Stonewater Limited (202327304)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327304

Stonewater Limited

25 September 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 the resident’s reports of:
1. A leak in the shower cubicle.
2. Damp and mould in the property.
The associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 4-bedroom house.
The landord has vulnerabilities for the resident recorded on its system. These have been updated when required.
On 30 January 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that her shower was not working. Following the landlord’s visit, further works were required and ordered. In March 2023 the resident logged a damp and mould report. She said all rooms in the house were affected. The shower works were varied in April 2023 and sent to the landlord for approval. These works were completed from 22 to 24 May 2023.
The resident complained to the landlord that the repairs she had reported had not been dealt with and she was still living in a damp and mouldy house, with a shower that did not work. The landlord apologised to the resident and offered a “rent refund” of £514.49 between 30 January 2023 and 24 May 2023. It also said it would replace the shower and complete a mould wash. A mould wash and treatment to 6 rooms was completed on 14 June 2023 and the additional shower repairs were completed on 21 July 2023.
The landlord offered to consider covering the cost of deep cleaning the carpets damaged by the shower leak or replacing them. It asked the resident to provide it with quotes.
In August 2023, after trying to speak to the landlord about the stage 1 complaint response in July 2023, the resident told the landlord she was unhappy with the stage 1 complaint response. She had already paid someone to remove the damaged carpets and wallpaper. She said she would send the invoice to the landlord once she had it, and provided the landlord with wallpaper, blinds, curtain and paint costings and the carpet replacement quote.
Throughout August and September 2023, the resident chased the landlord about her request for items in the property to be replaced. On 25 September 2023 the landlord told the resident it would escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process.
The landlord sent its delayed stage 2 complaint response on 17 November 2023. It apologised for its mistakes and agreed to pay the resident a goodwill gesture of £500 plus a £75 decoration voucher towards the damaged carpet but would not cover the cost of carpets that had not been damaged. The landlord acknowledged the mould treatment may have damaged the resident’s wallpaper and offered a £200 goodwill gesture and £75 decoration voucher. Including compensation payments for poor communication, inconvenience and poor complaint handling the landlord’s offer totalled £1150.

Post internal complaints procedure

On 24 June 2024 the landlord called the resident to discuss the damp and mould in the property. The resident confirmed the mould issues had been sorted out but that she was unhappy with the compensation offered.

Scope of investigation

The resident has referenced how the landlord’s failures to resolve the damp and mould in the property has adversely affected her household’s physical health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her household’s health. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Therefore, we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould and the household’s health. Nonetheless consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
The resident has complained specifically that the landlord did not compensate her fairly for her damaged belongings, including carpets, blinds, wallpaper and paint. The Ombudsman cannot make binding decisions on matters such as negligence or liability. We do not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance.
Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has investigated how the landlord handled the compensation requests. Each compensation request has been investigated within the specific complaint issue.
Consideration has been given across the complaint definitions to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Assessment and findings

