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

Stonewater Limited (202234676)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234676

Stonewater Limited

16 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of responsive repairs including:
    1. Electrical issues in the property.
    2. Leaks in the bathroom and damage to the wet room below.
    3. Repairs to the back door lock.
  2. This Service has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started on 8 May 2017 by way of a mutual exchange. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The resident’s son has physical disabilities. The property has been adapted for his needs.
  2. The resident has been complaining to the landlord about her electrics since at least 2021. The issues appear to be in some way related to an ongoing leak in her bathroom. The landlord carried out an electrical check on 22 November 2021. The electrical installation condition report (EICR) said that the electrics were in a satisfactory condition. However, on 7 January 2022 the resident reported that one of her lights was sparking and smoking, one of her sockets had blown, and the electrics had tripped.
  3. The resident has also been complaining about a leak in her bathroom since 2021. The landlord raised a repair to fix the leak on 12 April 2022. The resident told the landlord that the floor was badly damaged due to the ongoing leak. She told the landlord that the leak was also affecting the ceiling of the wet room directly below. A plumber attended the resident’s property on 17 May 2022. The resident informed the landlord that the plumber had told her he thought the leak was under the floorboards, between the bathroom and the wet room, which needed further investigation.
  4. The lock to the resident’s back door jammed on 11 February 2023. The landlord’s contractors attended on the same day and fitted a temporary lock. The landlord raised a follow on repair for its contractors to replace the temporary lock once a permanent replacement was available.
  5. The resident raised a formal complaint on 23 March 2023 as her repairs were still outstanding. She said the lock to her back door had not been fixed and her next appointment was not until 3 April 2023. She said her electrics were dangerous. Her lights and sockets were not working due to the ongoing leak in her bathroom, and her bathroom floor was still damaged.
  6. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 5 April 2023. It said it had carried out a full electrical inspection on 22 November 2021 and a satisfactory certificate had been awarded. It said, following further electrical issues in 2022, a full electrical test was recommended by its electrician on 22 November 2022. Due to staffing issues a decision was made to delay the test until new sub-contractors were in place. However, it recognised that this was the wrong decision as it was not a routine test. It said the test should have been prioritised rather than placed on hold. It offered to complete the test on 10 April 2023 or 12 April 2023.
  7. In addition, the landlord said its contractor had fitted a lock to her back door on 11 February 2023. However, it struggled to complete the follow up works within the target timescale. It apologised for the delay and the effect it had on the resident. It also said it had spoken to the resident on 30 March 2023 about the bathroom floor and confirmed an appointment. However, it recognised that the appointment date fell outside of the expected timescales. It said the contractor had attempted to contact the resident to bring the appointment forward. It apologised for the delays and offered the resident £300 compensation.
  8. Following escalation to stage 2, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 10 July 2023. It said it understood that an electrical inspection, and required works, was due to be carried out on 14 August 2023. It also said it had installed the door lock mechanism to the back door on 3 April. It then attempted to book the follow on work in on 12 April 2024 and 23 June 2024. However, the resident refused the work. It said it would ask its contractor to contact the resident again so that the work could be booked in.
  9. The landlord also said its contractor had attended the resident’s home on 5 April 2023 to measure up for the bathroom floor repairs. However, the resident refused to allow the work to go ahead as she wanted the floor replaced, not repaired. It said its contractor visited the resident on 29 June 2023 and inspected the bathroom. The operative reported that the floor did need to be replaced as it was loose and splitting. They also reported that the bathroom suite was old, the walls needed to be replastered, and the extractor fan did not work. It said that, due to the condition of the bathroom, it had arranged for a full inspection. It apologised for the delays, poor communication, and inconvenience. It also apologised for the delay in the stage 2 complaint response. It offered £550 for the delays to the repairs, inconvenience, and poor communication. It also offered £100 for complaint handling failures.
  10. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 30 August 2023, as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled. Although this Service cannot find that a landlord has breached the Equality Act, we can decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties under the Act.

