Stonewater Limited (202303389)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303389

Stonewater Limited

15 March 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s:

Response to reports of leaks under the bath, damage to the bathroom flooring, and poor staff conduct.
Response to reports of damp and mould within the property, including delays repairing and clearing the guttering.
Communication with the resident when she requested no contact during a holiday.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord following a mutual exchange in December 2021.

3. The landlord is aware the resident has physical vulnerabilities. The resident informed this Service that she has a heart condition and depression.

Scope of investigation

4. The resident said she has been impacted mentally throughout the complaint, causing her to feel depressed and suicidal. She also said she lost her job. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident. However, as this Service is an informal alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health or employment. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury or employment aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

5. It is recognised the resident has made multiple complaints to the landlord. In this case, the resident initially contacted this Service in April 2023 and provided 2 of the landlord’s complaint responses the following month. This investigation is limited to the complaints made to the landlord on 30 January 2023 and 3 February 2023. For clarity, the landlord’s reference numbers for these complaints are 69715 and 69584.

6. Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member landlord within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising. As such, this investigation considers events from August 2022, which is 6 months before the resident made a formal complaint.

7. The resident evidenced that she completed the landlord’s internal complaint procedure (ICP) for the above complaints on 22 March 2023 by providing the landlord’s stage 2 response letters. Therefore, this report investigates events from August 2022 up to March 2023. Actions pre and post ICP is summarised for context only.

8. Within the resident’s recent correspondence, she referred to outstanding complaints that have not yet been acknowledged by the landlord. In the first instance, the resident should follow up with the landlord directly about this. If she needs further support to complete the landlord’s ICP, it is open for her to contact our helpline.

9. In the resident’s submission, she was concerned about staff conduct. The Ombudsman does not consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by the individual members of staff involved, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(h) of the Scheme, which states that this Service will not consider complaints which concern terms of employment or other personnel issues. However, we can consider whether it acted appropriately when investigating concerns over staff conduct.

Relevant policies, procedures, and laws

10. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties.

11. The tenancy agreement says the landlord agrees to keep in good repair the:

Drains, gutters, and external pipes.
Internal walls, floors, and ceilings but not including internal painting and redecoration.
Basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems, and waste pipes.

12. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the resident is required to allow access at all reasonable times of the daytime to inspect the condition of the premises or to carry out repairs.

13. The landlord’s repairs policy says it aims to deliver all non-emergency repairs within a maximum period of 28 days from receiving notification. It aims to deliver major repairs within a maximum of 42 days, where there is a significant amount of work required beyond the original repair.

14. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that discretionary payments can be made in line with its policy. It also says the terms of its tenancy agreements require access to their resident’s homes for repairs which may result in having to take time off work. Therefore, it will not compensate for loss of earnings.

Summary of events – bath leak, bathroom flooring, and staff conduct

15. Within the landlord’s repair records, it is evident the resident reported a leak under her bath on several occasions from December 2021 to March 2022. The landlord attended multiple times.

16. In March 2022, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. One of her complaint points was regarding its handling of the leak under the bath. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 May 2022. It said it had received confirmation that the bath was safe and functional, and repairs to the bathroom flooring were complete. It upheld the complaint and compensation was awarded. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that this complaint was referred to this Service.

17. In September 2022, the resident reported that she was dissatisfied with a recent installation of a new bath. She said the contractors had done an awful job and the new bathroom panels had gaps and there was no silicone around them, causing leaks.

18. The resident was in contact with the landlord regarding other matters between October 2022 and January 2023. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the resident expressed concerns about a potential leak during this period.

19. On 2 February 2023, the resident made a formal complaint. She said:

A waterfall occurred in the lounge the previous evening and she raised an emergency repair.
When the plumber arrived, it was found the replacement bath had not been plumbed in properly and had been leaking for some time, saturating the floorboards.
On inspection last night, they fixed the bath panel in very badly with lots of silicone.
The bathroom flooring had come up around the toilet.
She could only have shallow baths while waiting for a repair.
She had a heart condition and was supposed to avoid stress.

