Stonewater Limited (202220809)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220809

Stonewater Limited

23 December 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. Repairs to the kitchen cupboard door and the balcony door.
2. Request for a bathroom refurbishment.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2–bedroom flat in a building comprised of similar properties. The resident lives in the property with his partner and 3 children.
On 24 November 2021 the resident reported a repair to his balcony door and to a water damaged kitchen cupboard door.
On 13 December 2021, the landlord’s contractor completed a repair to the balcony door by adjusting and resealing it. The contractor also measured up for a replacement kitchen cupboard door.
On 28 January 2021, the contractor revisited to replace the kitchen cupboard door. During this visit, contractor completed a further measure up of the kitchen cupboard door. The contractor then tried to revisit in February and March 2022 but was unable to gain access to the property.
On 31 March 2022, the resident raised a complaint at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. In his complaint, the resident said there had been multiple visits to his property to measure up the kitchen cupboard door, but it had still not been replaced.
On 7 April 2022, the contractor told the landlord it had the measurements, but the current door had been discontinued. The contractor said it would usually supply and fit the closest possible match, but because the resident was dissatisfied it asked the landlord how it wished to proceed. It is unclear if the landlord acted upon this request.
On 21 April 2022, the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It recognised there had been multiple unnecessary visits and offered the resident a £50 voucher. The landlord also said the issue would be raised in its monthly contractor meeting.
On 4 October 2022 the resident expressed his continued dissatisfaction about the same issue. In response, the landlord opened a new stage 1 complaint.
On 2 November 2022, the landlord responded to the resident’s new complaint at stage 1. The landlord said there has been some confusion about the replacement cupboard door and apologised. The landlord said it always tries to replace like for like but had been unable to do so because the door is not made anymore. The landlord said it had asked a surveyor to organise the replacement and would contact the resident to arrange a date.
On 29 November 2022, the resident called the landlord and asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of its complaints procedure.
On 19 December 2022, the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. The landlord apologised for the delays and told the resident it has agreed to complete a kitchen replacement and repair the balcony doors. The landlord said the balcony doors and kitchen would be done at the same visit. The landlord offered £350 in compensation. This was comprised of:
1. £250 for the delays
2. £100 for the inconvenience caused to the resident
Some 6 months later, in June 2023, the resident chased the landlord for updates on when his kitchen was going to be replaced. It is unclear if the landlord responded to him following this.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted his complaint to the Ombudsman. He was seeking an increase in compensation offered to resolve his complaint.
On 19 June 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident explaining it had reviewed his case due to the Housing Ombudsman investigation. The landlord increased its compensation offer by an additional £1,025.
In its submissions to this service, the landlord said it had completed the replacement of the kitchen on 14 July 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident explained to the Ombudsman that he requested for his bathroom to replaced. The resident did not raise the issue about the bathroom in his initial complaint to the landlord. And therefore, the landlord was not required to consider this issue through its complaints process. The Ombudsman will not consider it either, because we can only investigate matters which have been through the landlord’s complaints process. This is in line with Paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint which is made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. The landlord gave the resident an opportunity to raise his concerns about the bathroom after the stage 2 complaint response. The landlord has also advised this service that it has replaced his bathroom flooring and bath panel. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the issue, he may be able to raise it as a separate complaint through the landlord’s complaints process. The resident may be able to refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied once he has received the landlord’s final response about the bathroom.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will deliver repairs as quickly as possible, prioritising repairs based on the risk posed to its residents and their homes. The policy sets out 3 separate timescales to complete repairs:
1. Emergency repairs within 24 hours
2. Non-emergency repairs within 28 days
3. Major repairs within 42 days
The repairs policy does not provide any specific details about when it would consider a kitchen replacement.

