Stonewater Limited (202231044)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231044

Stonewater Limited

28 February 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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak in the kitchen and the level of compensation offered.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord who are a housing association. The tenancy began in April 2008. The property is a 3 bedroom semi-detached house. The landlord has recorded that a child in the household has vulnerabilities.
3. On 21 December 2022 the landlord’s heating contractor attended the property to repair a leak to the boiler’s condensate pipe. A fault was identified with the condense line behind the stud partitioned wall. A hole was made in a wall to gain access. The contractor said the waste line formed part of the original boiler installation when the property was built.
4. The resident made a formal complaint on 15 January 2023. She considered the leak to be a repeat of a repair completed by the landlord in early 2022. She was upset that having her heating on had resulted in a leak behind her walls and exacerbating the moisture problem. She advised that a hole cut to repair the leak on 21 December 2022 had not been filled.
5. On 31 January 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It acknowledged that the resident considered that her leak was the same as one she had experienced in early 2022. However it was satisfied that the repairs were separate and did not uphold her complaint. It explained that it was satisfied that the original repair for a reported leaking pipe had been addressed and her property made good. The landlord’s records show it previously resolved a complaint about the first reported leak and offered compensation.
6. The resident escalated her complaint on 13 February 2023. She said that she would require new flooring, a replacement wooden radiator cover, and reimbursement for using a dehumidifier. She said that the issue had contributed to health issues, caused inconvenience, and affected her mental health.
7. On 21 February 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said that it:
   1. Was sorry for any inconvenience experienced and acknowledged the stress a leak would cause.
   2. Wanted to put things right for her and wanted to look at whether rerouting the condensate pipe would help. It would ask a surveyor to contact her.
   3. Acknowledged she had been waiting longer than she should to have the access hole in the wall repaired. It said it had not communicated with her effectively.
   4. Had learned from her complaint and shared information with colleagues. It had done this to improve communication and ensure it did not happen again.
   5. Had recommended changes to its customer service training to include surveyors and its contractors. This was to ensure staff were providing regular updates to residents.
   6. Was unable to reimburse the resident for any damage to her flooring and encouraged her to contact her home contents insurer. It provided information of financial support and grants available through partner charities.
   7. It offered compensation totalling £640. This comprised:
      1. £150 for delays to completing follow up work.
      2. £150 for poor communication.
      3. £150 for inconvenience and distress caused.
      4. £100 good will gesture towards new paint and her belongings.
      5. £90 reimbursement for the cost of using a dehumidifier (based on £7.50 per day for 12 days).
8. The landlord recorded raising works on 17 February 2023 to repair the wall used to expose the pipes. Plasterboard was fitted and polyfiller applied. The landlord raised follow on works for 7 March 2023 to make good the decoration. Upon its attendance the landlord photographed a note on her front door which said she was unwell and asked that it leave her the sandpaper and paint for her to do the work herself. The contractor photographed the note and the materials outside the property as requested.
9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in March 2023. She said that she had operated a dehumidifier between 22 December 2022 and 19 February 2023 which continued to pull moisture for a total of 60 days. Therefore she considered she should be reimbursed £450 to cover her additional utility costs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
11. Within her communication the resident said that the leak in the kitchen had impacted her mental health. She considered that the landlord should consider this within its offer of compensation. This investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and how this related to the complaints reported. The Ombudsman has not determined whether the landlord was responsible for any deterioration in health. Such decisions require an assessment of liability and are decided by a court or insurer.
12. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident should seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue this option. The Ombudsman is unable to give legal advice and cannot comment on this matter further.

