From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Stonewater Limited (202413372)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413372

Stonewater Limited

29 April 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 response to the resident’s:
    1. reports of water ingress and associated damp and mould.
    2. complaint.
  2. We have also assessed the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident lives in a one bedroom flat, which he has occupied since May 2023. He is an assured tenant and has disclosed to the landlord that he has vulnerabilities related to his physical and mental health.
  2. On 1 December 2023 the resident reported a leak from the above property. The landlord attended on the same day and tried to inspect the neighbouring property. However, the tenant was not home at the time. The landlord completed repairs to the resident’s kitchen and bathroom ceilings on 21 December 2023. On 9 January 2024 it attended the neighbour’s flat and found the leak was coming from the bathroom basin trap. It replaced the trap, which resolved the leak.
  3. The resident reported damp and mould on his kitchen ceiling on 16 January 2024. He said it was caused by his neighbour’s shower. Operatives attended his property on 2 May 2024 and cleaned “a small amount of mould” from the ceiling. They reported that they could not apply a stain block because there was “still a small leak” coming from the flat above. The landlord tried to attend the neighbouring property on 2, 7 and 24 May 2024 but was unable to gain access.
  4. On 26 May 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord to raise a complaint. He stated that:
    1. he had an ongoing mould problem which he had “recently reported for the third time”.
    2. the contractor was due to “fix the plaster”, which was “pointless” if the leak was not repaired.
    3. he had been “hospitalised due to severe asthma attacks” and was “unable” to breathe.
    4. he had reported water leaking into his kitchen and took 2 days off work waiting for operatives who did not arrive.
  5. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 3 June 2024 to carry out a mould wash but was unable to gain access. It acknowledged the complaint on 5 June 2024 and wrote to the resident on 19 June 2024 to request an extension. On 2 July 2024 it issued its stage 1 response, which summarised the actions it had taken in response to the resident’s reports. It then stated that:
    1. after the resident confirmed on 16 January 2024 that the leak in the flat above had not been fixed it spoke to his neighbour. They confirmed the repair had been carried out the previous week. It was sorry it had not contacted him after this to discuss the issues he was still experiencing.
    2. it had tried to gain access to the flat above to check for a leak. However, despite numerous attempts, it had been unsuccessful. It had also made further attempts to contact his neighbour but was unable to reach them.
    3. it was sorry it had not yet resolved the damp issue in his flat and the suspected leak in the flat above.
    4. it wanted to offer him £425 compensation, broken down as:
      1. £350 in recognition of inconvenience, time and trouble caused.
      2. £75 for service failures.
  6. On 4 July 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord to escalate his complaint. He said:
    1. the main problem was the mould behind the shower from the ongoing leak. He had spoken to the landlord’s surveyor months ago but they “refused” to take any action.
    2. the woodwork was saturated and the insulation had become soggy and wet. There was also a strong smell of sewage coming from the area. He needed all the woodwork to be replaced but it seemed to him that “cost saving had been prioritised” over his and his daughter’s wellbeing.
    3. the landlord had dismissed the findings of an operative who attended on 24 June 2024. He was convinced the action plan the operative had given him would have solved the problem.
    4. he had waited in all afternoon on 1 July 2024 only for the contractor to take further photos. There had been around 9 lots of photos from different contractors but no work had been carried out.
    5. this was having a “huge impact” on his physical and mental health.
  7. On 12 July 2024 an operative attended the property and reported that:
    1. he had removed the corner of the kitchen ceiling and found water “running down from above the stack pipe”.
    2. the top side of the plaster board on the kitchen ceiling was covered with black mould.
    3. the tiled casing in the bathroom would need to be removed as the insulation was “wet and mouldy”.
    4. the kitchen units would need replacing.
  8. Between 17 July and 29 August 2024 the landlord took the following actions:
    1. an operative attended the neighbour’s property on 17 July 2024 and found no active leak.
    2. a surveyor and contractor carried out a joint inspection to the bathroom and kitchen on 22 July 2024. They found no active leaks, damp, or mould.
    3. the contractor attended on 24 July 2024 to seal around the pipework and repair the kitchen ceiling. It also carried out a “full camera survey” and raised further repairs, which it stated would take 2 weeks to complete.
    4. it attended the property on 14 August 2024, where an environmental health officer was also present. They both confirmed there were no damp and mould issues.
    5. it completed all remaining repairs on 16 August 2024.
    6. carried out a post-inspection with the resident and an officer from the council on 29 August 2024. The officer confirmed that all the repairs were completed and “there was no evidence of damp, mould, sewage stains, or contamination”.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 9 September 2024. It provided a summary of the actions it had taken to address the resident’s complaint. It then stated that:
    1. on 12 August 2024, the resident had asked operatives to leave his property before they could complete repairs.
    2. on 13 August 2024 he had refused for works to be carried out by “removing the key from the key safe”.
    3. It had:
      1. responded to his stage 1 complaint comprehensively and provided appropriate apologies and compensation.
      2. completed investigations and repairs “as quickly as possible” since 2 July 2024, and all repairs were fully complete.
      3. investigated his concerns and acted accordingly to address all the issues it had identified.
      4. visited the property with him present and had contacted him several times to update him of its process, progress and findings.
  10. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 11 September 2024. He stated that the landlord had not completed repairs in a professional manner. He added that it had told “untruths” to the environmental health team and “lies” about the plaster being renewed and ceilings being replaced. He stated that it had painted over raw sewage in his kitchen and reinstalled his kitchen units “covered in…human waste”.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has raised concerns that his health has been adversely affected by the damp and mould in his property. The serious nature of the resident’s concerns are acknowledged. However we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process. These are more appropriately addressed via the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of any failings by the landlord.
  2. The resident has raised some additional concerns. These related to:
    1. lack of reimbursement for food and parking costs while in temporary accommodation,
    2. outstanding fire safety work,
    3. the standard of the repairs the landlord had completed.
  3. These issues did not from part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, therefore this is not something we can investigate at this stage. This is because, in the interest of fairness, the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these reports. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved. He may then approach the Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied.

