Stonewater Limited (202310073)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310073

Stonewater Limited

24 September 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 boiler
2. damage to the resident’s personal belongings following a leak
3. complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom flat. The resident occupies the property with his family including his 3 young children.
On 23 January 2023 the resident reported that his boiler was not functioning properly and requested the landlord’s contractor to attend. The contractor visited the property the same day.
On 31 January 2023 the landlord booked in a visit from the contractor, but this was cancelled due to the availability of the operative. This was rearranged to 21 February 2023, the contractor attended and identified parts were required .
On 25 February 2023 the landlord sent a request to order the parts.
On 18 April 2023 the contractor returned to repair the boiler and restore the hot water, the contractor identified they did not have the correct parts. The contactor was unable to carry out the full repair at the visit. The resident complained to the landlord on the same day.
On 20 April 2023 the resident suffered a leak in his kitchen. The landlord attended the same day and carried out a temporary repair and turned the water back on.
On 21 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord. He said:
1. He had lost 2 days of work due to contactors’ appointments.
2. The contractor had returned and informed him the whole boiler system needed to be replaced, which would lead him to take more days off work.
3. He was unhappy with the poor service and lack of effective repairs.
On 21 April 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 request.
On 26 April 2023 the contractor replaced the boiler.
On 11 May 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident. It apologised for the delays in the contractors attending and fixing the issues. It acknowledged that the repairs of the boiler were not within the timescale expected and that the resident had had to take multiple days off work. It explained it was working with its contractor to ensure the boiler was repaired to a good standard. It offered the resident £200 in compensation for disruption and inconvenience.
On 31 May 2023 the resident requested his complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The boiler issue was still ongoing and the level of compensation awarded did not take into account the damage to his personal items due to the leak.
On 1 June 2023 the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 acknowledgement.
On 14 June 2023 the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response. It said:
1. It acknowledged the repair had been ongoing since January 2023, when the resident had been experiencing intermittent hot water. It had logged the repair with the wrong contractor which caused a delay.
2. It apologised that the resident had missed work due to the contractor’s failure to fix the boiler as a result of incorrect parts and materials ordered.
3. The hot water cylinder had been replaced on 9 June 2023.
4. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered increased compensation of £600, broken down as:
  1. £250 for ongoing delays to the repair.
  2. £200 for the distress caused.
  3. £150 for poor communication.

Post complaint

On 30 June 2023 the resident informed the landlord that he had no hot water. The landlord arranged for an out of hours engineer to visit the same day. It also raised the issue with its gas team. It is unclear whether this is linked to the previous boiler repairs or was a new issue.
On 3 July 2023 the resident phoned the landlord to say that the hot water had stopped again on 1 July 2023. The landlord contacted its contractor to ask for the findings of their previous visit and to urgently reattend.
On 4 July 2023 the resident phoned the landlord and requested compensation for the damage to his kitchen which was caused by a major flood on 20 April 2023. This caused rust on the appliances and bubbling on the flooring. He wanted a replacement fridge/freezer, cooker, laminate flooring and a contribution towards his water bill. The resident mentioned he was dissatisfied about the ongoing issues with his boiler and hot water. He expressed his concerns that contractors were not using the correct parts to fix the issue.
On 4 July 2023 the landlord considered reassessing the resident’s compensation for his damaged to his kitchen.
On 7 August 2023 the resident reported an issue with low system pressure of the boiler. The contractor attended and resolved the issue on 15 August 2023.
On 1 September 2023 the resident reported to the landlord the outstanding boiler repair. The resident said the electrician and engineer advised a pump replacement was needed and would take at least 12 weeks. The resident explained that he had taken 2 days off work for the electrician and engineer to attend on separate days.
On 28 September 2023 the resident called the landlord to explain the contractor had not attended the scheduled appointment and he was unhappy about the length of time the repairs were taking.
On 25 October 2023 a boiler pump was installed. The contractor re-attended after the resident reported that the new unit was noisy. The noise was found to be due to trapped air. The contractor attended to fix the issue on 27 October 2023.
On 18 March 2024 the landlord acknowledged it did not respond to the resident’s request to reimbursement for the damaged items. The landlord decided to undertake a review of the complaint after the resident informed it he was taking his case to this Service. It agreed to increase the total amount of compensation from £600 to £4,000. The £3,400 additional compensation was for the replacement of
1. A fridge that had rust at the bottom (£500)
2. A cooker that had rust underneath (£900)
3. Laminate flooring that was split and bubbling (£2000)
A further complaint was raised with the landlord about its complaint handling for the case and further delays to repairs for intermittent hot water. From the evidence provided it is unclear if the landlord raised a further complaint on behalf of the resident following its review or whether the resident raised another complaint.
On 10 April 2024 the landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 response where it acknowledged the delays in complaint handling. It accept responsibility for not restoring the hot water system, including 9 missed appointments, inadequate communication, and management of the overall repair completion timeline. It offered the resident additional compensation of £1,030. This was broken down as £225 for 9 missed appointments, £730 for 1 immersion heater used over a period of 12 months, £50 for poor complaint handling, and £25 for its delayed complaint response.
On 20 May 2024 the landlord completed a stage 2 response where it identified no further service failures and upheld the compensation paid at Stage 1.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident raised concerns around loss of earnings, due to the landlord’s actions. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will not consider loss of earnings. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for any loss of earnings. Whilst such works may inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents, occupancy agreements will require access for repairs to be provided, to complete necessary repairs. It would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to pay a resident reimbursement for loss of earnings for routine appointments. The Ombudsman can look at the resident’s time and trouble and distress and inconvenience caused by a landlord’s actions or inactions.

