Stonewater Limited (202426067)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202426067

Stonewater Limited

11 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports about the condition of the property.
2. Concerns about the heating system.
3. Requests to install a log burner.
4. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident has a sole assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, that began in April 2024. During the period considered by this investigation, her adult son lived with her. He recently moved out. The resident lives with physical and mental health conditions.
The resident reported issues with the condition of the property to the landlord within a few days of her tenancy starting. Over the next 4 months it completed some works and carried out investigations. The resident raised ongoing concerns about the adequacy of its works and other items as outstanding. She also told it that the living conditions were having a negative personal impact on her and had caused damage to her belongings. She told it that the property was too cold and the heating system ineffective and unaffordable. She asked the landlord for permission to install a log burner. It refused to allow this.
On 21 October 2024 the resident sent a complaint to the landlord. She said that it had failed to resolve issues with the condition of her home over a long period and communicated poorly. She requested compensation, including for damage to her belongings. The next day, she added further detail to her complaint and raised concerns about the heating system and the landlord’s refusal of permission for a log burner. She described adverse impacts to her wellbeing.
The resident made further contact with the landlord about her living conditions, its ongoing investigations, and works. She described impacts to her breathing condition and expressed suicidal ideation. She provided medical evidence. The landlord liaised with her about repairs and discussed potential support referrals.
On 5 November 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It:
1. Summarised a background of events from October 2024 and its further plans for works to the property.
2. Found that its heating system was functional.
3. Accepted some communication failings. It apologised for the impact of the property condition issues.
4. Acknowledged failing to follow its complaint process at an earlier stage, causing delay. It offered the resident £75 compensation for this failure.
The resident set out her dissatisfaction with its response in an email on 8 November 2024. She disputed some of the details in its background summary and explained that she was unhappy with the resolutions proposed. She set out concerns about the cost of using the heating system and the condition of her home. The resident and landlord continued to liaise about ongoing works and investigations to the property.
On 11 December 2024 the landlord sent its final complaint response to the resident. It summarised a background from April 2024. It explained the further works it would be doing. While it found that its surveyor maintained communication and liaised with contractors, it found it had been ‘let down’ by them, causing delay. It expressed regret for the impacts described by the resident. It referred her to consider a personal injury claim. It detailed reasons for refusing permission for a log burner and noted her concerns about the heating system. The landlord offered compensation of £988.51, made up of a daily sum for impacted use of one room, inconvenience and delay, and its complaint handling failings as recognised at stage 1.
The resident referred her complaint for investigation by this Service. The landlord recently informed us that it has completed ‘all repairs’ and no further works are required. The resident told us that her home continues to be impacted by multiple defects and cold living conditions. She wants the landlord to remedy outstanding defects and pay her further compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said this situation had a negative effect on her health and wellbeing and that of her son. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the property

The landlord was required by section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It was also responsible for making sure the property was fit for human habitation under s.9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The existence of any hazard as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System was a relevant factor to assessing fitness for human habitation. Related repair or other remedial action was required within a reasonable period.
It is evident from review of the landlord’s records that the property was let to the resident in April 2024 with outstanding repairs and potential hazards. Within only a few days of tenancy start, she raised numerous concerns including damp and mould, internal cracking, and holes. Other items were soon added to the landlord’s list of required works as she discovered further issues and it re-investigated, such as external drainage and windows. Many items mirrored problems that the landlord identified at its survey inspection of the property when empty in 2023. It had noted extensive defective brickwork and mortar joints and issues with insulation. While some recommended works were completed before the resident moved in, others recommended to treat the root cause of damp were not done. For example, internal walls were replastered, but the cause of penetrating damp left outstanding. The landlord itself noted in its internal email of 22 May 2024, ‘loads of money already spent whilst void (masking true issue)’.
