Moat Homes Limited (202347837)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347837

Moat Homes Limited

24 July 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

The resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around the conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant, and she moved into the property in 2021 via a mutual exchange. The resident occupied the property with her 2 children, both children have special educational needs. The property is a 3-bedroom home, and the landlord is a housing association. The resident moved out of the property in September 2024.
The resident raised concerns about their next-door neighbour’s anti-social behaviour in 2022 following an incident where the neighbour shouted at her child. In 2022 the resident also reported concerns about foul smells coming from next door. On 15 May 2023 the resident reported concerns that their neighbours were living in squalid conditions. The resident’s neighbour was also a tenant of the landlord.
The resident complained to the landlord on 2 November 2023. In their complaint the resident said:
1. She had reported foul smells from next door in summer 2022.
2. The landlord’s Neighbourhood Services Manager (NSM) visited the neighbouring property in October 2022, and suggested the smells could be coming from the resident’s property.
3. She believed the NSM had shared her details with third parties.
4. She was concerned for the welfare of the neighbour’s children. She said she had witnessed violence between the siblings, and she felt the children were living in squalid conditions.
5. She was also concerned about the welfare of animals in the home.
6. The landlord had given the neighbour 30 days to improve the condition of the property, but no further actions had been conducted.
7. There was significant noise nuisance from next-door.
8. The noise particularly affected her child as their bedroom shared an adjoining wall with next-door, and verbal threats had been made to her child through the wall.
9. She felt the landlord had failed her family, and in particular her children who had additional needs.
The landlord’s stage one reply dated 7 November 2023 said:
1. Its NSM had not shared the resident’s personal information with third parties for privacy reasons.
2. It would not remove the NSM from the area as they had built up relationships with others in the neighbourhood. It said it wanted to work on re-building the resident’s trust in the NSM.
3. It was happy to support the resident with a managed move considering the circumstances of the ASB. It warned the resident there was a significant backlog for properties which were suitable for a managed move. Therefore, the managed move could take some time.
4. It would contact the neighbour to consider mediation.
The resident escalated their complaint on 11 December 2023 as she had not had an update on the managed move.
The landlord’s stage 2 reply dated 16 January 2024 said:
1. The landlord acknowledged that the NSM’s communication with the resident had not met the professional standard it expected, and it apologised for this.
2. It had identified an email where the NSM had disclosed the details of a person who had made a complaint about the resident. The landlord apologised for this and committed to providing staff with further training in this area.
3. It had identified no evidence to suggest the NSM had disclosed the resident’s personal details to any third parties.
4. It acknowledged it needed to re-build trust with the resident, so it appointed a member of staff to be the resident’s point of contact going forward.
On 25 March 2024 the resident brought their complaint to this Service. She felt dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, as she believed the landlord’s handling of the ASB had put her and her family at risk.
The resident moved out of the property on 29 September 2024 via a mutual exchange. The resident told this Service that her primary reason for moving was her concerns around the ASB.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy says when it receives a report of ASB it will aim to support both victims and perpetrators, and it will consider any associated vulnerabilities. Upon receiving a report of ASB the landlord will consider if the behaviour is reasonable, serious or reoccurring.
Actions the landlord can conduct to address ASB can include working with third parties, producing good neighbour agreements, issuing warnings, facilitating mediation and acting on the terms of a resident’s tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it can offer residents compensation of up to £150 when its service failures have caused a resident inconvenience. It says this level of compensation is reasonable for occasions where it has not adequately communicated with residents, or where residents have experienced delays.
On 20 June 2022 the resident reported concerns about their neighbouring property being unsanitary. The resident said on warm days there was a foul smell in her property which she felt was coming from next door. The landlord’s agreed to attend the neighbouring property to investigate the resident’s reports.
It was appropriate that the landlord agreed to visit the property considering the nuisance to the resident, and the reported unsanitary conditions could also indicate there were safeguarding concerns. On 30 June 2022 the landlord attempted to inspect the neighbour’s property, but the neighbour was not at home. The resident chased the landlord about the foul smells on 13 July 2022 and 24 August 2022.
The landlord re-attended the neighbouring property on 7 October 2022, and noted there were no foul smells. This was 100 days after the landlord’s first attempt to visit the property, which was a significant delay. The landlord did not outline why it took this length of time to visit the neighbour’s property.
Following the October inspection the landlord suggested to the resident that the reported smell might be coming from within the resident’s property, and it could be linked to the prior tenant’s pets. Records show the landlord attended the neighbouring property on a later date and concluded that the complained of smells originated from the neighbour’s property.
The time it took for the landlord to inspect the property was inappropriate given the 100 day delay from the first visit to the second visit. Additionally, the visit occurred in October even though the resident had said the smells were linked to warm weather.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s comments about the smells possibly coming from her home. The Ombudsman understands the landlord needed to fully investigate the origins of the smell, and consider all possible sources. However, the landlord could have handled this more sensitively and said the source of the smells were inconclusive rather than suggesting the smell came from her home.
On 15 May 2023 the resident contacted the landlord as she was concerned about the welfare of her neighbour’s children. She said she had been inside the property and the conditions were squalid. She also raised concerns that one of her neighbour’s children was physically harming their sibling. The landlord asked to meet the resident in person to discuss this and to view CCTV evidence the resident had recorded.
After this meeting the resident cited concerns that her neighbour was aware she had made reports to the landlord. She said her neighbour was aware the landlord had provided doorbell footage from her property to social services. This would have been distressing for the resident given her physical proximity to the neighbour, and the potential for tensions to escalate
The Ombudsman did not make enquiries about the landlord’s communications with social services, as such information would contain sensitive information about the neighbour and their family. However we note that if the landlord had concerns about the children being at risk of harm it had an obligation to inform social services. If the landlord did decide that it should contact social services, because of the information it had, this would have been reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances, even though it could have escalated the neighbourly tensions.
In the resident’s complaint dated 2 November 2023 she cited concerns about the ASB and its impact on her household. The resident said the ASB had affected her children’s mental health, and it was causing her to feel isolated.
In its stage one response the landlord said it would support the resident with a managed move considering the impact of the ASB. This was reasonable and appropriate. The landlord’s offer showed it acknowledged the harm and distress the resident and her family were experiencing, and that it aimed to reduce the family’s distress.
The landlord warned the resident that a managed move would take some time as it had limited available housing stock. The resident said the landlord told her it estimated it could take 2 years for a suitable 3-bedroom property to become available.
The landlord told the resident the wait time might be reduced if the resident was willing to move to a smaller property, or to move outside of their preferred area. The resident declined this as she felt downsizing or moving out of the area would negatively affect her children. The resident was entitled to make these decisions about where she wanted to live. However, it was appropriate that the landlord was transparent with the resident about how long the managed move could take and the steps she could take to bring down the wait time.
Following the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure the ASB continued, and it escalated in frequency and severity. In 2024 the resident reported to the landlord:
1. Frequent noise nuisance in the property.
2. Lights shining into the resident’s home at night.
3. Racist language directed at her children.
4. Intimidating and threatening comments made on social media about her and her children.
5. Concerns about animal welfare.
The landlord took an active role in investigating the above reports of ASB, and it conducted the following actions to try and resolve the tensions between the neighbours:
1. Arranged mediation meetings.
2. Arranged for good neighbour agreements to be signed.
3. Sent warning letters to the neighbour.
4. Interviewed the parties.
5. Supported the neighbour in improving the condition of their property.
6. Made referrals to third party agencies. The Ombudsman has not disclosed the nature of these referrals for privacy reasons.
The Ombudsman understands the resident and her family experienced significant distress living in the property. However, the actions taken by the landlord following the resident’s 15 May 2023 report of ASB were appropriate in the circumstances. The landlord took actions which were in line with its ASB policy, it acknowledged the distress the resident experienced, and it made a significant effort to mitigate the severity of the ASB.
While the landlord’s handling of the ASB was largely positive, the Ombudsman finds a service failure occurred in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of foul smells. The landlord did not conduct a visit to the neighbouring property in a timely manner, and the response that the odour might originate from the resident’s property was insensitive.
The Ombudsman has ordered that the landlord pay compensation of £100 in recognition of the distress experienced from its shortcomings in investigating the reports of foul smells. This amount is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around the conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff

