Stonewater Limited (202208609)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208609

Stonewater Limited

29 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Defect repairs to the resident’s property.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident and her husband were the leaseholders of a shared ownership property with the landlord under a lease dated 19 February 2021.
The property was a 3 bedroom new build house. The property was completed and handed over to the landlord by the developer in March 2020 but remained empty until the resident’s lease commenced the following year.
The property had a ‘defect period’ which lasted for 12 months from the point the developer handed over the property. The developer was responsible for carrying out any repairs identified during this period which were required due to faults with the workmanship or construction of the property. The developer carried out an end of defects inspection in March 2021 and compiled a list of defects to be repaired.

Summary of events

On 6 October 2021, the landlord sent an email to all of its residents on the resident’s development. The landlord acknowledged that defect repairs were still outstanding on their properties and apologised for this. It said it had been chasing the developer for several months to resolve these and had now provided it with a deadline of 12 October 2021 to advise when it would complete the repairs. The landlord said that if the developer failed to meet this deadline it would then arrange for a 3rd party to complete all of the outstanding defect repairs.
The landlord updated residents on 13 October 2021. It said that the developer had advised it would be on site the following week and complete all outstanding defect repairs by 22 October 2021. The landlord said the developer would contact residents directly to arrange appointments for this.
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 October 2021, she told it that she had not been visited or contacted by the developer.
The landlord sent a further update to residents on 25 October 2021. It said it was aware that the developer had not attended all properties the previous week and apologised for this. It advised it would be meeting with the developer in the next week and would send a further update following this.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 January 2022. She expressed dissatisfaction that she had not received any update since 25 October 2021. She asked, “how can we escalate this or who can we complain to?”.
On 27 January 2022, the landlord emailed the resident. It advised that, having attempted to have the developer return to complete the defect repairs, it was currently going through the legal process of ending the defects contract. The landlord apologised for the “delay and inconvenience” and said it would appoint its own contractor to complete the outstanding defect repairs. It provided a list of repairs identified at the end of defects inspection and asked the resident to confirm which were still outstanding.
The resident responded on 31 January 2022. She provided a list of the outstanding defect issues and asked the landlord to log a complaint based on the fact that her previous “emails and requests have been ignored”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 March 2022 asking for an update on the defect repairs.
On 15 March 2022 emailed the landlord again. She said that “We are once again ignored and I once again would like to raise this as a complaint. The last time I wanted to raise a complaint no one even acknowledged that part of my email”. The resident emailed the landlord again on 22 March 2022 chasing a response on the defect repairs and her request to raise a complaint.
The landlord responded on 31 March 2022. It advised the email had been passed to the appropriate department and that it had “asked that it be treated as a complaint”.
The resident contacted her MP on 18 April 2022. She expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord was “unresponsive” regarding the defect repairs and “did not follow its complaints process”. The MP’s office emailed the landlord on 20 April 2022 about the matter.
On 29 April 2022, the landlord emailed the resident confirming it had logged a complaint to investigate the issues raised. The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 May 2022 advising it aimed to respond to her complaint by 17 May 2022.
The landlord raised a work order to a contactor for the outstanding defect repairs at the resident’s property on 12 May 2022. The contractor attended the property on 16 May 2022.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 17 May 2022. It told the resident that the outstanding defect repairs had been passed to its contractor, which would contact her directly to arrange an appointment. The landlord apologised for its poor communication, offered the resident £100 compensation and advised that it was currently reviewing its “aftercare service” and would feed the resident’s comments into this process.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 18 May 2022. She expressed her opinion that the compensation offered was not enough for the stress she had been caused and the time “wasted chasing for responses”. She said that “we feel that the communication with Stonewater and the urgency to get the works done is once again failing and it’s taking a lot of effort our side again to chase for things to get done”.
On 23 May 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to express her dissatisfaction with the quality of a repair done to the render by its contractor. The landlord fed this back to the contractor on 25 May 2022, which said that “the repair completed is satisfactory in the nature of the repair requested”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 June 2022. She said that the following defect issues were still outstanding at the property and asked for an update on when they would be addressed:
1. Cracked frame on bedroom window.
2. Repair of render to front of house.
3. Foul smell in downstairs cloak room.

