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

Stonewater Limited (202213169)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213169

Stonewater Limited

28 June 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 response to the resident’s reports of:
    1. Damp and mould and associated odour.
    2. Disrepair to the front and back door and delay in their replacement.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord with the tenancy beginning 2018. The property is a ground floor 1 bedroom flat. The landlord says the resident has physical disabilities, and the resident has said she suffers from breathing difficulties. It has been evidenced that the resident had reported issues in relation to damp and mould in the property and disrepair to the front and rear external doors from October 2018.
  2. The resident reported a leaking roof on 5 November 2020. This was attended the same day with the case notes saying the “leak was taken care of.” The resident contacted the landlord on 28 January 2021 saying the roof had been leaking for 2 years and caused damp and mould in the property. She made further contact on 2 February 2021 saying the “smell had left the property after the leak was sorted”.
  3. On 4 June 2021, the resident reported high humidity in the property and requested an airbrick be installed. Throughout June 2021 the resident chased the landlord in relation to damp and mould in the property. The landlord made unsuccessful telephone calls to the resident and an email was eventually sent on 25 June 2021 to arrange an inspection.
  4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 22 June 2021 saying she had damp and mould in the property following a roof leak “a few years ago” and was fighting to keep the damp smell at bay with a dehumidifier. She said she felt nothing was being done and had not received a response in relation to her suggestion of installing an airbrick. She contacted the landlord again on 1 July 2021 chasing an appointment in relation to the damp and mould.
  5. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 8 July 2021 saying the roof leak had been fixed and it acknowledged it had not conducted itself “in the best way”. It went on to say it would undertake a property condition survey to identify any further issues and offered the resident £245 compensation.
  6. On 20 July 2021, the resident reported issues to the front and rear external doors to the property. She said that the “doors had dropped, and the glass had blown.”
  7. In August and September 2021, the resident chased the landlord in relation to installing an airbrick and an update on the front and back door. She also contacted the landlord twice in November 2021 requesting an update following a survey that was carried out in September 2021 and when the doors were going to be replaced. This service has not seen any notes relating to the survey.
  8. An order was raised to inspect the patio door on 6 December 2021 with this being evidenced as complete on 3 January 2022.
  9. The resident reported further damp and mould in February 2022 and an inspection was carried out on 1 March 2022. The case notes said the resident wanted the contractors to install new base units she had purchased, and “used the excuse of mould.” The contractor noted there was very little damp behind the units, yet offered to clean the area but the resident refused and asked them to leave. The notes go on to say the resident had taped up all air vents and added tape around the windows.
  10. The resident contacted this service on 9 September 2022 saying the damp and mould issue had been going on for 3 years. She therefore put in new flooring, filled in cavity gaps, refitted the toilet, and repaired “the plumbing” but the issue was not resolved. The resident was advised to escalate matters via the landlord’s complaint procedure.
  11. On 11 October 2022, the landlord contacted the resident in relation to the outstanding repairs saying it had previously confirmed that it was due to fit new doors in January 2023 and would let her know if this changed. It went on to say the property had been identified for its “retrofit’ programme which involved significant work, including insulation.
  12. The resident reported further damp and mould in November 2022, saying there was no wall insulation, and the doors and windows were draughty. The landlord confirmed in February 2023 that the windows and doors would be replaced as part of a program of works.
  13. Case notes for 8 March 2023 say the resident refused access in order for a mould wash to be carried out. In April and May 2023, the resident reported further issues with damp and mould, and damp odour. The repair log shows the landlord attended the property in relation to the damp and mould in June 2023.
  14. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint in relation to delays in having the external doors replaced on 26 March 2023 saying she was unhappy with the lack of updates relating to the doors replacement. This was acknowledged by the landlord on 25 April 2023.
  15. The landlord sent its stage one response on 1 June 2023, explaining that the “retrofit programme was currently in motion” and “predicted to start later this budget year”.
  16. The resident’s complaint was escalated to stage 2 following her email of 7 June 2023. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 28 July 2023 saying that it had carried out some repairs, but the resident could still smell damp, noticeably in the bedroom. It went on to say 2 surveys had been carried out but did not identify any defects. It noted that the cavity wall insulation did however require further investigation and that the residents’ home was on a “planned programme of retrofit works which will be completed this financial year.” This was to include “upgraded cavity wall insulation, a renewed damp proof course and new doors and windows.”
  17. It concluded by apologising to the resident and offered £850 compensation broken down into:
    1. £300 for delays to repairs.
    2. £250 for poor communication
    3. £300 for inconvenience and distress caused.

