Stonewater Limited (202225980)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225980

Stonewater Limited

27 November 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of a broken fence and other garden issues.
2. The resident’s report of damage caused to garden furniture and contractor behaviour.
3. The complaint.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord at the property from 6 January 2020 until 15 May 2023. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident lived in the property with her partner and 3 children, 1 of whom is registered disabled. The landlord’s records accurately reflected the vulnerabilities within the household.
On 3 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to report that a fence panel had broken and fallen into a neighbour’s garden. The landlord sent a standard email response which told the resident that she was responsible for repairing privacy fence panels.
The resident replied on 4 March 2022. She said that the garden was now dangerous because there was a drop on the other side of the fence. She explained that her family which included 3 children, 1 of whom was disabled, could no longer use the garden.
On 11 March 2022, in an internal email the landlord decided that the broken fence was a boundary fence and therefore it was responsible for its repair. It raised an order to repair the fence. The repairs log said that the contractor completed the job on 22 March 2022.
The resident’s partner contacted the landlord on 16 May 2022 via its webchat facility. He said that the fence was still down and explained that the garden was 3ft higher than the neighbour’s garden and that it was now “sinking into theirs”. The landlord said that it was the resident’s responsibility to repair the fence. He called the landlord on 16 May 2022 and the landlord promised to call him back.
The landlord raised another repair request to replace the fence panel and gravel board on 17 May 2022. On 18 May 2022, the resident explained that replacing the fence panel alone would not resolve the issue because the end of the garden was subsiding, and the ground had cracked to reveal rubble underneath. She said that the operative that attended previously had told her that concrete posts and a new fence were required.
On 4 July 2022, the landlord advised the resident that it would install concrete posts, gravel retainers, and fencing by 21 July 2022. It also said that it would remove the rubble, lay 200mm of topsoil, returf the area, repair the brick wall, and relay the rear patio paving slabs by 2 August 2022.
On 2 August 2022, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She said that an operative had attended the previous week but had not completed the work because he was alone, and he said it was a 2-person job. She explained that she could not use the garden. She also explained that she could not access the outside space at all when her partner was at work because she had 1-year-old and a child in a wheelchair. Therefore, she could not push both at once. She said this delay “would affect her whole summer”. The landlord responded to say that it would pass the query to the customer relations team. It acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 10 August 2022.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 23 August 2022. It apologised for the time taken to resolve the issue and the inconvenience caused. It said that a contractor would start work on 12 September 2022. It offered £50 compensation for its poor communication and £100 for the delays and inconvenience caused.
On 30 August 2022, the resident told the landlord that she was unhappy with the response and the compensation offer. She explained how she could only access 1 park, which was a 48-minute drive away, due to her daughter’s disability needs. She said that the family had therefore been housebound while her partner was at work and that in the record-breaking temperatures recently experienced, they had not even been able to use a paddling pool.
The landlord responded to say that it could review the compensation offer or escalate the complaint. The resident asked it to review the compensation offer and it increased the offer to £250 on 13 September 2022. This included an extra £100 for the delays.
The resident accepted this offer on 16 September 2022, but also told the landlord that she was unhappy with the work that the contractor had done so far. On 18 September 2022, she told the landlord that she had discovered that an operative had damaged her patio table and stacked the broken pieces nearby.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 17 October 2022. She said that:
1. The contractor had not replaced the fence panel and concrete posts as ordered; they had only replaced the concrete retainer.
2. Nails were protruding from the fence.
3. The contractor had not re-laid the paving.
4. The operatives had arrived a day earlier than arranged to lay the turf meaning her partner had booked the day off unnecessarily.
5. The contractor had not ordered enough turf on 2 more occasions so the operatives had to return on 6 October 2022 and 14 October 2022, meaning her partner had to book another day off.
6. The contractor had not collected the rubble when promised and it was left opposite her house, causing parking issues and neighbour problems.
7. The operatives had damaged her table and not informed her, and had been smoking in her garden, leaving cigarette butts in the carport.
The landlord responded on 19 October 2022. It said that it would escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. It sent a stage 2 complaint acknowledgement on 27 October 2022.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 10 November 2022. It said that:
1. The contractor had thought it more appropriate to fit a gravel board only, however as this was not what the resident wanted. It had raised another job for the fence panel to be replaced.
2. It had agreed to lay more turf than originally planned and therefore ordered more turf which “naturally takes more time and numerous visits”. However, it was sorry for the inconvenience.
3. It was not aware of the ongoing issue with the pavement and a surveyor would call her in the next 5 days to assist.
4. It apologised for the delay in removing the rubble. The contractors had positioned it so that it did not disrupt any parking spaces. However, it apologised and would learn from this in the future.
5. It apologised that the operatives arrived a day early and for the lack of communication. It said it was disappointed to hear about the smoking and it would pick this up urgently with a supervisor.
6. It had discussed the broken table with the contractor who said that the table was already broken when they arrived. It asked the resident to send photographs of the table before and after the contractors attended and it would “look into reimbursing” her.
7. It would carry out the outstanding work as soon as possible.
8. It offered a further £150 in compensation. This meant that it offered a total of £400 compensation broken down into £100 for poor communication, £150 for delays and £150 for inconvenience.
The contractor completed the works on 24 April 2024. On 29 July 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident. It offered her a further £375 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused but said that this would not affect the Housing Ombudsman’s investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern matters where it is quicker, fairer, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts. his Service does not determine liability for damages or award damages in the way that a court might and therefore we are unable to determine liability for the damage to the resident’s belongings or order compensation for this issue.
The Ombudsman will however consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement due to damaged belongings and whether it handled this reasonably and in line with its own policy and procedures.

