Stonewater Limited (202513245)

Decision
Case ID	202513245
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Stonewater Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 January 2026

Background

The resident lives in a flat with their young child. At the time the landlord was investigating this complaint, the resident was pregnant.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
2. There was a service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property

The landlord has not adequately addressed the damp and mould in the property, and the issues have been ongoing for a significant period. The resident and their young child may be vulnerable to the effects of mould, and the landlord did not adequately consider this when addressing the damp and mould, or if it should temporarily rehouse the family.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord’s stage one response was delayed, and it did not address this failing.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £550 made up as follows: £500 to recognise the distress and concern associated with the ongoing damp and mould issues. £50 to recognise the inconvenience associated with the landlord’s complaints handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 24 February 2026
2	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange a damp and mould survey. This survey is to be conducted by a suitable qualified professional, and it is to result in a written report which is shared with the resident. The survey is to include details around the presence of damp and mould in the property, any possible internal and external contributing factors, and recommendations for remedying the damage and preventing further damp and mould growth.	No later than 24 February 2026
3	Arranging the works Following the damp and mould survey the landlord must produce a schedule of repairs which outlines the works it will conduct to remedy the damp and mould in the property, and to prevent future damp and mould growth. The schedule is to include the landlord’s planned timescales for completing the works, and it is to be shared with the resident.	No later than 10 March 2026
4	Provisions for completing the works If the landlord anticipates that its planned repairs cannot be completed in line with its repairs policy timescales, then it is to provide the resident with a plan for temporary rehousing while the works are ongoing.	No later than 10 March 2026
5	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 10 March 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

The landlord should request details from the resident of the items which have been damaged by damp and mould. The landlord should then outline its position on compensating the resident or replacing the damaged items or refer the matter to its insurers.

The £475 in compensation the landlord committed to in its internal complaints procedure should be paid to the resident if it has not yet paid this amount.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
2 May 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. They said: No one had turned up to a pre-arranged appointment to address the damp and mould in their property. The condition of the property was worsening, and there was now fungal growth in the property. They were concerned about the impact of the conditions, as they were pregnant, had asthma, and had experienced regular asthma attacks.
16 June 2025	The landlord sent its stage one response. It said: It was unaware that its contractors had failed to attend the 2 May 2025 appointment until the resident complained. It was attempting to re-book the appointment in line with the resident’s availability, and it was aiming for contractors to attend the following week. It apologised for how long it had taken to address the matter, and it acknowledged the conditions would be particularly distressing as the resident was pregnant. It offered the resident compensation of: £50 for its poor communication. £25 for the missed appointment. £150 for the inconvenience, time and trouble.
25 June 2025	The resident escalated their complaint as they were concerned about the worsening conditions, and the potential impact this could have on their pregnancy. The resident said they wanted the property to be brought to a liveable standard.
2 July 2025	The resident contacted us as they were concerned about the conditions in the property and the landlord’s lack of action. They said they were worried that once they had their baby the property would not be appropriate for a newborn.
31 July 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said: It had been notified of the damp and mould on 24 March 2025, and it opened a damp and mould case on 27 March 2025. It summarised the actions it had taken in relation to the reported damp and mould. It included the reason behind the delays the resident experienced, which included: Contractor non-attendance. The damp and mould case being closed. Unsuccessful efforts to contact the resident. Appointments being rescheduled. A damp and mould wash had not yet occurred, and an appointment had been scheduled for 18 August 2025. It said its delay in arranging a damp and mould wash was due to scheduling errors and miscommunications. After the damp and mould wash had occurred it would consider if the resident should be temporarily rehoused due to their vulnerabilities. In addition to the compensation at stage one, it offered £50 for its failure to make reasonable adjustments when scheduling repairs, and £200 for the resident’s inconvenience, time and trouble The landlord said it could not factor in any personal injury concerns, and the resident should seek legal advice if they wished to pursue a claim. This brought the total compensation offered by the landlord to £475.
1 August 2025	The resident contacted us again and said they were extremely stressed as they felt the landlord was not helping them. They said the stress was impacting their health, and their ability to prepare for their baby’s arrival.

