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

Stonewater Limited (202220468)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220468

Stonewater Limited

26 February 2024


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:
    1. Handling of a reports of a smell of damp in the property.
    2. Complaint handling and communication
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident moved into the property in June 2020. She reported on 8 December 2020 that there was a damp or mouldy odour in the house. The landlord attended on 15 December 2020 and marked the job as “complete” on 22 December 2020. The resident reported a recurrence on 14 April 2021, which the landlord attended on 22 April 2021, however the smell persisted.
  2. The landlord completed a number of works throughout May 2021, including a CCTV drainage survey. A final repair was attended on 9 June 2021. The resident reported the smell again on 4 October 2021. The landlord attended on 25 October 2021 but was unable to get access. It returned on 23 November, noting that “the whole flat was checked and all areas were dry. No damp or smells were noted”. The resident chased the landlord for a solution on 22 December 2021.
  3. On 2 March 2022, the resident reported the smell again. The landlord attended and carried out a survey on 10 March 2022. It noted “musty smells” in various parts of the property and the presence of mould on a window frame in the living room. The report noted the property as being at risk of further issues when the temperature dropped and made a number of recommendations, including the fitting of extractor fans and a wall-mounted ventilation system. The resident chased the results of the survey on 30 March 2022, which was made available by the contractor on 31 March 2022. The landlord purchased all recommended equipment on the same day.
  4. The resident complained on 1 April 2022, citing the length of time she had been reporting the smell and that the issue remained unresolved . She chased the landlord on 19 April 2022, before the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 May 2022. It stated that it had carried out investigations throughout 2021, which had been inconclusive. It had resulted in a decision to change contractors and carry out the survey in March 2022; the resulting works were now booked. It recognised that there had been delays and offered £200 compensation.
  5. The resident called the landlord the same day because she was unhappy with the response; the landlord promised to call the resident back after it had discussed her concerns “with a manager”. The resident chased on 12 May 2022. The landlord offered an additional £100 compensation on 13 May 2022.
  6. The resident chased the landlord on 25 May 2022 and called on 26 May 2022, distressed about the state of her property and belongings. The resident described the effect the situation had on her, stating that she had “been embarrassed to leave the house” because of the smell which she had been unable to get out of her clothes. The resident had missed work to accommodate repeated appointments, chase the landlord and was experiencing feelings of frustration and depression. The resident wanted the issues rectifying and compensation for her experience.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 June 2022. It acknowledged the time it had taken to complete its investigations and that it not been able to establish the source of the smell. It outlined challenges it had been facing such as rescheduled appointments and issues with contractors. It maintained its offer of £300 for delays. It also acknowledged that its complaint handling had been “disappointing”, as the resident had been obliged to chase responses; it added £150 compensation for these failings.
  8. Following the installation of fans and ventilation systems the resident continued to report issues and the landlord continued to investigate. Again the landlord could not find the cause and in July 2022 requested a “second pair of eyes”. Another surveyor attended and was able to identify the smell as emanating from the pantry. Through a process of elimination, he determined that the only possible cause remaining could be the flooring in that area of the property. The staff member noted internally that “the only thing he could suggest is removing the flooring, taking up the covering and [completing a number of further works].”
  9. The contractor attended on 3 August 2022 and advised the resident that it would return to complete the works in 6 weeks. The resident was unhappy with this timeframe. The landlord issued a “stage 2 review” letter on 16 August 2022 and added a further £100 compensation for its complaint handling.
  10. The works were completed on 23 February 2023, including additional works which had been identified upstairs. It confirmed that inappropriately laid layers of flooring, underlay and carpet had resulted in “sweating”. Photographs provided by the resident show extensive mould present underneath the flooring.
  11. The resident approached the Ombudsman on 2 December 2022, stating her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the issues since she first reported them in 2020. On 15 February 2023, the resident wrote the Ombudsman, detailing the “constant stress and anxiety” the landlord’s handling of the issues had resulted in for the resident. The resident wanted more compensation, describing the £550 offered as “offensive”.
  12. On 14 April 2023, a senior staff member of the landlord reviewed the resident’s complaint. The review recognised a number of failings, including poor communication and unnecessary delays. The compensation offer was increased to a total of £1,850, made up of an additional £400 for the delays experienced, £500 for poor communication and £500 for a “failure to be proactive”, on top of the £450 offered during the complaints process.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The resident has advised that the handling of this matter by the landlord has led to a deterioration in the health of the household. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions in this case on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This may be a matter better placed for consideration by the courts, where expert witnesses may be relied upon to assess and cross-examine medical evidence. This is in line with paragraph 42(F) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme).

