Stonewater Limited (202345091)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345091

Stonewater Limited

13 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Immersion heater repair reports and the compensation it offered for this.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident an assured tenant of the landlord living in a one-bedroom flat. The landlord has recorded the resident as having mental health difficulties and a physical health condition.
The resident complained to the landlord on 8 March 2024 about repeated faults with her immersion heater affecting the hot water supply in her home. She said the hot water had been unreliable since December 2023, but the landlord did not start repairs to the immersion heater until February 2024. She said a lack of proper diagnosis of the fault meant the system kept breaking down. Also, a fault in main heating element of the immersion meant the booster was overused, causing increased electricity costs. She described personal disruption due to having no hot water, such as having to go to a relative’s to shower and taking time off work for allow access for contractors.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 15 March 2024 and stage 1 complaint response was issued on 27 March 2024. It:
1. apologised for the inconvenience.
2. listed details of 4 repair reports and stated they were all attended within its timescales.
3. explained that the resident did not get notice of the contractor’s attendance that could not access her property on 28 February 2024 and had to be rescheduled, as these visits were scheduled within a 24-hour window.
4. said replacement of the bottom element to the immersion cylinder was scheduled for 28 March 2024.
The resident was unhappy with this response and asked that her complaint be escalated on 30 March 2024. She said she had been without hot water since December 2023 and faced long waits for appointments. A timer was incorrectly installed on 14 February 2024, and an electrician had to fix the wiring on 29 March 2024, as it was not connected to the main element. Even after the element was replaced on 28 March 2024, the immersion heater still did not work. She added that only the booster worked, which caused her electricity bills to rise. On 2 April 2024, she told the landlord this matter was affecting her physical and mental health and asked that the landlord add this to her complaint.
The escalation request was acknowledged 11 April 2024, and the stage 2 complaint response was issued by the landlord on 8 May 2024. The response said that:
1. the hot water issue was first reported on 14 January 2024, and it apologised that the stage 1 response did not mention this report.
2. the contractor attended on 23 January 2024 and tested both elements and left the system in working order.
3. it recognised delays related to further immersion repair reports. It said it had spoken to contractor about responding in a timely manner in line with timeframes, making sure the correct operatives were allocated for complex jobs, and to not close unfinished orders.
4. the landlord apologised for the delay in the stage 2 complaint acknowledgement and confirmed that resident had agreed the system was working properly when its surveyor contacted her on 2 May 2024.
5. it would consider compensation for additional electricity usage if she gave it evidence of this and could award her a nominal amount if she was unable to. It also offered a total of £450 compensation made up of:
  1. £25 for failure to follow process.
  2. £50for miscommunication/incorrect information provided.
  3. £25 for unsatisfactory handling of complaint.
  4. £350 forinconvenience, time, and trouble.
The resident did not accept the compensation offer. She brought her complaint to the Service stating the landlord did not investigate the entire timeframe of her complaint. She said she experienced significant stress and inconvenience and wanted compensation to reflect this and to be refunded for increased electricity costs because of the immersion faults. On 9 May 2024 and 29 November 2024, the resident gave the landlord evidence of increased electricity usage, however she has said she has not been refunded for these costs.
As part of this complaint investigation, the Service asked the landlord if the additional electricity costs had been paid yet to the resident. The landlord responded on 9 May 2025 and apologised for failing to refund the resident. It said this was an oversight and that it had written to the resident that day to apologise for this and it provided a breakdown of the additional electricity costs of £460.99 it said it would refund. In addition, it offered the resident a further £100 compensation, which is made up of:
1. £50 for its failure to follow process on 2 occasions.
2. £50 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience that its delay in processing this request has caused for the calculation of the additional costs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We acknowledge that the resident has provided information about later immersion heater faults that occurred in September 2024. The resident has advised that these issues have been dealt with through the landlord’s complaint procedure. If needed, the resident may still separately progress these matters further through the Service. However, as these issues are not part of the original complaint submitted to us, they are not assessed in this report. This is because evidence has not been provided that they have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure yet, and we may not consider complaints made before exhausting the complaints procedure.
