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

Stonewater Limited (202307788)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307788

Stonewater Limited

16 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:
    1. Installation of a drop-down lockable parking bollard to the resident’s driveway.
    2. The resident’s associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began in November 2021. The property is a 1-bedroom house with a driveway.
  2. The resident has told the landlord and this Service that he is disabled, drives a “mobility car,” and needs to be able to park this outside his house to “assist in daily living.” He has told the landlord he has anxiety and is a vulnerable adult.
  3. On 28 December 2022, in response to a complaint by the resident, the landlord agreed to install a drop-down lockable parking bollard on the resident’s drive, at no cost to him. The landlord raised a works order to install the bollard on 6 January 2023. It told the resident that installation of the bollard could take “up to 28 days.”
  4. On 3 February 2023 the resident raised a new complaint that the bollard had not been installed yet. The landlord was late to acknowledge the complaint, and then responded at stage 1 on 27 February 2023. It said that because the bollard was being installed “as a goodwill gesture” there was no “expected turnaround time.” The landlord apologised for the delay and gave an expected completion date of 17 March 2023.
  5. The resident was dissatisfied with the response and requested escalation to stage 2. The stage 2 response, on 16 March 2023 reiterated that the landlord was not obliged to install the bollard within any particular timeframe, and said that there had been a delay as it had taken time to find an appropriate contractor. The landlord said it had communicated appropriately with the resident and tried to manage his expectations. It apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused.
  6. The bollard was installed on 11 April 2023, approximately 15 weeks after the landlord originally agreed to install the bollard.
  7. On 2 June 2023 the resident asked this Service to investigate. He explained that the delay in installing the bollard had caused him distress and inconvenience and had “made [his] disability unbearable to live with.” He was also dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaints handling. He wanted the landlord to pay him compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In April 2022 the resident asked the landlord for a parking bollard to be installed on his driveway, like the landlord had done for his next-door neighbour. The resident asked again in November 2022 and told the landlord that he needed this because other people had been parking on his driveway. In December 2022 the resident complained about the landlord’s response to his request, including that it did not consult him before installing the neighbour’s bollard. The outcome of this was that the landlord agreed to install a similar bollard for the resident in its stage 1 response, on 28 December 2022, as well as offering compensation of £550.
  2. On 3 February 2023 the resident raised a new complaint about the delay in actually installing the bollard. Because the previous issue was resolved this investigation will focus on events after the 28 December 2022. Reference to other complaints or matters outside the specified period will be made for contextual purposes only.

