Stonewater Limited (202312190)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312190

Stonewater Limited

20 August 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 the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. She lives in a 2 bedroom bungalow. The landlord is a housing association which owns and manages the resident’s home.
The evidence shows that the resident told the landlord that she has asthma during the events in this case.
On 28 October 2022, the resident reported damp and mould in her kitchen and bathroom and sent the landlord photographs of it. The landlord raised an order for its contractor to inspect which it did on 9 November 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 November 2022 saying the contractor had told her that the fascia boards needed repair and this could be causing the damp and mould. The landlord raised an order for them to be repaired and the work was done on 28 November 2022.
The resident reported damp and mould again on 13 December 2022. The landlord raised an order for the roof to be checked for leaks and arranged for its surveyor to inspect the damp and mould.
The landlord’s surveyor inspected on 4 January 2023 and saw no signs of rising or penetrating damp. He noted condensation and humidity in the bathroom and raised orders for the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans, and kitchen door to be replaced.
On 1 May 2023 the resident made a formal complaint. She said she had chased the landlord 3 times about replacing the extractor fans but no work had been done. She was having to clean off mould and condensation daily.
The landlord gave its stage 1 complaint response on 31 May 2023 which said:
1. It understood its contractor had completed “all works” on 2 May 2023.
2. It was sorry for the delay in resolving the mould and offered £300 compensation.
On 5 June 2023, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated. She said the landlord’s response was not correct as the extractor fans had not been replaced. She still had condensation and mould growth in her bathroom.
The landlord gave its stage 2 complaint response on 28 June 2023 which said:
1. It was sorry it had taken longer than expected to replace the extractor fans. It understood they had now been installed and hoped she was satisfied with the work.
2. It offered £650 compensation for the delays with her repairs, its “poor” communication and its complaint handling.
The resident replied on 28 June 2023 saying her complaint was not resolved as the repairs had not been done.
On 4 July 2023, the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her repairs and its communication with her.
The extractor fans were replaced on 1 September 2023 and the landlord completed follow on work to repair the bathroom ceiling in January 2024.
The landlord paid the resident £650 compensation on 14 December 2023.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks in its homes. Risks from damp and mould fall within the scope of the HHSRS. When damp and mould are reported, the landlord is required to consider if they amount to a hazard that it would be obliged to remedy.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord assessed whether the damp and mould in the resident’s home amounted to a hazard at any point in this case. Nor have we seen evidence that the landlord considered the risks it posed to the resident at any point.
In October 2021, the Ombudsman published a spotlight report on damp and mould which highlighted the common failings we had seen in our casework and made recommendations for landlords to consider. The landlord sent us its self-assessment against the recommendations in our spotlight report but it was not clear when this had been first completed or when it had been updated.
The landlord had reviewed its approach to dealing with reports of damp and mould before we published our spotlight report. It had introduced a new process from August 2021 which included categorising cases depending on level of repair work needed to resolve damp and mould.
We have seen no evidence to show that the landlord had categorised the resident’s reports of damp and mould at any point in this case.
It is not clear from the evidence seen whether the landlord had assessed itself against the recommendations in our spotlight report by the time the resident reported damp and mould on 28 October 2022. We have seen no details of the landlord’s specific approach to responding to reports of damp and mould at this time such as its timescales for inspecting or carrying out repairs.
The landlord’s repair policy at the time contained no reference to damp and mould. It said that the landlord would respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
The landlord arranged for its contractor to inspect after the resident reported the damp and mould on 28 October 2022. The contractor inspected 9 working days after the resident’s report which was within the landlord’s repair policy timescales for non-emergency repairs.
The landlord’s evidence for this investigation included an email from its contractor dated 4 March 2024. The contractor’s email summarised the orders it had received relating to the damp and mould at the resident’s home, and the work it had done on each order.
The contractor’s email said it had attended on 9 November 2022 to treat the mould and paint over the affected areas. However, the resident told us that she did not recall any work being done when the contractor visited on this occasion. She told us that the contractor had told her that it would report back to the landlord that her fascia boards needed repair.
The resident’s recollection is supported by evidence seen of her contact to the landlord on 16 November 2022. She had told the landlord that the contractor should have reported the facia boards but she had heard nothing since its visit. It suggested that there was still mould growth at the time of this contact and made no reference to any work being done so far.
It is not clear from the evidence seen whether the contractor had told the landlord the outcome of its visit on 9 November 2022 at the time. The evidence suggests that the landlord was not aware that the fascia boards needed repair before the resident contacted it on 16 November 2022. The fascia boards were repaired within the landlord’s policy timescale for a non-emergency repair.
