Stonewater Limited (202301180)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301180

Stonewater Limited

29 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of reports that contractors had not done communal cleaning.
2. The landlord’s handling of communal repairs.
The Ombudsman has also decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has lived in the property since May 2018 as an assured tenant. The property is a 1-bedroom flat.
The landlord’s records show that on 10 March 2022, the resident contacted it about the replacement of balcony windows. He said the landlord had replaced some windows in the block but had not replaced his.
On 22 September 2022, the resident complained about outstanding communal repairs. He said he had repeatedly reported repairs. In its complaint response on 5 October 2022, the landlord apologised for inconvenience caused and said it had arranged an inspection for 20 October 2022.
The inspection on 20 October 2022, found the landlord needed to repair a damaged ceiling, replace a communal carpet, remove spilt paint from the patio area, and repair the resident’s windows.
On 28 October 2022, the resident said he wanted to complain about communal cleaning. The landlord spoke with the resident on 7 November 2022, about the cleaning. It told him that contractors had provided job cards, which showed fortnightly visits and 1 missed visit. It said it told contractors that visits should be fortnightly, and as there was no further action, it was closing the case.
The resident reported a fault with communal lights on 16 November 2022.
On 10 April 2023, the resident complained about the landlord’s attitude. He said he was paying a service charge for work the landlord was not doing. He said residents had a letter telling them the landlord would replace the balcony windows, but it had not done this. He said the landlord had not done work following the survey in October 2022 and had not fixed the communal lights. He referred to the cost of the service charge for communal lighting going up and not being happy about this.
The resident told the landlord on 22 April 2023 that he wanted his complaint escalated to stage 2 of its complaints process. On 29 April 2023, he said he wanted his complaint escalated to stage 3.
In its complaint response on 12 May 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident had a difficult experience with contractors and apologised for the inconvenience caused. It said it wanted to work with him to resolve the issues as soon as possible and a surveyor had tried to arrange an appointment with him. It asked him to get in touch so it could arrange an appointment.
The resident escalated his complaint on 13 May 2023. He said he had already told the landlord he wanted his complaint escalated but it had ignored his request. He said the landlord had not investigated his complaint and had not mentioned the poor experience he had from them, as well as from the contractors. He wanted to know when the landlord was going to do the work and said he was not taking time off work to meet the surveyor.
In its final response on 7 June 2023, the landlord apologised for communication failings. It said the balcony windows in his block were due for replacement in the financial year ending 31 March 2024. On the carpet, spilt paint, and communal lights, it said it would arrange for a surveyor to inspect and arrange necessary repairs. It said cleaning contractors had only missed 1 appointment on 27 April 2023, due to staff illness. It apologised for this and said it had asked the contractor to continue with the fortnightly schedule. It said it took repairs and planned replacement works seriously and had weekly meetings to discuss overdue work. It apologised for the delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2 and offered £100 compensation for this. It said this was its final response, but the resident could request a review by the customer complaints panel.
On 10 June 2023, the resident asked for the customer complaints panel to review his complaint. He also escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman. He told the Ombudsman he wanted reasonable compensation, outstanding repairs done, communal areas cleaned and inspected regularly, and the contractor monitored.
In May 2024, following enquiries from the Ombudsman, the landlord reviewed its final response and told the resident that it had acknowledged periods when communication was poor but had not compensated him for this. Because of this it offered £300 compensation.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the investigation

In his complaint, the resident referred to the cost of the service charge for communal lighting going up and not being happy about this. After carefully considering the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.d of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider this part of the complaint. This is because the Scheme says the Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints that concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. However, the Ombudsman can consider whether the landlord met its obligations to the resident by providing the service that he paid for.
The Ombudsman has noted that the resident made a complaint in December 2020 about communal cleaning and the landlord passing his contact details to a contractor. The resident raised the issue of the landlord passing his details to the contractor in his complaint on 10 April 2023. Having considered the evidence, I have decided that the Ombudsman cannot consider this part of the complaint. This is because under 42.b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman can only investigate complaints that were formally brought to his attention within 12 months of the event.