She stated that she did not wish for the contractor which had attended on 16 May 2022 to return to the property “due to their work ethic, poor standard and quality of work”.

The landlord sent a surveyor to inspect the property on 2 August 2022. The surveyor found that:
1. The damage to the window looked like it had been caused when fitting and should be referred as a latent defect.
2. The render patch repair did “stand out” and could be resolved.
3. They were unable to smell anything in the cloakroom area, but a camera survey of the drains could be considered.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 August 2022 requesting an update following the surveyor’s inspection.
On 12 August 2022, the landlord arranged for a second surveyor to inspect the property on 25 August 2022. It also raised a job to its repairs contractor for a camera survey of the drainage below the cloak room area.
A subcontractor attended the property and carried out the camera survey on 31 August 2022.
The landlord chased its repairs contractor on 8 September 2022 and 12 September 2022 enquiring about the outcome of the camera survey.
On 9 September, following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord asking it to respond to the resident at stage 2 of its complaints process.
The landlord provided an update to the resident on 15 September 2022. It said it was in the process of sourcing new parts for the damaged window, was consulting with a contractor about the rendering and was chasing its repairs contractor for the camera survey results.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 September 2022 confirming it had escalated her complaint to stage 2 of its process. It said it would respond by 5 October 2022.
On 4 October 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised that repairs to the window, render and drains were outstanding and that communications with the resident had “fell far short” of what it expected. The landlord repeated the repair updates it had given on 15 September 2022. It said it wished to defer making an offer of compensation until all repairs had been completed so that it could consider the resident’s “total experience”.

Events after landlord’s stage 2 complaint response

An internal landlord email of 27 October 2022 records that it received the results of the camera survey which had not identified any issues with the drains.
On 31 October 2022, the landlord provided a further stage 2 response to the resident. It said that it had now received the results from the camera survey of the drains which suggested no further work was required. The landlord said it was waiting for the manufacturer to provide a delivery date for the window part, after which it would book in installation. It said it was awaiting confirmation from its selected contractor that it could complete the repair to the rendering.
The landlord told the resident on 29 November 2022 that a contractor had provided a quote for works to the render. The contractor attended the property on 6 December 2022 to inspect the render.
On 5 January 2023, the resident received an email from the developer stating that it had raised a repair for the render to a contactor which would contact her directly. The resident queried this with the landlord which advised it would consult with the developer.
The landlord’s contractor failed to attend a scheduled appointment to complete the repair to the window on 18 January 2023.
On 20 January 2023, the landlord confirmed that the developer’s contractor would be completing the repair to the render.
The repair to the window was completed on 16 February 2023. The repair to the render was completed on 28 February 2023.
On 24 March 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident making its compensation offer for her complaint. It offered her £250 “in acknowledgement of the failure to communicate and escalate your complaint”.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 December 2023. It said it had reviewed her complaint and now wished to offer her compensation of £1,600 made up of:
1. “£100 for failing to respond in line with the timescales we gave you for the review
2. £125 for the distress and inconvenience caused by this delayed offer
3. £175 for service failures including poor communication, failing to follow our complaints process and the unsatisfactory handling of your complaint
4. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in carrying out the defects works
5. £600 for the time and trouble you have spent pursuing a resolution”.

