Stonewater Limited (202403307)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403307

Stonewater Limited

6 November 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. A leak in the resident’s property and the associated damp and mould.
2. The subsequent complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 1-bedroom flat on the ground floor of a low-rise block. She has lived at the property alone since May 2021. The landlord has told this Service it is aware the resident has mental health difficulties, medical conditions (including asthma) and is a wheelchair user.
On 15 January 2024, the resident informed the landlord she had a leak in her bathroom, and the water was spreading to other rooms. The landlord attended the same day to isolate the leak and returned on 20 January 2024 to repair the affected pipe work.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 30 January 2024. She stated the leak had caused damage to her personal belongings and her flat was now experiencing damp and mould. The resident said the leak had been caused by a contractor who had worked on her bathroom previously.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 14 February 2024. It apologised for the inconvenience caused to resident and stated:
1. There had been no previous works carried out, by the landlord or its contractors, to the affected area of the property.
2. Personal items would need to be claimed under the resident’s household insurance policy.
3. It had identified a service failure in the delay to deliver a dehumidifier to the property.
4. It offered the resident £275 compensation for the service failure and time and trouble caused.
The resident escalated her complaint on 6 March 2024. She stated the compensation offered did not cover the damage to her carpets and furniture and she did not have home insurance.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 2 April 2024. It again apologised for its failure to deliver the dehumidifier and stated:
1. The dehumidifier remained at the property for an extra week to ensure the area was dry.
2. It had carried out a mould wash quickly after it was made aware of the situation and redecorating had taken place.
3. It had arranged for new extractor fans to be fitted in the kitchen and bathroom to help with ventilation in the property.
4. The resident needed to claim for damaged items using her home insurance and the landlord would consider paying the excess.
5. It had reviewed the offer of compensation and offered an additional £481.16 compensation.
On 10 May 2024, the landlord further reviewed its offer of compensation and offered the resident a further £450, bringing the total compensation to £1,206.16. The resident remained dissatisfied with the compensation offered and brought the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
In her correspondence with this Service, the resident has raised matters that have not been through the landlord’s complaint process, and other matters that are currently going through that process. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 2 April 2024. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service.
The resident has informed this Service how the issues have impacted on her health. It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The evidence shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. The resident has multiple concerns about the landlord’s activities. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or personal injury.
It is not the role of this Ombudsman to determine liability for the resident’s damaged items. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. It is the role of this Service to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.

