From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Moat Homes Limited (202426103)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202426103

Moat Homes Limited

21 May 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 response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the Heat Interface Unit (HIU) in the property.
  2. This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner of the property. The property is a flat within a block. The freeholder of the block is a third party private company. The landlord holds a headlease with the freeholder and an underlease with the resident. A managing agent, appointed on behalf of the freeholder, is responsible for managing the block and providing services.
  2. The heating and to the properties within the block is distributed from a communal boiler into each flat via a HIU. On 9 November 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that he had not had hot water in his flat for a week. Following advice from the landlord, the resident instructed an independent engineer to attend to the HIU in his flat. The engineer found several issues with the HIU and recommended a replacement. The resident shared the report with the landlord and explained that he expected it to fund the replacement, as he was aware that it had done this for another resident. The landlord responded and said that according to the resident’s lease, the maintenance of the HIU was his responsibility. It asked the resident whether he had maintained the HIU recently and, if so, whether he could send it the report. It stated that if the issue with the HIU had been caused by a fault in the communal system, it would have affected the entire block. However, the managing agent had not confirmed any block-wide issue. It provided a maintenance guide for the HIU to the resident.
  3. On 2 February 2024 the resident’s representative (the representative) submitted a complaint to the landlord on his behalf. The resident complained that:
    1. In accordance with the lease, he had no responsibility for the communal system.
    2. He had reported the HIU breakdown to the landlord in November 2023 and 3 weeks later he had not received a response. His mental health and physical wellbeing were negatively impacted.
    3. A resolution from the landlord was not forthcoming and he had not received financial assistance from the landlord, but he was aware that it had offered another resident assistance.
    4. The landlord had not treated the repair report as an emergency, and he had to instruct an engineer himself. He wanted reimbursement of the £264 call out fee that he paid.
    5. The landlord said that as it did not own the building it could not instruct its own contractor to carry out the repairs that had been raised to it. However, a clause in the head lease granted the landlord rights to do so.
    6. Another clause in the lease gave the landlord the right to enter the premises and act in an emergency, including arranging for a contractor to attend to the resident’s HIU. However, in this case, the resident had been required to instruct his own engineer.
    7. The communal boiler pumps had failed, grit and dirt had damaged the HIU in the resident’s flat, as well as others. He questioned why he would replace the HIU himself when the same issue could happen to a newly installed boiler due to issues originating from the communal system.
    8. The resident’s engineer reported that the reason for the breakdown of his HIU was due to the communal heating system.
    9. The landlord had been aware of issues with the communal boiler pumps and heating and hot water problems since July 2021. The resident said that he believed that the landlord failed to ensure that the managing agent had maintained the communal system.
    10. The resident was seeking £6000 compensation for the various issues he had experienced in the property since he moved there in 2017. He suggested that the landlord could replace his HIU and recover the cost from the managing agent during the legal proceedings. Alternatively, he said that he could purchase the HIU himself and offset the costs against his rent payments.
    11. The resident also wanted to discuss the possibility of reverse staircasing the property. He noted that due to the issues with the property, it made the flat hard to sell.
  4. On 29 February 2024 the landlord provided it stage 1 response to the complaint. Regarding the HIU repair, it explained that it was seeking external advice from a specialist to understand the root cause of the issue and to determine whether the managing agent was responsible for replacing the unit. The landlord stated that if it received confirmation that the issue with the HIU originated from the communal boiler, it would instruct the managing agent to rectify the problem as soon as possible. It agreed to reimburse the resident for the engineer’s call out fee. The landlord also confirmed that it wished to meet with the resident on 7 March 2024 to discuss the issues in the property and to provide an action plan outlining how it, and the managing agent, intended to resolve them. The landlord said that it had been holding monthly meetings with the managing agent to address various issues. However, as remedies had not been forthcoming, it had notified the managing agent of its intention to take legal action. In reviewing its own handling of the matters, the landlord admitted that its communication had been poor and that it should have escalated the issues with the managing agent sooner. It confirmed that a specific member of staff would now act as the main point of contact for the resident. It committed to providing monthly updates following its joint meetings with the managing agent. The landlord offered the resident a total of £468, comprising:
    1. £268 as reimbursement for the engineer’s call-out fee.
    2. £60 for poor communication.
    3. £150 for delays in handling the complaint.
  5. On 11 March 2024 the representative escalated the complaint. The resident stated that the landlord had not addressed his concerns regarding the clauses in the lease. He requested the date on which the landlord had informed the managing agent about the breakdown of his HIU, as well as a copy of the related correspondence. The resident also noted that he and other residents had already consulted a specialist. He pointed out that there had still been no confirmation that the communal boiler, which he believed was the cause of the HIU breakdown, had been repaired by the managing agent. He requested formal confirmation that repairs to the communal system had been completed. The resident asked for copies of the minutes from the landlord’s meetings with the managing agent regarding the block wide issues, along with details of any deadlines that had been set and subsequently missed by the managing agent. The resident did not accept the compensation offered by the landlord in relation to the delays in handling his complaint.
  6. On 19 April 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It confirmed that it had submitted a letter of claim in relation to legal action it was taking against the managing agent. It reiterated that as it did not own the building it was not responsible for repairs to the communal boiler. However, it confirmed that it had instructed an independent consultant to assess the condition of the communal boiler to get information that it required for its legal claim. It said that the consultant would also contact the resident to inspect his HIU. It said that as the legal process was likely to take time, it believed the best course of action would be for the resident to arrange the repair himself and share the associated reports and invoices so that it could ask its solicitors to consider his costs as part of the claim against the managing agent. It confirmed that it did not offer reverse staircasing and provided information to the resident about its resale process for shared ownership properties. The landlord offered the resident an additional £150 in acknowledgement of its failure to contact the representative during the complaints process. This made the total compensation it offered to the resident £618.