The landlord’s handling of responsive repairs

Electrical issues in the property

  1. The evidence shows that the resident has been complaining to the landlord about her electrics since at least 2021. The landlord carried out an electrical safety test on 22 November 2021. The EICR said the condition of the electrics were satisfactory.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 January 2022 as one of her lights was sparking and smoking. She also reported that her sockets had blown and tripped the fuse board. The resident told the landlord that she was concerned about the risk of a fire. It is unclear from the evidence provided when the landlord attended to the repair, or what work it completed.
  3. A further repair was raised on 30 March 2022. The evidence shows that the landlord replaced the light with an led lamp and replaced a problem socket, although it is unclear from the evidence provided what date the work was carried out.
  4. The resident reported that she had no power on 29 October 2022. The operative called the resident en-route to her property, but she said that the problem was resolved. She also reported a fault on 22 November 2022. She said her electrics upstairs had tripped and it had taken a while for them to come back on. An electrician attended on 5 December 2022. He replaced 2 sockets, as one was loose with a broken back box, and one had blown from the front. He recommended a full EICR test and an inspection of all electrical points. The follow up work was booked in for 13 January 2023. However, the landlord re-arranged the appointment as the electrician was unwell. A new date was set for 17 February 2023, although this appointment was also re-arranged by the landlord. It had been over 10 weeks (70 days) at this point from the date the electrician advised follow up work was required.
  5. The landlord’s service standards for repairs say it will deliver all non-emergency repairs within a maximum of 28 days from receiving the customer’s notification. Therefore, the landlord did not act in accordance with the timeframes set out in its repairs service standards. This was inappropriate and unfair to the resident. Particularly so, as she was worried about the overall safety of her electrics and the possibility of the risk of a fire.
  6. The resident raised a formal complaint on 23 March 2023 as she felt that her electrics were in a dangerous condition. She said her tumble dryer and her son’s mobility scooter had been damaged by the faulty electrics. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 3 April 2023. It reviewed the electrics and said that the only obvious issue was that a few lights showed signs of water ingress (from the bathroom leak).
  7. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 5 April 2023. It said its contractor was in the process of changing their subcontractors and it had made the decision to wait to carry out the EICR test until the new sub-contractors were in place. It said this was the wrong decision as it was not a routine test that was necessary in the residents case. It acknowledged that the test should have been prioritised, rather than being placed on hold. It apologised for the decision and for the delays. It offered the resident an appointment on 10 April 2023 or 12 April 2023. It also offered £300 compensation for the delays to all outstanding repairs, not just for the delays relating to the electrics.
  8. Following escalation of her complaint, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 10 July 2023. It said it understood that an electrical inspection was booked in for 14 August 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered £550 overall compensation for all outstanding repairs.
  9. Although the landlord apologised and offered compensation, the stage 2 response did not provide any meaningful resolution to the resident’s complaint. This was not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.

Leaks in the bathroom and damage to the wet room below

  1. The evidence shows that the resident has been complaining to her landlord about a leak in her bathroom since 2021. The landlord raised a repair on 12 April 2022, as the resident reported that the leak from her bathroom was ongoing and it had flooded the wet room below.
  2. A plumber attended the resident’s property on 17 May 2022. The resident said he told her that he thought the leak was under the floorboards between the bathroom and the wet room below. He said the leak would need further investigation.
  3. The landlord raised an appointment for follow on work, although it is unclear from the evidence provided when this was booked in for. The resident contacted the landlord on 18 May 2022 to ask whether the floorboards would be lifted to find the source of the leak during the appointment. She also re-iterated that her son’s wet room was also subject to ongoing water damage as it was directly below the bathroom.
  4. The landlord attended the resident’s property again on 27 June 2022, although it was unable to fix the leak. This appointment was 11 weeks (77 days) from the date the landlord raised the repair on 12 April 2022, and yet the issues remained outstanding.
  5. The landlord’s service standards for repairs say it will deliver all non-emergency repairs within a maximum of 28 days from receiving the customer’s notification. It also says it will deliver major repairs within a maximum of 42 days where there is a significant amount of work required beyond the original repair.
  6. Therefore, taking into account that the repairs were likely more complex than a standard repair, the landlord did not act in accordance with the timeframes set out in its repairs service standards. This was inappropriate and unfair to the resident who was clearly frustrated by the ongoing leak.
  7. In addition, under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act), the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled. The resident’s adult son has physical disabilities that require an adapted wet room so that he can maintain his independence. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord considered how the leak was affecting him. The resident told the landlord that his wet room flooded each time there was a leak from the bathroom. Yet there is no evidence that, with knowledge of his protected characteristics, the landlord increased or at least considered increasing the priority of the work to resolve the leak. Therefore, the landlord has not demonstrated that it properly considered its duties under the Act, and its actions were inappropriate in the circumstances.
  8. It is unclear from the evidence provided what happened between July 2022 and the date of the stage 1 complaint. However, it would be reasonable to conclude that the resident continued to report the leak from her bathroom to the landlord.
  9. The resident raised a formal complaint on 23 March 2023, as the leak had still not been repaired. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 5 April 2023. Although it did not refer to the leak, it only referred to the damage to the bathroom floor caused by the leak. It said its contractor had spoken to the resident on 30 March 2023 to confirm an appointment for the bathroom floor. It acknowledged that the appointment was outside of the target timescales and said it had attempted to bring the appointment forward. It apologised for the delays and offered £300 compensation for all outstanding repairs. It is unclear from the evidence provided how much of the compensation was attributed to the delays in completing the repairs to the bathroom.
  10. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 13 April 2023. She told the landlord that the leak was ongoing and that the wet room below had been damaged. She also told the landlord that her son was unable to use the wet room at times due to the water ingress. The resident said she did not want the bathroom floor repaired until the leak had been fixed as it would just get damaged again.
  11. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 10 July 2023. It again focussed primarily on the bathroom floor repairs, rather than the leak. It said it understood that a contractor had attended the resident’s property on 5 April 2023 to complete the repairs to the floor. However, the resident refused the work. It said a contractor visited her home on the 29 June 2023 to carry out an inspection. The operative reported that the flooring needed replacing as it was loose and splitting. He also reported that the bathroom suite was old, the walls needed re-plastering and the extractor fan did not work. Therefore, it said it had arranged for a surveyor to carry out a full inspection. It said the surveyor would be in contact to arrange a suitable appointment. It apologised for the delays and poor communication and it increased its overall offer of compensation to £550.
  12. Although the landlord recognised the delays and offered compensation of £550, it did not offer any overall resolution to the leak. It offered a further inspection when one had only recently taken place. This was not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