The leak in the resident’s property and the associated damp and mould

The landlord provided this Service with a record of repairs at the property dating back to 2021. The last repair to the bathroom of the property was in July 2022 when the toilet flush was repaired.
On 15 January 2024, the resident reported to the landlord there was a leak in her bathroom. She said the water was spreading to other rooms in her flat. The landlord’s records state that the leak was coming from the toilet, and it been leaking for a few days. The resident disputes this. She states she did not say it was coming from toilet and had not waited a few days to report it.
The landlord attended the property within 8 hours of the report and recorded the electrics were safe and the leak was coming from pipework behind the boxing in or the aqua panels. The repair log noted:
1. The water had been isolated from the affected pipework.
2. Adehumidifier needed to be dropped off as an “emergency”.
3. An “urgent” return visit was needed to cut into the wall and resolve the leak.
The tenancy agreement sets out the responsibilities of the landlord and resident in relation to repairs. The agreement states it is the landlord’s responsibility to keep the water pipes in reasonable repair. The agreement also states the resident must promptly report any disrepair or defect that the landlord is responsible for.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy defines an emergency repair as one which poses a threat to the safety of tenants, or their homes, and it will aim to respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. The policy defines a non-emergency repair as one which not pose a threat to safety, and it will aim to respond within 28 days. The policy does not include “urgent” repairs.
It is unclear whether the leak was reported promptly. However, upon being notified of the leak, the landlord responded swiftly and isolated the water from the affected area to prevent further damage until it could access the pipework. This was a prompt and effective response from the landlord.
The following morning (within 24 hours of receiving the report of the leak) the landlord attempted to deliver a dehumidifier to the resident but was unable to gain access to the property. The landlord contacted the resident by phone and determined she would be home for the rest of the day, and it raised a further order for the dehumidifier to be delivered. The landlord also arranged a follow-on appointment for the repair to the leak for 25 January 2024. This was reasonable and in line with landlord’s repairs policy.
On 16 January 2024, the landlord contacted the resident by phone and spoke to her daughter. The landlord stated that as the toilet was unusable the property was not habitable, and the resident would need temporary accommodation. The daughter informed the landlord the resident was currently away from the property until 23 January 2023. The landlord agreed to discuss the decant upon her return and would try and get the repair appointment moved forward.
The landlord’s decant policy states that it in situations where there is a risk to the tenant that cannot be immediately mitigated, it can arrange temporary accommodation until the risk is removed. The policy states this can include paid accommodation or staying with friends and family. The landlord recognised the need for alternative accommodation but after establishing the resident was staying with family, it offered to reconsider the situation when the resident returned. The landlord acted in line with its policy and was proactive in trying to resolve the problem earlier.
The landlord attended the property on 20 January 2024 and repaired the leak. The repair log stated that a further visit would be required to replace the boxing in around the toilet. The operative also noticed the presence of damp and mould in the bathroom and arranged for a mould wash to be carried out 4 days later. The repair to the leak was completed within 5 days. This was in line with the 28 days set out in the landlord’s policy for a routine repair. The landlord also managed to complete the repair to the leak 5 days earlier than anticipated and was quick in arranging the mould wash to be carried out.
On 23 January 2024, the resident’s daughter contacted the landlord and informed it that no dehumidifier had been delivered and the property also had no heating. She stated the resident wanted to return but the property was still wet and there was damp and mould growing on the furniture in all rooms. The landlord delivered the dehumidifier the following day.
The works order to deliver the dehumidifier had been closed in error and raised as a routine job, rather than an emergency. This error of the landlord led to the dehumidifier being delivered 8 days later than it should have been. This caused the property to be left with wet flooring for over a week during the winter months and led to a delay in the drying time. While the resident was not staying in the property, the landlord missed an opportunity to deliver the dehumidifier on 20 January 2024, when its operative completed the repair.
The landlord attended the property on 24 January 2024 to treat the damp and mould. It is not clear from the documentation provided whether this was just the bathroom (identified by the landlord in its visit on 20 January 2024) or other areas of the property as reported by the resident the previous day. The landlord arranged to reattend the property on 30 January 2024 to replace the boxing in behind the toilet.
On 30 January 2024, the resident complained to the landlord that her personal belongings and carpets were covered in mould, and she wanted compensation. She stated the property was now smelling and the water had also damaged her internal doors. The resident stated the leak was no fault of her own and was caused by a contractor not securing the pipe properly.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 7 February 2024 to treat the mould in the bathroom and repaint the boxing in. It also carried out a damp inspection of the property. Its report noted:
1. The leak was major and would continue to dry out.
2. The resident was sleeping in the lounge as the water had damaged her bed.
3. There was “minor” mould around the windows in the living room.
4. The repairs to the bathroom were complete.
5. It recommended that a mould wash was ordered, and the bathroom extractor fan was upgraded.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it takes a “zero-tolerance approach” to damp, and it will categorise cases of damp on a scale of 1 to 4. A stage 2 case of damp is defined as including mould treatment and where additional forms of ventilation are required. However, the policy is silent upon what specific action it will take in respect of each category and the timescales it will work to.
The landlord carried out the damp inspection 6 working days after the further damp and mould was reported. The landlord was aware of the extent of the leak, the delay it had caused in providing a dehumidifier and the distress the resident was experiencing. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have prioritised the inspection and attended sooner in these circumstances.
