Stonewater Limited (202303241)
Back to Top
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202303241 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Stonewater Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
16 March 2026 |
Background
- The resident lives with her partner and their 2 children. At the time of the events complained about the resident’s younger child was a newborn who had been diagnosed with respiratory conditions. The landlord agreed to move her household from their previous property due to damp and mould. She complained about the temporary accommodation process and its handling of repairs at the new property.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
- Concerns about temporary accommodation during the management move.
- Concerns about the standard of void works completed to the managed move property and associated repairs.
- Reports of damp and mould in the managed move property.
- Query regarding her rent account.
- Associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- There was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
- Concerns about temporary accommodation during the management move.
- Concerns about the standard of void works completed to the managed move property and associated repairs.
- Query regarding her rent account.
- There was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
- Reports of damp and mould in the managed move property.
- Associated complaint.
We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
Landlord’s handling of temporary accommodation
- The landlord acted in line with its policies at the time in arranging a management move and providing temporary accommodation until that was ready. It acknowledged failings in its communication with her and put this right.
Landlord’s handling of void works
- The landlord accepted it did not complete all the works it should have to meet its void standards before the resident moved in. It arranged repairs to address these in line with its policies and provided appropriate compensation for the impact this had on her.
Landlord’s handling of reported damp and mould
- The landlord investigated the report of damp and mould, there was no evidence that it needed to take further action to resolve this.
Landlord’s handling of rent account
- The landlord identified it incorrectly set up the service charge for the resident’s property. It amended this and compensated her for the inconvenience.
Landlord’s complaint handling
- The landlord responded promptly to the complaint. It clearly defined the resident’s complaint with her and its responses appropriately addressed the points she raised.
Putting things right
Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £855 as agreed in the final complaint response (accounting for its error in how it calculated this). Our findings of reasonable redress for its handling of the temporary accommodation, void works and rent account query are made on the basis that this compensation is paid to the resident. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
15 May 2024 |
The resident complained to the landlord by phone. It wrote to her the following day to confirm this related to its handling of the temporary accommodation whilst she was waiting for a management move and the decorating voucher it provided not working. It confirmed it would open a complaint. |
|
28 May 2024 |
The resident wrote to the landlord that the property it had moved her and her household into from the management move was not in line with its void standards and wanted this added to her complaint. |
|
10 June 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 response:
It offered a total of £255 in compensation consisting of:
|
|
12 June 2024 |
The resident told the landlord she did not accept its offer of compensation. She also said she had found evidence of mould which was the reason why it had agreed to move her and her household from the previous property. |
|
19 July 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 response:
It offered the resident a total of £825 in compensation consisting of:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate her complaint. She confirmed that the kitchen and bathroom replacements had been completed but there were other repair issues it had not addressed and she wanted additional compensation. |
What we found and why
The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s temporary accommodation |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
What we have not investigated
- The resident told us that damp and mould at the previous property affected the health of her family, in particular that of her daughter who was a newborn baby at the time. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it may last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
What we have investigated
- From the available evidence prior to the complaint the resident had been reporting issues to the landlord regarding leaks, damp and mould at the property she and her household were living in before April 2024. The resident’s GP wrote to it on 23 April 2024. They explained her newborn daughter had been reviewed in the Practice and in hospital for respiratory conditions on several occasions. They noted the resident had reported mould in the property and asked it to review the suitability of the property.
- On 24 April 2024 the landlord identified that works to remove the damp and mould would take at least 2 weeks. The following day it contacted the resident to explain, due to the severity of the allegation that the mould may be affecting her daughter’s health, it was essential for her and the rest of the household to move out of the property and said it had booked a hotel room for them. It offered support in moving her belongings out of the property, providing food vouchers and reaching an arrangement with the hotel to refrigerate her daughter’s medication. The landlord took prompt action to respond to the issue and acted in line with its decant policy at the time, which said it would use hotels for temporary accommodation and offer disturbance payments for reasonable expenses associated with the move.