Assessment and findings

Defect repairs

Following the end of defects inspection in March 2021, the developer was contractually obliged to resolve the outstanding defect repairs at the property. Considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic (which was still ongoing) on the construction sector it was reasonable for the landlord to allow for a lengthier period of time for the developer to complete these than usual.
On 6 October 2021, the landlord appropriately updated the resident that it had set a deadline for the developer to provide details on when it expected to complete the outstanding works. The developer responded within this deadline and gave the landlord assurances that all work would be completed by 22 October 2021. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on these assurances.
After the developer failed to complete the repairs as agreed, the landlord appropriately updated the resident on 25 October 2021 to advise it was meeting with the developer in the next week. However, the landlord said it would update the resident following this meeting and failed to do so, with no further contact with the resident recorded until 12 January 2022 – when she chased the matter up.
As detailed in its letter of 27 January 2023, the landlord decided to end the defects contract with the developer and appoint its own contractors to complete the outstanding defect repairs. It took appropriate steps to confirm the repairs required with the resident. However, the landlord then failed to raise a works order for these repairs until 12 May 2023 – over 3 months later. The landlord has not provided an explanation for this unreasonable delay.
During this period the landlord has not evidenced that it provided any form of update to the resident, despite her contacting it multiple times to request this. When the landlord did provide an update, in the form of its stage 1 complaint response on 17 May 2022, this stated only that its contractor would be carrying out the works and would contact the resident to arrange an appointment.
In fact, by the time the of the stage 1 complaint response the contractor had already attended the property on 16 May 2022. When the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the quality of work carried out by the contractor, the landlord reasonably fed this back to the contractor for comment and agreed to send a surveyor to inspect.
However, it took until 2 August 2022 for the surveyor to visit the property. This surveyor then left the landlord’s employment a few days later, with the case being passed to a second surveyor to take forwards. In an email to the landlord the resident remarked that this surveyor told her “he didn’t get any handover notes from the previous surveyor”. This resulted in the second surveyor repeating the inspection of the property on 25 August 2022 delaying progress by several weeks and causing additional inconvenience to the resident who was required to arrange access.
The second surveyor raised a works order for a camera survey of the drains on 12 August 2022 and this was completed by a subcontractor on 31 August 2022. However, the landlord’s lack of internal communication on the matter led to it raising a duplicate works order on 2 September 2022. This caused confusion for the resident who assumed this had been raised to address a fault identified during the camera survey carried out days beforehand.
The landlord did not receive the findings of the camera survey until on or around 27 October 2022. It is unclear why there was such a long delay, but the landlord has evidenced that it appropriately chased this up and informed the resident that it had done so. Based upon the subcontractor’s report (which did not identify any issues with the drains) it was reasonable for the landlord to consider the matter resolved and take no further action on this aspect of the complaint.
On 15 September 2022 the landlord provided the resident with an update that it was had “sourced a company” to carry out the render repair. On 30 September 2022 the company informed the landlord that it was unable to carry out the work. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response – issued just a few days later on 4 October 2022, said that it had contacted a company about the rendering work and was awaiting confirmation that it could complete this. It is unclear if this was an outdated reference to the company which had already declined the job, or whether the landlord had since contacted another company.
By 31 October 2021, when the landlord issued its further stage 2 response, it claimed it was still waiting for confirmation of whether a “selected company” could carry out the works. It was not until almost a month later, on 29 November 2022, that the landlord confirmed a company had quoted for the works and wished to undertake an inspection. The company completed the inspection on 6 December 2022, but was unable to commence the works as the window repair was still outstanding and there was a possibility this would disturb any newly repaired render.
The developer contacted the resident on 5 January 2023 informing her that it had appointed a contractor to carry out the render repair. It is unclear why the developer pursued this repair at this time. Whilst it is acknowledged this caused confusion for the resident, and further time and trouble in clarifying the situation, there is no evidence the developer had made the landlord aware of its intentions in advance to enabled it to appropriately advise her. The landlord reasonably said that it would liaise with the developer and would proceed with whichever contractor could complete the works soonest.
The landlord’s contractor failed to attend an appointment to repair the window on 18 January 2023. When the resident notified the landlord of this it appropriately contacted the contractor on the same day and arranged for it to rebook the appointment. The window repair was then completed on 16 February 2023 with the render repair completed 12 days later. This represented a delay of over 12 months from the point that the landlord confirmed that it would be arranging to complete the outstanding defect repairs in place of the developer.
It is acknowledged that the repairs to the window and render required specific parts and expertise respectively, which the landlord experienced difficulty in sourcing. Whilst this provides some mitigation for the delays it does not account for such a lengthy period or for the many gaps in communication with the resident, during which no progress appeared to be made towards a resolution.
Whilst it is noted that the resident continued to express dissatisfaction with the workmanship of the completed render repair in March 2023, this falls outside the scope of her original complaint – and the landlord’s associated complaints process, and so cannot be considered by this investigation.
In summary, after deciding to complete the defect repairs itself, the landlord delayed unreasonably in raising the required works order to its contractor. After the contractor attended and failed to complete all repairs to the resident’s satisfaction, the landlord delayed further in organising the outstanding works, which resulted in them being completed over a year after it had taken on responsibility for them. The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the period of complaint was poor. It was not proactive in providing updates and many emails from the resident received either no response or an insufficient one, resulting in her repeatedly chasing up.
In its letter of 22 December 2023, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had been “let down” by its service. It made a compensation offer which included £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays in the defect repairs and £600 for the time and trouble the resident had taken pursuing a resolution. Although this was a reasonable offer of redress, in keeping with amounts outlined in the Ombudsman’s ‘Remedies Guidance’, it was not made until almost 10 months after the repairs had been completed at which point this Service had already begun its investigation of the resident’s complaint.
Whilst it is to the landlord’s credit that it recognised that its earlier offer was not sufficient to offer reasonable redress for its failings, the Ombudsman’s ‘Outcomes Guidance’ is clear that a finding of reasonable redress can only be reached where an offer is made prior to the Ombudsman’s formal investigation. Due to this, a finding of maladministration is appropriate.

