Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Moat Homes Limited (202116728)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116728

Moat Homes Limited

10 January 2022


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 about the bedroom wall at the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has a shared ownership lease with the landlord. He completed the purchase on 27 May 2021. The property is a new build.
  2. The resident’s lease agreement sets out his responsibility to keep the property in good and substantial repair and condition. The landlord’s “buying your new shared ownership home” booklet says that “any cracks, chips or scratches should be reported immediately otherwise we cannot be sure whether this type of damage occurred before or after you moved in. Defects of this nature that are not reported on the day of completion will be your own responsibility to put right and at your own cost”.

Summary of events

  1. On 5 October 2021 the landlord and resident discussed a repair to his balcony door. It is understood that it was a defect issue as the property developer carried out the work. On 6 October 2021 the resident reported that there was an “another issue…on one of the walls on the spare bedroom”. He did not provide further detail but sent a photo and asked the landlord to log his concerns.
  2. The landlord responded that day via email and asked whether there was any water ingress. The resident confirmed there was not, and said the issue seemed “to just be cosmetic”. The landlord said the building developer would not attend as it was not a defect. It said the resident needed to report marks on walls the day he completed the purchase of the property as otherwise the developer could not ascertain who or what had caused the damage.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 7 October 2021. He remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s previous response, saying that it was unreasonable to require him ‘to check every single corner and wall of the house to see what was wrong with it in the first day’.
  4. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 7 October 2021. It said the resident had reported the mark 20 weeks after he had completed the purchase of the property. It said his shared ownership declaration stated that he was required to immediately report any cracks, chips or scratches and that any issues reported at a later date were his responsibility to put right. It reiterated that the mark was not a defect and concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
  5. The landlord called the resident on 12 October 2021. It is understood that he escalated his complaint, but specific details of the conversation have not been provided for this investigation. It then emailed the resident and asked him to confirm whether he wanted it to inspect the wall or base its stage two complaint response on the photos he had provided. The resident said the landlord did not need to attend.
  6. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 19 October 2021. It said the resident had reviewed and signed the declaration in its “buying your new build shared ownership home” booklet. It reiterated that the resident needed to immediately report any concerns and that, based on the photos he had provided, there was no indication that there was a building defect. It concluded that it was not responsible for the mark.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord in October 2021 as he remained dissatisfied with its decision not to take action in response to the mark on his wall that he reported that month. The landlord referred to its ‘buying your new shared ownership home’ booklet and confirmed that the responsibility for this issue was the resident’s as it had no evidence that he had reported it immediately upon taking ownership. This position was both in accordance with the landlord’s procedure and also reasonable given that the resident had already lived in the property for nearly five months as it would therefore be difficult to conclude whether the mark was there before he moved in.
  2. The resident is required to, in line with his lease, keep his property in good and substantial repair and condition. As such, it was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to state that it was not responsible for the mark. It promptly set the resident’s expectations. Its explanations, and reasons for not attending were in line with its booklet, and the resident’s lease. It offered to visit and inspect further, but ultimately was under no obligation to take any action as the resident had not reported his concern on the day of completion when he was required to inspect the property.
  3. It was also reasonable for the landlord to consider whether a more serious issue, such as water ingress, had caused the damage to the bedroom wall. It enquired as to whether further investigation within the property was necessary and received the resident’s confirmation that no such investigation was required and that it could proceed based upon the photographic evidence he had provided. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to rely on the resident’s viewpoint that this was a ‘cosmetic’ issue and proceed on that basis.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. It was both reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to conclude that it was not responsible for the crack reported to the resident’s bedroom wall. There was no evidence that this issue had been reported at the point of purchase, as required by the landlord’s procedure and, having established that the issue did not relate to a defect, it was appropriate for the landlord to conclude that the issue was one for which the resident was responsible.