At the point of the landlord’s final complaint response on 11 December 2024, 8 months into the resident’s tenancy, many remedial items that it knew about at letting or within days were outstanding. For example, works aimed at adequately addressing damp in the dining room were not scheduled until January 2025 and only partial works to external brickwork were completed. Other works were subject to unreasonable delay across 2024. The landlord’s delay was outside of the timescale required by its repairs policy and contrary to its stated zero tolerance approach to damp and mould. It failed to ensure that the property was kept in ‘good repair’ or respond in a reasonable time to resolve potential health or safety hazards. The landlord failed to act in line with policy or its contractual or statutory obligations.
Numerous issues contributed to the landlord’s overall delay or failure to do appropriate works. Firstly, it marked as ‘completed’ on its systems many works or investigations that were outstanding. This impacted its ability to accurately identify the status of the works needed to the resident’s home.
This Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould highlighted the need for particular care by landlords when handling complex cases. Damp in the resident’s home was present in multiple rooms and had various causes requiring multi-trade works. There were many other repairs to complete, for example to doors, windows, and internal holes and cracking. Because of the extent and nature of works, it was key that the landlord employed effective strategies for co-ordination of tasks, monitoring and post-inspection.
The landlord did not consistently or actively monitor the actions it assigned to its contactors. While it initially chased their progress in June 2024, during other stretches of time it liaised with them only after being prompted by the resident’s chasers. It post-inspected quality of works only after she raised concerns. There was no evidence that it had an effective system in place to monitor and quality assure what actions, if any, its contactors took. This placed an avoidable burden on the resident, causing her time, trouble and inconvenience.
The landlord was made subject to a wider order by this Service in January 2024 after we found it responsible for maladministration in multiple cases that assessed how it handled damp and repairs. Its independent review in response in April 2024 outlined numerous initiatives that it planned to improve its approach. The issues noted in this case raise concern as to the landlord’s implementation of the learning it identified in its review.
The landlord acknowledged in its review that it was taking steps to improve record keeping. We have noted a failure to keep appropriate records of its visits to the resident’s home. While its surveyor visited the property to inspect on multiple occasions, there was no detailed record of what it observed, diagnosed or recommended. Its inspections were noted either very briefly or discoverable only by cross reference to its internal correspondence, for example that of 8 August 2024. As these were key developments in its response and handling of her concerns, it was inappropriate that it kept such limited records. The only appropriate records of visits were those of its contractors.
The landlord’s approach to identifying and ordering remedial works showed a lack of reflection upon the survey report it obtained a year earlier. Given the passage of time, it is reasonable that it required up to date investigations. However, it was also appropriate for it to have regard to its prior knowledge to inform its decision making. Certain outstanding defects or potential issues were discoverable from its records alone. For example, the 2023 survey identified defects to its brickwork and there was no record it ordered the associated remedial action. It picked up issues with voids to insulation in the loft areas. It did not complete additional insulation to those areas. It did earlier works that were not aimed at the diagnosed root causes. It carried out multiple further investigations that re-diagnosed what it had noted a year prior. Had the landlord appropriately reviewed its 2023 findings, this would have reduced the level of its visits and ineffective works, reducing unnecessary disruption to the resident.
The resident’s reports to the landlord and her complaint detailed potential risks to her health, wellbeing, and safety and that of her son. She reported mould growth and damp that it recorded itself on visits. Contemporaneous photographs show black spot mould and multiple living areas affected by damp. As documented within our spotlight report, damp and mould causes health risks. She told the landlord about her vulnerability from an existing respiratory condition and described this as exacerbated by damp, as well as from dust from its plastering works. She described using a mask in her home. The landlord was aware that the property had holes in the walls straight to brickwork and defective doors and windows enabling cold air to enter. It removed heaters to complete works to the walls. Over time, the resident presented as increasingly distressed, describing suicidal ideation linked to her housing circumstances. She reported spending time away from the property due to the physical and mental impacts of her living conditions.