Post complaint events

  1. On 21 August 2023, a damp survey was carried out which identified works needed. The report noted a “nasty smell” within the property, which the surveyor commented “this was affecting her (the resident) mentally and physically.” It recommended to replace the windows and doors and noted that works were currently being carried out to the cavity wall insulation which was “saturated.”
  2. Case notes for 5 September 2023 said following a contractor visit to the resident that day it found she had “removed trim from windows and filled cavity and extract fans with expanding foam”. Further internal emails evidence the same, suggesting a visit to the resident to support her.
  3. In September 2023, the resident and landlord liaised over access to the property with the resident disputing she denied access. A warning letter was sent to the resident in relation to this saying that failure to give access was a breach of the tenancy agreement. The letter explained the works were to improve the energy efficiency and reduce carbon consumption of the properties and included cavity wall insulation and window replacement.
  4. The landlord has recently confirmed that the windows were replaced in November 2023 and the front door installed in January 2024. 
  5. In December 2023, the resident contacted the landlord saying she had to tape up the doors due to draughts and she had to seal the electric board to stop the smell of the insulation and mould coming in from the walls.
  6. In February 2024 as a result of complaints from contractors, a warning letter was sent to the resident regarding abusive behaviour towards staff. A further damp survey was carried out by the landlord on 14 February 2024 which noted “no evidence of mould” in the property or anything that would represent a foul odour”. It outlined measures that needed to be addressed, mainly it said as a result of the resident’s actions following her own DIY.
  7. On 13 May 2024 the resident advised this service that the mould in the bedroom was treated however, some mould issues remained in the kitchen and bathroom.

Assessment and findings

Scoping

  1. The evidence shows that the landlord was aware of the damp issues and disrepair to the external doors within the property from October 2018 and had carried out some repairs. Whilst this information provides a contextual background to the complaint this report will focus mainly on the events leading up to the resident’s formal complaints of 22 June 2021 and the landlord’s final response of 28 July 2023.

Policies  

  1. The tenancy conditions say that the landlord is responsible for repairs relating to the structure and exterior of the property. This includes:
    1. the roof, chimneys, and chimney stacks
    2. drains, gutters, and external pipes
    3. the windows
    4. the walls, floors, and ceilings.
  2. The tenancy agreement says residents have a responsibility to report any disrepair promptly and to allow employees acting on its behalf access at reasonable times and subject to reasonable notice to inspect the property to carry out such repairs.
  3. It also says residents should not make improvements or try alterations and additions to the home before first obtaining the landlord’s written consent and all other necessary approvals. Failure to seek its consent or comply with its conditions shall be a breach of resident’s obligations under the tenancy agreement.
  4. The landlord’s responsive repair policy says:
    1. Emergency repairs are to be carried out within 24 hours from receiving customer notification.
    2. Non-emergency repairs within 28 days from receiving customer notification.
    3. Major repairs within 42 days where there is a significant amount of work beyond the original repair.
    4. Maintaining clear and continuous communication with customers, ensuring they know when a reported repair will be completed and confirm the time is convenient.
  5. The landlord’s website says, in regard to planned improvements:
    1. “On completion of the works at your home, we may inspect the improvement(s) to confirm that the work has been done to a satisfactory standard. Once all the work has been completed, you will be asked to complete a short satisfaction survey called Rant & Rave. This feedback is important as it helps us to ensure you’re happy with the work that we have completed and highlight any areas where we need to improve our service.”
    2. “If your home or surrounding area is part of our planned maintenance and improvement programme, we’ll be in touch to tell you how this affects you and if we need anything from you. We aim to make sure we consult you at every stage and give you as much information as possible before the work begins.”
    3. “If we’re planning to improve your home, we’ll contact you in advance and let you know what the plan is.”

