Stonewater Limited (202440468)

Background

1. The resident reported faults with his heating from 2019. Following an inspection in May 2024, the landlord agreed to replace the heating system. The resident complained to the landlord in October 2024 as he wanted compensation for heating-related costs he incurred until the system was replaced. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord offered the resident compensation, including a contribution towards his heating-related costs, but the resident felt the compensation did not fully reflect his financial loss or the distress and inconvenience he had experienced.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s responseto heating faults.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to heating faults.

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

Reasons

4. The property has an air source heat pump which was installed when it was built in 2016. The resident’s lease states shared owners are responsible for keeping the premises in repair and for gas installations. It does not specifically refer to air source heat pumps. However, the landlord’s website states shared owners are responsible for all repairs.
5. We usuallyonly consider events that occurred within the 12 months leading up to a resident’s complaint as evidence is more likely to be ‘live’. However, in its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had reported heating faults as early as 2019. We havetherefore,in line with the landlord’s approach, considered events dating back to 2019.
6. In December 2020, the resident told the landlord that an engineer had said the heating system installation was faulty. The resident did not dispute that, as a leaseholder, he was responsible for repairs to the heating system. However, he explained that he had contacted the landlord because he believed that the recurring faults indicated a more fundamental problem with the system. The resident stated he had paid for multiple heating repairs, but the system continued to break down.
7. The landlord’s contact log shows the resident raised heating concerns to the landlord on 8 occasions before ittook action and completed a heating inspection in May 2024.
8. The landlord’s heating inspection on 10 May 2024 found the system had been correctly installed but identified a number of faults and noted that the system had not been serviced in line with warranty requirements. The landlord advised that the resident was responsible for servicing. In its complaint responses, however, the landlord stated that the heating installation was faulty and confirmed plans to replace several heating systems in the area, including the resident’s. The information the landlord provided was therefore confusing.
9. The landlord later clarified that, although the inspection report stated the heating system had been correctly installed, the number of faults proved that it had not. It also stated the faults were not necessarily installation faults, and the resident’s failure to service the heating could have contributed to the system’s faults.
10. The resident stated he was unaware of the heat pump service requirements. The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to provide the resident with relevant information for the heating system when he moved into the property. It said it had instead supplied the resident information for gas boilers, which he did not have. As previously noted, the leaseholder agreement sets out servicing requirements for gas boilers only and not for heat pumps.  As such, it is clear the resident was not properly informed regarding his responsibilities.
11. The resident told the landlord he had to move to alternative accommodation until the heating was replaced in November 2024, as he and his pregnant partner could not remain in the property without heating and hot water. It is clear that the resident and his family experienced disruption, time and trouble dealing with the heating faults. The resident sought compensation for heating repair costs, inconvenience and distress, communication failings, and additional housing costs.
12. In its stage 2 complaint response,the landlord committed to replacing the heating system and identified relevant learning. It offered the resident £575 compensation, made up of £250 towards housing costs, £100 towards heating repair costs, £100 for communication failings, and £125 for distress and inconvenience. It also offered £25 for a complaint handling delay.These were appropriate steps towards putting things right.
13. The information available does not conclusively establish whether the heating system issues resulted from a faulty installation or from inadequate servicing. In these circumstances, it was positive that the landlord chose to fully replace the system in November 2024. This represented a significant step toward providing redress. This is because ordinarily responsibility for replacing a heating system, even where failings have occurred, rests with the leaseholder. Taking this into account, the total redress offered by the landlord was substantial, reasonable and proportionate.
14. However, the landlord’s failure to properly inform the resident about the system maintenance was not considered. It therefore missed an opportunity to offer redress for the full impact of its failings. For this reason, we find service failure in its handling of the heating repairs.
15. In addition to the £125 compensation already offered for distress and inconvenience, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a further £100 to fully reflect the avoidable distress and inconvenience experienced. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for failings that have had a significant impact on the resident.

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.

Learning

16. The landlord identified learning that was relevant to the failings identified in this complaint and should help prevent future occurrences. This was positive. It said it would:
    1. Review its processes for identifying and addressing systemic faults in shared ownership properties.
    2. Improve its communication protocols for prolonged repair cases.
    3. Improve staff training to ensure customer concerns are escalated appropriately.