Stonewater Limited (202120615)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120615

Stonewater Limited

11 October 2022

 

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the resident’s heating system.
    2. The resident’s request for her kitchen to be replaced.
    3. Repairs to the resident’s guttering.
    4. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a terraced house.
  2. The resident had historically experienced intermittent issues with her heating system throughout 2021. The landlord’s records show that she reported that her heating and hot water would stay on and that she would need to turn the boiler off to control the temperature. Various appointments took place and the issue was rectified on each visit, however, the resident continued to report the intermittent issues. In addition, following the resident’s reports that her guttering was overflowing into her garden, an appointment took place to clear the gutters in November 2021. The resident also asked for her kitchen to be replaced in October 2021, noting that it had been poorly installed by a previous tenant.
  3. The resident raised a complaint in December 2021 as she was dissatisfied with the issues she had experienced related to her heating system over two years. She said that she had been told that the thermostat needed changing but no appointments had been arranged. In addition, she explained that her guttering was previously cleared but that her neighbour’s guttering was not. As the guttering was connected across the terrace, this meant that water was overflowing from the neighbour’s guttering and flooding her garden. The neighbour is also a tenant of the landlord. The resident also expressed concern regarding the condition of her kitchen and noted that shelves had fallen out on a number of occasions as they were balanced on screws which had caused injury. She asked that the kitchen was replaced as soon as possible. The resident later escalated her complaint due to the lack of progression in relation to the repairs and poor communication by the landlord. She requested compensation for; the time and trouble she had spent pursuing matters due to the lack of correspondence from the landlord, the length of time it was taking to resolve the issues, personal injury as a result of the poorly installed shelves in her kitchen and for the damage caused to her pets’ hutches as a result of the overflowing gutter which had not been resolved.
  4. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained the following:
    1. It acknowledged that the resident’s previous heating issues had been addressed as individual incidents rather than as a whole. It confirmed that it had attempted to attend the property on 30 December 2021 to review the overall performance of the heating system, but the resident had then called to advised that the system was currently working and that she would call if there were any further issues. It confirmed that it would be in touch to rearrange an appointment to assess the heating as a result of the resident’s concerns.
    2. It initially advised that it would contact the resident to see if repair were required to her kitchen. It later apologised that its communication had not been clear regarding this issue. It confirmed that the resident’s kitchen had been added to the 2022/23 programme of works and it had asked the contractors to prioritise the works when the programme started in April 2022. It had offered to complete temporary repairs to the kitchen and confirmed that if the resident felt that additional repairs were required in the meantime she could raise these.
    3. It confirmed that if works were needed for the neighbouring gutters, this would be arranged. It noted that it should have identified the works required sooner and apologised. It confirmed that it had raised the works and would work with the contractors to see these through to completion. It also acknowledged that its communication had been poor, which was partly as a result of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on its staffing levels.
    4. It offered the resident a total of £600 compensation in May 2022, comprised of £350 for its poor communication and £250 for the delay in completing works to the guttering.
  5. The resident referred her complaint to this Service in May 2022 as the reported repair issues were ongoing and she did not feel that the landlord’s offer of £600 was proportionate in view of the time and trouble she had spent pursuing her concerns.
  6. Following this, the resident continued to experience issues with her heating system, the resident advised that the intermittent issues with the system were since rectified but that there had been damage to her flooring as a result of a leaking radiator valve which the landlord was yet to fix. She has also advised that the kitchen replacement was completed at the end of September 2022. The landlord’s records show that an appointment was arranged to realign the resident’s guttering on 21 June 2021. The resident had advised this Service that the issues were still ongoing as of 6 October 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. In her communication with this Service and the landlord, the resident has raised concerns that the condition of her kitchen had caused personal injury. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages in the way in which a court could. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim to the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) and the resident may wish to seek legal advice on taking this matter further if she wishes.
  2. This investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord, which included her concern over the intermittent issues with her heating system, her request to have her kitchen replaced and issues related to the guttering. It is noted that following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaint process, the resident raised additional concerns regarding her heating system and delays in replacing her kitchen as well as repairs required to her flooring. These more recent issues will not be reviewed as part of the Ombudsman’s current investigation as the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the formal involvement of this Service. The resident can raise a new complaint about these issues with the landlord through its complaints process if she wants to. The Ombudsman may be able to consider the resident’s new complaint if she remains dissatisfied once she has received the landlord’s final response to her complaint.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs required to drains and gutters and installations for the provision of water and space heating. The landlord’s repairs policy states that repairs which pose an immediate danger should be made safe within four hours. For other high-priority repairs it would ensure that a temporary or permanent repair is completed within 24 hours. Examples would include major uncontainable leaks or complete loss of heating or hot water. Contractors would then arrange a mutually convenient appointment if follow-on works are required. All other non-urgent repairs do not have a specific timescale but would be arranged by appointment.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy also confirms that the landlord is responsible for replacing or improving components such as kitchens and bathrooms dependent on their condition under its yearly programme of planned works.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, the landlord should respond within ten working days. if the resident remains dissatisfied , they can escalate the complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should respond within ten working days. if, at any stage, there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new complaint response timeframe.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s heating system.