Fence and garden repairs

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy in place at the time said that its objectives were to deliver all non-emergency repairs within a maximum period of 28 days from receiving the notification. It said that it would carry out major repairs within a maximum of 42 days.
The resident reported the broken fence on 3 March 2022. The landlord sent a standard response to tell her that it was not responsible for the repair. However, this was incorrect, and it later agreed to carry out the repair. It did not check the situation fully before sending a standard response email. This failure cost the resident time and trouble because she had to contact it to report it again.
According to the repairs log, the fence repair job logged on 11 March 2022 was completed by the contractor on 22 March 2022, but this was not the case. Later correspondence from the resident shows that the operative that attended on 22 March 2022 told her that he could not do the job because concrete posts and a new fence should be fitted to prevent further subsidence. However, the contractor closed the job and ordered no follow-on work at that time. This failure cost the resident further time and trouble and caused her distress and inconvenience because she had to contact the landlord again on 16 May 2022.
The landlord noted that the resident requested a callback on 16 May 2022. However, this Service has seen no evidence that it did so. It raised another repair job, but the resident had to contact it again on more than one occasion to clarify that it had understood what was required and ordered the correct work. This cost her further time and trouble.
The contractor noted that 2 people would be required to undertake the job but only sent one. This meant that the resident had to contact the landlord again on 2 August 2022 to complain. This was 5 months after she had reported the problem initially and therefore the landlord had failed to adhere to the timescales within its repairs policy.
The resident told it repeatedly how the situation was affecting her family life because they could not access outside space at all in an extremely hot summer. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered the vulnerabilities in the household when prioritising the work. It also should have prioritised it due to the errors already made. However, it did not do so and told her that the work would be completed a month later. This failure to follow its repairs policy and to consider the specific vulnerabilities within the household caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
When the contractor attended in September 2022, it still did not complete the work that the landlord promised. It did not fit new concrete posts and a new fence panel despite this being the reason the first repairs call was aborted 6 months previously. This caused further frustration and distress and inconvenience to the resident and her family because they still could not use the garden.
The landlord agreed to re-turf the area. The landlord booked this in for the 5 October 2022 and informed the resident. Her partner booked a day off work because she was at the hospital that day. However, the operative arrived a day early causing inconvenience. The landlord agreed to complete extra turfing so it is understandable that it might need to order more turf and that an extra visit may be required. However, this happened on 3 occasions and was not communicated to the resident in advance, causing further inconvenience which was not customer focussed or reasonable.
The landlord agreed to re-lay the paving in the garden on 5 July 2022 and told the resident that this should be completed by 2 August 2022. However, it failed to meet this deadline, and the resident took further time and trouble chasing this. The contractor’s notes said that it lifted and re-laid the slabs on 14 September 2022, but it did not, this showed poor record keeping. The resident contacted the landlord again on 17 October 2022. This cost her further time and trouble and caused further distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s communication throughout the process was poor. The resident contacted it on numerous occasions for updates, but this Service has seen no evidence that it proactively updated her.
The landlord offered £150 compensation for the delays in completing the work, £100 for poor communication, and £150 for the inconvenience this caused as a remedy at the time of the stage 2 complaint. However, this was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience, time, and trouble experienced by the resident because of the landlord’s failings. It was also not in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. Particularly considering the vulnerabilities within the household and the fact that the family could not enjoy the garden for a prolonged period over the summer months.
