Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Stonewater Limited (202330433)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330433

Stonewater Limited

28 November 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the:
    1. Front door.
    2. Kitchen.
    3. Bathroom.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom first floor flat in a block. The landlord is aware the resident suffers with his mental health. The resident told the landlord and this service he had not lived in the property (on a full-time basis) since August 2022.
  2. On 28 February 2023, the resident raised a complaint and requested compensation due to outstanding repairs at the property. He said:
    1. He stayed with family as the front door was not secure. Contractors had attended twice and measured the door, but it had not been repaired/replaced.
    2. A 24-hour repair was raised for an electrics issue but no one attended.
    3. Kitchen repairs (which he reported in August 2022 after a leak) were not completed.
    4. A bathroom leak was fixed but the ceiling was not repaired.
  3. The landlord upheld the complaint and issued its stage 1 complaint response on 6 April 2023. It said:
    1. Its contractor measured the door on 9 September 2022 but there was a supply delay. Its surveyor had raised a new work order for a different contractor to install the door.
    2. Its contractor attended on 23 February 2023 for the electrics but could not access the property. It should have attempted to visit again but it did not do so. The landlord apologised for this and said it had raised another work order.
    3. It had asked its contractor to prioritise the kitchen repairs.
    4. It offered £450 compensation made up of:
      1. £100 for the inconvenience caused by the delayed kitchen repairs.
      2. £250 for the inconvenience of delays to the front door repair.
      3. £100 for the delayed complaint response.
  4. It was not clear from the evidence when the resident requested to escalate the complaint to stage 2. However the landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 18 May 2023. The resident raised further issues which included that trickle vents had not been fitted and the property did not have heating or hot water due to a supply issue. The landlord upheld the complaint and sent its stage 2 complaint response on 13 June 2023, as follows:
    1. Its contractor went to collect the front door replacement but was told the door had not been ordered after the first appointment. The door was being manufactured and would be fitted “in due course.”
    2. Its contractor tried to attend on 21 April 2022 to check the electrics after the first leak was reported but there was no access. Its contractor re-attended on 2 August 2022 to make the electrics safe after a second leak. The electrics were left in a safe condition and power was restored to the property.
    3. Its contractor tried to attend on 13 May 2022 and 10 June 2022 to check for damp issues but could not access the property.
    4. A mould wash was carried out in the kitchen and bathroom on 26 May 2023.
    5. It offered £650 compensation. This included £450 offered in its stage 1 response, plus an additional £200 made up of:
      1. £100 for the ongoing repair delays.
      2. £100 for any further distress and inconvenience caused.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process.

  1. The resident called the landlord on 20 July 2023. He said the stage 2 complaint response had not mentioned:
    1. The front door replacement.
    2. The kitchen repairs.
    3. The bathroom repairs (to the ceiling, bath panel and skirting board).
    4. The trickle vent installation to help with mould after the leaks.
    5. Additional repairs he had subsequently raised which included:
      1. Copper pipe leak upstairs.
      2. Vinyl flooring ripped.
      3. Sawdust everywhere.
      4. Burst waste pipe from flat above caused damage.
  2. The landlord sent a stage 2 follow-up letter on 14 September 2023. In which it said:
    1. There had been a “catalogue of errors” by its contractor which led to an unacceptable delay in replacing the front door. An alternative contractor replaced the door on 24 July 2023.
    2. Its contractor completed temporary kitchen repairs in December 2022 after originally trying to complete the repairs in October 2022. The kitchen was in a useable condition but would be replaced as part of the landlord’s planned improvement programme.
    3. It completed a mould treatment in the bathroom on 26 May 2023. However, it would arrange for its surveyor to assess any outstanding works required by 22 September 2023.
    4. Its contractors attended on 25 October 2022 to remove faulty trickle vents. It re-attended on 22 December 2022 to install new vents. When the mould treatment was completed, the contractor said additional trickle vents were required to generate better air flow. The landlord said its contractor had not passed the recommendation on. However, it had scheduled for its contractor to return on 29 September 2023 to install additional vents.
    5. It had arranged for the copper pipe and vinyl flooring to be replaced when the kitchen was replaced.
    6. It increased its offer of compensation to £1,000. This was made up of:
      1. £400 for the repair delays and poor communication.
      2. £350 for the inconvenience and distress caused.
      3. £250 to acknowledge the poor complaint handling.
  3. The resident contacted this service on 16 November 2023 and said:
    1. The kitchen was being replaced.
    2. He was waiting for the trickle vents to be installed.
    3. Damp and mould was still on the ceilings.
    4. He had been without heating and hot water for 6 months as there was a supply issue.
    5. He wanted compensation.
  4. In April 2024, the resident emailed this service and said the carpet should be replaced due to water damage. In a call with this service in November 2024 he said:
    1. The property was uninhabitable and he has stayed with a friend.
    2. Although trickle vents had been installed in the kitchen and bedroom, a vent had not been installed in the living room.
    3. There were outstanding repairs required in the bathroom to the skirting boards and a bathroom unit.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the course of the contact with both the landlord and the Ombudsman, the resident raised concerns about numerous issues with the property which included issues with:
    1. Repairs to the electrics after leaks.
    2. The installation of trickle vents.
    3. No heating or hot water at the property.
    4. A copper pipe leak from the flat above.
    5. Ripped vinyl flooring in the kitchen.
    6. Sawdust everywhere.
    7. A burst waste pipe which caused damage to the property.
    8. Damage to personal possessions caused by the leaks.
    9. Damp/bad smelling carpets.
  2. The landlord responded to most of these points at various stages of its communication with the resident, but there is no evidence of all the points being raised consistently through the full complaints process. As a result, the landlord has not had a proper opportunity to investigate and resolve them through the operation of that process.
  3. Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints with, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore these matters are not considered further. Instead, this investigation is focused solely on the issues raised in the formal complaint which the landlord has had an opportunity to investigate and resolve in the first instance, namely the issues with the front door and repairs to the kitchen and bathroom following the leaks.
  4. The Ombudsman’s Dispute resolution principles are to:
    1. Be fair
    2. Put things right
    3. Learn from outcomes

