Stonewater Limited (202305674)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305674

Stonewater Limited

21 March 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a silverfish infestation linked to damp in and around the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and her joint tenancy began in June 2021. She occupied the property with her husband and their daughter. The property is a 2 bedroom flat. The resident has a number of vulnerabilities including: long COVID, severe allergy reactions, mobility problems, and mental health issues.
On 16 September 2022 the resident reported silverfish in the property. A pest control contractor attended within a week but it was unable to gain access. In an email to the landlord on 25 September 2022, the resident said neighbours on the ground floor had damp and silverfish. She felt the contractor should visit them first.
The contractor attended the property on 25 October 2022. The inspection report said the visit was a follow up to previous treatment works. It said insect monitors had been checked and there was no evidence of any further activity. However, a damp issue in the building was causing the silverfish infestation.
In November 2022 an operative sealed holes around pipework under the bath. This was to prevent silverfish accessing the property. The works were completed during a separate repair to the bath panel.
A heating specialist attended the property on 3 December 2022. They reported there were leaks, damp, and condensation in a cupboard containing the NIBE unit (broadly equivalent to a boiler). They also said the resident was unhappy about silverfish.
A subsequent NIBE unit repair was unsuccessful. The landlord’s internal correspondence, on 8 December 2022, said an operative attended during the night. However, the hot water supply had to be isolated and parts were not readily available. As there was no hot water, the family were decanted the following day.
The parties’ records and correspondence shows the following events occurred between 9 and 29 December 2022:
1. The resident advised she was unhappy with the landlord’s hotel. This was broadly due to her dietary requirements. The landlord agreed to pay its meal allowance directly to the resident.
2. The landlord arranged an apartment for the family.
3. The resident reported a flood from the property’s bathroom was impacting the flats below. She was concerned about damaged belongings and said the family had recently redecorated.
4. The landlord approved a payment for the family’s travel expenses.
On 3 January 2023 the pest control contractor attended the property again. They said no silverfish were found during the inspection. However, monitors had been placed and a follow up visit would be completed the next week. They said all damp issues in the block needed to be resolved or the problem would continue.
In an email update on 12 January 2023, the resident told the landlord she was about to be tested for a silverfish allergy. She said she had allergic reactions after retrieving her bedding from the property, so she threw it away.
Within 10 days, the resident reported issues with repair appointments. She said an operative arrived without the correct parts and her husband had taken time off work. She also raised concerns about heating costs associated with drying the property.
On 26 January 2023 the resident reported silverfish had been found in a trap under the bath. She said she suffered “severe anaphylaxis” 3 times in the property, so she would not return until they were completely removed from “both blocks”. Further, the matter should be resolved quickly before alternative decant accommodation was needed. In a separate email, she said her concerns were a complaint.
The evidence confirms the following events occurred in February 2022:
1. The resident obtained medical evidence that showed, amongst other conditions, she was suffering from multiple allergies linked to long COVID.
2. In internal correspondence, the landlord’s pest control specialist said silverfish would “return soon” unless the damp was resolved.
3. The landlord was unable to extend the temporary accommodation, so the resident found an alternative. She said the landlord should cover the family’s travel expenses. She also said her husband was now her full time carer.
4. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response 8 working days after the resident’s complaint. It addressed appointment and communication issues with the landlord’s heating contractor. It said feedback was given to the contractor and the landlord would monitor its performance. The resident was awarded a total of £250 in compensation for delays and inconvenience.
5. Two days later, the resident submitted additional complaints to the landlord. They referenced: a new boiler leak, further appointment issues around dehumidifiers, and inconvenience. The resident said the landlord should address the property’s repair issues or rehouse the family. She also said they “fell out” with the landlord of their temporary accommodation.
6. The landlord escalated a boiler complaint after discussing the situation with the resident’s husband. In an email around the same time, the resident asked the landlord to merge the damp and silverfish issues into a single complaint.
7. The landlord asked the resident if she was on the local authority’s rehousing register. The resident replied the landlord should rehouse the family given their situation. She said a mutual exchange was unlikely since the property had damp, silverfish, and mushrooms growing in it. She also said the landlord had damaged her health and the family’s belongings.
8. The landlord issued a stage 1 response that addressed silverfish. It confirmed the pest control contractor would not complete further treatment works until the landlord had investigated the wider block. It recognised delays occurred and awarded the resident a total of £500 in compensation. It asked to review the resident’s medical evidence and summarised its management transfer criteria.
9. The resident complained about a delayed repair to the block’s guttering. She felt a fallen gutter could be linked to the block’s damp related issues. She said the matter had been reported around 2 months ago.
