Stonewater Limited (202412278)

Background

1. The resident lives in the property with her son. The hot water in her property stopped working on 12 November 2023, and the heating only worked intermittently. She was unhappy with howthe landlord handledthis, so made a complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about how the landlord responded to the resident’s loss of hot water.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the how the landlord responded to the resident’s loss of hot water.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord has accepted that there were unreasonable delays in restoring the hot water, and took steps to put things right. The compensation offered for loss of hot water was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy. But the compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused did not adequately reflect the impact the delays had on the resident. This means it has not done enough to put things right.
6. The landlord’s complaint handling was reasonable and in line with its policy and the Complaint Handling Code.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not considered

7. Our scheme rules say we may not investigate a complaint which has not completed a landlord’s internal complaints process. The resident told us that while the landlord restored the hot water on 1 February 2024, there are still a number of ongoing issues with the boiler. These include the flue leaking when it rains, a hole in the ceiling, and regular boiler faults. Those concerns were not part of her original complaint, so we cannot consider them as part of this investigation.

Assessment

8. The resident reported a loss of hot water on 12 November 2023. Under its repairs policy, the landlord had to try to repair the boiler within 24 hours. But in this case it’s common ground that the resident was left without hot water until 1 February 2024 (82 days).
9. The landlord has accepted that there were unreasonable delays in carrying out boiler repairs (and eventual replacement). It has apologised, taken steps to avoid the same issues in other properties, and offered the resident compensation. Its correspondence with its contractors and the resident also shows it took the matter seriously. The resident does not believe that the compensation offered is sufficient. She said she was left without hot water for a significant length of time, there were repeated unsuccessful appointments, and the compensation is not enough for the impact that had on her.
10. As the landlord has accepted its failings in this case, we will not go into those failings in detail. Instead, we will assess whether the compensation offered is enough to put things right.
11. The landlord offered the resident £410 compensation for the loss of hot water (£5 per day for 82 days). The £410 offered for loss of hot water is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, and standard industry practice. It was therefore reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to offer this compensation.
12. In addition to the compensation for loss of hot water, the landlord also offered £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise that its failings caused distress and inconvenience, and its offer shows it took steps to put things right. However, we do not consider that the level of compensation for distress and inconvenience is enough to put things right. As such, we find there has been maladministration.
13. The resident was left without hot water for nearly 3 months. This would inevitably cause significant distress and inconvenience, particularly when it was over the winter months. She and her son were unable to shower or have a bath in the property, and had to travel to other people’s houses to do so. She also had to repeatedly use kettles to be able to wash the dishes during that time.
14. The resident also had to provide access to multiple repairs staff throughout that time. She is required to provide access under the terms of her tenancy agreement, and the landlord took reasonable steps to accommodate her needs and reduce the need for her to take time off work. It did so by asking the contractors to book evening and weekend appointments. This mitigated the inconvenience. However, on a number of occasions the operatives brought the wrong parts, or turned up for appointments the resident had already told them she would not be available for. This caused unnecessary frustration.
15. Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the landlord must pay the resident £450 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in restoring her hot water. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident, but do not cause a permanent impact. This sum is inclusive of the £100 already offered in the landlord’s stage 2 response.
16. The resident said she also wants to be compensated for time off work and lost wages when providing access for contractors. We would not expect a landlord to reimburse a resident for their time off work or lost wages while repairs go ahead. This is because, as set out above, the resident is required to provide access under the terms of her tenancy agreement. As such, while we have considered the inconvenience caused by failed appointments above, the landlord does not need to offer compensation for any lost income.

17. Under the Complaint Handling Code, the landlord must acknowledge a complaint or an escalation request within 5 working days. It must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request. The timescales under the landlord’s complaints policy from the time were similar to those set out in the Code. It has since updated its complaints policy.
18. The resident made a complaint on 22 December 2023, and escalated her complaint on 15 January 2024. The landlord appropriately investigated the complaint, and responded within the relevant timescales. We therefore find no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Repairs

19. The landlord was proactive in chasing up its contractors, and arranged appointments outside of standard hours to accommodate the resident’s needs. Its emails about the situation show appropriate empathy, and a desire to resolve things for the resident. The records show that most of the failings on this case stem from the landlord being let down by its contractors, rather than any action or inaction on the landlord’s part. As the contractors are the landlord’s agents, it may benefit from more robust supervision of its contractors, or a review of its processes once a repair has been sent to contractors (if it has not already done so since this complaint).

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord’s record keeping was generally reasonable and appropriate. It may benefit from keeping more centralised records, rather than relying heavily on email chains.

Communication

21. The landlord’s communication with the resident was generally reasonable and appropriate. Its communication shows both empathy and a desire to resolve matters for the resident. Any communication issues appear to have been with the contractors rather than the landlord.