Leak in the shower cubicle

The landlord has a statutory duty under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, as well as the installation and supply of water, gas and electricity. It is obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The resident’s occupancy agreement reiterates this as does the landlord’s responsive repairs policy. The landlord commits to completing non urgent repairs (routine) within 28 calendar days of notification.
On 30 January 2023 the resident reported that her shower was not working. She said that it was the only bathing facility available due to her disability. The landlord logged it as an emergency repair, but its contractor sent it back and said it was a routine repair. The landlord immediately told the contractor it was an emergency repair. The landlord acted reasonably. It took the resident’s situation and disability into account and made sure it was an emergency repair.
Extensive follow-on works were ordered on 1 February 2023 with a target date of 1 March 2023, as per the landlord’s timescale for a routine repair. The resident had asked the landlord for a new wet room and the landlord inspected the facilities on 14 February 2023. This was 11 working days after the resident’s request. This was within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord confirmed it would not provide a new wet room and noted on the system the resident would need to speak to an occupational therapist for a referral for a disabled facilities grant. The landlord had raised extensive repair works to the current shower cubicle. Its response was fair and reasonable. However, it was not clear, within the evidence provided, if the resident was fully aware of the outcome of the visit. Landlords must make sure its systems record all communication with residents and decide whether some decisions should be confirmed in writing, not just verbally.
The landlord missed the target of 1 March 2023 to complete the shower cubicle repairs. The landlord’s contractor varied the works order on 13 April 2023, and this was approved quickly. The original repair log notes appeared to include fitting a new shower while the varied order did not. Whether this was a mistake, or the landlord had decided a new shower was not needed, it should have communicated with the resident to make sure she knew what works were happening. The landlord acted unreasonably. On 7 June 2023 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord that the shower had not been replaced.
The works to the shower cubicle were completed between 22 and 24 May 2023. This was 112 days after the work was raised on the landlord’s system and 84 days outside the landlord’s 28-day timescale. There may have been reasonable reasons for the delay, for example ordering and waiting for materials. There has been no evidence provided that the resident was kept updated and that the delay was explained. The landlord should have systems in place that ensure residents are updated on their repairs. The landlord acted unreasonably. It was not customer focused, and the resident may have wondered if the shower repairs were going to happen.
On 7 July 2023, in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it agreed to replace the shower and complete a mould treatment. The resident has told the Ombudsman that the shower was not replaced. The Ombudsman requested further information from the landlord. It said the issues were not with the shower elements but with the water leaking down the back of the tiles. However, the repair records and emails from the resident show that she was reporting the shower elements were faulty. If the landlord was confident that the shower itself did not need replacing it should have communicated this clearly to the resident. Its stage 1 complaint response implied the shower unit was going to be replaced. The landlord acted unreasonably. The resident may have been confused as to what works were happening which may have contributed to any distress she felt.
In response to the resident’s request for a new carpet, the landlord asked her to provide quotes for cleaning or replacing the carpet that had been damaged by the leaking shower cubicle. It agreed to consider compensation. It was reasonable of the landlord to offer to replace the damaged carpet. This was beyond its responsibilities outlined in its compensation policy of the time. The policy tells us that if personal belongings are damaged the resident should submit a claim on their contents insurance. If they don’t have contents insurance and the goods can be inspected, they can make a claim to the landlord which will be passed to its insurers. In this case the landlord was willing to consider covering the cost of the damaged carpet, outside of any insurance claim. The landlord acted reasonably. It was focused on resolving the issue and was flexible in how it could be achieved.
