Read our new Corporate Strategy 2025-30 and Business Plan 2025-26.

Stonewater Limited (202315294)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315294

Stonewater Limited

31 March 2025

 

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. Reports of leaks into the bathroom.
  2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom first floor flat.
  2. The resident reported a leak to the landlord on 2 February 2023. She said water was cascading down behind the toilet and into the bathroom. She also said there were 2 black mould circles on the ceiling, with other water marks forming.
  3. The landlord attended the property along with neighbouring properties several times to repair the leak. However, despite several visits, the leak remained ongoing.
  4. The resident raised a complaint on 19 May 2023 with the landlord by telephone. She said the landlord had still not fixed the leak, and she now had water leaking into the electrics. She also said the ceiling had collapsed in the property below. She told the landlord she wanted it to repair and redecorate her home to the same standard it had been previously.
  5. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its formal complaint procedures on 31 May 2023. It said:
  1. It had raised a job on 19 January 2023 to fix the leak and attended on 2 February 2023. However, it could not contact the flats above and therefore could not locate the cause of the leak.
  2. It attended on 23 March and 23 May 2023 for further repairs and repainting of the bathroom. It had also booked further jobs for 6 and 15 June 2023.
  3. It apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident and also for the delays.
  4. It offered £200 compensation, which was made up of £100 for the delays in repairs and £100 for the stress and inconvenience caused.
  1. The resident said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response on 5 June 2023.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 24 July 2023:
  1. It provided a further timeline of repair jobs it had either booked, attempted or completed.
  2. It apologised that the work was still outstanding, and it had taken so long. It also apologised for how it had treated the resident’s home and for the work of its contractors.
  3. It increased its offer of compensation from £200 to £450, which was made up of £175 for the delays, £125 for poor communication and £150 for the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident.
  1. When the resident initially contacted the Ombudsman in July 2023 she wanted a higher level of compensation than the £450 the landlord had offered in its stage 2 complaint response. She also wanted the landlord to put her home back to how it had been before the leak. The landlord has since completed further works in August, September and October 2023. At that time, it increased its offer of compensation to £600.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of leaks into the bathroom

