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

Stonewater Limited (202231631)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231631

Stonewater Limited

11 September 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 handling of repairs, specifically:
    1. A leak in the bathroom and the associated repairs.
    2. An electrical safety concern.
    3. Inadequate ventilation in the kitchen.
    4. A rotten skirting board in the bedroom.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 3-bedroom house and has lived there with her children since November 2022. The landlord has told this Service is not aware of any vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. In February and March 2023, the resident made a number of reports to the landlord, including:
    1. 24 February 2023 – inadequate ventilation in the kitchen caused by the ventilation unit being the opposite side of the room to the cooker.
    2. 2 March 2023 – a leak coming from the bath upstairs.
    3. 9 March 2023 – damage to skirting board in the bedroom.
  3. On 17 March 2023, all the repairs remained outstanding, and the resident formally complained to the landlord. She said that the leak had not been repaired, and due to the leak affecting electrical sockets, she wanted a safety check carried out. The leak was later repaired on 21 March 2023.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 30 March 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience she had experienced due to delayed repairs and confirmed that the leak was now fixed. The landlord offered the resident a total of £150 compensation for poor communication, inconvenience, and the delays to the repairs. The response failed to acknowledge her request for an electrical safety check.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 19 August 2023. She stated that following the repair of the leak, the bath panel had not been sealed back into place and she had still not received an electrical safety check on her sockets. The resident also stated that her request to look at the kitchen ventilation remained outstanding, and the skirting board had not been replaced and was smelling.
  6. On 18 May 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised that the skirting board and bath panel had not been attended to fully and said it had raised an order for the works to be completed. The landlord also stated that the electrics in the property had been checked prior to the resident moving in. However, it said it would arrange a further inspection to put the resident’s mind at ease. The landlord increased its compensation offer to £275.
  7. The landlord also apologised for its complaint handling, which had led to delays in the resident’s complaint being escalated. It offered a further £150 compensation to address this.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In her correspondence with this Service, the resident has raised other matters that have not yet been through the landlord’s complaint process. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 1 June 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service.

 

 

The landlord’s handling of repairs

A leak in the bathroom and the associated repairs

  1. The resident informed the landlord, through social media, that there was a leak coming from under her bath on 2 March 2023, and it advised her the next available appointment would be 21 March 2023. The resident expressed her concern that she would be unable to bathe her children and was informed if the leaks started to gush, she should call back for an emergency appointment.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy confirms that it is responsible for the repair of bathroom fittings. It defines an emergency repair as one that, “could pose an immediate danger or cause serious damage”, such as a major leak that is uncontrollable and cannot be contained. The information available from social media did not suggest that the leak was one that needed an emergency repair. However, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to ask further questions of the resident, to determine the extent of the problem.
  3. Later the same day, the resident contacted the landlord again through social media, to say she was worried about the kitchen ceiling, as the leak was dripping down from behind the cupboards making them swell, and onto her cooker. The landlord replied that a contractor had been booked and took no further action.
  4. Following the resident’s update, the landlord had been made aware that the problem was more serious with the water was dripping down into the kitchen below and affecting an appliance. Under the terms of its repair policy, the landlord should have reassessed the priority of the repair in light of the new information. The failure to do so was an inappropriate breach of the policy. It is reasonable to assume the landlord would have categorised the repair as an emergency had it followed the appropriate assessment.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord again on 9 March 2023, and stated that she was unhappy with the date given for her repair. The landlord informed her that it was within the timescale and no further reassessment of the situation was carried out. This caused the resident to make her formal complaint on 17 March 2023, when she expressed her frustration that she and her children had been unable to use the bath due to the leak. The resident stated she wanted the repair to be completed within 24 hours.
  6. The leak was repaired on 21 March 2023, and in its stage 1 complaint response on 30 March 2023, the landlord apologised for the inconvenience it had caused to the resident. It confirmed that the repair should have been prioritised as urgent but was instead processed as a routine repair with a 28-day time scale.
  7. When the resident escalated her complaint on 19 April 2023, she stated that although the leak was fixed, the bath panel had not been sealed and required a return visit. The landlord did not acknowledge this until 18 May 2023, and upon issuing its stage 2 complaint response on 1 June 2023, the repair was still outstanding.
  8. As it was a routine repair, the bath panel should have been completed within 28 days, according to the landlord’s stage 1 response. The landlord failed to complete the repair within this timescale, which caused the resident further frustration, time, and inconvenience, in chasing the complaint.
  9. The landlord’s failure to correctly prioritise the nature of the repair led to delays in the leak being stopped. Its further failure to address routine repairs within its own timescales have caused further frustration to the resident. Its overall handling of repairs in relation to the leak in the bathroom was unreasonable.

