Stonewater Limited (202335116)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202335116 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Stonewater Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured shorthold |
|
Date |
5 November 2025 |
Background
- The property is a first-floor flat. The intercom entry system is located at the communal front door and allows residents to receive mail, deliveries, and visitors. The resident reported faults with the intercom system, which were affecting her ability to receive post and deliveries and causing disruption and inconvenience. She also reported a fault with the entrance door lock which had her locked out of the building.
What the complaint is about
- The landlord’s response to reports of issues with the communal entrance door and intercom system.
- We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found there was:
- Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the communal entrance door and intercom system.
- Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
Handling of repairs to the door and intercom system
- The landlord delayed repairing the intercom system, missing its policy timeframes. It acknowledged this and offered a suitable remedy at Stage 2. However, it failed to complete the scheduled works as promised in the stage 2 complaint response, resulting in further service failure.
- The landlord responded promptly to the issue with the door and paid compensation at stage 1 of the complaint, which the resident confirmed she was satisfied with.
Complaint handling
- The landlord did not respond to the complaint in line with its policy and procedures. It delayed in providing a response at stage 1 and accepting the stage 2 escalation. The landlord did not address the intercom issue at stage 1, though it did offer compensation at stage 2 to put things right.
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 |
Apology order
The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 03 December 2025 |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
6 October 2023 |
The resident complained about the outstanding repair to the intercom system that was reported on 28 July 2023. Also for the lack of contact from the contractor since it inspected it in August. The landlord noted she expressed dissatisfaction that follow-on works were scheduled for 28 September 2023, but the contractor did not turn up or get in touch. It was also noted that the resident had to further chase the contractor about the door issue. |
|
10 October 2023 |
The landlord acknowledged the complaint, which related to:
It did not specify what the repair was for. |
|
23 October 2023 |
The landlord extended the complaint response to 6 November 2023. |
|
10 November 2023 |
The landlord issued a stage 1 response, but it only referred to the door lock issue. It acknowledged delays of resolving this and confirmed all work was now completed. It offered £175 compensation made up of:
The response did not refer to the outstanding intercom issue. |
|
17 November 2023 |
The resident contacted the landlord to express confusion over the Stage 1 complaint response. While she appreciated the compensation offered for delays with the front door issue, she was dissatisfied that the landlord had not addressed her complaint about the intercom system. She also expressed continued frustration about missing post and deliveries. The resident confirmed to us that she did not pursue a complaint about the door lock, only about the intercom issue. |
|
20 – 24 November 2023 |
The resident asked to escalate her complaint about the intercom to stage 2, but the landlord incorrectly told her to contact us. The landlord contacted the resident the following day when it realised it had incorrectly refused to accept the escalation. The stage 2 was formally acknowledged on 24 November 2023. |
|
21 December 2023 |
The landlord issued a stage 2 response in which it:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident brought her complaint to us on 9 January 2023 and said the intercom was still not working and wanted it fixed. |
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 |
The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the intercom system. |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- When the door issue was first reported, there was some confusion when an electrician was sent. The lock was not electronic and was operated with a key. However, the contractor gained access and raised a follow-on request for the correct trade to attend. The records do not confirm exactly when the repair was completed, though we know the resident had chased the matter. It is positive that the landlord promptly resolved the issue and offered compensation for the delay in its stage 1 response. The resident confirmed she was satisfied with the outcome relating to the door lock issue.
- It was positive that following the intercom issue reported on 28 July 2023, the landlord arranged an inspection within the 28-day target. Although the exact date of inspection is unclear, contractor notes show that a quote for a replacement was requested on 8 August 2023. The contractor found that the system either needed rewiring or a full replacement.
- There was an unreasonable delay in arranging the follow-on works and the resident spent time chasing the landlord and contractors. The landlord did not complete the repairs or replacement within its expected maximum timeframe of 42 days, which applies where significant further work is needed. The resident had reported that no one attended the planned appointment on 28 September 2023, and she was not contacted to explain the missed visit.
- There was poor communication between the landlord and contractor. Evidence indicates there were mix-ups between the separate door and intercom repair issues. For example, on 24 October 2023 a contractor attended and reported no fault with the door (as that repair had already been resolved). This resulted in further unreasonable delays with the intercom, which could have been avoided.
- Scheduled works to replace the intercom system planned for the week commencing 11 December 2023 did not go ahead due to delayed equipment. It was positive that the landlord arranged a temporary fix in the meantime. The temporary fix was completed shortly after the stage 2 response, although the exact date is unclear.
- It is clear the resident experienced inconvenience because of the delays in completing the intercom repairs and the need to chase the landlord on multiple occasions. We acknowledge that the prolonged period during which post deliveries could not be received would have been particularly frustrating. The landlord’s failure to keep the resident informed and to resolve the issue in a timely manner caused avoidable disruption and distress.
- The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the intercom system. It recognised the inconvenience the delay of the installation had caused, and that the resident had to take the time and trouble to chase. Where the landlord admits failings, our role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress.
- The £250 compensation (£325 minus the £75 that is apportioned to the complaints handling below) was appropriate overall and in line with our remedies guidance. The resident did not raise further issues following the door lock repair. The failures with the intercom issue were adequately compensated in the stage 2 complaint response. However, the landlord failed to follow through on its agreement to replace the intercom on 3 January 2024, as stated in its stage 2 response. It also did not provide any updates to the resident, which meant she had to chase the matter again. This caused further inconvenience and frustration, representing an additional service failure. As a result, we order the landlord to issue an apology to the resident. The exact completion date is not recorded, though an email exchange between the contractor and landlord dated 15 January 2024 confirmed the works were still outstanding but scheduled for 17 January 2024.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (April 2024).
- The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of the timescales.
- It is positive that the landlord updated the resident when it extended the stage 1 complaint response, though it sent the response four working days later than the agreed extended deadline. The landlord paid £75 solely in recognition of this delay. This exceeds the level of compensation we would typically expect to see for a delay of this nature under our remedies guidance.
- The stage 1 response failed to mention the intercom issue at all. This resulted in the resident experiencing further inconvenience and frustration of having to chase the repair and escalate the complaint. Also, the landlord should have accepted the initial request to escalate the complaint to Stage 2. Though, when the landlord realised it could accept the escalation, it is positive that it promptly contacted the resident to avoid further detriment. The stage 2 response put things right by addressing the intercom issue. We consider that the £75 compensation paid at stage 1 was reasonable redress to recognise the overall service failures in the complaint handling.
Learning
- It was commendable that the landlord took on board the learning suggested by the resident and has committed to installing a temporary post box in similar circumstances in future.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord did not provide a record of the original complaint. While some notes were logged, the lack of a formal record and the acknowledgement letter did not define what the repair was for, likely contributed to the intercom issue being missed at Stage 1. Staff should be reminded of the Code’s requirements, including the need to refer to and accurately define the original complaint.
Communication
- Poor communication between the landlord and its contractors affected its ability to carry out intercom repairs promptly. The landlord should review its contractor communication processes to ensure it is effectively monitoring outstanding responses.