- As part of the landlord’s contact with the resident on 25 April 2024 it advised her it was planning to offer a management move to permanently move her and her household, due to the concerns about damp and mould at the previous property and the impact this may have on her daughter. It said there was a property which was currently void which had an estimated completion date of 2 May 2024. The landlord approved the management move on 29 April 2024 due to the resident’s daughter’s vulnerabilities, it being a like-for-like property within the area she would accept and as she would have been low priority on the local authority’s housing register. The landlord’s actions were consistent with its vulnerable resident’s policy which said if a vulnerable person was considered at immediate risk in their home it would look to provide alternative accommodation including considering a management move.
- On 2 May 2024 the landlord recorded meeting with the resident. It told her that it would grant her the tenancy at the other property once it completed the void works. It acknowledged she was disappointed she had not been able to move in but stated that the target date was not a guarantee. It advised the new target date was 16 May 2024 and offered her further support if she was experiencing financial hardship. This was in line with its decant policy.
- After this there are no records of communication between the resident and landlord until she emailed it on 15 May 2024 saying the target date had been moved again to 22 May 2024 and the situation was causing her stress as the hotel was not suitable for her children’s needs. It responded the following day to tell her it had extended her hotel accommodation for another week, it apologised for the delay and said it was prioritising the work but reiterated its target dates were not guarantees. From the available records the property required extensive void work including full re-wiring which its void standards have a timescale of up to 30 days for completion. As such we do not see there is a failing compared to its void standards in the length of time it took to complete this, however there was a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations sooner.
- The landlord completed the void work on 22 May 2024 and the resident and her household moved in the following day. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it acknowledged that the hotel environment was inconvenient for her as there were limited facilities to refrigerate her daughter’s medication or disinfect milk bottles. It also accepted there were gaps in its communication and it should have been in more frequent communication with her. Compared to our guidance on remedies the £175 it offered for this was a proportionate amount to put right the impact of its failings considered alongside the support it had provided to her whilst she was in temporary accommodation.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of void repairs |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
What we have not investigated
- The resident has raised complaint issues about repairs issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised the complaints about the further repairs issues including draughts from external doors, water pressure issues and a pest infestation. Therefore, we have no power to investigate these issues.
What we have investigated
- The landlord’s void standards set out what work it will complete to a void property before it is let out to a new occupant. This includes checking internal doors are sound; inspecting all kitchen wall units and worktops are sound and hygienic; testing the mains water stop cock and clearing any garden of overgrowth and debris. It also sets out what work it will not complete such as decorating properties and providing floor coverings.
- We have not seen any evidence from the landlord to record the repairs it completed whilst the property was in void or whether it assessed if these met its void standards before moving the resident and her family in. This was a records management failing.
- The issues first raised by the resident in May 2024 related primarily to the kitchen, decoration and flooring of the property. In relation to the flooring the landlord explained that it had removed the carpets from the property as these were in poor condition. This was consistent with its void standard which says floor coverings will be removed except where carpeting has been left by the previous occupant and is in good condition.
- The landlord’s decision to provide a £500 decorating voucher to the resident was also in line with its void standard as it does not decorate void properties except for supported living properties. She complained that the decorating voucher provided by the landlord did not work and left her £175 out of pocket. It explained to the resident the reason the decorating voucher did not work was because she had tried to buy soft furnishings with this. It offered to reimburse her for the £175 she spent, reducing the amount of the decorating voucher accordingly, but she refused saying it should reimburse her without reducing the voucher. Compared to our guidance on remedies the landlord’s offer was reasonable as it would have put the resident back in the position she would have been in had she been able to use the decorating voucher as she had planned to use it.
- In relation to the kitchen the resident complained that the cupboards were rotten and the pipework was corroded. The landlord said in its stage 1 response it considered the kitchen was serviceable. Due to the lack of records to show the condition of the property at the time the resident moved in it is unclear how it reached this view. That said, it agreed to inspect the property which was appropriate action for it to take in line with its repair policy to assess if repairs were necessary to address the issues she raised.
- The landlord attended for the inspection on 27 June 2024, 13 working days after it agreed to this in its stage 1 response. As part of this it recorded:
- It agreed on reflection it should have replaced the kitchen and its pipework during the void works.
- The resident was dissatisfied with the condition of the bathroom and complained about damage to the tiling and bath. It recorded the damage was minor, would not result in leaks or damp and did not require replacement.