Legal and policy framework

  1. In line with Section 11 of the Landlord of Tenant Act 1985, the tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the building in good repair. This includes the roof, internal walls and ceilings. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect “within a reasonable amount of time”. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
  2. Landlords must ensure that the accommodation they provide is free from serious hazards, including damp and mould, and that homes are fit for habitation. They must treat cases of damp and mould as a priority. Furthermore, the landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth pose a health risk to residents and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a health hazard that may require prompt remedy.
  3. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy lists a number of objectives. These include:
    1. attending to:
      1. emergency repairs within a maximum of 24 hours.
      2. non-emergency repairs within a maximum of 28 days.
      3. major repairs within a maximum of 42 days, where there is a “significant amount of work required beyond the original repair”.
    2. maintaining “clear and continuous communication” with residents to ensure they know when a reported repair will be completed.
  4. The landlord’s complaints, compliments and comments policy outlines a 2-stage process with the following timescales:
    1. 5 working days to acknowledge complaints,
    2. 10 working days to respond to stage 1 complaints,
    3. 20 working days to respond to stage 2 complaints.

If it requires more time it will contact the resident with a timeframe. It will agree any extensions beyond 10 working days with the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

  1. The landlord pays discretionary compensation payments for a number of failings including:
    1. poor complaint handling.
    2. delays in providing a service and failure to meet target response times.
    3. loss of use of part of the property.
    4. failure to follow policy and procedure.
    5. unreasonable time taken to resolve a situation.
  2. Its compensation policy states that payments will be made dependent on the severity of any failure and associated impact on the resident. It does not quote specific amounts.