The landlord response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated odour

  1. The case notes show there was a leaking roof on 5 November 2020 which was attended to the same day. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy which says urgent repairs will be responded to within 24 hours.
  2. The resident then contacted the landlord on 28 January 2021 as she was unhappy that the roof had been leaking for two years and had caused damp and mould in the property. However, the case notes and repair log do not evidence this. On 2 February 2021, the resident advised the landlord that the smell had left the property after the leak was repaired. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to assume the damp smell had been resolved.  
  3. On 4 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord in relation to high humidity in the property and requested to have an air brick installed. The resident continued to chase the landlord throughout June 2021 in relation to damp and mould in the property and a response to her request. The landlord has evidenced that it made unsuccessful telephone calls to the resident, and eventually sent an email on 25 June 2021 to arrange an inspection. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to try and telephone the resident, it was not appropriate that it waited until 25 June to try an alternative way of contacting her. This is because the email was sent after the resident had raised a stage 1 complaint on 22 June 2021.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord again on 1 July 2021 chasing an appointment in relation to the damp and mould. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 8 July 2021. It said the roof leak had been fixed and acknowledged that it had not conducted itself in the best way saying it would undertake a property condition survey to identify any further issues and offered the resident £245 compensation. Whilst the response was resolution focused by acknowledging its failings and offering the resident compensation to put things right, it was not appropriate that the resident had to chase the matter on several occasions before the landlord suggested undertaking a property condition survey.
  5. On 19 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord in relation to her requests to have an airbrick installed. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord responded to these requests or those she made in June 2021. It said in its stage 1 response “it would look into it” which was unfair to the resident, as she had requested on numerous occasions for an airbrick to be installed and was not provided with a response. It is not for this service to confirm if one should have been installed, however, it was not appropriate that the landlord failed to provide the resident with an answer either way.
  6. It has not been disputed that an inspection was carried out in September 2021, however no inspection notes have been provided to this service in relation to this. As such, we cannot comment on what took place, although, the stage 2 response said the survey noted further investigation was needed in relation to the cavity wall insulation. The case notes evidence that the resident chased matters in relation to the inspection on 2 November 2021 with no response having been provided. She further chased a response on 24 November 2021. This was not appropriate and another example of the landlord not responding to the resident. This was evidently frustrating for her, saying that she was very disappointed and dissatisfied.
  7. The repair log shows that on 10 December 2021 the resident reported a leaking roof. This was evidenced as complete on 11 December 2021 which was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s repair policy time scale.
  8. The resident then reported mould in the kitchen on 16 February 2022. It is confusing that the repair log notes say the damp and mould had not been reported before, however this may be in relation to mould in the kitchen. The case notes say a contractor attended with the view to carrying out a mould wash, however the resident had instead requested help with fitting new kitchen units. Whilst this service cannot comment on what was said between the resident and the contractors, it is noted that under the tenancy conditions “residents should not make improvements or try alterations and additions to the home before first obtaining the landlord’s written consent.”
  9. This service does note however, that the resident sent an email to the landlord on 16 February 2022 saying she had found black mould behind the kitchen cupboards after removing one cupboard to expand the storage. She went on to say she was unable to remove the cupboard under the sink to access the rest of the mould and therefore requested the landlord “send someone to help.” At this point, the landlord should have explained to the resident what action it was going to take, and to manage the residents’ expectations when the contractors visited.
  10. It has been noted through correspondence from both the resident and the landlord’s contractors that the relationship had deteriorated, and a recommendation has been made in relation to this.
  11. The resident did not make any further reports in relation to the damp and mould until 25 November 2022, when she reported mould in the bedroom. The repair log shows this as complete on 13 December 2022 but does not give any details as to what works were carried out. This was 12 days later and was in line with its policy timescale of 28 days for non-emergency reports.
