From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Stonewater Limited (202320997)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320997

Mount Green Housing Association Limited

10 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a window repair.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, from January 2016 and throughout the period of the complaint. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident is no longer a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident reported an issue with his bedroom window on 6 March 2023. The landlord raised a repair order the same day to investigate the window, which “was full of condensation”. An inspection took place on 5 April 2023. The landlord raised a further repair to replace the window on 30 June 2023. The order listed 20 July 2023 as a target date for completion.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 26 July 2023. He advised that a job had been booked 6 weeks previously for the replacement of a pane of glass in his bedroom window, which had yet to be completed. He said the landlord’s contractor had shown “total disdain” for the job and that he had lost faith in the contractor and its staff.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 15 August 2023, advising that it upheld the resident’s complaint. It accepted that it had not dealt with his repair, reported on 30 June 2023, in a timely manner. It advised it had shared the findings of the complaint with its relevant team to ensure future service delivery improved. It offered £25 as a gesture of goodwill. On 18 September 2023, the resident raised his complaint to stage 2 because the repair remained outstanding. The landlord again upheld his complaint and increased its compensation offer to £50.
  5. On 9 October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord. He said that the contractor had not attended and the window repair remained outstanding. He asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 3. The landlord met with the resident on 26 October 2023 to discuss the complaint. It then issued its stage 3 complaint response on 14 November 2023. It said:
    1. While its repairs policy required it to complete standard repairs within 28 days, there was an element of discretion depending on the repair. Due to the multiple visits required with glazing repairs, discretion would apply. However, it acknowledged that the delay in completing the repair was unreasonable.
    2. It agreed its contractor had not delivered the repair to the standards and timeframes the landlord expected.
    3. It accepted that the process had been “very frustrating” for the resident, and acknowledged that he was concerned that the condensation within the window would cause damp. However, this was not the case. The service failure was one of frustration and inconvenience rather than health, safety, or discomfort.
    4. There had been a cumulative impact upon the resident due to the delays and the inconvenience caused by multiple visits.
    5. It upheld the resident’s complaint and increased its offer of compensation to £75.
    6. It acknowledged that the resident had raised issues with damp and mould during the meeting on 26 October 2023. While this was not part of his complaint, it would ask its relevant team to arrange a surveyor to visit and investigate his concerns.

Events post internal complaints procedure

  1. The landlord’s records show that it supplied and fitted the replacement bedroom window on 22 November 2023.
  2. On 10 July 2024, the landlord advised the resident that it had reviewed his case while preparing its submission for the Ombudsman. It said that its previous offer of compensation was too low and did not reflect the “mental distress from the service failure”. It advised it wanted to offer an additional £300 to better reflect his experience of its handling of the repairs. It said that his acceptance of the offer would not have any impact on him pursuing his case with this Service.
  3. The landlord advised us on 3 June 2025 that the resident did not respond to its letter and did not return the compensation slip. It further informed this Service that the resident had moved and no longer lived in the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. During the meeting with the landlord on 26 October 2023, the resident raised concerns surrounding damp and mould in the property. In its stage 3 complaint response the landlord acknowledged those concerns. It highlighted that damp and mould had not formed part of his original complaint, but committed to having a surveyor inspect the property to assess the reported issues. The resident’s concerns surrounding damp and mould have therefore not formed part of this investigation.
  2. At the time of the complaint the landlord operated a 3–stage complaints process, which was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) at that time. However, we are aware that the landlord has since reviewed its policy and now operates a 2–stage complaints procedure, which complies with the Code. The Code became statutory on 1 April 2024. We have therefore not assessed or made any orders on this point.