Handling of reports of a smell of damp in the property 

  1. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to ‘be fair’, to ‘put things right’, and to ‘learn from outcomes’.
  2. From December 2020 when the resident first reported an odour in the property, the landlord carried out a number of investigations that had failed to identify the cause of the issue. The nature of the issue meant that the landlord was obliged to follow a process of elimination, which was time consuming. The evidence shows that the investigations had been appropriate and timely, but ultimately unsuccessful. The landlord had carried out some works as a result, for example In December 2020 and June 2021. It is unclear what those works were, though the evidence shows that after they had been completed, the resident did not report the issue again for a further 4 months in each instance.
  3. Initial investigations and subsequent works had failed to identify or rectify the source of the issue. The landlord then made a key decision in March 2022, after being chased by the resident, to employ a different contractor and engage a more in-depth survey to identify the cause of the issues and implement recommendations (extractor fans and a wall-mounted ventilation system). Unfortunately, these installations did not solve the issue. The resident later complained to this service that the works conducted had been irrelevant to the problem, reflecting a failing by the landlord. However, the damp and mould report seen by this investigation from March 2022 appears to be comprehensive. There is no reason to expect that the landlord should at this time have doubted the recommendations or looked to make further investigations at this point. Therefore, in making these installations, the landlord acted appropriately in view of the information it had available to it at the time.
  4. The landlord continued to investigate the resident’s reports that the works had been ineffective. It attended on 12 July 2022 to carry out further investigations. Internal emails suggest that the landlord itself was confused and frustrated that it had been unable to identify the issue, noting that on the most recent visit, as with the majority of previous visits, no smell at all had been identified. The landlord again made a crucial decision at this point to engage yet another surveyor, who attended on 26 July 2022. This visit demonstrated good practice, as the landlord continued to be thorough despite often being unable to detect any smell or damp. This demonstrates the landlord’s ability to ‘be fair’. The landlord later remarked internally that when the resident would open doors to let contractors in and show them around, the smell would temporarily dissipate, causing further confusion.
  5. On this visit, the smell was identified and narrowed down to a specific area of the property. This eventually led to the issue being resolved. The number of different professionals which had been required to get to this point is reflective of the complex nature of the issue the resident was experiencing. These serve as mitigating factors in assessing the landlord’s handling of the issues.
  6. There were some failings and oversights which contributed to the time taken. For example, the landlord appeared to take no action following an unsuccessful investigation on 23 November 2021 until the resident chased on 22 December 2022. However, although unsuccessful, the reasonable attempts the landlord had made to resolve the issues prior to the stage 2 response of 14 June 2022, meant that the £300 offered provided reasonable redress.
  7. Following the investigations of July 2022 however, the evidence shows that the repairs were not addressed in a timely manner. After a surveyor’s visit in August 2022, the flooring itself was not ordered until November 2022 and not ready to be installed until “after Christmas”. The resident was away and the repairs could not be completed until February 2023. The reason for the delays in ordering the materials between August and November 2022 is unclear. The landlord’s repairs policy does not specify a timescale, but notes that repairs will be completed “as soon as possible, by appointment”. The delay in this instance therefore was unreasonable. Following on from the issue finally being resolved In February 2023, the landlord conducted a review of the resident’s complaint in April 2023. The review offered a total of £900 for the delays and the delays experienced following the stage 2 response. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where there have been failings which had a ‘significant impact’ on the resident, compensation of at least £600 is due. Therefore, the landlord did what was necessary to ‘put things right’ both during the internal complaints process and following on from the issue being finally resolved.
  8. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord’s review of April 2023 provided an honest and accurate assessment of the landlord’s response to the issues in this case. It also identified critical areas for improvement, most crucially its “failure to be proactive”, which the evidence shows accounts for a large amount of the delays which were within the landlord’s control. For example, on the occasions when the resident was obliged to chase the landlord to evoke further action, such as in December 2021. Equally, when the landlord was chasing contractors (where the contractors were the source of delays), it could have done so more frequently. The landlord outlined the learning it had conducted as a result of this complaint and outlined system changes it had decided to bring in. This included “automatic prompts to follow up, improved record keeping” and systems which would “make delays more visible”. In light of the evidence, the Ombudsman shares the landlord’s view that these changes would have been helpful in the resident’s case, though it is important to acknowledge that it is highly likely the issue would nevertheless have taken considerable time to resolve.
  9. In October 2021, the Ombudsman produced its ‘spotlight report’ into damp and mould, outlining a number of key lessons landlord’s should incorporate into its practices. The evidence suggests that the landlord gradually implemented changes throughout 2022 which were in keeping with the themes explored in the spotlight report. The landlord has also assessed itself against the report, and in doing so provided an open and improvement-focussed account of its former, current and intended future practices. It introduced a dedicated damp and mould policy on 24 April 2023, in line with the Ombudsman’s recommendations in the spotlight report. The landlord therefore demonstrated its ability to ‘learn from outcomes’, as a result of the complaint. In conclusion, the landlord offered reasonable redress for the failings identified in its handling of reports of a mouldy smell at the property.

