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

Moat Homes Limited (202340083)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340083

Moat Homes Limited

29 November 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 regarding the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the resident’s front door.
    2. Reports of damp and mould.
    3. The resident’s requests to move to another property.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She has resided at the property, described as a 1-bedroom, ground floor flat, since 2017.
  2. Regarding vulnerabilities, the landlord has noted the resident has advised it that her youngest child has breathing difficulties.

Summary of events

  1. On 11 July 2023, the landlord attended the property to carry out repairs (“overhaul door hinges and lock and adjusted catch”) to the resident’s front door. The attending operative noted the door was “a little bit swollen” and that it “gets sticky when it’s hot” but it was “otherwise all in working order”.
  2. Later that month, on 21 July 2023, the landlord attended again. This time it concluded that the door was “warped and (the) frame has been hacked out”. it said the “door will need to be replaced”. Records show the resident chased progress regarding a replacement door on 1 and 18 August 2023. Records from the latter call noted that “the operative that originally attended has left” and the resident was advised a supervisor would need to attend for an inspection. A further visit took place on 29 August 2023, when landlord records noted that a follow-on order was raised to “replace (the) door”.  
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 13 January 2024. She said she was “frustrated” with both the landlord and raised concerns which included:
    1. Her front door had gaps around it. She had raised this with the landlord “years ago” and despite it sending operatives and surveyors who deemed the door “not fit for purpose”, it had not replaced the door or treated the issue with suitable priority despite the fact she had young children. She stated this was also a safety issue as the door was a fire door.
    2. Her flat was “constantly cold” and she had previously reported damp and mould in her bedroom. She said that the landlord was supposed to come and treat this but had not done so, so she had done this privately.
    3. She also said that mould in the front room had “ruined (her) children’s toys”.
    4. She needed to move properties “with immediate effect” to ensure her and her children’s health and wellbeing. She claimed the landlord had “a lot” of empty properties in her local area, where she wished to remain.
    5. To resolve the complaint, she stated the landlord needed to move her and compensate her for “damages”. 
  4. Records indicate the resident contacted the landlord again on 17 January 2024 regarding her complaint. She stated her property was “dangerous” and affecting the health of her baby, who suffered from a chest condition. She asked to be moved to temporary accommodation.
  5. On 29 January 2024, the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. It understood the complaint to be about an outstanding repair to the front door, damp and mould in the property and a request to transfer to new accommodation. It went on to make the following comments and findings:
    1. Regarding the resident’s front door, it advised a contractor would be attending on 2 February 2024 to “take measurements…to progress the replacement”. It said it “appreciate(d) this has been going on for some time” but explained the new contractor needed to take their own measurements. Once it received a quote, the landlord would “prioritise” this repair and provide updates.
    2. Regarding damp and mould issues, it said its surveyor would also attend on 2 February 2024 to carry out an inspection. Once they had completed a report, the surveyor would “advise of any actions…to resolve this”.
    3. Addressing the resident’s request to move properties, the landlord confirmed she had been approved for a management move. However, it clarified that it was “dependent on homes becoming available within (its) housing portfolio” and currently there were no suitable properties that were vacant. It could not provide any timescales for a possible move.
    4. It said it would make a “commitment to ensure work is completed” and it would track the repair and contact the resident to make sure she was happy with works that took place. It apologised for the length of time taken to complete repairs and said it understood “how frustrating this situation is” for the resident and her family. It offered £200 in recognition of the “time…taken to continue to chase these works”.