The inspection report only commented on the living room and bathroom areas of the property. It did comment upon other areas, such as the bedroom, where it had noted water damage to the resident’s bed. It would have been helpful if the report had noted the effects, or not, of the damp in other rooms.
The report suggested that the property was still wet. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, such as asthma, and that she was sleeping in a room where it had identified mould. The resident has told this Service that the landlord offered to put her up in a hotel but would not pay for her daughter to stay with her, so she refused the landlord’s offer. The resident is the sole tenant of the property; therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to only offer accommodation for the resident.
The landlord attended the resident’s property again on 13 February 2024 to conduct a further mould treatment and remove the dehumidifier.
On 14 February 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord said:
1. It recognised there had been a service failure in its delay in delivering the dehumidifier and apologised for its mistake.
2. It had investigated her allegation that the leak was caused by a contractor and could find no evidence that any work had been carried out in the affected area prior to the leak.
3. Following its inspection, it had carried out a mould wash and would upgrade the bathroom extractor fan.
4. Loss of personal items would need to be claimed under the resident’s home insurance policy.
5. It offered £275 compensation, made up of:
  1. £225 for its service failure.
  2. £50 for the time trouble and inconvenience caused.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that she is responsible insuring the contents if her home. The landlord’s compensation policy states that where damage to personal belongings has occurred, the resident should submit a claim through their own insurance.
The landlord investigated how the leak had occurred and established it had not carried out any prior work on the affected area of the bathroom that could have led to the leak. The landlord’s records confirm this. The weight of evidence does not point to any previous work conducted by the landlord as being the reason a leak occurred. The landlord is obliged to respond to a leak within a reasonable amount of time after being notified. A landlord only becomes responsible for any damage caused by the leak if it fails to carry out its repairing obligation within a reasonable time. In this case the landlord’s response was quick and exceeded the timescales set in its own policy. Therefore, it was reasonable of the landlord to direct the resident to claim through her own insurance.
On 22 February 2024, the resident contacted the landlord and asked if she could apply for a hardship grant. Landlord’s records indicate it advised the resident of the process, and she contacted it again on 26 February 2024 to follow up her application.
On 1 March 2024, the resident contacted the landlord “begging” for financial help to replace her bed and carpets. The resident stated she was “desperate” and need a proper bed due a spinal condition. She also said the carpets were water damaged, smelt of mould and she was tripping over them as her wheelchair would “drag” them up. The resident said she had no contents insurance and no other means of replacing the items.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 5 March 2024 and said that it was the landlord’s fault she experienced the leak, and it should compensate her for the items that had been damaged and lost. From the documentation provided, the landlord did not reply to the resident on both occasions. Given the apparent distress of the resident, it was unreasonable of the landlord not to respond.
On 6 March 2024, the resident escalated her complaint with the landlord. She reiterated that she could not afford to replace the items in her property and wanted the landlord to compensate her. The resident said she felt neglected by the landlord and there was mould over her carpets, walls, mattress, and furniture.
The landlord attended the property for unrelated repairs on 14 March 2024 and identified the kitchen extractor fan was not working. It arranged for the fan to be replaced to help with the damp and mould. The landlord’s subcontractor attended on 18 March 2024 to quote for the new fan.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 2 April 2024. It again apologised for its failure to deliver the dehumidifier at an earlier stage and stated:
1. The mould wash had been carried out and the bathroom repairs had been completed.
2. It had received a quote for new extractor fans for the bathroom and kitchen and this would be approved swiftly so that work could commence.
3. It was unable to compensate the resident for the damaged items and signposted the resident to alternative forms of financial relief, such as grants.
4. It offered the resident a further £456.16 compensation, in addition to the compensation at stage 1, made up of:
  1. £206.16 for loss of room for an extended period.
  2. £250 for time and trouble.
The response highlighted the extra steps the landlord had taken to address the resident’s substantive complaint. The landlord signposted the resident to other forms of financial help and significantly increased its offer of compensation. This was a positive step for the landlord to take, in an effort to reassure the resident it was taking her problems seriously.
On 10 May 2024, the landlord reviewed the resident’s offer of compensation and awarded her a further £450 for the time, trouble and inconvenience the matter had caused. This brought the total compensation to £1,181.16, made up of:
1. £225 for its service failure.
2. £750 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused.
3. £206.16 for loss of room.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so the Ombudsman considers whether the redress was in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
There is no evidence to suggest the landlord was responsible for the leak in the bathroom. The last work it carried out in the bathroom was recorded as July 2022 and was to fix the toilet flush. Upon being notified of the leak, the landlord acted swiftly to isolate the affected pipes and carry out the repair. The landlord attempted to deliver the dehumidifier the following day but was unable to access the property. This resulted in an 8-day delay to delivering the dehumidifier, which may have been affected by the resident being absent from the property. The landlord acknowledged this service failure in its complaint responses and offered the resident compensation for this failing.
It is unusual for the Ombudsman to consider reasonable redress for offers of compensation made outside of the landlord’s internal complaint process. However, on this occasion, whilst the landlord has not documented the reason why, it proactively reviewed its compensation offer within a reasonable amount of time following its stage 2 response. It also did so before the intervention of the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies suggests that an award of £1,181.16 may remedy maladministration where there was a failure that had significant impact on the resident. Considering the delay to delivering the dehumidifier, the apologies made and the offer of substantial compensation, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the leak in the resident’s property and the associated damp and mould.

