Stonewater Limited (202213498)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213498

Stonewater Limited

30 November 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Reports of damage to the resident’s flooring.
3. The resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
4. The resident’s associated complaint.

Background

The resident had an assured shorthold tenancy that started on 31 January 2019. The resident’s tenancy changed to an assured tenancy after 12 months. The resident’s property is a flat within a block and has a communal hallway.
In January 2021, the resident reported to her landlord that the vinyl floor in her kitchen was ‘bubbling’. The landlord’s contractor inspected her property in February 2021. The contractor noted that the flooring had lifted in the kitchen and lounge area. The contractor referred this to the landlord after it concluded it could not replace the lounge flooring.
On 9 September 2022, the resident reported to her landlord the presence of black mould in the communal hallway. A day later the resident told her landlord she had welfare concerns about her neighbour in the flat below her.
The resident explained to her landlord that her neighbour had mould in his flat but refused to deal with it. The resident alleged she contacted her landlord multiple times about the black mould and reported the mould was now affecting her flat.
The landlord logged a repair on 12 September 2022 and requested that its contractor review the work it had done previously. The resident complained to her landlord about a lack of engagement and her living conditions because of the mould. She claimed she had told her landlord three weeks prior about the concerns she had about her neighbour.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 13 September 2022 to look at the resident’s floor. The resident complained about the notice the contractor gave. The resident told her landlord she believed that the mould was coming from her neighbour’s flat below and was causing her floor to lift.
The landlord’s surveyor visited the resident’s neighbour and established there was a ‘very bad’ plumbing leak from the resident’s property. According to the landlord’s surveyor, the leak had caused the mould growth. The surveyor requested the repair of the resident’s plumbing leak and asked that the resident’s neighbour receive a dehumidifier.
The landlord’s surveyor alleged it was having issues gaining access to the resident’s property to repair the leak. The resident claimed that the landlord’s contractor attended her property on 16 September 2022 and placed sealant around her bath’s water drainage pipe.
The resident disputed there was a leak connected to her bath or that this was the cause of the mould. She told her landlord that there would be no point replacing her flooring until it had identified and corrected the source of the mould. She also complained about receiving text messages which did not require her attendance.
The landlord told the resident on 28 September 2022 that it had raised a safeguarding alert about her neighbour and was investigating.
The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 28 September 2022, it stated:
1. it was sorry for not addressing the root cause of the damp and mould
2. it was sorry it sent the resident text messages about appointments she did not need to be present for. It agreed to change its system to ensure this did not happen in the future
3. it was sorry that the texts it sent to her often gave little notice of an appointment and it would raise this issue with senior management to improve
4. it had raised the resident’s safeguarding concerns about her neighbour with its resolutions team and would share what information it could with her
5. it apologised for the behaviour of its contractors and their refusal to enter her neighbour’s property. It focused on repairing the resident’s flooring
6. it suggested the resident contact the local authority about rehousing. It said it could consider a management move if the resident provided supporting documentation
7. it offered £100 for poor communication.
On 4 October 2022, the resident complained that repairs requested by the landlord’s surveyor had not started. She also complained the landlord had not provided a dehumidifier in the communal hallway. The resident informed her landlord she had a viral infection. She complained about the behaviour of the landlord and its contractor and of her living conditions.
The resident clarified with her landlord on 10 October 2022 that she had a steroid inhaler. The landlord’s contractor placed a dehumidifier in the communal hallway. The resident subsequently asked the landlord to remove it because of her safety concerns.
The landlord agreed to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on 24 October 2022. The landlord extended the complaint to include the following issues:
1. ongoing issues of black mould
2. alleged poor communication and conduct by the landlord’s contractors
3. the landlord’s alleged lack of response to the resident’s safeguarding concerns about her neighbour
4. the effectiveness of the work conducted, and specifically the contractor’s decision to paint the communal area walls. The resident’s dissatisfaction over the contractor’s application of sealant to the bath and its suggestionthat it lay new flooring before removing the mould
5. the delivery of a dehumidifier and the alleged unsafe installation of the dehumidifier in the communal hallway.
The landlord sent a stage 2 response on 2 December 2022, it stated that:
1. it had not performed in line with its expectations and apologised for the impact this had on the resident
2. it acknowledged there were issues with the dehumidifier and apologised it was not fully operational when delivered. It agreed to raise the issue with its contractor to ensure that dehumidifiers are safely located. It also agreed to retrain staff on the positioning of dehumidifiers to ensure theireffectiveuse
3. it accepted there had been a breakdown of communication between the resident and its contractors. It suggested its surveyor note any outstanding jobs and agree to a date for their completion
4. it followed up on the resident’s safeguarding concerns on 28 September 2022 but accepted it should have made more of an effort to understand these
5. it accepted it delayed escalating the resident’s complaint and that its communication following escalation was unacceptable. This was because of staff absences and a backlog. It had taken on more staff and had staff returned to work so this should not happen again
6. it offered £500 compensation, £200 for poor complaint handling, £150 for poor communication, and £150 for inconvenience.
The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. Although the landlord resolved the mould problem in the resident’s flat, she felt the landlord had not acknowledged the impact the mould had on her. The Ombudsman understands the landlord has agreed to complete all outstanding flooring work by January 2024.