Complaint handling

The resident first asked the landlord to log a complaint in her email of 12 January 2022 in which she asked, “how can we escalate this or who can we complain to?”. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as “‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation”. Under this definition it would have been appropriate to log a complaint based upon this email. The landlord failed to do this, or even to reply.
On 31 January 2022, in an email providing details of the outstanding defects, the resident told the landlord that she “would like this raised as an official complaint”. Whilst on this occasion the landlord did respond to the email the following day, it only remarked that it would pass the repair details to its contractor and failed to acknowledge her request to complain.
The resident asked to log a complaint for a third time on 15 March 2022 and followed this up with a further email 7 days later. On this occasion the landlord responded on 24 March 2022 and, on 31 March 2022, confirmed that it had passed her email on and “asked that it be treated as a complaint”. Despite this the landlord has not evidenced that a complaint was logged at this time.
The landlord’s records indicate a stage 1 complaint was not logged until 29 April 2022, after it was contacted by the resident’s MP – whose assistance she had sought due to the landlord’s repeated failure to log her complaint.
The landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging her complaint on 3 May 2022 advising it would provide its response by 17 May 2022 – 10 working days from then. Whilst the landlord did meet this target, the Ombudsman’s ‘Complaint Handling Code’ is clear that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of when the complaint is received, not when it is acknowledged. The landlord’s response therefore failed to meet this requirement.
The resident emailed the landlord on 18 May 2022, the day after its stage 1 response, asking to escalate her complaint. The landlord again failed to acknowledge her request which led her to approach this Service for assistance in progressing her complaint.
The Ombudsman subsequently wrote to the landlord on 9 September 2022, however it took until 21 September 2022 for the landlord to write to the resident acknowledging that it had escalated her complaint. The landlord then provided its stage 2 complaint response on 5 October 2022.
The landlord later provided a further stage 2 response giving an update on the repairs, before making its compensation offer of £250 once works had been completed in March 2023. These actions were reasonable, as the resident herself having requested that compensation was only offered once all repairs had been addressed, and did not obstruct the resident from referring her complaint to this Service for investigation – which she did on 12 October 2022.
However, as previously detailed, the landlord made a further offer of £1,600 on 22 December 2023 within which it offered her a total of £400 for various failings in its complaints handling. Whilst this offer can again be said to offer reasonable redress for the failings identified, the fact that it was not made until this Service had commenced its investigation means that a finding of maladministration is appropriate.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Defect repairs to the resident’s property.
2. The associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged its failings in arranging the defect repairs and communicating with the resident and made a reasonable offer of redress. However, the offer was not made until 9 months after the repairs had been completed, by which time this Service had commenced its investigation.
The landlord failed to appropriately log the resident’s complaint, despite her repeatedly requesting that it do so, until she contacted her MP for assistance. It then failed to escalate her complaint until the Ombudsman’s intervention. Although the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress for its failings, this was also not provided until after this Service had commenced its investigation of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident the £1,600 compensation offered in its letter of 22 December 2023 if it has not done so already.
2. Take steps to remind customer facing staff of the importance of appropriately identifying and logging complaints at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service.