Stonewater Limited (202331650)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331650

Stonewater Limited

30 May 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. works to the resident’s boiler and the replacement of a radiator at the property.
    2. repairs to a window mechanism at the property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, which is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord has recorded that the resident has mental health vulnerabilities and the resident has told us that she and her son have asthma.
  2. On or around 11 February 2022, the resident reported that there was no heating at the property. An engineer attended and identified leaks to valves on the heating system and a leaking bathroom radiator. The resident reported problems with the boiler on 4 more occasions between 25 February 2022 and 29 December 2022.
  3. On 29 December 2022, the resident complained to the landlord that her boiler was still in need of repair. She said that the boiler had been leaking for at least 2 years, and that the landlord had raised repairs but not completed them. The resident asked the landlord to resolve the issue.
  4. The landlord provided a response at stage 1 of its complaints process on 12 January 2023. The landlord apologised for the delay in completing the repairs. It said that:
    1. The landlord had raised the outstanding repairs with its contractor, and they had completed an inspection at the property on 6 January 2023.
    2. Works were required to replace and move a radiator. The works would take 2 days, and the toilet and floor covering would need to be removed.
    3. In order to inspect and repair the boiler condensate pipe, it would need to remove a stud wall, cupboards, and worktops. This work would take at least a week. The contractor would attend with a surveyor in the next 2 weeks to assess the works.
    4. The resident had also reported a leaking water cylinder. The landlord had raised a job for this on 4 January 2023 but had not yet booked an appointment.
    5. It had raised a job to investigate a window that was not closing.
  5. On 16 March 2023, the landlord called the resident to discuss closing her complaint. The resident said that the landlord had not met the commitments made in the stage 1 complaint response. The works had not been surveyed, no repairs had been completed, and the lounge window still would not close. The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process.
  6. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 11 April 2023. It said that:
    1. The landlord was sorry for failing to meet the commitments made in its stage 1 response.
    2. It would arrange for a local surveyor to inspect the property as soon as possible and contact the resident to discuss a suitable time. It would then arrange to complete the necessary works.
    3. Repairs to the window had taken longer than expected due to the volume of repairs that the landlord was currently dealing with. It had completed repairs on 29 March 2023. The landlord asked the resident to contact it if this had not resolved the issue.
    4. It offered the resident £400 compensation, made up of £150 for the delays in completing the works, £150 for failing to meet its commitments, and £100 to recognise its poor communication.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to us on 7 December 2023. She said that the boiler had now been replaced almost 10 months after her original complaint. She said that further works were required to make good the area around the boiler and to replace thermostats. She said she wanted the landlord to complete the work to a good standard and to acknowledge their service failure and poor communication. The resident said that the issues with the boiler and broken window mechanism had meant that she was unable to adequately heat the property. She said her asthma had worsened in the period that the works were outstanding.
  8. After the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord arranged a survey of the property for 11 May 2023. The landlord and its surveyor completed the survey on that date and identified the required works. The landlord chased the progress of the works with its contractor on 8 and 30 August 2023. It received a quote for a boiler upgrade on 5 September 2023 and installed a new boiler on 4 October 2023. The landlord had also installed a new bathroom radiator at the property.
  9. After the resident referred her complaint to us, the landlord wrote to the resident on 25 July 2024. It provided an additional apology, noting that the resident had completed some works herself to make good the area following the boiler replacement. The landlord offered an additional £600 to compensate the resident for the make good works and any distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy defines emergency repairs as, “those which pose a threat to the safety of our customers, their homes or their communities.” The landlord will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours of receiving the report. The landlord aims to complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to, “things which supply the heating, water heating … water and sanitation,” including “water heaters … and central heating.” The landlord is also responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, including the windows.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has also told us that she and her son have asthma. She said that her asthma got worse because she could not adequately heat the property during the time the repairs were outstanding. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. The resident has the option to seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue these matters.

