Stonewater Limited (202321946)

Background

1. The resident reported repairs to her kitchen, bathroom, hallway, guttering and fascia, as well as the windows and front door in 2023. She made reports of outstanding repairs to these areas across 2024 and into 2025. The resident also raised concerns about the service from the landlord and the poor-quality workmanship of the repairs. The resident lives with her young child.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of repairs to the property.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the property.
   2. There was service failure in its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the property

4. The landlord delayed completing the repair works. Although it acknowledged the delays, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident, there were ongoing delays in repairs after its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord has not acknowledged these delays and repairs remain unresolved.

The complaint handling

5. The landlord did recognise complaint handling failures during its complaints procedure and acted to put things right, however this was only prompted by our intervention.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

6. Where failings are accepted by the landlord,as is the case here, it is our role to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
7. The landlord has accepted that it failed to meet its repair timeframes for its repairs and that it had multiple failures amounting to maladministration in the handling of these repairs. At stage 1 and 2 it acknowledged its failings and sought to put things right. It acknowledged its poor communication the inconvenience and time and trouble to the resident. It was also appropriate of it to offer further compensation at stage 2 considering the ongoing delays in repairs and continued impact to the resident. The total compensation amount of £725 is reasonable for the level of failures the resident experienced. This is at the high end of the maladministration range in our published remedies guidance, which recognises a permanent and adverse effect on the resident. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
8. However, following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response the resident continued to report issues with the bathroom, the kitchen, plastering work to hallway, windows, and door, as well as the guttering and fascia. The landlord completed works to the kitchen in early 2024, the windows and door in late 2024, and bathroom in 2025. It completed the kitchen works within a reasonable timeframe which was communicated at stage 2. This was appropriate. However, there were delays in completing the windows and door repairs for 10 months after its stage 2 complaint response, these delays were unreasonable and have not been recognised by the landlord.
9. In respect of the bathroom, the landlord committed to a full replacement and provided a schedule of works to the resident in December 2024. However, it is not clear that the landlord did any temporary works to ensure the tiles were safe for the resident and her family prior to the replacement works beginning. This added to the resident’s distress, especially because she reported safety concerns for her young child due to the damaged tiles 12 months prior. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to acknowledge these concerns or attend to ensure they were not a safety hazard.
10. The resident reported issues with the guttering bowing and the fascia cracking in December 2023. The landlord attended in July 2024 but was unable to access the guttering at the rear of the property. It attempted to attend again but said that there was a lean-to in the way of access in its stage 2 complaint response, so it was unable to complete the work. The resident on 4 December 2024 offered to move the lean to and said that it was only a temporary structure and could be easily moved with 2 hours’ notice. She also said that her neighbours were willing to allow access for the work to be completed. Given that there were allowances made for access and the landlord is responsible for the repair to the structure of its buildings, it was unreasonable of it to take no further action in relation to the rear guttering and fascia across 12 months. This work remains outstanding, and we have made an order in respect of these repairs.
11. The landlord said it would repair the plastering in the hallway in its stage 1 response by 25 November 2023. However, the resident reported in December 2023 that the plastering near the hallway was damaged. The landlord advised at stage 2 that the repair works to the plaster works were completed. However, the resident raised on at least 2 subsequent occasions that the work was still not complete and there were still large cracks in the plaster. It was unreasonable of the landlord not to follow up on these reports or to reattend to ensure that the repair was of good quality. This work remains outstanding, and we have made an order for the landlord to attend to complete this repair.
12. Overall, the landlord did act to acknowledge its failures and acted to put things right. It completed the repairs to the bathroom, kitchen, windows, and the door. It also offered appropriate compensation for its failures based on the impact to the resident. However, it has not acknowledged the delays to repairsafter its stage 2 complaint response, where there were further delays in repairs to thewindows, door, bathroom, plastering, and the guttering. There was also an ongoing lack of communication and theextent of the impact to the resident that has not been recognised.These can be considered ongoing failures and for these reasons, we findthere was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs.For these reasons, we order the landlord to pay the resident an additional £350 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings.

13. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 15 working days after it had acknowledged it. This was 5 working days over its policy timeframe of 10 working days. However, the landlord did act at stage 1 to recognise this delay and offered £50 compensation. This was reasonable to put things right.
14. We contacted the landlord on 8 November 2024 requesting it to produce its stage 2 complaint response as it had not supplied it within its 20-working day policy timeframe. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response 80 working days after the resident’s escalation request, which was 60 working days over its complaint policy timeframe. These delays and lack of action until prompted by our intervention was unreasonable and unnecessarily protracted the process. The landlord did after our intervention apologise for the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint and increased its offered to £75 for this failure. However, the adverse impact on the resident was not recognised by the landlord.
15. While the landlord did act to recognise delays in its complaint handling and took some actions to put it right, it has not gone far enough to put things right for the resident, including her time and effort in pursuing this matter. For this reason, we consider there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint, and we order it to pay the resident a further £80 compensation.

Learning

16. The evidence shows that there was a lack of communication and accountabilityfrom the landlord about the repairs for significant periods of time. The landlord should assess repairs for their urgency/priority level, supply timeframes for its repairs, and appropriately communicate these timeframes to residents.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. The landlord’s repairs logs record works as ‘complete’ after each of its attendances. However, this does not provide clarity as to whether the work was completed or remains to be completed. We expect it to supply sufficient evidence to accompany the repair logs to satisfy that the works have been completed, such as a notes detailing what work was done and whether any follow works are required. This is especially important where the resident disputes that the works are complete, as was the case here.