Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Stonewater Limited (202310379)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310379

Stonewater Limited

4 September 2025


Our approach

The Housing’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 handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of repairs in relation to draughty windows and damaged paving.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom terrace house. The landlord has recorded that the resident and his wife have physical and mental vulnerabilities including anxiety and the resident has had a triple heart bypass. It added there were additional undisclosed health issues.
  2. In mid-October 2021 the resident reported draughty windows to the landlord. It added the property to its window replacement programme in December 2021. In October 2022 the resident asked the landlord to replace the windows at the property as they were letting in water and cold air. The landlord noted that the property was on the replacement window programme.
  3. In December 2022 the resident reported that the seal of the bathroom window was damaged, and water was leaking through it. He also reported that paving outside the front door was uneven and a trip hazard.
  4. In early January 2023 the landlord inspected the windows. The same month it obtained a quote to replace the windows and asked the window contractor to proceed with the work.
  5. In April 2023 the resident chased up the replacement windows. On 22 June 2023, after the resident had approached us, we asked the landlord to consider a formal complaint about its handling of his reports of problems with the windows as well as its handling of his reports of damaged paving at the front of the property.
  6. On 14 July 2023 the landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its formal complaint procedures. It said the property was on that year’s window upgrade list. It also said it had raised a job to repair the broken paving; however, it noted its contractors had been faced with aggression from the resident when attending the property in relation to this repair. It said, in these circumstances, the contractors could not carry out this work. It asked the resident to contact it to arrange a date for this repair. A few days later the landlord raised a job to repair the paving. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint disputing the allegation of aggressive behaviour.
  7. On 9 August 2023 the landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 of its formal complaint procedures. It identified a significant delay in processing the replacement windows and said it would install them by the end of September 2023. In respect of the paving, it said its surveyor would inspect it that month and it would then take appropriate action. The landlord apologised for its poor service and offered compensation of £650 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays and poor communication.
  8. In early September 2023 the landlord noted it should take up the quarry tiles on the front path and lay nonslip flagstones. We understand this work was completed at the end of that month.
  9. In September and October 2023, the landlord chased the replacement windows. We understand that work was completed in early November 2023.
  10. On 3 October 2023 the resident’s solicitor issued correspondence to the landlord titled letter of claim. Regarding the matters being party to a disrepair claim, reference was made within this correspondence to windows being very old and allowing a draught in, as well as rotting. Reference was also made to an external area of the property suffering from disrepair, namely broken and cracked concrete slabs.
  11. A surveyor’s report was conducted on 31 October 2023 in white reference was made to windows being of concern as well as a recommendation for the contractor who undertook works in September 2023 to reattend and re-bed the paving slabs.
  12. The resident’s solicitors issued correspondence dated 30 January 2024, confirming payment of £8,000 which was agreed on 8 January 2024 had not yet been received. An application notice and was subsequently submitted.
  13. A court order dated 6 March 2024 confirms the defendant (landlord) was ordered to pay the claimant (resident) agreed costs in the sum of £8,000 and application costs from these proceedings in the sum of £834.24.
  14. When the resident approached us, he said an operative had made false allegations against him and his wife. The resident added he had been unwell due to the stress caused and had been prescribed medication for anxiety.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. This investigation has focussed on events from October 2021 that led to the formal complaint in June 2023. It also considered the subsequent court order dated 6 March 2024.
  2. The resident mentions that his health has been affected by the events complained about. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. However, we can consider any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord as well as the way it responded to his concerns about his health.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs including draughty windows and damaged paving

  1. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord has a responsibility to repair and maintain the structure and outside of the property including the windows, window sills, window frames and pathways. This reflects the landlord’s obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

Windows

  1. The evidence shows the resident has reported draughty windows to the landlord over an extended period – from at least October 2021. The landlord added the property to its window replacement programme in December 2021, which was a reasonable step to take. It is not clear if the landlord inspected the windows at that time, but it would have been reasonable for it to have done so to assess what temporary repairs would be appropriate.
  2. When the landlord inspected the windows in January 2023, it noted they were in “very poor condition”. It acted reasonably by promptly engaging a window contractor to carry out the replacement works. However, its oversight of the contractor was poor and there is no evidence it monitored the progression of these works. It only chased progress after 6 months had passed and after the resident’s formal complaint. There was also a lack of communication by the landlord with the resident about the status of these works, which was a further failing.
  3. Furthermore, despite the landlord having responsibility for maintaining and repairing the windows, there is no evidence of it undertaking any temporary repairs. The landlord should have taken action when the resident first reported repairs to ensure it kept the windows in a reasonable state of repair whilst awaiting the planned replacement works. It was not appropriate for it to have left the windows in a poor state of repair over such a long time period.
  4. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered compensation of £650 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays in replacing the windows and its poor communication.
  5. Where the landlord has accepted it has made errors, it is our role to consider whether the redress it offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies. Consideration of any aggravating factors (such as a resident’s mental and/or physical health condition) may justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
  6. Had the landlord acted promptly when the resident first reported repairs to it, it should have carried out repairs to the windows within 28 days in line with its responsive repairs policy. Its failure to do so meant the resident continued to live in a property for some 2 years (from November 2021 to November 2023) that he described as “freezing” and which he said he was unable to keep warm. That caused the resident and his wife evident distress and inconvenience.
  7. Compensation will be summarised below.

Damaged paving

  1. The resident reported the repair to paving at the front of the property in December 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord took action following that report. That was not appropriate. The landlord should have taken action in line with its responsive repair policy and carried out works within 28 days.
  2. The evidence suggests the landlord only took action 6 months later, after the resident made a formal complaint. In its complaint handling, the landlord did not acknowledge its delay between December and July 2023. It said that its recent delay in completing the repair was due to the resident’s behaviour towards its operative. The resident disputes this. The landlord did not investigate this further and, in the absence of evidence, we are unable to reach a finding on whether or not there was a failing by the landlord in competing this repair after July 2023. We have considered this issue further, below.
  3. The delay by the landlord taking action in respect of the paving from December 2022 to July 2023 caused evident inconvenience and frustration to the resident. It also meant he and his wife were living with a potential trip hazard during that time.

Compensation

  1. In respect of compensation for both the above, I found the application notice and court order were following an agreement between the parties to compensate the claimant (resident) for undertaking remedial repairs. Despite the initial agreement being settled outside of court, it is clear the resident pursued payment of this agreement through the courts, this is supported by the application notice and court order with corresponding claim numbers.
  2. The landlord has been unable to confirm the breakdown of the £8,000 award with the Ombudsman. Furthermore, a number of concerns were included in the schedule of repairs which did not form part of the Ombudsman’s investigation. As such, the Ombudsman is unable to determine what proportion of the compensation order was attributed to this investigation. The landlord has been unable to confirm this as well.
  3. It is accepted that part of the compensation order covered the complaints considered here. The Ombudsman is attributing 5% of the court order amount to elements which formed part of this investigation, totalling £400. As such, the Ombudsman considers a further compensation order of £150 appropriate to reflect the impact on the resident. This sum takes into account the vulnerabilities of the resident which meant the landlord’s delays and repair failings would have had a more severe effect on them compared to other residents in the same position without their vulnerabilities. This is in line with our remedies guidance.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

  1. The complaints procedure in place at the time of the complaint said that the landlord aimed to respond within 10 working days at stages 1 and 2.
  2. Our Complaints Handling Code in place at that time said that, on receipt of the escalation request, landlords must set out their understanding of the issues outstanding and the outcomes the resident is seeking. However, in this case, the landlord did not consider that the resident had disputed the landlord’s assertion that he had acted aggressively towards an operative. The resident had raised this matter, so he had a right to expect the landlord to respond to it. Such allegations, where it is one person’s word against another, should be investigated promptly. By not investigating this concern, the landlord missed a chance to identify and fix issues at an earlier stage.
  3. Given the time that has now passed, it seems unlikely that the landlord would be able to reach a firm finding on this matter. This will evidently cause frustration to the resident. In line with our remedies guidance as referenced above, financial compensation of £100 is appropriate for that impact.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of repairs in relation to draughty windows and damaged paving.
    2. Associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord should take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide us with evidence of compliance with our orders:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the apologies guidance on our website.
    2. Pay the resident the sum of £250 made up of:
      1. £150 for the impact of the delays and repair failings.
      2. £100 for the impact of its poor complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Checks if any of its residents have reported window repairs for properties that are awaiting replacement windows. In these cases, the landlord should make repairs in line with its responsive repair policy to ensure it keeps the windows in a reasonable state of repair whilst awaiting replacement.
    2. Reminds its complaint handling staff to ensure they address all points raised in the original complaint and escalation request in line with our current Complaint Handling Code.