Stonewater Limited (202201013)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201013

Stonewater Limited

3 March 2023

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:

a. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of poor water quality within his property.

b. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, residing in a two-bedroom flat. The landlord has categorised the resident as vulnerable due to mental health issues.
3. The resident had raised concerns, over a number of years, about the quality of the water coming from his kitchen sink, and that the quality of the water had allegedly caused him to contract a skin condition. In October 2021, the landlord arranged for a test to be carried out of his water by an independent laboratory, and subsequently advised him that the test results showed that the quality of the water was acceptable. This finding was supported by the results of previous tests carried out by the resident’s water supplier and the water authority on the water from his kitchen sink.
4. The resident raised a formal complaint in February 2022. His overall complaint was about the fact that he had been reporting concerns about the quality of his water over the last ten years, while the landlord’s response to him had allegedly been that he had imagined the issue.
5. The landlord’s overall response was that it had previously fitted water filters to the resident’s kitchen taps and had advised him that it was his responsibility to maintain the filters; however, he had admitted that he had not done this. Additionally, although the test results had shown that the water from his kitchen sink had been of acceptable quality, it had still agreed to flush the water pipes after his insistence. The water was tested afterwards and found to be within expected tolerance levels.
6. The landlord had also frequently advised the resident to gain support and help from the community mental health services and local doctors. It advised that it was sympathetic to his concerns and believed that it had gone beyond its obligations towards him. It had done everything possible to make sure that his water supply was safe and clean and to reassure him that his water was safe for use. As it had not found any issues, it was unsure what else it could do to reassure him that the water was safe for use. Therefore, his complaint was not upheld.
7. The resident then contacted this Service because he believed that the landlord had failed to take adequate steps to address his reports of poor water quality within his property, and the detrimental effect that this had on his skin and the overall quality of his life. He advised this Service that the landlord had resolved his issue with the quality of his water, but that the water was now sticky when coming out of his tap. He wanted the landlord to pay him compensation to cover his 11 years of alleged suffering, and as reimbursement for the money that he had spent on treatment for his alleged skin condition.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of poor water quality within his property

8. The resident had frequently advised the landlord that he believed that the quality of the water coming from his kitchen sink was poor. His water supplier had carried out a test of his water and had concluded that his water was of an acceptable quality. The landlord had also carried out extensive investigations and tests of his water and had come to the same conclusion as his water supplier, based on its test results. It had also previously received a recommendation from the resident’s water supplier to fit filters to his kitchen sink taps, and it had done this. It had also agreed to flush his water pipes due to his insistence, even though it did not have an obligation to do so.
9. Therefore, the landlord acted appropriately by not only accepting the water supplier’s test results but by also carrying out its own test. It also followed the water supplier’s recommendation about fitting filters to the resident’s kitchen sink taps.
10. The landlord had also advised the resident to seek help from his GP and from mental health services. The resident advised the landlord that he had allegedly been diagnosed with a mental health condition and as a result, he had been advised by his GP that his skin condition may not have been real. It had also made referrals about him to his GP, mental health services and the police, although he had refused to engage with any of those parties. These were appropriate actions by the landlord because it had concerns about the resident’s mental health, partly based upon his report about what his GP had said. Where the resident was unwilling to act, it made referrals to necessary parties itself.
11. The above actions were also in line with the landlord’s obligations under section 4.3 of its safeguarding policy, where it has a duty to safeguard a resident that shows signs of self-neglect. Part of the definition of self-neglect that has been given in the landlord’s safeguarding policy refers to where the resident fails to appropriately tend to any medical conditions that they may have. The resident had advised the landlord that he had stopped engaging with his GP, after they had diagnosed him with a mental health condition. After he failed to heed its advice to resume contact with his GP, it contacted the necessary parties. The actions were also in line with section 6.3 of the landlord’s vulnerable residents policy, where there is an obligation upon it to make appropriate referrals to agencies to provide support to vulnerable residents.
12. Therefore, there was no maladministration by the landlord. This is because it carried out tests on the resident’s kitchen tap water, and the test results showed that the quality of the water was acceptable. It had also previously followed the water supplier’s recommendation to place filters on the resident’s kitchen sink taps. In relation to his alleged skin condition, it had advised him to seek help from his GP and from mental health services in line with its obligations under its safeguarding and vulnerable residents policies. It had also made referrals about him to his GP, mental health services and the police, although he had refused to engage with any of those parties.

The landlord’s complaint handling

13. The landlord’s complaints policy states that the landlord will issue its final stage complaints response within ten working days of the resident’s request for their case to be reviewed. Section 4.1 of the landlord’s complaints policy states that the landlord has the discretion to extend this timescale where appropriate; in this situation, it will keep the resident updated about when they will receive a response.
14. The resident made his complaint escalation request on 16 March 2022, and the landlord issued its final stage complaints response on 5 September 2022, 120 working days later. It did not advise the resident that there would be a delay in it issuing its final stage complaints response, nor did it keep him updated about when he could expect its final stage complaints response. These were not appropriate actions by the landlord because, not only did it fail to adhere to the timescale set out in its complaints policy, but it also failed to inform the resident that its final stage complaints response would be delayed and failed to provide him with a date by which he could expect its final stage complaints response. Its final stage complaints response did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay.
15. Therefore, there was maladministration by the landlord. This is because the landlord had failed to acknowledge its failings and/or had made no attempt to put things right. Neither the landlord’s complaints policy nor its compensation policy list any amount of compensation for a failing in its complaints handling. Under the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, a compensation amount of between £100 to £600 is appropriate remedy for maladministration by the landlord, where it has failed to comply and apply its policy and unreasonably delayed its response. In this case it is reasonable to award the resident £200 compensation for the landlord’s maladministration.

Determination

16. Under paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of poor water quality within his property.
17. Under paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

18. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation, within four weeks of the date of this report, in recognition of its failure in its handling of his complaint.
19. It is recommended that the landlord carry out staff training in relation to adhering to its obligations and the timescales within its complaints policy.
20. The landlord will contact this Service within four weeks of the date of this report and confirm that it has complied with the above order, and whether it will follow the above recommendation.
21. The landlord should provide the resident with information in regard to his options of moving to alternative accommodation, such as Home Swap (mutual exchange) and support to use Homeswapper.