Stonewater Limited (202410814)
|
Case ID |
202410814 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Stonewater Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
19 December 2025 |
- The resident reported damp and mould issues in 2022 and 2023. The landlord attempted to resolve these issues however the resident reported the damp, and mould had returned in March 2024. The landlord completed a damp and mould survey in April 2024. Repairs were raised and completed in July 2024. However, a roof survey and subsequent repairs were not completed till November 2024. The resident escalated the complaint to us as she was unhappy about the amount of access the landlord wanted and at being contacted at inappropriate times to arrange appointments. The resident said it affected her health and has since moved from the property due to the issues she encountered and is seeking further compensation.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
- Reports of damp and mould.
- The associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
- There was 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
The handling of reports of damp and mould
- The landlord completed a significant amount of work to remedy the damp and mould issue. However, its failure to complete a roof survey and any subsequent works in a timely manner resulted in the damp and mould returning to the property.
The handling of the resident’s complaint
- The landlord failed to escalate the complaint on 3 separate occasions, causing a delay in its stage 2 complaint response. However, it provided a response which acknowledged its failings in its initial investigation, covering all the points raised by the resident and offered fair compensation.
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 |
|
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 16 January 2026 |
|
|
|
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £550 compensation for the impact its failings had on the resident by not completing the external work in a reasonable time. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. |
No later than 16 January 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £175 previously offered as part of its complaints procedure of its complaint handling failings, if it has not already done so. |
|
We recommend the landlord considers a service improvement to ensure properties that are at higher risk from repeat damp and mould are identifiable on its system. This would help it to send a surveyor sooner and allow for work identified to be completed urgently, in line with its damp and mould policy. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
16 January 2023 |
Work was contracted out by the landlord for damp and mould issues identified in 2022 and 2023. A roof leak was fixed around May 2023 with internal decoration also being completed. |
|
28 March 2024 |
The resident complained to the landlord that there was damp and mould in the property and that previous attempts to resolve the issue had failed. She was unhappy as the landlord had said that a surveyor would attend to assess the property. The landlord however sent a contractor to conduct a mould wash instead. She said it failed to communicate this to her. |
|
22 April 2024 |
The landlord provided a list of what had happened to date in its stage 1 complaint response. It advised the resident to contact its contractor directly as the previous appointments arranged for a survey had not been suitable to the resident. |
|
11 May 2024 |
The resident escalated the complaint via the damp and mould team. |
|
23 August 2024 |
The resident escalated her complaint via us, and we contacted the landlord, who acknowledged the escalation the same day. |
|
30 August 2024 |
The landlord apologised for its delays in its stage 2 complaint response. It explained it had highlighted the importance of good communication with its contractor to ensure it did not fail to escalate a complaint in the future. It offered the resident £525 discretionary compensation consisting of: £175 for its complaint handling failures. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its repair delays. £50 for its poor communication. £50 for the time and trouble taken to pursue a resolution. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident brought her complaint to us and said she was unhappy about the number of requests made to access her property. She said she was also unhappy that when reporting the recurrence of damp and mould, the staff member who told her to contact them did not answer. A new person contacted her at nighttime, and she said this was not appropriate or professional. The resident said she did not feel the landlord took the damp and mould seriously and told us it affected her health. The resident has since moved from the property and is seeking further 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 |
The handling of reports of damp and mould |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
What we have not considered
- The resident told us that she felt the damp and mould affected her breathing and overall physical and mental health. 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 any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
- We have no power to consider complaints which are raised prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident has complained to us that the landlord had contacted her at unsuitable times by phone and email in January 2025. She also told us that she was seeking compensation for items damaged by the mould. However, she did not raise these issues within her complaint to the landlord. Accordingly, these matters are not considered in this report, as it is important that the landlord has a chance to put things right prior to our investigation. Our investigation will therefore only consider the events covered in the landlord’s complaint responses in relation to reports of damp and mould.
