Stonewater Limited (202304864)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304864

Stonewater Limited

25 June 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:
   1. The landlord’s management of flooring works.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s claim for compensation due to damage to the carpet.
   3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident has an assured tenancy. The tenancy for the property began on 1 July 2002. The property in question is a 2-bed house. The landlord has recorded that the resident has physical disabilities and suffers from long COVID.
3. The landlord raised a works order in June 2021 to replace the kitchen flooring at the resident’s property. This work was completed in August 2021 but the resident later questioned the quality of the work. The landlord agreed to redo the work in October 2021 and this was completed in December 2021. In February 2022, the resident raised a complaint about the quality of that work and about damage to his carpet, caused by those works.
4. The landlord agreed to carry out replacement flooring works in its stage 1 complaint response but the works were not completed and the complaint was escalated. A stage 2, the landlord said it was satisfied with the works it had completed and said the flooring would not be replaced. The resident was unhappy with the outcome of the process as the work was not completed and the landlord did not offer to replace or pay towards the replacement of his carpet.

Policies and Procedures

5. The landlord’s repair policy says that it would look to deliver “all non-emergency repairs” within a maximum period of 28 days “from receiving the customer’s notification”. It also states that it would deliver “major repairs within a maximum of 42 days where there is a significant amount of work beyond the original repair”.
6. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint policy; the stages are detailed as below.
   1. Stage 1 – The complaint should be acknowledged within 2 working days of receipt. The landlord should provide its response within 10 working days but if this cannot be achieved, it should inform the resident and provide a timeframe for its response. It says that any “responses will identify any service failure, outline resolution as appropriate and share commitments for any follow up”.
   2. Stage 2 – The escalation should be responded to within 2 working days of receipt. The landlord should provide its response within 10 working days but if this cannot be achieved, it should contact the resident and agree an extension.
7. Within the landlord’s complaint policy, it says that when addressing a complaint, “responses will identify any service failure, outline resolution as appropriate and share commitments for any follow up”.
8. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will “take responsibility for any detriment or damage caused to an individual or their property and belongings by a contracting partner working on our behalf”. It also states that if a contractor causes damage “due to proven neglect”, it will “attempt to remedy this in the first instance”. It says that this “may include payment to the resident directly” to avoid unnecessary delay.

Summary of events

9. The landlord raised a works order on 8 June 2021 to “renew kitchen/diner vinyl flooring”.
10. The landlord attended on 23 July 2021 but the job was cancelled as the resident had not removed white goods from the kitchen.
11. The landlord attended again on 23 August 2021 to remove the original kitchen flooring, fit a new polysafe flooring and to seal all perimeters. The works order was closed and noted as “all in working order”.
12. A new works order was then raised by the landlord on 1 October 2021 to “take up floor, latex and lay new polysafe flooring”.
13. The landlord attended on 29 November 2021 and noted that it “added levelling” to the existing floor and “collected new vinyl”.
14. It attended again on 1 December 2021 and carried out further works. These were noted as “levelled with latex free bond” and added “new polyfloor vinyl laid and supplied with welded joins, new door bar to lounge”. The works order also noted “tenant did not want plinths put back”.
15. The resident contacted the landlord on 9 February 2022 and raised a complaint about the previous flooring work. The landlord recorded that the resident complained that “the kitchen floor was not sealed properly, would like it re-laid” and he requested a “replacement carpet due to glue being trodden through”.
16. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 11 February 2022. It said it would provide a response by 25 February 2022.
17. A works order was raised by the landlord on 23 February 2022. The order was to “clean self-levelling compound off surrounding area, refix plinths, reseal edges of floor and plinths”.
18. The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 February 2022. It said it was unable to provide a response at that time but it would provide its stage 1 response by 10 March 2022. It explained that it would be attending to uplift the floor and replace it but it could not yet provide a date.
19. An operative attended to complete the flooring works on 3 March 2022 but the resident said it was inconvenient and rescheduled the works for 7 March 2022.
20. When the landlord attended on 7 March 2022, the resident refused the works, as he was unhappy with the colour of the plinths, as they did not match the units. The landlord noted that this was a supplier issue, as it was an older range.
21. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 10 March 2022. Within the stage 1 response, the landlord said the following:
    1. It acknowledged that it was “no further forward than we were when we first spoke last month and that was not good enough”.
    2. It did not provide a date but said it would “give you commitment that the kitchen floor will be resolved”.
    3. It offered a total compensation payment of £600 to address service failure, poor communication, poor workmanship and inconvenience.
22. Internal landlord emails on 15 June 2022 show that the landlord had opened a stage 2 complaint. The emails explained that the resident said that he had not heard from the contractor in 2 months and the work was still outstanding. Within the emails, the contractor said they had returned to clean self-levelling compound that had transferred to the walls and skirting board but said they had no outstanding works orders. The landlord added that the plinths had not been replaced due to the colour, the walls had not been painted and that the resident had said that the floor “ripples”. The contractor suggested a meeting between all parties involved in the complaint to carry out a review.
23. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 23 June 2022. Within its response the landlord acknowledged that it was “unhappy with the standard” of the initial flooring work in August 2021. It said that the work was carried out a second time but upon completion the glue remained “tacky” and some was transferred to the carpet, as it had not dried “some hours later”. The landlord offered an additional £100 as part of its compensation offer – it said that this was towards a professional cleaning of the carpet that was damaged by the transfer of the glue. This was in addition to the £600 compensation it had previously offered. The landlord said it was “confident that the work we did was done to an appropriate standard” and said it would not do the work again.
24. An internal landlord email from 30 June 2022 notes that the resident was unhappy with the stage 2 response – he was dissatisfied with the compensation offer and the lack of any agreed actions to complete the outstanding works. The resident said he had tried carpet cleaning but this had not worked and he wanted £400 to replace the carpet.