20. The resident was on holiday between 6 – 13 February.

21. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 8 February 2023. A surveyor attended on 14 February 2023 and the resident advised of an ongoing issue with a leaking bath. The surveyor’s notes state it arranged a work order and asked its contractor to contact the resident to schedule an appointment.

22. A contractor attended on 16 February 2023 and said it tested the seals, overflow, and bath waste but no leaks could be found.

23. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 February 2023. It summarised the complaint and said:

It had 7 work orders raised for repairs to the bathroom and recognised numerous contractors had attended.
It apologised for the delays completing the repairs.
Follow on work for dampness and mould was scheduled for 2 March 2023.

24. The resident contacted the landlord on 24 February 2023 to chase up works to replace the bathroom flooring that had been damaged by the leak.

25. The landlord said an appointment was raised for a contractor to attend on 2 March 2023.

26. On 2 March 2023, the resident emailed the landlord. She said the contractor spoke to her like an idiot when she tried to explain the “previous bodge job” on the bath panel and left when she asked him not to talk to her like that.

27. The same day, the landlord received an email from its contractor hub explaining that the resident became abusive when its contractor tried to explain how the bath panel should be fitted, and he left the property.

28. The complaint was escalated to stage 2 on 8 March 2023.

29. The landlord said it attended on 10 March 2023 to measure up for replacement bathroom flooring. A follow up appointment to fit the bath panel and adjust the framework took place on 15 March 2023.

30. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 22 March 2023. It said:

The resident had complained about delays to repairing the bath leak, the length of time the issue had been ongoing and poor communication.
It replaced her bath in August 2022 which resolved the issues.
It investigated how it had managed the most recent repair, which was raised on 14 February 2023 and attended on 16 February 2023. It checked for leaks from the overflow and waste pipe. No leaks were identified; however, it replaced the couplings and resealed the pipework.
Its operative left the bath panel loose and ‘blu-roll’ for the resident to monitor and check for further leaks.
It reattended on 2 March 2023 and the landlord was informed there was a heated discussion about proposed works.
While it did not witness what happened, it took this seriously and encouraged customers and contractors to treat everyone with respect and understanding. It asked its surveyor to contact the resident and make sure all works were resolved satisfactorily.
A new bath panel was installed on 15 March 2023 and new flooring would be fitted on 5 April 2023.
It apologised for the delay completing the most recent repair and offered the resident £75 compensation.

Summary of events – guttering, damp and mould, and communication with the resident when she requested no contact

31. The landlord’s records show a work order was raised for gutters to be cleared on 17 January 2022. This was recorded as completed on 7 March 2022.

32. Repair records show the resident initially reported damp and mould within the property on 16 January 2023. She said she first noticed the problem in late November/early December 2022.

33. The resident chased the landlord for an update on 25 January 2023. She said a mould wash had been booked but she needed the penetrating damp to be sorted first.

34. The resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s response to her report of damp and mould on 30 January 2023. She said the landlord had not made any effort to fix the issue.

35. As per the resident’s request, the landlord recorded on its system for no-one to contact her from 6 to 13 February 2023, including any contractors.

36. The landlord contacted the customer on 1 February 2023 to arrange a mould inspection. This was scheduled for 14 February 2023 as the resident was not available any earlier.

37. The resident emailed the landlord on 3 February 2023 to remind it not to contact her during her holiday. Within this email, she said she was unavailable from 6 – 10 February 2023.

38. On 6 February 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint email dated 30 January 2023.

39. Communication records show the landlord called the resident on 8 February 2023 to discuss her complaint and left a voicemail. The same day, it sent an email to advise the complaint was at stage 1 of its internal complaint procedure.

40. The landlord’s records show a contractor called the resident on 13 February 2023 to discuss a mould treatment, and she hung up.

41. A site visit took place with a surveyor on 14 February 2023. The surveyor noted:

There were some outstanding repairs that needed to have a date appointed. The contractor’s supervisor would arrange this.
There were new repairs relating to the guttering to the front and side of the property that needed repairing/replacing.
It requested a date for the front/side and rear guttering to be cleared.
There was evidence the damp exterior walls contributed to the mould issues due to blocked and overflowing gutters.
The resident advised she does not use the storage heaters in the property as she found them inefficient and costly. She used her own heaters.
It offered for the storage heaters to be serviced and replaced if not working adequately but the resident refused.
The resident was unhappy with being contacted while on holiday when she specifically requested no contact.

