Stonewater Limited (202218759)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218759

Stonewater Limited

3 April 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to replace the windows within the property.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling as also been investigated.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenancy for a 2 bedroom flat with the landlord, which is a housing association. The tenancy started in November 2009.
4. On 15 August 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and raised a stage 1 complaint about the decision it had made not to replace her windows. The resident explained that she had had numerous inspections in relation to the condition of her windows, all which determined that the windows did not need to be replaced and that repairs could be carried out instead,
5. On 8 September 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 response which said that when issues were identified, it would first look to repair rather than replace and at present it would not replace the windows within the property. The response also confirmed that the landlord had carried out extensive surveys, which had all determined that the windows were not in need of replacement and could continue to work with maintenance.
6. On 9 September 2022 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. The resident said that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, because:
   1. It said that it would use expanding foam to repair the existing windows.
   2. She had had multiple inspections and there were conflicting facts.
   3. She wanted the windows to be replaced.
7. On 21 October 2022 the landlord provided its stage 2 response, which said that:
   1. It would always look to repair components, such as windows, first as this ensured that it acted in a sustainable manner and it delivered value for money for its residents.
   2. Because of this, it would not replace the windows as requested.
   3. It was confident that the recommendation to use expanding foam would fix the issues reported.
   4. It also offered £150 in recognition of the failures with its complaint handling.
8. On 16 November 2022 the resident contacted the Ombudsman as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and said that she wanted her landlord to replace her windows. The resident also explained the impact the windows were having on her family, especially in the colder months.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s approach.

9. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure.
10. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right, and
    3. Learn from outcomes.

Scope of investigation.

11. The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord subsequently agreed to move the resident and her family from the property, as well as complete a number of works within the property, including replacing the windows.
12. The Ombudsman is also aware that some of these issues form part of a separate final response, which is currently awaiting investigation. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s investigation focuses solely on the landlord’s final response in October 2022.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to replace the windows within her property.

13. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord agrees to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s home, including the windows, in repair and working order.
14. The landlord says that it does not have a specific policy in relation to its cyclical work, but the repairs policy does say that it carries out a programme of planned works to maintain and improve properties. It further states that as components get older, it may need to replace or improve things such as doubling glazing.
15. When a resident reports issues with any part of their property, the Ombudsman would expect to see a clear audit trail which documents the initial report and subsequent landlord actions. This may include raising an initial repair for its contractors to fix, an inspection from a surveyor, or evidence which shows a contractor gave advice.
16. The Ombudsman has seen a copy of an email dated 20 July 2022, which confirmed that a surveyor visited the property and confirmed that the wooden frames were stained but were not rotten. It raised jobs for new rubber seals to be installed, as they had been removed from around the windows, some beading strips to be fixed and a couple of adjustments to enable the windows to close better.
17. It is not clear based on the information provided, what happened with these repairs, but it is fair to assume that the orders were appropriately raised, as the resident contacted the landlord on 28 July 2022 and said that she did not want foam putting in the gaps and that the windows needed replacing rather than repairing.
18. Although, the Ombudsman has not been provided with the landlord’s response, as the resident’s complaint mirrored that of her email, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord informed the resident that it would not be replacing the windows.
19. The landlord’s final response further confirmed that it would not replace the resident’s windows but did acknowledge that repairs were necessary. It informed the resident that it was confident that the issues identified could be repaired.
20. A landlord is entitled to attempt repairs rather than arranging a replacement unless the components cannot be economically repaired or if repeated repairs have been attempted but have not resolved the issue. The landlord is also entitled to make an informed decision on what parts and/or replacement items, such as using expanding foam to fill gaps, when completing a repair.
21. Furthermore, it is also reasonable for the landlord to reply upon the advice and/or recommendations of an appropriately qualified contractor, when making decisions about whether to repair or replace items it has responsibility for.
22. While this may not have been what the resident has requested, the landlord must consider what is efficient and appropriate – both economically and fit-for-purpose. There is no evidence to show that multiple repairs were carried out, and if the landlord was confident the windows were not beyond reasonable repair and works would resolve the problems experienced by the resident, it was reasonable for it to raise the orders accordingly.
23. It is clear from the information provided that the resident disagreed with the landlord’s decision to not replace the windows, as she requested. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took appropriate action to try to resolve the issues. Its decision to repair rather than replace the windows within the property was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

24. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it operates a 2-stage complaint policy and both stage 1 and 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 2 working days and responded to within 10 working days.
25. The evidence shows that the resident escalated her complaint on 9 September 2022, but the landlord failed to acknowledge it. This led to the resident contacting the landlord on 30 September 2022 for an update on her complaint.
26. The landlord informed the resident of a “severe backlog” with its handling of complaints on 3 October 2022. It told the resident that their complaint would be added to an “escalation schedule”, which meant their complaint would be escalated to stage 2 on 7 October 2022.
27. The landlord’s complaint policy does not mention it using an escalation schedule during a period of backlogs. The Ombudsman found this approach to handling the resident’s complaint to have delayed the complaint process unnecessarily. The landlord is responsible for ensuring it has appropriate staffing levels to fulfil obligations set out within its policies, including complaint handling.
28. On landlord escalated the resident’s complaint, as it said it would do, on 7 October 2022 and confirmed that it would provide its final response by 21 October 2022.
29. The landlord also responded when it said it would and as part of the landlord’s final response, the landlord acknowledged that there had been a failing with its complaint handling and apologised to the resident. It also offered £150 compensation and detailed the changes it had made to improve.
30. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account 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 as well as our own guidance on remedies.
31. The landlord’s compensation policy confirms that it will make discretionary payments for failures such as poor complaint handling but does not give any amounts. The Ombudsman’s remedy guidance states that when there has been a failure which has adversely affected the resident, payments from £100 are recommended.
32. It is positive to see that the landlord identified its own failings, and furthermore detailed the steps it was taking in order to learn from the outcome. It also offered compensation in an attempt to put things right for the resident, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
33. The £150 compensation was appropriate and reasonable. It was also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as the failings had a short lived impact. Therefore, an order of reasonable redress has been made.

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to replace the windows within her property.
35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

36. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation as offered in the final response, if it has not already done so, within 4 weeks of the date of the determination.

Recommendations

37. It is recommended that the landlord to review the status of the repairs, including replacement windows and damp and mould work, at the property and to inform the resident in writing when it is estimated they will be done.
38. It is also recommended that the landlord review the way in which it handled the resident’s stage 2 escalation and ensuring that future escalations are handled in line with its complaint policy.