The landlord’s handling of reports that contractors had not done communal cleaning

The landlord’s repairs policy makes it clear that the landlord will maintain communal areas. It says if residents find a fault, they should report it to them.
The landlord’s service charge policy sets out the approach it takes to services delivered to and paid for through a service charge. The policy says the landlord will regularly check contractor performance and compliance with contract specifications. It says it will take prompt action where a contractor does not perform to standards and specifications.
On 28 October 2022, the resident complained that contractors were not doing communal cleaning regularly. On 7 November 2022, the landlord spoke with the resident and said it had contacted the contractors, who had provided it with details of job cards. It said these showed fortnightly visits, and 1 missed appointment. The landlord said it had reminded the contractors that visits should be fortnightly.
The Ombudsman has not seen details of the contract specification but has noted the landlord said the contractor had to make fortnightly visits. The Ombudsman has seen a copy of the sign-in sheet for the period starting 10 November 2022, which was after the resident’s complaint, but has not seen earlier records. It is unclear from the information on the sign-in sheets what work the contractors did during the visits. This is because the sign-in sheets only show the date and name of the operative. Because of this, the Ombudsman cannot comment on whether the contractor met agreed service levels at this time or what action the landlord took to check performance.
However, as set out in the service charge policy, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have a clear and up-to-date understanding of contractor performance and what work it had done. It is the Ombudsman’s view, based on the information provided, that the landlord could not assure itself that the contractor was doing the work the resident paid for at this time. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord did not respond with a formal complaint response.
In his complaint on 10 April 2023, the resident said contractors were still not doing the cleaning that he was paying for. He said the last time the contractors cleaned the communal areas was on 2 March 2023.
The landlord did not specifically refer to communal cleaning in its complaint response on 12 May 2023, but said it wanted to arrange for a surveyor to meet with the resident to discuss the issues he had raised, which included cleaning.
In its final response on 7 June 2023, the landlord said its contractors attended fortnightly, and had only missed 1 visit on 27 April 2023, which was due to illness. It said it was sorry about the inconvenience the missed appointment caused, as this meant the contractor did not do cleaning for a month.
The resident disputed the landlord’s response. He said as well as missing an appointment on 27 April 2023, the contractor also missed appointments on 16 and 30 March 2023. He said the contractor had missed appointments 7 times in the past 17 months.
The sign-in sheets provided to the Ombudsman for the period 10 November 2022 to 6 June 2023, show the contractor did not attend appointments between 2 March and 13 April 2023. After the 13 April 2023, records show the next appointment attended by the contractor was on 12 May 2023. Based on the information provided, the contractor did not attend scheduled fortnightly appointments on 16 March, 30 March, and 27 April 2023. This matches what the resident said when he disputed the landlord’s complaint response.
Based on the evidence available, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord’s complaint response did not address the resident’s concerns about communal cleaning. It is clear that the number of missed appointments was higher than the landlord acknowledged. On the balance of probabilities, the Ombudsman has found the landlord did not have effective processes in place to check the contractor’s compliance with the contract specification. Instead, it relied on sign-in sheets from the contractor and did not understand what work it did.
The service charge policy says the landlord will regularly check contractor performance and compliance with contract specifications. It says it will take prompt action where a contractor does not perform to standards and specifications. The Ombudsman has found there was a service failure by the landlord as it did not follow its policy. There is no evidence the landlord checked performance or took prompt action. Because of this, the resident did not receive the service he paid for, and this caused distress and inconvenience to him as he had to chase the landlord about the missed appointments.
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, service failure is found when there has been a minor failure. Because of this the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the missed appointments.
The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord relied on the contractor for information about work it did. It is good practice to have systems in place to check what work contractors have done through spot checks, for example. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord considers its approach to monitoring contract performance.

