Stonewater Limited (202317294)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317294

Stonewater Limited

17 May 2025

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 reports of
1. A toilet leak at the property.
2. Other repairs at the property.
We have also investigated the associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been the tenant of a 3-bedroom property, under a tenancy agreement with the landlord, since August 2015.
The property has an upstairs bathroom and a downstairs toilet. The resident lives at the property with her children, who were under 10 at the time of the complaint. The landlord says the resident has reported that her children have vulnerabilities. She is represented by a relative. For ease of reference, we will refer to both the resident and her representative as ‘the resident’ in this report.
On 30 March 2022, an electrician attended the property following reports of a leak. A landlord operative stated that both toilets and basins needed replacing. On 7 April 2022 it raised a job to complete the works.
On 21 April 2022, after the landlord told the resident it had made a safeguarding referral, she said she had been without an upstairs bathroom or a downstairs flushing toilet for 3 weeks. One of the toilets was replaced on 26 April 2022. An operative said they could not replace the second toilet because of “health and safety issues.” The records say the remaining toilet was replaced on 22 June 2022.
On 21 June 2023 the resident complained. She said there had been problems at the property since 2015 and focused on the toilet blockage incident. She said that the leak from the upstairs toilet had damaged the hall and stairs carpet, but the landlord had refused to compensate her. She said the landing was rotten because of the leak. She also raised issues with the kitchen.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 14 August 2023. It offered £150 for the delay in complaint handling. It also said it had no records of her making reports about the kitchen, which it now intended to replace. It addressed some issues, such as a repair to a front door lock and offered £50 for the lack of communication about replacing the front door. It said it would not look at the repairs to the toilet between April and July 2022 or the damaged carpet. It said this was because those issues fell outside of this Service’s recommended 6-month time frame for residents to report issues to the landlord.
The landlord said it accepted that it had not at that time repaired the damage to the hall ceiling caused by the toilet leak. It said the resident’s children had caused the leak, and so the work would have been a rechargeable repair under its policy. However, it accepted it had not offered to do this and awarded £250 for this “service failure”. It also said it would complete mould works to the “whole property”, including redecoration. It said it would replace the flooring in the upstairs bathroom and downstairs toilet and “fix the hallway ceiling”. It apologised and offered a further £100 as a “goodwill gesture”.
On 20 August 2023 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She disputed the landlord’s claim that it did not have records of reports about the kitchen and bathroom. She still wanted compensation for the carpet and disputed that the damage to the toilets had been because of her children’s actions.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 26 September 2023. It said it had completed “most of” the outstanding repairs and had arranged for a surveyor to contact her to inspect the property. It said it would assess the damage to the flooring and make a decision about reimbursement. It offered £125 for complaint handling issues at stage 1.
The resident asked us to investigate. She said the landlord had blamed her and her children and used the 6-month rule as an excuse not to investigate the most significant parts of her complaint. She sought payment of the compensation offered of £675, along with the cost of replacing her carpet and compensation for the issues with the “toilet issue”.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and well-being. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, we have considered any general distress and inconvenience which she experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
The resident has informed us that she has issues with overcrowding at the property. She is also not satisfied with the installation of the toilets and says the landlord has still not signed off on the work done to replace the kitchen, as it is incomplete. These issues have not been addressed through the landlord’s complaints process. The rules of our Scheme mean we cannot investigate complaints unless they have been so and so they do not form part of this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a toilet leak

