Stonewater Limited (202412704)

Background

1. The resident was a tenant of the landlord, and her property is a flat. She raised a complaint initially due to the time taken to stop a leak into her bathroom. She further complained about the works the landlord completed to reinstate her property. As she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to the issues she raised, she referred her complaint to us.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Her reports of leaks, damp, and mould at the property.
   2. The provision and administration of temporary accommodation.
   3. Her complaint about the above matters.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that:
   1. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould at the property.
   2. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the provision and administration of temporary accommodation.
   3. There was no maladministration in the handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord delayed stopping the leaks in the first instance. It also did not respond to the resident’s surveyor’s report resulting in the resident experiencing further distress and inconvenience. Generally, the landlord did not explicitly consider whether its obligations under the Equality Act affected its handling of the repairs and communication. It offered compensation for these failures. However, it did not recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s private surveyor report.
5. The landlord paid a food allowance for temporary accommodation that exceeded its decant policy. However, there were failings in its handling of extending the temporary accommodation and communication that caused the resident distress and inconvenience. While it provided self-contained temporary accommodation, the landlord did not explicitly consider its obligations under the Equality Act.
6. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 in line with its policy. It did not significantly delay in dealing with the complaint at stage 2.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not investigated

7. On 8 August 2024, the resident raised a new complaint about contractor conduct. This included a report of the contractor entering her bedroom, tripping the electrics, using her mop, and leaving behind teabags. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord had not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence that the resident’s new complaint about contractor conduct completed the landlord’s complaints procedure and we have not asked for information on this complaint. Therefore, we have not considered this complaint as part of our investigation.
8. In her complaint, the resident suggested that the landlord broke the Equality Act 2010. The Ombudsman has no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act – this can only be done by the courts. However, we can decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties and followed its own related policies and procedures. Landlords may be able to show they have properly considered the Equality Act if they consider the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected.

Leaks, damp and mould at the property

9. The resident originally reported a leak into her bathroom ceiling on 26 March 2024. She isolated the lights as water entered the fittings. Consequently, she had to use the bathroom in the dark. It was not until 19 April 2024 that the landlord sought to stop the leak by repairing the cistern in the flat above.
10. There continued to be a leak in the resident’s property, despite the repair. The contractor identified another repair in the flat above, a repair to the toilet connector to the waste pipe. It completed the repair on 9 May 2024. We acknowledge the landlord experienced difficulty in sourcing the leak and also needed to arrange access to different properties. Nonetheless, it took over 6 weeks to prevent the leaks. This was unreasonable especially given the inconvenience and risks of dampness and no light in the bathroom.
11. After stopping the leaks, on 14 May 2024, the landlord informed the resident it would repair her bathroom. In particular, it needed to reinstate the ceiling and the electrics and redecorate. The landlord completed all works on 30 July 2024. This was over the timescale in its responsive repairs policy which states it should deliver major repairs within a maximum of 42 days. There were mitigating circumstances as the landlord could not commence works until 11 July 2024 when it confirmed the area above the ceiling had fully dried out. However, it is not evident that the landlord updated the resident on the progress of the drying out.
12. The landlord originally advised the resident that all works would be completed by 21 June 2024. It thereby raised the resident’s expectations which was unreasonable given that it had not yet confirmed the drying out time.
13. The landlord advised the resident it would disinfect the ceiling void due to contaminated water. The resident disputed the scope of the works and on 3 July 2024 she provided a report from a private surveyor she commissioned. He recommended:
    1. Replacing the bathroom flooring upstairs and timber joists due to white rot.
    2. Renewing the resident’s bathroom due to human waste soaking the unit.
    3. Checking the woodwork under the vinyl flooring for damage.
    4. Replacing the section of the ceiling that had been left up due to black mould.
    5. Checking the hallway ceiling for damage, mould, and rot.
14. The landlord advised the resident on 10 July 2024 that it would consider the private surveyor’s recommendations as part of the ongoing works. However, it proceeded with the works it had originally specified.
15. The landlord had discretion to decide the scope of the works. However, it did not explain to the resident why it declined the recommendations of the private surveyor and preferred its own schedule of work. This was particularly unreasonable as the resident, through the surveyor, had raised specific health and safety concerns. This included human waste contaminating and damaging the ceiling structure with concerns about mould and white rot. In fact, she advised she was immune-compromised and her concern was sufficient for her to commission and pay for a private surveyor. As such, the landlord did not take the necessary steps to allay the resident’s concerns.
16. Furthermore, the landlord said on 10 July 2024 that the leak was mainly clean water from the flush. This was not consistent with the landlord’s own records which noted “waste water”. Moreover, the response could be construed as dismissive of the resident’s concern.
17. The resident has additional needs due to mental health issues. As a result, her distress and inconvenience from delays to repairs and uncertainty about the progress of the works was likely to be elevated. She remained concerned that the landlord’s works would not address all the damage, mould, and rot. It is not clear that the landlord fully considered how its obligations under the Equality Act affected its handling of repairs and its communication with the resident.
18. The landlord offered £500 compensation in the stage 2 response. However, the landlord stated in the stage 2 response it would review the resident’s circumstances and may make a further offer when she returned to the property. After the resident referred her complaint to us, the landlord offered her a further £250 on 11 October 2024. This reflected the further time she stayed in temporary accommodation after the stage 2 response.
19. However, the compensation offer was not fully reflective of the circumstances of the case, as it did not recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s private surveyor report. We therefore find that there was service failure by the landlord, and award a further £50 compensation, making a total of £800. The finding of service failure reflects the landlord offered compensation that offered reasonable redress for its other failures.