The landlord’s handling of the window repair

  1. When we identify failings, this Service’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in all the circumstances of the case. This is in accordance with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a duty on the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property including the windows.
  3. The repairs policy lists 3 categories of repair as follows:
    1. Responsive repairs involve small–scale day-to-day repairs that are reactive in nature. The timescale for these repairs is 28 working days.
    2. Urgent repairs such as unsafe electrical fittings will be attended to within 24 hours and made safe if a full repair cannot be completed.
    3. Emergency repairs such as structural collapse will be attended to within 2 hours and made safe if a full repair cannot be completed.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it can offer a goodwill gesture to recognise a shortcoming in the way it has delivered a service. Goodwill gestures can include, but are not limited to, vouchers, flowers, or chocolates. The policy also allows for discretionary compensation but does not list any monetary figures or guidance amounts. When deciding on payment amounts the landlord will consider:
    1. The level of inconvenience, distress and disruption caused by the failure.
    2. The length of time taken to resolve the problem.
    3. Any known costs that have been reasonably incurred (subject to evidence from the resident).
  5. The first mention of the window repair in the landlord’s records was 6 March 2023, with the initial visit taking place 22 working days later on 5 April 2023. This was positive and within the 28-working-day policy timescale for a responsive repair. However, the landlord has pointed out the difficulty with glazing repairs due to the fact they often require multiple visits. It therefore could have visited sooner to obtain measurements and order the glass to demonstrate that it was attempting to conduct the repair within the required timescales.
  6. It was not until 30 June 2023, 57 working days after the visit on 5 April 2023, that the landlord raised a further order to replace the window. This was an unreasonable delay. In addition, there is no evidence that the landlord or contractor communicated with the resident during this period to explain the delay or provide any updates on the repair. Where repairs are not progressing as planned or are going to exceed pre–communicated dates, we would expect landlords to regularly update residents to keep them informed and manage their expectations. The landlord’s failure to do this was frustrating for the resident and left him with the opinion that the contractor had no interest in the repair.
  7. On 31 July 2023, the landlord informed the resident that the contractor had scheduled an appointment for 22 August 2023. Prior to this appointment the landlord issued its stage 1 response. In the response it confirmed it upheld the resident’s complaint and had communicated the issue to its relevant team to ensure future service delivery improved. Despite this assurance, service delivery apparently did not improve. The operative did not turn up for the visit on 22 August 2023. Neither did the resident receive any communication from the operative to notify him that they would not be attending. This was unacceptable and caused the resident distress as well as the added inconvenience of having to wait in his property for an appointment that did not go ahead.
  8. Again, there is no evidence in the landlord’s records to show that it contacted the resident to discuss the missed appointment or to provide an update. This required him to expend further time contacting it on 27 September 2023 to request an update. The landlord’s communication was predominantly reactive and only in response to repeated communications from the resident. This would have likely left him feeling unheard and believing that the repair was not a priority for the landlord.
  9. In its stage 2 response on 3 October 2023, the landlord said that glazing repairs can take longer than the average repair timescale due to the requirement for multiple visits. While we agree that glazing repairs will usually take 2 visits – the first to measure the glass and the second to fit it – the fact that the landlord had not completed the repair 6 months after the resident had raised it was unacceptable. Though it apologised and acknowledged that it had not met its expected standards, it inappropriately did not offer any justifiable reason for the delay. Its reference to multiple visits would have been reasonable if it had attended the visits it had arranged. Further, its records show that it was in possession of the window measurements in June 2023, which removed any reasonable excuse for the ongoing failure to conduct the repair.
  10. Also in the stage 2 response, the landlord advised that the contractor had arranged another appointment for 9 October 2023. It went on to state that it would follow the appointment up with the contractor to ensure that it kept the appointment and that there were no further unnecessary delays. This was an appropriate and solution-focused approach. However, the resident contacted the landlord on 9 October 2023 and told it that the operative had not arrived. He contacted it a further time on 11 October 2023 to advise the contractor had again not contacted him as arranged. Given the history of the repair and complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have responded promptly to the resident’s contact on 9 October 2023, rather than necessitating further contact 2 days later.
  11. On 13 October 2023, the landlord told the resident that the contractor had arranged a further appointment for 20 October 2023. It then said, “I will be working with them [the contractor] to ensure they keep to this commitment”. However, again the repair did not go ahead. The ongoing poor communication and missed appointments were unacceptable and distressing for the resident. The Ombudsman’s 2025 spotlight report on ‘Repairing Trust’ highlighted the importance of landlords doing what they say they are going to do and putting in place good contract management practices. Failing to do so leads to bad situations becoming worse, as in this case, with the resident’s confidence and trust in the landlord and contractor deteriorating further.
  12. To have the repair completed the landlord had to obtain the services of a different contractor, which attended and completed the job on 22 November 2023. This timeframe of 8 months for what the landlord saw as a repair that did not have any health impact, but which was of great significance to the resident, was unacceptable. In its stage 3 response the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £75. Given the poor communication throughout the case as well as the number of missed appointments, we consider the offer of compensation was not sufficient and did not go far enough to put things right for the resident. For these reasons we have made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the window repair.
  13. We acknowledge that the landlord did review the case and made a further offer of £300 compensation. While it did this, these actions cannot be considered reasonable redress. This is because they took place after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and only after the involvement of this Service. The revised financial offer was, however, reasonable, and we have not made a further order of compensation. The landlord has advised that it did not hear back from the resident after making the additional offer. Given our determination in this case, we have ordered it to make further contact with him to re-offer the payment.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the window repair.

Orders

  1.                     Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology from a senior manager to the resident for the failures associated with its handling of the window repair. The apology must meet the criteria highlighted in the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay the resident the £375 it offered at stage 2 and in July 2024 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble associated with its handling of the window repair. This should be reduced by any amount already paid. The landlord must make at least 3 separate attempts at contact if its initial attempt to contact the resident is unsuccessful.