- There was an internal door which had been damaged by the previous tenant between the lounge and hall.
- The resident reported there was broken glass, debris and an overgrown tree in the garden. It noted this had not been reported to it previously.
- As set out previously we have not seen any evidence of the condition of the property when the resident moved in. However, we note this inspection took place around a month after she moved in, so it is unlikely any of the issues identified were due to ‘wear and tear’ since then. As such, from the available evidence the landlord did not act in line with its void standards as it did not act to address the damage to the internal door, that the kitchen wall units and worktops were unsound or that the garden needed clearing.
- On 5 July 2024 the landlord created an action log to address the repair issues in the property. It confirmed it would replace the kitchen (including its plumbing), replace the damaged internal door, clear the garden and the replace the toilet and rotten boxing work in the bathroom. With the bathroom it is unclear when it identified these repairs as it was not mentioned in the resident’s complaint or its inspection. That said, it communicated this plan to the resident clearly on the same day to confirm the repair work it was doing and the timescales of this. It acknowledged she wanted to make arrangements to repair the bathroom boxing work herself and agreed to allow this.
- The landlord recorded that it replaced the internal door on 12 July 2024 and the toilet cistern on 25 July 2024. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days. As both these repairs were completed within this timescale it acted in line with its policy.
- The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says that removal of rubbish from the garden of a property would normally be a tenant’s responsibility, though as above we saw that it accepted responsibility for doing this. Though the resident has not said this is outstanding there are no records of when the landlord carried out this work, which is a records management failing.
- The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy also says major work such as new kitchens or bathrooms will be treated as a planned program rather than a responsive repair. Its policy does not set out a specific timescale for planned program work. From the available records we have not seen a completion report for the kitchen replacement, which is a records management issue. However, the resident confirmed this work was completed and from emails between her and the landlord this took place around 20 August 2024, 32 working days after it agreed this. As this was a planned program, and did not greatly exceed the landlord’s timescale for routine repairs, its handling of this was in line with its repairs policy.
- On 30 July 2024, shortly after the landlord’s stage 2 response, it told the resident it had received approval to replace the bathroom of the property as part of its planned program. It told her it would arrange this after the kitchen replacement to minimise disruption to her household and, though it would replace the boxing as part of this work, it would allow her to keep the £250 it offered in its stage 2 as a goodwill gesture. This was a positive step for it to address the resident’s concerns and to put things right for her.
- The resident confirmed to us the bathroom replacement had been completed and the landlord told us it did this in September 2024. We have not seen a completion report, however the landlord provided evidence completion photographs were sent to it on 9 October 2024. As such it completed the bathroom replacement within 52 working days at most. In our view it acted in line with its repairs policy as this was planned work and it reasonably decided to begin work once the kitchen replacement was completed.
- In summary, the landlord handled the repairs in line with its repairs and maintenance policy following the resident’s complaint. However, as it did not identify several of these issues during the void period she was in a property which did not meet its void standards for around 6 weeks before it agreed to put this right. She said, in particular, the kitchen was unhygienic and the plumbing issues prevented her from appliances.
- Over the landlord’s 2 responses it offered her a total of £655 for repair issues. However, in its stage 2 response it changed the amount offered from its stage 1 response from £255 to £225, seemingly deducting the £30 for nails it did not remove during the void period. There is no explanation for this, so it appears to us this was an error. In line with our guidance on remedies £655 would be reasonable redress put right a failing which had a significant impact on a resident, provided it updates its total offer to correct its previous miscalculation.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould |
|
Finding |
No maladministration |
What we have not investigated
- The resident has raised complaint issues about damp and mould developing following the bathroom replacement, which has occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised a complaint about later damp and mould in the property. Therefore, we have no power to investigate these issues.
What we have investigated
- The resident first raised concerns about damp and mould in her email of 12 June 2024. She said that on removing the wallpaper in the lounge she had seen evidence of mould and sent a photograph of this.
