Stonewater Limited (202113433)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113433

Stonewater Limited

31 January 2023


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 the resident’s request for repairs.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident lives in a house with three bedrooms and holds an assured shorthold tenancy which began in February 2014.
  2. On 9 March 2021, the resident reported to the landlord he had no hot water and also a blocked drain.
  3. Although the landlord treated the repair as a high priority emergency repair, the landlord’s repair contractor had not attended by 11 March. The landlord attended to fix the hot water and carry out work on the drain during March 2021, but the resident was not satisfied with the quality of the work carried out and decided to make a formal complaint on 23 March 2021.
  4. The resident said that he had previous problems with the repairs service and he hoped the same delays would not re-occur. The resident said in his complaint that he was ‘getting palmed off’ by the landlord when it came to dealing with his repairs. The resident reported a number of repair concerns including unstable fencing (which allowed a dangerous dog through from his neighbour’s garden), the unsatisfactory temporary fix of the storm drains, as well as the age and condition of his bathroom which the resident said was ‘falling apart.’ The resident said that the landlord had carried out a ‘botch job’ on the extractor fan in the bathroom which still required repair. The resident also highlighted that he has a worsening physical disability.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 25 March 2021 and sent a stage one response on 28 April 2021. In its first response, the landlord said that:
    1. It apologised for the delay in contacting the resident about his complaint which it said was caused by it having the incorrect contact details for him.
    2. It was working with its contractor to improve services.  
    3. The fencing was the responsibility of the Local Authority (LA). The landlord said they would contact the LA and update the resident.
    4. New repairs had been raised for the drains and the bathroom. An appointment would be offered for these ‘imminently’.
    5. It apologised and offered the resident £100 for the ‘poor repair handling’ and £50 for the late complaint response.
  6. The landlord’s records indicate that attempts were made during May to contact the LA about the fencing and keep the customer informed of developments. Records show the landlord spoke to the resident about this on 6 May 2021.
  7. On 12 May 2021, the landlord booked in the repair appointments for the blocked drain and bathroom for 22 June 2021. Meanwhile, the resident was chasing up the compensation that had been offered as he had not yet received it.
  8. Repairs records show that contractors attended on 24 August 2021 to attempt to clear the storm drain but were unable to complete the task. Notes from the  contractor indicate it would need to return with a high pressure water jet and another team member in order to carry out the work.  
  9. The resident contacted this service during September 2021 and was advised to escalate his complaint to the next stage of the landlord’s process. The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 18 September saying that the works agreed in the previous response had still not been carried out.
  10. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 4 October 2021 and sent a stage two response on 13 October 2021. In its stage two response, the landlord said that:
    1. The repair order (for the fencing and bathroom work) had been raised in May but not attended to until 5 October. (Although the landlord had ‘attended’ the work had still not been resolved.)
    2. It apologised for the delay which it said was caused by a backlog of repairs due to the Coronavirus pandemic. A recovery plan was in place to clear the backlog. 
    3.  An appointment was made for the 26/7 October to carry out the outstanding fencing and bathroom work.
    4. A separate appointment with a different contractor would be made to carry out the jetting and clearing of the drains and the resident would be contacted about this.
    5. The landlord offered the resident £150 for the ‘poor experience’ he had with the repairs service.
  11.  The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response and sought legal advice regarding the outstanding repairs. On 20 December 2021, solicitors acting on behalf of the resident contacted the landlord regarding a claim for breaches of the landlord’s repairing obligations under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Three key areas of disrepair were highlighted in the letter which were mould in all of the three bedrooms, the fencing which it said had not been fixed, and the bathroom extractor fan.
  12. A surveyor working on behalf of the landlord carried out a ‘disrepair inspection’ on 26 January 2022. The surveyor noted that:
    1. Externally, the property was in a good state of repair.
    2. Drains were blocked with silt build up and in need of clearance.
    3. No repairs were required to the kitchen.
    4. Mould was present in all the bedrooms but there was no evidence of water penetration from outside.
    5. Some fencing work in the garden had taken place in December.
    6. The bathroom was said to be in ‘overall fair but ageing condition.’ Repairs were needed to the extractor fan (which was dripping and causing damage) and the doorway.
  13. Following the surveyor’s report, the landlord raised the following repairs and actions:
    1. Fix the extractor fan and bathroom ceiling.
    2. Carry out a mould treatment in all the bedrooms.
    3. Advice to be sent to the resident regarding condensation and improving ventilation.
    4. Replace the bath and bath panel
    5. Lift and re-bed the manhole cover (to the drains)
    6. Replace the bathroom door and handle as a gesture of goodwill. 
  14. The landlord’s records indicate that repair work on the drains was completed on 4 February 2022 with work in the bathroom being completed by 15 February. The landlord says that all repair work was completed by March 2022.
  15. In April 2022, the resident told the landlord he did not want his complaint to be closed as he was not satisfied with the amount of compensation offered to him for the repair delays and the inconvenience it had caused him. The landlord contacted the resident on 12 May 2022 and agreed to carry out a complaint review looking again at the compensation it had offered for the repair delays.