In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had not investigated this issue because it followed our (then) complaints handling code (the Code). Our Code said landlords could exclude investigating a complaint which had occurred over 6 months ago. Our Code (April 2022) said that a resident did not have to use the word ‘complaint’ when complaining. A complaint is defined as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made”. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s approach to the toilet repairs on 21 April 2022 when she said she “was unhappy with the way” the operative attended on 1 April 2022. She also expressed dissatisfaction that she had to “…deal without an upstairs bathroom and downstairs toilet for the last 3 weeks.” The landlord should have registered this as a complaint at the time, and we consider it should therefore have investigated the issues as part of her June 2023 complaint. Its failure to do so was inappropriate, so we have considered these matters in this report.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend to high-priority repairs within 4 hours to make sure a home is safe. It says it will attend to a temporary or permanent repair within 24 hours. It says that if a resident or a member of the household causes damage to the home, it is their responsibility to put it right.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that “the repairs were due to children putting items into the toilet bowls.” For that reason, it said it treated the damage to the hall ceiling, caused by the leaks, as rechargeable. The implication is that, if it had investigated, it would have approached this aspect of the complaint in the same way, considering the resident to be responsible for the repairs.
However, the records indicate that at the time of the events concerned, the landlord:
1. Considered it had a responsibility to respond to the repairs.
2. Attended initially and told the resident to use a bucket/bowl to flush “in the meantime”.
3. Failed to return to complete the repairs in any reasonable timeframe.
The evidence shows that the resident reported issues with the electrics on 31 March 2022 at around 4:18 pm. The landlord sent someone to inspect at around 6 pm, where it was found that water was leaking into the electrics. The landlord, therefore, had notice from this date that there was a leak in the property.
The landlord took between 31 March 2022 and 22 June 2022 to remedy the issues with both toilets at the property. This was an inappropriate delay, far exceeding any reasonable response time. The records indicate the first toilet was fixed on 26 April 2022, but 26 days is an unacceptable time for the family to have been left using a bucket to flush the toilet.
On 3 occasions, landlord operatives described the property as being a “health and safety risk” and the landlord made a safeguarding referral because of the reported state of the property. The resident disputes that the property was in such a poor condition and says that if it was, this was because the landlord had failed to repair the toilets, and any mess was inevitable. The Ombudsman cannot take a view on whether the property condition was poor, save to say the landlord should have satisfied itself on whether the condition was a result of the problems with the toilets.
On 1 April 2022, the landlord’s operative said a site visit was required and that the situation was so serious it might warrant a decant for the family. However, the landlord did not offer another job to deal with the works until 7 April 2022. On that date, it asked for the following to be done:
1. To make sure that at least the downstairs toilet was usable.
2. To check the drains.
3. To assess the floor, as “it had been mentioned that it was rotten and unsafe”.
4. To review the condition of the property and consider if a decant was required.
None of the above requests were followed up in a reasonable time, which was inappropriate. On 1 April 2022 a landlord operative said the property needed a “deep clean” and the resident needed help. On 7 April 2022 the landlord said it should attend to see if a deep clean was needed.
On 20 April 2022 the landlord raised a safeguarding referral because of the 1 April 2022 reports of the condition of the property. On 26 April 2022 an operative reported that the smell at the property was “overpowering” and that the resident was vulnerable and needed help. They said they could not fix the second toilet “due to health and safety issues”.
In May 2022, the landlord arranged for an inspection (which it then failed to attend) to check the condition of the property. On the evidence, this inspection should have taken place much sooner. It knew that the resident and her children had been living in conditions that were reported as being unsanitary since March 2022 and that she and her children were vulnerable.
The landlord told us that social services found that the “conditions of the home were fine”. It said it recognised the referral would have been distressing for the resident, but said it had a duty to take action. We agree.
