Stonewater Limited (202318312)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318312

Stonewater Limited

26 February 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 the resident’s request to replace the heating system and improve the property’s energy efficiency.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 3-bedroom house. The resident lives in the property with his 2 daughters, one of whom has autism.
The resident raised a formal complaint with his landlord on 14 December 2022 and stated the following:
1. When he moved into the property 9 years ago, the landlord deemed the heating as unsafe. He said the landlord replaced it with oil radiators. He said the oil radiators were expensive to run and he informed the landlord of the impact they were having on him financially 2 years ago. He said he asked for a different heating system.
2. An architect visited the property and said it was not up to standard regarding its energy efficiency. He said the architect made recommendations to the landlord and the landlord should have completed the works by the end of 2022. He said the landlord said it did not know if it had the funds to complete the works.
3. He was only using the radiators in his daughter’s room and living room. He said he could not afford to use the ones in his kitchen, his bedroom, bathroom, and hallway. He said in the last 2 years his electric bills had risen from £150 per month to £600, putting him in financial hardship. The resident said the landlord referred him to its grant-making partner who have provided short term financial help but it was only for a month.
4. He said he had been waiting a long time for the landlord to bring his home up to standard.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 29 December 2022. It said as there was “live works orders” in place for his property it would be appropriate for its area surveyor to talk the resident through the plan and confirm what was happening. It said it had passed on his concerns to them and requested an update with a likely timeframe for completion. It acknowledged it needed to communicate what the plan was to the resident, alongside anything further it could do in the interim, such as a temporary decant.
It said it had referred the resident to its grant-making partner who had provided short term financial help but acknowledged it was only for 1 month. It offered £400 in compensation. This was broken down as £150 for poor communication which led to worry and distress, and £250 for delays in completing the works and the impact on the resident’s heating costs. It apologised that the resident had not had a positive experience and said it was taking his reports seriously.
The resident escalated his complaint on 11 January 2023. He said he was unhappy with the stage 1 response and that he had not received any updates regarding when the works would start.
In an internal email by the landlord dated 24 February 2023, the landlord confirmed the recommendations made for the property. These included external and internal wall insulation, extending the eaves and verges, replacing all windows, replacing all external doors, top up loft insulation, install air source heat pump, and install solar panels. It said the repairs were yet to be confirmed.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 6 March 2023. It said the resident wished it to resolve the matter by bringing the energy rating up, doing the works which it said it would do, and paying £2000 in compensation. It stated the following:
1. Its fuel engagement specialist had been in touch with the resident who signposted him to a number of organisations which may be able to help with the cost of energy.
2. It was sorry that it did not upgrade the heating by the end of the year as previously communicated to him. It was also sorry that the area surveyor did not contact the resident to update him on the progress of the works.
3. The resident’s home was on a programme for retrofitting. It said it was working with designers and contractors who put together a plan of works to bring his energy efficiency rating up and make his home more effective to run. It said the resident’s home was in a conservation area which required planning permission. It said it received approval during the previous month. The landlord said its partnering surveyor would contact the resident before 10 March 2023 to discuss the next steps.
4. The landlord had some staffing issues due to a vacancy within the team but it had now appointed a new surveyor. It said this meant the resident should now get prompt and up to date information.
5. It apologised for not providing the resident with the information he had wanted and said it was working towards getting his heating upgraded. It offered £650 in compensation. It said this was in line with its policy and the Housing Ombudsman guidelines.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said the current heating system was still having a severe financial impact on him. He said the property had the lowest possible energy efficiency rating. The resident said the landlord had agreed to carry out the works via its retrofitting programme, but it had not happened. The resident said he would like the landlord to complete the works, to reimburse him for his energy bills, and his time spent trying to resolve the issue.

Post internal complaints procedure

In its latest correspondence to the Ombudsman in February 2025, the landlord confirmed that it upgraded the windows and doors in February 2024. It said it appointed a single point of contact in July 2024 to help provide the resident with updates and any support required. This included arranging for a skip to help declutter his property in preparation for the works. It also included discretionary payments in the winter months, to help towards his heating costs. It said those payments would continue until the end of March 2025. It said due to delays with the original contractor it had since moved to another contractor. It said it should complete the outstanding works of upgrading the heating system and installing solar panels, by the end of March 2025.
The landlord confirmed that since its stage 2 response, the resident had submitted 2 further complaints in relation to the issue. Both complaints resulted in it paying further compensation to the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

