Stonewater Limited (202233065)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233065

Stonewater Limited

7 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to windows and doors at the property.

Background

The resident was the assured tenant of the property, which is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association. The resident lived at the property with his wife and children who are disabled.
The landlord’s contractor notes show a repair was raised on 6 April 2022 by the previous resident to repair 5 window handles. The contractors repair notes say it attended on 11 April 2022 and fitted 2 handles but had to order 1 more.
On 29 April 2022, shortly after moving in, the resident emailed the landlord enquiring when the windows and doors were due to be replaced. He said the previous resident said they were due to be replaced later in the year and they were of wooden construction.
There are no records of the landlord’s exact response to the enquiry, but its notes had recorded the windows and doors were made of UPVC. The resident replied on 2 May 2022 and thanked it for its response, but reiterated the windows and doors were wooden. He said they were dated, paint was chipping off the frames, some windows shook in their frames, the living room window handle was cracked, and he again asked when they would be replaced.
The contractor notes say it attended on 19 May 2022 but there was no access so a card was left saying it would return on 25 May 2022. The contractor notes from the appointment on 25 May 2022 said the resident requested a surveyor inspection, as he had been promised UPVC windows when he moved in. There is no evidence to confirm whether any further handles were replaced, or repairs carried out to the windows.
The resident reported that the bathroom window frame was cracked in 2 places on 4 June 2022 and said it needed to be fixed or replaced. The landlord raised a repair the same day. The resident contacted the landlord again on 9 June 2022 to report the bedroom window glass pane had bent out of its frame. He said the windows were over 20 years old and were failing. He chased for an update on the bathroom window repair on 11 June 2022 and the landlord said it would email its contractor and request it contact him.
There is no evidence to confirm whether the landlord cancelled the window repair appointments to arrange a surveyor inspection instead, but on 16 June 2022 the resident contacted the landlord via webchat. He said he raised repairs, but they had been cancelled for a surveyor inspection. However, the resident said the surveyor did not bother to look at the windows and booked another repair appointment instead and he wanted to know what the repair appointment was for. The landlord said the repair was booked for the following day, and its contractor would assess if it could repair the windows, whilst it enquired whether new windows were a possibility. No evidence has been provided of the surveyor’s report, but the resident said it was the surveyor that requested the windows be replaced as they were wooden, 22 years old, and breaking.
There is no evidence to confirm if the contractor or surveyor attended the following day, but the contractor notes said it attended on 30 June 2022 for the repair raised on 9 June 2022 for the bedroom window. The notes said the resident refused work as he was adamant he wanted new windows and doors, not just the handles changed. The notes said the contractor would talk to his supervisor.
The resident contacted the landlord for an update via webchat on 7 July 2022. The landlord’s notes said its contractor planned to change the window handles, but the resident had refused the repairs as the windows needed changing, and he had been advised by the landlord this was planned for this year.
The resident contacted the landlord via webchat the following day for another update. He said he had not refused the repairs, and it was the contractor that said the windows could not be fixed. The contractor had emailed the surveyor to find out whether the window replacement was on the planned works list, or if it should attempt repairs. An internal landlord note said the windows and one composite door were not showing on planned work until 2039, but one wooden door was due to be replaced in 2026.
An internal landlord note on 15 July 2022 said the resident called for an update and wanted a copy of the surveyor’s report as the contractors said the windows are wooden, and in their view, need replacing. The contractor notes show another repair was raised on 18 July 2022. It attended on 2 August 2022 and carried out repairs to 4 windows including replacing beading and adjusting and tightening handles.
On 4 August 2022 the resident contacted the landlord again via webchat. He said the contractor had attended, but he now needed to raise another repair for the handles and locks to be replaced as it did not repair them. The contractor should have reported they needed replacing as most of the locks do not work and the contractor was not able to fix the window locks as it did not carry the lock fixtures, just the handles. He reiterated that the windows were 20 years old and none of them were wind tight. The landlord said it would contact its surveyor and get him to contact the resident. The exact date is not known to this Service, but the resident said the surveyor had already attended approximately 3 weeks previously.
The contractor repair log shows another repair was raised on 10 August 2022 to overhaul the windows, with a target date of 7 September 2022.
The landlord’s contact notes said it emailed its surveyor on 29 September 2022. There is no evidence it contacted the surveyor prior to this date. It requested another inspection of the windows as the resident had reported issues on several occasions, the contractor could not repair them and thought new windows were required. It asked him to contact the resident, but there is no evidence the surveyor did.
On 5 October 2022 the resident asked the landlord via webchat when he first reported issues with the windows and dates of any action taken. It confirmed issues with the windows were first reported in June 2022, its notes said the resident asked for UPVC windows as he had been advised they were being replaced before he moved in, and there was a repair booked for 4 November 2022. The resident said he had not asked for new windows and said the contractor does not replace windows.
