Stonewater Limited (202330242)

Background

1. The resident lives in a ground floor flat. She has reduced mobility and a heart condition which the landlord is aware of. On 2 September 2023, she reported the smell of sewage and a damp bedroom carpet. The report was miscategorised, causing a delay in identifying and addressing the problem. Many items of furniture and personal belongings were damaged. The landlord carried out repairs and the resident was able to move back into the property. However, she is unhappy with the landlord’s response to her initial report, her request for compensation and her concerns with the temporary accommodation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of odours and the subsequent sewage leak.
   2. Request for compensation for damaged belongings.
   3. Concerns that the temporary accommodation offered was unsuitable.
   4. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the reports of odours and the subsequent sewage leak.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the request for compensation for damaged belongings.
   3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns that the temporary accommodation was unsuitable.
   4. 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

Reports of odour and the subsequent sewage leak

4. The landlord incorrectly logged the resident’s report and failed to investigate it appropriately as a result. It has acknowledged this failure, apologised and provided proportionate compensation.

Handling of the request for compensation for damaged belongings

5. The landlord unreasonably failed to provide the resident with details of its liability insurer.

Concerns that the temporary accommodation was unsuitable

6. The resident did not raise her concerns whilst in temporary accommodation. However, the landlord reasonably considered her concerns and responded appropriately during the complaints process.

Handling of the associated complaint

7. The landlord accepted failings in its handling of the resident’s complaints. It apologised and offered appropriate compensation.

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.

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.

8. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for keeping drains, gutters and external pipes in reasonable repair and working order. Which includes the waste pipes in the home. Its responsive repairs policy confirms that there are 3 repair classifications:
   1. Emergency repairs – completed within 24 hours of the request.
   2. Non-emergency repairs – completed within 28 days of notification.
   3. Major repairs – completed within a maximum of 42 days.
9. The resident first reported the issue on 2 September 2023. The call and repair notes show the landlord did incorrectly record the report as damp and mould in the bedroom. Subsequently, it raised a repair with a lower priority and target date. This meant a delay in addressing the issue which led to further damage in the home.
10. On 9 September, the resident notified the landlord that she was on holiday, but her neighbours had alerted her that there were issues with the sewage drain outside her property. Also, her kitchen and bathroom sinks had spontaneous smells and water coming up through the plug holes. This suggested the issue was getting worse and the landlord appropriately raised an emergency repair.
11. It attended within the 24-hour timescale but was unsuccessful in attempting to clear the blockage. There is no record of any action or communication with the resident for 6 days, which was unacceptable and demonstrates poor record keeping.
12. On 15 September, the landlord discovered it was a blockage with raw sewage seeping into the resident’s property. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its properties. A sewage leak is a serious, immediate threat. Therefore, a landlord must take action in this situation, which it did. It arranged alternative accommodation, a de-humidifier, repairs, deep clean, cleared the blockage and applied mould treatment. Therefore, it took proportionate measures to address the issue.
13. The property was deemed safe to move back into on 4 October. However, it is noted that the resident chose not to, until 13 October as she was without a bed. The landlord’s overall response to the issue, after its initial error, was timely. The follow on repairs were carried out within the 28 days of when it discovered the cause of the issue. During that time, apart from the one occasion where she had to chase, it is evident that the landlord did communicate with the resident about what it was doing.
14. The landlord appropriately acknowledged that it failed to log the resident’s initial report correctly. As a result it missed an opportunity to fully investigate the resident’s concerns at the earliest opportunity. Once it was fully aware of what it was dealing with it acted reasonably and dealt with the matter. The landlord recognised the impact of its failing on the resident. It apologised for the error and delay and awarded the resident compensation of £906.
15. Having considered our approach to remedies – as set out in our remedies guidance – the landlord’s award was proportionate to address the distress and inconvenience caused. There was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident, however it was not long lasting as the landlord did address the matter, ensured the resident was not at risk by providing alternative accommodation and carried out repairs.

16. Prior to the complaint, the resident informed the landlord twice that some of her belongings had been damaged following the blockage. In its stage 1 response, the landlord signposted the resident to her contents insurer to claim for the damaged items. This was a reasonable response as residents are encouraged to take out contents insurance to cover their personal belongings.
17. The resident informed the landlord that she did not have contents insurance. In response, the landlord tried to mitigate her circumstances and provided her with information about a grant that could assist her in with purchasing replacement items. This was reasonable. However, the resident declined this as she felt it was not enough to cover the items. She ultimately wanted the landlord to increase its compensation or to submit a claim through its own insurer.
18. The landlord did not offer any further compensation, which was in line with its policy as it did not offer redress for damaged items. But it did not provide the resident with any details of how to make a claim to its insurer. This was unreasonable.
19. We cannot decide who is liable for damage. These matters are better resolved through an insurance claim. It would have been fair for the landlord to explain how to make a claim through its own liability insurance. Its quantifiable loss payments policy recognises the need to investigate whether an insurance claim is appropriate. Doing this would have shown that the landlord recognised the resident’s frustration and offered a way to progress the issue. By not doing so, it missed an opportunity to address her concerns and to refer her to the insurer. We order that the landlord share details of its liability insurer with the resident.
20. Should the resident not be able to make an insurance claim. The landlord should also consider the evidence the resident is able to provide about the loss she has incurred and make an offer.
21. In addition to this, we order that the landlord pay the resident £50 in compensation. This is to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failure to provide the insurance details at the time.

22. The landlord’s decant policy states that in situations where there is an immediate health and safety risk to a resident remaining in their home, it will implement an emergency decant. The policy states that this can be paid accommodation such as a hotel at the landlord’s expense or staying with family and friends.
23. The landlord moved the resident to a hotel on 16 September 2023 because of the sewage leak and the resident’s underlying health conditions. This was appropriate. It provided her with an allowance of £25 a day for food, in line with its decant policy. On 18 September 2023, the resident moved out of the hotel to stay with family. She informed the landlord the following day that she had left as it was unsuitable for her needs. This was because the food was restrictive and she needed to be closer to family and home.
24. The resident moved in with family, who had a ground floor toilet as she is unable to use stairs due to mobility issues. However, this meant sleeping on the sofa which she said she found uncomfortable.
25. It is noted that the resident’s decant form was silent in relation to dietary concerns and only noted a preference to stay in the area. Nevertheless, when it responded to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns and confirmed what changes it had made in its approach to decants. This was positive.

26. Our Complaint Handing Code (the Code) sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code requires landlords to have a 2 stage complaints process. It should acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords should issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint. It must issue a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of an escalation.
27. The landlord sent its stage 1 acknowledgement response on time, but its stage 1 complaint response was 8 working days outside the timeframe. This was a short delay, but the landlord did apologise and offered £25 compensation. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
28. The resident escalated the complaint on 29 October 2023, but there is no evidence of an acknowledgement until 82 working days later. This was inappropriate and caused the resident to chase for an update. The landlord offered no explanation for the delay for this, but did provide its stage 2 response on 7 March 2024, 8 working days after the acknowledgement.
29. At the end of its complaint procedure, the landlord increased its compensation to £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. Given the evidence, we are satisfied that this was a proportionate amount in the circumstances and satisfactorily puts things right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. There was a lack of record keeping around the visit on 9 September 2023 and what actions were taken. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate, accessible records that provide a clear audit trail and support oversight of committed actions. The landlord may wish to reviews its record keeping practices based on the recommendations made in our spotlight report.

Communication

31. Following the initial miscommunication over the issue, there was improved communication over the repairs.