Stonewater Limited (202339798)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339798

Stonewater Limited

30 September 2024


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 response to the resident’s reports of a leak from the mechanical ventilation with heat recovery unit (MVHR) and associated damp and mould.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. She lives in a 2-bedroom ground floor flat and has done so since June 2021.
  2. The resident has asthma and mental health issues.
  3. The resident reported a problem with the MVHR on 17 October 2023. The job was attended on 16 November 2023, but the operative could not complete the works.
  4. On 26 November 2023 the resident reported water leaking from her MVHR into her electrics. An operative attended and switched off the MVHR unit. The existing filters in the MVHR were cleaned on 28 November 2023.
  5. On 29 November 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She reported the leak from the MVHR unit and mentioned finding mould throughout the property. Additionally, she had consulted her doctor about the impact of the property’s condition on her asthma and mental health.
  6. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 11 December 2023, acknowledging that the repair to the MVHR had been delayed due to a backlog of work. Two visits were made in November 2023. On 28 November 2023, the landlord took the MVHR unit details to source a replacement as a longer-term solution. The landlord confirmed that new filters and a mould treatment had been ordered, expected to arrive shortly. The landlord offered a total of £600 in compensation, broken down as follows: £250 for distress and inconvenience, £250 for poor communication and unreasonable delays, and £100 for its service failure.
  7. On 18 December 2023 the resident escalated her complaint, reporting that the mould treatment had caused further issues in her property. She reported damage to her curtains, blinds, clothing and her mother’s wedding dress. She said the mould issue in the property had not been resolved and she should have received more compensation.
  8. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 2 February 2024. According to the landlord’s records, it was informed about a leak from the MHVR in November 2023, and on 28 November 2023, mould was reported in the property. The landlord addressed the window and door area for mould but did not conduct a further investigation, for which it apologised. It acknowledged that it should have communicated better when the issue was first reported to determine the extent of the problem. The landlord apologised for not fulfilling its commitment to complete the work and a damp and mould treatment. It scheduled a visit by a surveyor on 7 February 2024 to conduct a damp and mould survey and identify any additional work. The landlord admitted that it had not maintained the MHVR in accordance with the manufacturer’s requirements and had not completed a service. It offered £1,100 in compensation, broken down as follows: £800 for the impact the issue had on the resident, £100 for poor communication, and £200 for the ongoing delays.
  9. The resident contacted our Service and asked us to investigate her complaint. She explained that the MHVR unit is still faulty, there is damp and mould everywhere in the property, and she would like to be moved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Part of the resident’s complaint is that the leaking MHVR and the damp and mould in the property have exacerbated her health. We acknowledge the concerns and distress this would have caused. However, this would be more appropriately considered by a court, where liability can be established. We have not sought to establish liability in this case but have considered how the landlord responded to her health concerns.
  2. The resident has asked for compensation for reported damage to her personal belongings caused by the damp and mould. This is another aspect that would be more appropriately considered by a court, where liability can be established. However, we have assessed the landlord’s response to her reports and considered this in line with its policies and procedures.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says it aims to deliver all non-emergency repairs, defined as those that do not threaten the safety of residents, their homes, or their communities, within a maximum period of 28 days. Where there is a significant amount of work required beyond the original repair, it will be repaired within a maximum of 42 days.
  2. The landlord’s maintenance of heating systems and appliances policy states that the landlord will ensure that all heating systems, appliances, equipment, and flues are maintained in a safe condition and serviced annually by trained and suitably qualified contractors in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.
  3. The landlord’s damp, mould, and condensation policy says it has a “zero-tolerance” to damp and mould and is committed to ensuring residents are provided with targeted and proportionate support. It says high-risk homes will be identified based on the volume and regularity of contact, property type, and outcomes of calls. Surveyors will attend to the property to identify required remedial work for urgent completion.
  4. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould says landlords should ensure their response to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. They should share the outcome of surveys with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on the next steps. They should also act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.