It was reasonable that the landlord raised an order for the roof to be checked for leaks when the resident reported damp and mould again on 13 December 2022. It shows that the landlord was actively considering the possible causes of the problem. It was also reasonable that the landlord arranged for its surveyor to inspect to identify the causes of the damp and mould.
When the surveyor’s inspection of 4 January 2023 concluded that the cause was condensation, the landlord raised orders promptly for the extractor fans and kitchen door to be replaced. The work should have been done by 1 February 2023 in line with the landlord’s repair policy timescale for non-emergency repairs.
The resident chased the repair at least twice in March 2023 and the landlord’s records suggest it had chased its contractor. By this time, the repair was a month late and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have been proactive in making sure the work was done.
However, we have seen no evidence of any further action taken by the landlord until the resident complained on 1 May 2023. Further, we have seen no evidence that the landlord had responded to an email sent by the resident on 31 March 2023 chasing progress. The resident’s complaint may have been avoided if the landlord had kept her updated with progress and responded to her contacts.
From April 2023, the landlord had implemented a damp, mould and condensation policy which set out its approach to addressing the issues. We would have expected to see that the landlord had followed its policy when handling the resident’s reports from this point. The policy says the landlord will:
1. Catagorise properties with damp and mould depending on the level of repair work needed.
2. Consider decanting residents where damp and mould is identified to pose a risk to their health, safety or wellbeing.
3. Work collaboratively with residents as a “priority”, in recognition that the issues affect the use of their home.
4. Contact residents within 6 months of damp and mould being resolved to make sure it has not come back.
The order to replace the extractor fans and kitchen door was marked as completed on 16 May 2023 in the landlord’s repair records. It was reasonable that the landlord believed that the repair had been completed by 16 May 2023 as it should have been able to rely on the accuracy of its contractor’s information.
However, when the resident told it that the work had not been done in her complaint escalation on 5 June 2023, the landlord should have investigated further. It should have established why the contractor had told it the repair had been done when it had not been.
By this time, the repair was 4 months late and the landlord was aware that the resident was cleaning the mould from her bathroom walls every day. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have made sure the repair was done as quickly as possible.
It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to have kept in contact with the resident. This would have shown that the landlord was working collaboratively with the resident as its policy says it will do. However, we have seen no evidence of the landlord making contact or assessing the risks that the mould posed to her as its policy says it will do.
If the landlord had been working collaboratively with the resident, it would not have given an inaccurate stage 2 complaint response as it would have known that the repair had not been done. It may also have avoided the further delays in doing the work that it had ordered.
It is not clear what led to the landlord raising another order, on 21 July 2023, for the mould to be treated and bathroom extractor fan to be replaced. Given the resident had been waiting for the work since January 2023, we would have expected the landlord to have expedited the work.
Similarly, when the resident told the landlord she had asthma in an email on 9 August 2023, we would have expected the landlord to have considered the risks to her health. We have seen no evidence that it did so. Nor have we seen evidence that it responded to her email.
The landlord’s repair records show that the bathroom extractor fan was replaced on 1 September 2023 and the resident confirmed to us that this was accurate. This means that it had taken the landlord over 7 months to replace the fan which was an inappropriate timescale and contrary to the timescales within the landlord’s repair policy.
Given the delays so far, we would have expected the landlord to have carried out the follow on work to repair her bathroom ceiling within a reasonable timescale. However, the evidence suggests that the landlord did not respond to an email the resident sent on 3 September 2023 telling it the ceiling needed repair. Nor have we seen evidence that it took any steps to arrange the follow on work that she said was needed.
Similarly, we have seen no evidence that the landlord ordered any work when the resident emailed again on 3 November 2023. Nor have we seen any evidence that it responded to her email.
The evidence suggests that the resident then reported the ceiling repairs using the landlord’s website on 14 November 2023. This resulted in the landlord raising an order for the work. The landlord should consider what had caused its failure to respond to the resident’s emails or act sooner to address the follow on work she had reported.
The bathroom ceiling was repaired on 8 January 2024. This means it took the landlord 18 weeks to complete the follow on work. This timescale was not reasonable and exceeded the 28 day timescale within the landlord’s repair policy.
The resident told us that her kitchen door had never been replaced. The order raised on 5 January 2023 was marked as completed on 16 May 2023. However, the contractor’s email of 4 March 2024 had told the landlord that a sub-contractor had attended the job but carried out different work. It had not replaced the extractor fans or kitchen door. As such, we are satisfied that the kitchen door has not been replaced and we have ordered the landlord to replace it.
In line with its damp, mould and condensation policy, the landlord should have contacted the resident by the end of February 2024 to check the damp and mould had been resolved. We have seen no evidence that it did so.
