was grateful to be accepted by it for a priority move and knows she only gets 1-offer, so felt bad about making a complaint.
  10. On 5 July 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. The landlord said:
    1. It spoke to its void contractors who advised there was still on-going issues with damp in the property following the leak.
    2. It was unable to provide timescales for issues in the property to be resolved.
    3. In order to provide a better service to the resident, it would contact her every 2-weeks. The first call would be 19 July 2023.
  11. The landlord called the resident on 12 July 2023 and its records documented that she was willing to wait for the property. On 14 September 2023 the resident called the landlord again. She stated that she was not kept updated as agreed by the landlord in its stage 1 complaint response. The resident first contacted us about her complaint on 5 October 2023 as she was still waiting to be moved. On 6 October 2023 the landlord received an email from its contractors with an updated quote for damp works required to the property.
  12. On 10 October 2023 the landlord called the resident and discussed potential compensation. The landlord also told her it could not confirm a property viewing. The resident escalated her complaint on 11 October 2023, she said the landlord makes commitments but does not follow-up. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation on the same day. The landlord called the resident on 13 October 2023 and noted she was distressed on the call. The landlord called the resident again on 20 October 2023 and confirmed damp works in the property were confirmed to commence.
  13. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 31 October 2023. The landlord:
    1. Apologised to the resident that it had not followed the commitments it agreed to in its stage 1 complaint response.
    2. Acknowledged the frustration and upset the delay in moving properties was causing the resident. It apologised that the resident was not kept updated about works to resolve issues with rising damp in the property offered.
    3. Said that damp proofing repairs were now completed.
    4. Agreed that it would contact the resident to arrange a viewing of the property offered.
    5. Offered £150 in compensation for the frustration and inconvenience caused.
    6. Identified learning. It said:
      1. Residents should be given realistic timeframes and their expectations managed when there are delays moving into their new homes.
      2. It needs to be open and honest on the reasons for delays.
  14. The landlord considered the property lettable on 17 November 2023 and arranged a viewing on this date with the resident. The resident accepted property by end of November 2023. However, she was dissatisfied with the overall handling of her concerns and the level of compensation offered, so wanted us to investigate the matter.

Assessment and findings

  1. We will consider whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles and our Remedies Guidance. The principles are:
    1. Be fair, treat people fairly, and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. The landlord operates a Priority Move Policy, which allows for management transfers. It states once accepted, it will move a resident to another property as quickly as it can. It also says it will make 1–reasonable offer. It considers a reasonable offer to be a property that meets a resident’s needs, factoring in location, tenure, size, floor level, and accessibility. It also commits to being fair and transparent.
  3. As such, once a suitable property was identified by the landlord, we would expect that the resident be able to move in within a reasonable timeframe.
  4. The landlord’s Priority Move Policy also states it will consider other rehousing options for the resident, such as mutual exchange or approaching the local council. If a resident is waiting more than 3 months, it will offer to help assess other rehousing options. It commits to keep doing this at least every 3 months until it finds a resolution.
  5. The evidence shows it was 9 December 2022 that landlord first offered the resident what is now her current property. The landlord first became aware there was a leak in the property on 13 December 2022. The landlord knew there were major void works required on 14 December 2022. On 3 January 2023 the resident verbally accepted the property. However, there is no evidence the landlord told the resident about the leak, or any estimated timescales about when she could move in. It was unreasonable that it did not manage her expectations, prior to formally accepting the property.
  6. Additionally, the landlord received the resident’s signed acceptance form on 12 January 2023, but there is no evidence it advised her of any timescales until she could move in. This was a further missed opportunity to keep her correctly updated and was unreasonable by the landlord.
  7. The resident told us that she felt pressured to accept the property, she also told the landlord this during its internal complaints procedure. The resident felt pressured because she was told by the landlord of its 1–reasonable offer condition as set out in its Priority Move Policy. While some delays are unavoidable, the landlord was aware the property required major repairs. Ultimately, the landlord did not tell the resident major repairs were needed and any timescales. As such, the resident would not have been able to make an informed decision on accepting the property. Therefore, this was inappropriate action by the landlord, as it was not being transparent as set out in its Priority Move Policy.
  8. The landlord’s Voids Management Policy says its contractors would have 14 days to complete major void repairs after obtaining a quote. The landlord’s records show it expected to complete repairs by mid-January 2023. However, the evidence shows that until 1 March 2023 the landlord thought it was unsafe for contractors to attend the property following the leak. This meant the landlord’s contractors should have completed the major void repairs by 15 March 2023 in accordance with its Voids Management Policy. Repairs were not completed by the landlord until 17 November 2023. This was inappropriate, as it exceeded the timescales set out in its Voids Management Policy by over 8 months.
  9. During this 8-month period, it is evident the resident chased the landlord for updates. We acknowledge the landlord faced challenges in completing repairs to the property, particularly with addressing damp. However, we would expect it to have communicated clearly with the resident and keep her updated, which it failed to do.
