Stonewater Limited (202502138)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202502138

Stonewater Limited

1 October 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. repairs to flooring.
2. the resident’s request for a management move.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started in 2006. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident’s son of severe learning difficulties, mental health, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and autism.
In November 2023, the landlord raised a repair to the kitchen floor following a report from the resident that the floor was wet. The report noted a previous leak from the boiler. The landlord completed a repair in December 2023 to make safe and raised follow on works. The landlord’s contractor completed a structural survey at the property in June 2024. The survey recommended the floor covering is removed in the kitchen and dining room to inspect and repair, pipework inspected, the use of a dehumidifier, new kitchen units, decking, and floor covering. It noted it was not possible for the property to be occupied during the works. The landlord then requested quotes from its contractor for the recommended work.
The resident complained to the landlord on 3 January 2025 about outstanding work to the kitchen floor. She said the floor was a risk and was sinking due to damp. The resident also said she needed a management move.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 21 January 2025. It apologised for the repair delay and lack of communication. The landlord said it sent the works to its contractor in April 2024. It said it had contacted the resident about her management move request on 9 January 2025. The landlord confirmed it could not proceed with a management move application until the local authority received her application and awarded a priority banding. It advised the process could take time. The landlord offered the resident £500 compensation. This was broken down as £25 for delays with works, £25 for communication, and £450 for distress and impact caused by the delays. It confirmed it would advise the resident on dates for the works.
The resident escalated her complaint on 4 February 2025. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation on 11 February 2025. It said it would look into issues including delays, communication, the safety of the temporary repair, and the resident’s request for a permanent move rather than a temporary decant due to the risks to her son.
The landlord provided its final response on 10 March 2025. The landlord confirmed the temporary floor covering was suitable and safe. The landlord said it empathised with the resident’s situation concerning her son’s needs and the potential impact that any changes may have on his wellbeing. It confirmed it could complete the repairs without requiring a temporary decant. It said it would contact the resident to discuss the work schedule. The landlord said it was currently waiting for documentation from the resident to proceed with her management move application. The landlord upheld its stage 1 offer of compensation and explained how it had addressed its communication issues.

Events after the end of the complaints process

The landlord declined the resident’s management move application in June 2025 because it did not meet the threshold for a management move. The landlord confirmed to us that the works remain outstanding. It said it had offered a temporary decant to a single property for the duration of the works to minimise disruption to the household. The resident declined this and had disagreed with the plan to carry out the works while the family remains in the property. The landlord said it has continued to support the resident with her application to the local authority and its offer of temporary accommodation.
The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She told us that a temporary decant or the family remaining in the property during repairs is not suitable due to her son’s needs and wellbeing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Some of the issues raised to us by the resident happened following the end of the complaints process. This includes the landlord’s decision on the resident’s management move application in June 2025. The scope of this investigation centres on the resident’s formal complaint to which the landlord provided its final response on 10 March 2025. Any issues or requests after that time should be raised as new complaints with the landlord before the Ombudsman can potentially investigate these.
The resident has referred to the situation impacting on the health of the household. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. As this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts it will not be considered in this report.