This service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The landlord’s handling of repairs at the property.

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says:
    1. It aims to:
      1. Complete emergency repairs (that pose a threat to resident safety) within 24 hours.
      2. Complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
      3. Complete major repairs where these is a significant amount of work required beyond the original repair within a maximum of 42 days.
    2. It will maintain clear and continuous communication with residents to ensure they know when it will complete a repair.
    3. It will require access to an occupied home; for example to inspect a repair or service gas appliances. In accordance with its tenancy agreement, customers must allow reasonable access.
  2. The tenancy agreement says the resident must:
    1. Report promptly any disrepair or defect which the landlord is responsible for.
    2. Allow its employees (including contractors acting on its behalf) access at reasonable times… to carry out repairs or other works.
    3. Inform the landlord, in writing, if they are expecting to be absent from the property for 4 weeks or more.
  3. The Ombudsman expects landlords to complete repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, the Ombudsman expects landlords to be proactive in: 
    1. Communicating the cause of delays to residents.
    2. Explaining to residents what it intends to do about the delays.
    3. Identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents.

Front Door

  1. The repairs policy says the landlord is responsible for repairing the external door.
  2. The landlord said there was a “catalogue of errors” by its contractor which led to an unacceptable delay. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to accept responsibility, monitor the repair, and ensure the door was ordered and repair completed in accordance with its policies. Its response took no accountability for the delays. The landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is responsible for the repair, regardless of whether it outsources the work to a contractor.
  3. The evidence showed a lack of ownership and responsibility on the part of the landlord in relation to the door replacement:
    1. Whilst the landlord’s contractor attended in a timely manner on 3 August 2022, there was no evidence the landlord checked whether its contractor ordered the door. This could have avoided the second unsuccessful appointment a month later.
    2. There was also no evidence the landlord chased the contractor until 18 days after the second appointment. Contractor notes said there were issues with the door installation as the door was a fire door. However, it was not clear if this was communicated to the resident.
    3. There was then very little done to progress the door replacement at all. A contractor completed a temporary repair on 25 October 2022 so the resident could lock the door. However, no further action was taken for 4 months until the resident raised his complaint, which was a failing.
    4. The landlord only chased the door replacement after the resident raised his complaint. This was not a reasonable approach to take. After its contractor said it did not have any staff that could fit fire doors, the landlord arranged for an alternative contractor to install the door on 23 February 2023 which was reasonable. However, there was no evidence the resident was updated apart from:
      1. In the stage 1 complaint response 6 weeks later.
      2. In the stage 2 complaint response a further 10 weeks after that.
      3. In the 6 weeks between the stage 2 response and the door being replaced.

The lack of updates was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy and was a failing.