The resident has told this Service she felt the NSM contributed to community tensions, including by disclosing her name to the neighbour. We understand the resident’s concerns. However, this investigation has focused on the impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident herself. This is because our role is to consider complaints from individual residents. We are not able to assess if the NSM contributed to tensions within the wider community from the available evidence.
The resident has provided a screenshot of an email the NSM sent to the neighbour which contains the resident’s name. In this email the NSM said both the resident and her neighbour had made reports of anti-social behaviour, and the NSM suggested the two households could sign good neighbour agreements. The NSM suggested the two parties could agree to not bang on walls, and to not make comments to or about the other household.
It is understandable that the resident would be uncomfortable with their neighbour knowing about reports they had made to the landlord. The landlord could have improved the service it provided by speaking with the resident about the good neighbour agreement and outlining what this would entail before emailing the neighbour. However, the Ombudsman does not consider that this action was a service failure, rather that the service provided could have been improved. It was acceptable that the resident was named, as the neighbour had to know who they were agreeing to not speak to, or make comments about.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said some of the NSM’s early communications had not met the professional tone expected of its members of staff. The landlord apologised for this. The landlord said it could not identify an occasion where it had incorrectly disclosed the resident’s personal details, but it had identified an occasion where it had told the resident about a complaint made against her. The landlord did acknowledge that there were challenges in the professional relationship between the resident and the NSM. As such, it assigned another member of staff to be the resident’s direct point of contact. This was appropriate.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy outlines the timescales in which it will respond to a complaint. The landlord commits to acknowledging complaints within 5 working days, and to provide its stage one response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. If the resident wishes for their complaint to be escalated to a stage 2 complaint, the landlord will acknowledge this request within 5 working days and provide its response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
The resident complained to the landlord on 2 November 2023, and the landlord sent its stage one response 5 days later on 7 November 2023. This was appropriate and in line with policy.
The resident escalated their complaint on 11 December 2023, and the landlord provided its stage 2 response 24 working days later on 16 January 2024. This was outside of the timescales within the landlord’s complaints policy. While this response was outside of the landlord’s timescales by 4 days, the delay was short, and it would have had a limited impact on the resident. As such the Ombudsman has determined no maladministration occurred in the landlord’s handling of this complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the reported ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around the conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £100 to the resident. This compensation is awarded in recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced from the landlord’s investigation into the reported foul smells.