Stonewater Limited (202421852)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421852

Stonewater Limited

8 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:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Concerns about the communal area.
We have also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She lives in a 2-bedroom flat with her 3 children, one of whom has vulnerabilities. The landlord has recorded physical and mental health vulnerabilities for the resident.
In January 2024, the resident reported damp and mould in her bedroom and living room, which she said was worsened by windows being stuck closed. The landlord completed a mould wash on 2 February 2024.
On 25 March 2024 the resident reported graffiti and glass in the communal areas.
The resident’s property was inspected on 17 May 2024. The surveyor confirmed the glazed window units in the living room had blown and noted minor mould around windowsills and frames. The resident was advised on how to manage the conditions in the property.
On 19 July 2024 the resident complained and told the landlord that the damp and mould remained unresolved. She said she had phoned the landlord to request repairs to the outside communal area, describing it as “dangerous” and saying that her children could not play outside. She expressed that the property conditions were affecting her children’s health.
The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 23 August 2024 and said:
1. A damp and mould inspection was completed on 17 May 2024, during which it was noted that there were no structural defects and the resident was given advice on managing the conditions.
2. Following several rescheduled appointments, an operative attended on 28 May 2024 to repair the windows, and the resident had said the kitchen window was the only one stuck in the closed position.
3. It had been unable to find any repairs related to the communal garden, but the grounds maintenance team would contact the resident on 28 August 2024 to discuss her concerns.
4. It apologised that the damp and mould team had not contacted her following her report in July 2023 that the issue had not been resolved.
5. It confirmed the process for personal injury claims, which were outside of the complaints process.
6. It offered £75 compensation, made up of £25 for the service failure and £50 for the poor communication.
The resident escalated her complaint on 11 September 2024 as she said the damp and mould was not resolved.
In its stage 2 response on 6 November 2024, the landlord said:
1. A mould wash was completed on 2 February 2024 and 16 October 2024 to the lounge and bedroom.
2. The damp and mould team tried to contact the resident to review the case on 16 April 2024.
3. It apologised for its communication, which it said had prolonged the repair process and identified learning.
4. It increased the compensation to £290, made up of £75 for service failures/delays, £100 for time and trouble, and £115 for poor communication.
The resident asked that we investigate her complaint. She expressed her desire to move from the property.

