Stockport Homes Limited (202421475)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421475

Stockport Homes Limited

24 September 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 a leak, and his request for compensation.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat on the 6th floor of a high rise block. The resident has bipolar disorder and anxiety which the landlord is aware of. He has informed us that he has arthritis which impacts his mobility.
3. The resident reported a leak from above on 18 April 2024. The landlord raised work orders and attended on the same day. It communicated with the neighbour regarding the leak from their property and turned the water supply off until the issue was resolved. It also attended and made safe the resident’s electrics by turning the power off. Its records show that it provided a dehumidifier and arranged a wet vac appointment on the same day.
4. The resident raised a complaint on the day. He said the leak impacted his mental health condition, that his neighbour had caused a leak multiple times and he wanted it to move him from the property overnight. He was concerned that the damp and mould was unbearable the previous time he experienced a leak and about the impact on his physical health. He noted that he had experienced anti-social behaviour from the neighbour above so could not approach them. He wanted it to pay compensation, replace his toaster, microwave and any other items that broke due to the leak, and complete the repairs to his property.
5. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 April 2024 and noted that, following a call, the resident was also unhappy with the lack of advice given by his housing officer. On the same day, it offered the resident a food bank voucher which he declined.
6. In its stage 1 complaint response on 2 May 2024, the landlord said:
   1. It recognised that the situation was stressful, especially in view of his mental health condition. It recognised that having a number of operatives and people at the property felt intrusive, but that this was to ensure he and the property were safe.
   2. It recognised that the resident felt the advice given by his housing officer was not helpful. They had told him to contact its feedback team about temporary accommodation for the night, who then told him that the housing officer should investigate and arrange this. It apologised for any miscommunication and assured him it had spoken to the housing officer, who was aware of its process.
   3. It offered him a hotel for the night, but he refused as he said he had a hospital appointment. When it attended the following day, he said he refused because he had a dog. It then provided a £180 decoration voucher, and a dehumidifier to replace the temporary one it had already provided.
   4. He told it that the food in his fridge and freezer was ruined because the electrician only turned the electrics in the property back on the following day. It found that when an electrician attended on 18 April 2024, he said he needed to leave the property for an appointment, so they left after turning the electrics off to make sure these were safe. It had told him he could call the emergency repair line when he was back so it could ask an electrician to come back to turn the electrics on. It also offered a food basket but he declined as it was dried food, not fresh or frozen food.
   5. He told it that his toaster and microwave were damaged so it sourced replacements for £15 and delivered these so he would not have to pay a delivery fee
   6. It did not uphold the complaint. It appreciated that the housing officer should not have told him to contact the feedback team for temporary accommodation but it had offered him a hotel on the same day nevertheless. It recognised he did not have contents insurance to cover the cost of damage caused by a leak. It did not find any service failure in its handling of the leak and would not offer compensation for damaged goods. It provided contact details for its team that could support him in finding replacement items.
7. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 15 May 2024. He maintained that the leak severely damaged his flat but the landlord had not completed repairs. He said he lost food in his fridge and freezer because an electrician had told him not to turn the electrics back on for 24 hours. He added that he needed to get rid of damaged electrical goods and carpet due to the flood and did not feel the landlord had supported him. He felt the property was unfit to live in as he was unable to prepare or cook food. He wanted it to inspect the damage, order repairs, and compensate him for damaged kitchen equipment, food, and possessions.
8. On the same day, the landlord’s records show that it inspected the property and found that there was no plastering work needed. It noted that the walls were still slightly wet and that the resident should call in if he discovered mould.
9. In its stage 2 complaint response on 12 June 2024, the landlord said:
   1. It had thoroughly investigated the complaint at stage 1 and maintained that it did not uphold the complaint. It found that its response to his reports was timely and appropriate. The leak was caused by a faulty appliance in the flat above and it did not find any service failure in its handling of the issue. It did not believe it was liable for the damage to his belongings and décor and recommended that tenants had contents insurance for these situations.
   2. In relation to the electrics and his damaged food, it was not reasonable for it to leave the power on without having the chance to confirm that it was safe. It noted that the resident did not call until the next day, when it attended and reinstated the power. It recognised that the hospital appointment was important, but the power was left off until the resident called to ask the electrician to re-attend and it was not responsible for the length of time the power was off.
   3. It acknowledged miscommunication around the possibility of temporary accommodation. It felt its apology was proportionate as it had offered a hotel which he declined. It believed it had been supportive by agreeing to arrange a wet vac, providing a decoration voucher, providing a dehumidifier and replacing small appliances at a subsidised price. It said these steps were beyond its obligations and it did not find any failing.
   4. It noted his concerns about the property being unfit to live in due to a lack of facilities to prepare and cook food. It reinstated the power on 19 April 2024 and the resident had cooking facilities. It was not responsible for damaged appliances but sought to replace his toaster and microwave at a low cost.
   5. In terms of replastering, this fell within its repair responsibilities and it said it would assess the property to determine if it needed to complete repairs. It said it would arrange this in the coming days and explained that it generally needed to allow time for the plaster to dry out before redecoration. It did not have an obligation to redecorate but provided the £180 decoration voucher.
10. The landlord arranged an inspection for 25 July 2024 with the resident. It then raised work on 30 July 2024 to mould wash the lounge wall which it reported completing on 7 August 2024.
11. The resident referred his complaint to us for investigation in September 2024 because he wanted the landlord to address the damp walls and wet carpets as a result of the leak. He said there were multiple further leaks which had ruined the property and his belongings. He said the situation had impacted his physical and mental health. He wanted the landlord to decorate the property and pay for damaged items that he needed to dispose of and replace.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

