Moat Homes Limited (202400899)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400899

Moat Homes Limited

15 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his communication needs.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which began on 23 August 2021. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord has recorded that the resident has poor mental health and is unable to read or write. He can communicate by way of emails or text which use “read aloud” technology.
The resident brought a complaint about the landlord’s communication to this Service in 2022. We found service failure by the landlord in September 2022. We ordered the landlord to ensure that all teams within the landlord’s service and its contractors were aware of the resident’s communication needs. The landlord provided compliance with the above orders in 2022 and this Service closed the complaint accordingly.
In February 2024 the resident received a rent increase letter from the landlord in the post. On 19 March 2024 the resident received a letter from one of the landlord’s contractors in the post.
On 21 March 2024 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about the recent postal communication. He said his understanding was that the landlord was to ensure that it and all its contractors did not contact him via written communication. He wanted to be removed from all postal mailing lists, and he wanted compensation for the landlord’s failing. In response, the landlord phoned the resident on the same day, apologised for its failing and offered £50 compensation, which the resident refused.
On 8 April 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said it:
1. apologised that the resident was still receiving letters from contractors.
2. had accepted the Ombudsman’s previous determination in good faith, but it had failed on this occasion by not updating the contractor with the resident’s preferences.
3. had spoken to the contractor in question who confirmed they would do their best not to send letters – usually they telephone the resident, but they sent a letter on this occasion.
4. appreciated that the resident’s preference was to not receive any letters by post. It would continue to do its best to stop its own teams and contractors sending letters, including working on a system that enables this to happen. It clarified that it would have to send some letters in the post for legal purposes.
5. had previously provided the resident with an accessibility application on his phone to enable him to read any letters he did receive. The resident had not told the landlord when he had stopped using this. It said it understood that the resident had a text to speech translator which enables an e-pen to read out text for him.
6. offered £50 in compensation as a ‘goodwill gesture’ in recognition of the upset and inconvenience caused to the resident.
7. would close the case if the resident did not request an escalation by 19 April 2024 and confirm this in writing.
The resident escalated his complaint on 9 April 2024. He was unhappy because:
1. he said the landlord had not acted properly in light of the Ombudsman’s 2022 determination.
2. he felt the landlord’s reliance on the accessibility application on his phone should not be used as a “get out” to enable the landlord to send him letters.
3. in the closing paragraph of the complaint response, the landlord said it would write to him to confirm the complaint was closed. He expressed frustration given that the substantive issue was his literacy.
4. £50 was not sufficient compensation for the distress caused.
5. the landlord sent the stage 1 complaint response at 4.48pm. This prevented the resident from being able to discuss the complaint on the day of receipt, due to the Customer Service Centre opening hours.
The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response on 7 May 2024. It said:
1. it apologised for the frustration caused to the resident by receiving letters.
2. it had reviewed the 2022 Ombudsman’s determination, that it must ensure all teams and contractors were aware of the resident’s communication needs.
3. the complaint has highlighted that it had not shared this information consistently. To try to stop this, the landlord had met with contract managers in the organisation and would continue to work with colleagues in other departments to highlight his communication needs.
4. the stage 1 complaint response and compensation offered were appropriate. The landlord re-offered the resident £50 in recognition of the distress caused.
In July 2024, after the internal complaints procedure, the resident and the landlord undertook mediation. During mediation, the resident re-iterated his frustration with the landlord’s actions and his preference for not receiving letters. The landlord agreed to review its complaint response and subsequently increased the offer of compensation to £200 in recognition of the distress caused, in place of the £50 previously offered.
The resident told this Service in April 2025 that he remains unhappy with the landlord’s response. He said that he had received at least 2 more letters by post in 2025. He said he now has a single point of contact with the landlord. He said that he has poor mental health and the situation makes him depressed. He said he feels the landlord is bullying him because of his disability.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident told this Service that the actions of the landlord have led to a deterioration in his mental health. When there is a pre-existing medical condition that has been exacerbated, the courts often have the benefit of a medical report. This will usually set out the cause of the injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial.
As a result, these matters are better suited to consideration by a court and if the resident wishes to pursue this concern, he may wish to seek independent legal advice. However, we have considered any distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident.
In correspondence with the landlord, the resident referred to other issues relating to court proceedings prior to his complaint and postal communication received after the complaint. These matters did not form part of the original complaint brought to us and it is unclear whether the resident raised these issues as a separate complaint with the landlord. Accordingly, this investigation will only consider the issues raised in the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 21 March 2024.
The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of the Ombudsman. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his communication needs.

The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled. Although this Service cannot assess whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act, we can decide whether a landlord has had due regard to its duties under the Equality Act.
The landlord has a “resident alert flags” procedure (the procedure) which recognises that it has a duty of care towards its residents. It says that, to fulfil this, it will use resident alert flags which will alert employees, contractors and its agents to any additional requirements when dealing with residents. It explained that such alerts will be used against customer data to identify issues to enable it to meet its statutory obligations.
The procedure says that there are information warning flags, and all staff are responsible for flagging information. It notes that the landlord receives information regarding residents that may affect how they are able to access services provided by it. This could be related to a protected characteristic to enable the landlord to ensure it makes reasonable adjustments as required by the Equality Act 2010. It could also be related to other specific needs that vary from resident to resident. The procedure gives details of the categories that this information could fall under which includes literacy which it defines as being unable to communicate or read in a written format in any language.
The procedure says that, when an employee becomes aware of a customer characteristic that falls into any of those categories, they will request that an information flag is put on to the resident’s account. Staff may become aware of this information in various ways, for example by a resident uploading the information on to its online portal, through the initial housing application process or through formal contact with the resident. It notes that all flags will automatically be applied to a customer’s profile without the need for further verification.
The landlord’s records show an alert on the resident’s case. The alert says not to send letters to the resident and confirms that he cannot read the content of attachments in emails. It says that information sent to him must be put in the body of an email and that the resident’s preferred method of communication is a telephone call. It was appropriate and in line with the procedure that the landlord had recorded this information.
The resident received a letter in the post in February 2024 from the landlord advising him of a rent increase. It was not unreasonable that the landlord posted the resident notification of his rent increase, because it had previously advised him that it is legally obligated to do so.
However, it was not appropriate that the landlord failed to consider what reasonable adjustments could have been applied to enable him to access the content of the letter. For example, telephoning the resident to read aloud the content of the letter in advance of it being posted, which would have likely reduced the distress he experienced. It did not apply the information it held about his needs outlined in the alert on the system, which was a failing when assessed against the procedure.
On 19 March 2024 the resident received a letter in the post from one of the landlord’s contractors about servicing his ventilation system. The resident informed the landlord of this communication on 21 March 2024. The landlord telephoned the resident the same day, apologising for the failure and offering the resident £50 compensation. This was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles as it was an attempt by the landlord to put things right, which was reasonable.
The resident received a second letter from a different contractor on 2 April 2024. The landlord’s internal communications highlight that many of its contractors have their own IT systems which the landlord does not have sight of. The procedure says that any flag will be available to all staff and contractors. However, it does not explain how it cascades the relevant information to its contractors or how to check whether they have recorded or actioned it. In practice, this means that the landlord cannot be sure that the contractors have the relevant information. This was a failing because the landlord was not able to deliver the commitment outlined within the procedure.
In the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged its failing and told the resident that it had since updated the contractor about his communication requirements. It said it would continue to do its best to stop letters being sent to the resident that were not legally required. It offered the resident £50 compensation for the distress caused. This was an attempt by the landlord to put things right, which was reasonable.
The landlord telephoned or met with the resident in person on at least 8 occasions between 21 March 2024 and when the stage 2 response was issued on 7 May 2024. These interactions were to listen to the resident’s position and to consider how to progress to reduce further distress to the resident.
The landlord’s records show that during this period it considered:
1. assigning the resident a single point of contact so he could communicate with the landlord more efficiently.
2. mediation between the resident and the landlord to promote a positive and trusting relationship.
3. the impact on the resident’s welfare as a result of the distress caused by the written communication. This included offering him an adult social care referral, which he refused.
4. how the resident communicates with other external bodies and whether it could learn from different approaches. It discussed this with the resident.
5. any alternative equipment it could fund to enable the resident to access information sent to him in the post.
6. whether any IT solutions could be used to deliver the resident’s desired outcome.
The above shows that the landlord had regard to what reasonable adjustments could be applied in line with the Equality Act 2010. It also shows that the landlord was trying to learn from the outcomes of its failures. This was appropriate.
The resident repeatedly stated that in 2022 the Ombudsman had ordered the landlord not to contact him by post. The landlord reviewed the Ombudsman’s decision which did not say that the landlord could not contact the resident by post. It was reasonable that the landlord reviewed this information and confirmed to the resident that it could not guarantee that he would not receive any post, but that it would endeavour to stop him receiving non-necessary post. It was fair of the landlord to communicate this because it was an attempt by the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations.
In the stage 2 complaint response the landlord re-offered the resident £50 compensation for the failures identified. To try to stop further written correspondence being posted to him, it agreed to meet with its contract managers and to work with colleagues in other departments to re-iterate his communication needs. This was a reasonable attempt to put things right and learn from outcomes.
When the resident escalated the stage 1 complaint, he was unhappy that the landlord had ended its response by saying it would confirm “in writing” if it were to close the complaint. The alert on the resident’s case confirms that he can use technology to understand the written body of emails. However, the landlord did not confirm whether it meant written communication via email or post. It would have been fair for the landlord to have clarified how it would contact the resident if it were to confirm anything further in writing, given his distress at receiving written communication via post.
At both stage 1 and stage 2, the resident said he felt frustrated that the landlord sent the complaint responses at the end of the working day as it prevented him from being able to respond immediately. The landlord had telephone calls with the resident in the days following both complaint responses. There is no provision within the complaints policy that states that the landlord must allow time for a same day response from a resident. The landlord did not act unreasonably in its sending of the complaint responses.