Events after the complaints procedure

  1. On 10 December 2024 the resident’s solicitor contacted the landlord’s solicitor with terms of a settlement offer. On 13 December 2024 the independent consultant that the landlord instructed, attended and visually inspected the resident’s HIU. On or around 24 January 2025 the consultant inspected the communal system.
  2. On 19 February 2025 the landlord’s solicitor offered the resident a settlement.

Assessment and findings 

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the Heat Interface Unit (HIU) in the property.

  1. The resident’s lease says that the leaseholder is responsible for keeping the flat in good condition, including the HIU inside the flat and the pipes that connect it to the communal system. The lease also says the freeholder (through the managing agent) is responsible for maintaining the communal system.
  2. Given the terms of the lease, the landlord’s initial advice to the resident that he arrange an engineer to diagnose what the fault was with his HIU was reasonable. When the landlord responded to the resident with this advice, it informed the resident that it was going to start legal action against the managing agent to progress the remediation of several issues in the block, including works required to the communal heating system. This would therefore suggest that it was aware, prior to the resident’s report, of issues with the heating system. The landlord also asked the resident to share his engineer’s findings with it so that it could forward this to its solicitors to consider as part of the claim against the managing agent.
  3. Given the resident’s obligations under the lease, by requesting that the resident obtain a report from his own engineer and share the findings, the landlord was acting reasonably, ensuring that any evidence of wider systemic issues with the managing agent could be shared to support its ongoing legal action against the managing agent. This approach balanced the resident’s responsibility for repairing and maintaining the HIU within the flat with the landlord’s responsibility for gathering relevant information that could potentially strengthen its claim to secure completion of any necessary remedial works to the communal heating system and any other outstanding repairs to the block.
  4. An engineer instructed by the resident attended to the property on or around 22 November 2023. The engineer reported that:
    1. The incoming water flow rate from the communal system was lower than the recommended volume in the HIU manufacturer guidelines.
    2. The primary filter was severely dirty and blocked the primary side of the plate heat exchanger.
    3. The primary side of the plate heat exchanger was blocked due to poor water quality coming from the communal system and there was little heat being transferred to the secondary side of the plate, resulting in little hot water and heating.
    4. The differential pressure control valves had a pin hole on a pipe which had leaked historically. It was not leaking during the engineers visit due to the build up of limescale.
    5. It recommended that the HIU was replaced due to the extent of the faults found and the cost of the repairs.
  5. On 6 December 2023 the resident shared his engineer’s report, and the quotation for the cost of replacing the HIU, with the landlord. After he shared the report there was a delay in the landlord taking reasonable action to progress matters.
  6. It initially advised the resident on 6 December 2023 that he should contact its customer resolutions team who it said was dealing with other residents’ issues in respect of their HIU’s. On 31 January 2024 the landlord advised the resident that he was responsible for the maintenance of the HIU as per the lease and that the managing agent had not confirmed there was a block wide issue. At the time the advice was given by the landlord, there is no evidence that it had shared the engineer’s report or discussed its findings with the managing agent. This would have been a reasonable step to take, especially since the resident suggested that the HIU fault was caused by the communal system.
  7. It was not until after the landlord received the complaint that it acted to further investigate whether the fault with the resident’s HIU was the result of a lack of maintenance with the communal system. The landlord was aware of concerns that residents of the block had that HIU’s were failing due to the communal system, and it is a reasonable expectation therefore that it would have made arrangements to support its residents in establishing this. However, the landlord did not arrange for an investigation into the communal system and the resident’s HIU until December 2024 and January 2025, 10 months after it had initially confirmed in the stage 1 response that it would do so.