42. The landlord evidenced its surveyor contacted its contractor’s supervisor to request the necessary works.

43. On 15 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to say she was furious at being contacted during her holiday last week, despite asking for no contact on several occasions. She said her holiday was ruined as a result. She asked for this to be added to her complaint. To resolve matters, she wanted the landlord to pay for the holiday she had booked for the same dates the following year.

44. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 February 2023. It summarised the complaint and said:

It was sorry it had not delivered the service expected and understood the resident’s frustration.
It requested that outstanding repairs were scheduled with its contractors. This included a gutter clean and the new gutter repairs that were identified during the surveyor’s visit on 14 February 2023.
A mould treatment was scheduled for 2 March 2023.
There was evidence the damp exterior walls contributed to the mould issue.
It had only identified very slight drip stains within the property.
It was sorry for contacting the resident during her holiday.
Its contractors would contact her regarding gutter repairs, gutter cleaning, and the bath leak. It had asked its contractors not to cancel or rearrange future appointments as it understood how inconvenient and frustrating this could be.
A named surveyor would be the resident’s point of contact during the outstanding works.
It offered £250 compensation comprised of:
1. £50 for being contacted on holiday.
2. £100 for missed and cancelled appointments.
3. £100 for delays to repairs.

45. The Ombudsman has not seen the stage 2 escalation request.

46. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 22 March 2023. It said:

The resident asked it to investigate:
1. Its failure to follow her contact preferences.
2. Delays repairing and clearing the guttering.
3. Ongoing issues with damp and mould and the landlord’s failure to resolve it permanently.
It apologised for contacting the resident while she was on holiday. It appreciated this affected the enjoyment of her break and her wellbeing. It explained the mistake happened as it was dealing with a record number of cases and human error meant her request for no contact was missed by the call centre, even though it had been recorded.
It had followed up with its contracting partners to remind them of the importance of adhering to communication requests.
A contractor had since cleared and repaired the downpipes. However, they did not have a long enough ladder to safely reach the guttering. As such, an appointment to return was made for 20 April 2023.
It recognised the delay was frustrating for the resident. It had picked up the failure to complete the work with senior managers and it would be looking at how it could use its knowledge of its stock to make sure it had the right equipment for repairs going forward.
Contractors attended the resident’s home to complete a mould wash on 2 March 2023, but she refused access as the guttering repairs had not been completed. This work was rescheduled for 21 April 2023.
It recognised the delayed guttering repair was frustrating, especially as the guttering was part of the root cause of the problem. However, sometimes it needed to change the sequencing of repairs. It was important to allow access to nip problems in the bud, especially when damp and mould was reported.
It arranged for its partnering surveyor to be the resident’s point of contact for the repairs through to completion.
It offered £450 compensation (replacing its previous offer at stage 1). This was comprised of:
1. £100 for being contacted while on holiday.
2. £100 for missed and cancelled appointments.
3. £250 for the repair delays.

Events after the end of the landlord’s internal complaint process

47. The resident made a further complaint which followed on from the complaints described above, in addition to other concerns not referenced within this report. The landlord considered this under reference 71713. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 5 April 2023. The stage 2 response was issued on 6 June 2023. In summary, it recognised there was a further delay completing the guttering work. The landlord offered an additional £750 compensation, comprised of £300 for repair delays, £250 for the inconvenience, and £200 for poor communication.

48. The landlord’s records show it asked for a mould wash to be scheduled once the guttering repair was completed. The landlord called the resident on 27 July 2023 and 15 September 2023 to check whether there was any mould in the property. The resident confirmed there was no mould.

Assessment and findings

49. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In investigating this, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.

The landlord’s response to reports of leaks under the bath, damage to the bathroom flooring, and poor staff conduct

50. The tenancy agreement says the landlord is obliged to keep the bath in good repair. In this case, the landlord installed a new bath in August 2023 and the resident raised concerns about it in September 2023. The landlord has not evidenced that it responded to the resident’s concerns. This was a failing.

51. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of any communication regarding the bath/bath leaks from September 2023 onward, as referenced in paragraph 18. It is noted the landlord attended the property for other reasons during this time to fit basin taps and complete ceiling repairs, but there was no reference to a bathroom leak within the evidence provided this Service. As such, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude whether there was an ongoing leak during this time or what detriment (if any) was caused to the resident.

52. An emergency plumber attended on 1 February 2023. The resident said the leak was caused by the bath being incorrectly fitted, however no evidence regarding the cause of the leak was submitted by either party. It is unclear what happened during the emergency repair. It is vital for landlords to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision making at the time. If this Service investigates a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies. In this instance, there is no dispute that the landlord attended the emergency within the timescales stated within its repair policy. However, the cause of the leak and the actions taken by the contractor at this appointment are unclear. This is a record keeping failing.

53. A surveyor attended the property on 14 February 2023. Considering the resident’s concerns, it was reasonable for the surveyor to raise further work orders to investigate a potential leak from the bath. It is noted the resident was on holiday from 6 – 13 February 2023 and so the landlord was unable to attend earlier.

54. The landlord acted appropriately by investigating the leak on 16 February 2023. It evidenced that it took the resident’s reports seriously by assessing the seals, overflow, and bath waste pipe. In the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to leave the bath panel loose with towelling around the overflow to see if there were any leaks over time. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of failings during this appointment.

55. The resident chased the landlord for an update on 24 February 2023 and said the landlord had not contacted her. It is noted that the follow-on appointment on 2 March 2023 was referenced in the landlord’s stage 1 response dated 20 February 2023, however the landlord said this was for follow-on works for damp and mould, not for bath repairs. The Ombudsman finds the landlord did not effectively manage the resident’s expectations at the earliest opportunity. This exacerbated the situation and caused frustration to the resident.

56. The resident was dissatisfied with the contractor’s conduct on 2 March 2023. The Ombudsman considered whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the resident’s concerns and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff misconduct complaints, landlords are expected to carry out an investigation and make an informed decision based on its findings.

57. In this case, the landlord received comments from the contractor and their manager about what occurred. It also received an email from the resident explaining her version of events and how she felt as a result. She also said a friend witnessed the interaction. While it is recognised that the resident had previously asked for email contact from the landlord, in the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate her allegations further, such as by offering a call or obtaining a more comprehensive statement from both parties.

58. At stage 2, the landlord told the resident it took her concern about staff conduct seriously and outlined its expectations. However, it did not explain what actions it had taken to investigate her concerns. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord could have done more to reassure the resident that it investigated the matter. Nonetheless, considering allegations were made about both the contractor and the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to explain that it expected both contractors and residents to treat everyone with respect and understanding.

59. The new bath panel was installed on 15 March 2023 and at stage 2, the landlord promised the bathroom flooring would be completed by 5 April 2023. The repair records submitted to this Service states this was actioned, demonstrating the landlord kept its commitment to put things right, as expected under our dispute resolution principles.

60. The landlord’s repair policy sets out that repairs should be completed within 28 days, or 42 days if extra work is required beyond the original repair. As leak investigations had to take place, it is fair to apply the 42-day period. The leak occurred on 1 February 2023. The leak investigations occurred within the landlord’s agreed timeframe. A new bath panel was installed on 15 March 2023 – 42 days later. The flooring was completed 64 days later – 22 days outside of the timescales stated within the landlord’s policy. The Ombudsman notes the resident was unavailable for a period of 8 days. The landlord offered compensation to address the repair delay.

61. Overall, after considering the evidence available and the failures identified, the Ombudsman finds the £75 compensation offered by the landlord was proportionate and in line with our remedies guidance.

The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould within the property, including delays repairing and clearing the guttering.

62. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould says a landlord should have a zero-tolerance approach and must ensure its response to reports of the above are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.

63. Following a resident’s report of damp within a property, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to conduct an inspection/property visit to understand the extent of the problem, the probable cause and decide an appropriate course of action.