  1. According to the landlord’s repairs policy, leasehold customers are responsible for all repairs inside their home. The landlord is responsible for all external repairs to the structure. It aims to complete all emergency repairs, which pose a threat to the safety of residents or their homes, within a maximum of 24 hours of notification. It aims to complete all non-emergency repairs within a maximum of 28 days of notification.
  2. When the resident reported the leak on 2 February 2023 the landlord was already dealing with reports of a leak in the flat directly below. However, the landlord had logged some of those repair jobs against the resident’s flat, which was not appropriate. This later contributed to some confusion about what repairs were necessary for each flat.
  3. On 8 February 2023 the landlord raised several communal jobs for 20 February 2023. The jobs raised were within 28 days of the resident’s notification, which was appropriate.
  4. On 20 February 2023 the landlord’s contractors attended to gain access to the flat above the resident’s flat. They located the leak behind the toilet in the flat above and completed a temporary repair, which was appropriate. They reported to the landlord that a further permanent repair was required.
  5. The landlord raised further works on 21 February 2023 to complete a permanent repair to the leak in the flat above. However, the evidence shows the landlord booked the wrong repair jobs and it did not complete a permanent repair to the leak, which was inappropriate. The failure to complete a permanent repair resulted in further leaks and prolonged the issue for the resident unnecessarily.
  6. The contractor attended the resident’s property on 23 March 2023. They did some repair works to sand the walls and repaint the bathroom. However, they did not complete all the necessary work, and the evidence shows the next appointment was booked for 23 May 2023. That was outside of the landlord’s timescales and was not appropriate.
  7. The resident next contacted the landlord by email on 18 May 2023. She said it had only done a minimal amount of work to fix the damage caused by the previous leak. She said the damaged plasterboard and skirting boards remained, and the extractor fan had not worked since the leak. She also said the leak had reoccurred resulting in a wet bathroom floor that morning, with water dripping from the ceiling down the plasterboard. The evidence shows the landlord chased the outstanding work with its contractors the next day. That was a reasonable action as the resident did raise any immediate safety concern, and there was already an appointment booked for 23 May 2023.
  8. The resident telephoned the landlord the next day. She reported the leak had got worse and plaster had started falling down. She also said water was getting into the electrics. She said the electrics kept tripping and she was scared to turn the light on. The resident therefore raised concerns for her safety. The landlord should have raised this as an emergency repair to be completed within 24 hours. However, the evidence shows the resident told the landlord she could not be available for the next 24 hours. The landlord therefore advised her to call it back when she could do so, which was reasonable.
  9. The resident telephoned the landlord again late on 20 May 2023. She again reported the water leaking into the electrics. The landlord raised the issue as a priority emergency repair, which was appropriate. An electrician attended the property 90 minutes later, in the early hours of the following day. However, they could not gain access to the property as there was no response from the resident.
  10. The resident telephoned the landlord again in the morning of 21 May 2023 and reported the water leaking into the electrics. However, the landlord told her all repairs were her responsibility as per the shared ownership agreement. That was inappropriate as the landlord had already committed to completing the repair, and the leak was not within the resident’s flat, but coming from a space above it. The resident emailed the landlord later the same day to complain about the delay in repairing the electrics.
  11. The landlord raised another emergency repair on 23 May 2023. Its electrician attended the same day and isolated the extractor fan and pull cord switch. They reported a further follow-on job was needed to replace both. The delay from 21 May 2023 to 23 May 2023 was not appropriate when there was a potential safety threat and risk of danger. The landlord’s contractor also attended the flat above on the same day and completed a repair to the toilet to try to stop the leak.
  12. On 23 May 2023 the contractor attended as previously arranged. That was appropriate. They carried out further repair work to the bathroom ceiling. However, they did not complete all the work and booked a further appointment for 6 June 2023.
  13. The contractor failed to attend the appointment on 6 June 2023. The appointment was booked for the morning, but they attended in the afternoon when the resident was at work. This was not reasonable.
  14. The landlord booked a further appointment for 15 June 2023. The electrician attended and replaced electric shower pull. They also removed the extractor fan but did not have the parts to replace it. The resident reported to the landlord the contractor left a hole in the ceiling that caused drafts, which was not reasonable.
  15. The landlord arranged a further appointment for 6 July 2023. The contractor attended and replaced the extractor fan, which was reasonable.
  16. The landlord’s contractors attended the flat above again on 20 July 2023. They completed the necessary permanent repair to fix the leak. From the resident’s initial report of a leak, it took the landlord from 2 February 2023 to 20 July 2023 to permanently stop and resolve the leak. That was inappropriate and not in line with its policy timescales.
  17. Since the resident brought her complaint to this Service, the landlord has attended further appointments on 30 August, 13 September and 16 October 2023 to repair the plasterboard and finish off repainting. The landlord has confirmed all outstanding repairs are completed. The Ombudsman considers the overall time taken to complete all necessary work to be unreasonable.
  18. In summary, the landlord and its contractors did not raise and complete the correct jobs to facilitate a permanent and effective repair within appropriate timescales. It also delayed arranging and completing appropriate repair works with its contractor for a potentially dangerous issue of water affecting the electrics. There was also evidence of poor communication with the resident and evidence of mixing up repair job details between 3 different flats in the building, which caused confusion.
  19. In October 2023, once it had completed all outstanding repair work, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £600 which included £325 for the delays experienced, £125 for poor communication, and £150 for the inconvenience and distress caused.
  20. It is the Ombudsman’s view the landlord’s increased offer is proportionate redress for the impact on the resident of the failings identified above. It is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for cases such as this where there was a failure by the landlord which had a significant impact on the resident.
  21. For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers the landlord has made an offer to the resident that provides reasonable redress in relation to its handling of reports of leaks into the bathroom.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) landlords must ensure they acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. They must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the acknowledgment at stage 1. They must also acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledging the escalation request. The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the above requirements of the Code.
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 19 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 24 May 2023. It then issued its stage 1 complaint response on 31 May 2023. That was appropriate and in line with the Code and the landlord’s own policy.
  3. The evidence shows there were some inaccuracies in the landlord’s response. It said it raised a job on 19 January 2023 for a leak in the bathroom and that it attended on 2 February 2023. It also said that during the visit on 2 February 2023 its contractor tried to contact the flats above to gain access. However, the resident’s flat is the flat above that the landlord was referring to. This caused confusion for the resident and indicates poor record keeping by the landlord, which is not reasonable.
  4. There is evidence the resident emailed the landlord on 1 June 2023 to query the inaccuracies in the landlord’s response. There is also evidence she asked it to escalate the complaint on 5 and 6 June 2023. The landlord did not send its acknowledgement of the escalation request until 11 July 2023. That was 26 working days after the escalation request of 5 June 2023. This was inappropriate and not in line with the Code and the landlord’s own policy.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 24 July 2023. That was 35 working days after the resident first asked to escalate the complaint and was outside the time to respond at stage 2 in line with its complaint policy and the Code. That was not appropriate.
  6. The evidence shows the stage 2 complaint response also included inaccuracies and mixed-up repair reports from other flats in the building. This caused further confusion for the resident and again indicates poor record keeping by the landlord, which was not reasonable.
  7. In summary, landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to its residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord caused confusion for the resident by referring to repair jobs for different flats in its complaint responses. There were also delays in acknowledging the escalation request and issuing the stage 2 response. The Ombudsman therefore finds service failure for the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
  8. Therefore, we are ordering the landlord to pay the resident £100 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommendations of compensation in this bracket for such failings resulting in service failure that delayed getting matters resolved.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks into the bathroom.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. Pay the resident £100 for the time and trouble likely incurred as a result of its complaint handling failings.
  2. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent or service charge account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord pays the resident the compensation it had previously offered totalling £600 if it has not done so already. The finding of reasonable redress has been based on the landlord making this payment to the resident.