Reports of water ingress and associated damp and mould

  1. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on ‘Damp and Mould – it’s not a lifestyle’, published in October 2021, states that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords. They should take a zero-tolerance approach, be proactive in identifying potential problems and clearly communicate to residents about actions. Where inspections result in recommended works to tackle condensation, damp or mould, landlords should ensure they act on the recommendations in a timely manner. Any deviations from the recommendations should be clearly documented and explained to the resident.
  2. The landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect what constitutes a reasonable timescale, such as volume and complexity of required work or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
  3. The resident initially reported a leak from his neighbour’s property on 1 December 2023. The landlord attended on the same day and returned 21 days later, on 21 December 2023, to carry out follow on works to the resident’s kitchen and bathroom ceilings. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
  4. However, the evidence shows that it attended the neighbour’s property on 9 January 2024 to fix the leak, which it found was coming from the bathroom basin trap. This means it completed this repair within 40 days, which was 12 days outside its timescale for completing non-emergency repairs. Although the delay was not excessive, it was a departure from the landlord’s policy.
  5. It is unclear whether the delay was caused by difficulties in gaining access to the neighbouring property. However, the records do not give any reasons for why it could not have completed the repair within 28 days. Furthermore, the landlord had not demonstrated that it made any attempts to provide any updates to the resident during this time or explain why it was unable to meet its timescale. That it did not was a failure to account for its delay and to engage with the resident about this.
  6. The records show that, on 16 January 2024, the resident reported damp and mould on his ceiling, caused by a possible ongoing leak from the neighbour’s bathroom. Following this report, the landlord did not attend the resident’s property until 2 May 2024, over 5 months later. The landlord has provided no explanation for this delay and has not provided evidence to demonstrate it was unavoidable. This suggests a lack of effective repair monitoring.
  7. Furthermore, it has not demonstrated that it made any attempt to contact the resident during this time to discuss the issue with him. The landlord’s excessive delay in responding to the resident’s report was a failing. Its lack of communication was a further departure from the stated objective in its repair policy. This was to maintain “clear and continuous communication” with residents to ensure they know when a reported repair will be completed. This caused the resident ongoing uncertainty as to the source of any possible water ingress, and distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s lack of action.
  8. Following its attendance on 2 May 2024, the evidence shows the landlord was proactive in trying to find the source of any possible water ingress, and damp and mould. It took over 2 months for it to access the neighbour’s property to check for any leaks. At the appointment it could not find any evidence of leaks coming from the neighbour’s property. The records show it made reasonable efforts to gain access and to contact the neighbour. That it was unable to reach them earlier was beyond its control.
  9. The records show a discrepancy between the findings of visits by operatives and the outcomes of later inspections by the landlord. The operative who attended on 12 July 2024 reported that he “found water running down from above the stack pipe”. He recommended works to replace the kitchen units and ceiling, and remove the “tiled casing” in the bathroom. This is in contrast to the outcomes of later inspections carried out on 22 July 2024, and then on 16 and 29 August 2024. These found no active leaks. It also concluded that the bathroom and kitchen areas were “dry” and that were no damp or mould issues, or evidence of sewage escapes.
  10. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings of suitably qualified professionals, and the outcomes of its own inspections. However, the landlord has not provided a comprehensive report of its findings. It has therefore not given specific details on what checks it had undertaken to investigate damp. The landlord’s findings are not disputed. However, it would have been reasonable for it to have provided information on the actions it took to inspect for damp, whether it had taken any meter readings and whether it had looked at the exterior of the building to check for any possible causes. This would have demonstrated that it had taken all reasonable steps to assure itself the property did not have a significant damp problem.
  11. There is no evidence it had discussed the discrepancy with its contractor. This was a missed opportunity for it to have given the resident an explanation for why the outcomes of the visits differed. This would have helped avoid any ongoing confusion around the causes of any damage found in the kitchen and bathroom and the reasons for the repairs the landlord had raised. It is noted in the landlord’s findings that there was no damp or mould present. This was supported by representatives from the local authority, who also attended the inspections on 16 and 29 August 2024.
  12. Furthermore, the landlord acted appropriately by carrying out works to rectify damage to the kitchen and bathroom from historical water ingress. It also undertook remedial works in order to prevent future leaks into the resident’s flat from the neighbouring property. The evidence shows it completed the repairs within a reasonable amount of time. Furthermore, it moved the resident into temporary accommodation while carrying out the repairs, which was appropriate.
  13. Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, one of his responsibilities as a tenant is to provide the landlord and its contractors with reasonable access to the property, to enable it to meet its repair obligations. The evidence shows there were numerous instances when operatives were unable to gain access to the resident’s property. Furthermore, there is an internal record stating that the resident had told operatives to leave his property before they could complete repairs.
  14. The Ombudsman accepts there can be many reasons why it may not be convenient for the resident to allow work to go ahead. However, delays to repairs because of issues with gaining access to the property cannot be considered to be within the landlord’s control. Unless the landlord could gain reasonable access to the property, it would not have been able to carry out the required works in a timely manner. As such the landlord’s difficulties in gaining access to the property contributed to the delays in carrying out inspections and completing repairs.
  15. However, the landlord could reasonably have done more to consider the resident’s unique circumstances, and vulnerabilities. It could have asked him if there were any reasonable adjustments it could make or support it could provide to facilitate better access to the property. It could have also considered agreeing to a formal contact plan, setting out the best methods and times to contact him. Furthermore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered facilitating an advocate or assigning a single point of contact to liaise between the landlord and resident. These measures may not have achieved a different outcome. However, it would have demonstrated that the landlord was making reasonable efforts to resolve the communication difficulties that were contributing to any delays. That it did not do so was a shortcoming.
  16. As previously mentioned, the inspection the landlord carried out in July and August 2024 did not find any significant damp and mould in the property. However, the records show that the resident had reported issues with condensation in 28 April and May 2024.
  17. There is no evidence the landlord provided any advice on how to deal with this, or that it sent the resident any written information about condensation management. The importance of this is highlighted in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould. The lack of guidance provided to the resident was a shortcoming in the circumstances. The landlord should ensure that it has measures in place to provide residents with information about dealing with damp, mould and condensation when such reports are received. We have made a recommendation to reflect this. It is noted in the repair log that the landlord appropriately raised works on 11 November 2024 to “overhaul” the ventilation system and completed these on 22 November 2024.

Conclusion

  1. We have found that there were delays in the landlord’s handling of the following repairs:
    1. 12 days over the landlord’s 28 day timescale to fix the leak in the neighbour’s bathroom.
    2. over 5 months from when the resident reported damp and mould on his ceiling in January 2024 to when the landlord initially attended the property.

