Stonewater Limited (202429649)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202429649

Stonewater Limited

30 September 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). The Ombudsman considers 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 the Ombudsman 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 landlord’s handling of window repairs.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
  2. The resident has made several reports about the windows. On 17 July 2023, the landlord ordered works after the resident reported misting in a double-glazed window. On 5 January 2024, the resident reported that there were draughts coming from the windows and the majority of the windows had no sealant. On 11 February 2024, the resident reported that some of the window frames had mould on them. The landlord attended the property on several occasions following these reports.
  3. On 15 March 2024 the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord. He was dissatisfied about the repair of the windows and lack of effective communication regarding the status of the repair. The resident explained he raised several tickets for the windows to be replaced but the first ticket was deleted without communication. A further appointment was arranged for 21 March 2024. However, this did not go ahead as the work had already been completed.
  4. On 5 April 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It acknowledged its service failures, poor communication and missed timescales. It explained that a surveyor would attend the property and assess the condition of the windows to determine if replacements were necessary. It also explained that the misted up window was replaced in January 2024 and after that the resident complained about draughty and mouldy windows. It apologised for its failures and offered £200 compensation (£125 for the inconvenience and £75 for failure to follow its process or policy).
  5. On 16 April 2024 the resident requested escalation of his complaint. He reported further delays with the window repairs and said the stage 1 response offered another surveyor’s inspection without an action plan. He questioned whether repairs or replacement would be carried out. He explained that he suffered 3 winters in a draughty and mouldy property and incurred increased electricity expenses.
  6. On 14 May 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It increased the previous compensation offer of £200 to £275 (£200 for the inconvenience, time and trouble and £75 for the failure to follow process or policy). It also offered to reimburse the resident for increasedenergy bills on receipt of the evidence. To progress the windows repair, it explained that its own surveyor would inspect the property to establish if its contractor was right to repair the windows, or whether replacement should have been recommended instead.
  7. The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response and referred the complaint to the Ombudsman. He explained that no window repairs or replacements were completed and he had not received any contact from the landlord since stage 2. The resident wanted the windows sealed, mould removed and increased compensation.

Assessment and findings

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the premises, including windows. The landlord does not dispute this.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs in an average of 28 days.
  3. The landlord ordered works for a misted up window on 17 July 2023 but it did not attend to measure the glass until 26 October 2023, 101 calendar days later.  The repair work for this was completed on 15 January 2024, 182 calendar days from when the repair was first reported. This far exceeded the target timescale for routine repairs. The landlord accepted this failing during its complaints process and offered an apology. This was appropriate.
  4. Following the first report, if the landlord could not meet expected timeframes, it would have been appropriate to have maintained effective communication with the resident. There is no evidence of proactive updates prior to 19 October 2023, when the landlord booked an appointment for measurements. This was 3 months after the resident’s request. The landlord accepted its failures in relation to effective communication. It explained in its formal responses that it was delivering training to improve communication and overseeing performance of its contractors. This is reassuring and demonstrated that the landlord was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
  5. Following the first report, the resident continued to report further issues with the windows. On 5 January 2024, the resident reported that the windows were draughty and did not have any sealant. The landlord’s contractor carried out an inspection on 18 January 2024, within 13 calendar days. The contractor confirmed all windows needed new gaskets, handles and friction hinges. Although the landlord attended in accordance with its policy and this was an improvement on the previous delay, we have not seen any evidence that the recommended window repairs were followed up and this amounts to a failing.
  6. On 11 February 2024, the resident reported that there was mould in the property, including on the window frames. On 8 March 2024, the landlord carried out work to treat the mould, this was within 28 calendar days and was in accordance with the landlord’s policy for routine repairs.
  7. In both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, the landlord committed to carrying out a surveyor inspection. This was appropriate as there was a dispute about whether the windows should be repaired or replaced and an inspection would provide an opportunity to assess the windows and determine what repairs were needed. Given contractors had previously recommended repairs needed to be carried out, and it appears these repairs were outstanding, this was an appropriate course of action. Furthermore, it would also have provided clarity to the resident.
  8. However, the landlord has informed us that the inspection did not take place due to the surveyor’s awareness of the situation and as the required repairs had been completed. This was not reasonable in the circumstances as he following through on this commitment made in both complaint responses would have been a constructive step in rebuilding the landlord-tenant relationship. The inspection would have enabled the landlord to accurately establish the condition of the windows and whether any repairs or replacements were needed. It would also have ensured that the resident was aware of how the decision on the windows had been reached.
  9. In its formal responses, the landlord acknowledged the inconvenience caused, apologised and offered £275 compensation. While it was appropriate to offer compensation, this does not reflect the additional delays and poor management of the repair issues since the stage 2 response was issued. The resident reported that the windows were draughty over 18 months ago, impacting on the living conditions in the property, and the evidence indicates that the repairs remain outstanding. Therefore, we have found that there was maladministration by the landlord and have ordered it to pay additional compensation to the resident, bringing the total amount to £500. This is in line with our remedies guidance which recommends awards of this amount where there has been a failure that has had a significant impact on the resident. We have also ordered the landlord to arrange a surveyor inspection to assess the condition of the windows and arrange any works that are identified.
  10. The landlord agreed to reimburse the resident for any increased gas and electricity for the colder months upon receipt of valid evidence. This offer was reasonable and in accordance with its compensation policy, states that it will provide compensation for quantifiable loss which includes increased heating bills due to disrepair. However, the landlord informed us that it has not received this evidence. The resident has informed us that he is unable to provide this evidence. The landlord is recommended to consider reimbursement should the resident provides valid evidence.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of window repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay £500 compensation (including £275 offered prior to this investigation if not paid already) to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the window repairs.
    3. Arrange for a surveyor to undertake an inspection of the windows and agree an appointment with the resident to complete any works identified.
    4. Contact the Ombudsman and provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord considers reimbursement of increased energy costs upon receipt of valid evidence.