  1. The contractor replaced the door on 24 July 2023. This was almost a year after the resident first reported the issue. This was an unacceptable delay which caused inconvenience to the resident. The landlord should have done more to follow up with both the resident and its contractors. Its lack of urgency and proactive involvement in the repairs process, coupled with contractor failings and poor communication, left the resident without a secure door for an unreasonable length of time.
  2. Where the Ombudsman has identified failings in the landlord’s response to the substantive issue, it is then for this service to consider how the landlord responded to those failings through the operation of its complaints process. The Ombudsman welcomes and encourages landlords to proactively revisit opportunities for the resolution of a complaint after the stage 2 response and a landlord is entitled to review its position. In this case the landlord increased its compensation offer given the further delays which was reasonable.
  3. In relation to the door, the landlord offered £400 compensation for the repair delays and poor communication. At least £250 of this was specifically for the door (as offered in the stage 1 response). It also awarded a further £350 for the overall distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of all the repairs.
  4. The resident told both the landlord and this service that he had not lived at the property fulltime since approximately August 2022 when the door was damaged. Despite evidence of communication between parties, it was not clear whether the landlord was regularly informed of this as outlined in the tenancy agreement. Landlords are expected to respond to repair requests and complaints in a timely manner. However, after initially raising the door issue, there was little evidence the resident chased the repair on a daily or weekly basis with a high degree of urgency.
  5. The landlord’s offer of compensation for the delays and distress and inconvenience caused for the door was therefore reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The offer demonstrated that the landlord took the complaint seriously and sought to ‘put things right’ in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. A finding of reasonable redress is made.

Kitchen

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for burst pipes and kitchen fittings (unless provided by the resident).
  2. Following a leak in April 2022, the resident reported a second leak at the property on 1 August 2022. The repair records showed the landlord’s contractor attended promptly the following day in line with its policy. The contractor noted there was “extensive flood damage from above” and isolated the kitchen light to make it safe, which was reasonable. A week later the resident reported the kitchen light did not work and the ceiling plaster was loose. The landlord repaired the light on 15 August 2022 and applied stain block to the ceiling the week after. Both repairs were completed in line with its routine repairs policy timescale.
  3. A further kitchen work order was raised for the damaged worktops, cupboards, and flooring on 31 August 2022. The landlord’s contractor attended on 4 October 2022 which was slightly over the routine repair timescale. It did not complete any repairs and identified a further list of repairs required to the kitchen. As the contractor could not complete all the work in the timeframe of the appointment, another appointment was scheduled for 25 October 2022. The contractor attended again but this time noted the resident expected a new kitchen. The repair records note the contractor said he could not do this in a 30-minute appointment, so completed a temporary fix to the front door. This was reasonable given the resident had not had any further contact from the landlord in relation to the front door. However the evidence showed a lack of communication between parties as to exactly what work was required at the kitchen. This caused the resident inconvenience as there were 2 appointments where little was done to the kitchen.
  4. There were then further delays as the contractors did not re-attend until 22 December 2022. This time temporary repairs were completed after a contractor made a mistake and drilled the worktop in the wrong place. The contractor re-attended on 9 January 2023 to correct the mistake as the resident said he would not be at the property over the Christmas period. This meant the contractor had attended on 4 occasions but not completed satisfactory repairs to the kitchen. This was a failing and caused the resident further inconvenience.
  5. There was then no evidence of any further action until the landlord said the kitchen would be replaced on 21 July 2023. This was nearly a year after the resident had originally raised the repairs and was an unacceptable delay. The kitchen replacement was originally booked for 29 September 2023 (at the resident’s request). However, when the contractor attended there was no access. The contractor re-attended on 13 November 2023 and the resident confirmed the kitchen was replaced.
  6. The landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is ultimately responsible for any repairs as outlined in its repairs policy and in the signed tenancy agreement. This is regardless of whether it outsources the work to a contractor. The evidence showed communication failures between parties and no one taking responsibility for the kitchen repairs caused significant delays. The evidence again showed the landlord only appeared to take any action with regard the kitchen as part of the complaint. The landlord said it would ask its contractor to “prioritise the kitchen repairs” in its stage 1 response. However, there was then no evidence it did so.
  7. However, as with the front door, residents are also expected to use reasonable efforts to pursue repairs where they consider there to be delays. There was no evidence the resident chased the kitchen repairs with any degree of urgency. Delays were also caused as he was not at the property. As he has not been at the property, any inconvenience caused by a kitchen that required repairs was not as significant as it could have been if the resident was residing at the property on a full-time basis.
  8. The landlord’s final compensation offer was not broken down to reflect exactly how much it specifically offered for the failings handling the kitchen repairs. However at least £100 was for the delayed kitchen repairs (as outlined in the stage 1 response). There was also a portion of the £350 awarded for the overall distress and inconvenience caused. In addition to the compensation, the kitchen has also been replaced. Taking into account both the compensation and the new kitchen, the landlord has taken sufficient action to put things right. Therefore a further finding of reasonable redress is made.

