Stonewater Limited (202426493)

Decision
Case ID	202426493
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Stonewater Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	14 October 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat with her son. She has mental health challenges which the landlord is aware of. She complained that the landlord took too long to repair a broken plug socket in her hallway.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to a plug socket.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of repairs to a plug socket.
4. There was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord failed to complete the repair within a reasonable timescale, apologise or offer any redress.
6. It failed to recognise its complaint handling failures during its 2-stage complaint process.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident the £275 it offered made up as follows: £100 for the delay in acknowledging the complaint. £50 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused. £25 for the failure to follow its policy and process. £50 for having to chase for a response.   £50 for the unsatisfactory handling of the complaint.   The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	11 November 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
17 June 2024	The resident reported to the landlord that her hallway socket was broken. She explained she had initially reported this when she moved into the property, but had forgot about it due to a unit placed in front. She was concerned it posed a health and safety risk to her son.
10 July to 12 July 2024	After receiving no response, the resident chased the landlord, stating there were exposed wires and repeated her health and safety concerns. It raised a complaint on its system, saying this was requested on 17 June 2024.
2 August 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It apologised for the delay but stated the repair was complete.
04 September 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint, stating it had failed to consider her emails and the stress the situation had caused.
7 October 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident. It confirmed it had offered 5 appointments in July 2024 but closed the repair job as she had not rescheduled. It acknowledged her health and safety concerns, stating the risk to her son was minor. It said the repair was scheduled for 23 September 2024.
15 May 2025	After the resident brought her complaint to us, the landlord reviewed the resident’s complaint and sent a further response. It acknowledged delays in dealing with both the repair and the complaint and offered £275 compensation comprising: • £100 for the delay in acknowledging the complaint. • £50 for inconvenience, time and trouble caused. • £25 for failure to follow its policy and process. • £50 for having to chase for a response. • £50 for unsatisfactory handling of the complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate, stating the repair remained outstanding. She was unhappy with the delay, concerned about her child’s safety and said this was causing stress and anxiety. She wanted additional compensation.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Repairs to a plug socket
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

7. The resident told us that the situation had caused her stress and anxiety. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of an injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

8. The landlord provided limited evidence in relation to this case which has affected our ability to accurately assess the timeline of events. Our investigation has relied on the available evidence.
9. We have seen no evidence to show that the resident reported the broken plug socket to the landlord prior to 17 June 2024. She said she was concerned about the safety risk to her son, but it took no action until she chased it on 10 July 2024.
10. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to “things that supply electricity including electric wiring.” The landlord’s repair policy explains how it categorises and responds to repairs. It aims to attend within 24 hours if there is a safety risk and completes non-urgent repairs within 28 days. It was appropriate for the landlord to treat the repair as urgent, given the report of exposed electrical wires.
11. The evidence shows that the landlord offered 5 repair appointments in July 2024, however, these were delayed by the resident. The evidence shows that the landlord tried to accommodate her work commitments, but it does not appear to have notified her that it closed the repair job as she had not rescheduled it. Good practice would have been to contact her before doing so.
12. The landlord’s stage 1 response incorrectly stated the repair was complete, causing further delays.
13. On 13 August 2024 the landlord offered another emergency appointment in line with its policy, but the resident declined. The landlord made 3 further attempts to complete the repair in September 2024. It is unclear how the appointments were communicated, however the tenancy agreement requires the resident to allow access for repairs. The landlord has since taken a positive step to introduce a new “accessing your property” policy to guide future access arrangements.
14. In its stage 2 response to the resident, the landlord apologised that she remained dissatisfied and explained the low risk health and safety implications of the broken socket. While this was positive, it inaccurately stated a repair had been scheduled for a date which has already passed. Its error likely influenced its decision not to offer a remedy or compensation at this stage. While the landlord made efforts to complete the repair there were delays caused by both parties.
15. Following the landlord’s final response, the evidence shows that the resident had to chase for a further 6 months before it completed the repair on 3 April 2025, over 9 months after it was first reported.
16. After the resident brought the complaint to us, the landlord reviewed its responses. It apologised for its shortcomings and offered compensation of £125 in line with its policy. While it should have taken this action during its complaint process, its remedy was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance. We have not, therefore, ordered any additional compensation.
17. Although these actions can be said to have put things right for the resident, the landlord failed to resolve the substantive issue of her complaint until months after it had issued its final response. It also did not fully acknowledge its failings or make the offer of compensation until the case had been accepted by us for investigation. Our outcomes guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot be determined under such circumstances.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

18. The landlord took 34 working days to issue a stage 1 complaint response and 23 working days for the stage 2 complaint response, both exceeding the timescales set out in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
19. The complaint responses included irrelevant details about a separate repair reported by a previous resident. Landlords must ensure accuracy in complaint responses, as such the information was confusing and unclear. It also failed to recognise its delays or offer any redress.
20. Following the landlord’s final response, it reviewed the resident’s complaint and acknowledged its failure to meet the 10 and 20 working day response times. It apologised and offered £100 for the delay in acknowledging the complaint and £50 for its unsatisfactory handling. While this was in line with our remedies guidance, it should have recognised the inconvenience caused during its 2-stage complaint process, rather than 7 months later.

Learning

21. The landlord demonstrated learning from the complaint, including the need to improve processes to ensure it raises and acknowledges complaints promptly.