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

Stonewater Limited (202449386)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202449386

Mount Green Housing Association Limited

11 August 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 the resident’s reports of repairs.

Background

  1. The resident’s assured tenancy began in 2017. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat, where she lives with her children.
  2. The resident’s property was flooded during a repair carried out by the landlord in July 2024. The impact of the flood included her hallway and kitchen flooring. The landlord replaced the flooring in her recently renewed kitchen. It began separate bathroom repairs in September 2024.
  3. The resident complained, on 2 October 2024, that her newly tiled bathroom wall was sloping and that damp may get behind the tiles. She said she had been left without shower facilities for 5 days during the works and that her mobility issues prevented her from using the bath.
  4. Following an inspection of the resident’s bathroom, kitchen, and hallway, the landlord’s stage 1 response, on 23 October 2024, said that there was no issue with the angle of the bathroom wall. It apologised for the time that she had been unable to use the shower, and for the overall “stress and inconvenience”. It described its learning to handle future repairs more efficiently. It offered £150 compensation.
  5. On 9 January 2025 the resident said that she had not heard from the landlord about her bathroom tiling, the repair of her bathroom extractor fan, or the replacement of her bathroom, kitchen, and hallway flooring (she later said that this had all been discussed at its inspection). She referred to the cost of running a dehumidifier. The landlord escalated her complaint on 20 January 2025. She reported that her kitchen extractor fan had also stopped working on 11 February 2025.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 response, on 18 February 2025, explained that its 4 October 2024 inspection had found that her hallway floor only needed to be left to dry. It apologised for other repair delays, offered to reimburse the resident for her dehumidifier costs, and promised a repair for the extractor fan. It offered £125 compensation.
  7. From the end of February 2025, the resident reported further significant bathroom issues, which the landlord inspected. In April 2025 it told her that it would renew the bathroom.
  8. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate the matters above. She provided videos and photographs after the flood, the subsequent condition of her property, and of the “tiny dehumidifier they provided”. She said that it had “cost a fortune” to run, which she wanted reimbursed. She highlighted the impact of her property’s previous condition on her and her family’s health. She said that she wanted the “sewage clean I was promised over a year ago”.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referred to the health impact of the matters related to her complaint. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. 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 may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. As this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts. It will not be considered in this report.
  2. The resident’s ‘sewage clean’ was not referred to in either her complaint or the landlord’s responses. The landlord’s decision to renew her bathroom, and its associated works, was taken several weeks after the conclusion of her complaint. Because of that, these matters have not been considered in this investigation.
  3. If the resident has concerns about the issues that occurred after the conclusion of her complaint, her bathroom renewal, or about her sewage clean, she could consider making a new complaint to the landlord. She could then return to the Ombudsman and ask us to consider her new complaint.

The landlord’s handling of damp, mould, and repairs

  1. In its responses to the resident’s complaint the landlord explained that her kitchen and bathroom, including the new tiles, were in satisfactory condition and did not warrant renewal. It apologised for any earlier miscommunication about this. It said that its 4 October 2024 inspection had found that of the issues in her complaint only the hallway floor and bathroom extractor fan remained. The floor needed to be left to dry, and the extractor had been scheduled for 25 February 2025.
  2. The landlord apologised for the delays. It said it had no record of providing her a dehumidifier but that it would assess her costs if she provided further details. It offered total compensation of £275 and explained how it had calculated the amount.
  3. Further bathroom issues were identified after the conclusion of the resident’s complaint. Nonetheless, up to that point, the evidence supports the landlord’s explanations and decisions, showing that its works, including the tiling, had been inspected and found to be sufficient and that, other than her extractor fan, no other repairs were intended.
  4. The landlord explained it had no record of providing the resident a dehumidifier, but committed to consider her running costs if she provided further information. That was reasonable, as evidence of her increased electricity usage would allow both the resident and landlord to be confident any amount it reimbursed was fair. No evidence has been seen showing she responded to the landlord’s information request. Its £275 total compensation was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for the failings the landlord had identified up to that time.
  5. However, part of the resident’s complaint concerned the landlord’s handling of her bathroom extractor fan. Further to that, the resident reported problems with her kitchen fan as well. She made that report after escalating her complaint. The landlord’s complaint responses referred to the bathroom extractor, which it said it would repair on 25 February 2025.
  6. The evidence shows that only the kitchen extractor was repaired on 25 February 2025. It further shows that her bathroom extractor repair, which she had chased throughout her complaint, was not completed until 15 April 2025. Accordingly, there was a further delay resolving the bathroom fan following the landlord’s final complaint response.
  7. Overall, the landlord accepted its service failings, and the disruption and distress caused to the resident. Its remedies, including its compensation, would have represented reasonable redress. However, it has failed to demonstrate that it followed through with its bathroom extractor repair remedy in a timely manner, nor informed the resident of any delay. Her complaint was therefore unresolved.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must pay the resident £100 compensation in relation to the delay in completing its complaint remedy.
  2. This is in addition to the £150 and £125 it offered during the complaint (it must pay the resident any part of those awards that it has not already done so).
  3. The landlord must provide us with evidence of its compliance within 4 weeks.