The landlord’s handling of communal repairs

The landlord’s repairs policy says it aims to do repairs as quickly as possible, based on an appointment system. It says repairs are prioritised depending upon the seriousness of the defect, the impact it will have on the household, and potential damage to the property. It says by appointment repairs are those that do not pose an immediate risk to health or safety. These include repairs to communal facilities. The repairs policy confirms the landlord is responsible for communal areas. The landlord did not dispute it was responsible for the repairs.
The landlord’s records show that on 10 March 2022, the resident contacted it about the replacement of the balcony windows. He said the landlord had replaced some windows in the block, but it had not replaced others, including his. The Ombudsman has seen no record of any communication from the landlord about the balcony windows until the resident complained about outstanding repairs on 22 September 2022.
On 23 September 2022, the landlord acknowledged a complaint about various outstanding repairs. The landlord responded on 5 October 2022 and told the resident it had arranged for a surveyor to attend on 20 October 2022. Following the inspection, the surveyor recommended work to repair a damaged ceiling, replace a communal carpet, remove spilt paint from the patio area, and repair the resident’s window.
The Ombudsman has found that this was a reasonable response at this stage. However, there was no reference to the balcony windows. In addition, on 25 October 2023, the landlord’s records noted the communal carpet was “intact and in good condition” and there was no need to replace it. This contradicted the recommendation from the survey on 20 October 2022.
On 4 November 2022, contractors visited the resident’s property to do work on his window. The landlord’s records suggest there was a disagreement between the resident and contractors about the work, and the operatives left without doing the repairs.
On 16 November 2022, the resident reported a fault with communal lights.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 24 November 2022, about the disagreement over the window repairs that were due to take place on 4 November 2022. Following this, it rescheduled the window repairs for 1 December 2022. On 6 December 2022, the landlord raised a new appointment to repair the windows after the resident contacted them about the quality of the repairs. The landlord noted that contractors had only done part of the window repairs, even though the contractor had marked it as complete.
On 12 December 2022, the landlord noted that the communal carpet had not been replaced, and on 9 January 2023 it noted the communal lights had not been repaired.
The resident called the landlord on 3 February 2023, about outstanding work on the windows. He said contractors were supposed to attend on 2 February 2023, and they had now told him they were attending on 3 March 2023. The resident also told the landlord that contractors had not done redecorating in the communal area properly, as it had only been patch painted. The resident said the landlord sent a plumber to do the painting.
On 20 March 2023, the landlord’s records noted it had not removed spilt paint, fixed the window, resolved the problem with communal lights, or painted the ceiling. The Ombudsman has noted that most of these repairs had been identified in the inspection in October 2022, which was 6 months earlier. Although there had been a disagreement about the window repairs, which led to a delay, the Ombudsman has seen no explanation of why the landlord had not fully completed the other repairs. The Ombudsman has also seen no evidence of clear communication with the resident about the delays. Because of this, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord did not meet the obligations in its repairs policy to do repairs in a reasonable time. This was a failure by the landlord.
On 10 April 2023, the resident complained about the progress with the outstanding repairs. He said the landlord showed a lack of interest and contractors were not doing jobs given to them. In its complaint response on 12 May 2023, the landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused and said it wanted to arrange for a surveyor to meet the resident to find solutions to the issues he had raised. When he escalated his complaint on 13 May 2023, the resident said he did not want to meet the surveyor as one had been out before. He wanted the landlord to give him times and dates for the work it had previously said it would do.
The Ombudsman has found it was reasonable for the landlord to apologise for the inconvenience caused. However, the landlord had previously told the resident what work it needed to do, and at this stage should have given the resident a clear timeline on when it would complete the repairs. The landlord did not do this, and instead suggested a further inspection, which was not convenient for the resident, or necessary as the landlord already knew what work it needed to do. Because of this, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord did not address the concerns the resident raised in his complaint.
In its final response on 7 June 2023, the landlord apologised for failings in its communications and for the service the resident had experienced. It confirmed it would replace the balcony windows during the financial year ending on 31 March 2024. It said a surveyor would look at other issues reported, and it was committed to dealing with repairs and the planned window replacement works.
The Ombudsman has found that the apology and commitment to replace the balcony windows through planned work was reasonable. However, the landlord said again it would arrange for a surveyor to visit rather than set out a clear timeline on works it had already agreed to do. This was a further delay and failure by the landlord.
By this time, the resident had experienced significant delays. The resident first raised concerns about the balcony windows over a year before in March 2022. He complained about outstanding repairs in September 2022, with the landlord committing to resolve these in October 2022. The fault with the communal lighting was first raised in November 2022. The Ombudsman has noted some difficulties communicating with the resident, but the landlord still had an obligation to do the repairs. It is likely that some of the resident’s frustrations were caused by the landlord’s lack of communication and delays in doing the reported repairs. In mitigation, the repairs were mainly cosmetic and did not affect day–to–day living in the property.
However, by the time of the landlord’s final response, there was still outstanding work. Because of this, the Ombudsman has found the landlord did not meet the obligations set out in its repairs policy and this amounted to maladministration. These failures caused distress and inconvenience for the resident, who had to chase the landlord many times about the outstanding work. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, maladministration is found when there has been a significant failure.