- The landlord’s damp and mould policy at the time said that if there has been a history of damp and mould reports it will arrange for neighbourhood officer to inspect the property. As part of the meeting it had with the resident on 27 June 2024 to inspect the repair issues it also inspected the reported mould. This approach was broadly in line with its damp and mould policy. That said it had previously granted the resident’s household a managed move due to the possible impact of damp and mould on her daughter’s health it should have assessed prioritising this inspection. Its policy contained no information about how it will assess the potential risk to the resident(s), which is a shortcoming.
- The landlord recorded in its inspection the marking the resident referred to was historical and just needed washing off, it also recorded the walls of the lounge were dry with no sign of damp. The landlord did not complete an inspection report, separate to its notes from the meeting, to record its findings of the inspection which is a records management issue. That said the resident did not report any further issues with damp and mould prior to its stage 2 response and it noted in this that she had washed down the area and redecorated. As a result we do not consider that the shortcomings by the landlord led to an impact on the resident which it needed to put right in line with our guidance on remedies.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about her rent account |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
What we have not investigated
- The resident has raised further concerns that there are inaccuracies in her rent account since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised a complaint about the later issues with her rent account. Therefore, we have no power to investigate these issues.
What we have investigated
- The resident did not raise concerns about her rent account until 27 June 2024, following her escalation request. She said she considered she had been overcharged as the service charge for the property had been increased from what was set out in her tenancy agreement within a month of her moving in.
- The landlord noted on 2 July 2024 that it had not updated the rent account for the property to reflect the service charged in the tenancy agreement and had kept this unchanged from the previous year. As part of its stage 2 response it told the resident that it had corrected the service charge. It apologised for the error and offered her £25 as compensation for this. Compared to our guidance on remedies this was appropriate to put things right given the limited impact it had on her.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
No maladministration |
- The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. It responds to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
- As set out previously the resident first complained by phone on 15 May 2024 and the landlord confirmed it would open a complaint. It acknowledged her complaint on 24 May 2024, 6 working days later. This is a day outside of the timescale of its policy and the Code which is a shortcoming, however it did not have so much of an impact on the resident this would constitute a failing. It issued its stage 1 response on 10 June 2024, 10 working days after its acknowledgement which is in line with its policy and the Code.
- As part of the resident’s email of 12 June 2024 she stated she was unhappy with the landlord’s response but did not specify whether she was escalating her complaint. It contacted her on 17 June 2024 to confirm if she was escalating her complaint and to ask what she was seeking as an outcome. Following this it acknowledged her complaint on 21 June 2024, 4 working days later, and issued its stage 2 response on 19 July 2024, 20 working days after its acknowledgement. This was in line with the timescales of its policy and the Code.
- During the complaint process the resident raised new issues she wanted the landlord to address. The Code says if a resident raises additional complaints during the investigation, these must be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are related, and the stage 1 response has not been issued. Where the stage 1 response has been issued, the new issues are unrelated to the issues already being investigated or it would unreasonably delay the response, the new issues must be logged as a new complaint. We have seen that the landlord kept clear records of its discussions with the resident about her complaint. It also provided a complaint definition to her as part of its acknowledgements outlining its understanding of the issues she wanted it to investigate and what she wanted as an outcome. This was in line with the expectations of the Code.
- In both of the landlord’s responses it addressed all parts of the resident’s defined complaint, clearly explained its decisions and the reasons for these. This is in line with the requirements of the Code. As such we have not seen any failings by the landlord in its handling of the complaint which it needs to put right in line with our guidance on remedies.
Learning
- In light of the introduction of Awaab’s Law the landlord should ensure its damp and mould policy contains suitable guidance for its staff to meet the key requirements of this legislation, as highlighted in the Ombudsman’s ‘Learning from severe maladministration’ report from October 2025. Its damp and mould policy should set out specific timescales for how quickly it will respond to reported damp and mould and how it will assess risk and resident vulnerabilities.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord did not keep clear records of the repairs and inspections it completed. It is important it keeps a robust record of contact, repairs, and services provided. 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. It accepted there were record keeping problems and said it had made improvements since the events complained about. We would encourage to consider if there are further areas it could improve in light of our findings.
Communication
- Overall, the landlord responded promptly to the concern that the original property was not suitable for the resident and her family. It also recorded and addressed new issues as the resident raised them. Where there were gaps in its communication it acknowledged these and took action to put things right.