Assessment and findings

Legal framework, landlord’s policies, and recommended practice

The landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of any installations relating to the supply of water, including water pipes and baths. It is also responsible for the repair of the structure of the property which includes the floor. The landlord is also responsible for ensuring the resident’s property is fit for human habitation.
The UK government’s decent homes standard for social housing requires properties to be free from the highest category of hazards outlined in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, this includes damp and mould. This requires landlords to monitor damp and mould and take steps to resolve it.
The landlord’s repair policy requires the landlord to address emergency repairs within 24 hours and non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
The resident’s tenancy agreement places the responsibility on the landlord for repairing floors (clause 3.1.1 d).
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould contains the following recommendations:
1. landlords should identify opportunities for extending the scope of their diagnosis within buildings, for example by examining neighbouring properties, to ensure the response early on is as effective as possible
2. landlords should consider their current approach to record-keeping and satisfy themselves it is sufficiently accurate and robust
3. landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue
4. landlords should ensure that their staff, whether in-house or contractors can identify and report early signs of damp and mould
5. landlords should ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding the actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould
6. landlords should identify where an independent, mutually agreed, and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, and share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on the next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted surveyrecommendations promptly
7. landlords should ensure they treat residents reporting damp and mould with respect and empathy.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs recommends that landlords:
1. keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible repair records
2. agree on actions and timescales for responding in line with policies and obligations and confirm these in writing. Inform the resident of any delays and explain why these are necessary
3. when making appointments, provide sufficient notice to the resident and try and accommodate their preferred timing
4. monitor the progress of work and have accessible records of appointments, inspection reports, work orders, and completion dates.