The resident has also said the repair issue has affected her physical and mental health. We recognise the distress the resident has experienced, which is very concerning, however the Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, effects on health and wellbeing or to award damages for these. This is because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so in the way a court or insurer might. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation, and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed through the courts or a personal injury liability insurance claim. Therefore, these are not assessed in this report because we may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts or other tribunal or procedure.

Immersion heater repair and compensation

The landlord’s responsibilities regarding hot water provision are set out in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, where landlords are required to repair and maintain systems that provide heating and hot water. This is also reflected in the resident’s tenancy agreement, which states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair and proper working order any installations provided by it for water, gas, electricity, heating, and sanitation, including water heaters.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 also requires landlords to compete works in a “reasonable” timescale, and to a standard that keeps the property fit for occupation. There is no statutory definition of a reasonable timescale, but relevant factors include the extent of the repair, availability of parts, and the effect on the resident.
The landlord is also required to make sure that it responds to the resident’s reports of responsive repairs in line with its responsive repairs policy’s obligations and timeframes. The policy states that the landlord will deal with emergency repairs posing a threat to safety within a maximum of 24 hours and non-emergency repairs within a maximum of 28 calendar days.
The resident said that the fault with immersion heater began in December 2023. However, the landlord’s repair and call logs do not have a record of repairreportsin December 2023 that relate to the loss of hot water or immersion heater faults. Records of repair reports in December 2023 instead relate to a report from the resident of a loose bathroom radiator, made on 27 December 2023. According to the repair logs, the resident reported a fault with the immersion heater on14 January 2024. This was acknowledged by the landlord in its stage 2 complaint response.
Both the stage 1 and stage 2 responses addressed repair activity up to 8 March 2024. However, further reports and visits continued after that date leading up to the final completion of works on 30 April 2024. Between 14 January 2024 and 30 April 2024, the resident reported repeated faults on multiple occasions, including on 13 and 27 February 2024, 7, 8, 29 and 30 March 2024, and 2, 3, 4, 19 and 30 April 2024. While it is acknowledged that the hot water fault was intermittent, it was 107 calendar days before the repair was acknowledged as properly completed. This is far in excess of the expected timescale of 28 calendar days from the landlord’s responsive repairs policy. The resident said the time it took to resolve the problem was a source of frustration and stress, which is understandable.
Although the repair was classed as a non-emergency repair and the landlord said each individual repair report was addressed within the timescale of 28 calendar days for such repairs, the repeated attendances required to properly complete the repair were unacceptable. The landlord recorded attending the resident’s repair reports on 23 January 2024, 14 and 28 February 2024, 28 March 2024, and 4, 29 and 30 April 2024. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on repairs report, however, recommends that landlords should monitor recurring repairs and review their approach for effectiveness.
As part of the learning noted by the landlord from this complaint, it acknowledged delays and raised concerns with the contractor about assigning the correct operatives for complex jobs and not closing unfinished orders. While all these actions are appropriate, a more proactive approach while the issue was ongoing could have resolved the matter more quickly and limited the stress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
The resident explained that the repeated disruption caused significant stress and inconvenience, and she also told the landlord about disruption to her daily life and the effect on her physical and mental health.The landlord’s compensation policy allows for discretionary compensation where there are delays in repairs, the loss of amenities, failures to meet target response times or follow policy and procedure, or unreasonable delays in resolving situations. This is based on the severity of the failure, the effect on the resident, and whether this is worsened by vulnerabilities.
The landlord offered the resident £350 compensation for the inconvenience, time, and trouble she experienced. This offer falls within our remedies guidance’s range of £100 to £600 for maladministration where the landlord’s failing has adversely affected the resident. The £350 compensation award is considered fair and proportionate, as it is at the midpoint of the maladministration range, acknowledging the delay, distress, and inconvenience caused by the delay in resolving the hot water issue. The compensation also reflects that the issue was intermittent. Furthermore, the landlord has recognised its failings and has taken steps to address the issues. This includes engaging with the contractor about delays and workmanship, which demonstrates an attempt to prevent a recurrence of the issue.