The handling of reports of damp and mould
- The landlord had not disputed it was responsible for any damp and mould reported by the resident. Its damp and mould policy says it has a “zero-tolerance” to damp and mould, and that it is committed to ensuring residents are provided with targeted and proportionate support. It says high risk homes will be identified based on the volume and regularity of contact, property type and outcomes of calls. Surveyors will attend the property to identify required remedial works for urgent completion.
- The resident reported damp and mould in all rooms other than the bedroom on 7 March 2024. The landlord was responsive and arranged a mould wash that day which the resident cancelled. She complained that previous attempts to clear it were unsuccessful and it required further investigation. It was positive to see the landlord initially identifying the seriousness of damp and mould and organising a mould wash immediately.
- However, we have seen the resident reporting damp and mould in 2022 and 2023. In May 2023 the landlord accessed the roof and made repairs to fix a leak which had caused damp and mould. It then repaired and insulated the resident’s ceiling.
- The resident’s new report of damp and mould in March 2024 took the landlord 7 months from the survey date in April 2024 to November 2024 to complete the roofing repairs. This contributed to the damp and mould returning and was not a reasonable response. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have adhered to its damp and mould policy and treated the works more urgently. We would also expect the landlord to maintain regular contact with the resident to reduce inconvenience and distress to her. The landlord failed to evidence it had maintained an appropriate amount of communication after its stage 2 complaint response.
- In the landlord’s complaint responses, it acknowledged there had been a delay and poor communication which led to the resident chasing it for updates. It accepted responsibility for its initial failures, appropriately apologised and offered her £350 compensation for the substantive complaint. It stated the work had all been completed, which was incorrect as the roofing work was not completed for a further 3 months after the stage 2 complaint response was given. The redress offered was therefore insufficient.
- The landlord’s failure to follow its damp and mould policy resulted in the landlord failing to complete all the works in a reasonable time which has led to a finding of maladministration. Its failures contributed to the damp and mould returning and the landlord failed to evidence it kept the resident appropriately informed during this period. The resident reports she moved from the property due to the landlord’s continued failures, so we cannot make any orders relating to repairs.
- We have however ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation of £550 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures, which is inclusive of the £350 if offered within its complaint responses. This is consistent with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. We have also recommended a service improvement which could help the landlord identify property’s reporting repeat damp and mould issues sooner to allow it to treat them with more urgency.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- The landlord has a 2-stage complaints procedure which is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It states it will acknowledge complaints and escalations within 5 working days of receipt. It will aim to provide a response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and will agree any extension to this timescale with the resident. It will aim to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days and will agree any extension to this timescale with the resident to a maximum of 20 days.
- Although there is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the complaint it provided a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days. It however failed to acknowledge the initial escalation request on 11 May 2024 and 2 further requests in June 2024. This was a failing and prevented the resident from escalating her complaint to us sooner.
- The resident had to contact us to have the landlord escalate her complaint which it did in September 2024. Residents must have confidence in the landlord’s complaint handling procedure to ensure a resolution can be reached within its own process. It was a failing that the landlord’s failure resulted in us having to request the escalation of her complaint.
- The landlord showed it had improved its complaint handling by acknowledging the escalation on the day it was received and providing a reply within 5 working days. Although it is positive to see the landlord improved its complaint handling its overall delay of 3 months for a stage 2 response was not reasonable. This again delayed the resident’s ability to bring her complaint to us sooner.
- The landlord explained its contractor had not communicated the escalation request to it. It showed learning by speaking with its contractor to emphasise the importance of effective communication which should help reduce the chance of a similar service failure. The landlord appropriately apologised, acknowledged its complaint handling and communication failures. It offered the resident £175 discretionary compensation.
- The landlord provided a response which acknowledged its failings in its initial investigation, covering all the points raised by the resident in its stage 2 complaint response and offered fair compensation. This is reasonable and consistent with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. Accordingly, a finding of reasonable redress has been made.
Learning
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- There were 3 missed opportunities for the landlord to escalate the complaint. It is unclear what system the landlord has in place for its recording of escalations. It should consider the findings in this report and ensure it has an appropriate fail-safe system to help reduce future service failures.