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.

Scope of investigation

The resident has indicated they believe the condition of the property contributed to their ill health and a period of hospitalisation. We cannot assess whether the property conditions or the landlord’s actions affected the resident’s health, as this would involve a decision on personal injury. Personal injury matters are to be assessed and determined by the court, or via agreement between two parties. The resident should speak with a legal professional if they wish to pursue a personal injury claim.
However, we can consider any distress or concern the resident experienced from the landlord’s response to their health concerns.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it has a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, and it will provide residents with targeted and proportional support.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will aim to address routine repairs within 28 days and major repairs within 42 days.
The landlord’s rehousing policy says it can temporarily rehouse residents where there is an immediate health and safety risk that it cannot mitigate. It can also temporarily rehouse residents while repairs are ongoing in their property. The resident will return to the property once the repairs are completed.
At the time we conducted our investigation the damp and mould issues in the property were ongoing. The resident told us that they were experiencing a cycle of the mould getting worse, the mould being treated by mould washes and then conditions gradually worsening again. They said they felt the damp and mould issues remained unresolved as there were structural faults that were contributing to the damp and humid conditions in the property. During our investigation the landlord conducted an internal damp and mould inspection, and it completed a mould wash.
On 27 March 2025 a third-party agency informed the landlord about damp and mould in the property. The landlord requested further details, and the agency responded on 2 April 2025, stating the mould was severe, present in multiple rooms, and unmanageable for the resident. The landlord booked a mould wash for 2 May 2025, which was 31 days after it learned the mould was widespread and unmanageable. This timeframe did not comply with the landlord’s repairs policy. The 2 May appointment did not take place due to contractor issues. The wash was rescheduled for 31 May 2025 in the afternoon, but contractors attended in the morning despite the resident requesting afternoon appointments only. This was unreasonable.
The missed appointment on 2 May 2025 prompted the resident to complain. In the complaint, the resident said they were pregnant, had asthma, and had experienced asthma attacks. This indicated the resident may have been more vulnerable to the effects of damp and mould. When a landlord becomes aware of vulnerability, we expect it to assess the risk and prioritise actions if necessary. There is no evidence this occurred.
Despite the complaint, the landlord closed the damp and mould case on 9 May 2025. Its records stated the case was closed because there were no further reports and no planned repairs. This was not appropriate and suggests shortcomings in record keeping and information sharing. The complaint itself contained further reports, and the lack of planned repairs was due to the missed contractor appointment.
In its stage one response dated 16 June 2025 the landlord apologised, offered the resident £25 in compensation and committed to re-scheduling the appointment. This was appropriate. The landlord said it aimed to book a mould wash for the following week in line with the resident’s availability. The evidence does not show the landlord arranged this as promised. Instead, it booked a mould wash for 17 July 2025 after learning the resident had been hospitalised on 1 July 2025. This was inappropriate given its policies, stage 1 commitments, and the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The mould wash scheduled for 17 July 2025 did not take place. The resident said contractors changed the appointment to a date they had already confirmed was unsuitable. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for this. While this was positive, the failings caused further delays, which would have been distressing for the resident. A mould wash was completed on 18 August 2025, 145 days after the initial report. This response time was not appropriate considering the resident’s vulnerabilities and the landlord’s policy timescales.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would assess whether to temporarily rehouse the resident after the mould wash and consider vulnerabilities when doing so. The landlord did not arrange temporary rehousing despite the resident requesting it, and we have seen no evidence to suggest it considered this option following the mould wash. We asked the landlord to explain its decision-making on rehousing, but it did not respond. This was inappropriate and indicates it did not follow through on its stage 2 commitments. To address this, we have ordered the landlord to discuss temporary rehousing with the resident if it cannot complete damp and mould works within a reasonable period.
On 9 July 2025, the landlord carried out a damp and mould survey. Mould was identified in all rooms and the airing cupboard, and walls were found to be significantly wet in areas. The surveyor recommended:
1. Mould washes were conducted to the affected areas.
2. Glazed windows in the property should be renewed.