The resident provided a quote that included the carpet in the hall, stairs, landing and a bedroom. She explained that the carpet she had was discontinued so she thought the landlord should replace it all. The landlord asked if it could visit the home to establish the damage that the shower cubicle leak caused. The resident refused and explained the carpet had already been removed. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 complaint response, that it would not cover the cost of replacing all the carpets within the resident’s quote. It offered a £500 goodwill gesture toward the carpets and gave advice to the resident on making an insurance claim. The landlord was within its rights to refuse to replace all the carpets quoted. It acted reasonably in making an offer towards the carpets and offering advice. However, it took too long to come to this conclusion, which may have left the resident unable to move forward with any carpet replacement or redecoration.
Where there have been acknowledged failings on the part of the landlord, the Ombudsman must first consider whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’. In this case the landlord failed to have a sufficient grasp on the repairs, and this resulted in delays and parts of the required repairs were not completed. It failed to keep the resident adequately updated on the progress of the repairs and this resulted in time and trouble for the resident as she had to keep chasing the landlord.
The landlord tried to put things right in the following ways:
1. It apologised for its failings.
2. It agreed to replace the shower and complete a mould wash.
3. Offered a 20% reduction on the rent from 30 January 2023 to 24 May 2023, the time it took to complete most of the shower cubicle repairs. This amounted to £514.49.
4. Offered a home visit to establish what had been damaged so the landlord could confirm what compensation it was willing to pay towards the damaged items.
5. Gave advice on making an insurance claim for the damaged carpet.
6. Offered the following financial compensation in relation to this part of the complaint:
  1. £500 goodwill gesture for damage to the carpet.
  2. £100 for poor communication. This was for 2 complaints, so the Ombudsman considered £50 related to this complaint.
  3. £100 for inconvenience caused. This was for 2 complaints, so the Ombudsman considered £50 related to this complaint.
7. Provided information of actions it had taken to improve landlord and contractor communication and communication with residents.
In the Ombudsman assessment, this was a fair and proportionate remedy. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidelines suggest a financial compensation payment of between £100 to £600 where the impact on the resident was not permanent but the failures did adversely affect the resident. In total the landlord paid the resident £1114.49 in recognition of its failings in relation to the shower cubicle repairs, which included a goodwill gesture for the carpets.
However, the landlord did not replace the shower unit outlined in its stage 1 complaint response. It did not provide the resident with an explanation. A finding of reasonable redress cannot be made as an element of the substantive issue remains. The resident needs clarity on the landlord’s intentions with her shower unit.
The landlord’s compensation policy at the time said that if a resident experienced the loss of a room, making it unusable, then the landlord would offer a discretionary goodwill payment as a proportion of the rent for the period that the loss was experienced. The landlord defined unusable and uninhabitable as ‘by continuing to occupy, an imminent health and safety risk is posed to the occupant(s)’. For a bathroom the percentage was listed as 30%. In this case the landlord offered 20%. No evidence has been provided to explain why 20% was applied instead of 30%. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response said it would apply a rent reduction in line with its policy. The landlord acted unreasonably. The compensation was discretionary, and the evidence was not clear as to whether the landlord deemed the resident’s situation to pose an imminent health and safety risk. However, the landlord should have communicated clearly to the resident what it was offering and how it came to that figure.
The overall amount of financial redress is considered reasonable, but a recommendation has been made for the landlord to consider if its ‘rent refund’ calculation needs to be amended or explained to the resident.
The compensation policy at the time was not clear on how different compensation payments should be paid and there was ambiguity in the policy. This may have made it difficult for the landlord to ensure each compensation claim was administered with the same interpretation of the policy. The landlord has since changed its compensation policy, in line with the Ombudsman’s published compensation guidance. It is a clearer, more concise policy and simpler for the landlord to apply.
In summary, there was service failure, in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak in the shower cubicle. The landlord recognised its failures and tried to put things right. It made a proportionate financial remedy to the resident. It was open to learning from its mistakes and detailed the actions it was taking to improve its repairs service for all its residents. However, a finding of service failure is made because the landlord said it would replace the shower unit and has not communicated to the resident why it has not done so. An order is made below.