The resident’s reports of a leak in the kitchen and the level of compensation offered

13. The resident reported an uncontainable leak to the landlord on 20 December 2022. The landlord attended within 24 hours treating the report as an emergency. This was appropriate and in line with its responsive repair policy.
14. The landlord’s responsive repair policy states that it will complete non-emergency repairs within a maximum period of 28 days from receiving the customer’s notification. Having identified and repaired the leak behind a wall, it was appropriate for the landlord to raise a job to repair and redecorate the access hole. Therefore the resident should have expected the repair to have been made good within 28 days and by 17 January 2023.
15. However it was not until 17 February 2023 that the landlord made an appointment for 1 March 2023. This was not appropriate and not in line with its policy. The resident’s repair was not fully resolved for over 65 days.
16. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s records state that the delay was due to “work volumes.” While workloads can impact a landlord’s services, it failed to meet the obligations of its responsive repair policy. The policy states that it will maintain clear and continuous communication with residents. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated this delay with the resident to ensure she was kept informed. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to recognise this in its stage 2 response and offer compensation to put things right.
17. The resident considered that the leak was a repeat issue and that the landlord had failed to resolve a repair in early 2022. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the distress that any escape of water can cause, there is no evidence that the resident reported any ongoing leaks, damp, or mould to the landlord before the incident on 20 December 2022. Therefore the landlord’s actions to respond to her report as an emergency, when notified, was appropriate.
18. The resident considered that she should have been reimbursed £450 for utility costs for using a dehumidifier to dry out her wall and flooring. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 offer of £90. The landlord informed the resident that it did not ordinarily provide compensation for the use of dehumidifiers and encouraged the resident to approach her insurance company if she had sustained any damage.
19. The Ombudsman reviewed the landlord’s compensation policy and notes that it will consider when a resident has experienced a loss of use of facilities. This policy is specific to when a resident has been provided with alternative sources of heating and/or hot water. In such situations the landlord will compensate the resident at £7.50 per day for the difference in the running costs between their usual hot water/heating system and the temporary source provided.
20. As this policy does not account for dehumidifiers it was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to use its discretion and offer the resident some financial assistance in its stage 2 response. The landlord had investigated the resident’s complaint and was satisfied that its actions had not caused the leak. While making a gesture of support, it was reasonable for it to direct the resident to her own contents insurance.
21. It is not the role of this Ombudsman to determine liability for any damage caused to the resident’s home/possessions. This would be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. It is our role to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
22. Having attended to the reports of a leak as an emergency repair when notified, and recognising its delayed completion of the redecoration works, the landlord took steps to offer compensation for its service failures. While it did not accept liability for any failure which caused the leak, it offered compensation for any distress and inconvenience its communication and delays caused. Furthermore, it used its discretion to offer some financial assistance. These actions were reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to acknowledge lessons learned and its intentions to put things right for the resident.
23. When there are failings by a landlord the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (acknowledgment of failings, an apology, and compensation) 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 our dispute resolution principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
24. It was fair for the landlord to acknowledge that the situation would have been distressing for the resident and apologised for its delays. This was appropriate as it recognised that it had failed to deliver to its expected service standards which may have caused further inconvenience.
25. The landlord’s surveyor attempted to contact the resident on 28 February, 9 March and 10 March 2023. It sought to identify if it could reroute the condensate line. As each attempt to contact her had been unsuccessful, and it had received no response to voicemail messages, it sent a letter on 10 March 2023 asking her to contact it. No response was recorded as being received.
26. The offer to survey the pipework was a reasonable suggestion and demonstrated that the landlord was willing to consider options to minimise the risk of future problems for the resident. As the access hole was repaired without the resident responding to the landlord’s surveyor, it is reasonable to consider that she was satisfied that the repair had been resolved.
27. The landlord demonstrated learning from outcomes by identifying communication had failed across serval service areas. It informed the resident that it would include surveyors and contractors within its customer service training to ensure residents received regular communication and updates.
28. Upon completion of the repair, the landlord arranged to return to decorate the resident’s wall. This demonstrated its desire to put things right. While there is evidence that the landlord left sandpaper and paint for the resident to complete the works herself, this request was made and evidenced by photographs supplied within the case file. Having received no further repair reports relating to this matter, it is therefore reasonable to consider the resident was satisfied that the repair had been put right.
29. Based on the above, the Ombudsman considers that the compensation amount offered was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. It is therefore the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has offered reasonable redress in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak in the kitchen and the level of compensation offered.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak in the kitchen and the level of compensation offered.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

31. If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord reoffers the resident the £640 compensation offered at stage 2.