On 19 May 2022 the landlord called the resident to apologise that “no one else has been in touch since” the referral. But by 24 May 2022, when the landlord called the resident, it had still not visited the property to ascertain its condition. On a video call on that day, the landlord considered the toilets “looked ok”. We also note that on that day, the landlord noted the resident was able to use the downstairs toilet. However, she also reported that she had to “manually flush it each time, which is difficult with [so many] young children in the house.”
Further, a video call would not allow a proper assessment of the situation. On 20 June 2022, another operative said the property needed a deep clean and that it would be a “hazard to work in those conditions”. It was not until 22 June 2022 that the second toilet was fitted.
It is concerning that the landlord did not assess the property to decide if there were any hazards or whether it was fit for human habitation. This is a significant failure and one which could have placed the household in danger.
Further, we have not seen evidence that the landlord properly considered offering the resident temporary alternative accommodation during the period when the resident and her children did not have the use of a toilet. The landlord has not given us a copy of any decant policy it used at the time but its 2023 policy says that “where there is an immediate health and safety risk to a customer remaining in their home, and this risk cannot be immediately mitigated, [the landlord] will implement an emergency decant.”
Therefore, even if the operative’s concerns were misplaced or overstated, (which is the resident’s view, who was very upset by the safeguarding referral), the number of reports about the condition of the property should have, at least, prompted a site visit to consider if the condition of the property was a result of the leaks and issues with the toilets and whether a decant was appropriate.
Following the landlord’s call with the resident in May 2022, it asked, in an internal email, if the flooring at the property could be replaced and if the mould could be treated. Neither was done, which was inappropriate.
At stage 1 of the landlord’s complaint response, while it did not accept responsibility for the spread of mould, it agreed to undertake mould works to the whole of the property, including redecoration works. It also agreed to replace the flooring in the upstairs bathroom and the downstairs toilet. The resident said that, in her view, it had only agreed to these works because it knew it was responsible.
Whether it was responsible or not, it did not follow up on the May 2022 alert to treat the mould. This was inappropriate. After replacing the toilets, it should have remedied any damp and mould that had been caused by the leaks. If it did not consider it was responsible, it should have been clear about that, in line with its policy on rechargeable repairs.
The resident provided a receipt for £544 for a carpet that she bought shortly before the leaks happened. The landlord offered to replace the flooring in the bathroom and the downstairs toilet. It would, therefore, be consistent for it to also replace damaged carpets. A landlord is not responsible for replacing carpets and other furnishings in unfurnished homes unless it caused the damage or the delays were considerable and contributed to the damage. The evidence does not show the landlord stopped any leaks promptly to prevent damage from occurring, so it would be reasonable from a ‘fair in all the circumstances’ point of view for the landlord to contribute to the cost of the damaged carpets and their fitting. The Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to contribute £350 to the cost of the carpets and fitting, or to offer to fit standard carpets to the resident to replace the ones damaged by the leak.
The records show that from the date of the first report of a leak on 30 March 2022, it took the landlord 84 days to get both toilets back in fully working order. Although the landlord told us that during this period the downstairs toilet “worked fully”, the evidence does not support this, given that repairs were completed after this date. We asked the landlord for evidence to justify this claim. It said it had nothing to add.
There was maladministration in the handling of the repairs to the toilets. This is because the repairs were delayed, which left the household without usable toilets for a period. Moreover, the landlord did not satisfy itself if the condition of the property resulted from the leaks from the toilets and whether there were any hazards. As such, we have ordered the landlord to increase its compensation offer by £600 to recognise the distress, inconvenience, worry, frustration and upset caused to the resident during this period.
We also note that in the resident’s stage 1 complaint, she said that the toilets that the landlord fitted were “a bodged job…and have a piece of wood wedged behind to keep them in situ.” For completeness, and to prevent another complaint, we have ordered that the landlord should inspect the property and conduct a works sing off report.