This Service has noted that the landlord revised its offer of compensation when it reviewed the case due to our investigation. We accept that the new compensation offer is more appropriate in recognition of its failings, and it represented an attempt to put things right. However, it offered this a considerable time after the complaints process was exhausted. Additionally, it was prompted by this Service’s intention to investigate the complaint. This should have been an outcome and offer of redress identified at the time of the complaints process.
This additional offer of compensation was a further £375. This in addition to the £400 already offered was a total of £775. However, this did not consider that the resident had to take time and trouble contacting this Service for assistance before the extra offer of compensation was made. Therefore, an order to pay a total of £875 compensation to reflect this has been made. However, the £775, if already paid, should be deducted from this.
Due to the severe delays, poor communication, and failure to consider vulnerabilities within the household there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a broken fence and other garden issues.

Damaged garden furniture and contractor behaviour

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time said “where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are relevant and the stage 1 response has not been issued. Where the stage 1 response has been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint.”
The resident raised new concerns after the stage 1 complaint had been issued. These were that the contractor had damaged the table and that operatives had been smoking in the garden and had left cigarette butts in the carport. The landlord should have logged these as a new complaint, but it decided to respond as part of the stage 2 complaint response. This meant that it did not investigate thoroughly and provide a full response.
The landlord’s compensation policy said:
1. That where damage to personal belongings has occurred, a resident should submit a claim through their own contents insurance.
2. If it was due to a service failure on the landlord’s part, it may pay any policy excess amount.
3. If the resident did not have contents insurance, a claim might be able to be submitted to the landlord.
4. If one of its contractors caused damage due to proven neglect whilst undertaking repair works, it would attempt to remedy this. This might include payment to the customer directly.
The landlord’s complaints policy said “where a complaint involves a member of staff, the staff member will be interviewed as part of the initial investigation and kept up to date following each stage of the process. Should any action be taken against the member of staff, this will be in accordance with the relevant policy and procedure.”
The resident told the landlord that she thought that an operative had damaged her garden table on 18 September 2022. She chased a response to her email on 26 September 2022, costing her further time and trouble. The landlord then advised her to contact the contractor directly to discuss it, but she was unable to reach them.
The landlord failed to follow its policy because it did not direct the resident to her insurance company or signpost her to its insurance company as appropriate. In the stage 2 complaint response, it told her that the contractors had said that the table was already damaged when they arrived. The landlord should have taken notes regarding this conversation; however, this Service has seen no evidence of these. There is also no evidence that the landlord followed this complaint up with any further action.
The Code also said that “any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.”
In the response to the complaint about smoking, the landlord said that it would “pick this up urgently with the supervisor”. However, when this Service asked the landlord for evidence of the feedback given and the investigation it undertook regarding this it said that it was unable to provide it “due to our record keeping processes at the time”. This was a record keeping failure that means that there is no evidence that the landlord followed this up at all. It also did not offer to remove the cigarette butts which would have been a reasonable remedy in the circumstances.
Due to the delay in responding to the initial request, failure to signpost the resident in accordance with its policy, record keeping failures, and failure to follow the Code there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damaged furniture and contractor behaviour. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £200 to reflect the time and trouble caused to the resident due to this.