Repairs to the boiler

The landlord’s repair policy says, “In general we are responsible for the maintenance and repair of the building’s structure, exterior, fixtures and fittings, heating, hot water, electrical, gas and sanitation installations, kitchen and bathroom suites.” The landlord is responsible for keeping installations it has provided for heating and hot water in good repair.
The landlord repairs procedure document says that emergency repairs should be dealt within a maximum of 24 hours from receiving the customer’s notification. It delivers major repairs within a maximum of 42 days where there is a significant amount of work required beyond the original repair. It will maintain clear and continuous communication with customers, via their preferred communication channel, to ensure they know when a reported repair will be completed and to confirm that the proposed appointment time is convenient.
The landlord has accepted that it failed to meet its service standards with regard to the boiler and hot water issue. On 23 January 2023 the resident first contacted the landlord about issues with the boiler. It was reasonable for the landlord to send a contractor the same day. However, it took over 1 month to identify new parts were required for the boiler, this was an unreasonable amount of time to establish new parts were required. It took a further 2 months and a further visit to repair the boiler, to establish the parts order were incorrect. While it is acknowledged that errors can occur, the overall timeframe without an explanation for the delay was unreasonable.
In some circumstances, there may be appropriate reasons for why the landlord cannot adhere to its usual repair timeframes. It is not unreasonable for a follow-on appointment where additional parts are required. However, the landlord should have ensured that the resident was kept reasonably updated and provided explanations for the delay.
It was reasonable for the landlord to have apologised and acknowledged the delays in attending and for not fixing the issues. It is unclear if the resident had an alternative source of hot water during this period. The landlord awarded the resident £200 for the disruption and inconvenience. It is unclear how the landlord calculated this amount of compensation. We would have expected the landlord to provide evidence of how it considered the adverse impact on the resident. Considering the time frames and that the loss of hot water was intermittent then the landlord’s offer of compensation at stage 1 was reasonable.
It was appropriate for the landlord in its stage 2 response on 14 June 2023 to have acknowledged the repair had been ongoing since January 2023. It made a revised offer the resident £600 which comprised of £250 for ongoing delays to the repair, £200 for the distress caused, and £150 for the poor communication. Considering the time frame and that the loss of hot water was intermittent then the landlord’s offer of compensation at stage 2 was reasonable.
On 30 June 2023 the resident reported no hot water and the landlord arranged for the contractor to attend the same day. The hot water stopped again on 1 July 2023. The landlord asked the contractor to confirm the findings from 30 June 2023 and to re-attend the same day. The landlord responded in line with its published timeframes which was an appropriate response.
On 4 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to say he was still experiencing issues with the boiler and hot water. He explained he had made contact with the Ombudsman.
On 1 September 2023 the resident was unhappy it has taken two separate visits to confirm the parts required. The landlord should have provided him with clear communication on its position about the parts required.
The landlord responded to each report promptly, in line with its repair policy. The initial repair involved the resident having issues with intermittent hot water which was unreasonably delayed due to the wrong parts being ordered. When the resident reported the issue again to the landlord, it took appropriate action by requesting the previous report made by the contactor. The landlord appropriately identified that the boiler required a new pump.
The landlord issued a second stage 1 complaint on 10 April 2024 about its further delays to repair the intermittent hot water. It reviewed the compensation offered to the resident and offered an additional £1,030. This was £225 for 9 missed appointment, £730 for 1 immersion heater over a period of 12 months, £50 for poor complaint handling and £25 for delay complaint response. The compensation offered was a goodwill payment which is in line with its compensation policy. The landlord does not have tariffs which set out the level of compensation. The landlord decided not to increase the offer of compensation in its stage 2 response on 20 May 2024. We consider the level of compensation offered to the resident as appropriate.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests payments of between £600 and £1,000 where there has been a significant impact on the resident as a result of maladministration. This did cause inconvenience and time and trouble for the resident in pursing an outcome. This is a fair reflection of the impact on the resident according to the evidence.
The Ombudsman has not ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation because it considers the landlord’s offer sufficient to put things right in relation to the failings identified in this investigation. The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord has already apologised to the resident for its failings.
The Ombudsman understands being without a boiler would be manageable for a short time but in this case the boiler breakdowns went on for over 9 months. The boiler worked intermittently during this period but repeatedly failed and stopped working approximately 9 times. Although the resident did have an immersion heater which gave him access to hot water. The landlord has used its complaint process to address the resident’s complaint. We would consider that the landlord the landlord recognised it’s failings and made reasonable redress.

