Stonewater Limited (202438703)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202438703 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Stonewater Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
30 April 2026 |
Background
- In April 2024, the landlord inspected the resident’s property after she reported damp and mould. The resident was unhappy with a lack of clarity about the next steps and raised a formal complaint. In January 2025, the landlord completed a further inspection and identified additional damp and mould works. The resident later raised a further complaint about the landlord’s handling of the works identified at that inspection.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
- Damp and mould.
- The associated complaints.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found the landlord responsible for:
- Maladministration in its handling of the damp and mould.
- Reasonable redress in its handling of the associated complaints.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
Damp and mould
- There was a lack of effective oversight and clear communication in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould issues. This contributed to an extended process, during which the resident had to repeatedly contact the landlord for updates. There was also a lack of learning by the landlord in its communication. The remedy offered during the complaints procedure was not proportionate to the impact on the resident. The delay in the landlord increasing the award in February 2026 reduced the extent to which it put things right.
Complaint handling
- The landlord’s complaint handling did not meet the expectations of its complaints policy or our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our expectations around landlord complaint handling practices. However, the landlord acknowledged its failures during its complaints procedure and offered an appropriate remedy that put things right.
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.
|
Order |
What the landlord must do |
Due date |
|
1 |
Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 28 May 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident the £550 it awarded to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of the damp and mould. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date if the payment has not already been made. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. |
No later than 28 May 2026 |
|
3 |
Communication order The landlord must contact the resident to discuss her concerns about the hallway flooring and skirting boards. It must then set out its position on these matters in writing to the resident and us by the due date. |
No later than 28 May 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
The resident has told us that the landlord completed a damp and mould inspection in recent weeks. We recommend that the landlord shares the findings of this inspection with the resident and confirms any identified follow-on works in writing, if it has not already done so. |
|
We recommend that the landlord pays the resident the £125 it awarded during the complaints procedure for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its complaint handling. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that this amount will be or has already been paid. It should also pay the additional £25 it awarded in February 2026 for these failures. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
12 August 2024 |
The resident complained about the landlord’s lack of communication and progress with various internal damp and mould‑related repairs following an inspection completed in April 2024. |
|
16 September 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response (complaint A). It said it attended on the same day the resident reported a leak, on 7 June 2024. During the visit, an operative identified the source of the leak as a recently installed sink, which had caused damage to the carpet. The landlord confirmed that further works were required to put things right and acknowledged delays in raising follow‑on repair works. The landlord awarded £200 compensation, consisting of:
The resident escalated her complaint on the same day. She said that the landlord’s response did not relate to her complaint. |
|
21 October 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response (complaint A), in which it:
The landlord reviewed its compensation and awarded £175, consisting of:
|
|
4 March 2025 |
The resident made a new stage 1 complaint (complaint B). She raised that the bathroom and hallway flooring works were not completed as expected and that several other repairs remained outstanding. |
|
7 April 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response (complaint B). It apologised for delays in completing the works. It explained that the scope of works was greater than initially anticipated and that the contractors required landlord approval to adjust the work orders before they could proceed. The landlord acknowledged that its communication had been poor and said it would learn from this. It awarded £50 compensation for poor communication. |
|
13 April 2025 |
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 (complaint B). She said that works remained incomplete, including pipework. She also said there were further communication failures because the landlord did not contact her to discuss her concerns. |
|
23 May 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response (complaint B), in which it:
The landlord:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident asked us to investigate because she remained dissatisfied with the outcomes of her complaints. She said the landlord’s responses and compensation did not adequately address the distress and inconvenience she experienced. |
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.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s handling of damp and mould |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- The landlord acted appropriately by completing mould wash treatment and extractor fan repairs in March 2024 after the resident reported damp and mould in her bedroom and bathroom. Subsequently, the landlord completed a damp and mould inspection in April 2024 in accordance with its damp and mould policy.
- Although the landlord carried out an inspection in April 2024, it did not record what the inspection identified or whether any follow-on actions were required. This falls short of our expectation that landlords maintain clear and accurate records to provide an effective audit trail of key events and decisions. As a result, we cannot confirm what was identified at the time. The landlord has told us it is implementing new processes and technology to improve how it records inspection findings and monitors any follow-on actions. This aligns with our expectation that landlords learn from outcomes.