The landlord’s handling of other repairs

The resident raised several other concerns with repairs at the property in her stage 1 complaint. The landlord said it would not address the delay in a floor repair in August 2015, as this was too long ago. The Ombudsman cannot fault this, as this was in line with its policy not to investigate a complaint that was reported more than 6 months ago.
The resident also raised issues such as:
1. A heating dial not being correctly wired.
2. A delay in repairing the front door lock.
3. A broken cooker and washing machine circuit.
4. Outstanding repairs to a kitchen cupboard.
The landlord said it was dealing with these repairs, including by replacing the kitchen entirely. This was resolution-focused and reasonable.
In relation to the front door repair, it offered £50 for its failure to communicate with the resident. This, along with the information it provided about the action it had taken to replace the door, was in line with our dispute resolution principles in that it was taking action to “put it right” and treat residents fairly. Its offer of £50 was a recognition that it had learnt from outcomes.
However, as we set out in our complaint handling section, it failed, at stage 2, to respond to the resident’s claim that it had records showing she had raised these issues repeatedly before.
The other issue the resident raised was with the delay in repairing the damage to the property ceiling following the toilet leak upstairs. At stage 1, the landlord said that this should have been offered as a rechargeable repair and offered the resident £250 as compensation for failing to make this offer at the time. It said this was a service failure.
However, its policy says repairs were rechargeable where “intentional damage” is caused to the home. It says it will ensure an “efficient, consistent, justifiable and transparent decision-making process is utilised in circumstances where recharges are appropriate.” There are no records showing that the landlord followed a “transparent decision-making” process to decide that the issues with the toilet leaks were rechargeable repairs.
However, its offer of £250 to acknowledge that it should not just have left the repair and its commitment to fix the hallway ceiling was reasonable redress for the failures here.

On the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It says it will respond at stage 1 of its process within 10 working days and at stage 2, within 20 working days.
As set out, the resident initially raised an ‘expression of dissatisfaction’ in April 2022, which the landlord did not pick up within a reasonable time. When the landlord considered the complaint via its complaint procedure, it delayed matters at stage 1. It accepted that it had delayed responding at stage 1 and offered £150 for the delay. The landlord says it follows our guidelines for compensation, and we consider this to have been a reasonable offer. The delay was significant.
At stage 2, the landlord took 26 working days to respond. This was not within its policy timeframe commitment, but there is no evidence that the slight delay caused any significant harm or inconvenience to the resident.
However, the landlord failed to respond to a number of points the resident had made in her escalation request. It failed to respond to:
1. Her contention that the blockages to the toilet had not been the fault of the resident’s children.
2. Her argument that its decision not to compensate the resident for her expenses on new carpet following the leak was “disgraceful”.
3. Her allegation that its surveyors were able to access records about previous reports of repair issues that it had failed to respond to.
4. Her allegation that the reason the landlord had agreed to address the mould and to redecorate the house was because it knew the issues had been caused by its failure to respond to the leaks appropriately.
Instead, the landlord offered £125 for poor complaint handling at stage 1 without explaining why. Taken together, its complaint response failed to properly acknowledge the resident’s fundamental complaint points and, as such, is a failure under section 5.6 of the Code, which states that landlords must address all points raised and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
Taking these combined complaint failings into account, if it were not for the landlord’s offer to redecorate the property, replace the kitchen and attend to other repairs, we would have made a finding of maladministration. However, we consider the steps the landlord took towards complaint resolution and the combined payment of £275 provides reasonable redress for the identified failings.

Determinations

On consideration of the complaint, the Ombudsman has found:
1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a toilet leak at the property.
2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord that resolved the complaint satisfactorily in respect of the landlord’s handling of:
  1. The resident’s reports of other repairs at the property.
  2. The associated formal complaint

Orders

Within 28 days, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this complaint.
2. Pay the resident an additional £600 (£1,000 total, inclusive of £400 already paid) to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused by the identified failings in its response to the toilet leaks.
3. Pay the resident £350 to contribute to the cost of the damaged carpets or, alternatively, offer to fit standard carpets to replace the ones damaged by the leaks. It is for the landlord to make this decision.
4. Complete a ‘learning lessons review’ of this case, with a focus on how its systems and procedures failed to the extent that they left the resident and her family waiting so long for effective action in respect of toilet repairs. It must provide a report detailing its learning to the resident and this Service within 28 days of the date of this determination.
5. Complete a works sign-off visit at the property, providing a copy of the report to the resident and this Service in respect of the repairs completed. If any of the repairs that were the subject of this complaint are outstanding, the landlord should set out when they will be completed.