Stonewater Limited (202424673)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424673

Stonewater Limited

30 May 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 the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the property since 25 February 2010. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat.
The resident says she had been reporting damp and mould in the property for some time prior to the complaint made in this case. The resident reported damp and mould in her property again on 7 December 2023, following which the landlord raised a works order to treat the damp and mould and reseal the windows. The windows were resealed on 19 December 2023.
On 28 December 2023, the resident requested a surveyor to inspect the property as she felt earlier repairs had been unsuccessful.
The landlord arranged a mould wash, and an operative attended on 8 January 2024, but the resident had cleaned the mould herself.
The landlord agreed to arrange for an independent surveyor to attend and said it would then raise any necessary works. The contractor completed the survey on 1 February 2024. The key findings were as follows:
1. There was damp and mould in the property which it classified as “typical mould.”
2. The guttering was defective, overflowing and leaking onto the ground which could potentially have caused penetrating damp.
3. It noted the kitchen window frame was defective with water ingress above the opening in the frame.
4. It concluded that the guttering required repairs, the sealant in the window needed investigation and the window replaced and, the bedrooms needed vents installed.
The landlord raised a follow-on works on 8 February and told the resident it should complete the works by 27 February 2024.
On 21 February 2024, the resident said the surveyor told her the window did not require replacing as the issue was a structural one. The landlord responded the following date to say it would contact the window contractor as the survey had not mentioned a structural issue. It confirmed the damp, and mould was categorised as typical and the follow-on works raised. It advised if the damp and mould remained after the works, it would review the case again.
On 21 May 2024, the resident reported maggots in the property. Pest control attended on 26 May 2024 and confirmed the pests were moths and gave the resident advice on how to deal with the issue.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 25 June 2024. The key points were as follows:
1. The landlord had failed to update her about the damp and mould, and she was unhappy with the level of communication received.
2. The property had many issues which kept returning.
3. Moths were present in the property and the overall state of the property was poor.
4. Surveyors had attended in the past about the repairs but took no action.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 29 July 2024. It gave a summary of the actions taken previously and summarised its findings as follows:
1. It was sorry to hear about the ongoing damp and mould and accepted there had been occasions when it had not responded or kept the resident updated.
2. With regards to damage to personal belongings, it quoted its compensation policy and advised the resident that if she made a claim on her insurance, it may consider paying the excess. It recommended that the resident contact it if she wanted to make a claim with its own insurance or if she needed help applying for any grants.
3. With regards to a managed move, it confirmed it had provided the resident with its policy in January but confirmed the resident was not eligible for a move.
4. It offered compensation of £75 made up of £50 for its poor communication and £25 for the delay in providing the complaint response.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaint process on 14 August 2024. The key points of her request were as follows:
1. The resident questioned why the landlord had only considered the complaint from when she reported the damp and mould again in December 2023 when she had reported it for over 10 years.
2. She declined the compensation.
3. She would not be claiming on her insurance for items to be damaged again.
4. She had a lack of trust in the landlord and while she was reluctant to have the works done, she would agree to them just to “humour” the landlord.
In a message exchange with the resident on 14 August 2024, she confirmed the outstanding issues was the leak. The landlord confirmed it had contacted the window replacement company for further information on the leak. It had reported a further leak in the airing cupboards to its gas team and raised an order for pest control to reattend.
On 3 September 2024, the landlord raised works orders for the water leak in the window and for the fitting of the air vents.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 24 September 2024. The key points were as follows:
1. It gave an overview of the stage 1 response and explained that while the resident had said the issue had gone on for 10 years, it could only look at the past year and linked its reasoning to its complaints policy.
2. It understood that since the last response there had been issues with access to the home to complete repairs. The landlord accepted that the resident had previously said she was only available on a Wednesday, but it had not noted that request on its system.
3. It advised that since 2023, it had restructured its damp and mould team which had caused delays with the repairs. But it said the resident now had a point of contact who would monitor and manage the repairs to completion.
4. With regards to damaged items, the landlord reiterated the stance made in its stage 1 response. It also gave information on available grants.
5. It accepted its service had let the resident down and said it would review its policies and processes going forward.
6. It offered compensation of £400, made up of £50 for its complaint handling, £250 for the time and trouble and, £100 for its service failure.
The contractor attended on 29 October 2024 to complete works to the window however, the resident declined the plasterboard on the internal window reveal as she said water was still leaking in through the hole in the window so there was no point in the plastering works.
In referring her complaint to this Service, the resident said she wanted the issue resolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We understand that the resident says she has raised concerns about damp and mould in the property for around 10 years. However, we can only consider issues that have exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure and that were brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, usually 12 months. Therefore, this investigation will focus only on the events from December 2023 until October 2024.
In her complaint, the resident raised the impact the damp and mould had on her and her families mental and physical health. While we do not dispute this, we cannot make a causal link between the damp and mould and the impact on health. We will however consider the overall distress and inconvenience caused.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy set out that it assigns cases as follows:
1. Stage 1 cases are those where a household requires support and guidance to treat mould and need low level interventions.
2. Stage 2 cases are those where minor repairs, or where there is a need for the replacement of components and the treatment of mould, as well as ventilation.
It set out that its approach is to liaise with a resident to understand the intervention needed and the urgency of the required works. It will arrange for a surveyor to attend to find remedial works and follow up on any works to ensure adequate completion.
Its responsive repairs policy set out that it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and non-emergency day-to-day repairs within 28 days.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould.

