Stonewater Limited (202316771)

Decision
Case ID	202316771
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Stonewater Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	6 March 2026

Background

1. The resident reported draughty windows and doors. The landlord carried out temporary repairs to both. However, it later determined that the windows were beyond repair. It replaced them in November 2023. The resident remained dissatisfied with the delay and with the landlord’s refusal to contribute toward heating costs despite the ongoing draught. She stated that she continued to experience high heating bills, cold living conditions and associated health risks.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Window repairs.
   2. Door repairs.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of window repairs.
4. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of door repairs.
5. We found there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of window repairs

6. There was a delay in replacing draughty windows, the landlord completed works 11 months late. During this period, the resident reported inconvenience from the delay. The landlord acknowledged its failures and offered fair compensation. This was reasonable and consistent with our Dispute Resolution Principles.

The landlord’s handling of door repairs

7. The repair period for the draughty doors following the stage 2 response amounted to 3 months, which exceeded the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. Although the landlord acknowledged its failures and offered compensation during its internal complaints process, it then caused further delay in repairing the rear door. Given the overall delay, we found maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

8. The landlord appropriately identified its complaint handling failures and offered compensation. It also exercised discretion when reviewing the resident’s escalation request. This approach was reasonable and in accordance with its complaint handling policy. This was also consistent with our dispute resolution principles.

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	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 provided by a complaints manager. 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 07 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £400 made up as follows: £250 compensation (if not paid already) that it offered in its stage 2 response for the failures in its handling of the door repairs. Additional £150 for distress and inconvenience caused by the further delay in carrying out the door repairs. 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 07 April 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £500 offered in its stage 2 response on 29 January 2024. The finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the window repairs and complaint handling is dependent on the payment of this sum.
We recommend the landlord should contact the resident to establish if there are any further repairs it needs to complete to minimise the draughts.
We recommend the landlord considers reimbursement, if the resident provides evidence of increased heating costs due to the repairs delay.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
27 September 2022 to 5 January 2023	The resident reported draughty windows. The landlord determined that the windows needed to be replaced.
11 January 2023	The resident submitted a formal complaint about the delay in window repair. She wanted compensation for heating costs.
8 February 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said it: Was sorry for the poor service from the contractor and for the delay in repairing the windows. Offered compensation of £200 (£50 for poor communication, £75 for the delay, and £75 for the inconvenience). Was unable to bring the window repair forward because it required two contractors and two separate jobs. However, it added the resident to the cancellation list. That the contractors would continue repairing the windows as usual until they were replaced under the renewal programme. The surveyor responsible for the programme agreed to add the resident to the 2023 to 2024 schedule.
22 November 2023	The resident requested escalation of her complaint. She said that: The landlord did not address all points raised in the stage 1 response. She was unhappy with delays in replacing the windows. There were outstanding repairs to the front and rear doors. She was unhappy about the handling of the complaint and the amount of compensation offered at stage 1. She wanted the repairs to the doors to be completed and compensation reviewed.
7 December 2023	We wrote to the landlord asking it to escalate the complaint and provide a response by 16 January 2024.
29 January 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said it: Acknowledged delays in repairs and complaint handling failures at stage 1. Found no evidence to support the claim of increased heating costs. Acknowledged miscommunication regarding the door repair. Explained that draught was entering the property due to faulty rubber seals. It confirmed that it would book an appointment for the outstanding repair. Increased the compensation offer to £750 (£125 for delays in carrying out repairs, £125 for distress and inconvenience caused by the delays, £125 for poor communication, £75 for time and trouble, and £250 for poor complaint handling).
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate the complaint because the draught issue persists and the front door still needs resolving. She wants the landlord to complete the repairs to the doors and offer additional compensation.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of window repairs
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not considered

9. The landlord’s complaint process was exhausted on 29 January 2024 and the repairs were completed in November 2023. The resident then raised issues related to the quality of the window repairs. This matter has been logged with us under case reference 202338734. The scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s earlier complaint (January 2023 to 29 January 2024).