12. The resident has referenced how the situation impacted his mental health. It is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
13. In his communication with us, the resident referenced multiple other leaks, damp and mould, and electrical problems that did not form part of his complaint. He noted that he had raised further complaints directly with the landlord. These do not form part of this investigation. He may want to refer these to us for separate investigation if he has more recently received a final complaint response about those matters. Our role is to assess how the landlord responded to his report of a leak on 18 April 2024, and whether its responses to the complaint were reasonable and in line with its policies and procedures.

Policies and procedures

14. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs to fixtures and fittings for the supply of water, including pipework. It is not responsible for repairs to other fixtures and fittings, such as washing machines. Residents are responsible decorating the inside of the property. The landlord’s repair policy says that it will make safe emergency repairs within 24 hours and complete routine repairs within 30 working days.
15. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it may pay compensation where there has been a service failure or action by it that put the resident at a disadvantage. It may consider loss, damage, or inconvenience, but this is not a replacement for residents taking out home contents insurance.
16. It would not pay compensation for issues that were beyond its control, or where matters should be considered through a home contents insurance policy. It may cover redecoration costs where these are not covered by a policy. If a customer does not have insurance, it would help them find replacement furniture through a scheme.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, and his request for compensation

17. Overall, we have found the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak affecting his property to be prompt, reasonable and consistent with its repairs policy. Once it was made aware of the leak around 11am on 18 April 2024, it took appropriate steps to contact the neighbour above. When it could not reach them, it raised work orders to trace the leak and turn off the water supply if it was not able to access the property. It also raised work orders to make safe the resident’s electrics and ceiling if needed.
18. We note that the neighbour initially resolved the leak around 11:45am when they reported that the leak was from their washing machine which they turned off. However, it then started up again later in the day and the landlord was aware that the leak was impacting other properties below the resident. It attempted to contact the neighbour, who was not at home, and then turned off the water supply when it was not able to get through. This was appropriate to stop the leak. Its repair records show that it reinstated the water supply around 6:30pm. While it had difficulty gaining access to the property above, the landlord resolved the leak on the same day in line with its repairs policy.
19. It was reasonable for the landlord to turn off the resident’s power supply for safety reasons due to the leak. Within its responses, the landlord explained that the resident told it he needed to leave for an appointment, and that it had advised him to call in to arrange an electrician to reinstate these when he was back. The landlord would not be able to reinstate the power without first confirming it was safe to do so. We cannot confirm exactly what it said during the first appointment. However, the resident has not disputed this advice. Once the resident called the following day, it raised a work order and reinstated the supply within around 3 hours, which was a reasonable timeframe. We have not seen evidence to support his claim that it left him without cooking facilities for an unreasonable period following the leak.
20. The resident has shared that the wet vac appointment did not take place on 18 April 2024 as operatives had turned his electrics off due to the leak, and they could not plug the wet vac in. The landlord’s records show that it received a report that operatives completed the wet vac appointment on 18 April 2024. We accept that the operatives may not have been able to use the wet vac because it did not reinstate the electrics until 19 April 2024. However, we have not seen any evidence to show that the resident raised this issue with the landlord as part of his complaint, escalation, or in any other communication at the time.
21. We rely on documentary evidence to determine what happened. The landlord was under the impression that the appointment went ahead and there is no other evidence to show that the resident told it that this was not the case. As such, it is understandable that it did not take steps to rectify this at the time. We do not consider this to be a failing by the landlord.
