Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Stonewater Limited (202435196)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202435196

Stonewater Limited

30 June 2025

 

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 handling of:
    1. Repairs to a blocked toilet and drain.
    2. Concerns about damage to the resident’s car and an increased insurance premium.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property as an assured tenant since April 2023. The property is a 1-bedroom flat.
  2. The resident first reported a blocked toilet on 14 August 2023. He made further reports between August 2023 and January 2024. On 15 January 2024, the resident complained about regular blockages. He also complained about the effect it was having on his health. In its complaint response on 2 February 2024 the landlord apologised for distress caused and the way it had dealt with his reports. It offered £225 compensation for its failures.
  3. The resident reported more blockages between March and November 2024. On 18 November 2024, he complained there had been regular blockages for over a year. He said the last time he had to pay a plumber to get it fixed. He wanted the landlord to fix the drains.
  4. In its complaint response on 27 December 2024 the landlord apologised for the delay in responding and inconvenience caused by the blockages. It said despite many attempts it had not resolved the problem. It said it cleared the drains on 25 November 2024 but had arranged to assess whether it needed to do more work. It said there had been times when its contractor had caused delays. It offered £300 compensation for the failures.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 7 January 2025. He said because he had to pay a plumber to unblock his toilet he could not afford to pay his car insurance. He also said his car had been damaged in the car park. He was upset with how the landlord had dealt with him and said the issue had affected his mental health. He said the landlord had not fixed the drains.
  6. On 6 February 2025 a CCTV inspection of the drains took place. This found tree roots and wet wipes had caused a blockage in a shared drain.
  7. In its final response on 10 March 2025 the landlord said its communication with the resident could have been better. It apologised for frustration caused. It said it would write to residents about flushing wet wipes. It said it would meet with the council as the tree was their responsibility, and it would update the resident within 2 weeks. It said its insurance team contacted the resident about his car on 31 January 2025. It offered compensation of £275 for its failures.
  8. The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said he wanted the Ombudsman to investigate the landlord’s handling of repairs and how it had dealt with his complaint. In June 2025, the resident told the Ombudsman that the situation had not changed since the landlord sent its final response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The Ombudsman has seen the resident complained on 15 January 2024 and the landlord sent a stage 1 response on 2 February 2024. We have seen no evidence that the resident escalated this complaint. If he did not, then the issue did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints process, and we cannot consider the events this complaint covered. Instead, we will focus on the complaint that exhausted the complaints process on 10 March 2025. This means we will consider events after 2 February 2024 until 10 March 2025 but may refer to events before this time for context only.
  2. In his complaint, the resident said the blocked toilet affected his health. He also complained about damage to his car and an increased insurance premium. The Ombudsman cannot consider these parts of the complaint. This is because the Scheme says we will not investigate complaints that concern matters where it is more effective to seek a remedy through the courts or other process. While the Ombudsman is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to prove legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions had a detrimental effect on health, insurance premiums or whether it was responsible for damages. Because of this, we are unable to consider any personal injury or financial loss aspects of the complaint. However, we will consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a blocked toilet and drain