When the resident first reported the issue of damp and mould in the property on 7 December 2023, the landlord appropriately raised a works order the same day.
The windows were resealed on 19 December 2023, within 8 days of the resident reporting the issue. This was reasonable in the circumstances and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
The landlord also arranged for a mould wash to take place. On 28 December 2023, the resident said she did not wish for the mould wash as she had been dealing with the issue for a long time and therefore wanted a surveyor. While the landlord appropriately agreed to the surveyor, it also kept the appointment for the mould wash. The landlord has a duty of care to its resident’s and must ensure it looks after its property; it was therefore reasonable that it kept the appointment for the mould wash.
Furthermore, it attended to complete the mould wash within its policy timescales.
The landlord’s damp and mould team also reached out to the resident on 3 January 2024 to discuss the ongoing damp and mould issues. Where a resident reports damp and mould, we expect a landlord to discuss this with a resident to understand the severity, the risk and to discuss a plan of action to resolve the issue. The landlord contacting the resident to discuss the issue showed a commitment from it to help resolve the situation for the resident.
The landlord arranged for a surveyor on 8 January 2024 and raised further works including the replacement of a window that was causing the leak into the kitchen. This swift action again highlighted a commitment to resolve the issue for the resident.
The contractor completed the survey on 1 February 2024 and the landlord received the survey on 7 February 2024. It appropriately raised all the recommended works the following day and communicated this to the resident.
On 21 February 2024, the resident advised that despite a repair, the rain still leaked in through the window. She said the contractor said the issue was structural and therefore replacing the window would be ineffective. As this was contrary to the information received from its surveyor, the landlord reached out to the contractor to ask for confirmation of the above. Given the information from the resident and that the window replacement had not been successful in resolving the leak, it was appropriate of the landlord to investigate the issue further and seek advice from the contractor.
It also provided the resident with a schedule of works for the outstanding repairs to the property and advised if the repairs did not resolve the damp and mould, it would review the situation. This was reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord is entitled to rely on its qualified contractors to decide a repair pathway and to only escalate its response further if necessary. Furthermore, that it provided the resident with a clear schedule of works was in line with its policy where it says it would communicate effectively with residents.
The landlord replaced the gutters on 27 February 2024, however the other works to undertake a mould wash and install vents were closed due to the contractor being unable to gain access to the property. The landlord accepted in its complaint response that while it was aware the resident had requested appointments only on a Wednesday, it had not noted this down or informed its contractors of such information. Landlord’s need to ensure they have effective case management systems where it records resident’s requests. Not doing caused the outstanding repairs to be closed with the resident unaware of when the landlord would resolve the issues.
Throughout March the landlord appropriately continued to liaise with the window contractor to chase for a quote and further information in relation to the repairs on the window. Following further clarification from that contractor, it raised further works on 15 April 2024 for the window to be investigated. Given that the first repair was unsuccessful, it was appropriate of the landlord to undertake further investigations and raise further works.
Due to the error with the contractor closing the outstanding jobs, the resident chased the landlord for updates on 25 April 2024. The landlord raised the works order to install the vents the same date, which it completed on 9 May 2025. While it was unfortunate it did not complete the works at the earliest opportunity, the landlord raised them as soon as the resident chased it again and it was completed within its policy timescales.
The window contractor attended the property again on 15 May 2024 to further inspect the leak in the window. However, the landlord has not provided evidence of the outcome of that inspection. This indicates a record keeping issue. Furthermore, it has provided no evidence to show that it took any further action in relation to the window until September 2024 during which time the resident had raised a formal complaint and had continued to report that the window was leaking, and the damp and mould continued. This was outside of its published 28 day repair timescale and highlights the landlord’s lack of urgency to resolve the issues which impacted on the resident’s enjoyment of her home and caused avoidable distress.
A contractor attended on 25 September 2024 and informed the landlord that it could not find any errors with the window and that fitting further vents would not help resolve the damp and mould. The landlord consequently closed the case. Given that the resident had persistently reported that when it rained water leaked into the property, she had provided video footage to further evidence the issue and consequently continued to have damp and mould in the property, it was not appropriate that the landlord closed the case without at least speaking to the resident to understand the current position. Where inspections do not identify a fault, but a fault is still present, the landlord needs to ensure it escalates that response further and completes further investigations. Instead, it closed the case and left the resident with a situation that had been unresolved for 10 months.
The landlord arranged for a plasterer to attend the property on 29 October 2024 to complete plastering works to the window. However, the resident refused this work as she said the leak remained unresolved and therefore plastering would be pointless.
In an email to the landlord on the same date she reiterated her concerns about the ongoing water ingress in the window and the continuing damp and mould in the property. Despite that, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it responded to the resident. In its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted its communication had not been of the standard it expected in this case and that it would undertake learning from this case. Given that the communication issues continued, the landlord has not evidenced that it undertook the learning it said it had.