10. The landlord responded to an enquiry from the local authority. It said all of the block’s NIBE units were leaking and parts were on order. It also said it was looking at a permanent move for the resident.
11. The resident reported her mental and physical health had deteriorated since the family were decanted. She said her husband had been diagnosed with depression and the local authority was concerned about their daughter’s school attendance. In addition, the family had been offered temporary accommodation in another town and the location would cause further distress.
12. In the same email, the resident set out a suggested action plan to help the family return home. Broadly, her proposal included repairs, cleaning, expenses, an upgraded lifetime tenancy, and compensation for various issues. Her compensation request included damaged items, lost earnings, and distress.
13. The resident’s husband reported a failed appointment and black mould around the bath. On the same day, the landlord arranged a £75 payment for dehumidifier costs. It also offered the resident £100 to spend on a shared activity or meal for the family.
14. The landlord raised a works order to a different pest control contractor. The works included treatment and cleaning.
15. The resident emailed the landlord a list of outstanding tasks. She also asked for a list of nearby properties. This was on the basis the family were unlikely to return home soon due to the amount of issues that needed to be addressed.
16. The new pest control contractor reported a leak from the property’s boiler was causing “serious damp”. They said a repair was needed and there was a risk of mould growth. In addition, dehumidifiers were needed to ease the damp.
In early March 2023, the landlord authorised an additional dehumidifier payment. Subsequently, it gathered information from the resident about her management transfer preferences. The resident replied she needed a ground floor home or access to a lift. She detailed her preferred locations and advised the family had spent around £4,000 improving the property (flooring, kitchen, decorations).
On 8 March 2023 the landlord’s pest control specialist reiterated their previous concerns about damp. They said carpet cleaning was only a temporary solution and the silverfish would return in a week if the damp was not resolved. Around the same time, the landlord responded to an internal safeguarding query about the resident. It said it was in daily communication with her.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 9 March 2023. This was around 17 working days after the resident’s escalation request. It said the landlord had recently responded to a separate boiler complaint at stage 2 (the Ombudsman has not seen a copy of this response). In summary, the landlord’s main points were:
1. Pest control efforts were ongoing and alternative accommodation had been arranged to facilitate the works.
2. The temporary accommodation had been booked for 2 weeks.
3. The landlord was preparing an application for its management move panel.
4. It was sorry about the family’s damaged belongings and it was grateful for the details the resident had provided.
5. The resident was awarded £2,500 in related compensation. This figure was based on her own estimate, but it included and additional amount to recognise the ongoing impact to the family.
6. The resident had various options if she remained unhappy. The landlord was willing to discuss its response or she could approach the Ombudsman.
Within days, the landlord emailed the local authority. It said the resident had been approved for an internal management transfer but none of its properties were available. It explained her situation and asked the council for help. It wanted to source a council property urgently and promised to provide reciprocal support later. The council replied it was unable to assist. It said the resident had been on its housing register for 2 days and it had a backlog of applications.
Subsequently, the resident and the landlord were in contact about broadband and tiling expenses. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s queries and said it would get back to her. On 21 March 2023 the resident raised a related complaint. She said she had accepted the landlord’s stage 2 compensation “in good faith”. However, since then, the landlord had not acted with sufficient urgency. Her complaint said:
1. The landlord should provide an update about: damp in the wider block, silverfish and related carpet cleaning, guttering, and floor tiles for the hall.
2. The family wanted to go home and were anxious about another temporary move. If necessary, the landlord should extend their current accommodation in good time.
3. The situation was impacting the family’s wellbeing. Over 4 months, they had stayed in 5 different places. Her husband was losing wages and had “debts building up”.
In an email 2 days later, the landlord told the resident it had spoken to her husband about its progress. The email shows the new pest contractor had told the landlord the damp needed to be rectified before it would complete further treatment works.
The resident raised further complaints on 28 March and 3 April 2023. They broadly reiterated her concerns around wellbeing, urgency, and a lack of updates. They show the family were recently moved to new temporary accommodation. The resident said she was receiving support in relation to her mental health, her marriage, and her daughter’s anxiety.
On 12 April 2023 the landlord updated the resident by email. It said an internal meeting was scheduled about the property and, afterwards, it hoped to share a repair completion timescale with the family. It asked her for information to support a management move application. It requested the resident’s preferred location, application number, and position on the local authority’s housing register. The landlord advised it did not have properties readily available.
The following events occurred between 13 and 28 April 2023:
1. The landlord said it needed more time to investigate the resident’s complaint, but it would respond by 27 April 2023.