  1. The landlord is responsible under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) for keeping in repair and proper working order the installations for sanitation. This means the landlord has an obligation to repair drains that are its responsibility. The occupancy agreement confirms the landlord will keep drains, toilets, and flushing systems in reasonable repair and working order.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it will do emergency repairs within a maximum of 24 hours and non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
  3. On 15 March 2024 the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property in response to a report of a blocked toilet. It found the shared drain blocked and cleared it. The Ombudsman has not seen when the resident made the report, but the landlord appears to have responded as an emergency.
  4. Following a report of a blocked toilet on 13 April 2024, the landlord attended the same day and arranged for a contractor to attend on 15 April 2024 to jet wash the drains. The resident reported a further blockage on 7 May 2024. He said it was a regular problem. A contractor cleared the drains on 9 May 2024.
  5. Records provided by the landlord show the next report of a blocked toilet was on 28 August 2024. A contractor attended on 2 September 2024. It told the landlord it used mechanical equipment to clear wet wipes. It said the drain was now clear but would block again if residents put wet wipes down their toilets.
  6. The Ombudsman has found that between 15 March and 2 September 2024 the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports in a reasonable time. This is because it arranged for a contractor to attend the same day or within 2 days after each report of a blocked toilet.
  7. However, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord did not investigate the cause of the problem. The Ombudsman has seen that on 12 December 2023, a contractor recommended a CCTV survey of the drains. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence the landlord did this at that time, or after the reports between March and September 2024. When there are repeated reports of a blocked toilet, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to do proportionate investigations, such as use CCTV to inspect the drains. In this case, there was a failure by the landlord to investigate, which caused inconvenience to the resident.
  8. In addition, on the 2 September 2024, the contractor told the landlord the drain would block again if residents continued to put wet wipes down their toilets. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence the landlord followed this up by writing to residents at that time. This was a further failure by the landlord.
  9. On Friday 15 November 2024 the resident reported another toilet blockage. On Saturday 16 November 2024 he contacted the landlord. He said no one had been to clear the blockage and he wanted a manager to call him back that day. The landlord’s records say it told the resident it was unlikely a manager would call before Monday due to its opening hours. The resident told the landlord he would arrange his own plumber to unblock his toilet. The landlord’s record say it advised the resident not to do this.
  10. The resident complained on 18 November 2024 about how the landlord had dealt with the blocked toilet. He said there had been regular blockages for over a year and this time he had to pay for his own plumber.
  11. Records show the resident chased the landlord for a manager callback on 20 and 21 November 2024. He told the landlord about the effect the blocked toilet was having on his mental health. He said he had spent £400 to get the toilet unblocked, which meant he could not afford his car insurance renewal. He said he had to clean up raw sewage and he did not have a toilet he could use, which was affecting his physical health.
  12. The landlord’s records show a contractor attended on 22 November 2024 and found wet wipes blocking the drain. The contractor cleared the drain. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 27 November 2024.
  13. After the resident’s report on 15 November 2024, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence the landlord attended the resident’s property until 22 November 2024. Because of this, the Ombudsman has found the landlord did not follow its repairs policy as it should have attended as an emergency. During this time, the resident made calls to the landlord to chase the repair. He explained the effect the lack of a working toilet was having on his mental and physical wellbeing. In his desperation at the situation, he arranged his own plumber, which caused him inconvenience and expense.
  14. The Ombudsman has also seen no evidence the landlord responded to the request for a call from a manager. While it was reasonable for the landlord to explain a call was unlikely over the weekend, it should have contacted him after the weekend. The landlord has provided no evidence it communicated with the resident until it acknowledged his complaint on 27 November 2024. The lack of communication was a further failure by the landlord.
  15. In its complaint response on 27 December 2024 the landlord said it was sorry for the inconvenience caused and the negative effect the blocked toilet had on the resident. It acknowledged that despite “multiple attempts” it had not fixed the problem, which it said was caused by drains outside the property. It said it had cleared the drains after the last report, but a surveyor would look at whether it needed to do more work. It apologised that an “oversight” by the contractor had led to the delay with the appointment and said it would put measures in place to prevent a reoccurrence. It offered £75 compensation for the service failure and £150 for inconvenience caused.
  16. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord previously apologised and offered compensation for service failures in its complaint response on 2 February 2024. The resident did not escalate that complaint. Because of this the Ombudsman can only consider whether the response on 27 December 2024 was reasonable in relation to the landlord’s actions between February and December 2024.