Later that day the resident started another webchat and asked what the contractor was attending for on 4 November 2022. The landlord said the job was logged to “overhaul” the windows. He asked what that meant and said 3 windows did not close/were not secure, and one had blown open in the wind the previous night. The windows had been looked at several times but the contractors had “done nothing.” The landlord assured him necessary repairs would be carried out.
The following day the resident raised a stage 1 complaint in relation to the landlord’s handling of the window repairs. He said:
1. Contractors had attended on 4 occasions and the surveyor once.
2. The windows remained drafty, were not weatherproof, the hall window rattled in the wind, and his youngest child’s bedroom window blew open as it could not be closed and secured.
3. He had never asked for windows to be replaced, but if suitable repairs were not possible, it was duty bound to replace them.
4. The contractors told him it would not replace his windows.
The landlord emailed its contractor on 10 October 2022, in relation to the window overhaul booked for 4 November 2022, and asked if it could bring the appointment forward as it was too far away.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 11 October 2022 and called the resident. The resident’s wife said their son was freezing at night and could not sleep, so slept with them. The situation was affecting her mental health, and when they originally viewed the property, they did not see all the issues due to furniture.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 October 2022, in which it:
1. Acknowledged the effect the window condition had had on the family’s mental health and disruption to daily life. However, it said the resident signed a copy of the property inspection report prior to moving in as part of a mutual exchange, and in doing so, accepted the property condition as seen.
2. Said the previous tenant reported the window handles needed to be repaired or replaced on 6 April 2022, and this was done on 25 May 2022.
3. Confirmed the windows would be replaced as part of the 2023/2024 replacement programme and it would contact the resident in due course, but in the meantime had arranged for its contractor to repair the window in the son’s bedroom.
4. Apologised for the distress and inconvenience and offered assurance it would fix, and ultimately replace, the windows. It offered £50 compensation for the delays repairing the windows and £150 for distress and inconvenience. In addition, it offered a £50 voucher specifically for the resident’s son.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 October 2022 to acknowledge the stage 1 response but said he would not accept anything until after the scheduled repair for 4 November 2022.
The contractor notes said it attended on 4 November 2022 and on arrival found 7 handles were broken causing a poor seal on the window, and some seals needed replacing. The contractor adjusted the kitchen and bathroom windows so they operated normally and ordered parts. A follow-up appointment was booked for 21 November 2022. On that day, 6 locking window handles were installed, 5 in the children’s bedroom and 1 on the landing. The broken handles were removed and new handles and keeps (enabling the windows to be secured at night) installed. The windows were tested and confirmed weatherproof.
No evidence has been provided of the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 2, which appears to be when he also raised the issues with the doors, but the landlord acknowledged the request on 30 November 2022. It acknowledged he said only some repairs had been carried out to windows, repairs fell short of the surveyor’s report that recommended the windows be replaced, and acknowledged the unacceptable length of time it had taken to repair the windows.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 December 2022 and said:
1. Its contractor attended on 21 November 2022 and completed repairs, including replacing handles to several windows, which were tested and shown to be secure and sealed.
2. The windows were old and needed replacing and they had been added to the 2023/2024 replacement programme.
3. It apologised the outcomes following the surveyor’s report were different to what the resident had expected, and it did not effectively communicate its plans for the windows.
4. The length of time to complete the repairs was longer than it should have been, and it was working with its contractor to address this going forward.
5. It would add replacing the doors to the next planned replacement programme, and in the meantime arrange for its contractor to overhaul the doors acknowledging the difficulty the resident’s wife was having opening and closing them.
6. It would increase its compensation offer to £100 to acknowledge delays repairing the windows, £100 voucher for the resident’s son, and £150 for the distress and inconvenience.
There is no evidence to confirm the resident’s response, but the landlord processed the compensation on 15 December 2022.
The resident’s wife called to chase an update regarding the window and door replacement on 21 March 2023. The landlord chased for an update regarding the doors and windows following the call. A repair for the door was also raised the following day. The contractor attended on 30 March 2023 and the contractor notes said the doors were adjusted and lubricated, locked easily and securely.
The resident and his family moved out of the property in July 2023 following completion of another mutual exchange. It is not clear whether the windows and doors were replaced before he left.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident had to deal with issues with the property from the day he moved in to the day he moved out and is aware he raised a significant number of complaints for a variety of reasons during that time. Specifically, the resident contacted this Service about 2 other complaints after receiving stage 1 responses, but after the landlord issued its stage 2 responses, he did not pursue the complaints further with this Service. In line with our remit, this investigation is focused solely on the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows and doors at the property, which have been brought to the Ombudsman for further consideration.
During the complaint journey, the resident’s wife told the landlord about the impact the windows were having on her physical and mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt these comments, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s family’s health. They may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if they consider that their health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Handling of repairs to windows and doors

