Stonewater Limited (202341798)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341798

Stonewater Limited

26 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the resident’s bedroom ceiling repairs.
    2. Responses to the resident’s damp and mould reports.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

Responses to the resident’s damp and mould reports

  1. Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint which is made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
  2. One of the complaints the resident brought to the Ombudsman related to damp and mould problems in her home. The landlord’s repair records show a report of such problems in April 2023. There are no other reports showing. The issue was not part of the resident’s complaint in December 2023, or her escalated complaint in January 2024. Both complaints related only to the ceiling re-plastering.
  3. As the resident did not make a complaint to the landlord about damp and mould issues that issue cannot be considered in this investigation. If the resident has concerns it is open to her to raise a new complaint with the landlord. If she remains dissatisfied following its formal responses, she has the option to ask the Ombudsman to investigate her new complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident reported damaged and loose ceiling plaster in one of her bedrooms to the landlord in April 2023. The landlord’s records show that operatives attended in May but were unable to complete the work and a follow up appointment was scheduled for early July.
  3. The records state that access to the property could not be gained for the July 2023 appointment. The resident has disputed this. The work was rescheduled for August.
  4. The August 2023 appointment was successful, but the ceilings were found to be too damp to complete the necessary plastering work. The operatives left dehumidifiers to help dry it out.
  5. The resident complained to the landlord in December 2023 about the incomplete plastering. She said there had been multiple cancelled or unsuccessful appointments which she had taken time off work for. She had been waiting 8 months for the plastering to be finished.
  6. The landlord sent its first complaint response on 21 December 2023. It acknowledged the time taken so far to complete the plastering and apologised. It set out the actions it had taken and the appointments it had scheduled. It noted that at one appointment its operatives had not been able to gain access to the property. It confirmed that as soon as the ceiling was considered dry enough to be plastered the work would be completed. It recognised the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident and offered £100 compensation for her time and trouble, and a further £60 to help with decoration costs after the work was complete.
  7. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 11 January 2024. The landlord’s note of her call states that she disagreed with its complaint response because she had not missed any appointments.
  8. The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 February 2024 with its final complaint response. It explained its previous explanation was based on information from its contractor, and apologised if it was not accurate. It said the contractor would be contacting her shortly to arrange the final work. It referred her to the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
  9. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in February 2024 because the work was still outstanding.
  10. The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 August 2024. It said it had further reviewed its handling of the repairs following the Ombudsman’s information request for this investigation. It acknowledged additional delays in contacting the resident about the work, and in resolving it. It offered further compensation totalling £625 and said it would replace some of the resident’s carpets damaged in a leak.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will resolve non-emergency repairs within 28 days. It allows up to 42 days where there are major works involved. The information about the plastering work needed for the resident’s bedroom does not suggest it was urgent or an emergency. Nor does anything clearly suggest this work, on its own, was major. Accordingly, the landlord should have been aiming to resolve the work within 28 days.
  2. The repair was first reported on 11 April 2023, and the landlord attended on 17 May. This response was 1 week outside the 28-day target. A follow up appointment was arranged for 3 July. Allowing for a further 28 days from May that was also over the landlord’s target timeframe.
  3. The 3 July 2023 appointment was unsuccessful because the contractor could not gain access. The resident has explained she was home, and the landlord did not dispute that. It is possible for both explanations to be correct. For example, the resident was home but was not alerted to the contractor’s arrival. Regardless, the appointment was rescheduled for 21 August. This again was outside any relevant target date, even when allowing 28 days from the July appointment.
  4. By the time of the resident’s complaint to the landlord each of its repair appointments had been late. There is no clear indication that any of the scheduled appointments were unnecessary. The first one identified further work was needed by plasterers, but that visit also constituted the landlord’s inspection of the problem. The poor service was in the lengthy periods between appointments.
  5. This understandably caused the resident inconvenience and frustration, as she explained in her complaint. However, there is no evidence of a larger or material impact from the unresolved work.
  6. In the circumstances, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its delays and apologise. The landlord’s compensation policy does not include specific amounts but explains any compensation will be “fair and proportionate and accurately reflect the extent of any service failure and the detriment to the customer”. The £160 compensation the landlord offered was proportionate to the nature and scale of the outstanding work and its slowness attending to it. It was also in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for a complaint with no permanent consequences.
  7. The resident’s escalated complaint centred on the unsuccessful appointment in July 2023. She did not dispute the landlord’s other explanations. The landlord’s description of the July appointment accurately reflected the records it had, but it also acknowledged the resident’s explanation. No evidence has been seen which might provide more detail. As explained above, it is possible both accounts were accurate. The landlord’s response on the point was reasonable in the circumstances and the information it had.
  8. While the resident did not specifically raise the incomplete repairs in her escalated complaint, they still had not been resolved by the time of the landlord’s final complaint response in mid-February 2024. It explained in that response that its surveyor and contractor would be contacting her to make the necessary arrangements. If the landlord had followed up its promise and subsequently completed the work in a reasonable timeframe, its complaint responses and remedies would likely have been determined to be reasonable.
  9. The landlord’s correspondence with the resident in late August 2024 shows the work was still outstanding at that date, 6 months after its complaint response. The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that this delay is partly due to both contractor availability and internal personnel changes. It provided a similar explanation to the resident, acknowledged this was poor service, apologised and offered £625 further compensation. The compensation was significant, and reasonably reflected the further delays.
  10. It was not unreasonable for the landlord to reconsider its handling of the resident’s complaint in this particular case, because the actions it had promised in its complaint response had not been fulfilled and that was a new factor. However, the landlord explained it did this because of the Ombudsman’s investigation. It seems, therefore, that if the resident had not brought her complaint to the Ombudsman the landlord would not have considered the ongoing repair delays, or provided further remedies.
  11. It stands to reason that any landlord should closely monitor promises it makes in its complaint responses to ensure the relevant actions are carried out, regardless of whether the Ombudsman becomes involved. The landlord did not do that in this case.


Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s bedroom ceiling repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s responses to her reports of damp and mould is not one the Ombudsman will investigate.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s ceiling repairs were slow, and outside its published timescales. It appropriately remedied that in its complaint responses, but then has not been able to subsequently complete the work in a reasonable timeframe. It reconsidered the complaint and its delays, and offered reasonable remedies. However, that was done following the Ombudsman’s involvement rather than as part of its standard repair processes, which was not appropriate.
  2. The resident’s damp and mould complaint is not in the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because a formal complaint has not been made to the landlord.

Orders

  1. The compensation offered to the resident during the complaint, and subsequently, was reasonable and proportionate to the nature and scale of its service failings. It should ensure payment of the total amount of £785 (£160+£625) is made and provide evidence of payment within 4 weeks of this report.
  2. It is not clear if the ceiling repairs have now been completed. Within 6 weeks of this report the landlord must provide to the Ombudsman and resident evidence of a post-work inspection confirming the completed work. If the work is not yet finished, the landlord must provide a firm schedule for completing it in a reasonable timescale.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord may wish to consider incorporating in its complaint procedures a process by which it maintains oversight of repairs promised in all of its complaint responses, especially in regard to the steps it will take when such repairs are unexpectedly delayed.