2. The landlord emailed the resident after its internal meeting. It said repairs to the property were complete but a post inspection was needed and its surveyor was on leave.
3. The resident doubted matters were resolved. Her concerns related to conditions in the wider block. She asked for a report confirming it was safe to return home.
4. The landlord confirmed it had extended the temporary accommodation. It acknowledged it had received a letter from the resident’s allergy specialist, and advised her travel expenses would be paid within a week.
5. The resident raised further concerns. Her email referenced a joint meeting at the property. She said returning would be “suicide” and her daughter was anxious about the risk to her health. In addition: the silverfish were spreading, she suffered an anaphylactic shock after the family collected clothes from the property, the temporary accommodation needed to be extended, and additional compensation was needed for damaged items.
6. Her list of damaged belongings included: clothes, carpets, flooring, a second hand kitchen, worktops, decorating, several furniture items, and bedding. Her email shows the family had agreed to expand the search area for management move properties.
7. The landlord became aware the resident had recently approached the Ombudsman.
8. The landlord’s surveyor reported “fresh” insects had been found in traps throughout the property. They said the landlord should address damp in other flats nearby.
9. The resident chased the landlord for an update.
10. On 25 April 2023 the landlord accepted the resident’s management transfer request. Its correspondence confirmed the resident needed ground floor accommodation or access to a lift.
11. The landlord shared an updated action plan with the resident. It said its contractors would help the family install flooring in the hallway (the evidence suggests the family’s redecoration works were interrupted by the damp issues). The landlord also said it was unable to locate the source of the silverfish but it was working with other block residents.
12. The resident said the landlord should extend the family’s temporary accommodation for 60 days. She said the family needed stability and the timescale was realistic given the overall duration of the repairs. Her email included a supporting calculation.
On 2 May 2023 the resident raised another complaint. She said the landlord failed to issue a stage 2 response in line with its request for additional investigation time. In summary, she said the landlord regularly broke promises, the family were traumatised, and their belongings were covered in silverfish that were toxic to the resident.
Within days, the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It related to the resident’s recent complaint. The landlord said it was progressing the boiler and silverfish issues with its contractors, which provided guidance on these matters. Broadly, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the resident’s circumstances, said it was doing all it could, and confirmed it would monitor the situation.
The resident replied on 10 May 2023. She said, since the landlord’s previous compensation award, silverfish had spread throughout the property. In addition, it would now cost the family around £5,000 to replace their belongings. However, this would not cover her husband’s time, sentimental items, counselling costs, damage to the resident’s health, or the stress caused.
Five days later, the landlord issued a stage 2 acknowledgement. It said it would respond to the resident’s concerns by 29 May 2023. Subsequently, the resident told the Ombudsman the landlord could have done more to investigate damp in the wider block.
On 24 May 2023, the parties exchanged emails following an update from the landlord. The key points from the landlord’s update were:
1. In relation to decant accommodation, the resident should arrange her own internet access. The landlord would liaise with a third-party organisation about providing a “furniture pack”.
2. With regards to the management move, the landlord had received notice on a property that may be suitable for the family (some brief details were included in the landlord’s correspondence).
3. In respect of the parties’ general communication, the landlord had received a high volume of contact from the resident. Since she included multiple colleagues in her correspondence, it was often unclear who should respond.
4. The resident should direct her enquires to a single point of contact (SPOC). The SPOC would collate information from the landlord’s various departments. They would also provide the resident a weekly update.
The resident was excited about the potential management move property. She was also unhappy with her current decant accommodation. She said its furniture was dirty and cheap. She felt the family “ran out of options due to other places not being booked quickly enough” (by the landlord). The exchange also confirms the landlord had recently identified one of its own properties as a potential alternative.
On 26 May 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It said the source of the silverfish had not been located and the landlord had approached another contractor for advice. It acknowledged the uncertainty caused by the lack of a return date, along with the changes in decant accommodation. It referenced recent interactions around a potential management move property. Overall, it offered the resident £250 for related delays and inconvenience.
On the same day, the resident replied the landlord’s compensation was insulting and showed it did not understand what the family had been through. She said its response was incomplete because the landlord did not address her concerns about the family’s damaged belongings. Further, this was especially disappointing because she had provided supporting receipts.
Within 2 weeks, the resident told the landlord there was a problem with the management move. She referenced a requirement for the tenant to have a connection to the local area. She felt the landlord should have checked the relevant conditions. She said her temporary accommodation was due to expire.