Assessment and findings

Damp and mould

The landlord’s damp and mould policy approved in April 2023 outlines a categorisation system for properties as follows:
1. Stage 1 cases involve households needing support and guidance to prevent or manage mould, including low-level interventions like damp and mould removal and condensation wipe-downs.
2. Stage 2 cases pertain to minor repairs, part replacements, and mould treatment, alongside additional ventilation requirements.
3. Stages 3 and 4 cases encompass larger repairs, such as new roofs and significant plumbing work.
In January 2024 the resident reported a damp and mould issue, but the landlord delayed the property survey until 17 May 2024, over 4 months later. This delay departed from the landlord’s damp and mould policy, which says that inspections for non-urgent cases must be completed within 28 days.
The landlord cited delays in resolving damp and mould issues due to rescheduled appointments with the resident. However, the repair records lack specific details, including the dates of arranged appointments, confirmation from the resident, and information on who requested the rescheduling. Consequently, assessing the landlord’s timeliness and appropriateness has been difficult.
As part of her report in January 2024, the resident reported an issue with the windows, saying that they were stuck in the closed position. The landlord did not confirm if the reported window issue contributed to the damp and mould in the property, missing an opportunity to address it and set out its position on the matter. The repair records lack clarity about the actions taken and their timelines.
The landlord’s repair log indicated that the window repairs were completed on 2 February 2024. However, this assertion is directly contradicted by an email from the resident dated 5 March 2024. In her email, she inquired about the status of the window repairs and raised concerns about persistent damp and mould. The repair records do not detail what repairs, if any, were completed in February 2024.
The May 2024 survey revealed that the problem was not structural. Instead, it resulted from overcrowding in the property and a buildup of personal belongings that affected ventilation. Additionally, the survey highlighted that 6 windowpanes had blown out. Given the resident’s worries about condensation and mould around her window reveals and sills, the landlord should have verified whether the blown glazing units contributed to the condensation reported in the property. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to provide clarity on the matter.
The landlord delayed issuing a work order to replace the glazed units until 12 August 2024, 3 months after the survey. The landlord has not provided an explanation for the delay. By the time the stage 2 response was sent in November 2024, 11 months had passed since the problem was first reported, and 6 months had elapsed since the surveyor found a fault with the windows. This was a departure from the landlord’s repair policy, which says that it will complete repairs where a significant amount of work is needed beyond the original repair within 42 days.
In February and October 2024, the landlord conducted mould washes. While this response helped manage the mould in the short term, the landlord needed to carry out more extensive repairs, such as replacing the window glazing, to address the issues reported by the resident effectively.
The landlord provided the resident with advice in May 2024 on how to reduce condensation in the property, including not drying clothes on radiators. However, it is a concern that the landlord’s internal records attribute the damp and mould to “lifestyle” factors. Although we acknowledge that the resident lived in an overcrowded property, which likely increased humidity levels, our Spotlight report on Damp and Mould published in October 2021 emphasises that landlords should adopt a supportive approach instead of a paternalistic one. Landlords must avoid blaming residents for the damp conditions and refrain from using language that implies the resident is at fault.
As part of its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged delays in completing the work and apologised for falling short of the service standards it aimed to provide. The landlord said it had learned from the complaint and committed to improving communication with contractors, colleagues, and residents by implementing training to enhance the process. Additionally, the landlord offered £290 in compensation.
However, there were delays in the landlord:
1. Completing a damp and mould inspection.
2. Completing works recommended in the survey.
3. Completing repairs to the windows that may have helped address the conditions in the property.
4. Applying its damp and mould and repairs policy to the resident’s case.
5. Managing its contractors to ensure prompt completion of work which remained outstanding after the completion of the complaints process.
Based on these failings, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould. We have been unable to contact the resident to confirm whether she is satisfied with all the repairs, so we have issued an order about this matter. Additionally, in line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered more compensation for the identified failures, which proportionately reflects the distress and inconvenience caused.
We have made an order for the landlord to pay £500 compensation. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £290. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failures identified. An additional order has been made for the landlord to provide evidence of the review it committed to completing as part of its learning, as detailed in its stage 2 response.

Communal garden

The landlord’s Neighbourhood Management policy aims to foster a healthy and happy community. It promises to maintain and monitor all shared spaces effectively. When residents report waste or refuse, the landlord will remove hazardous or unsafe items, such as broken glass, within 1 working day. Other items may take up to 7 days to be cleared. The landlord will also remove offensive graffiti within 1 working day.
On 25 March 2024 the resident reported graffiti and scattered shards of glass in the communal area. The landlord’s repair records do not show when these issues were addressed, leaving us unable to determine if the landlord responded promptly and within the designated timeframe needed for such repairs.
On 1 July 2024 the resident reported unsanitary conditions in the bin store, highlighting unbagged nappies and sanitary towels. These conditions posed a hygiene risk, which she reported prevented her children from using the communal area. The records show that the issue was resolved 18 days later, on 19 July 2024, which exceeded the landlord’s 7-day response time.
The landlord’s stage 1 response confirmed it had not found any outstanding repairs to the communal garden. While the resident’s reports might not be classified as ‘repairs’, she highlighted problems in the communal areas that affected her children’s enjoyment. The landlord missed an opportunity to clarify the resident’s reports before responding, which limited the landlord’s ability to address the resident’s specific concerns during the investigation of the complaint.
However, the stage 1 response confirmed it had scheduled the grounds maintenance team to contact the resident on 26 August 2024 to discuss her issues, showing a reasonable effort to engage with her. That said, we lack the records to verify whether this contact occurred and the outcome.
The landlord’s Estate Management policy outlines its commitment to actively check neighbourhood quality through regular inspections. It also conducts risk assessments to decide the frequency of these inspections. However, despite our request for inspection reports, the landlord has not provided any. This lack of evidence does not show when the communal areas were inspected or what issues were found during the inspections. Therefore, it is unclear how the landlord assessed its response to the reports and whether it followed its policy.
The landlord overlooked this part of the complaint in its stage 2 response, likely leading to further distress and uncertainty for the resident regarding whether the issue had been properly resolved and if other measures were needed to ensure her children’s safety in the communal areas. Since we have not been able to speak with the resident, it is unclear whether this aspect has been satisfactorily resolved.
Considering the identified failures to follow policy and the impact on the resident, who mentioned that her children could not enjoy the communal area, a crucial outdoor space since they live in a flat, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay £150 for the distress and inconvenience that was caused to the resident, which affected her and her children’s enjoyment of the communal space.