Complaint handling

A landlord’s complaint handling process is an essential aspect of its overall service delivery provision. An effective complaints process will enable a landlord to identify and address service delivery issues in a timely manner. It will also provide learning for future service provision.
The resident complained to the landlord on 30 January 2024 and stated that she was experiencing damp and mould because of the leak and wanted compensation. The landlord acknowledged her complaint 2 days later on 1 February 2024 and stated it would respond before 15 February 2024.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that will acknowledge all complaints within 2 working days of receipt. The landlord’s acknowledgement was issued 2 working days after the resident submitted her complaint. Therefore, the landlord acted in line with its policy.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 14 February 2024. The response addressed all aspects of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will issue a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days where possible. It also states that in circumstances where this is not possible, it will advise the resident of the likely timescale. The response was issued 12 working days after the resident made her complaint. However, the landlord had managed the resident’s expectations in its acknowledgement and the small delay was not unreasonable in the circumstances.
The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord on 6 March 2023. She contacted the landlord again on 12 March 2023 to chase up the progress of her complaint. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 19 March 2023. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge all escalation requests within 2 working days. In this case, the landlord’s acknowledgement was issued 9 days after the escalation request. This was a minor deviation from its policy and could have been avoided by acknowledging the request earlier.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 2 April 2024. The landlord recognised it had failed to escalate the resident’s complaint in line with its policy, it apologised for the failing and offered the resident £25 compensation.
The landlord’s complaint policy states it will issue a stage 2 complaint response within 10 working days. The policy does not state whether this timescale begins at the point of escalation or acknowledgement. However, the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) recommends that stage 2 responses are issued within 20 working days from the point of escalation. The landlord issued its stage 2 response within 19 working days from the point of escalation and while it exceeded its own policy, the response was in line with the Code.
In the main, the landlord handled the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy. Its delay to acknowledging the escalation caused the resident to chase up her complaint, but did not impact upon the timeliness of the stage 2 response. The failing in this instance had minimal impact of the resident.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so the Ombudsman considers whether the redress was in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies suggests that an award of £25 may remedy service failure where the failure had minimal impact on the resident. Considering the delay to the complaint being escalated, the apologies made and the offer of compensation, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling the leak and the associated damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

It is the recommended that the landlord continues to work with the resident to advise and support her with her grant applications.