The Ombudsman has noted that in May 2024, after Ombudsman involvement, the landlord offered the resident £300 compensation for the poor communication it had acknowledged in its final response. The Ombudsman welcomes this but has noted that the landlord should have offered it in its final response. The landlord’s final response did not offer compensation for the landlord’s other failings, including delays, distress, and inconvenience caused. Because of this, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £400 compensation for the delays, distress, and inconvenience caused. This is in addition to the £300 offered in May 2024 and is made up of:
1. £200 for the delays and failure to do repairs in a reasonable time.
2. £100 for inconvenience caused.
3. £100 for distress caused.
In November 2024, the resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord had not completed all repairs. He said work to remove spilt paint, replace the carpet, fix the communal lights, and paint the ceiling had not been done. The Ombudsman has noted records from the landlord that suggests some work has been completed. However, the Ombudsman is not able to decide whether any work is still outstanding. Because of this, the Ombudsman is ordering the landlord to provide details of when the work above was completed and, if any work is still outstanding, to arrange for repairs to be completed.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days of receipt. Where the problem is a recurring issue, it will consider any older reports as part of the background to the complaint if this helps resolve the issue. It says it will usually send a response within 10 working days. When a complaint is escalated to stage 2, it also aims to respond in 10 working days. The policy says if a resident is still dissatisfied with the stage 2 response, they have the option of taking the complaint to an independent customer complaints panel.
The Ombudsman has noted that the resident asked to make a complaint a few times from 23 September 2022. The Ombudsman is investigating the landlord’s response to a complaint made on 10 April 2023. However, earlier requests to make a complaint are considered relevant to this investigation because they relate to the issue under investigation and were within 12 months of the complaint made on 10 April 2023.
The resident complained about outstanding communal repairs on 22 September 2022. The landlord responded 9 working days later on 5 October 2022 and said it had arranged for a surveyor to attend and assess what work it needed to do. This was a reasonable response and met the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
On 28 October 2022, the resident told the landlord he wanted to complain about communal cleaning. The landlord spoke to the resident on 7 November 2022 and provided him with information about cleaning appointments that had taken place. It told him as there was no further action it had closed the case. The Ombudsman has found that the resident made a clear expression of dissatisfaction, but the landlord did not deal with this through its complaints process. This was a failure by the landlord to follow its policy.
On 10 April 2023, the resident complained about outstanding repairs. He also complained about an issue the landlord had dealt with through the complaints process in 2020. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 17 April 2023. This was a delay and a failure to follow its complaints policy, which says it will acknowledge complaints in 2 working days.
On 22 April 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. On 29 April 2023 he asked it to escalate the complaint to stage 3.
The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 12 May 2023. This took a month and was a failure to meet the timescales in its complaints policy. However, it was proper to issue a stage 1 response, as the delay was not significant, and it was reasonable for the landlord to follow the stages in its complaints policy.
The landlord’s response did not deal with the complaint the resident re-raised from 2020. The Ombudsman agrees that it was not proper for the landlord to investigate this issue again, but the landlord should have explained why it was not going to reinvestigate.
The resident escalated his complaint on 13 May 2023, and the landlord acknowledged the escalation on 16 May 2023. It sent its final response on 7 June 2023. This was within the timescales in the complaints policy, but the landlord apologised for the delay in escalating the complaint and offered £100 compensation.
The landlord told the resident this was its final response, but he had the option to request a review by its customer complaints panel. The resident requested this on 10 June 2023, but the case was not taken to the panel. It is unclear why the case was not progressed to the panel.
The Ombudsman has found there were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord did not deal with the complaint about communal cleaning on 28 October 2022 as a complaint. The landlord also did not acknowledge and respond to the complaint made on 10 April 2023 in line with its complaints policy. The Ombudsman has found that these were minor failures and has noted the offer of £100 compensation. Although the £100 was offered for a delay in escalating to stage 2 when there was no delay, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the £100 was reasonable redress for the other failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports that contractors had not done communal cleaning.
2. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of communal repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must apologise to the resident for the failures found in this report.
The landlord must pay £500 compensation to the resident. This should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. This consists of:
1. £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failure to monitor the communal cleaning contract.
2. £200 for the failure to do repairs in line with the repairs policy.
3. £100 for inconvenience caused by the failure to do repairs in a reasonable time.
4. £100 for distress caused by the failure to do repairs in a reasonable time.
The landlord must provide the resident and Ombudsman with details of when the repairs to remove spilt paint, replace the carpet, fix the communal lights, and paint the ceiling were completed and, if any work is still outstanding, to arrange for repairs to be completed.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord considers its approach to monitoring contract performance.
The Ombudsman recommends the landlord reoffers the £100 compensation it offered for the delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2.