  10. Since completing the application form, the resident was not contacted by the landlord, so she called it on 29 March 2023. The landlord documented the resident called but there is no evidence it tried to call her back, which was unreasonable. As the resident still had not heard from the landlord, she called it again on 12 April 2023. On this occasion the landlord told the resident that someone would contact her in “due course”. The landlord’s communication at that stage was poor. It was not being transparent with the resident despite its commitment to transparency in its Priority Move Policy.
  11. In contrast, the landlord called the resident about the property on 21 April 2023 and advised her there were repairs needed. No updates were then provided, leading the resident to chase the landlord again on 8 June 2023. This meant 48 days had elapsed since the landlord last provided an update, which was unreasonable in the circumstances.
  12. The landlord told the resident on 8 June 2023 that once it had completed repairs, it would arrange a date for sign-up. While the landlord did advise on this occasion that moving into the property may be a long process, the resident experienced detriment due to its lack of contact. The landlord also said on this date that it could not update everyone on its priority move list about what steps it was taking. This approach was not in line with the landlord’s policy commitment to transparency over action being taken. It is clear the resident experienced distress and inconvenience, as well as time and trouble expended.
  13. After the resident complained on 21 June 2023, the landlord said on 23 June 2023 its staff would contact her by 26 June 2023 (2-working days). The landlord failed to contact her, and she called it on 29 June 2023. The landlord noted the resident was distressed on this phone call about her priority move stemming from her dad passing away. The landlord said its staff would contact her in 3 working days from 29 June 2023, but it did not do so. This demonstrated repeated communication failings by the landlord, which caused her distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble.
  14. The landlord did confirm in writing to the resident in its stage 1 complaint response on 5 July 2023 that works were still ongoing in the property. However, the landlord was unable to provide the resident timescales for it to be resolved. Nearly 6 months had passed since the resident sent the property acceptance form to the landlord. Given that the landlord knew of the issues in January 2023, the lack of meaningful updates over a considerable period was unreasonable.
  15. In the landlord’s conversation with the resident on 12 July 2023 it documented she would continue to wait for the property. However, there is no evidence the landlord was reviewing the resident’s position and housing options every 3 months in line with its Priority Move Policy. Despite the landlord speaking to the resident on 12 July 2023, it had been over 7 months she was first offered the property. Therefore, it was inappropriate that the landlord, within a 3-month frequency, failed to explore other housing options or check-up with the resident.
  16. Further, the landlord did not demonstrate it used any discretion with its 1–reasonable offer condition in its Priority Move Policy. Given the resident’s distress and the issues with the property, this was a missed opportunity to potentially resolve the issue.
  17. Given its initial poor communication, the landlord committed to speaking to the resident every 2-weeks in its stage 1 complaint response. The evidence shows this did not happen. This caused further distress for the resident and further damaged the landlord/tenant relationship.
  18. The landlord did acknowledge it failed to keep the resident updated every 2-weeks in its final response. It also identified learning from the complaint. The landlord said it should give its residents realistic timeframes and manage their expectations about moving into a new property. The landlord also added that it needed to be open and honest about reasons for delays. This was appropriate action by the landlord, it demonstrated it learned from outcomes.
  19. In the landlord’s final response, it also told the resident that damp works were completed on 16 October 2023. Due to this, it was looking to arrange a viewing for the resident and would contact her in November 2023. In order to put things right, the landlord offered £150 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. Under our Remedies Guidance, consideration is given for distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by service failures. The Remedies Guidance also considers the length of time the resident experienced detriment.
  20. While the landlord’s offer of compensation was positive, the total amount of £150 was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. This is because the length of time the resident experienced distress and inconvenience, as well as time and trouble chasing updates.
  21. Prior to the landlord’s final response, there were multiple failings by it in its communication with the resident and managing her expectations. The landlord also did not explore other housing options with the resident in a 3-month frequency. While it acknowledged some errors, its acknowledgement was vague, and it had not taken ownership of all failings. As such, the landlord’s actions were not sufficient to make a finding of reasonable redress. Instead, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s move to her current property. As it had already apologised and demonstrated learning, an order of increased compensation has been made.
  22. In calculating the compensation, we have considered that the landlord’s Priority Move Policy says it would move the resident as quickly as possible. Although there was not guaranteed timescale, the landlord established the resident required a priority move as her ex-property was no longer suitable. Therefore, continuing to live at the property for longer than reasonable was an aggravating factor in the distress and inconvenience she was experiencing.
  23. As above, the landlord’s Voids Management Policy and its records show void works should have been completed by 15 March 2023. The resident’s tenancy did not start until end of November 2023. It is clear the resident’s level of distress and inconvenience was exacerbated from 29 March 2023, and she was expending time and trouble chasing the landlord. Ultimately, this meant the resident unreasonably experienced detriment for an 8-month period
  24. We order the landlord to pay the resident compensation which totals £400. This equates to £50 per month across 8 months which is in line with our Remedies Guidance. This amount also reflects the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble experienced by the resident living at her ex-property for longer than reasonable.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s move to her current property.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay the resident £400 in compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble experienced by her as identified in this report. If it has paid its offer of £150 already, it can be deducted from this total.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above order to us.