Complaint handling

The Code also said that “a complaint investigation must be conducted in an impartial manner, seeking sufficient, reliable information from both parties so that fair and appropriate findings and recommendations can be made”.
The stage 1 complaint response lacked detail regarding the investigations that the landlord had undertaken. It did not address how long the repair to the fence had been outstanding or identify all the causes of the delays to ensure they did not happen again. This caused the resident further distress and inconvenience and cost her time and trouble because she had to escalate the complaint.
The landlord’s complaint policy has a 2 stage complaints process. However, when the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the stage 1 complaint response the landlord offered a further option of a review of the compensation amount. While this might have been appropriate if the rest of the complaint had been resolved, in this case it caused a 2-month delay in the escalation of the complaint. This cost her further time and trouble because there were further delays which she contacted the landlord about. She also had to chase payment of the extra compensation. It also delayed her access to an investigation by this Service.
The wording of the stage 2 complaint response minimised the impact that the failings had on the resident. For example, the landlord said that it appreciated that not replacing the fence and posts was not what the resident “wanted”. However, the landlord had previously confirmed that this work was necessary and the fact that this had not been ordered originally was the reason that the original repairs job was not completed. It also said that returfing “naturally” took many visits to complete, but the job would not have taken so many visits if the correct amount of turf had been ordered. This wording diminished the impact of the failings.
The Code says that factors to consider in formulating a remedy include the “resident’s particular circumstances or vulnerabilities.”
The landlord’s complaint responses showed no empathy to the resident’s particular circumstances. She told it about how her family was housebound over the summer months, how the garden was unsafe for her young children, including her disabled daughter and how this had affected her daughter’s mental health. However, the landlord did not mention this in its complaint responses and did not tailor its remedies accordingly. The landlord’s failure to consider how the residents specific circumstances caused her more hardship caused further distress.
Due to the failings identified there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Therefore, an order to pay £250 compensation to reflect the distress, time and trouble caused has been made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of a broken fence and other garden issues.
2. Handling of her reports of damage caused to garden furniture and contractor behaviour.
3. Complaint handling.

Orders

By 3 January 2025 the landlord must:
1. Apologise. A senior member of staff to apologise in writing for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident directly a total of £1,325 in compensation. The £775 compensation the landlord already offered should be deducted from this amount if it has already been paid, leaving a balance of £550. This is broken down as:
  1. £100 for further time and trouble taken due to the landlord’s handling of the repair to the fence and other garden issues.
  2. £200 for the time and trouble caused due to the landlord’s failures in handling the reports about damaged furniture and contractor behaviour.
  3. £250 for the distress, time and trouble caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme, a senior member of staff is to carry out a review of this case to identify why the failings occurred and how it will ensure that they do not occur again. A report should be written regarding the findings which should be supplied to the Ombudsman within 12 weeks of the date of this report. The review should include at a minimum:
1. How it will have oversight of its contractors to ensure that jobs are completed, follow-on work is ordered, and enough operatives attend jobs.
2. How it will identify training needs and deliver necessary training with regards to insurance claims.
3. How its record keeping processes have changed since the time of the complaint to ensure that records of investigations following complaints are kept.
4. Any training that is required for complaint handlers to ensure that the Code is complied with.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadlines.