Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Stonewater Limited (202214746)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214746

Stonewater Limited

23 April 2024

 

 

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 the resident’s:
    1. Reports of repairs to the immersion heater.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 2 August 1999. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. The landlord is aware of the resident’s disability and vulnerabilities.
  3. The resident has an immersion heater. This is her only source of hot water.

Scope of the investigation

  1. The Ombudsman expects complaints to be raised within a reasonable period, which is usually 12 months from the issue occurring. This Service acknowledges that there has been on-going issues with the immersion heater since 2021, however, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the immersion heater was leaking from 28 March 2022 until the final complaint response on 4 January 2023.This is because as the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
  2. In the resident’s complaint letter dated August 2022 she raised concerns about the immersion heater, asbestos, the communal TV aeriel, bathroom refurbishment and a hole in her kitchen wall. When the Ombudsman contacted the landlord in October 2022 it told it the resident had raised a complaint about the repairs to the immersion heater only. The landlord took a separate complaint about the other issues in February 2023. The Ombudsman is in contact with the resident about carrying out an investigation on this second complaint and will prioritise this investigation.

Summary of events

  1. On 28 March 2022 the resident told the landlord that her immersion heater was leaking. The landlord’s contractor attended the same day, turned off the water and made it safe. An appointment to complete the repairs was booked for 12 April 2022.
  2. On 12 April 2022 the operative who attended was not qualified to replace an immersion heater. The contractor offered her a new appointment for 16 May 2022. The resident contacted the landlord and raised concerns with the delay. The landlord’s records show internal emails were sent asking if anything could be done sooner, as the resident had already been without hot water for 2 weeks.
  3. Between 13 April and 10 May 2022, the resident chased an update on the repairs to her immersion heater.
  4. On 16 May 2022 the contractor replaced the immersion heater.
  5. Between 10 June and 5 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord several times and said the boiler was making very loud noises. The landlord adjusted the pipework on 18 July 2022.
  6. On 27 July 2022 the resident told the landlord the immersion heater pipework was still making a loud noise and she had extremely low water pressure. The landlord arranged an appointment for 1 September 2022, it re-arranged the appointment twice. It is unclear from the landlord’s records if the appointment went ahead.
  7. The resident told this Service that she wrote to the landlord on 30 August 2022 and raised concerns about how the landlord was handling repairs to her property.
  8. On 10 October 2022 the Ombudsman contacted the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint about the immersion heater.
  9. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 12 October 2022. It wrote to the resident on 14 October 2022, and said it had tried to call her to discuss the complaint. It told the resident it would respond by 26 October 2022.
  10. The landlord visited the resident’s property on 10 October 2022 to investigate the issues with the immersion heater. The contractor found that it had replaced the immersion cylinder like for like in May 2022. However, they had not realised the immersion heater had been replaced previously by another contractor and the wrong one was fitted. The contractor recommended the landlord installed an inline pump on the hot water outlet to increase the water pressure and replace the current cylinder with a pressurised one.
  11. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 November 2022. In its response the landlord:
    1. Apologised for the length of time the repair was taking. It said its contractor had attended to repair the immersion heater but was unsuccessful in resolving the issue.
    2. Said the original repair order was mistakenly closed which added to delays and inconvenience caused. The case highlighted the need to change its processes.
    3. Made an appointment for 4 November 2022. Its current contractor and the previous contractor will work together to identify the cause of the issues.
    4. Offered £300 compensation. This was broken down as:
      1. £150 for the delays with repairs.
      2. £150 for the delays in its complaint response.
  12. On the 4 November 2022 the landlord attended the property to investigate the issues with the immersion heater. The resident told the landlord the issues were not resolved, and she was only able to use the toilet, shower, taps, and washing machine separately due to the low water pressure.
  13. The resident contacted the landlord 3 times in November 2022 asking for an update on the repairs to her immersion heater. She told the landlord the water pressure was still low and the immersion heater was making loud noises.
  14. On 14 December 2022 the resident contacted the landlord for an update on the repairs and asked to escalate her complaint. The landlord responded the same day, however, she said she did not want to discuss her complaint.
  15. On 16 December 2022 the landlord spoke to its contractor to discuss the issues with the immersion heater.
  16. On 21 December 2022 the landlord acknowledged the escalation and said it would respond within 10 working days.
  17. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 4 January 2023. In its response it:
    1. Apologised for the delay with completing repairs and said it was working with its contractors to make sure it can effectively monitor the completion of work.
    2. Said the original tank may have been a pressurised system and it was not replaced like for like. To increase the pressure, it will install an inline pump on the hot water outlet and replace the cylinder with a pressurised cylinder. The parts needed were due to be delivered within the first week of January 2023 and it would aim to complete the works by 13 January 2023.
    3. Said it will continue to work with its contractors to understand why the original system was removed and improve its record keeping so it can diagnose issues quicker.
    4. Acknowledged and apologised for the delays, lack of communication and failure to escalate the complaint to stage 2. It said it was providing training to all colleagues to ensure communication and updates are provided at regular intervals throughout a complaint.
    5. Increased its compensation offer from £300 to £450. This was broken down as:
      1. £200 for complaint handling.
      2. £250 for delays with repairs.
  18. In January 2023 the landlord replaced the cylinder in the immersion heater, this increased the water pressure.
  19. In April 2024 the resident told this Service the immersion heater had started to make new noises and she was concerned there may be further repair issues.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are:
    1. be fair
    2. put things right
    3. learn from outcomes.
  2. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The landlord’s obligations

  1. The landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the property and for ensuring a property is fit for human habitation, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Decent Homes Standard, the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, and the tenancy conditions.
  2. The landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states the landlord must keep in repair and working order the installations for the supply of gas, water, electricity, sanitation, space heating, and heating water. This includes an immersion heater.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours, and non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
  4. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days, and it aims to respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 10 working days.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will consider compensation for all statutory obligations, and it will also offer discretionary payments.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the immersion heater

  1. On 28 March 2022 the resident reported a leak from her immersion heater. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging it was an emergency repair and making the situation safe within 24 hours.
  2. The landlord replaced the immersion heater on 16 May 2022. This was 50 days later, which was outside its 28-day target timescale for a non-emergency repair. The heater was supposed to be replaced on 12 April 2022, however, the operative who attended was not qualified to replace immersion heaters. There was no evidence the landlord contacted the resident about this mistake, or contacted the contractor when she raised concerns that the new appointment was going to leave her without hot water for a further 4 weeks. This resulted in the resident chasing the landlord for updates, and delays in the repairs being carried out. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to keep the resident updated and manage her expectations.
  3. The landlord was aware of the resident’s disability and vulnerabilities. The resident’s vulnerabilities were relevant factors to inform the nature, tone, and communication of the landlord’s handling of the repairs. The landlord should have reviewed its response in terms of the level of detriment being caused to the resident and agreed a clear communication strategy and action plan with the resident to seek to understand the issues with the immersion heater and the works required. The landlord failed to meet its agreed service level agreement and communicate effectively with the resident.
  4. If a landlord knows there is going to be a delay with a repair it must make an assessment of risk, looking at what impact the delay will have on the resident, and consider loss of amenity and what interim measures could be considered and put in place. This could include support from local services, or a decant. Interim measures may not always be possible, but a landlord must show they have explored all options and explain to the resident why such measures are not being put in place. There is no evidence the landlord did this. It was unreasonable the landlord left the resident without any hot water for 7 weeks with no consideration of any interim measures or support.
  5. In June and July 2022, the resident reported that that the pipework for the new immersion heater was making loud noises and she had extremely low water pressure. The landlord acted appropriately by investigating and carrying out further repairs within its 28-day timescale. Once a landlord has completed repairs it must take action to monitor the effectiveness of those repairs. It was unreasonable for the landlord to assume the issues with the immersion heater had been resolved and put the onus on the resident to report the same issues. A landlord must take a proactive approach to repairs. Having an aftercare programme in place can help landlords to quickly identify when matters have not been resolved without residents having to report the problem again.
  6. The landlord did not carry out an investigation into the issues with the noises from the immersion heater and the low water pressure until 10 October 2022, this was 4 months later, which was outside its 28-day target response time for non-emergency repairs. Although its contractor established the cause of the issues at this appointment, the landlord did not discuss the recommended works with the contractor until December 2022, and the repairs were not completed until January 2023. This was 7 months after the resident reported the issues. This was an unreasonable delay which left a vulnerable resident without the full use of basic facilities in her home.
  7. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. The landlord failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted this Service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation. The evidence provided highlighted the landlord did not accurately record its communication with the resident or its contractors, when it attended the resident’s property, or what actions/repairs were completed. The landlord’s record keeping impacted on its ability to effectively review the case when responding to the resident’s reports of issues with her immersion heater, work orders were completed by mistake, and it caused significant delays in the landlord establishing the cause of the issues. This was a failure by the landlord which restricted its ability to put things right and to learn from points in this case.