  1. In this case, it is not disputed that the resident had experienced intermittent issues with her heating system throughout 2021. The landlord’s records show that the resident had reported needing to turn her boiler off as the heating and hot water would not turn off otherwise. The landlord demonstrated that it learnt from the complaint by identifying that whilst the previous issues with the heating system were repaired following each report in line with its obligations, it should have addressed the issues as a whole rather than in isolation to account for the intermittent failures and potentially resolve the issues sooner.
  2. It is understandable that the intermittent issues were likely to cause some inconvenience to the resident who needed to raise additional repairs. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues related to heating systems as it can be difficult to identify the cause of issue at the outset and in some case different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord as it was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what work to undertake and the records show that the repair was successfully completed on each visit. It was, however appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged that it could have been more proactive in its handling of the issues.
  3. The landlord took reasonable steps in an attempt to put things right by arranging to attend the property to complete a review of the overall heating performance on 30 December 2021, although it is noted that it could not gain access to the property. The landlord’s records show that the resident confirmed that the heating system was working on 12 January 2022 and that she would call to report any further repair issues. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to take no further action at the time of the complaint as the resident had advised that the system was working.
  4. As detailed above, the Ombudsman is not able to consider new events which occurred following the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process. As such this Service is not able to consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of additional failures to her heating system in April 2022 as this occurred following the landlord’s final response to the complaint. It is noted that the resident has advised that the issues have now been resolved, however, she may wish to contact the landlord if she remains dissatisfied with its handling of the matter since April 2022.

The resident’s request for her kitchen to be replaced.

  1. The resident initially raised concerns about the condition of the property in February 2019, six months after moving in. The landlord advised that the kitchen was not due to be replaced until 2022/23 and offered to complete temporary repairs in the meantime, although it is unclear if any works were done. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident raised any further concerns about the condition of the property until October 2021, prior to her complaint.
  2. The landlord’s records indicate that it identified that the kitchen needed replacement in December 2021 and added it to the 2022/23 planned works programme for replacement as requested. The resident later advised that she wanted her kitchen to be replaced immediately due to its overall condition. It is not disputed that the kitchen needed to be replaced and it is understandable that the resident wanted the replacement to go ahead as soon as possible. However, social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. It can be reasonable for landlords to replace larger items such as doors, windows, kitchens and bathrooms as part of a planned programme of works rather than on an ad-hoc basis – unless the item in question was beyond economical repair and posed an immediate danger to the resident where temporary repairs could not reasonably be carried out to leave the item in useable condition until the scheduled replacement date.
  3. In this case, the landlord acted appropriately by offering to complete a survey and temporary repairs in view of the resident’s concerns that the shelving units in her kitchen were unsafe. However, the evidence suggests that the resident did not feel these repairs would be acceptable and that she only wanted an operative to attend if they were going to take measurements for a replacement kitchen. It was reasonable in this case that no temporary repairs were carried out, at the resident’s request. There is no other evidence to suggest that the resident was unable to use her kitchen which would mean that the landlord was obliged to replace it immediately, outside of its planned programme. However, it would have also been helpful for the landlord to have provided an explanation as to why it could not or would not replace the kitchen at an earlier date at the resident’s request. This miscommunication is likely to have caused some frustration for the resident.
  4. It does not appear that the landlord confirmed that the kitchen was due to be replaced in 2022/23 at an earlier stage of the complaint and the resident needed to continue to pursue her request as a result. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging and apologising for the lack of clarity in its communication within its stage two complaint response and confirming that the resident’s kitchen had been added to its replacement program and that it had asked for it to be treated as a priority when works started in April 2022.
  5. The landlord acknowledged its communication failures with the resident and offered compensation for both its poor communication regarding the kitchen and errors in the guttering repairs. The landlord’s overall offer of £350 compensation for its communication is considered proportionate, taking into account the additional failure to confirm why it would not or could not complete the kitchen replacement at an earlier date as it had also offered to complete repairs in the meantime. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which states that amounts between £100 – £600 are considered proportionate in instances of considerable service failure or maladministration, but where there may be no permanent impact on the resident. Examples include a complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s guttering.

