Stonewater Limited (202436174)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202436174

Stonewater Limited

29 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). We consider 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 us 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 landlords handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She lives in a one-bedroom property. She suffers from a number of health conditions and has mobility issues, which the landlord is aware of.
3. The resident first reported damp in the living room in March 2022. The landlord completed a CCTV survey on 9 January 2023, when rising damp and the absence of a storm drain were noted. Following a missed appointment in January 2023 a damp survey was completed on 29 June 2023.
4. The resident complained in 2023 about damp in the living room, kitchen and bedroom and damage to personal belongings. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 31 July 2023 it apologised and detailed works to be undertaken.
5. The landlord completed a further damp survey on 7 November 2023 when penetrating damp was found in the kitchen, bathroom and bedroom. Further work was identified, and issues were noted with the recently installed storm drain and French drain, which were contributing to the damp. It also noted that the damp proof course was damaged.
6. The resident complained again on 8 July 2024, saying she had been told by a surveyor she could claim for damage to her personal belongings. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 9 August 2024, it said:
   1. The resident had first reported damp and mould in January 2024.
   2. It apologised for the delayed complaint response.
   3. Cavity wall insulation had been removed and was awaiting replacement, and loft insulation had been completed in March 2024.
   4. The resident had refused works to drains but all other damp and mould works had been completed in July 2024 (except the French drain repair).
   5. It offered £75 compensation for delays and poor communication.
7. The resident escalated the complaint on 15 August 2024, saying the stage 1 investigation was not thorough and did not address all aspects of her complaint. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 24 September 2024 it upheld the complaint and:
   1. Apologised for the missed appointment in January 2023, and that the damp survey did not happen until June 2023.
   2. Apologised for the error in the stage 1 response and confirmed the resident had, in fact, first reported damp in December 2022.
   3. Said the case had been passed to the new specialist damp team which had been working with her. A drain survey would be carried out, a new damp proof course would be installed and brickwork repairs would be completed.
   4. Advised the resident to claim on her home insurance for damage to belongings. If she did not have insurance, it could help her apply for a grant.
   5. Said it could not assess any impact of the damp and mould on her health and she would need to seek legal advice.
   6. Offered £925 compensation (£25 for the January 2023 missed appointment, £50 for poor complaint handling and a lack of action taken in 2022 and 2023, and £850 for distress and inconvenience caused throughout).
8. In her referral to us the resident said the landlord had taken too long to address the damp, did not consider the impact on her health, and did not compensate for her belongings damaged by mould.