  6. The resident responded to the landlord the same day. She said she did not agree with the amount of compensation offered and felt it did not reflect the time taken to resolve the door repair or the impact this had had on her family’s health (she stated her children were affected by smoke and pollution entering the property around the ill-fitting door). She also said the door did not meet “health and safety requirements”. Regarding her request to move, she clarified she would not move to an alternative 1-bedroom property as this would not benefit her family. She asked for her complaint to be escalated. In further correspondence between the parties, the landlord confirmed on 30 January 2024 that the complaint had been escalated to stage 2 of its procedures.
  7. The resident emailed the landlord on 7 February 2024, chasing the stage 2 complaint response.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 26 February 2024. It referred to a conversation it had had with the resident to “better understand” the complaint and went on to make the following comments and findings:
    1. Regarding the front door, it acknowledged the resident had made “many reports” about it being hard to open. It noted that 2 repair orders had been issued to its former contractor, but these had not been actioned. The landlord noted the door was a fire door, which separated a communal area from the resident’s home. It explained that, as it was timber, it was prone to “expansion during periods of humid weather” but that when the door had been reduced to “allow it to operate when the timber has expanded”, it was then too loose to fit the frame and work effectively to stop smoke. It confirmed it approved the renewal of the door in February 2024 but that, as it was made-to-measure, it would take around 12 weeks to make. An appointment would then be booked for its installation.
    2. Addressing the reported mould, a surveyor had inspected the property on 5 February 2024 and found “mould growth to the walls behind furniture”. They stated this was due to “condensation where there is restricted airflow”. It noted the surveyor had advised the resident not to dry clothes indoors and that she had reported not opening windows since the birth of her new baby. The landlord stated the size of the household (2 adults and 2 children) would produce more moisture “than would be expected in a property of this size” and provided a further explanation of how condensation can form and the need for adequate heat and ventilation in the property. It clarified its surveyor had ordered a fungicidal treatment of all affected areas, offered advice about how to “manage the condensation” and stated it hoped it could manage the moisture in the home “by working together”.
    3. Regarding the resident’s request for a management move, the landlord reiterated that her application had been approved based on the resident’s need for a larger property and antisocial behaviour she had reported. It provided a further explanation regarding how it allocated its vacant properties and advised it was “not able to offer (her) a new home without the permission of the Local Authority”. It explained this may be the reason the resident had seen local properties that were vacant but were not offered to her. It acknowledged the situation was “frustrating” while the resident was still waiting for her move. It confirmed her application had been updated with details of her new child and further medical evidence. It reiterated that it could not give a timescale for how long it might take for a property to become available and also suggested she take the following steps:
      1. Contact the local authority to ensure they were also aware of her change in circumstances and could update her housing register application.
      2. Continue to use mutual exchange websites.
      3. Expand the areas she would consider moving to, to improve her chances of a suitable property becoming available.
    4. The landlord noted it had paid £150 compensation following “the delay to arrange the renewal of the door” (the reference used was different to its stage 1 response, suggesting this was a separate complaint this Service has not seen details of) but said it was “appropriate” to offer further redress for the “unnecessary appointments (she) had to measure the door”, her time and trouble chasing the repair and the distress the delays caused. It offered a total of £290, which consisted of:
      1. £40 for 2 unnecessary appointments.
      2. £150 for “time and trouble due to service failure”.
      3. £100 for “distress caused by the service failure”.
  9. On 28 May 2024, the resident provided this Service with an update. She confirmed that the door had been replaced in March and the landlord was treating the damp and mould with mould wash. She stated the mould was “not as bad” but her baby now had chronic bronchitis. She reiterated her desire to move, while also staying in her current area of the city.