Bollard installation

  1. The landlord agreed to install a drop-down lockable parking bollard on the resident’s drive as part of its stage 1 response to his first bollard complaint, dated 28 December 2022. Although the landlord would not usually be obliged to carry out this kind of improvement work, it had agreed to do so as it “felt this was the right thing to do and [it was] appropriate redress,” for the resident’s first bollard complaint.
  2. On 6 January 2023 the landlord and resident had an email exchange about the bollard. The landlord asked the resident to confirm that he wanted the bollard installed. He confirmed that he did, and asked when this would happen. The landlord replied that it would “arrange for the order to be raised and it could take up to 28 days.” It was reasonable for the landlord to set this timeframe as it was the standard response time for routine repairs within the landlord’s policy.
  3. On 6 January 2023 the landlord ‘raised a works order’ on its computer system to supply and fit the bollard. The landlord’s stage 2 response to the first bollard complaint, on 18 January 2023, said that its contractor would contact the resident directly to make arrangements. No evidence has been seen that the contractor contacted the resident. The landlord’s internal emails for 24 January 2023 show that the works order for the bollard was cancelled “for the reason we do not fit drop down bollards.” This shows poor communication and cohesiveness within the landlord as, although it would not usually fit drop-down bollards, it had agreed to do so.
  4. Although the landlord had told the resident the bollard would be installed within 28 days, there is no evidence that it contacted the resident when it became apparent that this would not be possible. This was poor communication on the part of the landlord, and a missed opportunity to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations.
  5. On 3 February 2023 the resident raised a new complaint about the bollard installation:
    1. He had been promised this would be done within 28 days, but it had not been done.
    2. This had caused him anxiety and distress.
    3. The resident stated that he is disabled and vulnerable and thought the landlord did not care.
  6. The landlord’s internal emails show that it asked to raise a new works order for the bollard installation on 7 February 2023. This was authorised on 17 February 2023.
  7. The stage 1 response on 27 February 2023 explained that because the bollard installation was a “goodwill gesture” and fell outside of its responsive repairs process, there was “no expected turnaround time.” It gave an “expected completion date” of 17 March 2023. It is unclear how this date was arrived at. The landlord apologised “if this was longer than [the resident was] expecting however [it was] dependent on material and tradesperson availability.”
  8. The landlord did not address its initial statement that the bollard would be installed within 28 days, and was not transparent about the first works order being cancelled. It therefore missed an opportunity to address the resident’s frustration that it had not done what it had told him it would do. It apologised for the delay, any distress or anxiety caused, and that its communication had not been as frequent as the resident would have liked, which was appropriate.
  9. On 27 February 2023 the resident requested escalation of his complaint to stage 2. The resident was unhappy that the landlord classed the installation of a bollard as a “goodwill gesture”. The resident felt this was the landlord’s responsibility as it had been done for his neighbour. He was dissatisfied that the landlord had not updated him about the delay, which was causing him distress. He did not think that an apology was enough to put matters right.
  10. The stage 2 response on 16 March 2023 said that installation of a bollard was “not a right for anyone,” but that it had agreed to install one for the resident “because we believe it’s the right thing to do.” As the work was outside its usual “scope of work” it had taken time to find an appropriate contractor. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide this explanation. However, it referred to the installation of the bollard as a “gesture of goodwill” or “gift” 4 times, in connection with that fact that it had not carried out the work within the timescale promised. This reads as dismissive of the resident’s dissatisfaction with the time taken.
  11. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised for the resident’s distress and inconvenience, but it still did not address its initial statement that the work would be done within 28 days, or explain that the work had initially been cancelled in error. The landlord therefore missed an opportunity to accept responsibility and show regret for errors made. This made its attempts to rebuild its relationship with the resident much harder.
  12. The landlord’s compensation policy allowed for discretionary payments to be made for sub-standard service, as well as discretionary goodwill payments. The resident had indicated that he wanted to be paid compensation. Whilst the landlord was entitled to exercise its discretion and decide not to pay compensation, the stage 2 response did not adequately explain its reasoning for this.
  13. It was inappropriate for it to mention compensation paid to the resident in connection with the first bollard complaint, as this was a separate matter. The landlord accepted that the time taken to install the bollard had caused the resident distress and inconvenience and therefore it should have provided a fuller explanation of why it did not intend to pay compensation for this.
  14. The bollard installation did not take place on the 17 March 2023. Landlord internal emails on 5 April 2023 show that this was originally booked for the contractor to do on 23 March 2023, but for an unknown reason the work was not done on this day. It was then booked for 11 April 2023. It is reasonable to conclude that poor record keeping and information management on the part of the landlord led to confusion and a failure in service.
  15. The landlord has not provided evidence that it told the resident that the work would not be done by 17 March 2023, or appropriately communicated with him about why the work was not done on 23 March 2023. This was a failing on the part of the landlord which resulted in distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  16. The bollard was ultimately installed on 11 April 2023. This was 3 months after the landlord agreed to do so. When he contacted this Service the resident highlighted that he needed the bollard to be installed to “ensure [his] disability would be catered for,” and stated that the delay in doing so “made [his] disability extremely difficult to live with for months.”