The resident chased the landlord again on 7 November 2024 and while the landlord called her back the following day, there is no evidence to show that at that stage it took any further action to raise works or complete further investigations. While it was clear the issue was still unresolved, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have continued to complete investigations into the issue. Instead, it left the resident in a situation where she had a leaking window, no timeline for repair and continuing damp and mould.
The resident first reported moths in the property 21 February 2024 which she believed were due to the ongoing damp and mould issue. While it was unclear at that stage if the moths were due to the damp and mould, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it responded to the resident. It would have been appropriate for it to respond and set out its position that either it would attend or to highlight its pest control policy which says moths are a resident responsibility.
The resident then reported the issue again on 21 May 2024 but said the issue was maggots in the property. The landlord appropriately attended on 25 May 2024 and advised the issue, in line with its policy, was the residents and it gave her advice on how to manage the issue.
The resident reported the issues again in her formal complaint and the landlord advised in a phone call on 29 July 2024 that the moths were due to the ongoing damp and mould in the property and both parties agreed to resolve the issue when the damp and mould was resolved and it confirmed this in the stage 1 response. Given the damp and mould was ongoing, this was a reasonable response.
However, it would have been useful for the landlord to have considered if it could have provided any temporary solutions to help alleviate the situation while the investigations were ongoing.
In the resident’s response to stage 1, on 14 August 2025, she said that the moth issue was still outstanding. The landlord appropriately arranged for its pest controller to attend again to investigate the issue further.
When pest control attended on 6 September 2024, the operative reported that the pests were moths and therefore not managed by the landlord. This response was in direct contradiction to the stage 1 response in July when the landlord said that it would resolve the issue once it had resolved the damp and mould. This response would have confused the resident who was under the impression the landlord had committed to resolve the issue. We are aware that this issue is still outstanding and therefore an order has been made in relation to this.
During the complaint process, the resident reported damage caused to her personal belongings because of the damp and mould in the property. Where a resident reports such damage and asks the landlord to compensate, the landlord should set out its position on the damage to the resident’s possessions in writing, referring to its compensation policy. In this case, the landlord did that. It encouraged the resident to claim on her own contents insurance. However damage caused by damp and mould may not be covered under household contents insurance. It also referred her to the details of its own insurer and provided information on grants that may be available to assist the resident. This response was reasonable in the circumstances.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould could have been improved. While it endeavoured in the first instance to resolve the matter, it then delayed in completing further investigations and left the resident with a leak that reoccurred every time it rained without a timeline for repairs. Its communication, at times, was poor and while it accepted the service it offered was not of the standard it expected to give, its compensation offer was not reflective of the detriment caused in this case.
Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. Any extension needed will not exceed a further 10 working days.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 25 June 2024. While a response was due, in line with the landlord’s policy, on 15 July 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident on 3 July 2024 to say it required an extension and then again on 15 July 2024 to advise of a further delay. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that where there is a delay in providing a complaint response, the landlord must communicate this to the resident. In this instance the landlord did that and it provided compensation of £25 to reflect the delay. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaint process on 14 August 2024. It acknowledged this request on 23 August 2024, 8 working days after the request. This is not in line with its policy which sets out that it would acknowledge an escalation request within 2 working days. However, the landlord apologised for the delay in its response and offered £25 compensation. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 24 September 2024. While this was 1 day outside of the landlord’s published timescales, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the delay and offered £25 compensation.
While the landlord’s complaint handling could have reasonably improved, it has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right.
As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its complaint handling which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, a senior member of staff must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £750, to recognise the distress, inconvenience caused by the handling of the damp and mould. This must be paid less any amount previously paid in this case for its handling of the damp and mould.
We understand that the leak to the window, the damp and mould and the moth infestation are still unresolved, but the resident informs us that an error with another window has been identified as potentially causing the issue. Therefore within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide the resident and this Service with a timebound action plan setting out the actions it intends to take to investigate and resolve the outstanding issues. In completing its action plan, it must survey the property and provide a scope of works.

Recommendations

As a finding of reasonable redress has made been in relation to the landlord’s complaint, the landlord should pay the compensation offered of £75.