The resident told us that new mould growth appeared in her bathroom in July 2024. She had not reported this to the landlord but we have ordered the landlord to inspect the mould growth.
Overall, the landlord has not demonstrated that it followed its policies when responding to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It failed to communicate with the resident throughout and did not consider the risks posed by the mould at any point. This meant the resident’s bathroom was affected by the disrepair caused by the damp and mould for over a year. The landlord’s failings amount to maladministration.
The landlord had paid the resident £550 compensation through its complaint process for the delays in carrying out repairs and its “poor” communication. The Ombudsman does not consider this to be sufficient redress for the period up to 28 June 2023 when the landlord made the offer of compensation. Nor does it reflect the further delays and inadequate communication that continued for another 6 months after it had offered compensation. We have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation.
In January 2024, we issued the landlord with a wider order in relation to case 202224250. The order required the landlord to review its practices in responding to reports of damp and mould. The landlord complied with our order and confirmed the changes it had made. As such, we have made no further orders from this investigation for the landlord to review its approach. However, the landlord should consider the failings we have identified in this case and decide if further changes are needed to avoid similar failings in future.

Handling of the resident’s complaint

The complaints policy that the landlord sent us for this investigation was effective from 29 September 2023. As such, this version was approved after the resident had complained on 1 May 2023.
However, the version history of the policy suggests that no material changes had been made from the previous version that would have been in place at the time of the resident’s complaint. We have, therefore, assessed the landlord’s complaint handling against the policy that it sent us.
The policy says that the landlord will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It says it will respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 1 May 2023 within its policy timescale. However, its stage 1 response of 31 May 2023 was given 16 working days after it had acknowledged the complaint. This means the landlord had not given its stage 1 response within its policy timescale.
It was reasonable that the landlord’s response acknowledged it had taken too long to complete the repairs it had ordered on 5 January 2023 and offered compensation for this. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered compensation for its delayed complaint response.
The reason for the resident’s escalation request of 5 June 2023 was that the landlord’s response had incorrectly said that “all works” had been done. The landlord could have avoided giving an inaccurate response if it had spoken with the resident before sending its stage 1 response. It may also have avoided her escalation request.
It was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged its delay in escalating the resident’s complaint in its acknowledgement of 14 June 2023. Although the landlord’s acknowledgement was only 2 days late, its recognition of this shows that the landlord was mindful of the timescales it should meet.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response 10 working days later which was sooner than the 20 working day timescale within its policy. It meant that the resident was not disadvantaged by the short delay in her escalation request being acknowledged.
By this time, the landlord knew that its stage 1 response had been incorrect in saying the repairs had been done. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have made sure that its stage 2 response was accurate. It could have spoken with the resident before sending its response to make sure that the information provided by its contractor was correct. If it had done so, it would have avoided incorrectly saying that the repairs had been done for the second time in its stage 2 response.
The landlord should consider how it can make sure that its complaint responses are accurate in future.
The landlord should have responded to the email the resident sent on 28 June 2023 which had said its stage 2 response had been incorrect. Although the landlord had completed its complaint process, it should have clarified its position regarding her complaint and the repairs that were still outstanding.
The landlord’s failure to respond caused inconvenience to the resident who had to send further emails on 14 July 2023, 9 August 2023, 3 September 2023 and 3 November 2023 chasing for a response. The landlord’s failure to respond to any of those emails was unreasonable.
It is not clear from the evidence seen why the landlord did not pay the compensation it had offered until 14 December 2023. This was over 5 months after the landlord had offered the compensation in its stage 2 response which was an unreasonable delay.
The landlord’s failings amount to maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord offered £100 for its failings in handling the resident’s complaint in its stage 2 response. The Ombudsman does not consider this to be sufficient redress given the failings we have identified. We have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. A director must write to the resident to apologise. The apology must acknowledge the failings identified in our investigation and the impact they had on the resident. The landlord must send us a copy of its apology.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £650. This compensation is in addition to the £650 it has already paid the resident through its complaint process. It must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It is comprised of:
  1. £350 for distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. £300 for distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
3. The landlord must replace the resident’s kitchen door.
4. The landlord must arrange for its surveyor to inspect the new mould growth in the resident’s bathroom. It must write to the resident to confirm the outcome of the inspection, the advice it has given and details of any repairs to be done including timescales. The landlord must send us a copy of its letter.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord consider the failings identified in this report. It should consider if it needs to change its current processes to make sure that, in future, it:
1. Responds to all contacts from residents.
2. Responds to reports of damp, mould and condensation in line with its policy.
3. Provides accurate complaint responses.