The tenancy agreement says the landlord will keep windows and external doors in reasonable repair and working order. The landlord’s repairs policy says it aims to complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days of receiving notification.
The landlord’s guide for customers relating to repairs, says it is responsible for external doors including hinges and handles, and window frames and sills, but the resident is responsible for broken glass in windows. It provides information about planned improvements and says it carries out a programme of planned work to maintain and improve homes. It says as homes get older, it may need to replace or improve things such as glazing, and every year it plans which homes need items replaced due to their age and condition. Improvements are planned on the basis of information held on its stock condition database, which is a tool used to predict when these may need to be replaced.
The landlord’s compensation policy outlines what it will consider awarding compensation for, but does not specify amounts, instead relying on the guidance of this Service.
The Decent Homes standard says windows and external doors in a house are not considered old until they are 40 years old, but a landlord will wish to consider its own stock as to when a component ceases to function effectively. The resident said the windows were 22 years old, and a landlord internal note said the windows were due to be replaced in 2039, 17 years in the future. By which time, the windows would be approximately 39 years old, which is in line with when the Decent Homes Standard says windows should be replaced. The Ombudsman notes it moved forward the window and door replacement date to 2023/2024, which was a reasonable approach for it to take.
The evidence suggests the surveyor considered the condition of the windows and requested they be replaced in mid June 2022. However, this Service has not been provided with a copy of the report and, while the resident stated the contractors said the windows needed replacing, no documentation has been provided to support this position. In the absence of such evidence, it was appropriate for the landlord to complete repairs.
Regardless of what a surveyor may recommend, or a contractor may say, the final decision on whether windows/doors are replaced is the responsibility of the landlord. There is no evidence it ever confirmed the windows would be replaced prior to its stage 1 response. The landlord has a limited budget and a responsibility to manage its resources effectively so it is common practice for windows to be repaired rather than replaced wherever possible. The evidence shows the landlord completed, or attempted to complete, repairs to the windows in line with its policy on multiple occasions.
However, the evidence also indicates that one of the factors contributing to the repair delays was multiple instances of communication failure between various parties. There is no evidence the landlord explained its position to the resident regarding window replacement following the surveyor inspection. Further, there is no evidence the contractor spoke to his supervisor following the appointment on 30 June 2022, or the landlord contacted its surveyor when it said it would on 4 August 2022. Instead, the landlord does not appear to have done so until 29 September 2022, 39 working days later.
The landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is ultimately responsible for the repair, regardless of whether it outsources the work to a contractor. It should have done more to follow up with both the resident and contractor rather than leaving it to the resident to chase for updates which caused inconvenience. It should also have clearly explained its position regarding the windows which would have avoided confusion as to whether they would be replaced or not, which was a failing.
The evidence shows the landlord’s contractors generally attended to carry out repairs in a reasonable timeframe, and in line with its policy. However, a repair was raised on 10 August 2022 to overhaul the windows, but the contractor did not attend until 4 November 2022, 58 days after the targeted completion date. The Ombudsman notes the landlord did try to move this appointment forward, but by the time the contractors attended it was more than double the expected timeframe to complete repairs. This meant the resident and his family lived in a property where some of the windows could not be closed or secured properly, the windows were not weatherproof and they affected the resident’s enjoyment of the property, which was a failing.
Regarding the door repairs, the first reference to this issue this Service has seen was in the landlord’s stage 2 response. It said it would arrange for its contractor to overhaul the doors on 14 December 2022 meaning the door repairs should have been completed by mid January 2023. However, there is no evidence it took any action until the resident chased for an update regarding when the windows and doors would be replaced on 21 March 2023.
The contractor ultimately carried out door repairs on 30 March 2023, outside of its 28 day target, and over 2 months after they should have been carried out. The Ombudsman notes there is no evidence the resident chased the landlord on this issue after the stage 2 response, but the landlord should have raised the door repair as it said it would.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord completed window repairs in November 2022, 5 months after the resident initially raised the repairs, and completed the door repairs in March 2023, 2 months after the stage 2 response. The landlord acknowledged its failings and paid £100 compensation in recognition of the delays, £150 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused and gave a £100 voucher for the resident’s son. It also brought forward the date for the window and door replacement. Further to that it demonstrated it had learned from the complaint and said it will learn and improve on its communication with residents.
However, the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation and there was maladministration. The landlord failed to repair the doors as it said it would in its stage 2 response and did not do so until the resident’s wife chased for an update. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order has been made for the landlord to pay a further £150 compensation to recognise the impact the repair delays to the doors had on the resident and his family.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of windows and doors of the property.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £150 additional compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling repairs to windows and doors.
3. If the windows and doors have not yet been replaced, and the new resident has not already been made aware, provide an update to the new resident as to when in 2024 the work is due to be completed.
4. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.