Bathroom

  1. The repairs policy says the landlord is responsible for repairs to the bathroom apart from to the toilet seat, blocked toilet and plugs and chains. It is also responsible for skirting boards.
  2. The repair records showed the resident reported a leak in the bathroom from the property above on 21 April 2022. Its contractor attended the same day, in line with policy, but noted the resident was not home. The contractor accessed the property above and fixed the leak. It noted it spoke to the resident to update him after the leak was fixed.
  3. The resident reported a second leak on 1 August 2022. The repair records showed the landlord’s contractor attended the following day in line with its policy. It isolated the bathroom light to make it safe, which was reasonable.
  4. The resident reported the bathroom light did not work on 8 August 2022. There was no evidence he raised any other repair issues with the bathroom at this point. The contractor attended on 15 August 2022, within its routine repair timescale, and repaired the light. It also applied stain block to the ceiling the following week, which was also reasonable.
  5. It was not clear exactly how often the resident was at the property, but there were no further developments until the landlord’s contractor attended the property on 4 October 2022 in relation to the kitchen repairs. It noted further bathroom repairs were required which included:
    1. The bath panel needed to be replaced due to water damage.
    2. The skirting board was damaged due to water ingress.
    3. The ceiling needed a second coat of stain block.
  6. The resident’s tenancy agreement says he is responsible to raise repairs, but there was no evidence he raised any of the bathroom repairs at this point. It was not clear if he was told the contractor would raise them on his behalf. Regardless of whether the resident believed the contractor would raise the issues, there was no evidence he chased the bathroom issues until he complained 4 months later. Again, this suggests the bathroom issues were not a priority as he was not spending any significant time at the property. However, the communication issues between parties and landlord’s lack of ownership of the repairs contributed to the delays.
  7. Once the complaint was raised, there was no evidence the landlord raised the bathroom repairs, which was a failing. It then also failed to mention or address the bathroom repairs in its stage 1 complaint response. This meant it did not use its complaints process to resolve the issue for the resident at the earliest opportunity, which represents a further failing. The landlord said at the time of the complaint, it experienced challenges with staffing issues which affected its ability to respond properly. It has since increased its number of complaints handlers, which is a positive step.
  8. It was not clear what prompted the work order raised on 13 April 2023 to carry out a mould wash and treatment on the bathroom ceiling. However, the contractor attended on 26 May 2023. There was no evidence to confirm why the appointment was 15 days outside of its routine repair timescale. However, this was not a significant delay and no evidence has been provided to show it had any substantial impact on the resident.
  9. The resident called the landlord on 17 May 2023 and raised a number of issues with the stage 2 response. He said the water damage had caused damp in the bathroom. This was a further missed opportunity for the landlord to raise repairs and investigate the issue. There was no evidence it did anything until it sent its stage 2 follow-up letter on 14 September 2023. The landlord said it would arrange for a surveyor to attend and assess whether there was any outstanding work required to the bathroom. This was reasonable but it was not clear whether this happened or followed this up. The resident has since said the bath panel has been replaced (unclear when), but the skirting boards have not been replaced.
  10. Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the bathroom repairs. It missed the opportunity to raise the bathroom repairs in February and May 2023. It also caused further delays by not mentioning the repairs in the complaint response. It was not clear whether the surveyor attended the property as outlined in the stage 2 response, however the resident said there are outstanding repairs.
  11. The landlord said since this complaint it has created a specialist damp and mould task force, specific damp and mould policies and provided further training to its staff, which are all positive steps. As above, the landlord’s final compensation offer of £400 for repair delays and poor communication and £350 for distress and inconvenience has not been broken down to reflect exactly how much it offered specifically for the bathroom repairs. Overall there were minor failures by the landlord in the service it provided and it has not fully put the situation right for the resident. The landlord’s handling of the bathroom repairs amounts to service failure. An order has been made that it contacts the resident to clarify its position in relation to the bathroom repairs. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident, with respect to its handling of the repairs to the front door, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident, with respect to its handling of the repairs to the kitchen, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom.

Orders and recommendations

Order 

Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

  1. Contact the resident and clarify its position on the remaining bathroom repair issues at the property. It may wish to arrange with the resident an inspection of the property at a convenient time.

Recommendation

  1. When the landlord contacts the resident, it should address the gas supply issue at the property and how this can be resolved.