An electrical safety concern

  1. When the resident notified the landlord of the leak on 2 March 2023, she asked whether the electrics would be safe. The landlord replied to her the same day and said, “it should be safe until the 21st [contractor appointment date]”. At this point, the landlord appeared to be unaware of how the leak was impacting the electrics in the property. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to ask further questions of the resident to determine the cause for her concerns.
  2. However, in her formal complaint, dated 17 March 2023, the resident stated that when she reported the leak through social media, she also included evidence that showed water dripping into the electrical socket. This suggests that the landlord was aware of nature of the issue from the 2 March 2023.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to electrical sockets and switches. While this Service is unable to comment on the safety of the sockets, it would have been appropriate in the circumstances for the landlord to have carried out an inspection to ensure there was no immediate danger, and to do so in the timescales outlined in its emergency response. The landlord did not do this, which was unreasonable given the information it possessed about the potential severity of the issue.
  4. In her formal complaint, the resident also requested for an electrical safety check to be carried out on the affected sockets. The landlord failed to acknowledge this aspect of her complaint in its stage 1 response and failed to take any action to reassure the resident.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 April 2023 and provided a video of the sockets with water running over them from the leak. It is not clear whether this is the same evidence she provided to the landlord on 2 March 2023. When the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation on 18 May 2023, it specifically stated that the safety issue would form part of its investigation and be dealt with in its stage 2 response. However, the landlord failed to carry out an inspection of the sockets.
  6. The landlord issued it stage 2 response on 1 June 2023. It stated that an electrical safety check had been carried out at the property in November 2022, prior to the resident moving in, and all aspects were satisfactory. However, it stated that to put the resident’s mind at ease, it would look to schedule an inspection of the electrical sockets. The resident had requested an inspection on two previous occasions and those requests had not been acted upon, despite providing evidence of water leaking directly into sockets. The landlord’s response was unreasonable, and it should have acted upon her requests sooner
  7. This caused the resident further distress and frustration as she was concerned for the safety of her family. Had the landlord carried out the inspection when the resident first reported the problem, this would have resolved the issue sooner and provided reassurance to resident.

Inadequate ventilation in the kitchen

  1. On 24 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord through social media to report that she had inadequate ventilation in her kitchen. She stated the extractor fan was on the opposite side of the kitchen to her cooker and was ineffective.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy states that while cooker repairs are the tenant’s responsibility, the units and fixtures are the responsibility of the landlord. While the policy does not specifically list the ventilation unit, the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) states the landlord is responsible for the repairs to ventilation equipment. The landlord’s policy also states that kitchen repairs of a non-urgent nature would be attended by appointment. While no precise time scale for appointments is given, it would be reasonable for repairs of this nature to be attended within 28 days. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s request.
  3. The kitchen ventilation issue did not form part of the resident’s formal complaint. However, when the resident chased her response on 19 April 2023, she again reported that the ventilation unit in her kitchen was inadequate. When the landlord escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 18 May 2023, it specifically acknowledged this concern as part of its investigation. However, when the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 1 June 2023, it failed to mention the action it had taken or intended to take in relation to the matter. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord has acted on this service request from the resident to date.
  4. The HHSRS identifies damp and mould as a hazard and states that reduced ventilation can contribute to mould growth. It advises that rapid ventilation is required during times of high moisture, in areas such as the kitchen. While this Service cannot comment on whether the resident’s kitchen ventilation was effective or not in the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate her concerns and provide her with a response. The landlord failed to do this, despite the resident raising it twice. The lack of positive action to address the issue was unreasonable.

A rotten skirting board in the bedroom.

  1. On 9 March 2023, the landlord raised a works order to repair the skirting board in a bedroom of the property. It is unclear who reported the skirting board issue, and the works order recorded possible water damage as the cause. The work was marked as complete on 19 April 2023.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it is responsible for repairs to skirting boards, and while it does not give a specified timescale for completing such works, it would be reasonable to complete the repair within 28 days. The landlord failed to complete the repair within this timescale.
  3. The resident raised the issue again when she escalated her complaint on 19 August 2023, on the same day the repair was completed. She stated the landlord had applied filler to the existing skirting board, which had not addressed the problem. She said the smell coming from the rotting wood was the main area of her concern. It is not clear from the landlord’s documents whether it was aware of the exact nature of the problem, as this was not captured on the works order. However, the resident had been very specific as to what the problem was, and the landlord was reasonably expected to have acted upon it in line with its policy.
  4. When the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 1 June 2023, it apologised that the issue remained outstanding and stated it had raised a works order for the skirting board to be assessed and repairs undertaken. The landlord again failed to complete the repair within 28 days. The skirting board was not repaired until October 2023. The length of time taken to complete the repair was unreasonable.