On 9 June 2023 the SPOC issued an informal complaint response. It was prompted by further contact from the resident around damaged belongings. It included a list of pest control visits to the property. In summary, the landlord said:
1. Its silverfish investigation was ongoing. It had visited the wider block and 2 flats were affected.
2. It did not expect the resident to return to the property given the impact of the silverfish on her health.
3. It was waiting for a suitable management move property.
4. Regarding the identified property, it was seeking clarity around the local connection criteria and it was prepared to offer a reciprocal agreement.
5. It was willing to compensate the resident £2,737 in line with her list of damaged items. It would not accept further liability or additional damaged items.
6. When a permanent move was secured, it would consider a request for improvement related compensation in line with its policy (this related to the resident’s request for reimbursement of funds spent improving the property’s kitchen).
7. It acknowledged the duration of the situation and the “massive” impact to the family. It had tried to work with the family to alleviate some issues but it knew the situation was upsetting.
8. It wanted to offer the resident an additional £500 in compensation for distress and inconvenience.
Within days, the landlord attended a meeting with various parties including the resident, her husband, and representatives from their daughter’s school. Minutes show the potential management move had collapsed due to the local connection criteria. They also show new short term decant accommodation had been arranged and the family were about to view a long-term decant property. In addition, the landlord was prepared to provide flooring and furniture.
Subsequently, the landlord told the resident it was uncomfortable with the amount of work needed to ensure the long-term decant property was suitable for the family. These comments were in response to an extensive list of requests from the resident. Her list included external storage space, appliances, and a video intercom system.
In mid-July 2023, the landlord agreed to arrange a skip on the resident’s behalf. This was to help the family dispose of personal items that were left in the property. Around a month later, the landlord agreed to pay 50% of the family’s storage costs for some of these items (including bikes and fishing tackle).
The following events occurred between 8 September and 27 December 2023:
1. An occupational therapist (OT) assessed the resident. Their report said “a level access property is preferred or a suitable flat, ground floor or with a functional lift accessibility”. It also said the property needed level access bathing facilities or the potential to install a wet room.
2. The resident told the landlord she received its compensation and temporary accommodation was in place until November 2023. She said she was grateful but the family needed a home.
3. The landlord arranged to reimburse the resident for 500 miles of travel expenses as requested.
4. The resident reported issues with a pest control appointment. She also said she was having allergic reactions due to mould in the decant accommodation.
5. In an internal action plan, the landlord agreed to cover the family’s removal costs. It also agreed to cover their full storage costs.
6. A contractor reported there were still “abundant silverfish present” in the property and damp was the likely cause.
7. In mid-October 2023, the landlord provided its case evidence to the Ombudsman. Its complaint summary said the resident had been paid £6,950 in total compensation over 2 complaints.
8. The resident told the Ombudsman the family had accepted a management move that was expected to take place in January 2024. She said moving to a new area would involve upheaval but it was better than living in temporary accommodation.
9. The resident asked the landlord for more compensation. This was on the basis everything left in her daughter’s room was covered in silverfish. She felt items could have been saved if the landlord had agreed to provide storage in April 2023.
10. She subsequently told the landlord she would withdraw her Ombudsman complaint if it agreed to fund the family’s removal costs, and provide additional compensation for damages. Her list of damages amounted to £5,180 in total.
11. In December 2022 the resident told the Ombudsman the management move property was unsuitable. She said she had changed her daughter’s school in readiness.
12. The resident told the landlord she was prepared to accept a temporary to permanent move if the landlord carried out extensive works to the suggested property. They included: replacing the kitchen as well as windows and doors, installing a shower, and decoration works.
13. The landlord thanked the resident for considering its offer. It said a £4,000 compensation payment was in progress. It also responded to each item on the resident’s list of works. The landlord was broadly supportive but it said some of the works would have to be completed through major works programmes while the family were in situ. In addition, it would only cover the family’s moving costs once.
14. On 27 December 2023 the resident told the landlord its suggested property was not consistent with the OT’s recommendations. She was also unhappy with the landlord’s stance on her requested works. In other words, she did not want to wait for major works programmes to address issues such as the kitchen.
The resident updated the Ombudsman in early February 2024. She said she was meant to move around Christmas but the proposed property was not ready. In addition, she was subsequently told the move would take place in March 2024 but preparation works were still ongoing. The resident wanted to put the Ombudsman’s investigation on hold until the move was complete.
Subsequently, there was further contact between the resident and the Ombudsman. The resident indicated she was likely to withdraw her complaint several times. The most recent occasion was on 20 March 2024. It was understood she wanted to retain the option of an Ombudsman complaint as a means to ensure she was satisfied with the move.