The landlord showed some regard to the impacts and risks to the resident. It took steps to understand and record her needs. It raised safeguarding concerns and offered support. In August 2024 it requested completion of works with urgency, giving as a reason an unusable room. Other works were given priority status and certain items escalated, largely after the resident requested prioritisation. However, it logged other works connected to damp and mould as non-priority. It added the door to a long-term programme. Its approach to prioritisation was limited and inconsistent.
There was no consistent, focused, consideration on the interim risks to the resident. It completed no assessment of whether the property remained habitable, or the conditions risked negatively affecting the health of the household. The landlord’s damp, mould, and condensation policy said that if any property posed risk to the ‘health, safety and wellbeing of the customer’, an interim move would be discussed immediately. Although the resident told it of risks to her health and supplied medical evidence of adverse impact, there is no evidence that it considered this. This was lacking even after she requested a temporary move and applied for alternative accommodation. There is no evidence it considered or offered other mitigating options, for example supply of temporary heaters or draught excluders. This was a serious oversight. It showed an insufficient regard for the impact on and risks to the resident.
The landlord’s repairs policy said it would maintain ‘clear and continuous communication’ about expected timescales for works and check if arrangements were convenient. These expectations were not met in its contact with the resident. It failed repeatedly to keep her proactively updated. Its engagement was largely reliant on her chasers. It raised works or arranged for inspections, but failed to update her in the interim, for example in May 2024 and in the first half of July 2024. It failed to respond to some of her contact. It attended her home without any prior notice on 24 September and 2 October 2024. The landlord’s communication failings placed an unfair burden on the resident. The content of her communications show her increasing associated distress over time. The level of detriment was aggravated by her vulnerability.
At both stages of its complaint process, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had been impacted by delay to works and apologised. While its first stage reply did not acknowledge the extent of its delay, its final stage response admitted that works had been awaited since the tenancy start. However, its response failed to take direct ownership for the above identified failings and it shifted blame to its contractors. Although it was appropriate for the landlord to explain the difficulties it had, issues with its contractors were only one contributory factor. Also, the landlord remained responsible to the resident for the repair and habitability of her home.
The landlord made the resident an offer of compensation of £988.51. This sum and the explanation of its breakdown failed to fully recognise the level of impact to her or the particular detriment caused. The significant level of distress caused to a vulnerable household in particular was not reflected in the amount offered for ‘impact’. It offered her compensation for the impacted use of 1 room only, whereas multiple rooms in the house were affected for many months. It was aware, for example, that her bedroom was impacted. It had confirmed damp there, undergone disruptive works including removal of its heating source and the resident told it she could not use the room. Its offer was expressed as for the impact of damp and mould only, whereas other issues affected her use and enjoyment of the property across the period of investigation. For example, the resident described living with excess cold due to gaps in the doors and holes.
While it was appropriate that the landlord’s response referred the resident to consider a personal injury claim for health-related impacts, it failed to make her aware of its alternative insurance process. The landlord also failed to address her request for redress for damage to her belongings. The landlord later updated its position to the resident outside of its complaint process in a letter on 8 April 2025. It apologised to her for failing to provide appropriate advice about its insurance and told her it could provide details of how to claim. It offered her £50 compensation. For this specific failing alone, this was proportionate redress. However, this was belated and it failed to provide any specific details, leading the resident to have to contact it again. The resident tells us that she has not yet received the information needed to pursue a claim.
The landlord failed to identify appropriate remedial actions in its final complaint response. While it agreed to do some works needed, it failed to address others such as defective brickwork, drainage issues, defective door, cracks, and holes. It has completed further extensive works. While the landlord told this Service that all issues are resolved, the resident said this is not correct. The resident’s update is consistent with the landlord’s records. These show partial completion of works it identified previously to fix the root cause of internal issues.
The landlord was responsible for serious failings. The level of distress that the resident experienced was aggravated by her vulnerability. The landlord is responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the property.