  17. It is the Ombudsman’s view that it was reasonable for the landlord to apologise and acknowledge it had failed to resolve the problem. It was also reasonable to say a surveyor would look at whether it needed to do more work. Records provided by the landlord appear to show that between March and December 2024, the landlord attended in line with its policy, except in November 2024. The landlord acknowledged this failure in its complaint response, offered reasonable compensation for the failure, and said it would put measures in place to prevent a reoccurrence. However, the landlord did not acknowledge the communication failure in November 2024. It also did not explain why it had not found the cause of the blockages despite its “multiple attempts”.
  18. The resident escalated his complaint on 7 January 2025. He said he was unhappy with the compensation and the landlord had not fixed the problem. He said because of the landlord’s delay in November 2024 he had to pay for a plumber and because of this he could not afford to pay his car insurance. He said this meant he could not use his car and had missed hospital appointments as a result. He also said there had been weeks when he was unable to use his toilet properly, and this caused him to have infections and go to hospital.
  19. An internal email on 15 January 2025 highlighted the effect the blocked drain was having on the resident. It said the resident had been living in a flat that had no working toilet since November 2023 and had been using public toilets. It said it felt a temporary move was necessary as the property was not habitable. The email also said the resident had a digestive condition and had been in hospital for this. It said it needed to do an urgent inspection.
  20. Records provided by the landlord show it visited the property on 16 and 22 January 2025. Following this it said a temporary move was not necessary and the toilet was working. It said the main concern was the external drainage.
  21. On 31 January 2025 the landlord contacted the resident with an update on his complaint. It said following concerns about the resident’s wellbeing, it had visited the property and found the toilet working. It said if he needed any reasonable adjustments due to his housing conditions, he should let it know. It said it had raised an order to do a CCTV survey of the drains.
  22. The Ombudsman has seen that when the landlord visited in January 2025, it found the toilet was working and said there was no need to move the resident out of the property. The Ombudsman is not able to decide whether the property was habitable but has noted the concerns raised about the lack of a working toilet over a lengthy period. The Ombudsman has also seen that the landlord asked the resident on 31 January 2025 if he needed any adjustments. Although this was reasonable, the resident had regularly been living without a functioning toilet for some time. The resident had clearly explained the effect this was having on his health. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord should have asked the resident this much sooner.
  23. On 6 February 2025 a contractor used CCTV to survey the drains. It found small tree roots were causing wet wipes to snag and create blockages.
  24. It was reasonable of the landlord to arrange a CCTV survey. However, this took place 14 months after a contractor recommended a CCTV survey on 12 December 2023, and 6 weeks after the landlord sent its complaint response. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord should have taken this action following the recommendation in December 2023. Had the landlord done this sooner, it is reasonable to suggest that it would have found the cause of the blockage earlier and been able to address the problem. The failure to do this meant there continued to be blockages, which caused significant distress and inconvenience for the resident. The Ombudsman has found that the significant delay in arranging a CCTV survey was maladministration by the landlord.
  25. In its final response on 10 March 2025 the landlord said the CCTV survey had found tree roots were causing wet wipes to catch in the drain. It said it would write to residents about not flushing wet wipes down their toilets. It said the tree was the responsibility of the council and it would meet with them to discuss the possible removal of the tree. It said it would contact the resident within 2 weeks with an update. It offered £50 for the delay in meeting the commitment it made in its complaint response on 27 December 2024 to do a CCTV survey, £50 for the delay in resolving draining concerns, and £100 for inconvenience caused.
  26. The Ombudsman has considered the compensation relating to the blocked toilet and drain in the final response alongside the compensation offered at stage 1. This totalled £425 and was made up of:
    1. £75 for service failure up to the stage 1 response.
    2. £50 for the delay in doing a CCTV survey following the stage 1 response.
    3. £50 for delay in resolving drainage concerns.
    4. £250 for the inconvenience caused.
  27. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this was a reasonable level of compensation for the failures identified by the landlord. However, there was maladministration by the landlord in its failure to do a CCTV survey sooner. This caused the resident significant distress as he regularly did not have access to a toilet. Records show the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, which included a digestive condition. It was aware of the distress the lack of a working toilet caused him. The landlord did ask the resident whether he needed any adjustments but did not do this until January 2025. Because of this, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord must pay further compensation of £200 for the distress caused by the delay in resolving the blocked toilet.
  28. In June 2025 the landlord told the Ombudsman that it responded to a report of a new blockage on 16 April 2025. It said it had not had any further reports since then. It said it had contacted all residents to remind them of the importance of not flushing wet wipes. It said following further investigations, it had found the tree was on its property and so was its responsibility, not the council’s. It said it had completed work to remove the roots from the drains and would do any further work needed in the future.