Assessment and findings

  1. In correspondence with the landlord and this Service, the resident has referred to her children’s health conditions which she states have been impacted by the reported issues with her front door and damp and mould. While we understand the resident’s concerns and the stress that she has experienced due to her children’s reported health issues, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impacts on health and wellbeing by the landlord’s actions, or lack thereof. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused and how the landlord responded to this.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s front door

  1. The landlord repair records seen by this Service show that the resident raised concerns regarding her front door in 2021, although in separate correspondence between the parties, both the resident and landlord appear to accept that concerns had in fact been raised earlier, in either 2019 or 2020. While repair records show works were carried out to the door in 2021, the first reference this Service has seen that indicates the landlord was aware the door needed replacing was in July 2023. This investigation will therefore concentrate on the landlord’s response from July 2023 to the end of its complaint procedure. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, paragraph 42.c. which states that the Ombudsman “may not consider complaints which…were not brought to the attention of the (landlord) as a formal complaint within a reasonable period…normally…within 12 months of the matters arising”.
  2. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. In this case, the landlord accepted there had been delays in its response to the resident’s reports regarding the condition of her front door. Its stage 1 response acknowledged the issue had been “going on for some time” and advised an appointment had been booked for a new contractor to come and take measurements. It advised it would prioritise the repair and monitor progress until completion. It offered an apology for the “length of time taken to complete repairs”, acknowledged the resident’s frustration and offered £200 compensation for her time and trouble chasing the repair.
  4. In its stage 2 response, it went on to acknowledge the resident’s “many reports” about her door and that previous orders had not been actioned by a former contractor. It also acknowledged that the door was a fire door. It was positive the landlord gave an explanation of its understanding of, and cause of, the repair issue and provided an update regarding the steps it would take to renew the door. It also appropriately tried to manage the resident’s expectations by advising her of the likely lead time for what was a made-to-measure door.
  5. It was also appropriate that, having reviewed the complaint at stage 2, it offered further compensation, which it stated related to unnecessary appointments (when operatives attended multiple times to take measurements – £40), time and trouble chasing the repairs (£150) and for her distress caused by its poor service (£100). It cited a previous offer of £150 due to a delay in renewing the door, but it is unclear if this was a reference to the redress offered at stage 1 (which was £200) or a separate complaint, as the complaint reference number quoted was different. This means it is unclear what the landlord’s final offer of redress was (i.e. whether it was £440 or £490). This was not appropriate and would have caused confusion for the resident, as it has for the Ombudsman. 
  6. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, while the landlord’s offer of compensation was a positive step towards trying to “put things right” for the resident, and went some way to recognising the delay and annoyance caused by unnecessary appointments, it did not go far enough to provide a resolution. In its section on fire doors and fire safety, the landlord’s website states that it “undertake(s) regular inspections of entrance doors to apartments and we replace doors when they are assessed as sub-standard”. From the evidence seen, the landlord accepted the front door needed replacing at least as early as 21 July 2023, while it was not replaced until March 2024, some 8 months later. The Fire Safety Act 2021 states that “defects in…doors, frames and self-closing devices should be rectified as soon as reasonably practicable and depending on the risks identified”. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, by taking 8 months to replace the door, the landlord did not adhere to this. While it responded promptly once the resident had complained and the door was eventually replaced soon after, there was a significant and unacceptable delay before then.
  7. Although the landlord advised that a former contractor had failed to action repairs that had been raised, it still retained the responsibility for overseeing the repair and ensuring that it was completed in a timely manner. Having accepted the door needed replacing and noting that the frame was warped, it is of concern that the landlord did not appear to consider the matter from a fire safety standpoint. There is no evidence it carried out a fire risk assessment, or that it took any further steps to prioritise the repair and ensure its contractor was progressing the requested replacement before the resident complained. This was not acceptable and was a significant failing. The landlord’s complaint response also failed to address the resident’s concerns that the disrepair to her door had posed a fire safety risk. While its apology and offers of redress to acknowledge the time and effort she spent chasing the repair were welcome, it is of concern that it seemingly viewed the matter solely through the lens of a simple repair delay and did not appreciate the seriousness of its failings.
  8. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was therefore maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the repair to the resident’s front door. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay an increased amount of compensation that more accurately reflects the level of distress caused by its delay in replacing her front door.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. While the resident’s complaint referred to having made previous reports of damp and mould in her property, this Service has not seen evidence that the landlord was aware of the issue since it responded following a leak which affected the property in 2021. The Ombudsman is not stating that the resident’s version of events is inaccurate, but this investigation has focussed on the information available.
  2. Having received the resident’s complaint and noting that she had reported damp and mould which she stated was, in conjunction with the gaps around her front door, affecting her children’s health, the landlord acted reasonably by providing her with further advice during the complaints procedure and arranging an inspection of the property.
  3. A surveyor attended in a timely manner and it acted in line with its damp and mould policy by attending within 28 days and using the Housing, Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to assess the issue. After its first inspection on 2 February 2024, it assessed the damp and mould as being category 3 (slight) and identified that the mould present resulted from condensation caused by excessive moisture (due to drying clothes indoors and overcrowding). This concluded there was “no dampness to walls, floors or ceiling” and it provided the resident with advice about how to reduce and/or manage the condensation. It appropriately raised follow-on orders to carry out a mould wash treatment in the bedroom. Records show it provided the resident with a copy of its inspection report, which indicates it was trying to be transparent.
  4. It is acknowledged that the resident disagreed with aspects of the surveyor’s assessment, particularly their comments about overcrowding. However, it is noted that the landlord made enquiries regarding this during its complaint investigation, which was appropriate and the surveyor stood by their findings. As the Ombudsman was not present during the inspection, it is not possible to determine what was said, or not said, at that time, but there is no evidence that the landlord misrepresented the situation in the property during the inspection.
  5. It was appropriate that the landlord then carried out a further inspection on 12 April 2024, roughly 2 months later. It noted “no new evidence of mould” but recommended that the extractor fan filter was cleaned. Records indicate this was then done promptly, being completed on 3 May 2024. Landlord records further indicate that it would consider installing further ventilation in the property if the resident reported that damp and mould returned. As its repair records indicate the resident has made further contact recently (in October 2024) regarding reported damp and mould, the Ombudsman will recommend that the landlord carries out a further inspection and does now give further consideration as to whether it can take steps to increase the ventilation flow within the property.
  6. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould appear to have been reasonable. Its correspondence with her during the complaint procedure acknowledged her concerns about her children’s health and the stress this would have caused, but having inspected the property on 2 occasions, it considered that the mould present was caused by condensation and could be managed. It reasonably gave advice regarding this at various stages and it was important that its findings did not appear to “blame” the resident, a failure often highlighted within the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould, “It’s Not Lifestyle”. Based on the information seen by this Service, there is no evidence of maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move to another property