22. The resident asked the landlord to move him temporarily from the property on 18 April 2024 due to the leak and concerns about his safety. The landlord has not disputed that there was some miscommunication, and the housing officer told him to request this from its feedback team, which was incorrect. It acted reasonably within its responses by apologising. The landlord said that it offered the resident a hotel overnight which he refused initially due to having a hospital appointment and then admitted to declining because he had a dog in the property. The resident did not dispute this record of events at the time of the complaint. Overall, the impact of the communication error was minimal, as the landlord had offered temporary accommodation on the same day. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
23. We have not seen that the landlord identified any major repairs needed to the plastering or ceiling at the time of the leak or immediately after on 18 and 19 April 2024. It acted reasonably by providing a dehumidifier initially, and then gifting the resident a dehumidifier on 26 April 2024.
24. The landlord followed up reasonably by inspecting the property on 16 May 2024 to assess whether there was any damage caused by the leak once the property had time to dry out. It found that there were no issues related to the plastering, but the walls were still slightly damp. The landlord told the resident he should make it aware if he experienced any mould, which was a reasonable approach.
25. The landlord acted fairly in response to the complaint at stage 2 by committing to arrange another inspection (which it did on 25 July 2024) within its routine repair timescales following the complaint. The resident has referenced further leaks and surveyor inspections, noting that the landlord has not completed damp proofing as recommended. We have included a recommendation below for the landlord to contact the resident and arrange an inspection to determine if there are any further repairs to complete.
26. Within his complaint, the resident asked the landlord to calculate and compensate him for damaged items, including his toaster, microwave, carpets and other unknown items. The resident is responsible for having suitable contents insurance in case of damage and the landlord would not be expected to compensate residents for damage to their belongings through its complaints process. It is beyond our remit to determine liability for damaged items or order the landlord to pay compensation for this as these matters are best suited to an insurance claim.
27. The resident has raised concern that he arranged contents insurance through a scheme the landlord offered, but has since been told that it could not insure the property as it is “leak-prone”. We have not seen evidence to confirm this. We recommend that the landlord contacts him about this concern and considers what support it may be able to offer in helping him to insure his belongings.
28. While the situation was clearly distressing for the resident, there is no evidence to show that the landlord caused the leak, or failed to act in response to his reports. Nonetheless, it acted reasonably in recognising the impact the leak had on the resident by providing a replacement toaster and microwave at a reduced cost. The resident has raised concern that these were second hand, and the microwave had mould in it. While we appreciate the resident’s concern, he was within his right to refuse the replacements at the time and did not need to accept these. It was resolution focused, and in line with its policy, for the landlord to offer replacements despite the lack of failings in how it dealt with the leak itself.
29. The landlord also acted reasonably by offering a £180 decoration voucher. It was not obliged to provide this as the resident is responsible for internal decorations. However, it was resolution focused for it to use its discretion to do so in line with its compensation policy.
30. While it is evident that the situation was distressing for the resident, we have not found any failings by the landlord in its handling of the leak. It acted reasonably by ensuring the leak was resolved within 24 hours as per its repairs policy. It was not responsible for repairing the neighbour’s washing machine and there is no evidence to show that there were any unreasonable delays.
31. The landlord’s position that it was not liable for the damage caused by the leak was appropriate in the circumstances. It nonetheless acted reasonably by recognising the impact the leak had by offering the resident a £180 decoration voucher, offering a food voucher, and providing a replacement toaster and microwave at a reduced cost to the resident.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, and his request for compensation.

Recommendations

33. We recommend that:
    1. The landlord contacts the resident to gain an up to date understanding of any medical conditions and support needs. It should discuss any reasonable adjustments needed and record these on its system where relevant.
    2. The landlord contacts the resident and arranges an inspection of the property to assess whether there are any ongoing repair issues, and arranges any work as needed.
    3. The landlord contacts the resident to discuss his concerns about not being able to insure his contents via its insurance scheme, and considers what support it may be able to offer in helping him to insure his belongings.
34. The landlord should confirm its intentions within 4 weeks.