Damp and mould in the property

The landlord has a damp, mould and condensation policy and process. It was in place at the time of this complaint. It tells us that the landlord operates a zero-tolerance approach to damp, mould and condensation (DMC). Properties will be assigned to 1 of 4 categories:
1. Stage 1 case where households need support and guidance to treat and prevent mould and low-level interventions such as DMC wipe downs.
2. Stage 2 cases where minor repairs or replacement of components is necessary, as well as treatment for the mould. Additional ventilation may be required.
3. Stage 3 and 4 cases where larger scale repairs are necessary such as new roofs or plumbing works.
Any residents who have accessed the DMC process would be contacted after 6 months to check the issues have been fully resolved.
The resident completed a DMC report on 17 March 2023. She reported that all rooms were affected, that the trickle vents were open, that the extractor fans worked, the heating worked, and the heating was more expensive than expected. The form offered a virtual appointment with the landlord’s fuel engagement officer. The resident declined an appointment; however, this was a positive approach by the landlord to include fuel support within the form.
On the same day the landlord ordered a mould treatment to the affected areas. It sent a damp and mould pre inspection letter. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of this letter. The landlord’s actions were reasonable. It acted upon the report quickly. The resident knew that the landlord had received her report.
The landlord’s repair records stated that the mould treatment was completed on 14 May 2023, but also stated “awaiting completion details”. It did not state which of the 4 stages the case had been allocated. These kind of ambiguities in landlord’s repair records make it difficult:
1. For any member of the landlord staff to clearly know what stage the repair is at.
2. For the resident to contact the landlord and be confident the information they are told is accurate.
3. For the Ombudsman to carry out a fair and reasonable investigation with accurate and fair determinations.
When requested, the landlord quickly provided the Ombudsman with a record of the mould treatment visit. It took place on 14 June 2023, after the resident complained to the landlord. A mould treatment was carried out in 6 rooms. This was 90 days after the resident’s initial report. The landlord took too long to complete the mould treatment in the property. It did not appear to take the zero-tolerance approach it set out in its policy and there was no urgency in the completion of the treatment. The landlord acted unreasonably.
Other visits may have occurred, but there is no evidence to prove that they did. The resident has told the Ombudsman that she does not recall any other visits and that there was only a mould wash carried out in 2 rooms. In DMC cases it is essential that landlords keep a record from start to completion. This assists the landlord in resolving the DMC by documenting what work, or treatments have been carried out. It also provides the landlord with a chronology of communication with the resident, the human aspect of the DMC journey.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) states that the mental and social health effects of dampness and mould should not be understated. The landlord needs to record the impact the DMC is having on the household and offer considered and relevant support. The landlord acted unreasonably. It was not focused on a resolution for the resident, and it may have contributed to the resident feeling distress about the situation.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 7 July 2024 appeared to confuse the shower cubicle repairs with the damp and mould in the property repair. It stated that the work was completed on 24 May 2023. However, the repair records and photos provided as part of this investigation evidence that some shower cubicle works were completed between 22 to 24 May 2024, not mould treatment in the property. The response says nothing more about the damp and mould throughout the property. On 14 July 2023 the resident called the landlord to discuss the information that she felt was missing from the landlord’s response, namely any response about the mould in her daughter’s bedroom. Landlords should ensure that its records are accurate so that complaint responses can be effective in putting things right for the resident. The landlord acted unreasonably in providing an inaccurate account in the response and then not discussing it with the resident when she called.
On 4 August 2023, after the landlord’s stage 1 response, the resident emailed, and asked to be compensated for damaged carpets, blinds, wallpaper and paint. She provided quotes and photos of the items. She also told the landlord she had paid £260 to remove the carpets and wallpaper and would send it the invoice. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response had asked the resident to send in a quote for either the cleaning or replacement of the damaged carpet, not the other items. The landlord did not contact the resident until 8 September 2023 about this email. The landlord should have responded in a timely manner and clearly set out what compensation it would consider and explain why, detailing its compensation policy if necessary. The landlord acted unreasonably. By not responding to the resident, and leaving the situation unresolved, it contributed to the resident taking time and trouble to find out what was happening and may have resulted in distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Upon acknowledging its failures, the landlord offered the following remedies:
1. On 17 November 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It had looked at the photos of the damaged window coverings and acknowledged that the mould treatment damaged the wallpaper and paint. It offered a compensation payment of £275 in total (a goodwill payment of £200 plus £75 decoration vouchers).
2. £100 for poor communication (for 2 complaints).
3. £100 Inconvenience caused (for 2 complaints).
4. It outlined the changes to the DMC process and that the landlord continually monitored how it does things to make sure resident’s needs are firmly at the heart of it.
5. It arranged to pass the case to a specialist DMC team to conduct a survey.
In the Ombudsman’s assessment this does not represent a fair and proportionate financial remedy. It acknowledged the damaged items, but it should have provided information about insurance claims as it did for the carpet. It did not adequately compensate the resident for the landlord’s delays and poor communication that caused the resident time and trouble and distress and inconvenience. Furthermore, it is not known if the DMC survey was completed. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance a payment of £600 would have been proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property. The report was not well handled from the beginning and the record keeping was poor. The case was not treated in line with the landlord’s DMC policy or process. The communication was poor, delayed and confused at times, resulting in a dissatisfactory repair journey for the customer. Orders in recognition of this are made below.