Complaint handling

On 19 July 2024, the resident submitted a complaint. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 26 July 2024, adhering to its 5-working-day timeframe. However, the landlord’s stage 1 response was issued on 23 August 2024, which was 20 working days later and exceeded its 10-working-day response time, as detailed in its complaints policy, by 10 days.
We note that on 12 August 2024, the landlord requested more time to provide the stage 1 response but did not explain the necessity of the extension. This request was not in line with its complaints policy, which says that complaint responses are only extended in exceptional cases or ‘where there are good reasons.’ The landlord did not justify the need for more time, which further prolonged the residents’ complaint process.
A stage 1 response was issued on 23 August 2024, 20 working days after the complaint was acknowledged.
The resident escalated her complaint on 29 August 2024 (the landlord has recorded it as 9 August, which was assumed to be a typo as the stage 1 response had not been issued at that point). The landlord recognised that the escalation request was not acknowledged within the 5 working days as detailed in the complaints policy.
A stage 2 response was sent on 6 November 2024, 49 working days later. This was a departure from the 20-working day response time in its policy.
Therefore, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint because of the prolonged delays and its failure to address all aspects of the complaint. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for the failures found, which caused distress, inconvenience, and time and delay in the resident bringing her complaint to us.

Record keeping

The landlord has provided several Excel spreadsheets relating to the resident’s contact, repairs, and work raised. However, the repair records do not show completion dates for the repairs related to this complaint. Furthermore, we do not have records of correspondence between the landlord and its contractor, which has made our assessment of the landlord’s actions more difficult.
Our Spotlight report on repair complaints, published in 2019, emphasises the importance of landlords keeping clear, accurate, and accessible records. Additionally, the Ombudsman’s report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) highlights that without accurate information recording, landlords may not act promptly, miss chances to recognise issues, and suffer from poor communication and resolutions.
In this case, the landlord recognised in its stage 2 complaint response that communication problems had delayed the repair process and complicated its management. Consequently, the complaints process did not address the issues, which worsened the landlord’s handling of repairs and led to distress and inconvenience for the resident. Therefore, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint, and an order for it to review its record keeping practices has been made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. The resident’s concerns about the communal area.
3. The complaint.
4. Record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures we have identified.
2. Pay the resident £750 compensation, made up of:
  1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the communal area.
  3. £100 for the time and delay caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
  4. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £290. If this money has already been paid, it should be deducted from the total amount.
3. Contact the resident to confirm that all the repairs have been completed satisfactorily and make further arrangements if not.
4. Provide evidence of the review it committed to completing as part of the learning identified in its stage 2 response on improving its service and standard on responding to damp and mould to prevent similar failures.
Within 8 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has identified why the failures occurred in its record keeping and include what steps it has taken or will take to improve its record keeping practices.