Summary of repairs

  1. The landlord failed to correctly prioritise the leak when it was reported on 2 March 2023 and failed to acknowledge the potential safety concerns, despite being provided with a video of water running into an electrical socket. While the landlord offered to carry out an inspection in its stage 2 response, this was 3 months after the concerns were first reported.
  2. The repair to the skirting board was not completed in a timely manner. When the resident reported the repair as inadequate, the landlord again failed to rectify the repair within the timescales set out in its policy.
  3. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s concerns regarding the kitchen ventilation system, despite telling her it would be included within her complaint investigation. This, in addition to failures set out above, led to the resident feeling ignored, inconvenienced, and at times, distressed.
  4. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so the Ombudsman considers whether the redress was in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. 
  5. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered the resident compensation of £100 for inconvenience and £75 to the delays in repairs. Given the repeated failures to attend repairs in a timely manner and the failure to acknowledge service requests on multiple occasions, the landlord’s offer of compensation was not reasonable in the circumstances.
  6. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £500 compensation to the resident for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused, in pursuing these service requests, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

  1. A landlord’s complaint handling process is an essential aspect of its overall service delivery provision. An effective complaints process will enable a landlord to identify and address service delivery issues in a timely manner. It will also provide learning for future service provision.
  2. On 17 March 2023, the resident complained to the landlord through social media regarding repairs she had reported that had not been completed. In particular:
    1. A leak in her bathroom.
    2. Concerns that two electrical sockets had been exposed to water from the leak.
  3. The resident said that as an outcome to her complaint, she wanted the repairs completed and her electrics checked.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 20 March 2023, which was the next working day. This was in line with the landlord’s complaint policy, which allows 2 working days for an acknowledgement to be sent. The landlord also gave the resident a target date of 3 April 2023 for her to receive a further response. However, while the landlord acknowledged the complaints about the leak, it failed to acknowledge the electrical safety aspect of her complaint.
  5. On 30 March 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. This was earlier than the date given in the acknowledgement, and in line with its complaint policy which allows 10 working days for the response to be issued. However, the landlord only addressed the complaint regarding the leak, which had already been repaired. It failed to provide a response to the further elements of the resident’s complaint, and this was a significant failing.
  6. The landlord recognised its failings in relation to the repair of the leak and offered the resident £150 compensation, which included £50 for poor communication.
  7. It is clear from the information provided that the resident did not receive the stage 1 complaint response in a timely manner. The resident contacted the landlord for updates on 19, 26 and 27 April 2023 and was told on 2 occasions that the “letter” would be resent, suggesting the complaint response had initially been posted. However, the resident had contacted the landlord by email on 19 April 2023, which confirms that they had her email address at this point. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to email her a copy following her first request on 19 April 2023, rather than causing her to call back a week later to repeat her request for an update.
  8. On 18 May 2023, the landlord sent the resident an email to acknowledge it took multiple contacts by the resident to get a response and there was an ‘unacceptable delay’ to escalate the complaint to stage 2. This Service has not been provided with details of the resident’s escalation requests. However, the landlord’s complaint policy states that an escalation will be acknowledged within 2 working days. This did not happen and is a further failing in complaint handling and managing the resident’s expectations.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 1 June 2023. This was within the 10 working–day time scale set out in its complaint policy. The response failed to acknowledge the resident’s concerns regarding ventilation in her kitchen, despite documenting this issue in its acknowledgement email to her. The response also did not adequately address the electrical safety concerns. Instead, the landlord relied on electrical test that had been carried out on the property before the leak had occurred.
  10. Paragraph 5.6 of the Complaint Handling Code in force at the time, stated that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. Therefore, the landlord should have responded to the resident’s concerns regarding the extractor fan. This further failing in the landlord’s complaint handling caused the resident further frustration and made her feel that her complaints were not being taken seriously.
  11. The response did acknowledge the landlord’s failure to escalate the resident’s complaint and offered her £150 compensation. It also increased its previous compensation for poor communication to £100.
  12. The landlord failed to address the resident’s full complaint in its stage 1 response. It acknowledged this to some extent when it escalated her complaint and made an effort to get it right by setting out exactly what the stage 2 response would consider. Despite this, the landlord again failed to address the resident’s full complaint at stage 2, which has caused further frustration and inconvenience to the resident and has significantly delayed this matter being resolved.
  13. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes, as well as our guidance on remedies. 
  14. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies suggests that an award of £250 may remedy maladministration where there was a failure that had a significant impact on the resident. Considering the delays to the complaint responses being issued, the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint, the apologies made and the offer of compensation, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failings identified within this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £500 in compensation (inclusive of £175 already paid), for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its handling of repairs.
    3. Conduct an inspection of the electrical sockets that were affected by the leak or provide evidence of such an inspection being carried out.
    4. Conduct an assessment of the suitability of the current kitchen ventilation, in line with HHSRS and provide the resident with the findings and plan of works if required.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within the timescales set out above.