  1. The landlord’s records show that following an appointment to clear the resident’s gutters on 10 November 2021 it was established that the neighbouring property’s guttering was full of debris. As such, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have taken proactive steps to address the clearance needed at other properties which it owned to resolve the issues, but there is no evidence to suggest that it did so which was likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident as she needed to report the repair issue again. In addition, following the resident’s complaint where she explained that the neighbouring gutters were causing the overflow issue, there was a significant delay in carrying out any inspections or repairs to resolve the issues and the resident needed to spend additional time and trouble pursuing this throughout 2022.
  2. The landlord’s records show that an appointment to realign the guttering was due to take place on 21 June 2022, which was approximately six months following the resident’s complaint. This is not considered to be within a reasonable timeframe. There is no evidence to suggest that any other attempts to resolve the issues had been carried out at an earlier stage and the resident needed to spend significant time and trouble pursuing the repairs. The resident has advised this Service that the guttering issues remain outstanding as of 6 October 2022 and that the last appointment was carried out in September 2022.
  3. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging its poor communication and the delay in completing repairs both in its stage two complaint response and in May 2022, following the complaint. It also acted appropriately by offering the resident compensation in view of these errors. It should be noted that the Ombudsman’s own awards of compensation are not intended to be punitive and we do not offer damages in the way that a court might. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, this Service takes account of a range of factors including any particular distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions.
  4. The landlord’s overall offer of £600 compensation is considered proportionate, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as detailed above, in view of the impact on the resident in recognition of the landlord’s poor communication and the delays in completing the repairs to the gutter, including the additional delay in completing repairs to the guttering as of 6 October 2022. However, it is noted that the issues remain unresolved for the resident which amounts to a service failure by the landlord. As such, the landlord is ordered to survey the guttering at the resident’s property along with the guttering of adjacent properties within four weeks and carry out remedial works as required. It should write to the resident and provide a schedule of works in order to manage her expectations of when works should be completed.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The resident initially raised her complaint on 10 December 2021. The landlord acted appropriately by issuing its stage one complaint response on 23 December 2021 which was in line with is complaint policy timescales. The evidence shows that the resident initially asked for her complaint to be escalated on 12 January 2021 and pursued this again on 13 and 16 January 2021. The complaint was not escalated by the landlord until 2 March 2022 following contact from the Ombudsman on the resident’s behalf on 22 February 2021. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 16 March 2022, which was 45 working days following her initial request and not considered reasonable as it was not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy timescales.
  2. The landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delay in its complaint responses or provide regular updates to the resident regarding her complaint at an earlier date which would have been appropriate in order to manage her expectations. In addition, the landlord failed to address the resident’s claim for compensation for personal injury or damage to her belongings. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have explained its position regarding her requests and it may have been appropriate for it to have signposted her to its liability insurance provider as claims for damages may be better suited to insurance proceedings rather than the complaints process.
  3. The landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the delays in issuing a stage two complaint response and its failure to address all aspects of the complaint. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that compensation awards of £100+ are considered proportionate in instances of service failure that may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. Examples include failure to meet service standards for actions and responses or failing to address all relevant aspects of complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s heating system at the time of her complaint.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for her kitchen to be replaced prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  3.  In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s guttering.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

 

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the following actions are taken within four weeks:
    1. The landlord is to pay the resident an additional £100 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling. This is in addition to the £600 compensation previously offered to the resident which should also be paid if it has not already done so.
    2. The landlord is to survey the guttering at the resident’s property along with the guttering of adjacent properties and carry out remedial works as required. It should write to the resident and provide a schedule of works in order to manage her expectations of when works should be completed.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord arranges to visit the property to assess the damage to the resident’s flooring and arranges remedial works as required within four weeks.
  2. The landlord should provide the resident with details of its liability insurer so that she may make a claim for the damages caused to her external belongings as a result of the delay in resolving the repaired required to the guttering if she wishes.