  1. The Ombudsman notes that the resident brought a previous complaint to this Service (reference 202106718) which partly related to the landlord’s handling of a transfer application. In that case, it was determined that the landlord had been entitled to reject the application, but there had been failure when it had delayed in reaching a decision. Following that complaint, the resident has advised, and the landlord has confirmed, that she was approved for a management transfer around April 2022. Since then, the resident has remained on the landlord’s transfer list but has not yet secured a move.
  2. In her January 2024, landlord records note the resident felt she was “getting nowhere” and asked to be moved to an alternative property with “immediate effect”. The landlord’s Priority Move policy states that it is “just one housing option available to customers…in high priority situations” and explains it will help residents “to consider other options”, such as applications to the local authority or registering for mutual exchanges. From the evidence available, the landlord acted in line with its policy by providing the resident with advice regarding options such as these on a semi-regular basis. This was appropriate.
  3. Its Priority Moves policy says that the landlord will let residents know when a suitable home becomes available, but also makes clear that “the length of time this takes will depend on the area and type of housing you need”. From the evidence seen, the resident has advised she will only accept a 2-bedroom property located within a relatively small area of the city she lives in. Records show that the landlord has encouraged her to expand her areas of choice, so as to increase the number of properties that become available. While the resident’s reasons for wanting to stay in her current locality are appreciated and understood, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s advice to be reasonable and that it was likely intended to assist her in obtaining a larger property. Taking into account the shortage of social housing in the resident’s city, the landlord also acted reasonably when it explained that few suitable properties become available in her current area.
  4. The landlord has been consistent in its advice that it cannot put a timeframe on how long it may take for a suitable property to become available. Records show it has reasonably tried to manage the resident’s expectations, while also providing advice regarding other housing options and broadening her search areas. Records show the landlord also offered the resident a decant in May 2023 to a 1-bedroom property in her chosen area. This was in line with its Priority Moves policy, which states it can offer a “like-for-like” property (i.e. one of the same size). However, records indicate this was declined as the resident wanted to wait for a transfer to a larger property.
  5. Records show the landlord accepted the resident’s rehousing application and placed her on its priority moves list. It attempted to ensure her application was up to date and reflected her current circumstances, and took action when it did not. It acted in line with its policies by offering a decant and providing advice regarding other housing options she may wish to consider, both within and without its complaint procedure. While the Ombudsman appreciates the length of time she has been waiting for a move must be frustrating for the resident and her concerns regarding the health of her family and her overcrowding situation are acknowledged, there is no evidence of maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of her request to move to a new property.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s front door.
    2. No maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
    3. No maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move to a new property.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acknowledged there was a delay in replacing the resident’s front door but its offer of compensation did not amount to adequate redress. It did not properly assess the faulty door as a fire risk, failed to carry out a risk assessment or treat the repair with the urgency outlined within its own policies and it did not address the resident’s concerns about health and safety and fire safety raised within her complaint.
  2. Records show the landlord responded appropriately when the resident raised concerns about damp and mould in her complaint. It carried out an inspection promptly, and then another one 2 months later. It was entitled to determine the mould present was caused by condensation and appeared to give appropriate advice regarding this, as well as arranging for relevant follow-on works.
  3. The landlord previously accepted the resident’s transfer application and acted in line with its transfer policy when giving advice on alternative housing options and offering a decant. It acted reasonably when advising her to consider moving to other areas and that it could not give a timeframe for a move.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report, particularly the length of time taken to replace the door and for failing to treat the repair as a potential fire safety issue. The apology should be issued by a member of staff at Director level.
    2. Pay the resident £350 to better reflect the length of repair delay and the distress and inconvenience this caused. This award is in addition to, and not instead of, any previous offer made by the landlord. 

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to consider carrying out a further damp and mould inspection at the property following the resident’s recent reports. It should also contact the resident to confirm whether it will now consider installing additional ventilation in the property, as it indicated it would do if further damp and mould reports were received.