Associated complaint handling

Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord’s complaint process lacked customer focus, was disjointed and took too long. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident.
The resident complained to the landlord on 7 June 2023 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 9 June 2023. The landlord’s complaints, compliments and comments policy at the time stated acknowledged complaints within 2 working days. In doing so the landlord acted appropriately.
On 23 June 2023, 10 working days after the landlord’s acknowledgement, the landlord sent an extension letter to the resident. It’s policy at the time allowed for extensions. If the response was going to be delayed it would notify the resident of the amended timeframe. If the response was going to be delayed beyond 20 working days, this should be agreed with the resident. This was in keeping with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code of the time (the Code). The landlord acted appropriately by providing the resident with a letter explaining the extension. The landlord’s stage 1 response was completed on 7 July 2023, 20 working days after the landlord’s acknowledgement.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not fully adhere to paragraph 5.8 of the Code, which detailed everything that should be included in the response. The following were not evident:
1. The response did not clearly mention, until the end of the letter, that it was the stage 1 response. This should be clear and ideally at the top of the response.
2. The remedies offered were not SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time-bound). The landlord offered a rent refund, but it did not specify the percentage it would give, how this would be paid or by when. The repair was specific and relevant, but a timeframe was not provided. Adding these additional points may have helped the resident feel that the landlord was customer focused and intent on resolving her complaint.
The response was however sincerely apologetic, and the landlord openly acknowledged its failings. Paragraph 6.1 of the Code explains that landlords must acknowledge when something has gone wrong and set out how it will put things right. The landlord acted appropriately.
On 14 July 2023 the resident called the landlord and asked to speak to someone to discuss the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. The evidence the Ombudsman has seen, as requested for this investigation, does not provide any evidence that the landlord returned the call. The resident emailed the landlord on 4 August 2023 and specifically said she was unhappy with the stage 1 response. The landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process until 26 September 2023, 36 working days after the resident expressed her dissatisfaction. The landlord missed opportunities to communicate effectively with the resident and resolve the complaint. The landlord acted unreasonably.
From July to September 2023 the resident chased the landlord to find out if it was going to pay her for the replacement carpet, blinds, wallpaper and paint. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response asked the resident to provide quotes for it to consider, she had subsequently provided them and wanted the outcome. It may not have been clear to either party whether a stage 2 investigation was necessary or wanted by the resident. The landlord should have communicated effectively with the resident to understand whether she was requesting an escalation. The landlord acted unreasonably by not maintaining effective communication with the resident, throughout the complaint journey. It resulted in a prolonged disjointed internal complaint process for the resident. This may have contributed to the resident’s increased frustration with the landlord.
The resident expected the landlord’s stage 2 response by 24 October 2023 and chased the landlord on 1 November 2023 when she did not receive it. The landlord apologised and sent the stage 2 complaint response on 17 November 2023, 38 working days after it acknowledged the escalation. The resident told the landlord she did not receive any request for an extension from the landlord and the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of one. Both the landlord’s complaint policy and paragraph 4.10 of the Code are clear on keeping the lines of communication open with residents and regularly updating them on the progress of their complaint, including agreement on extensions over 10 working days. In not doing so the landlord acted inappropriately. It was not customer focused and demonstrated a lack of ownership from the landlord. The resident went to considerable time and trouble to chase and progress the complaint.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response acknowledged the complaint handling failings including the delay to the responses and the poor communication. It offered £250 compensation. The landlord set out what actions it had taken to improve its communication to residents throughout a complaint. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance this was a fair and proportionate financial remedy for the landlord’s complaint handling failings.
In summary, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. It recognised its failings and offered proportionate remedies to put them right. This redress, in the Ombudsman opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak in the shower cubicle.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. It must include an explanation as to why the shower unit was not replaced. This must be a written apology, and a copy of this letter should be sent to the Ombudsman.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £225 for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience incurred because of the landlord’s failures in relation to the damp and mould in the property.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks, if the landlord has not already paid the resident compensation offered at stage 1 and 2 of this complaint, it should pay the resident £1739.49, made up of:
1. £514.49 “rent refund”.
2. £500 goodwill gesture towards the carpet.
3. £100 poor communication.
4. £100 inconvenience caused.
5. £200 goodwill gesture towards the damaged wallpaper and belongings.
6. £75 decoration voucher.
7. £250 complaint handling.
The landlord to provide the resident with a written explanation as to why it applied a 20% reduction in the rent to its offer, instead of 30%, as per its policy at the time.