Actions taken following complaint process

25. The contractor emailed the landlord on 28 July 2022 and provided an update on the property. They said that the latest update they had was that the resident had refused works on 7 March 2022, due to an issue with colour matching the plinths.
26. Internal landlord emails between 22 August 2022 and 25 August 2022 show that discussions took place around the works at the resident’s property. They state it is “clear that our contractors have to re-attend and complete the floor again”. A works order was raised on 25 August 2022 to replace the kitchen floor and it was noted that a latex based levelling compound was not to be used.
27. Internal landlord emails show that the contractor did not attend on 15 September 2022 as agreed. It then emailed the contractor and requested that the work go ahead the next day.
28. The contractor attended on 16 September 2022 and noted the required materials. It noted that “new kick boards the same colour as units or wood black is OK”. It added that there was damage to wall and “the lounge carpet is damaged where it has splashed on the carpet” following previous works.
29. The resident emailed the landlord on 30 September 2022 and requested an update on the works. The landlord requested that the contractor provide this update.
30. An internal landlord email on 25 October 2022 explained that resident had said that he had not heard from the contractor since 16 September 2022. There were then emails back and forth between the landlord and the contractor, until 8 December 2022, chasing the works. The email on 8 December 2022 from the contractor suggests that discussions had been held around a different contractor completing the work. This had been discussed due to previous disputes around the quality of the works they had carried out.
31. There were further emails between the contractor and the landlord between 22 February 2023 and 27 February 2023, in which they referenced the outstanding works at the resident’s property. The contractor suggested a meeting to decide an appropriate course of action to complete the outstanding works.
32. There are emails following this in March 2023 and April 2023, chasing the completion of the outstanding works.
33. Updates on the works were chased at the landlord on 19 June 2023 and 23 June 2023 before another note on 13 July 2023 shows the works order as being closed. A further works order to complete the outstanding repairs was raised on 30 August 2023 and this was attended the next day to assess the required materials.
34. The landlord attended on both 5 December 2023 and 6 December 2023 and completed most of the flooring works.
35. The landlord raised another works order on 18 January 2024 to “refix plinths correctly and seal around plinths fully”. An operative was booked to attend on 26 February 2024. However, the work was not completed until 3 April 2024.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s management of flooring works

