Stonewater Limited (202332610)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332610

Stonewater Limited

30 September 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 multiple repairs at the resident’s property.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom house. She lives there with her 2 children.
4. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 20 September 2023. She said there were a number of outstanding repair issues in the property. She detailed the issues and asked for them to be resolved as soon as possible. She said communication from the landlord had been poor.
5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 21 November 2023. It set out responses to the individual issues raised and apologised for delays. It explained actions it would take to progress the repairs. It apologised for the delay in its complaint response and offered £200 compensation for the inconvenience it caused.
6. The resident asked for the issue to be raised to stage 2 on 22 November 2023. She said she was unhappy with the response. She said the landlord was not being truthful as it had known about the issues raised for a long time.
7. The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 12 December 2023. It apologised for the lack of detail in its stage 1 response and that it had overlooked some of the issues she raised. It gave updates on the status of the repairs. It offered an additional £400 in compensation for the impact of the delays in its communication and completion of repairs.
8. The resident escalated her complaint to the Service on 14 December 2023. She said the repair issues remained unresolved and she wanted them completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope

9. Following the resident’s complaint from 20 September 2023, she raised 2 further new complaints in November 2023 and May 2024. Within these complaints she raised concerns about staff conduct and quality of work to the kitchen and damage caused by those works. The resident subsequently brought these complaints to us for investigation. The matters will be addressed under case references 202346045 and 202408124.
10. In the interest of clarity, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s complaint from September 2023 and the landlord’s stage 2 response from December 2023.
11. The resident reported multiple repair issues to the landlord between May 2023 and her stage 1 complaint. Her complaint listed all of the outstanding repairs from this period. However, a number of the issues were not raised as part of her stage 2 escalation request. These issues related to:
    1. repair of doors and their frames
    2. the result of an asbestos survey
    3. removal of a key fob
    4. replacement of a stair banister
12. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues the resident escalated to stage 2. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to all issues before our involvement.

The landlord’s handling of multiple repairs at the property

13. In its Responsive Repairs Policy, the landlord says it will:
    1. complete all non-emergency repairs within a maximum period of 28 days
    2. complete major repairs within a maximum of 42 days
    3. maintain clear and continuous communication with residents via their preferred channel
14. The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 20 September 2023. She said there were a number of outstanding repair issues at the property despite reassurances given by the landlord. She said responses to her email reports had been poor. She said:
    1. there were multiple repair issues in the bathroom, including:
       1. a poorly installed ceiling
       2. her replacement bath still not having been fitted and no contact to arrange a date for this
       3. low water pressure from the taps
       4. erratic temperature from the shower which was a scalding risk
       5. the sink coming loose
       6. an occasional leak from the toilet coming into her kitchen
    2. her letterbox was broken
    3. the garden fence needed changing as it was not safe or secure

