From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Stonewater Limited (202329801)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329801

Stonewater Limited

21 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 repairs to the resident’s bathroom and kitchen.

Background

2.          The resident is a joint tenant with her husband of a 2-bedroom property. Their tenancy began in 1995.

3.          The resident reported a leak from her bathroom into her kitchen in October 2022. The landlord arranged a repair to stop the leak, but did not repair the damage to the kitchen ceiling caused by the leak.

4.          The resident reported a second leak on 11 April 2023. Between April and July 2023, the landlord made several appointments for contractors to attend, but these were either cancelled by the contractors, moved by the resident, or there was no access when contractors attended.

5.          The resident made a complaint on 31 July 2023. She said that:

  1. She had first reported the leak in October 2022, but the landlord had not yet repaired it.
  2. The landlord had made appointments that contractors either did not attend or cancelled at short notice.
  3. She wanted the leak resolved and any damage repaired, she also wanted compensation for her time and trouble.

6.          The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 1 August 2023 and said that it aimed to respond by 15 August 2023.

7.          On 14 August 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said that:

  1. It first attended on 20 September 2022 to tighten up a leaking installation valve.
  2. It attended again on 6 October 2022, as water was coming in through the kitchen ceiling.
  3. It arranged for an asbestos test before it removed the ceiling, but because of an IT problem, the order did not get processed and works to the ceiling stalled.
  4. On 11 April 2023, the resident reported a bathroom leak. The landlord inspected and attended within 3 days, when it turned off the water supply and instructed the resident to turn the water on only as needed.
  5. An appointment in May 2023 was rearranged for June 2023 because the resident was not at home to let contractors in. It installed the replacement toilet on 1 August 2023 and other works went ahead on 11 August 2023.
  6. It apologised for its delays and poor communication for which it offered compensation of £250.

8.          On 11 September 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint as it had not yet completed all the works it had agreed to do. The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident on 9 October 2023. It said that:

  1. While there had been 2 no-access appointments, it completed the ceiling works on 29 September 2023. However, the resident said afterwards that she was unhappy with the standard of the work.
  2. It apologised for this and said that a surveyor would visit to carry out a post-inspection. If they agreed that the works were below standard, then it would arrange further works.
  3. It acknowledged that the resident was unhappy with the standard of workmanship around her new toilet installation, and it offered her a £75 decoration voucher.
  4. It accepted that there had been some communication failures, and it said that it had raised this with its performance meeting group.
  5. It offered a further £250 compensation which included £150 for the delays and £100 for the inconvenience caused to the resident.

9.          On 18 October 2023, the resident declined the compensation offered by the landlord and referred her complaint to this Service for investigation.

Post complaint

10.       The landlord’s surveyor visited the property on 14 November 2023. They noted that:             

  1. There were some outstanding works to make good the works to the toilet.
  2. Contractors had not completed some of the kitchen works to a good standard.

11.       Contractors completed the works on 5 December 2023.

12.       On 16 May 2024, the landlord offered the resident a further £250 in compensation for her inconvenience because of the further works that it had to raise in November 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

13.       The resident has referred to her dissatisfaction with the quality of the repairs undertaken and the delay between September and December 2023 in completing these works to a good standard. Although the repair was related to the issues raised in the complaint, the Ombudsman can only consider the landlord’s response to issues and incidents up to the date of the final complaint response. This because we cannot consider a complaint that a resident has made that had not gone through the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident may wish to raise any new issues with the landlord as a separate complaint.

14.       The landlord has also offered the resident a further £250 in compensation in April 2024 for delays in completing remedial works following the initial repairs in September 2023. This Service is unable to consider this offer of redress as part of our investigation. This is because it had offered the amount after the landlord had completed its internal complaints procedure. 

Repairs

15.       The resident’s tenancy agreement says that the landlord must keep in good repair the structure and the outside of the property. This includes walls, floors, and ceilings. It also says that it must repair any fittings it provides for room heating, water heating, sanitation, and waste including basins, sinks, toilets, and waste pipes.

16.       The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that it will deal with emergency repairs that pose a threat to the safety of residents or their homes within 24 hours. It would address non-emergency repairs within 28 days. It should complete major repairs, where there is a significant amount of work needed beyond the original repair, within 42 days.

17.       Although the landlord addressed the initial emergency repairs within its target response timescales, there were delays in raising follow up works. Where an asbestos check is needed, this can delay works beyond the landlord’s target response timescales. This is because the presence of asbestos may determine how the repair should go ahead, and care must be taken to dispose of any asbestos safely before works can begin.

18.       However, the landlord should have raised the asbestos inspection within 28 days. It overlooked these works because of an IT problem and did not raise them again until the resident reported a further leak in April 2023, which was unreasonable. Further, this delay was likely to have caused frustration to the resident who may have been concerned about the potential presence of asbestos in her ceiling.

19.       After the resident reported the second leak in April 2023, a plumber attended to the leak on 14 April and found that the leak was from the toilet. However, it did not complete agreed works to install a new toilet and repair the ceiling until August and September 2023.

20.       This was, in part, due to the landlord having problems with gaining access to the property. The resident’s tenancy agreement says that she must allow reasonable access to the property provided it provides more than 24 hours written notice. While the Ombudsman does not look to question the resident’s reasons for not providing access, any delays in works because of this were beyond the control of the landlord.

21.       The resident reported in May and July 2023 contractors either did not attend as arranged or cancelled appointments at short notice. There were other occasions when she reported that contractors attended when she had given prior notice that she would be away. She said that when they attended on 19 June 2023, they did not have the correct materials for the job and had to rearrange the visit. The landlord did not address these communication problems effectively with its contractors at the time or put measures in place to prevent recurrence. This caused the resident inconvenience as she had to take time off work to be in for appointments that did not go ahead.

22.       It is unclear why the landlord initially raised works to repair the kitchen ceiling on 22 June 2023, before it had fitted the new toilet, when there was a risk that the ongoing leak could cause damage to the newly repaired ceiling. When the resident highlighted this, the landlord agreed and rescheduled the appointment, however this caused further delays.

23.       In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged these delays and its poor communication with the resident. It apologised for this and offered assurances that it would raise these issues with its performance meeting group so that it could address any failings in service delivery. It offered £250 in compensation at stage 1 which it increased by a further £250 at stage 2 and it also offered a £75 decoration voucher because she was unhappy with the toilet installation. Although not part of the complaint, when the resident said that she was unhappy with the standard of the works, it also arranged for a surveyor to visit to inspect the works, which was appropriate in the circumstances.

24.       In deciding whether there have been service failures by the landlord, the Ombudsman looks both at the events which first prompted the complaint and also the landlord’s response to the events through its complaints procedure. We will consider whether the landlord has applied our dispute resolution principles, which are to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.

25.       In this case, the landlord has acknowledged its service failings. It has apologised for them and looked to put things right by raising further works and offering compensation of £500 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience as well as £75 in decoration vouchers. This amount was within the range of financial redress in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a failure which adversely affected the resident. Further, the landlord has looked to learn from this case by raising the issues with its performance team to avoid further service failures like this.

26.       While the Ombudsman has found service delivery failings in this investigation, we are satisfied that the landlord has offered redress, prior to this investigation, which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

27.       In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress, prior to the start of this investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendation

28.       If it has not done so already, the landlord should arrange to pay the resident the amount of £500 plus £75 in decoration vouchers it had offered her in compensation at stage 1 and 2 of its complaints procedure.