Stonewater Limited (202305334)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305334

Stonewater Limited

28 March 2025

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 the resident’s reports of repairs to the back garden steps and walls.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association.
On 2 June 2020 the resident reported steps in her back garden were damaged and lifting.
On 10 June 2020 the landlord visited and noted that quotes were needed from a specialist contractor due to the scale of works required to the garden.
In February 2021 the resident contacted the landlord for updates. She said she had not received any information since the visit in June 2020.
Between March and October 2021, the resident continued to chase the landlord for updates.
In October 2021, the landlord’s contractor completed a temporary repair in the garden.
Throughout 2022, the resident continued to contact the landlord. In response, the landlord arranged some further surveying works in July 2022.
On 2 March 2023, the resident raised a complaint at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. Her complaint, in summary, said:
1. Works were due to start in June 2021, but it was then passed to a specialist contractor due to the scale of works.
2. She understood the landlord had to tender for specialist contractors.
3. She was still not sure when works were due to start and was worried about the safety of the garden.
On 20 March 2023, the landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints procedure. It said:
1. After its first visit it identified that a specialist approach was needed. This included a structural survey of the garden.
2. Works could not commence until the weather improved.
3. It would keep the resident updated with progress.
4. It offered £200 of compensation, comprised of:

a. £100 for communication failures

b. £100 for delays and inconveniences caused.

On 27 March 2023 the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. In summary, she said:
1. Works had been attempted but it remained outstanding.
2. She was unable to enjoy her garden.
On 28 March 2023 internal emails showed that the contracted surveyor was in the process of completing designs, issuing a tender for the eventual works, and managing the project. It said it did not yet have a start date for the works.
On 19 April 2023, the landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 of its complaints procedure:
1. It apologised for the length of time to rebuild the garden steps and wall.
2. It said it had received a report from the survey and was waiting on the design to be completed and would then identify a construction contractor.
3. It was hoping to do works in the summer.
4. It recognised that its communication was not sufficient, but did not always update her because it had no information. It recognised it could have explained this.
5. It reiterated its offer of £200 compensation, as identified at stage 1 of its complaints procedure.

Events after the complaints procedure

Between May and September 2023, the evidence shows that the landlord was working through a tendering process with its contracted surveyor to identify a suitable construction contractor to complete the works.
In October 2023, the contractor completed an initial visit to the garden.
In March 2024, the contractor completed the works to the garden.
On 9 May 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident with a revised offer of compensation. It offered her an additional £1,150. This was comprised of:
1. An additional £900 for the delays, distress, and inconvenience caused.
2. An additional £250 for the poor communication.
The resident is seeking increased compensation in view of the length of time it took to complete the works.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the resident first reported issues with the garden steps to the landlord in June 2020. However, there is no evidence which shows she made a formal complaint about this to the landlord at that time. We would usually expect such issues to be brought to the attention of the landlord within 12 months of the matters arising. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still “live,” and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. Therefore, although the historical events give context to the more recent issues, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repairs to the garden steps from March 2022 onwards. This was around 12 months prior to her raising a formal complaint about the matter with the landlord.

Policies and procedures

The landlord operates a repairs policy, which says it aims to:

a. Complete emergency repairs (that pose a threat to resident safety) within 24 hours.

b. Complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days.

c. Complete major repairs where there is a significant amount of work required within a maximum of 42 days.

d. It will maintain clear and continuous communication with residents to ensure they know when it will complete a repair.

The Ombudsman expects landlords to complete repairs with a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depends on the circumstances and the nature of the repair. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, the Ombudsman expects landlords to be proactive in:
1. Communicating the cause of delays to residents.
2. Explaining to residents what they intend to do about the delays.
3. Identifying what they can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the garden steps and wall

In April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord twice for an update. It is unclear, based on the evidence seen by this service, whether the landlord returned her calls with any information. This lack of communication would have understandably frustrated her. The landlord should have ensured it was returning her calls and updated its systems with details of any outbound calls.
In or around July 2022, the landlord’s contractor completed a further survey of the garden to assess the ground type. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord’s contractor to complete a survey to ensure it had the information it needed to appropriately complete the works, its communication with the resident remained poor and she was often unaware of key details. Throughout the rest of 2022 it was unclear what specific steps the landlord was taking to ensure the resident was kept up to date.
When the landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints procedure, it said the work to the garden could not take place until the weather had improved. This was based on advice from a structural engineer. It explained that it would keep in touch with the resident and communicate a date for the works once it had one. The landlord recognised there were delays and its communication was not sufficient. It offered the resident £200 compensation. It also said it was working with its contractors and staff to improve communication. It was reasonable for the landlord to communicate this to the resident and explain the cause for the delays (the weather) which was outside of its control. The landlord was also right to rely on the specialist advice of its structural engineers about what work was needed to the garden.
We have seen internal correspondence showing that the landlord and its contractors were working to fully identify the scope of works and ensure they were delivering value for money due to the high cost. Whilst this explains the main contributing reasons for the delays in completing the works – alongside the weather – the landlord’s communication remained inadequate. It failed to proactively communicate with the resident and tell her what was happening. The resident may have understandably found it both frustrating and distressing to feel that the landlord was making little to no progress and was not fully updating her.
Although the garden works were completed well beyond the landlord’s 48 day timeline for major works, we acknowledge the landlord had specific considerations and challenges to navigate, especially around tendering, and due to the complexities of the works, as outlined above. As a public body, the landlord has a duty to carefully handle public funds to ensure it secures the most cost-effective solution. This also prevents unnecessary rent increases being passed on to residents in the future.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess whether the remedies it offered suitably redressed the resident’s complaint. As explained above, the landlord offered £200 compensation for the delays and its poor communication. Whilst it was positive the landlord recognised it had got things wrong, it is our view that £200 was not fully reflective of the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident at the time. In addition to this, the works to the garden remained outstanding when the stage 2 complaint was issued. Further compensation is due for the time between the final response being issued and the works being completed.
In May 2024 – and before the Ombudsman’s formal investigation started – the landlord made a further offer of compensation of £1,150. It is positive that the landlord reviewed its position and made a higher offer. This offer is more than the Ombudsman would have ordered the landlord to pay if it had not made an offer. Our approach to compensation is set out in our remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests awards of £100-£600 where there have been failings by the landlord which caused the resident distress and/or inconvenience, but there may be no permanent impact. In this case there was no permanent impact as the garden works were ultimately completed but there was distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period of time.
However, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess landlords’ handling of complaints through their complaints procedures. When a landlord makes a reasonable offer of compensation only after the end of its complaints process and after the resident has contacted our service, we may make a finding of service failure or maladministration by the landlord as the offer should have been made sooner. The landlord has confirmed that the compensation of £1,150 has been paid.
It remains unclear, however, if the landlord paid the £200 compensation it offered through its complaints procedure. The landlord specified in its compensation review letter that the £1,150 was “further” compensation, meaning it was in addition to the £200 it offered previously. The landlord is therefore ordered to also pay the resident the £200 compensation offered through its complaints procedure, if it has not already done so.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure with regards to the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the garden steps and wall.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident the £200 compensation offered at stage 2 of its complaints procedure, unless it has already done so.
1. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with this order to this service.
2. Compensation payments should be made directly to the resident and not offset against any potential rent arrears.