Complaint Handling and Communication

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the expectations the landlord should meet when dealing with complaints. The landlord acknowledged a number of complaint handling and communication failings throughout the period assessed in this report. It was appropriate that the landlord offered £150 compensation at stage 2 because it had exceeded timescales given to the resident to respond at stage 1. It had not notified her as required by the Code, and the resident had been obliged to chase. This amount also satisfactorily addressed a failing which the landlord identified, but did not mention in its stage 2 response: that it should have escalated her complaint following her phone call on 3 May 2022. The landlord instead arranged a manager to call the resident back and offered an informal increase in compensation, before escalating the complaint. This approach is not in line with the Code. The resident then experienced further delays because it failed to formally escalate the complaint until the resident chased the stage 2 response on 25 May 2022. It was important therefore that the landlord offered compensation in order to ‘put things right’.
  2. Following the conclusion of the complaints process, the landlord looked more widely at its communication with the resident and apologised that there had been “far too many occasions when [the resident] called in and didn’t hear back”; it offered £500 compensation for poor communication and a further £500 for not doing so at stage 2 of the complaint process. This was appropriate, as the landlord’s assessment that its communication with the resident had left something to be desired, was accurate. The landlord was also correct to highlight a failing in that this was not accounted for at stage 2 of the complaints process. However, there are a number of mitigating factors to consider, such as that although the resident had remained unhappy with “poor customer care”, she had not specifically drawn the landlord’s attention to these missed callbacks. Also, the landlord had adequately and robustly responded to the substantive issue, as well as that the landlord had recognised and accounted for complaint handling failures in its responses which had not been part of the resident’s complaint. The landlord showed diligence and a commitment to ‘being fair’ by seeking to identify further failings and put them right.
  3. The evidence also shows that the landlord took appropriate steps to learn from the complaint. It discussed the failings internally and changed its systems to “help manage complex and long running complaints better”. It also continued to monitor communication with the resident following the internal complaints process, concluding that its records showed “improvement in both its service and communication” once its new choice of contractor had been engaged. In conclusion, the landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of its shortcoming in complaint handling and communication.

Record Keeping  

  1. The landlord’s record keeping was also considered by this investigation. Paragraph 10 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, by which the landlord is bound, states that the member must provide copies of any information requested by the Ombudsman that is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, relevant to the complaint. The Ombudsman specifically requested information such as “details of the resident’s original complaint and subsequent escalation request”, and “information related to the repairs such as repair logs, records of dates property attended, an explanation of works completed at each visit”. Although the landlord submitted a number of pieces of evidence, the detail provided was inadequate. Some records were missing or incomplete. Large parts of the evidence submission consisted only of a written account of events from the landlord’s point of view, but contain no supporting evidence such as repair logs.
  2. Internal emails from the landlord note that the evidence in question was requested from the relevant team along with clear instructions, however this was not provided because it was deemed to be “too much admin”. In this case, the Ombudsman has been able to reach a determination, because the key facts of the case are not in direct dispute and are largely corroborated by the resident’s account of events. Additionally, there is no indication that any potential failings which may be reflected in the records which are missing, would have a bearing on the findings of this investigation. However, the landlord was required to request an extension to submit evidence, which in turn contributed to a delay in the resident receiving a determination; the landlord provided reasonable redress for this delay in its letter of April 2023. The Ombudsman is also concerned that the landlord’s process may contribute to future delays. In conclusion, the Ombudsman makes recommendations below. However, because this failing occurred following the conclusion of the internal complaints procedure, and because the landlord made separate arrangements which adequately ‘put things right’, a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping is made.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of reports of a smell of damp at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling and communication.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Recommendations

  1. Pay to the resident the £1,850 it has already offered, if it has not done so already.
  2. The landlord should review the process by which it responds to evidence requests made by the Ombudsman. It should ensure that it is able to comprehensively adhere to its obligations under paragraph 10 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, without causing unnecessary delays. The landlord may wish to share this with the Ombudsman.