64. In response to the resident’s reports of mould on 16 January 2023, records indicate the landlord contacted the resident on 1 February 2023 to arrange a site visit from a surveyor. The earliest date the resident was available was 14 February 2023. The landlord also requested that its contractors complete a mould wash. This was a reasonable course of action by the landlord and demonstrates it took the resident’s reports of mould seriously.

65. When deciding on how best to proceed with a repair, it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. In this case, a surveyor recorded that the damp exterior walls contributed to the mould issue due to blocked and overflowing gutters. The landlord acted appropriately by consulting with its contractors to raise the relevant work orders and following up with said contractors.

66. The landlord’s repair policy states that it aims to complete non-emergency repairs with 28 days and major repairs within 42 days. Within its complaint response, the landlord recognised the delay in managing the guttering repairs and apologised to the resident.

67. Whilst it is a fundamental part of the Ombudsman’s role to consider whether a landlord has acted appropriately in response to a request for repair, we will also consider how the resident’s own actions may have contributed to the situation. Rather than demonstrating bias in favour of the landlord, this is an example of the Ombudsman’s independent and impartial role.

68. It is noted that the landlord said the resident refused access for a mould wash on 2 March 2023 and so it was booked for the following month. The Ombudsman is not questioning the reasons why the resident refused to engage with the landlord in terms of completing the mould wash. However, the landlord would not typically be responsible for the delays caused to the mould treatment in this instance.

69. The Ombudsman is aware that there were further delays completing the guttering repairs following the stage 2 response. However, the landlord addressed these delays in a further complaint response, so they have not been considered here. Nonetheless, further delays after the final response indicates the landlord failed to put things right and learn from the outcome of this complaint.

70. After the guttering repairs and mould wash were completed, the landlord evidenced that it followed up with the resident on at least 2 occasions to check whether there was still mould within the property. This demonstrates the landlord acted proactively to follow the report of mould through to completion.

71. Within this case, the landlord offered compensation of £250 for the repair delays and £100 for the missed and cancelled appointments. The Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on our website) sets out what we consider when determining cases. The £350 compensation offered by the landlord is appropriate for situations where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration but no permanent impact on the resident. This includes factors that are relevant to this complaint such as chasing responses and repair delays. Accordingly, the compensation provided by the landlord was in accordance with our guidance for the landlord’s failures. As such, the landlord offered appropriate redress.

The landlord’s communication with the resident when she requested no contact

72. It is not disputed that the resident requested no calls, emails, or text messages from the landlord while she was on holiday. The Ombudsman appreciates it was very upsetting and frustrating for the resident to then receive calls and emails about her complaint and the outstanding repairs.

73. The Ombudsman finds the landlord acted appropriately within its complaint response to acknowledge its failings and offer a sincere and empathetic apology to the resident. It evidenced that it learnt from its error and had provided feedback to its contractor partners to try to avoid this happening again.

74. After considering all the evidence available, the Ombudsman concludes that the £100 compensation offered for the landlord was fair and proportionate in the circumstances of the case and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

75. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to reports of leaks under the bath, damage to the bathroom flooring and poor staff conduct.

76. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould within the property, including delays repairing and clearing the guttering.

77. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s communication with the resident when she requested no contact during a holiday.

Reasons

78. Within its investigation into the bathroom issues, there were delays completing the repairs which meant the repairs were not completed within the timescale set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord recognised this and offered appropriate compensation in the circumstances. Follow-on works were completed within the time frame set out in its stage 2 response, showing that the landlord took reasonable steps to put things right.

79. The landlord demonstrated that it understood the inconveniences caused to the resident, and that it was aware of its own service failures and shortcomings relating to the damp, mould, and guttering. It offered fair and proportionate compensation, in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

80. The landlord offered a sincere apology for contacting the resident on holiday. It awarded compensation which was proportionate to its failure.

Recommendations

81. If it has not already done so, it is recommended for the landlord to pay the resident a total of £525 compensation it offered at stage 2 for complaints 69715 and 69584.

82. The finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the landlord paying the resident the compensation as offered in its final responses.

83. In view of the number of complaints made by the resident and her ongoing dissatisfaction, it is recommended for the landlord to consider appointing a single point of contact for the resident to improve the future landlord/resident relationship.

84. The landlord should respond to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report, setting out its intentions regarding the above recommendations.