We have seen no evidence that suggests these delays were unavoidable.

  1. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: “Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
  2. Overall, the landlord took positive steps to resolve the resident’s reports of water ingress, and damp and mould. It consistently tried to gain access to the resident’s and his neighbour’s properties. However, the landlord could not demonstrate it made reasonable attempts to contact the resident during certain periods set out earlier in this report. It could also have given more consideration to the resident’s vulnerabilities and discussed any adjustments it could make to remove any possible barriers in allowing access. However, the evidence shows there was no ongoing issues with leaks, or damp and mould. In addition, the landlord demonstrated it had been proactive in completing repairs following damage caused by historic leaks.
  3. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged the time it was taking to investigate the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the impact this was having on him. It explained its difficulties in gaining access to the neighbour’s flat. It also acknowledged its failure to follow up on his report of 16 January 2024, and its poor communication. The landlord told him that its surveyor would inspect his property on 12 July 2024. It is noted that it later kept to this commitment.
  4. Furthermore, its stage 1 response made an offer of £425 compensation. This was in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor service provision, and the resident’s time and trouble pursuing the matter. This is above what we would normally have ordered had we made a finding of maladministration for similar failings. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the landlord has made reasonable efforts to put things right. Furthermore, it has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Complaint

  1. The landlord acknowledged both the resident’s stage 1 complaint and escalation request within 6 rather than 5 working days. This is not an excessive delay and there is no evidence it adversely impacted the resident. However, the landlord should ensure it takes all reasonable steps to correctly follow its complaints policy and acknowledge complaints within the correct timescale. This will help restore the resident’s confidence the landlord’s service provision and show it is taking the complaints seriously.
  2. The landlord responded to both stage 1 and 2 complaints outside of its initial timescales of 10 and 20 days, respectively. However, it acted appropriately by letting the resident know it needed more time to investigate and provided an explanation and a new timeframe by which it would respond. Although it issued its stage 2 response 3 days after it advised in its extension request, this was not a significant delay.
  3. The landlord’s stage 2 response mentioned it had made an “offer of compensation” at stage 1. However, it did not explicitly set out the offer it had made in its stage 2 response. This resulted in unnecessary confusion, and the resident believing it had withdrawn its offer.
  4. We recognise the landlord is not obligated to set out financial offers in a particular way. We also acknowledge that it referred to an offer it made at stage 1. However, it is reasonable for any final offers it makes, including a decision not to award further compensation, to be explicitly set out in the final response. This is to avoid unnecessary confusion to residents. That the landlord did not clearly set out its offer of compensation was a shortcoming.
  5. The landlord should ensure in future that it sets out in its stage 2 responses any offers of redress it has previously made. It should then be clear about its final offer, which should include any revisions or additions to amounts it has already awarded following its stage 2 investigation.
  6. Overall, we recognise there were minimal delays in issuing the landlord’s complaint responses but that this did not cause detriment to the resident.  As such, we found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Record keeping

  1. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, states that “it is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The landlord and its contractors should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of outstanding repairs and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre- and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates”.
  2. In addition, the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management’ (KIM) states that, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”.
  3. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, as this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure the landlord has a good understanding of the progress of ongoing repairs at any given time to be able to provide updates to residents.  Records also enable outstanding repairs and complaints to be monitored and provide an audit trail of actions, including any delays that were outside of its control. Effective record keeping means landlords are also able to carry out effective investigations when things go wrong.
  4. The landlord has not provided copies of any inspection reports. The only information available regarding the findings and recommendations from inspections are from internal correspondence. Contemporaneous records of telephone calls and written correspondence between the landlord and resident during the period covered by the complaint were also very limited. The landlord provided no records of correspondence with its contractor during the period when the resident was waiting for repairs to be completed. It is unknown whether this evidence does exist, and if the landlord has failed to provide it, or if the landlord failed to keep appropriate records. Nevertheless, it has been difficult for us to establish what steps the landlord took to address the outstanding repairs.
  5. The landlord’s poor record keeping would have contributed to the landlord’s delays, poor communication and lack of updates to the resident. The Ombudsman has taken this into account when reaching the overall finding that there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping. We will make an order for it to review its record keeping for this case.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord had made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, addresses its response to the resident’s reports of water ingress and associated damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must review its record keeping for the issues investigated in this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with the findings of its review, details of any learning it has identified and any actions it proposes to take as a result. To assist it in doing this it may wish to consult the recommendations in our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.

Recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should pay the resident £423 it had offered him in its stage 1 response in recognition of the failing it had identified.
  2. The landlord should emphasise to relevant staff the importance of providing residents with timely advice and support, whether written or verbal, on dealing with damp, mould and condensation when it receives such reports.
  3. The landlord should clearly set out all final offers of compensation in its stage 2 responses.