Assessment

  1. When the resident reported a leak from the MHVR on 17 October 2023 the landlord’s contractor took longer than usual to assign the job due to a backlog of electrical work. The job was not attended to until 16 November 2023, 30 days later, and the repair was not completed that day. The existing filters were cleaned on 28 November 2023, 42 days after the resident’s initial report. The landlord did not respond appropriately or within the timescale of completing non-emergency repairs within 28 days, as defined in its repairs policy. 
  2. The repair records provided by the landlord lack sufficient detail to determine the works completed. Additionally, discrepancies exist between the completion dates recorded in the landlord’s repair records and its internal correspondence. For example, the landlord ordered the replacement of the filters in the MHVR on 17 October 2023. Internal records show that the filters were replaced on 21 December 2023, while the repair record states they were replaced on 14 November 2023. It can be inferred that the accurate replacement date was 21 December 2023, as the existing filters were cleaned on 28 November 2023. The evidence suggests that the landlord had difficulty sourcing the parts, which could account for some of the delays, in addition to the backlog of works. However, the evidence does not show that the resident was informed of the expected repair completion date, which was unreasonable. Consequently, the delays and lack of communication likely caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience for the resident.
  3. The landlord must ensure that accurate data is captured, as it is an essential part of providing an effective repair service. This is important not only for providing information to the Ombudsman when requested but also for fulfilling repair obligations. Maintaining accurate and complete records allows for effective monitoring and management of outstanding repairs and for providing residents with accurate information. Staff and contractors should be aware of the landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to them.
  4. Following the visit on 28 November 2023, the landlord’s contractor noted the details of the MVHR unit that needed to be replaced as a longer-term solution. Despite confirming that a replacement unit would be sourced in its stage 1 response on 11 December 2023, records show that an order to replace the unit was not raised until 16 August 2024, 8 months after it was initially promised. The landlord failed to explain the delay in ordering the replacement. The unexplained delay is unreasonable and undoubtedly raised the resident’s expectations.
  5. The landlord acknowledged that it had not maintained or serviced the MVHR unit in line with the manufacturer’s requirements. Had it done so, it could have potentially repaired the system’s faults at the time. Despite acknowledging this, the landlord significantly delayed arranging to service the unit. Records indicate it booked to service the MVHR on 9 May 2024, 3 months after the landlord’s stage 2 response. Owing to the resident’s health, the service did not go ahead. The service was re-raised on 22 June and 22 July 2023, but the landlord was unable to access the property and therefore some of the additional delays were outside of the landlord’s control.
  6. Between October 2023 and our investigation, the MVHR unit was attended to at least 4 times. Due to a lack of regular servicing and maintenance over an 11-month period, the unit was unlikely to be working at its best, leaving the property without an effective mechanical ventilation system to extract waste and humid air and maintain balanced humidity levels to reduce the risk of mould growth. The landlord was aware on 28 November 2023 that the unit needed to be replaced.
  7. On 29 November 2023 the resident complained about issues with the property, specifically damp and mould, and mentioned that she had consulted her doctor about it. The evidence indicates that the landlord conducted mould washes in December 2023, February 2024, and most recently, September 2024. Despite these washes, the resident stated that the problem persisted, and she was concerned that the landlord was not resolving the root cause of the problem.
  8. Completing cleans to manage the mould as a temporary solution was reasonable. However, the landlord has not shown that it was proactive in addressing the root cause of the damp and mould or whether it considered the MVHR unit a contributing factor to the conditions in the property. The first record of a damp and mould survey was completed on 7 February 2024, 70 days after the resident’s initial report.
  9. The damp and mould survey recommended that the MVHR unit be serviced, which happened 5 months after the recommendation was made. Again, this was an unreasonable and unexplained delay in resolving the ongoing issue with the MVHR, which could have contributed to the property’s damp and mould. The Ombudsman has seen no explanation of why the landlord did not follow up on the surveyor’s recommendation promptly, and as such, the landlord did not fulfil its commitment to providing an urgent completion of identified remedial works, as detailed in its policy.
  10. The landlord acknowledged its failings in responding to the complaint and offered compensation. While this was appropriate, the landlord should have provided more clarity on when it would replace the MVHR unit and how it planned to address the damp and mould in the property, rather than just acknowledging the issues. The landlord admitted that it should have done more to assess the extent of the damp and mould and devise a plan to address the problems. Despite recognising this, the landlord did not complete an action plan to resolve the issues, likely causing distress and frustration to the resident.
  11. The resident’s health concerns were communicated to the landlord, who acknowledged the issues with damp and mould but did not offer any additional support or consider providing a dehumidifier to help improve the living conditions. It is concerning that there is no evidence to show that the landlord adequately assessed the resident’s living conditions or provided her with targeted and proportionate support.
  12. The resident stated that she suffered damage to her personal belongings due to damp and mould. According to the landlord’s compensation policy, the resident should submit a claim through their own contents insurance if personal belongings are damaged. However, the resident does not have contents insurance. In this situation, the landlord should have informed the resident that she could submit a claim to the landlord’s insurers to determine liability. The policy also states that if a resident does not have contents insurance and has lost essential items they cannot afford to replace, the landlord will assist with grant applications. The landlord failed to provide this information to the resident as per its policy and did not establish whether the resident could afford to replace essential items that may have been damaged. This was unreasonable.
  13. The landlord offered compensation to the resident for the identified failings, which was appropriate. However, the landlord repeated the same mistakes after completing the complaints process, indicating a lack of learning from the complaint. This also shows a lack of appropriate oversight by the landlord to resolve the issues satisfactorily. The failures amount to maladministration.
  14. As the substantive issues are ongoing, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay additional compensation to acknowledge further time, delay, distress and inconvenience caused following the completion of the landlord’s complaints process, as the issues remain outstanding. Compensation of £400 has been awarded as follows: £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused between February 2024 and the date of this report and £200 for the time and delay in permanently resolving the substantive issue from February 2024 up until the date of this report.
  15. The resident has said that she would like to be moved. We are not able to order the landlord to move the resident as we are unaware of the number of other individuals in need of a move, or the availability of properties owned by the landlord. Nonetheless, the landlord should offer the resident transfer options and ensure that she is well-informed. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from the MVHR unit and the associated damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified.
    2. Pay the resident £400, made up of:
      1. £200 for time and delay
      2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience
      3. This is in addition to the £1,100 that the landlord has already paid.
      4. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears.
    3. Contact the resident and confirm when the MVHR unit will be replaced.
    4. Complete a new damp and mould survey. Discuss the findings with the resident and create an action plan, with expected completion dates for works.
    5. Provide the resident with details on how to submit a claim to the landlord’s insurers. Confirm if she would like to complete a grant application for damage caused to essential items.
    6. Provide the resident with options available to move. 
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Review its record-keeping regarding repairs and ensure the completion date for each repair is clearly logged on its system. Operatives carrying out repairs should also be able to add notes relating to the work completed. The landlord should provide evidence of the review.