  17. The resident raised a new complaint on 22 February 2023 alleging that the landlord had discriminated against him as a disabled person. The stage 1 response on 22 March 2023 and the stage 2 response on 11 April 2023 both said that the landlord had been unable to make reasonable adjustments for the resident because the resident had not provided information on his disability when previously asked. However, no evidence has been seen that it asked for this information any earlier than 22 March 2023. Even if the landlord had limited information on the resident’s disability, it could have had due regard to this based on the information it did know. No evidence has been seen that this was done.
  18. Considering the landlord’s handling of this matter overall, the following failings have been found:
    1. Missed timescales.
    2. Poor record keeping.
    3. Poor internal and external communication.
    4. Poor management of the resident’s expectations.
    5. Lack of accountability for mistakes made.
    6. No evidence of due regard to the resident’s disability.
  19. As a result of the above the resident experienced frustration and anxiety. Cumulatively this constitutes maladministration on the part of the landlord, and an Order to pay £200 has been made to reflect the impact on the resident. This is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration where there was no permanent impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy current at the time stated that it would acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days, and aimed to respond in full within 10 working days. Exceptionally, and with good reason, it would notify the resident of an extended timeframe, with extensions beyond 20 working days only by agreement with the resident. Stage 2 complaints would also be acknowledged within 2 working days and responded to in full within 10 working days of escalation. Extension of time could be agreed with the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) current at the time.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord about the time taken to install the bollard on 3 February 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint by letter dated 14 February 2023, 7 working days later. In the interim the resident emailed the landlord 8 times asking it to acknowledge his complaint and, asking it to raise a new complaint about the time taken to raise a complaint. It was inappropriate that the landlord took so long to acknowledge the complaint, and in breach of its complaints policy, and the Code. This was clearly frustrating for the resident.
  3. On 13 February 2023 the landlord emailed the resident proposing a dedicated point of contact for him within its customer relations team (he already had a dedicated point of contact within the housing management team). This person would respond to all of his contacts by email twice a week. This was an appropriate way of managing frequent contact from the resident to ensure that all his contacts were responded to in an appropriate and timely way.
  4. On 17 February 2023 the landlord told the resident that it would deal with the delay raising the complaint as part of that complaint investigation and did not need to raise a separate complaint for this. This was appropriate and in line with the Code.
  5. The stage 1 response was issued on 27 February 2023. Whilst this was within the policy target time of 10 working days after acknowledgement, because of the delay acknowledging the complaint the resident had to wait 16 working days from the date he complained. Given that the relationship between the landlord and resident was already fractured, this would have caused further damage.
  6. It was appropriate that the stage 1 response acknowledged that the time taken to install the bollard had been frustrating for the resident, may have caused distress or anxiety, and apologised for this. It also apologised that its communication with the resident may not have been “as frequent as [he] would have liked,” for the delay raising the complaint, and for any inconvenience caused. It was also appropriate that the landlord gave evidence of what had been learned from the complaint, saying that it had “improved [its] processes to reflect the significant increase in complaints received so that complaints are raised within timescale.”
  7. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 on 27 February 2023. The landlord sent a letter of acknowledgement on 2 March 2023, 3 working days later, and therefore slightly outside of the timescale set out in its policy. This was unreasonable given that its stage 1 response said it had improved its complaints-handling processes. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 16 March 2023, 10 working days after acknowledgement, and therefore in line with the timescales in its policy and the Code.
  8. Considering the landlord’s complaint-handling overall, the landlord’s provided the substantive stage 1 and 2 responses within target timescales. The responses acknowledged the resident’s complaints, the reported impact on him, and apologised for this. However, the landlord took too long to initially acknowledge the complaint at stage 1, and the request to escalate and this caused frustration for the resident and a further breakdown in the landlord/tenant relationship. The landlord also missed opportunities to show a clear understanding of what had gone wrong in relation to the installation of the bollard, and communication with the resident around this. Cumulatively this constitutes service failure on the part of the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of installation of a drop-down lockable parking bollard to the resident’s driveway.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence to this service of compliance with the following orders:
    1. A senior officer of the landlord, at minimum Director level, must apologise to the resident for the impact of the failings identified in this report. The apology should have regard to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
    2. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £250. The redress is broken down as follows:
      1. £200 for distress and inconvenience arising from the landlord’s failures in relation to the handling of installation of the bollard.
      2. £50 for time and trouble pursuing the complaint.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord should carry out a review of how it carries out improvements and alterations that it classes as being outside of its repair obligations. Specific attention should be given to:
    1. Timescales given.
    2. Record keeping and information management.
    3. Oversight.

A written report of the review to be provided to the resident and this Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. Relevant staff involved in this case could undertake complaint handling learning from our Centre for Learning (https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/centre-for-learning/key-topics/complaint-handling/).