Repairs to the kitchen cupboard door

When the resident first notified the landlord of the water damaged cupboard door, its contractor visited to inspect and measured up for a replacement door. This was done in accordance with the timescales in its repairs policy and was therefore appropriate.
However, the issues arose when the landlord revisited. The evidence provided shows that the contractor measured up the door again despite it already having this information. In addition, when the contractor scheduled the appointment for 30 December 2022, it failed to recognise that its materials supplier was closed for Christmas. The contractor later recognised these errors in its emails to the landlord. As such, there were a series of failures with how the landlord handled the repairs to the kitchen cupboard door which resulted in delays in providing a service to the resident. The delays to follow up on the kitchen cupboard door repair were unreasonable. It is understandable to see why the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of this matter.
When the landlord investigated this through its complaint’s procedure, it agreed to complete a full kitchen replacement. Although the landlord did not appear to be under any obligation to replace the kitchen, it was both fair and reasonable for it to offer a kitchen renewal as a solution to the stage 2 complaint. The landlord also offered compensation, which is addressed later in this report.

Repairs to the balcony door

When the resident first reported the repair to the balcony door in November 2021, the landlord responded promptly and within the timescales specified in its repairs policy. No follow-on work appears to have been identified following its first visit. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report for his balcony door was therefore appropriate.
From this point, up until the landlord investigated the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its complaints procedure, there is no evidence that the resident told the landlord of any further issues with his balcony door. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord would not have been aware of any other outstanding works needed to the door as the landlord was entitled to consider the matter was resolved following its first visit. It was, however, fair of the landlord to recognise the resident’s new concerns about his balcony door as part of its stage 2 complaint investigation and arrange to have them assessed.

Compensation

The landlord also recognised it unnecessarily delayed and missed opportunities to replace the cupboard door. It offered £350 at its stage 2 complaint response in view of these delays and the time, trouble and inconvenience experienced by the resident. This £350 was in addition to a £50 voucher offered at stage 1 of its complaints procedure.
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 considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from the outcomes. This compensation, alongside its commitment to replace the kitchen, was a reasonable amount to offer the resident at the time. The amount was reflective of the delays by the landlord and its contractor in replacing the cupboard door and as a result of the time, trouble, and inconveniences caused to the resident. Had the complaint stopped here, and the landlord would have completed the works, this would have resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily.

Events after the stage 2 complaint

However, after the stage 2 complaint response, there was a significant and unexplained delay by the landlord in replacing the kitchen and assessing the balcony doors. The resident chased the landlord for an update about the kitchen replacement in June 2023, but it was not replaced until July 2024. We understand the balcony doors were also assessed at the same time as this. This was approximately 18 months after the landlord said it would do so. This delay would have caused inconvenience to the resident over a prolonged period of time.
The landlord recognised this delay and revised its compensation offer in June 2024 once it became aware this service was investigating the resident’s complaint. It offered a further £1,025 to the resident, in addition to what it had already offered during its complaints process. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its failures, apologising to the resident, completing the works to the kitchen and increasing its compensation to an overall total of £1,425. Its revised compensation amount was also in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website. The guidance states that compensation payments of over £1,000 should be considered where there have been significant and multiple failures to the resident. The Housing Ombudsman considers the amount offered by the landlord to be proportionate compensation in view of the delays in replacing the kitchen.
The Housing Ombudsman therefore makes an overall determination of reasonable redress with regards to the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the kitchen cupboard door and balcony door. This determination is being made on the understanding that the compensation remedy is re-offered to the resident, unless it has been paid already. The Ombudsman therefore recommends for the landlord to follow up on this. We also recommend for the landlord to consider additional training for its complaints handlers to ensure that commitments made in its complaints responses are effectively monitored until completion to prevent similar delays for other residents in the future.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the resident’s complaint about the cupboard door and balcony door satisfactorily.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to re-offer the total compensation of £1,425, if this has not yet already been paid. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.
It is recommended that the landlord considers additional training for its complaints handlers to ensure that actions and commitments made in its complaint responses are monitored until completion.