  8. The landlord met with the resident on 7 March 2024. Notes taken by the landlord from this meeting stated that, in relation to the HIU, it would deal with this as part of the resident’s complaint. The landlord also agreed to arrange for its post sales team to respond to the resident about buying back his property. However, the post sales team did not contact the resident and the representative until 3 May 2024, 2 months after the landlord said it would arrange contact. In its final response dated 19 April 2024 the landlord confirmed that it could not offer the resident a buy back and provided him with information about how he could sell his property. While it confirmed its position in its response, it had agreed to arrange for the resales team to contact the resident when the parties met on 7 March 2024, and it was therefore unreasonable that it did not do so sooner.
  9. Furthermore, the landlord said in its initial response that it was having monthly meetings with the managing agent to try and progress the issues that its residents had reported. It advised following its stage 1 response dated 29 February 2024 that it would provide the resident an update on the meeting every month. There is evidence of the landlord providing some updates to the resident following its meetings, however these were not consistent. It sent the resident update letters in June and July 2024 both of which addressed issues other than that raised about the communal heating system. The subsequent updates to the resident up until November 2024 also did not mention anything regarding the communal heating system and what action it or the managing agent was taking in respect of this.
  10. In the stage 2 response to the complaint dated 19 April 2024 the landlord acknowledged that the resident had not had hot water and heating for a significant time. It reiterated its initial advice that as its legal claim against the managing agent could take time, it felt the best course of action for him would be to instruct the repair to the unit himself and share the invoice of this with the landlord. It could then ask its solicitor to consider those costs as part of the ongoing claim against the managing agent as it hoped that costs could be recouped as part of the claim.
  11. At the time of its response the landlord was actively pursuing legal action against the managing agent and had agreed to arrange an independent consultant to investigate the condition of the communal heating system, to assess whether its lack of maintenance had contributed to the failure of the resident’s HIU. Although the resident reported that his engineer’s report showed that problems with the communal system contributed to the HIU breakdown, the lease stated that the resident was responsible for repairing or replacing the HIU. Because of this the landlord’s advice for the resident to go ahead with the repair or replacement while the landlord investigated the communal system was reasonable and fair. This allowed the resident to quickly restore heating and hot water, while keeping the option to recover costs if the communal system was later found to be the cause of the problem.
  12. We understand that following the end of the complaints process the resident instructed his own solicitor who was in contact with the landlord’s solicitor and proposed a settlement. The consultant that the landlord instructed later completed a visual inspection of the resident’s HIU and an investigation into the communal system. The landlord’s solicitor, on review of the report from the consultant, noted that it did not have holistic evidence that associated issues within the communal system related to the issue with the resident’s HIU. It noted that the resident’s HIU could have also failed for reasons other than a lack of maintenance to, or defect in, the communal system.
  13. On 19 February the landlord’s solicitor offered a settlement to the resident that included:
    1. The landlord paying the costs for the replacement of the resident’s HIU up to £4,000.
    2. £1,000 compensation to the resident for damages.
    3. £2,500 for the resident’s legal costs.
    4. The landlord providing temporary heaters until the HIU was replaced if the resident wanted them.
  14. In line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and managing agents, landlords are expected to act as an effective conduit between residents and managing agents, particularly where there are concerns about a managing agent’s responsiveness or the condition of communal services. While the landlord in this case took appropriate steps by pursuing legal action and arranging an independent investigation into the communal heating system, its communication with the resident fell short.
  15. The significant delays in updating the resident following the submission of the engineer’s report, and the time taken to arrange its own inspection, meant the resident was left without timely advice or clear information on how to proceed. Although the landlord was not responsible for the repair of the resident’s HIU, the lack of proactive communication and support contributed to the resident’s uncertainty.
  16. We note that the landlord’s offer of compensation to the resident in its response to the complaint was a total of £618 which comprised:
    1. £268 for the cost the resident paid for his engineer to attend.
    2. £50 for its lack of communication.
    3. £150 for the delay in its response to the complaint.
    4. £150 for its failure to contact the representative after she had been authorised during the complaints process.
  17. The landlord’s initial offer of compensation, particularly for its poor communication, was not proportionate to the impact its failures had on the resident. We note that the landlord arranged payment of the compensation that it offered in May 2024. However, we consider that the later settlement proposed by the landlord’s solicitor is a fair offer, as it addresses the consequences of the landlord’s failings and provides a practical solution by restoring heating and hot water in the resident’s home. Although there was no definitive evidence that the communal system alone was the sole cause of the issue with the resident’s HIU, the landlord’s offer to cover the cost of replacing the HIU, despite not being required to under the lease, reflects its recognition of the delays and shortcomings in how it responded to the resident’s concerns.
  18. In addition to this while the Ombudsman does not consider damages in the same way as a court, the £1000 that was offered is in the range of amounts that we would consider fair. It is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. The landlord’s delivery of service would have exacerbated the distress that the resident experienced due to the loss of heating and hot water at the time.
  19. Overall, therefore we have found that the landlord’s offer to the resident was reasonable redress for its response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the HIU.
  20. The landlord and the representative have confirmed that a settlement has now been agreed. We understand that the settlement agreed was that landlord:
    1. Pay the resident £3,800 in damages.
    2. Pay £4,050.96 which is the cost of replacing the HIU and a power flush.
    3. Pay the resident £100 to purchase heaters.
    4. Pay £3,000 for the resident’s reasonable legal costs.
  21. As the parties have reached a settlement, we have not made any further recommendations.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaints procedure has 2 stages. At stage 1, it aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue a response within 10 working days of acknowledgment. At stage 2, it aims to provide a response within 20 working days of acknowledgment. If it needs to extend these timeframes, the policy states it will contact the resident to explain and seek their agreement.
  2. The landlord did not handle the resident’s complaint in line with its policy. It failed to acknowledge the stage 1 complaint within the required timeframe, although it left a voicemail on 14 February 2024 confirming receipt. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 19 working days after receiving the complaint without agreeing an extension. As a result, the resident’s representative chased a response on 27 February 2024. At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged the complaint 7 working days after receipt. It issued its stage 2 response on 19 April 2024, 28 working days after receipt. The representative also had to chase the landlord for an acknowledgment at stage 2.
  3. In addition to this the resident provided consent on 19 January 2024 for his representative to act on his behalf. However, the landlord failed to engage directly with the representative and continued to contact the resident.
  4. In its stage 1 response, the landlord offered the resident £150 for its complaint handling. At stage 2, it offered an additional £150 for failing to liaise with the representative.
  5. While the landlord did not explicitly acknowledge the delay in its stage 2 response, we consider the £150 that it offered for the delay proportionate to reflect its failure to meet its complaints handling timeframes at both stages. The delays were not significantly outside its targets, however the representative spent time and trouble pursuing the landlord for its responses at both stages.
  6. We also consider the £150 that the landlord offered for failing to engage with the representative proportionate. While this was an inconvenience for the resident, it did not have a significant impact on the overall outcome of the complaint.
  7. We therefore find that the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with 53b of the Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident in relation to:
    1. Its response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the HIU in the property.
    2. Its handling of the associated complaint.