  8. In its stage 2 complaint response dated January 2023, the landlord recognised there were issues in the way it worked with its contractors. It acknowledged mistakes were made when the immersion heater was replaced and said when and how it was going to put this right. It apologised for the delay in the cause being identified, for repairs being carried out and its poor communication. It said it had implemented a new way of working with its contractors to make sure it could effectively monitor repairs and would improve its record keeping so it could diagnose issues quicker. Although the landlord showed learning and that it was taking steps to put things right, the £250 compensation offered did not reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  9. In summary, there were delays investigating the issues reported and in carrying out the repairs. There was poor communication and record keeping. The landlord failed to consider the impact the immersion heater faults were having on the resident, and it did not consider or communicate any risks, interim measures or offer her support. The landlord did acknowledge some of these failures, it has put things right and showed learning from the case. However, the redress offered was not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation, and failed to consider the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  10. Based on the above the Ombudsman finds maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs to the immersion heater.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 30 August 2022. This Service has not been provided with any evidence that the landlord received the resident’s complaint letter. For this investigation to be fair, this Service has looked at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint from 10 October 2022. This is the date the Ombudsman contacted the landlord and told it about the resident’s complaint.
  2. On the 12 October 2022 the landlord acknowledged the complaint. This was within its 2 working day timescale. It told the resident it would respond by 26 October 2022. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 November 2022, this was 14 working days later which was outside its 10 working day response time. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to contact the resident to extend its response timescale or explain the reason for the delay.
  3. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays with its complaint response and repairs. It said the complaint had highlighted that it needed to change its processes, it offered the resident £300 compensation, and gave an appointment date for its contractor to investigate the repair issues. The landlord showed learning and that it wanted to put things right. However, the landlord’s poor record keeping had an impact on its ability to effectively review the complaint and restricted its ability to put things right and to learn from its mistakes. This caused delays in the landlord being able to rectify the issues and therefore the complaint was not resolved at the earliest opportunity.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 14 December 2022. The landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident the same day to discuss her complaint. It acknowledged the escalation on 21 December 2022, although this was outside its 2 working day timescale, the landlord had already been in contact with the resident about her complaint so there is no evidence this caused her any detriment.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 4 January 2023, which was within its target response time of 10 working days. The landlord acted appropriately by investigating the complaint issue, stating how it was going to put things right, and what it had learnt from the complaint. It said it was going to provide staff training and improve its record keeping to ensure it did not make the same mistakes. The £200 compensation it offered the resident for the failures in its complaints handling was in line with its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance.
  6. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord failed to include the resident’s right to refer her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. The landlord was aware the resident was already in contact with this Service, however, it must ensure it includes this information in all its complaint responses.
  7. In summary, landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case there was a delay with the stage 1 complaint response, evidence of poor communication and the landlord’s poor record keeping meant it did not resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity. However, the landlord showed learning from the complaint, put things right and offered the resident suitable redress.
  8. Based on the above the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the immersion heater.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Reasons

  1. There were delays investigating the cause of the issues with the immersion heater, and in carrying out the repairs. There was evidence of poor communication and record keeping. The landlord failed to consider the impact of the repairs on the resident and did not consider any interim measures or offer her appropriate support. The landlord did acknowledge and apologise for some of these failures, it has put things right and showed learning from the case. However, the redress offered was not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation, and failed to consider the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  2. There was a delay in the landlord issuing its stage 1 complaint response. There was evidence of poor communication and poor record keeping, which meant the landlord did not resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity. However, the landlord showed learning from this complaint, put things right and offered the resident suitable redress for its complaint handling failures.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. A senior member of the landlord’s staff should apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. If the landlord has not already done so it should pay the resident the £370 compensation it offered in its stage 2 complaint response.
    3. In addition to this the landlord must pay the resident a total of £400 for the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble caused to the resident by the failures found in the landlord’s response to her reports of repairs to the immersion heater. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the Ombudsman orders the landlord to complete a case review on the issues identified in this report and its overall failures and provide a copy of the case review to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended the landlord contacts the resident and arranges an appointment to investigate the new noises she has reported are coming from the immersion heater. If further repairs are needed, the landlord should agree the works with the resident and agree a date for the completion of the works.