Assessment and findings

9. Landlords need to ensure their properties are safe, warm, and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies an obligation into the tenancy agreement that the landlord must make sure the property is “fit for human habitation.”
10. The landlord introduced a damp, mould, and condensation process in August 2021, which became part of its damp and mould policy in April 2023. Its process included completion of all remedial works and a follow up survey to ensure adequate completion. In addition, it included a 6-month follow up to ensure any issues had been fully resolved and, where necessary, further interventions.
11. Our spotlight report on damp and mould recommends landlords should ensure their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. It is imperative that residents are not left living with damp and mould for an extended period. A slow response not only increases the frustration and discomfort of the resident but can lead to problems worsening and becoming more intrusive and hard to resolve. This reinforces the importance of focussing on an accurate diagnosis at an early stage.
12. Resolving damp and mould can be complex and identifying the source and cause can take a number of visits. The reasonableness of a landlord’s actions will therefore depend on the severity of the issue and household circumstances, such as vulnerabilities. In this case the landlord was aware the resident was vulnerable as she had a number of health conditions and effective resolution of the damp and mould should have been prioritised accordingly.
13. However, the landlord acknowledged that its response was delayed. The damp survey originally scheduled for 31 January 2023 did not happen until 6 months later on 29 June 2023. This survey identified ‘excessively high moisture levels’ with damp in the kitchen and noted works needed to the chimney wall and external drainage issues. Despite this, there is no record of any works being progressed, in contravention of the repairs policy. That says that the landlord will respond to safety concerns within 24 hours, complete non-emergency work within 28 days, and complete major works within 42 days.
14. The further survey in November 2023 again identified damp, reiterated the earlier findings and recommended various works to address the presenting issues. Despite this, there were continued delays in the recommended works being implemented.
15. Both the stage 1 and 2 complaint responses said the resident refused works to the drains. We have seen an internal email of March 2024 where the contractor says the resident refused works as previous drain works had not resolved the issue. The resident disputed this and said the contractor arrived without the correct equipment and did not return. There is insufficient evidence to determine why the drain works were delayed and it is therefore not possible to comment on this.
16. The complaint responses did not address the works to the kitchen floor and chimney wall which were central to resolving the damp and mould. Nor did they acknowledge the associated disruption and time taken to complete these works. The landlord’s responses therefore lacked appropriate detail and were incomplete.
17. Further, the landlord did not address the resident’s request to be compensated for the additional electricity costs from the use of the humidifiers. Under the landlord’s compensation policy quantifiable costs like this can be considered and the landlord failed to provide an explanation for its failure to appropriately apply its own policy.
18. The resident also told the landlord the damp and mould was affecting her health. We do not doubt her comments, but it is beyond our remit to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and her ill-health. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord. We have also considered how the landlord responded to her reports about the impact the issues were having on her.
19. Given the resident’s statements about her health, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have conducted a risk assessment (particularly in light of the documented health risk from damp and mould). However, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it assessed any additional risk to the resident. In addition, in recognition of the potential impact to the resident’s health, the landlord should have provided her with details of its own insurance policy to enable her to progress a claim if she wished.
20. It also would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered alternative accommodation for the resident as the damp and mould was a health and safety hazard that posed an imminent risk. Its compensation policy says that “should it be identified that if damp and mould poses any risk to the health, safety and wellbeing of the customer an interim move from the home (decant) will be discussed immediately.” There is no evidence of this being considered, or any explanation as to why it was not considered necessary. The failure to apply its own policy showed a lack of regard for the resident’s vulnerability.
21. The resident requested compensation for belongings damaged by mould including kitchen units, carpets, clothes, bedding and furnishings. We 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 belongings which should be covered by insurance. However, we have considered how the landlord handled the resident’s compensation request.
22. The landlord’s compensation policy at the time said that, where damage to personal belongings has occurred, residents should submit a claim through their own contents insurer. If they do not have contents insurance, they may be able to submit a claim to the landlord, which its insurer would assess. Where a resident does not have insurance and cannot afford to replace lost essential belongings, it will offer support with grant applications.
23. In its stage 2 response, the landlord followed these policy provisions. However, it failed to consider that its delays and faults with the French drain installation and damp proof course contributed to the damp and mould. The policy says the landlord will “take responsibility for any detriment or damage caused to an individual or their property and belongings by a contracting partner working on its behalf. The focus will always be to put it right for the customer first.’’ By not considering this element of its own policy the landlord missed an opportunity to ‘put the customer first’ and fairly consider the resident’s compensation request and provide timely redress.
24. Alternatively, the landlord could have provided details of its public liability insurance to enable the resident to progress a claim for damage to belongings. Following this complaint, the landlord has advised it now tells residents “A claim can be made directly against our public liability insurance and offer to provide further details if requested or include in the letter if appropriate.” This new approach is positive, but it should have been taken in the resident’s case. Therefore, an order is made for the landlord to either consider the resident’s compensation request directly or provide her with the relevant insurance details to enable her to progress a claim.
25. An important aspect of ‘putting things right’ is for landlords to demonstrate learning from the complaint. Following this complaint the landlord has advised it implemented a specialist damp and mould team which shows a positive commitment to improving its response to damp and mould and reducing future occurrences. The landlord took accountability by apologising for the delays and offering £850 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, all of which were appropriate steps to offer redress.
26. Our spotlight report on damp and mould says landlords should act promptly on recommendations to resolve reports in a timely manner. However key damp works were not completed until July 2024, 17 months after the June 2023 survey, and 8 months after the November 2023 survey. The landlord’s file shows the resident first reported damp in March 2022, so the landlord’s final resolution of the damp and mould took over 2 years. This was an excessive and unnecessary delay which amounts to maladministration. Some outstanding works (the replacement damp proof course) were not completed until February 2025. The landlord has not provided any reasonable explanation for its inappropriate lack of urgency which is particularly concerning given the resident’s known vulnerabilities.
27. While the landlord apologised and offered a total of £925 compensation, this was not proportionate to the failings identified in this report. It did not reflect the landlord’s lack of regard for the resident’s vulnerability or its failure to consider alternative accommodation which added to her frustration and distress. Nor did it consider the additional disruption from the chimney and kitchen floor works. Further, the landlord missed an opportunity to take a customer centred approach when considering the resident’s compensation requests.
28. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and it is ordered to apologise and pay £1,425 compensation (inclusive of the £925 previously offered). This sum is in the higher range of our remedies guidance for maladministration and provides appropriate redress to the resident for the prolonged exposure to damp and mould and the distress and inconvenience caused. This is also in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation where there was a failure that had a significant effect on the resident.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders

30. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Provided a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Paid the resident £1,425 (inclusive of the £925 previously offered).
    3. Either directly considered the residents compensation request for damage to personal belongings, or provided her with its liability insurers details.
    4. Considered the resident’s request for additional electricity costs related to the use of humidifiers and confirmed its position in writing.
    5. Provided the resident with its liability insurer’s details in relation to a potential claim for any effect on her health.