Repairs to the back door lock

  1. The resident’s back door jammed on 11 February 2023. An operative attended on the same day, in line with the landlord’s service standards for emergency repairs, and removed the lock. The operative fitted a temporary lock and raised follow on works to reattend once a replacement lock had been sourced. An operative attended the resident’s property on 20 March 2023. He was unable to complete the work as the replacement lock had to be ordered. A further appointment was made for 3 April 2023. The date of this appointment was over 7 weeks from the date the resident first reported the issue.
  2. The landlord’s service standards for repairs say it will deliver all non-emergency repairs within a maximum of 28 days from receiving the customer’s notification. Therefore, the landlord did not act in accordance with the timeframes set out in its repairs service standards. This was inappropriate and unfair to the resident as the lock was only a temporary solution.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 23 March 2023 as she was unhappy that her appointment date was on 3 April 2023.
  4. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 3 April 2023 and fitted the locking mechanism. However, the door ‘keep’ (a component that secures a door’s locking mechanism to the door frame) had been mislaid. Therefore, the repair could not be fully completed.
  5. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response letter on 5 April 2023. It said that due to an increased work load its contractor struggled to attend to the repair. It also said it could see that they had attended on 3 April 2023. It apologised for the delay and offered £300 overall compensation.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 13 April 2023. She told the landlord that the repair was not complete as, although the lock had been replaced, the fittings were missing.
  7. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 10 July 2023. It said its contractor attended the resident’s property on 3 April 2023 to repair the external door. It said it understood that the door mechanism was installed, however, the contractor needed to return to complete the work. It said the contractor had attempted to book the works in on the 12 April 2023 and 23 June 203, but as the resident refused the work, it was put on hold. It said it would ask the contractor to contact the resident so that the work could be booked in. It apologised for the initial delay in carrying out the repair and for the inconvenience caused and it increased its overall compensation to £550. It should be noted that the resident disputes that she refused to have the work done.
  8. Although the landlord acknowledged the initial delay and offered compensation, it did not offer any meaningful solutions. Asking its contractor to book another appointment in was only going to cause further delays in rectifying the issue.

Events after the stage 2 complaint response

  1. The resident continued to complain to the landlord about the electrical issues, the ongoing leak in her bathroom, damage to the wet room, and the outstanding repairs to her back door. She instructed a solicitor on 22 January 2024, as the repairs were still outstanding. A settlement of £6,400 was agreed under the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims without the need for litigation.
  2. The landlord completed all outstanding repairs. It replaced the back door in May 2024. The bathroom works were completed in August/September 2024, and the repairs to the wet room ceiling were completed in November 2024. It is unclear from the evidence provided when the electrical work was completed, however, the landlord has provided this Service with a copy of a satisfactory EICR certificate dated 17 October 2023. The resident has told this Service that she is still having some issues with her electrics. Therefore, a recommendation has been made to the landlord in this regard.
  3. 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 the circumstances. In this case the landlord’s payment of £6,400 in settlement of the housing condition claim and its completion of the outstanding work represents reasonable redress for the identified failings.
  4. In summary, there were significant delays in resolving the electrical issues, the leak from the bathroom, repairs to the wet room ceiling, and repairs to the back door. However, the redress offered by the landlord under the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims was reasonable in the circumstances, and in line with the remedies guidance provided by the Ombudsman for cases where there have been serious failings by the landlord in the service it provided.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 23 March 2023. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 5 April 2023. This was within the timeframe set within the landlord’s complaints policy.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 13 April 2023. However, the landlord did not escalate the complaint until we contacted the landlord on 19 June 2023.
  4. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 10 July 2023. This was almost 3 months from the date of escalation and significantly outside of the timeframe set within the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord did recognise and acknowledge the delay within its stage 2 response and it offered the resident £100 compensation.
  5. 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 the circumstances. In this case the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation and its acknowledgement of the delay at stage 2 represents reasonable redress for the identified failings. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has been able to evidence it made reasonable and proactive efforts to resolve the complaint and “put things right” in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
  6. In summary, although there was a delay in the stage 2 response, the landlord attempted to put things right through its complaints process. The redress offered by the landlord was reasonable in the circumstances, and in line with the remedies guidance provided by the Ombudsman for cases where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided. The landlord is therefore to pay the overall compensation of £100 if it has not already done so. The finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the compensation being paid.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of responsive repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord should, if it has not already done so, pay the resident the £100 compensation it offered in its stage 2 response for complaint handling failures.
  2. It is also recommended that the landlord contacts the resident in relation to her electrics to check whether she has any further concerns, or whether she is still experiencing electrical issues.
  3. The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to advise of its intentions in regard to the above recommendation.