We should clarify that we cannot assess the extent to which a landlord’s failings have contributed to, or worsened, a resident or their household’s physical and/or mental health, nor can we directly quantify this. However, we can consider the likely distress and inconvenience caused, and if the landlord should have done more during these events.
The resident has referred to raising issues about his heating system 2 years prior to his formal complaint. The resident has also raised further complaints after the stage 2 response which appear to be about the same issues. The Ombudsman has found it reasonable to limit the scope of this investigation from June 2021. This is the earliest record provided of the landlord confirming to the resident that it had added the property to the 2021/2022 programme of works. The investigation will consider the landlord’s actions up to its stage 2 response.
Any complaints after the stage 2 response have not been investigated. However, if the resident remains dissatisfied with those responses, he may wish to bring those complaints to the Ombudsman. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme and to allow the landlord a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any issues prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace the heating system and improve the property’s energy efficiency

In accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping the supply of heating, gas, electricity, and water, in good repair and working order.
The Decent Homes Standard is a standard for social housing introduced by the UK government. Its criteria includes that a decent home:
1. meets the current statutory minimum standard for housing, dwellings which fail to meet this criterion are those containing one or more hazards assessed as serious (‘Category 1’) under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System.
2. provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort, this criterion requires dwellings to have both effective insulation and efficient heating.
The Ombudsman has seen 2 energy performance certificates provided for the resident’s property which apply to the timeframe of this investigation. One had a rating of E and the other was G. It should be noted that registered social landlords are currently exempt from any minimum standard efficiency requirements.
The Ombudsman has not received any evidence which suggested that the current heating system was not in good repair or proper working order. The landlord did, however, acknowledge and consider the resident’s reports regarding efficiency. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to include the property as part of its programme for sustainability works.
From the works outlined in the records it would appear the major works included a replacement heating system, new windows and doors, solar panels, and to top up the loft insulation. The Ombudsman considers that the works outlined would appropriately address the resident’s concerns regarding the property’s energy efficiency.
On 25 November 2022 the resident informed the landlord that he had been told that no-one knew what was happening in relation to the works. He said this had left him struggling with the cost of living and his electricity bills. He said he had been signposted to a hardship grant. He explained that he had 2 daughters aged 8 and 7, one who is autistic, and that the house needed to be a suitable temperature for them.
The landlord submitted the request for support and the resident was initially provided with food and energy bills support until 9 January 2023. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide and signpost the resident to its grants-making partner and other support services. On 15 December 2022 the landlord also provided links to local and national support in relation to the cost of living crisis and energy rises. The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding his financial hardship was appropriate.
Where failings are identified, it is the role of the Ombudsman to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. This is in accordance with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In this case, it was reasonable for the landlord to initially provide the resident with an estimated timeframe for the works (2021/2022). Although, it would have been appropriate to keep the resident updated on any delays in order to manage his expectations. The landlord did not do this, which led to the resident chasing the landlord and likely causing distress in relation to the increased energy costs he had reported. The landlord’s records show that the landlord visited the property a number of times since June 2021. However, there is no evidence of it updating the resident on its progress, which was a failing.
In his formal complaint the resident said he wanted clarity on the next steps and when the landlord would complete the works. It was disappointing that the landlord’s stage 1 response did not provide a sufficient update and instead stated that a surveyor would be in touch. This puts into question the landlord’s investigation into the complaint and its record keeping. The landlord should have been able to provide an update to the resident at the time.
The landlord’s records at the time show that it had submitted a planning application for the resident’s property on 28 October 2022, which was due to be determined by 17 January 2023. This update would have been beneficial for the resident in evidencing that the landlord was taking steps to progress the works. It is understandable that without planning permission, the landlord would not be able to carry out the required works. It would have been reasonable for it to have shared this update at the time, to prevent the resident having to chase the landlord again.
In its stage 1 response the landlord referred to anything further it could do to help in the interim such as a decant to temporary accommodation. It is unclear whether it made this comment in relation to concerns regarding the habitability of the property, or whether it was consideration to the scale of works required in the property. Given the vulnerabilities in the household, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided further clarity and consideration to the temporary move. The Ombudsman has not seen any additional correspondence in relation to this, which was a further failing.
Following the stage 1 response, the surveyor did not get in touch as promised. This led the resident to escalate his complaint and continue to chase the landlord. It does not appear that the landlord provided any update to the resident until the stage 2 response on 6 March 2023, 3 months after his formal complaint. In the stage 2 response, the landlord told the resident that his home was on the programme for retrofit, that the planning application had been approved the previous month, and that a surveyor would contact him regarding next steps. It is unclear why it could not provide the resident with this update sooner.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the delays and lack of update to the resident and offered compensation to reflect this. It suggested the lack of communication was due to a vacancy in the team but said it had since hired a new surveyor. It said this would mean that he would get prompt and up to date information. It was positive that the landlord acknowledged its failures and made steps to put things right and show learning.
Given the previous experience of the surveyor not getting in touch following the stage 1 response, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided some reassurance that it would oversee the progress of the works. This could have been a specific point of contact for the resident until the works were completed or an agreed date to check in with the resident.
Overall, it was reasonable for the landlord to appropriately aim to increase the resident’s energy efficiency via its sustainability programme. The stage 2 response acknowledged its failures and made steps to put things right for the resident. It suggested that there were no further barriers to scheduling the works. While not investigated as part of this complaint, it is disappointing to see that there were further delays and a lack of communication following the stage 2 response.
The stage 2 response should have offered more reassurance in relation to the works and in evidencing that it had oversight of the repairs. The landlord also failed to provide a position on the temporary move as suggested in its stage 1 response or that it had considered any risks associated with the household remaining in situ.
The Ombudsman has therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace the heating system and improve the property’s energy efficiency. A recommendation has been made in relation to the landlord’s approach to risk assessments.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered

The landlord’s complaints policy provided for a 2 stage complaints procedure in which it responds to a complaint at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days of acknowledging the complaint. It states that if the process may take longer, it will notify the customer of the timeframe for a response. It defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.”
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it can award discretionary payments for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience. It states that this applies to all customers who are personally impacted by it. The policy states that it follows the Housing Ombudsman Service’s guidance on remedies as a guide to calculate compensation payable. It states that when considering the impact on the customer it will consider vulnerabilities and identify whether the impact is worsened through disability, old age, or the presence of young children.
The landlord’s stage 1 response to the complaint made on 14 December 2022 was within its prescribed timescales. However, the resident’s contact on 25 November 2022 was an expression of the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s service. In line with its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have recorded this contact as a formal complaint from the resident. This would have shown that the landlord had taken the resident’s reports seriously and would have lessened any unnecessary delay in resolving the resident’s complaint.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to investigate all elements of a complaint and to respond clearly to residents with its findings. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not provide an update to the resident or outline the reasons for delays, such as the required planning permission. As previously stated, this puts into question the landlord’s investigation at stage 1 and the accessibility of its records.
The landlord alluded to the resident’s case having a “live works order” as the reason it could not give the update and it would be better to come from a surveyor. The Ombudsman does not find this reason was sufficient and led to unnecessary delays for the resident. The stage 1 response was an opportunity to resolve the issue for the resident and it is a failure that it did not do so.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response 2 months after the resident’s stage 2 escalation. This was not appropriate nor was it in line with its policy. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged this in its stage 2 response. It did not do so, which was a failing.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident wanted the landlord to reimburse him for his energy bills. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses that its delays had an impact on him and awarded compensation in line with that. The landlord also offered support to the resident via its grant-making partner and signposting to other organisations. The Ombudsman does not dispute that the issues were likely distressing for the resident, however, the landlord’s response was reasonable and in line with its policies.
The stage 2 response stated that the resident had requested £2000 in compensation. The landlord offered the resident a total of £650 at stage 2 which was broken down as:
1. £200 for poor communication which has led to worry and distress.
2. £300 for ongoing delays to the retrofitting works.
3. £150 for the inconvenience and distress caused by miscommunication.
The amounts offered by the landlord were made in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and were appropriate for the failings identified. This investigation has identified further failings for which compensation would be appropriate. These are:
1. £50 for the failure to evidence that it had considered the risk and vulnerabilities in the household.
2. £100 for the complaint handling failures.
Overall, the landlord has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and the level of compensation offered. The landlord has confirmed that it has since had a restructure of its complaints team and reviewed its policies. It said this also included new quality assurance methods and regular training for complaint handlers. Therefore, no orders will be made in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace the heating system and improve the property’s energy efficiency.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.

Orders and recommendations

Order

The landlord must pay the resident a total of £800 in compensation. This includes the £650 it previously offered to the resident.
The landlord must comply with the above order within 4 weeks of this determination.

Recommendation

The landlord should review its policies to ensure consideration is made to assessing any risks when major works are required in a property and when the resident reports vulnerabilities in the household.