  12. The repair log shows the resident then refused a mould wash on 8 of March 2023 but nevertheless reported further issues with damp, mould and odour on 28 April and 19 May of 2023. The landlord contacted the resident on 26 May 2023 to obtain further details as to what the issue was. This was appropriate and in line with its damp and mould policy that was introduced on 24 April 2023 to triage damp a mould reports based on risk.
  13. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 22 June 2023 saying the property was still damp and the issue had been ongoing for 5 years. The landlord responded on 28 July 2023. It said it carried out 2 surveys of the property, but no defects were found, aside from recommending further investigation of the wall insulation. The landlord accepted its failings in relation to its communication with the resident and said it relied too heavily on its programme of works to remedy the issues. It offered the resident a total of £850. This was made up of £250 for its poor communication, £300 for its delay in carrying out repairs and £300 for the distress and inconvenience. This was an appropriate response by the landlord as it was taking steps to put things right and was resolution focused.
  14. A damp survey was carried out on 21 August 2023, recommending to replace the windows and doors and noted that works were being carried out to remove the cavity wall insulation. It said that the cavity wall insulation was saturated and also made reference to a “bad smell” within the property. There is no evidence to suggest that the smell was investigated further which is not appropriate, especially as the resident had reported numerous times the damp smell within the property.
  15. However, it is reasonable to conclude that the wet cavity wall insulation may have been the cause of the smell, and the landlord has said it was aware of issues with the cavity walls insulation from September 2021. It has not been possible establish this with any certainty from the evidence provided, nevertheless the landlord took almost 2 years to take meaningful action in relation to the cavity wall insulation, which was not appropriate.
  16. It is unclear from the repair log exactly when the cavity wall insulation was replaced, however, an internal email of 5 January 2024 confirmed it had been done at that point. The landlord provided an updated survey that was carried out in February 2024 confirming there were no further mould issues and no foul odour at the property. Although the landlord is entitled to rely on these findings, the resident has advised this service that the mould issues remained in the kitchen and bathroom, as well as a foul odour. Given this, a recommendation has been made below.
  17. It has been evidenced that the resident and the landlord liaised over access to the property, in order for programmed works to windows and doors to be carried out. The landlord sent a warning letter to the resident in September 2023 reminding her that failure to provide access was a breach of her tenancy. This was appropriate as the resident’s tenancy agreement says tenants have a responsibility to provide access for repairs to be carried out. The resident has disputed that she denied access, nevertheless the landlord had evidenced this with emails from contractors that were sent at the time. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on information provided to it by its contractors, especially as this was often provided at the time access was denied and included contemporaneous notes of what had occurred.
  18. In summary, it was clear the landlord was not proactive in trying to resolve the damp and mould issues with it being evidenced that the resident had to chase matters on several occasions before action was taken. For 2 months, the resident had chased an answer in relation to whether an airbrick was to be installed. Whilst it has been acknowledged that the landlord said it would look into an airbrick, in its response of 8 July 2021, its failure to respond to the resident on this point, compounded her frustration and did not demonstrate that the landlord was taking the complaint seriously.
  19. Also, the landlord had said it was aware of issues with the cavity wall insulation from September 2021 but did not carry out any works until its programme of works begin around August 2023. It was evident from the resident’s correspondence that this was frustrating for her and it was only after her formal complaint did it take meaningful action. This was not appropriate.
  20. The resident had said in February 2021 that the smell had gone from the property but later returned, when she reported it again on 22 June 2021. Although there  were delays in carrying out repairs, in mitigation, some of the resident’s actions did not help the situation, such as taping up windows and extractor fans and access delays. Nonetheless, the landlord is obliged to respond to reports of disrepair and not just rely on a programme of planned works to resolve any disrepair.
  21. It was therefore appropriate, that in its final response the landlord accepted it had failed in its communication with the resident and delayed in getting the works done. It outlined where it went wrong and said it would not rely on planned works to resolve repair issues in future. In total it offered the resident £850 in compensation, which was sufficient to put things right in relation to the damp and mould complaint . Were it not for these actions taken by the landlord, this service would have found maladministration.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of disrepair to the front and back door and delay in their replacement