Damage to the resident’s personal belongings following a leak

It is unclear how the landlord dealt with the leak from its records. The landlord accepted responsibility for the leak and took action fixing it. The assessment will focus on the damage to the resident’s belongings.
The resident included damage to his belonging as part of his stage 2 escalation request to the landlord. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint about his damaged items but did not address this issue in its stage 2 response. This was not reasonable. The landlord should have treated it as a separate complaint and provided a stage 1 response or referred the resident to its insurance to make a claim.
On 4 July 2023 the resident explained to the landlord that he was seeking payment for the damage to his belongings. It is unclear what actions the landlord undertook in response to this.
The landlord carried out a review of the complaint on 18 March 2024.The landlord acknowledge it did not respond to the resident’s complaint about his damaged belongings. It increased its offer of compensation based on the replacement of the resident’s damaged belongings. It is not in the spirit of this Service’s dispute resolution principles or our complaint handling code for a landlord to make a substantial offer of redress at the end of a protracted process, with the effect that the Ombudsman will not consider the matter further. The landlord’s review was nearly 11 months after the issue of the leak occurred.
Paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may determine the investigation of a complaint immediately if satisfied that [the landlord]…has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This will result in a finding of ‘reasonable redress’.” While it is positive that the landlord reconsidered its position and made an increased offer of redress, the Ombudsman is unable to consider the landlord’s offer as reasonable redress because the offer was made 9 months after the landlord’s internal complaints process had finished.
The landlord’s eventual offer was sufficient, of £3,400 to put thing right for the resident. However this was not made before the Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation on 14 June 2023. No further award of compensation is to be made by the Ombudsman.
In conclusion, the landlord rightly acknowledged that there had been problems in its handling of the damage to the resident’s personal belongings. It offered appropriate compensation to the resident for the damage to his personal belongings. Due to delays in offering the resident compensation and addressing their concerns we have found maladministration. The landlord missed opportunities to put this right sooner, when the resident first raised the issue and again in July 2023. This caused the resident additional time and trouble to pursue an outcome.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint handling policy says stage 1 acknowledgements will be sent within 2 working days to the resident. A stage 1 response will be sent to the resident within 10 working days. At stage 2 the resident needs to escalate the complaint within 15 working days. The landlord will respond to the resident within 10 working days.
The resident made a formal complaint on 18 April 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 21 April 2023. The acknowledgement was within its target of 2 working days. The stage 1 response should have been sent to the resident by 8 May 2023 but was not sent out until 11 May 2023. This response was slightly delayed and would not have caused any significant detriment. However, the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay, it would have been appropriate for it to do so.
The resident requested a stage 2 response on 19 May 2023. This was acknowledged on 31 May 2023. The stage 2 acknowledgement was not initiated in a timely manner as it was raised 8 working days later which was not in line with the landlord’s policy. The response was therefore due on 15 June 2023 and the landlord was able to send it a day earlier on 14 June 2023, which was satisfactory
The landlord issued a second stage 1 complaint on 10 April 2024 for complaint handling and the further delays to repair the boiler. The landlord acknowledged the delays in its complaint response and apologised. It reviewed the compensation offered to the resident. It offered £50 for poor complaint handling and £25 for the delay in the complaint response. The compensation offered was a goodwill payment which is in line with its compensation policy. The landlord does not have tariffs which set out the level of compensation. The landlord decided not to increase the offer of compensation in its stage 2 response on 20 May 2024. We consider the level of compensation offered to the resident was appropriate. It has offered the resident reasonable redress in regards to its complaint handling failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in relation to its handling of repairs to the boiler.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman, there was maladministration by the landlord handling of damage to the resident’s personal belongings from a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in relation to its complaint handling.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within 4 weeks of the date of this report,
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £3,400 in compensation it offered at the review stage and stage 1 if not already done so.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pays the resident the £1,630 already offered to the resident if it has not already done so.