Bathroom issues

15. In its stage 1 response on 21 November 2023, the landlord said:
    1. its contractor had already filled the ceiling
    2. its contractor had been unable to access the property to install the bath on the agreed date
    3. it had provided the contractor with contact details for the resident so the appointment could be rescheduled but it failed to do so
    4. it apologised this had happened and that it was re-raising the job
    5. the initial job order for a replacement shower made on 14 July 2023 was cancelled and a further order had to be raised on 23 July 2023
    6. the shower was replaced along with the extractor fan on 18 August 2023, which was within its timescales
    7. it had raised another order to inspect the shower as the resident said there was still an issue
    8. it had logged new work orders for both the loose sink and low water pressure
16. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delays the resident had faced. It showed that it wanted to progress the repairs by raising work orders for the unresolved issues. However, it was not clear about when she would be updated on the works. Given that it had acknowledged delays and communication issues, this was not appropriate. It could have told her when it would provide her with targets for the completion of each repair. She was not given the reassurance that it would offer continuous communication as its policy says it will.
17. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s report of an intermittent leak from the toilet, which was unreasonable. There is no evidence in its repair log that the report of a leak was recorded. It missed the opportunity to address an issue which may have contributed to more significant problems in the future.
18. In her stage 2 escalation on 22 November 2023, the resident said she was unhappy with the response. She said:
    1. the ceiling was not completed and she had provided pictures in previous emails to show this
    2. the bath installation was not delayed because of access issues but because it had been scheduled for the same day her extractor fan was being fitted
    3. the temperature of the shower was still a scalding risk and the electrician who had attempted the repair said it would need replacing if this continued
    4. all issues had been raised in previous emails and she was unhappy that some were only just having works raised
19. In its stage 2 response on 12 December 2023, the landlord said:
    1. it apologised for overlooking issues the resident had previously raised in emails and responded immediately once they were raised in her complaint
    2. it had repaired a small patch of kitchen ceiling where there had been a leak
    3. it apologised for the confusion around the installation of the bath and that its contractor would be in touch to complete the work
    4. it would replace the shower and would make an appointment for this
    5. it was offering £100 compensation for delays in repairing the shower
20. The landlord did not give any update on works related to the ceiling, sink or water pressure. It again failed to provide the resident with an idea of when she would be contacted regarding the repairs. This was not appropriate and did not demonstrate that it had sufficient oversight of the work. It could have set a date by which it would provide the resident with a schedule of works. This would have shown it was learning from its failings. She was inconvenienced as it left her without a clear picture of when works would take place.
21. The landlord offered compensation and an apology for delays in replacing the shower which was appropriate. However, it failed to acknowledge the risk of scalding the resident had raised in her stage 2 complaint. It could have identified a need to complete the repair as quickly as possible once it knew there was a potential risk to her safety as its policy says it will. Given that she was also waiting for her bath to be replaced, the impact of the delays on her was substantial. She was unable to enjoy the safe use of her bathroom as a result.
22. In an email sent on the same day as the response, the resident said the leak had not been repaired and the landlord had not contacted her about it. She said the plaster on the bathroom ceiling had not been rectified. Its repair log shows that bathroom upgrades were raised on 22 December 2023 but these did not relate to the issues raised in the complaint. There is no evidence that the works it identified in its response were ever completed. This is not appropriate and shows further failings in its oversight and record keeping. She faced ongoing time and trouble from its poor communication about the status of the work.

Letterbox

23. In its stage 1 response on 21 November 2023, the landlord said it had been unaware of any issues with the letterbox and had raised an order for its repair.
24. In her stage 2 escalation on 22 November 2023, the resident said the landlord was not telling the truth about its knowledge of the issue with the letterbox. She said it had been reported via email and its surveyor for her area knew of the issue. We have not been provided with evidence from the parties in relation to the earlier email.
25. The landlord’s repair log shows that an order for the repair of the letter box was raised on 20 November 2023. Given the resident had reported the issue in a complaint 2 months earlier, this was unreasonable. Even if it did consider this the initial report, it did not complete the works within 28 days of the report as its policy says it will. The works were completed on 29 November 2023.

Garden fence

26. In its stage 1 response on 21 November 2023, the landlord said:
    1. it had inspected the fence which met with its current standard
    2. fences between properties are the responsibility of the resident
    3. it encouraged her to speak to an occupational therapist as she said she wanted the fence due to her child’s health condition
27. It was appropriate for the landlord to have set out steps it had already taken. It showed it had considered ways the resident could progress the improvement by signposting her to relevant support. This was positive and showed that it was considering her individual needs.
28. In her stage 2 escalation on 22 November 2023, the resident said that she had been told by the landlord’s area surveyor that it was trying to sort out the fence.
29. The landlord responded to this in its stage 2 response on 12 December 2023. It said it had spoken to its surveyor and confirmed that it was seeking funding options for the replacement of her fence. While it did not say when it would update her on this process, it was appropriate that it reflected on the resident’s comment. It showed a willingness to adapt its approach to meet the needs of the resident.
30. It is unclear whether works on the fence were completed. The resident emailed the landlord on 20 June 2024 asking for an update on the replacement of the fence. Its repairs log shows it raised an order for the work on 24 June 2024. It said this work had been on hold due to a possible management move. There is no evidence that it kept her updated about this pause of work while the move was being considered. It could have been clear about why works were on hold and when it would review them. She was put to further time and trouble in chasing it for updates because of its poor communication.