The landlord is ordered to apologise to and pay additional compensation to the resident of £250 to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble that she likely experienced. This is within the range of awards set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the circumstances for maladministration apply, and the redress needed to put matters right is substantial. We have considered the significant length of delay from the outset of tenancy and the substantial level of distress caused. This is in addition to the £888.51 it already offered for the impact of delay to damp and mould.
How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of repairs seriously impacted her trust and assurance in its ability to ensure that her home is safe. It repeatedly failed to resolve the cause of issues at her home. Therefore we order it to instruct an independent expert inspection/s of the property and carry out any identified works to resolve any confirmed issue/s.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the heating system

We detailed above that the landlord has obligations to the resident regarding the property’s fitness for human habitation. One factor that can pose a hazard and impact habitability is the risk to health and wellbeing from excessively cold indoor temperatures. A deficient heating system leading to excess cold in the home could impact the landlord’s compliance with its obligations.
The landlord took steps to inspect the heating system and check it was functioning in response to the resident’s concerns. It noted that the heaters were operational. This was an appropriate response to compliance with its repairing obligation. However, it was required to go further than this to ensure that its property was fit for habitation. It was not simply a matter of if the installations worked but whether the property itself presented a significant health hazard. This would reasonably require an assessment of whether the heating system, functioning as intended, was sufficient to heat the property to avoid excess cold.
Considering the concerns raised by the resident, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not assess the suitability of the installed heating system to provide sufficient heat to the space. She told the landlord repeatedly that when switched on and using boost functions, it was not possible to heat her home. She asserted that the system itself was unsuitable. While the landlord appropriately dealt with whether the system was in disrepair, it failed to engage appropriately with her concerns.
A significant element of the resident’s concerns about the heating system was the cost of its use. The landlord’s complaint response acknowledged her concerns, however failed to engage with these directly or provide appropriate advice in response. t made no reference to the services it had or knew of that might support the resident with her outgoings. In knowledge of her vulnerability, this was particularly important, noting that she described living without use of the heating system at all.
The landlord failed to engage appropriately with the resident’s concerns about the heating system. Its failure to address her direct concerns caused her distress and time and trouble repeatedly seeking its engagement.
The landlord is responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the heating system. It is ordered to pay compensation to her of £120. This sum is within the range of awards set out in this Service’s remedies guidance when there was a failure that caused an adverse impact to the resident, but the impact was not permanent.
The landlord is also ordered to include an assessment of the suitability of the heating system when completing the inspection as detailed above and ordered below.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests to install a log burner

We requested the landlord’s records of the resident’s requests for permission for a log burner so that we could assess how it responded to this. The records it supplied were very limited. It repeatedly logged that it had denied permission, however failed to appropriately record many of the resident’s requests and its responses. For example, it noted having denied permission on 3 June and 15 July 2024. The resident’s prior requests were not recorded at all. It noted a simple refusal. There was no associated record of its reasoning, the process it followed or how it explained its decision to the resident. This was a failure by the landlord to keep appropriate records.
Without appropriate records, we are unable to find that the landlord acted reasonably in how it handled the resident’s requests for permission. Regardless of the appropriateness of its decision, it is reasonable to anticipate that the landlord would follow a reasonable procedure that supports its decision making and gives a clear outcome to the resident. There was no record of its decisions being communicated to the resident in writing or at all prior to September 2024.
The landlord’s responses to the resident’s requests for permission were recorded more fully from September 2024. It noted that it had a policy of refusing the installation of log burners and that it explained this to the resident by phone and in person. The landlord confirmed this position further in its complaint response. Within its final response, it explained why it adopted such a policy with reference to risks, including environmental. It set out accessible and clear reasoning for its decision.
While the landlord reasonably responded to the resident’s requests and her associated concerns from September 2024, it failed to make appropriate records of its earlier handling. It failed to communicate its decision making appropriately or acknowledge this prior failing to the resident in its complaint response. Its lack of clarity caused the resident distress and trouble raising the matter further. However, while it was disappointing to her to be refused something that she considered would improve her comfort and finances, the landlord’s failings had a minimal detrimental impact. Improved records or communication would not reasonably have changed the ultimate decision considering its policy.