36. The Ombudsman’s review of this element of the complaint has only been considered up to the end of the complaint process in June 2022. It is important to note however that the works were not fully completed until April 2024 and this delay has been considered later in this review.
37. After the initial works order for the renewal of the flooring on 8 June 2021, the works should have been completed within 28 days. However, the landlord first attended on 23 July 2021, which was outside of the timeframe set out in its repair policy. After it raised the works order to complete the works again on 1 October 2021, it did not attend until 29 November 2021 and did not complete the works until 1 December 2021. This was again outside of the timeframe set out in its policy. This is a service failing that demonstrates a continued failure of the landlord to carry out works in line with its policy.
38. It is clear that the flooring works were not considered to have been carried out to an adequate standard on 2 occasions in August 2021 and November 2021. After the landlord agreed to redo the initial flooring works due to quality issues, it should have taken reasonable ownership to ensure that the subsequent works were carried out to the correct standard. It is unreasonable that the landlord had to carry out the same works on multiple occasions, due to quality issues. This is another service failing by the landlord which caused the resident distress and inconvenience in having to chase the replacement works and making themselves available.
39. The landlord noted that the resident did not want the plinths replacing during the works in December 2021. However, it then failed to follow this up with the resident to identify why this work had been refused. The resident raised this again in March 2022 when the landlord attended to redo the flooring and install the plinths. The resident refused all works in March 2022, due to the disagreement over the colour of the plinths. Had the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns following the visit in December 2021, an agreement could have been made prior to the visit in March 2022. If that agreement had been made, this would have allowed the works to be completed on 7 March 2022. This is another service failing which has contributed to the significant delay in the overall completion of the flooring works.
40. Ultimately, the landlord failed to carry out the flooring works in line with the timeframe set out in its policy or to an acceptable standard. There was a lack of oversight by the landlord once the first works were deemed to be unsatisfactory. The landlord should have ensured the quality of the works in December 2021 and then addressed the resident’s concerns around the plinths, as this would have allowed the works to be completed in March 2022, when it reattended due to the resident’s complaint. Having first raised the works order to replace the flooring in June 2021, the works were not completed to an acceptable standard a year later. Considering the combined failings in the landlord’s management of the flooring works, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s claim for compensation due to damage to the carpet.

41. The landlord has acknowledged within its stage 2 response that the damage to the resident’s carpet was due to the work it carried out at the property. This was later noted again by the landlord following its visit to the property on 16 September 2022. Given that it acknowledged the contractor’s work was the cause of the damage, the landlord should have sought to put this right.
42. The landlord’s compensation policy says that in the case of contractors causing damage to a resident’s property, it “will attempt to remedy this in the first instance”. However, the landlord’s only proposal to “remedy” the issue was an offer of £100 towards a professional carpet clean in its stage 2 response. Although a carpet clean could have led to a resolution at the time, the landlord has only offered a payment towards it rather than organising the clean itself or by offering a method by which to replace the carpet. It is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s proposal is not proportionate given the impact of the damage on the resident.
43. Following the landlord’s offer in its stage 2 response, the resident advised that a previous carpet clean attempt had not repaired the carpet and he requested a payment of £400 towards replacing it. Given this information, the landlord should have sought to provide a further response as to how the situation could be remedied, whether that be through some form of replacement or a liability claim. In not providing a direct response to the resident and his claim, it has left him with damage to his property and no method by which to address that damage. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord.
44. Ultimately, the landlord has acknowledged that its contractor caused the damage to the carpet but it has failed to remedy that damage. The resident requested payment towards replacing the carpet but the landlord only offered a payment towards cleaning the damage it caused. The landlord has not met its own policy, as it has not remedied the situation. It is the view of the Ombudsman that this demonstrates maladministration in the process of addressing the claim.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

45. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint and provided its response in line with its policy. The stage 1 response was apologetic around the current situation with the flooring but it failed to detail any findings from its investigation. It did not identify any clear service failures or provide any solid commitment as to how and when it would resolve the matter. This is service failing by the landlord, as its response was not in keeping with its own complaint policy, or the “putting it right” element of the Ombudsman’s Principles of Dispute Resolution. This caused the resident further frustration and time and trouble in his attempts to have the work completed to the correct standard.
46. Despite the landlord’s promise to get the work done, it failed to provide adequate oversight of the process, as the resident had to escalate the complaint because he did not hear from the contractor in 2 months. It is clear that no further work was scheduled following the stage 1 response. This is a another service failing as it failed to meet its commitments and did not “learn from outcomes” in line with the Principles of Dispute Resolution.
47. The landlord provided a stage 2 response within the correct timeframe. However, within the response, it said that it was satisfied with the quality of the work it had carried out and said it would not replace the floor again. This contradicts the position it set out at stage 1 and calls into question the investigation at both stages. Due to the nature of the complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have inspected the flooring during its investigation at either stage. Had it done so, it could have provided a definitive position around whether it required replacing or not and detailed this within its response. During the period in which the stage 2 was completed, internal landlord emails show that the contractor was aware of the resident’s concerns around quality and requested a meeting with the landlord to review the situation. The landlord did not provide any record of such a meeting taking place, despite the evidence request from this Service asking for sight of any such records.
48. The landlord has not provided any record of the considerations taken in making its decision that the flooring did not need to be replaced. However, it is clear that the position that landlord took about the flooring at stage 2 was not consistent with its stage 1 investigation or the information received from the contractor afterwards. This is evidenced in its emails from August 2022 which said that it was “clear that our contractors have to re-attend and complete the floor again”. This demonstrates a clear failing in its investigation at stage 2 and the conclusion it made around the flooring.
49. As per paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints about matters that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. However, given that the landlord has provided a decision that was later identified as being incorrect, we have considered subsequent events in order to establish any detriment caused to the resident as a result of that decision.
50. Had the landlord agreed to replace the flooring at stage 2, as it later did, it is reasonable to assume that it would have completed the work sooner than it eventually did (in April 2024). This can be assumed as the landlord would have sought to provide adequate oversight of the works to ensure they were completed in a reasonable timeframe following the complaint. Instead, the landlord failed to adequately manage the works, with long periods of inactivity and discussion between it and the contractors. This meant that despite raising a works order to replace the floor on 25 August 2022, the work was not completed until April 2024, over 19 months later.
51. As the landlord failed to identify its service failings at either stage, this meant that it would not have looked to improve it service in line with the “learn from outcomes” element of the Dispute Resolution Principles. This meant that when it did make the decision to replace the flooring in August 2022, there had been no changes made to its processes, which had previously failed, as a result of its investigation and findings. It is clear from the time taken to complete the work that the landlord did not demonstrate any learning from its complaint investigation. This is another service failing which was detrimental to the resident’s overall experience.
52. Ultimately, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the complaint investigations at both stages were not sufficient. This had a detrimental effect on the completion of the required work as the landlord took no ownership of its failings and failed to learn from the complaint or its investigation outcome. This meant that it provided a similar level of service when it did later agree to the flooring works, providing a similarly lengthy process to complete works that were not noted to be complex. These combined failings mean that the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration in this instance.

Determination (decision)

53. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s management of flooring works.
54. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration the landlord’s handling of the resident’s claim for compensation due to damage to the carpet.
55. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

56. The landlord has not carried out the flooring works in line with the timeframes set out in its policy and it failed to complete the work to the relevant quality standard on 2 occasions. The oversight applied to the process was not sufficient and the resident has experienced distress and inconvenience throughout as a result.
57. The landlord acknowledged its contractor caused damage to the resident’s carpet but it failed to put this right, in line with its own compensation policy.
58. The landlord provided responses to the resident’s complaint that were lacking in terms of a proportionate investigation or acknowledgment of its failings. The landlord provided a response at stage 2 that was inconsistent with its decision both prior to, and shortly after, the complaint. Had it provided the correct position at stage 2, it could have provided adequate oversight of the completion of the required works. Instead, the lack of learning and a commitment to carry out the works meant that the works took significantly longer than they should, as no changes were made to the process as learning from the complaint.

Orders

59. The landlord is ordered to provide a written apology to the resident for the management of flooring works. This should be provided within 28 days of the date of this report.

60. The landlord is ordered to make a payment of £600, as offered previously, to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its management of flooring works. This should be paid directly to the resident within 28 days of the date of this report, if it was not previously provided following the stage 1 response.
61. The landlord is ordered to make a payment of £100 to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his claim for compensation due to damage to the carpet. This should be paid directly to the resident within 28 days of the date of this report.
62. The landlord is ordered to make an additional compensation payment of £800 to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint (which led to continued delays in resolving the flooring works).
63. The landlord is ordered to provide a direct response to the resident’s claim for £400 due to the carpet damage, in line with its compensation policy. It should explain its decision in full and provide details of how this can be progressed in the event of a dispute around its response. This should be provided within 28 days of the date of this report.
64. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a management review of its practices in relation to complaint handling and managing renewal works, particularly with regards to the planning and oversight of such works. This must be carried out within 12 weeks, consider the failings identified in this report and include (but not be limited to):
    1. A review of its practices in relation to planned works involving third-party contractors, including consideration of improving its approach to the management of the works and communications with residents during those works.
    2. Ensuring that all relevant staff have adequate training and knowledge of how to fully address complaints in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles and its own complaint and compensation policies.