  16. The stage 2 complaint review was completed by 27 May 2022 and the offer of compensation was increased from £150 to £800. This comprised £600 for the ‘delays in completing the housing repair’ and £200 for complaint handling. The landlord also said a manager would be contacting the resident to discuss his case. 
  17. The resident confirmed via email on the same day that he was willing to accept the revised offer of compensation and would close his complaint once the payment was received.
  18. However, recent contact with the resident from this service has indicated that disrepair problems remain in his bathroom and the bath requires repair as soon as possible. The resident has said the repairs service overall continues to be poor with missed appointments, miscommunication and misunderstanding about jobs between the landlord and its contractor.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord has a repairing obligation under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep the structure and exterior of the dwelling house in good repair. The landlord is also expected to reduce and minimise the risk from hazards under the Housing Health & Safety Rating System. This includes hazards such as mould as found in the resident’s bedrooms and flood risks such as the blocked drains.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement (in clause 2.4) also states that the landlord must ‘keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises’ including:
    1. Drains, gutters and external pipes,
    2. Boundary walls and fences,
    3. Internal walls, floors and ceilings  
  3. The landlord does not dispute its obligation to repair the defects raised in the resident’s original complaint from 23 March 2021. According to the landlord’s repairs policy and its guide for customers entitled ‘getting your home repaired’, the landlord aims to deal with high priority repairs within 24 hours. It’s failure to attend to the resident’s report of faulty hot water within this timeframe was the cause of the initial complaint.
  4. The same procedure document says that non-emergency repairs should be dealt with within a maximum of 28 days from receiving the customer’s notification and major repairs within a maximum of 42 days where there is a ‘significant amount of work beyond the original repair.’
  5. The landlord has accepted that it failed to meet its service standards with regard to any of the repairs reported in the resident’s complaint. The evidence from repair records shows that very little progress was made in the period from March 2021 until February 2022 nearly a year later. This clearly exceeds the timeframe alluded to in the policy documents and is evidence of service failure.
  6. While it is recognised that the Coronavirus pandemic may have contributed to the delay, much of the delay was avoidable with some evidence of communication breakdown between the landlord and its contractor. For example, the contractor seemed unaware of the extent of the work to clear the drains and had to re-book the appointment and return with a high-pressure water jet. The resident says there have been similar experiences with jobs in the bathroom and contractors arriving ill-equipped or unprepared to do the necessary work.
  7. It is also of concern that the landlord only got to grips with the work required by organising a surveyor inspection in January 2022 after legal action was threatened. This was despite a complaint being made and then escalated in September 2021. The landlord should have dealt with the repairs more urgently and more pro-actively in September 2021 when the complaint was escalated. There is no evidence that it was impossible for the landlord to carry out a surveyors inspection earlier than it did. This could have occurred in September rather than January.   
  8. The landlord has apologised for its service failures and attempted to put things right with an offer of redress. The landlord has shown it was resolution focussed by reviewing the amount of compensation awarded at different stages of the complaints process and agreed to carry out a review of its stage 2 complaint once the repairs were completed to the resident’s satisfaction in March 2022. This resulted in an increased offer of compensation to a total of £800.
  9. Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance suggests payments of between £600-£1000 where there has been a significant impact on the resident as a result of maladministration. The resident has experienced a year of disruption and delays and repeatedly had to chase progress on his repairs. The resident has also experienced the distress and inconvenience of multiple appointments, inspections and repair work and was understandably concerned for the safety of his family due to the inadequate fencing. The payment of £800 equates to about £66 per month for each of the 12 months delay from the time of the resident’s original complaint. This is a fair reflection of the impact on the resident according to the evidence contained in the surveyors report and the photographic evidence seen by this service.
  10. While the focus of this report is on events up to the outcome of the stage two complaint review, it is noted that the resident has advised that repairs are again required to his bath and the resident says the landlord has yet to deal with this effectively.
  11. There is little sign of the landlord demonstrating any learning from this complaint. The resident’s current problems are further evidence of this. Although the landlord said it has engaged in discussions with its repairs contractors at a senior management level about how to improve services, the landlord has not shared any practical changes to its procedures that could prevent complaints like this one from happening again. In particular, the communication and description of repair jobs between the landlord and its contractor may require review and a recommendation about this has been made below as well as a recommendation for the landlord to take action on the resident’s current concerns about his bathroom.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, the landlord has provided reasonable redress for its service failures in handling reports of disrepair from the resident.

Reasons

  1. There is evidence of considerable delay as well as significant detriment to the resident due to repair delays of approximately 12 months. The landlord has made a revised offer of compensation of £800 which is fair, reasonable and in line with Housing Ombudsman guidance.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident and attend to inspect and carry out any necessary repairs in the resident’s bathroom within two weeks.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord carries out a case review to identify any organisational learning or service improvements from this complaint.