3. Damaged areas should be replastered.
4. An extractor fan should be fitted in the bathroom.
5. The installation of a ventilation system would improve airflow in the property.
The survey did not assess the building structure or communal areas. The surveyor noted the damp and mould could be linked to ventilation issues, defective windows, and a previous leak in the airing cupboard. The resident said the mould in the airing cupboard pre-dated the leak, and they believed missing brickwork and large cracks contributed to damp conditions.
Following the survey, the landlord did not renew glazing or address ventilation issues. This would have been appropriate if the mould wash had resolved the problem. However, the landlord’s actions have not yet resolved the issues. The resident also said replastering works have not occurred.
Given that the damp and mould issues have not been resolved, the works identified in the last survey have not been progressed, and the resident’s concerns that there could be other factors contributing to the situation, it would be appropriate for the landlord to carry out a further inspection. To address this, we have ordered the landlord to carry out an inspection that considers possible structural factors.
During the complaints process, the landlord apologised and offered £475 compensation. This was positive and showed it recognised the impact on the resident. However, as the damp and mould issue remains unresolved, we cannot conclude the landlord handled the reports satisfactorily.
The resident said they were financially impacted by damp and mould and replaced several damaged items. As this was not addressed during the complaints process, we have recommended the landlord request details of the damaged items, and provide a formal response on whether it will compensate or replace the items, or refer the matter to their insurers.
The landlord’s records show the resident, and their friends and family, frequently raised concerns about the resident’s health and the property’s suitability for a newborn. The records also indicate the resident experienced health challenges. Despite the landlord being aware of this, the damp and mould issues continued for a prolonged period. To address this, we have ordered the landlord to:
1. Apologise to the resident.
2. Carry out a further damp and mould inspection in the property. This inspection must also consider any potential structural and external factors that could be contributing to the damp and mould.
3. Use the findings of this inspection to produce a schedule of planned repairs which is shared with the resident.
4. If the landlord determines that it is unable to complete the planned works in line with its repairs policy timescales, it must provide the resident with a plan for temporary rehousing while the works are ongoing.
During the complaints procedure, the landlord offered £350 to address distress and inconvenience, with the remaining compensation relating to missed appointments and communication issues. The £350 was appropriate when considering the period covered by the landlord’s complaints process. However, as the issues remain unresolved, we consider this amount to no longer be appropriate.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response 129 days after the damp and mould was first reported, which equates to £2.70 per day. Applying this daily rate from the date of the stage 2 response to the determination date results in an additional £488.70, which we have rounded up to £500. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay further compensation of £500.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out its timeframes for responding to complaints. It will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of that acknowledgement. If the resident requests escalation to stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge the request within 5 working days and provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of that acknowledgement.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint in line with its policy. However, it provided its stage one response 26 working days after acknowledging the complaint. This was notably outside of the landlord’s policy timescales.
The landlord’s responses at stage 2 were also outside of its policy timescales. It acknowledged the resident’s escalation request 7 working days after it was made, and it sent its stage 2 response 21 working days later. However, the delays at stage 2 were minimal and it is unlikely that this had a significant impact on the resident.
We have found a service failure occurred as the resident experienced delays at stage one, and the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £50 to address this failing.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord closed the resident’s damp and mould case, even though a complaint had been filed which related to damp and mould issues. If the landlord can take action to prevent this from occurring in the future this would be an improvement for residents.

Communication

The landlord’s records show there were periods of time where its efforts to contact the resident were unsuccessful. Records show that the resident had told the landlord they were having a difficult pregnancy and on-going health issues, and friends and family were contacting the landlord on the resident’s behalf. The landlord’s efforts to contact the resident might have been more effective if it had discussed with the resident a best method for contact, or consider if it could make reasonable adjustments.