20. On 24 April 2024, the landlord advised the resident it would place her in temporary accommodation as it would need to remove the bathroom ceiling. It placed her in hotel accommodation. The landlord’s decant policy recognises that it may be necessary for residents to vacate their permanent home temporarily to enable refurbishment or repair works to be carried out.
21. When escalating her complaint, the resident stated that the food allowance of £10 was insufficient given her dietary needs. The decant policy states the landlord may offer up to £10 a day for an adult if the accommodation includes breakfast. It may also offer up to £10 a day if there are no cooking facilities or microwaves in the temporary accommodation. The landlord acted reasonably by considering the resident’s circumstances and increasing the resident’s allowance (£550 for 26 days in the hotel). It agreed to pay the resident to have dinner at another hotel which was over and above the requirements of the policy. It also clarified that the allowance was not intended to cover the total cost of food but the additional cost from being in temporary accommodation.
22. After 29 May 2024, the landlord placed the resident in self-contained temporary accommodation. This was in accordance with its policy. This states for longer absences, it may choose to provide temporary accommodation in another property or private rented accommodation. This was also reasonable as it allowed the resident to have her own cooking facilities.
23. However, the landlord in its response of 11 October 2024 recognised that there were failings in its handling of temporary accommodation provision. It recognised “changes in accommodation bookings caused distress and at times the communication was last minute when extensions were required”. At one point, the landlord had to move the resident to a hotel out of town as it could not extend a booking. This was particularly significant given the resident’s health and support needs.
24. The landlord also on 23 May 2024 asked the resident if she would put her “dogs in kennels”. This was so that it could more easily source temporary accommodation in the local area. However, the email did not recognise the resident’s needs and her dog was an assistance dog. It is not clear it fully considered how its obligations under the Equality Act affected its handling of providing temporary accommodation and communication with the resident. We therefore find that there was maladministration by the landlord.
25. We award the resident £100 in recognition of her distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of her temporary accommodation. In making this award, we have referred to our compensation guidance. In particular, we have considered the range of awards for maladministration in our compensation guidance in conjunction with the extent of the failure.

26. The landlord’s complaints procedure states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. An extension at stage 1 should be no longer than 10 working days and extension at stage 2 should be no longer than 20 working days. This is in line with our complaint handling code.
27. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 29 April 2024, within 5 working days. It sent the stage 1 response within 10 working days. It thereby met the requirements of the complaints policy and the code at stage 1. It is not clear when the landlord sent the stage 2 acknowledgment. However, its response of 21 June 2024 was within the extended timescale for responding and was therefore not significantly delayed.
28. In the stage 2 response, the landlord committed to review the resident’s compensation after she returned to her property. The resident responded on 10 July 2024 advising she would not consider further compensation. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not review its compensation offer at that time.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord provided sufficient records to investigate this complaint. However, the records do not show why it delayed in resolving the leak. The records also do not show that it monitored the condition of the resident’s property before it commenced repairs to make it good.

Communication

30. The records do not show if the landlord regularly updated the resident on the status of repairs. Nor do they show that it clearly communicated how long she could expect to stay in temporary accommodation. This contributed to the findings of maladministration.