Post Internal Complaints Procedure

In July 2024 mediation took place between the landlord and the resident. The outcome of the mediation was that the landlord reviewed the complaint and increased the offer of compensation to £200 to accurately reflect the distress caused to the resident. This was in line with our dispute resolution principles to put things right.
In communication with this Service, the resident explained that the landlord had now assigned him an employee who acts as a single point of contact for the landlord. He can email this person using speech–to–text technology on his phone. The employee phones the resident once a week and visits the resident in person once a month. The landlord’s records show that this approach is not standard for all residents. This was appropriate because it was a reasonable adjustment put in place to try to address the resident’s communication needs.
The resident told this Service that if he receives written communication through the post, he will phone the landlord or wait until his next call with the single point of contact. If necessary, the employee then reads out the information in the letter. This also allows the employee to liaise with the relevant team or contractor to address the substance of the letter and confirm or reiterate the communication requirements of the resident. This was a reasonable attempt to put things right and learn from outcomes.
In 2025, the landlord sent this Service its new Customer Alerts Policy, which it says will replace the resident alert procedure in April 2025. The new policy focuses on potential danger and hazards to employees. It excludes information about resident’s communication needs or preferences, third party consent or specific needs to enable the landlord to tailor its services. The policy does not account for how the resident’s needs will be identified or actioned.

Conclusion

The Ombudsman recognises the landlord’s commitment to resolving the issue at the heart of this complaint, including having regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
The landlord made some attempts to put things right in its complaint responses. It later offered additional sums of compensation to the resident and took action to learn from outcomes. However, this cannot be considered as reasonable redress under paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme because these actions took place sometime after the landlord issued its final response. The Ombudsman’s outcomes guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot be determined under such circumstances.
We have therefore found maladministration because:
1. the landlord posted written information to the resident without applying reasonable adjustments, despite the alert flag on his case. This was a failure when assessed against the resident alerts flag procedure.
2. the procedure states that the landlord’s contractors would have sight of the resident’s communication needs, but the landlord has not explained how it would record or monitor this.
3. the landlord only fully acknowledged the above failures and the associated impact on the resident after he had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord should have put things right earlier for the resident.
With consideration of our remedies guidance, the total amount of compensation already paid by the landlord to the resident of £200 for its communication failures is fair and reasonable. This reflects the failures of service found above and the resulting distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Therefore, we have not ordered any further compensation payment.
However, the resident told this Service that the landlords handling of his communication needs has caused him significant distress. Though the landlord has put mechanisms in place to address the communication needs of the resident since the internal complaints procedure, this process has not been formalised. To provide clarity on its commitments and manage the resident’s expectations in the future, the landlord is ordered to meet with the resident to agree upon a realistic personalised communication plan with him in line with the actions set out in its complaint responses.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s communication needs.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. provide a full apology to the resident for the errors identified in this report.
2. meet with the resident to agree upon a personalised communication plan in line with the actions set out in its complaint responses. It must share this plan with the relevant staff, the resident and this Service via an email that the resident can read using the technology on his phone. The plan should include a include:
  1. an outline of what steps the landlord has already taken to reduce the likelihood of the resident receiving post from its contractors.
  2. what other steps it could consider that would reduce the likelihood of the resident receiving post from its contractors.
  3. an agreed action plan if the resident does receive post, to enable him to access the information in the letters and to feedback his communication preferences to the sender.
3. pay the resident the £200 compensation previously offered outside the complaints procedure if it has not already done so.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.