The resident also requested compensation for needing to take leave from work to provide access to workmen to complete repairs.However, the landlord’s position, as set out in its tenancy agreement and compensation policy is it does not offer compensation for leave taken to accommodate access for repairs. This is because residents are required to allow access to contractors to complete repairs in their homes andthis may occasionally require taking leave from work. The landlord therefore reasonably declined this request in accordance with its tenancy agreement and compensation policy.
In addition, the resident told the landlord that, until the immersion heater was properly fixed the ‘booster’ had provided a source of hot water. which caused a significant increase in electricity use and cost. The landlord did not dispute the additional electricity costs due to increased usage. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered to consider evidence of increased electricity costs but would require evidence such as electricity bills to do so. This is in line with its compensation policy, which states it makes quantifiable loss payments such as increased bills due to repairs that must have been reasonably incurred, and evidence of such loss must be provided.
The resident provided the landlord a range of evidence showing electricity usage, including meter readings and bills. A review of the documentation shows a substantial rise in electricity costs between 24 January 2024 to 25 February 2024. The bill for this period was £717.17 compared to other monthly bills of around £300. This increase coincides with the use of the ‘booster’, which was necessary to provide the resident with hot water while the immersion heater was faulty. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to refund the resident for additional electricity costs, and the resident has received the proposed refunded costs offer of £460.99 for this period, with a further £100 compensation award for the delay and failure to follow process.
However, although the landlord eventually offered additional compensation on 9 May 2025 to acknowledge the inconvenience caused by the delay, this only happened after the Ombudsman’s intervention. It also came 12 months after the resident first provided evidence of increased electricity costs on 9 May 2024. The landlord failed to promptly consider the resident’s evidence. By failing to act sooner, it missed an opportunity to show the resident that it was committed to resolving the issue.
Additionally, by not refunding the resident in a timely way, the landlord failed to follow through on its promise in the stage 2 complaint response to consider any additional electricity costs evidence the resident provided. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) also requires landlords to monitor complaint outcomes to make sure they are properly completed. In this case, this clearly did not happen. Given the excessive delay, the landlord’s offer of an additional £100 compensation is appropriate. It is in line with the start of the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for maladministration for a failing that adversely affected the resident.
The landlord has demonstrated in its complaint responses that it has formally acknowledged and accepted its failures with regards to its handling of this repair matter. It has acted appropriately by apologising for the failures in relation to the delays in completing the repairs and by offering compensation in recognition of its failures. It is noted that the landlord has offered the resident total compensation of £450 for inconvenience, time, and trouble, and the delayed consideration of electricity costs, as well as a refund of the £460.99 costs.
In considering whether the landlord’s offer of compensation is reasonable, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s compensation policy, the Service’s own Dispute Resolution Principles (be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes) and our published remedies guidance. Some of the factors that the Ombudsman considers are whether the redress is proportionate to the severity of the failure by the landlord and the effect on the resident.
The landlord’s recognition of its failings along with its efforts to engage with the contractor to address workmanship concerns demonstrates a reasonable attempt to learn from the complaint and prevent similar issues in the future. Its offer of £350 compensation for the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by delays in resolving the immersion heater faults is considered fair and proportionate recognition of the inconvenience experienced. In addition, the additional £100 compensation offered the for the delayed refund of additional electricity costs acknowledges the excessive and unreasonable delay the resident experienced.
The landlord was responsible for several failures in this matter, which together amount to service failure. While the landlord did make some effort to put things right, it failed to fully address the effect on the resident in a timely way, and it only did so after the Ombudsman’s intervention.
In total, the £450 compensation offered for both the poor handling of repair reports and the delayed refund of electricity costs is nevertheless in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This recommends this range of compensation for such failures where “the landlord has acknowledged failings and/or made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and/or the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.” Overall, we therefore order the landlord to pay the total compensation it offered the resident for the service failure identified.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

At the time of the resident’s 8 March 2024 stage 1 complaint, the landlord’s complaints, compliments and comments policy had a 2-stage complaints process, which aimed to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days and to send a response within 10 working days. If the landlord was unable to respond within this time, it could request an extension of an additional 20 working days. Therefore, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint acknowledgement after 5 working days on 15 March 2024, and its stage 1 response after 13 working days on 27 March 2024, were slightly outside its policy’s timescales. However, there is no evidence that the resident experienced detriment from these brief delays.