What we have considered

10. The landlord’s repairs policy stated that it would respond to all non‑emergency repairs within 28 calendar days and deliver major repairs within 42 calendar days.
11. Following the first report of draughty windows, the landlord raised works and attended on 6 October 2022, within 9 calendar days. This met its non‑emergency repairs timescale of 28 calendar days. The landlord determined that the windows required replacement on 6 October 2022. However, it did not progress this until 5 January 2023, when the resident raised further works and submitted a complaint the same month. The replacement works were completed in November 2023, 11 months after the initial report and outside the major repairs timescale of 42 calendar days set out in its policy. During this period, the landlord carried out temporary repairs to reduce the draught. The landlord explained that the Covid‑19 pandemic had delayed previous planned programmes, which in turn affected subsequent years and contributed to the delays. While delays following the Covid‑19 pandemic were outside of the landlord’s control, it should have aimed to carry out outstanding repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
12. The resident has said she was inconvenienced by the delays in the landlord repairing the windows. She had to make multiple repairs requests. She had to contact the landlord regularly for updates. She said that multiple temporary repairs were completed. She also said she had increased energy costs, as it was harder to keep the house warm while the window let in draughts. The landlord completed the window replacement in November 2023, prior to the stage 2 response. It acknowledged there were delays in completing window repairs and poor communication with the resident. It offered £500 compensation, £125 for the delays in carrying out repairs, £125 for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays, £125 for poor communication, and £75 for time and trouble.
13. It was appropriate of the landlord to apologise and offer compensation. However, this Service notes that it did not specify the amount of compensation it was awarding for each of the complaint issues. This Service has exercised its discretion in splitting the compensation as £250 for failures in relation to its handling of the window repair and £250 for failures in relation to its handling of the door repairs which we have assessed  below. It is good practice for landlords to be explicit in their compensation awards, in terms of highlighting the specific amount of compensation it has awarded to each element of the complaint. The landlord should consider this learning in its future complaint responses.
14. The resident stated that the delay in replacing the windows had led to additional heating costs. The landlord’s compensation policy allowed compensation for quantifiable loss, such as increased heating bills, if evidence was provided. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had not found evidence that the resident’s heating bills increased due to the ongoing repairs. However, we have not seen that the landlord asked the resident to provide evidence of increased heating costs. The landlord could have been clearer about its policy requirements and the need to provide evidence or bills. As such we recommend that the landlord considers reimbursing the resident’s energy costs, if she can provide evidence to support their expenditure.
15. While there were failings in the landlord’s handling of window repairs, it acknowledged its failures, apologised and offered reasonable compensation. This was in line with our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of door repairs
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not considered

16. The resident has raised new issues relating to the quality of the door repair which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure in January 2024. There is no evidence that this new issue in relation to the quality of the door repair has exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. As these issues arose after the landlord’s final complaint response in January 2024, they fall outside the scope of this investigation. Our review is limited to the landlord’s handling of the door repairs up to its stage 2 response.

What we have considered

17. The landlord identified the need to repair the door on 10 January 2023. On 7 February 2023 the landlord recorded that it had undertaken repairs to the front door. However, it identified that further work was required to the rear door as its gasket had perished. Between 21 March 2023 and 10 April 2023, the landlord logged 3 repairs to the doors. It is unclear from the records what these repairs were or whether they sufficiently resolved the issue. The landlord’s repairs policy required it to maintain continuous communication regarding repairs. We have not seen evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated or explained why multiple repair visits were necessary.
18. At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged delays and poor communication. It  offered compensation, which we have split as £250 for failures in relation to itshandling of the door repairs. Italso committed to fixing the seals on the doors. These steps amounted to some reasonable attempts to provide redress. However, they did not go far enough.
19. The landlord completed the repair on 26 April 2024, after 106 days, which was well outside the 28‑day timescale set out in its repairs policy. We have also not seen evidence that it kept the resident updated during this period. We consider that the additional delay and poor communication are likely to have caused further inconvenience to the resident. As such, we have found maladministration.
20. We consider an order for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £150 compensation to be appropriate. This amount reflects the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of the delayed door repairs and is consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy, which states that awards should consider the extent, severity, and impact of the failure. It also aligns with our remedies guidance for cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has made some attempt to put things right.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

21. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it operates a 2-stage process. At stage 1, it will respond within 10 working days and at stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days of acknowledging the complaint. Complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and if further time is needed at any stage, this will be agreed with the resident. These time limits are consistent with the Code, which allows similar extensions where necessary and if communicated to the resident.
22. On 24 January 2023 the landlord advised the resident it needed an extension on issuing its stage 1 response. The extension was until 7 February 2023. This was appropriate and in line with its complaint handling policy. The formal response was sent on 8 February 2023, one day late following the extension, which was minimal and caused no adverse impact.
23. The landlord explained to us that the resident had contacted it on 22 November 2023 to request escalation. The landlord should have responded to the escalation request to confirm whether it was escalating the complaint. We have not seen any evidence of this until after we intervened. The landlord said that, in line with its complaints policy, it would not generally escalate the matter as more than 15 days had passes since the stage 1 response. Nevertheless, the landlord applied discretion and reviewed the matter. This was appropriate and demonstrated the landlord’s commitment to putting things right. It confirmed to us on 16 January 2024 that it will accept the escalation request and provided the stage 2 formal response on 29 January 2024.
24. At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to address some concerns at stage 1. While it did not specify which concerns, it addressed the resident’s concern of door repairs and additional heating costs. It recognised that this failure had led to the complaint escalation and had caused the resident additional time and trouble in pursuing a resolution. The landlord admitted this was below its expected service standard. It explained that improvements to the complaints process were underway, including recruiting more dedicated staff and providing further training. The landlord should have addressed all points of the complaint, including the resident’s reimbursement request, in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. This was a failing, but the landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failures and offered a compensation of £250 for poor complaint handling. There was reasonable redress.

Learning

25. The landlord should be explicit in their compensation awards, in terms of highlighting the specific amount of compensation it has awarded to each element of the complaint.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord generally displayed good record keeping practice which allowed us to establish what went wrong and the measures required to put things right.