Boiler and radiator replacement

  1. In February 2022, following the resident’s report of a lack of heating at the property, the landlord identified that repairs were required to address a faulty valve on the boiler and a leaking radiator. The landlord carried out some works on 25 February 2022 to replace a damaged filling loop, and its operative left the boiler in working order, but there is no evidence that works to the valve and radiator were completed at that time. The resident also reported issues with the boiler in September, October, and December 2022. It is unclear whether these issues were related to the outstanding repairs.
  2. The landlord did not follow up on the repairs identified on 11 February 2022 until 29 December 2022 when an operative visited and the resident made a formal complaint. As a non-emergency repair, the landlord should have progressed the works within 28 days of the first report. Instead, there was a delay of 10 months before the landlord took action. The landlord may have missed an opportunity to progress the outstanding works, or to identify that the boiler needed replacing, when its engineer visited to replace the filling loop on 25 February 2022.
  3. At a visit on 4 January 2023, the landlord’s operative reported that extensive works were needed to address various issues with the heating system. Despite its commitments in the stage 1 response, the landlord failed to arrange an inspection with a surveyor as promised. Landlords should have processes in place to ensure that they follow up on repairs actions identified during the complaints process. The landlord has told us that since the time of the complaint it has introduced new quality assurance processes, which demonstrates its commitment to service improvement and learning from the outcome of complaints.
  4. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord offered the resident £400 in recognition of the stress and inconvenience caused by the unreasonable delay in completing the repairs to the boiler and radiator. This was an appropriate amount to recognise the effect of the then 14-month delay. There is no indication that the resident was without heating or hot water during this period. It appears from the evidence that the system was still functional, although the uncertainty as to when the landlord would complete disruptive investigative works no doubt caused the resident stress and inconvenience.
  5. At the time of the stage 2 response, the landlord had not completed the survey or carried out any works. The survey did not take place until 11 May 2023 and the landlord did not chase for the survey report until 30 August 2023. The landlord finally updated the resident on 11 September 2023 and confirmed that it would be replacing the boiler.
  6. The landlord’s communication with both the resident and its contractors was inadequate. The records sent to us provide very little detail about the nature of the issues and the action the landlord took to progress the works. There is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident informed of progress, or that it took a proactive approach to arranging the necessary investigations. It failed to follow up after the survey within a reasonable time to confirm the required works. There was a further delay of 5 months from the date of the stage 2 complaint response until the landlord contacted the resident to book in the works, which took place on 4 October 2023. This was unreasonable.
  7. When the landlord received an evidence request from us, it reviewed the resident’s complaint and increased its offer of compensation by £600. The landlord showed that it wanted to put things right for the resident by reconsidering the offer of compensation on review of the evidence. However, if the landlord had acted appropriately by following up with the resident and/or its contractor to ensure the works were completed, the resident would not have needed to refer her complaint to us.
  8. The parties have not provided any documentary evidence of the costs of the making good works, and so it is unclear how the landlord calculated the additional £600 compensation. In our view, the landlord’s apology and its total offer of £1,000 compensation was appropriate in all the circumstances to recognise the effect on the resident of its failure to complete the works within a reasonable timeframe. This sum is in line with our remedies guidance to recognise failings that have adversely affected a resident over a significant period of time.
  9. The Ombudsman would have made a finding of reasonable redress had the landlord taken the opportunity to review its compensation offer after all works had been completed. As the resident had to complain to us before a review of her case was conducted, we find that there was service failure in the landlord’s response to this aspect of the complaint. The resident had to take additional time and trouble to bring her complaint to us before an appropriate outcome was achieved. As the landlord’s final offer of compensation was reasonable, we have not made any further orders or recommendations in relation to its handling of the boiler and radiator replacement.

Repair to window mechanism

  1. The landlord’s repairs records show that on 29 December 2022 it raised an emergency repair for a loose window in the living room of the property. The landlord’s operative attended on 30 December 2022 but closed the job as they were unable to gain access to the property. The landlord has not provided us with details of the resident’s report describing the issue, but it was appropriate that the landlord raised this as an emergency repair if it affected the security of the property. This was in line with the terms of its Repairs Policy.
  2. The landlord re-raised a repair “to secure the living room window” on 4 January 2023. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 12 January 2023 noted that it had not yet booked an appointment for the window repair, but it confirmed that the job had a 28-day completion target. In the absence of more detailed repairs records describing the nature of the issue, we are unable to assess whether the landlord should have re-raised this as an emergency repair and so we cannot conclude that the landlord acted appropriately.
  3. After the stage 1 complaint response, according to the landlord’s repairs records, it did not contact the resident until 2 March 2023, when it booked an appointment for 29 March 2023. At that appointment, the landlord replaced the window’s hinges and left it in working order. The landlord delayed unreasonably in arranging an appointment following the stage 1 response. After it re-raised the works order on 4 January 2023 it took 84 days to complete the repair. The landlord fell short of its service standards and failed to keep the resident up to date about the reason for the delay.
  4. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord explained that the delay was due to an increased volume of repairs, noting that this was an industry wide issue. Although the landlord acknowledged the delay, its attempt to explain its failures, rather than simply accepting responsibility, may have increased the resident’s frustration. The landlord could have communicated better with the resident to let her know that its repairs service was currently operating outside of its published timescales.
  5. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for the poor service it had identified. The landlord did not break down the offer of £400 compensation to state whether this reflected the delay in completing the window repairs. In our view, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a broken window mechanism. The landlord should pay an additional sum of £100 compensation to the resident to recognise the effect of its poor communication, and the inconvenience caused. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance, which says up to £100 compensation is appropriate to recognise the effect of delays in getting matters resolved.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the replacement of the resident’s boiler and radiator.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the window mechanism.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £100 in recognition of the stress and inconvenience caused by the delay in completing repairs to her living room window.
  2. The landlord is required to provide evidence of compliance with the above order to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report.