Repairs to flooring

The tenancy agreement says the landlord will keep the structure and exterior of the property in good repair. The landlord has a responsibility in the Decent Homes Standard to ensure its properties are free from hazards and risks and remain fit for human habitation.
The evidence shows the landlord’s contractor attended the property on 17 November 2023 as a routine repair. A follow up appointment on 1 December 2023 was required to investigate the issue further. At this appointment the contractor made the floor safe and advised that further work was needed to restore the floor. A surveyor visit took place in April 2024 and a structural survey on 28 June 2024. Overall, it took the landlord over 7 months to identify the necessary works. This did not meet the timeframes in the landlord’s repairs policy. This says it will deliver major repairs within a maximum of 42 days where there is a significant amount of work required beyond the original repair.
In its final response, the landlord said quotes for the work was delayed by the contractor due to staff changes. The notes from the landlord’s contractor shows delays to receiving a quote for the works. It states it had requested quotes for the recommended works after the survey in June 2024 but had not received this. The landlord chased its contractor for an update on 8 October 2024. Its response confirmed it had not yet obtained the quotes. The evidence shows the landlord did not raise the work with its contractor until 13 January 2025. This was over a year after the resident had first reported the issue with the flooring. This timescale was excessive and not in line with its repairs policy. There was no evidence of the landlord retaining an oversight of the repair and appropriately following up with its contractor on the outstanding quote. Its failure to do so significantly delayed it raising the repairs.
Complex repairs and investigations may require additional time for the landlord to complete them. The landlord identified follow on works following the initial repair in December 2023 and required further surveyor inspections. However, basic customer service requires landlordsto keep in communication with residents and updatethem on the progress of repairs. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will maintain clear and continuous communication with residents. There was no evidence it did this. The records show the resident contacted the landlord 6 times between December 2023 and March 2024to chase the works.She also followed up again in May 2024 following a surveyor visit in April 2024. Its communication about the follow-on repair work was poor.
In her complaint, the resident raised concerns about the safety of the temporary repair. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 17 February 2025 as an emergency appointment. The notes stated it completed work to board the floor temporarily. This was in response to a surveyor inspection earlier that day which noted further signs of collapse to the floor. The landlord confirmed to the resident at stage 2 that the repair was suitable and safe. However, the initial repair in December 2023 was temporary and the structural report in June 2024 recommended the work was carried out urgently to avoid further deterioration. As such, the landlord should have inspected the condition of the temporary repair prior to February 2025 to ensure it was safe. That it did not do so was a failing.
The landlord confirmed to the resident during the complaints process that if her property was determined unsafe while awaiting repairs, it may need to discuss the possibility of temporary relocation. This was reasonable given the landlord’s obligation to ensure the property was free from hazards and risks. However, it is not clear how the landlord has monitored this while the repairs remain outstanding. Furthermore, the resident told us in June 2025 that her husband had fallen through the kitchen floor. As such, an order has been made for the landlord to inspect the current condition of the floor.
Despite being aware of the household’s vulnerabilities, there is no evidence the landlord considered the needs of the household when it initially proposed the work. It is not clear from the evidence provided when the landlord first discussed a proposed decant or plan for the work with the resident prior to her complaint. Emails between the landlord and its contractor in August 2024 discussed the need for a decant and the landlord submitted an approval form internally for a decant on 16 January 2025. The resident stated in an email to her member of parliament in February 2025 that the landlord’s contractor had called her about the work and she refused this because she had received no communication from the landlord about her family’s needs. This was not in line with its vulnerable persons policy. This says the landlord will consider what additional support, consideration or variation in usual service provision is appropriate for vulnerable customers.
The resident chased the landlord multiple times in July 2024 to discuss her concerns about a decant and the impact on her son’s wellbeing. The notes from a call on 19 July 2024 stated the resident asked to be updated on the decant and for a specific property to be considered. There is no evidence of the landlord providing a further update on the proposed decant or contacting the resident again to discuss her concerns or support needs. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it acted in line with its decant policy which says each resident should be subject to a tailored support package that assesses needs and the effects that a decant may have on an individual.
During the complaints process, the landlord made reasonable attempts to consider the needs of the household. It provided the resident with the options it was able to offer in an attempt to start the repair work and support the needs of the household. This included the resident remaining in the property while it completed repairs. It is not clear from the evidence provided when this option was first offered to the resident instead of a temporary decant. The landlord’s internal emails show it confirming this was possible on 23 January 2025.
The repairs remain outstanding. Following the end of the complaints process, the landlord has continued to engage with the resident about access. It sent a letter to the resident in July 2025 requesting to work with her to arrange temporary accommodation and requested suitable locations, specific requirements and dates. The resident has confirmed to us in September 2025 that she has not agreed for the repairs to take place while the household remain in the property, or to be provided with temporary accommodation because of the risks to her son from both options. The resident is continuing to seek a permanent move. Therefore, we have made an order for the landlord to provide its plan to obtain access to the property.
The landlord’s complaint response acknowledged its delay to scheduling the works and its overall poor communication. It offered the resident £500 compensation. The landlord’s compensation policy says it follows the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies to calculate compensation. The amount awarded is within the level of redress for a failure which has adversely affected a resident. However, given the significant distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and the loss of the full enjoyment of her kitchen as a result of the delay, this was not sufficient to put things right.
The landlord demonstrated it had taken learning from the resident’s complaint and identified how it could improve its repairs process. Its final response explained how it was to strengthen communication with contractors, had introduced communication training, and was developing enhanced systems to ensure timely follow-ups and updates.
In summary, the landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged delays to the repairs and poor communication. It is noted the continued delays after the end of the complaints process are not due to inaction by the landlord. To remedy the complaint, the landlord offered the resident compensation and proposed to complete the repairs. However, the total compensation it offered of £500 did not go far enough to reflect the excessive delays leading up to the complaints process, its failures to follow its policies and poor communication. A further amount of compensation has been ordered in line with our remedies guidance for where a landlord has made some attempt to put things right but this was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

The resident’s request for a management move

We cannot decide if a landlord should rehouse a resident. We have investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management move and if it acted fairly and reasonably in line with its policies and procedures.
In raising her complaint on 3 January 2025, the resident said she needed a management move and the landlord had not found a suitable home. There is no evidence of the resident requesting a management move prior to this date.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord appropriately opened a management move case and contacted the resident on 9 January 2025. It also sent the resident an email on the same day with information about the process and criteria. This included the requirement for the resident to be registered with the local authority. The information and guidance it provided was in line with its management transfer policy. This sets out the criteria for a management move, including that residents must be registered with the local authority and should be placed in an emergency/priority band. The resident confirmed to the landlord on 10 January 2025 that she had applied to the local authority that day.
The evidence shows the landlord told the resident during the call on 9 January 2025 that the process was unlikely to be a quick resolution. It also confirmed this in its final response. This demonstrated the landlord appropriately setting the resident’s expectations about the process. The landlord also provided the resident with information about alternative housing options in an email on 9 January 2025. It included contact details for the local authority and information on how to apply for the different housing options. This demonstrated a customer focused approach.
In its final response, the landlord said it was waiting for documentation from the resident to proceed with her application to its housing panel. This is in line with its management transfer policy which states applications should be supported by evidence. The landlord also stated that in line with this policy it could not advance the application until the local authority had granted a priority banding. The evidence shows the resident sent documentation to the landlord in April 2025. The landlord then proceeded to submit the application to its management move panel as promised in its final response.
In summary, following the resident’s request for a management move the landlord contacted the resident promptly and advised her to contact the local authority to register. The landlord explained the criteria for a management move in line with its management transfer policy. It also appropriately provided details about other housing options and explained the likely timescales involved to set the resident’s expectations. These actions were reasonable and in line with its policy. As such there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management move.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to flooring.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents request for a management move.

Orders

The landlord must, within 4 weeks of this report:
1. apologise to the resident for the further failings identified in this report.
2. pay the resident compensation of £400 for the further failings identified in its handling of repairs to flooring. This is in addition to the £500 it offered during the complaints process.
3. Inspect the current condition of the floor and the temporary repair in place.
4. provide a plan (including dates or periods) to obtain access to the property to complete its repairs inline with its “accessing your property policy”.
5. provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Service.