The landlord’s handling of concerns about damage to the resident’s car and an insurance premium increase

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says its insurers will deal with personal injury and third-party liability claims.
  2. On 21 November 2024 the resident told the landlord he had paid a plumber to deal with the blocked toilet and because of this, he could not afford to pay his car insurance as it had increased recently.
  3. In his complaint escalation on 7 January 2025, the resident complained he had been unable to use his car due to a lack of insurance. He said due to a separate incident, his car had been damaged in the car park. He wanted the landlord to pay the expenses related to the car.
  4. On 31 January 2025 the landlord thanked the resident for sending details of his car insurance quote. It said it had passed his concerns to its insurance team as the issues he had raised were outside the scope of its complaints policy.
  5. Records provided by the landlord show the insurance team contacted the resident on 31 January 2025 and sent details on how to make a claim.
  6. The Ombudsman has found the landlord acted reasonably in response to the resident’s concerns about damage to his car and his car insurance. This is because the landlord correctly explained that its insurance team dealt with liability claims. When the resident sent details of his insurance to the landlord, it quickly passed this to the insurance team, who contacted the resident the same day. Because of this the Ombudsman has found there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of concerns about damage to the resident’s car and an insurance premium increase.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. It says in exceptional circumstances it may take longer but will tell the resident when it will respond. It says when a resident escalates their complaint, it will respond within 20 working days of acknowledging the complaint. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  2. The resident complained on 18 November 2024 about how the landlord had dealt with a blocked toilet. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 27 November 2024, which was 8 working days later and outside the timescale in its policy.
  3. On 11 December 2024 the landlord told the resident it needed longer to respond to his complaint. It said it would respond by 27 December 2024. The landlord sent its complaint response on 27 December 2024, which was 28 days after the resident complained. This was a failure to meet the timescales in its policy. In mitigation, the landlord told the resident it needed longer to respond. It also apologised for the delay and offered £75 compensation in its complaint response. However, it did not refer to the delay in acknowledging the complaint.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 7 January 2025. Records show the landlord acknowledged the escalation on 14 January 2025, which was 5 working days later and in line with its timeframes.
  5. On 11 February 2025 the landlord told the resident it was extending the response time by 20 days. It sent its final response on 10 March 2025. This was over 2 months after the resident complained. However, the landlord did provide the resident with an update on his complaint on 31 January 2025 and told him there was a delay to its response on 11 February 2025.
  6. In its final response on 10 March 2025 the landlord said it extended the complaint deadline because it was waiting for the outcome of the CCTV survey. It said the response date after it extended the response time was 11 March 2025, and the response had been issued in line with this timeframe. It also offered £75 for the delay in acknowledging the complaint and poor communication at stage 1.
  7. Overall, the Ombudsman has found that there were failures in the way the landlord dealt with the complaint. The landlord could have responded sooner at stage 2 if it had done the CCTV survey in a more reasonable time after it sent the stage 1 response. However, it acknowledged and apologised for the failures in its complaint responses. It also provided the resident with an update on his escalated complaint.
  8. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord offered a reasonable amount of compensation for the delays in responding. This is because the landlord kept the resident informed about the delays with his complaint and apologised for the failures. Because of this the Ombudsman has found there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration by the landlord on its handling of repairs to a blocked toilet and drain.
    2. No maladministration by the landlord on its handling of concerns about damage to the resident’s car and an insurance premium increase.
  2. In line with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord on its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must apologise to the resident for the failures found in this report.
  2. The landlord must pay the resident £625 compensation for the distress caused by the delay in resolving the blocked toilet and drain. This is inclusive of the £425 compensation previously offered. It must pay compensation directly to the resident and not offset it against any arrears.
  3. The landlord must review why it did not do a CCTV survey of the drain following the recommendation made in December 2023 and provide an explanation to the resident and Ombudsman.
  4. The landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord reoffers the £150 compensation offered in its complaint responses for complaint handling failures, if it has not already paid it to the resident.