The landlord is responsible for service failure in its handling of the resident’s requests to install a log burner. We have considered the impact of its failure to communicate its position to the resident appropriately before September 2024 and order it to pay the resident compensation of £50.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy defined a complaint in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by (the landlord), its own staff, or those acting on its behalf….’. It said that a resident did not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such.
Prior to her complaint of 21 October 2024, the resident communicated clear expressions of dissatisfaction to the landlord. She expressed concerns about how it handled the matters considered above, including delays:
1. On 6 June 2024 she submitted a complaint form.
2. On 23 September 2024 she completed a further complaint form raising dissatisfaction.
The resident subsequently chased the landlord for updates on her complaint and then raised concerns about how it was being handled. She chased its response. She sent emails asking that further concerns be ‘added’ to her complaint. She received no response on either point. The resident then requested for her complaint to be escalated.
The landlord failed repeatedly between June and October 2024 to treat her expressed concerns as a complaint in line with its own policy or the Code. This caused delay to the progression of her complaint and opportunity for earlier identification of the remedial actions.
The landlord’s failure to engage appropriately with her complaint and subsequent requests about the complaint she considered ongoing, caused her detriment. She became increasingly distressed seeking an understanding of the status of her complaint. Due to the landlord’s lack of response, she incurred unnecessary time and trouble repeatedly referring it back to her complaint.
The landlord’s first stage response acknowledged that it had failed to raise the resident’s earlier complaint, causing delay. It was appropriate that it admitted this failing to the resident and acknowledged the impact of delay. It offered her £75 compensation. While this fell within a reasonable range for the nature of its failing, it did not reflect the level of impact on a vulnerable resident from the burden it placed on her. She reported at this time struggling to simply get out of bed due to the level of her mental health needs. Having to repeatedly chase the landlord to follow its complaint process during this period added to her distress. The landlord’s offer failed to reflect the individual distress caused.
The landlord’s complaint response contained no apology for its failing. This displayed a lack of empathy for the impact on the resident and was a missed opportunity for it to move towards mending the relationship of trust. While it acknowledged its failings, it failed to offer appropriate remedies to reflect the individual detriment caused. The landlord is accordingly responsible for service failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
It is ordered to pay the resident £50. This is in addition to its prior offer of £75, if not already paid. It is also ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the heating system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests to install a log burner.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Send a written apology to the resident from a senior member of its staff for the failings identified in this report and their impact on the resident.
2. Pay the resident the £988.51 compensation it previously offered if this has not already been paid.
3. Pay the resident additional compensation of £470. This is comprised of:
  1. £250 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble she may have incurred from its handling of her reports about the condition of the property.
  2. £120 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble she may have incurred from its handling of her concerns about the heating system.
  3. £50 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble she may have incurred from its handling of her requests to install a log burner.
  4. £50 compensation for the distress she may have incurred from its handling of her complaint.

This is to be paid direct to the resident and not be offset against any outstanding arrears.

Provide the resident with specific details of how she may contact its insurers about a potential claim about health-related impacts and damage to belongings.
Instruct an independent surveyor to carry out an inspection at the property and:
1. identify any outstanding works required to the property.
2. assess the suitability of the heating system.

The landlord must use its best endeavours to ensure the surveyor instructed in line with paragraph 55e provides a copy of their report within 10 working days of the inspection date. The landlord must provide a copy to the Ombudsman and the resident within 5 working days of receipt.
Within 28 days of the date that the landlord receives the survey ordered, the landlord must use its best endeavours to ensure that all works are raised and provide start dates to the resident and us. If it is unable to do this, it must set out its reasons why, together with documentary evidence and an explanation of when it can book/arrange works.