The landlord’s handling of reports of mould and damp

The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the landlord was aware of mould in the communal areas on 6 August 2022. The landlord’s response to this was to paint the communal hallway on 12 August 2022. Whilst this was prompt there is no evidence that the landlord undertook to monitor the effectiveness of this action. This meant the landlord had no oversight or way of establishing if it needed to do any further work.
The landlord should have visited the resident’s property within 24 hours of an emergency. The resident reported a recurrence of black mould in the communal hallway on 9 September 2022. A day later she told her landlord this had spread to her flat. Despite this, the landlord did not attend the ‘emergency’ appointment it made for 10 September 2022. The landlord confirmed on 12 September 2022 that the resident’s reports were ‘urgent’. However, when the landlord attempted to visit the resident on 13 September 2022 it gave her seven minutes notice of the appointment. The landlord did not challenge this claim.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s approach to appointments, missing one and giving such short notice to the resident of the other, was unsatisfactory. This is because it was not in line with its repair policy, and it was unreasonable to expect a resident to be available with seven minutes notice. The landlord identified there was a leak in the resident’s property that caused the damp but delayed addressing this until 16 September 2022. This delay was unreasonable as it was not in line with its repair policy.
The Ombudsman further notes that the landlord accepted in its stage 1 response that its contractors refused to enter her neighbour’s property. This admission demonstrates the landlord failed to extend the scope of its investigation to a neighbouring property. This may have allowed the landlord to adopt a more holistic and effective approach to dealing with the mould as it was affecting different areas.
By October 2022, the landlord was aware that there was still mould present at the resident’s property. It knew that the resident had concerns about the consequent impact on their health. The landlord attempted to deal with the mould by placing a dehumidifier in the communal hall area on 10 October 2022. It also painted the communal hall on 16 November 2022. Whilst this may have been appropriate the landlord accepted in its stage 2 response that the dehumidifier was not fully operational. The landlord’s response also accepted the resident’s concerns that the setup of the dehumidifier may have caused a safety risk.
There is no evidence that the landlord conducted a damp and mould report or survey which would have helped identify what remedial work it needed to do. Having a report with specific findings and recommendations would have helped inform its actions and allow it to assess the effectiveness of its approach. Without details of what steps it needed to take to resolve the mould, the Ombudsman cannot conclude the landlord acted reasonably.
The landlord alleged that its contractors visited the resident’s property on 27 October 2022 and 16 November 2022 to resolve the mould but could not gain access. It has provided photographic evidence of two missed appointment cards for these dates. The resident disputed the landlord’s claim, and the landlord has not provided details of when it informed the resident of the appointments or what actions it took to secure entry.
Without documentary evidence, for example in the form of appointment confirmations and evidence of requests to obtain entry, we are unable to verify the landlord’s account.
Overall, the landlord failed to demonstrate how it monitored the effectiveness of the actions it took to treat the mould or how it managed any follow-up work. These significant failings amount to maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damaged flooring

The landlord was responsible for repairing and keeping in good working order the floor. This was under the resident’s tenancy agreement and section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. In contrast, floor coverings are the resident’s responsibility.
The evidence shows the landlord was aware that the resident’s flooring had lifted in January 2021. It initially inspected this in February 2021. This was appropriate to allow it to assess if it was responsible for repairing the damage. After 2021the landlord’s contractors did not visit the resident’s propertyto look at the flooring until 13 September 2022.
The landlord should have followed up on the damaged flooring with the resident before September 2022. This would have been appropriate to allow it to understand the cause of the damage and to determine responsibility for its repair. The Ombudsman notes that the resident did not pursue the damaged flooring at the time and there is no evidence it was a safety risk or that the resident experienced a detriment. The Ombudsman considers that any failure by the landlord was not significant given these considerations.
The evidence from a telephone conversation between the resident and landlord from 27 September 2022 indicates she did not want her floor replaced. The resident wanted her landlord to treat her neighbour’s property for mould. The landlord did not agree to do any repair work to the neighbour’s property until it could repair the resident’s leak. The Ombudsman considers this approach was reasonable as it would not make sense to expend time treating the mould until the landlord could resolve its cause.
However, the evidence shows that the landlord had resolved the source of the mould, namely the water leak in the resident’s property, by 28 September 2022. The landlord also arranged for remedial works for the resident’s neighbour. The landlord alleged that it was unable to inspect or work on the resident’s flooring because it could not gain access to the resident’s property. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with evidence of the appointments it made or the attempts it made to gain access. It is therefore not possible for us to verify the landlord’s claims.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that there were outstanding works, including to the flooring. It suggested its surveyor agree a period for completion of these. In doing so the landlord undertook to repair or replace the resident’s flooring.
The landlord agreed, after the closure of the complaint in December 2022, to proceed with repairing the flooring. The landlord’s evidence is that it requested a new order for flooring to the bathroom and kitchen on 13 March 2023 but thatit was not until May 2023 when it started this.The landlord halted these worksin May 2023 when it concluded that a sub-contractor would need to relay the vinyl flooring. Further delays followed in June 2023, when the landlord found a homemade weapon in the resident’s flat. The repair work was set back further in July 2023 when the landlord found the latex levelling compound needed replacing before it could lay new vinyl.
The landlord was under a duty to replace the resident’s flooring as it had removed the vinyl floor covering and discovered a deterioration of the latex levelling. The landlord was responsible for the floor underneath the vinyl as it is part of the structure of the property. The duty of the landlord at this point was to relay the latex levelling compound and replace the flooring using good quality materials and a good standard of workmanship.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord has not provided an adequate explanation as to why the work to the floor was outstanding at the point of complaint closure or why it currently remains outstanding. The landlord alleged it could not do the work to the floor because it could not gain access to the resident’s flat. It also claimed that it needed to decant the resident to allow the work to proceed but the resident refused.
We have not seen evidence of the appointments the landlord made to inspect or resolve the flooring. The landlord has also not provided the Ombudsman with evidence of why a decant was necessary to allow the work to proceed or that it offered a suitable decant. Whilst the discovery of a weapon would understandably cause alarm that would interrupt the work the evidence from the resident is that she disposed of this quickly.
The landlord’s evidence shows confusion in early August 2023 between the landlord and its contractors over how it should proceed. The evidence demonstrates a lack of coordination and understanding between the landlord and its contractors. The delays the resident has experienced consequently were unacceptably long and caused the resident distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct

The resident complained to the landlord about its contractor’s failure to provide her with adequate notice of appointments and its response to her welfare concerns for her neighbour. The resident also complained about the surveyor being rude and that her landlord had sent text messages about appointments unnecessarily.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord addressed these concerns satisfactorily in its stage 1 response. The landlord acknowledged its failures, apologised, and explained what action it would take to put things right. It also offered the resident £150 for poor communication. This was consistent with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
However, on 4 October 2022 after the stage 1 response, the resident told her landlord that a member of its staff had spoken to her in an unsympathetic manner. There is no evidence that the landlord investigated this claim or that it addressed this in its stage 2 response. This failure to address this aspect of the resident’s complaint was a service failure.

The landlord’s complaint response

The landlord received the resident’s complaint on 12 September 2022 and responded on 28 September 2022 at stage 1. The landlord should have responded by three working days earlier. This was a short delay that caused no detriment to the resident.
On 4 October 2022, the resident added new grounds to her complaint. The landlord informed the resident on 19 October 2022 that it needed more time to investigate. This was a reasonable request to make to allow full consideration of the resident’s concerns. However, it was a failure of the landlord not to escalate the resident’s complaint at a time when it would have been appropriate.
The resident added further grounds to her complaint on 24 October 2022 and the landlord escalated her complaint on 28 October 2022. It took the landlord until 2 December 2022 to respond at stage 2. This amounted to a significant delay in complaint handling. Furthermore, whilst the stage 2 response covered most aspects of the resident’s complaint there were omissions. The landlord’s final response did not comment on the landlord’s decision to use sealant on her bath or why it painted the communal walls before they were dried.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord offered the resident the sum of £200 for its complaint-handling failures. The Ombudsman considers that the combination of delay and the omissions justify an increased award.
The resident was particularly concerned that the landlord had not specifically acknowledged the impact the delays had on her health.
We recognise that the situation has caused the resident distress as she has experienced damp and mould in the property and an incomplete flooring repair. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact of her living conditions on her health. It is well known that damp and mould can have adverse effects on health however for us to assess this it needs evidence. If a court were to consider this issue it would require a specialist medico-legal report that would outline the nature and extent of any impact. This would allow it to assess the cause of any ill health and whether there was any connection to the landlord’s failures.
The Ombudsman, in the absence of this type of evidence, is unable to draw any conclusions on the impact of the situation on the resident’s health. We can award compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord offered the resident £150 for distress. The Ombudsman considers, having regard to its remedies guidance, that an increased award would be fairer in the circumstances.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damaged flooring.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord must pay the resident £1,050 comprised of:
1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould
2. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delays in repairing the resident’s floor and replacing her flooring
3. £250 for the failures in complaint handling.
Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord must confirm that it has provided a copy of the schedule of work for the flooring to the resident and has paid the resident compensation.
Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord should share with the resident and us its action plan for dealing with mould in communal areas.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord:
1. Review how it gives notice of appointments to residents to ensure it provides at least 24 hours’ notice except in emergencies and maintains accurate records of attempts to visit and access.
2. Train staff to identify the causes of damp and mould and respond in an effective and empathic way.
3. Review how it monitors and manages repair, damp, and mould cases with contractors, to ensure it keeps robust and accurate repair records to make progress on cases.
4. Pay the resident further compensation for any further delays to the scheduled work to the floor and flooring.