Assessment and findings

Policy and procedures

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy shows it aims to respond to complaints in 10 working days at both stages. Additional time is available at each stage providing the resident is kept informed.

The landlord’s handling of a silverfish infestation linked to damp in and around the property

It is recognised the family has experienced a significant amount of related distress and upheaval. The resident recently told us they have stayed in 14 different places since December 2022. The timeline supports her assertion that the landlord should have done more to rectify damp in the wider block. This was based on the consistent advice from contractors and specialists that the silverfish would return unless it was addressed. The timeline also shows the family will not return to the property and a rehousing process is underway.
As a result, this complaint largely relates to the landlord’s compensation. We therefore considered if the landlord did enough to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. It was noted the landlord awarded significant compensation prior to our involvement. For example, its stage 2 response in March 2023 included an award of £2,500. In mid-October 2023, the landlord told us its total compensation (to date) amounted to £6,950. The timeline shows a further £4,000 payment was processed around 2 months later.
It is acknowledged the impetus to resolve various issues often came from the resident. For example, she raised concerns about damaged items several times before the parties reached an agreement. She also raised a significant number of formal complaints. The timeline also confirms the landlord could have done things better at various points. For example, it could have broken down its compensation figures to clarify the issues being addressed. It is reasonable to conclude this would have helped to prevent any impacts being overlooked.
Nevertheless, the timeline confirms the landlord ultimately engaged appropriately with the resident’s concerns. In addition, it was broadly responsive to her requests. It also suggests the landlord covered various expenses that were not reflected in its compensation payments to the resident. Amongst other items, they included skip hire along with storage and removal costs. Given the circumstances, the Ombudsman took a holistic approach to the parties’ overall settlement out of fairness to the landlord.
Having done so, we did not find a good reason to undermine the parties’ agreed settlement. The resident has told us several times she is likely to withdraw her complaint. There was no indication the landlord suggested this idea. The resident’s stance indicates she is, provisionally, satisfied that the outcome was fair. Given the above, the landlord’s overall redress was sufficient to put things right. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found the landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of the resident’s complaint.
It may help to explain that, unlike a court, the Ombudsman cannot establish liability or award damages. In other words, since we cannot reach legal findings, we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any damage to the resident’s health or belongings. The resident could seek legal advice if she wants to pursue these matters. Where we find failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the related distress and inconvenience.
It was noted efforts to rehouse the family are ongoing and, depending on the outcome, the resident may seek to resume her complaint with the Ombudsman. For clarity, we were unable to identify any rehousing related failures by the landlord from the information seen. Further, no information was seen to suggest the landlord has responded to a rehousing related complaint from the resident. In general, landlords need to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and resolve any issues prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement. Similarly, we cannot order a landlord to rehouse a resident within a set timescale. This is because landlords have limited control over the supply of housing.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of a silverfish infestation linked to damp in and around the property.

Reasons

The Ombudsman took a holistic approach to the parties’ overall settlement out of fairness to the landlord. Having done so, we did not find a good reason to undermine the parties’ agreed resolution.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

The landlord to update the resident about its progress in relation to rehousing the family within 4 weeks.
The landlord to break its compensation calculations down (into separate elements) to clarify the issues being addressed.
The landlord should confirm its intentions with regards to the recommendations within 4 weeks.