  1. Whilst it has been evidenced that the resident first reported issues with the external doors in October 2018 this report will focus on her most recent reports leading up to her formal complaint of 22 June 2021.
  2. On 20 July 2021, the resident reported disrepair to the front and rear external doors of the property. She said that the doors had dropped, and the glass had blown. The tenancy conditions say that the landlord is responsible for repairs relating to the structure and exterior of the property. Although the tenancy conditions do not specifically mention external doors, it is outlined in its “guide for customers, getting your home repaired” that it is responsible for repairs to “external doors including hinges and handles.”
  3. The repair log shows the resident chased matters in relation to the front and back door in August and September of 2021. As previously mentioned, a survey was carried out in September 2021 however no details were provided to this service. As a result, we cannot comment on whether or not this included an inspection of the external doors. The door repair was evidenced as complete on 29 September 2021 which was 71 days later and significantly outside of its repair policy time scale of 28 days, and even 42 day timescale for major repairs.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 November 2021 and requested an update in relation to when the external doors were going to be replaced. There was no evidence to show that an update was provided, which was not appropriate. She then contacted the landlord again on 24 November 2021 in relation to the doors, the landlord apologised for the delay in responding and said it would pass her query to the surveyor.
  5. A works order was raised to inspect the patio doors on 6 December 2021 with this being evidenced as carried out on 3 of January 2022, which was appropriate and in line with its repair policy timescale. Following this, a works order was raised on 8 February 2022 to survey the “windows and doors”. The resident reported on 26 May 2022 that the doors were draughty and this was attended to on 13 June 2022, 18 days later which was in line with its policy timescale. Whilst the landlord attended to the repair request in an appropriate timescale, it did not carry out the survey until 125 days later which was not appropriate, especially as the survey was carried out after the resident reported further disrepair with the door.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord on 9 March, 13 June and 20 July 2022 in relation to an update as to when the external doors would be replaced. The resident said she had not received a response from her email of 13 June 2022 and the back door was bowed. Case notes for 21 July 2022 say the property was on “this year’s programme of replacement doors and windows” and residents would be notified when a start date had been confirmed. Nevertheless, this information was not passed on to the resident which was not appropriate.
  7. The resident chased an update on the door replacement on 20 September 2022, the landlord responded on 11 October 2022 saying works were due to start in January 2023, which was 149 day later from her initial enquiring of 9 March 2022. This was not appropriate and caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. If the landlord was unsure of a start date, it should have told the resident so, instead of not responding to her. She had requested an update 4 times over a period of 6 months, which was evidently frustrating for her.
  8. The resident contacted the landlord again on 25 January 2023, with the case notes saying the resident was getting frustrated that her windows and doors were not yet done. The landlord responded on 1 February 2023 confirming the programme for replacement windows and doors was due to start in the spring.
  9. The resident remained unhappy with the lack of updates in relation to the door replacement and raised a stage 1 complaint on 26 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 25 of April 2023 and sent its stage 1 response on 1 June 2023. It explained that a retrofit programme was currently in motion, with contractors currently on site carrying out some “testing” and predicted the works to start later that budget year, which was appropriate.
  10. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the response on 7 June 2023 saying she would be contacting this service. The landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 sending its final response on 28 July 2023. It advised the resident that the works would be completed that financial year, which included new doors and offered a total of £850 compensation. However, the compensation was not broken down to outline how much was apportioned to the door repair delay. Despite this, the response was appropriate and in accordance with this service dispute resolution principles to put things right and learn from outcomes.
  11. In summary, the landlord delayed in carrying out the initial door repair, taking 71 days to complete. A further report of December 2021 was attended to within 18 days, nevertheless it took 125 days to carry out a survey, which was carried out as a result of a further report of disrepair made by the resident.  The resident contacted the landlord on 9 March 2022 chasing an update in relation to the replacement doors but it took the landlord 149 days to respond.
  12. The landlord advised her the works would be done as part of its programmed improvements but did not provide any further details. This is contrary to what it says residents can expect when their home is part of planned maintenance and improvement. It says it will consult residents at every stage and give them as much information as possible before works start and let them know what the plan is. The landlord failed to do this despite the resident’s continued enquiries over the course of a year. This was evidently frustrating for her and caused her significant time and trouble in pursuing an update.
  13. Furthermore, the doors were not replaced as part of the programmed works until January 2024 – this was 19 months after the landlord had responded to additional reports of disrepair made by the resident in June 2022 by saying that replacement works would start in January 2023. As such, the doors remained in disrepair during this time in breach of the landlord’s repairing obligation, until replaced and additional compensation has been ordered below.        
  14. As the landlord’s final response did not offer specific compensation for the delays in replacing the doors and its £850 compensation has been assessed above as being sufficient to put right the damp and mould complaint, additional compensation has been ordered to redress the landlord’s repairing and replacing delays and its communication failures in regard to the doors.
  15. Compensation has been awarded for the distress and inconvenience this caused to the resident. A total of £480 has been awarded, broken down into £100 for its initial delays carrying out repairs in 2021 and 2022 and £20 per month for 19 months between June 2022, when the resident reported that the back door was bowed, and its replacement as part of programmed works in January 2024.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of disrepair to the front and back door and delay in their replacement.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated odour.

Orders

  1. The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
    1. Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £480 in recognition of any distress and inconvenience arising from its handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair to the front and back door and delay in their replacement.
    2. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. 

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination:
    1. If not already done so, pay the resident the £850 compensation already offered to her in its response of 28 July 2023.
    2. Contact the resident to ensure there are no further issues in relation to damp and mould at the property and take prompt action if necessary. The landlord to confirm in writing to this service once it has done this.
    3. The landlord is to consider mediating introductions with the resident and its contractors for future works, ensuring both parties are aware of their obligations from the start of the works.