The landlord’spolicy’s complaints process was further revised in May 2024, and it now says it is required toacknowledge complaint requests within 5 days tocomply with theCode.It is also required torespond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days, and it is permitted to request extensions for these of an additional 20 working days by its policy.
In its 8 May 2024 stage 2 response, the landlord accepted that it failed to acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 escalation request on 30 March 2024 within its timescale of 5 working days. Instead, it acknowledged the complaint on 11 April 2024, which was 3 working days over the 5-working-day timeframe. The landlord apologised and offered a total of £50 compensation for this, made up of £25 for delayed acknowledgement and £25 for the failure to follow process. This is was fair and proportionate redress given the delay was not significant. This is because this was in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation of compensation from £50 for such minimal delays in getting matters resolved.
In the stage 2 response, the landlord also recognised and apologised for the stage 1 response’s failure to include the resident’s repair report of 14 January 2024. In acknowledgement, it offered the resident £50 further compensation for this miscommunication error. Again, this was fair and reasonable redress for the oversight identified. This is because this was also in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation of compensation from £50 for such errors causing disappointment or loss of confidence.
The resident also said that not all of the elements of her complaint were addressed in the landlord’s complaint responses. In an email to the landlord on 2 April 2024, the resident told the landlord that the repeated issues were having a serious effect on her physical and mental health and asked for this to be added to her complaint. However, this was not addressed in the stage 2 response. Given the nature of the issues raised it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged the resident’s concerns. In addition, the landlord should have provided the resident with details of its liability insurance policy to enable the resident to make a claim for any effect on her health the issue was causing. Moreover, the landlord did not acknowledge or compensate the resident for its 6-working-day total delay at stage 1 or its stage 2 response being 6 working days later than its policy’s 20 working days.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised the miscommunication error in the stage 1 response and for the procedural failing of its late acknowledgement identified in its stage 2 complaint handling. It also offered proportionate financial redress for these failings that reflect our remedies guidance for such minor service failings.
However, by failing to acknowledge and address the resident’s reports about the effect the issue had on her physical and mental health or its other complaint handling delays, the landlord did fail to address all of the elements of the resident’s complaint. This was a service failure, for which it would be appropriate to apologise to the resident and provide her with its relevant liability insurance details should she wish to claim for effect on her health. The landlord is therefore ordered to apologise and provide its insurance details to and pay the resident an additional £100 compensation in acknowledgement of this failing. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation of up to £100 compensation to recognise such service failures by the landlord resulting in the resident experiencing distress, inconvenience, and delays in getting matters resolved.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of immersion heater repair reports and the compensation it offered for this.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Issue a written apology to the resident for the further delays, poor communication, and complaint handling failures identified by this investigation.
2. Provide the resident with details of its liability insurance policy to enable the resident to make a claim for any effect on her health the issues in her case caused.
3. Pay the resident total compensation of £1,110.99 made up of:
  1. £350 the landlord previously offered for inconvenience, time, and trouble from the delayed resolution of the immersion heater repairs.
  2. £460.99 the landlord previously offered for additional electricity costs for the period 1 January 2024 to 25 February 2024.
  3. £50 the landlord previously offered for its failure to follow process on 2 occasions.
  4. £50 the landlord previously offered for the time, trouble, and inconvenience for delay in processing the calculation of the additional electricity costs.
  5. £50 the landlord previously offeredfor miscommunication/incorrect information provided in the stage 1 complaint response.
  6. £25 the landlord previously offered for unsatisfactory handling of the complaint.
  7. £25 the landlord previously offered for its failure to follow its complaint process.
  8. An additional £100 for the landlord’s failure to address all elements of the resident’s complaint or its complaint handling delays.