Summary

31. The landlord’s approach to the reports of repair was inconsistent. It was only able to provide evidence that one of the issues raised in the initial complaint had been resolved. It failed to adhere to the timelines set out in its policy. The resident was unable to fully enjoy the use of her home while repairs remained incomplete. She faced ongoing distress and inconvenience as she was not told when works would be completed.
32. The landlord did not show that it had oversight of the various works. We acknowledge the large number of issues raised, along with separate complaints from the same period, may have presented a challenge. However, it could have done more in the circumstances. It failed to respond to a number of the issues raised in the complaint and its records did not show all issues had been logged. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The resident faced inconvenience, time and trouble as a result of its poor record keeping.
33. The landlord’s communication throughout the process was not appropriate. It failed to give updates on its plan of action and did not set out a schedule of works for the resident. She was not given clear and continuous communication as its policy says it will. The landlord did apologise for this in its stage 2 response which was appropriate. It recognised its failings and showed it was seeking to learn from them.
34. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £50 for its miscommunication and £250 for the time, trouble and inconvenience she faced as a result of the delays. It was appropriate that it acknowledged there had been an impact on the resident. However, the amount it offered was not reasonable in the circumstances. She had faced substantial delays and poor communication which likely impacted the landlord-tenant relationship.
35. The landlord sent the resident an additional letter of apology on 6 August 2024 while reviewing its evidence for this investigation. It said the compensation it had offered in it stage 2 response was not sufficient. This was appropriate and demonstrated that it had taken the opportunity to reflect on its failings. It offered an additional £325 compensation, made up of:
    1. £25 for failing to follow its repairs policy
    2. £50 for not following her communication preferences
    3. £50 for miscommunication around repairs appointments
    4. £100 extra for distress and inconvenience caused by repair delays
    5. £100 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by poor communication
36. Overall, the landlord did not provide the level of service its policies say it will. It reflected appropriately on the failings but this came a considerable time after the complaints procedure. The resident was not shown that her reports had been valued. We cannot confirm if all of the issues raised have been resolved due to poor record keeping. As a result, we have found maladministration.
37. The total amount of compensation offered to the resident for issues related to the repairs was £725. We consider this to be an appropriate amount that reflects the significant impact on the resident. However, as the additional compensation was not offered until after the complaint had been escalated to us, the finding of maladministration is unchanged.
38. In previous determinations we have identified similar issues related to the landlord’s record keeping during this time period. To avoid duplication no further orders for policy, process or practice review have been made. We do expect the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account when delivering future service provision.

The landlord’s complaint handling

39. In the landlord’s Complaints, Compliments and Comments Policy it says:
    1. it will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days
    2. it will provide its stage 1 response within 10 days
    3. if it needs more time, it will let the resident know
    4. it will only take longer than 20 days to respond if the resident agrees
40. Following the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 20 September 2023, the landlord sent her an acknowledgment on 22 September 2023. It said it would give its response by 6 October 2023.
41. There is evidence that it took the landlord more time than expected to gather information for its response. It extended the due date to 18 October 2023 and informed the resident, in line with its policy.
42. After further delay, the landlord spoke to the resident to agree a further extension to 24 November 2023. It thanked her for her patience and agreement. This was appropriate and in line with its policy. It showed that it was taking the complaint seriously and wanted to provide an accurate response.
43. While waiting for the response, the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The landlord apologised for the delay and explained that she would be able to escalate once it had given its stage 1 response. This was appropriate and demonstrated an awareness of the distress the delay was causing.
44. The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 21 November 2023, within the agreed timeframe. It apologised for the significant delay and said this was due to the complexity of the complaint. It apologised that the resident was not contacted frequently enough with updates. It offered £200 for the inconvenience of waiting for the response. This was appropriate and showed that it recognised the impact on the resident despite it following its policy.
45. The stage 2 response was provided within the timeframes set out in its policy and required no extension. This showed that the landlord was seeking opportunities to improve the resident’s experience of the complaint process.
46. It is important to note that the poor record keeping identified earlier in this report contributed to the delay in complaint handling. Had the landlord’s records been clearer, it would not have taken as long to investigate the complaint. Though it said it communicated poorly about the complaint investigation, it was more consistent than with its updates on the repairs.
47. As the landlord followed policy while taking the chance to reflect on the negative experience of the resident, we have found no maladministration.

Determination

48. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of multiple repairs at the resident’s property.
49. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

50. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report
    2. pay the £725 total compensation offered during and after the complaints procedure
    3. organise a meeting with the resident to identify any outstanding issues from the complaint:
       1. if required, it should conduct an inspection of the property
       2. it should set out a schedule of works required
51. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above order.

Recommendations

52. It is recommended that the landlord sets out a procedure for providing regular, clear communication with its residents when a repair has been reported.
53. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £200 offered for the impact of failures in its complaint handling, if it has not already done so.