- Effective communication is essential because it can reduce distress and inconvenience for residents. Between 5 May and 16 August 2024, the resident contacted the landlord on more than 5 occasions seeking an update after the damp and mould inspection. The landlord did not provide a clear response or progress the matter during this period. This led to avoidable uncertainty about the outcome of the inspection and the next steps. This fell short of our expectations for timely and clear communication and contributed to the distress experienced by the resident.
- The landlord did not provide the resident with the outcome of the inspection until it issued its stage 2 response (complaint A). This was despite internal records showing requests that the resident be updated as soon as possible before this point. This was unreasonable and shows that the landlord did not learn from the earlier shortcomings. The further delay compounded the resident’s distress and reduced her trust in the landlord.
- The landlord committed in its stage 2 response (complaint A) to carrying out a further damp and mould survey. This was appropriate given the time that had passed since the earlier inspection and the resident’s further reports of damp and mould. However, the landlord did not complete the survey until late January 2025. It is unclear why this delay occurred, and the landlord did not proactively update the resident during this period. This is likely to have caused further distress and inconvenience and limited the extent to which the landlord’s commitment put things right.
- In February 2025, the landlord raised a repair order for damp and mould‑related works following the findings of the inspection. The scope included mould wash treatment in the bathroom, works to the bathroom flooring, and realignment of copper pipes in the bathroom to address surface temperature issues.
- On 3 March 2025, the resident contacted the landlord to query why works to replace the hallway skirting boards and flooring were not included in the scope of works. She said she had been told these works were necessary during the inspection carried out in April 2024. This indicates the landlord did not clearly communicate the outcome of the January 2025 survey or explain which works it had identified as necessary. As a result, the landlord missed the opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations about the scope of works it intended to complete from the outset, which led to avoidable inconvenience for the resident.
- In response to the resident’s concerns, it was appropriate that the landlord raised a repair order for the skirting boards on 12 March 2025. The landlord completed the inspection on 25 March 2025 and recorded that the skirting boards were not damaged and that no remedial works were required. However, it is unclear what the findings of the hallway flooring were.
- The landlord has told us that it has not identified any issues with the hallway flooring. However, the lack of recorded observations relating to this from the time indicates a failure to maintain accurate and detailed records regarding this issue. The resident has also told us that the skirting board and flooring works remain incomplete, which further indicates a lack of effective communication by the landlord on its position. This has resulted in a prolonged period of uncertainty for the resident, which is unfair and shows a further lack of learning.
- There were also delays in completing the bathroom flooring works. On 3 March 2025, the external contractor told the landlord that, on attendance, the works were more extensive than originally expected. The contractor needed further instruction from the landlord before continuing and received this on 5 March 2025. A delay in completing repairs does not, by itself, represent a failure, as landlords may reasonably need time to reassess the scope of works when new issues arise. However, communication with the resident about this was also poor, which the landlord appropriately acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response (complaint B). The full damp and mould works were completed by 26 March 2025, which the resident confirmed with the landlord at the time.
- As part of the resident’s stage 2 complaint (complaint B), she said that pipework not included in the agreed scope of works remained incomplete. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained that there were no outstanding pipework works to complete. This further reinforces that there were shortcomings in the landlord’s communication about the scope of the works from the outset. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that this lack of clarity may have caused confusion about what works it intended to carry out and apologised for this, which showed some accountability.
- The resident has told us about ongoing issues with the condition of her property which have occurred since the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response (complaint B). In April 2026, the landlord has also told us that it has reopened the damp and mould case and will be inspecting the resident’s property again due to these concerns. We cannot assess these concerns at this stage because the landlord has not yet had the opportunity to respond. The resident may wish to raise these matters as a new complaint with the landlord if she has not already done so. If she remains dissatisfied after the landlord issues its response, she may bring the matter to us as a new complaint.
- The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will use our remedies guidance (published on our website) as a guide to calculate a compensation award. During the complaints procedure, the landlord awarded the resident a total of £125 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of the damp and mould. This was not fair or proportionate given the failings identified and the likely impact on the resident.
- In February 2026, the landlord increased the total award for these failures to £550. This award aligns with what our remedies guidance suggests may be appropriate to put right failures which had adversely affected a resident but resulted in no permanent impact. Therefore, we have not awarded any further compensation. While we welcome this increased award, it is unclear why the landlord did not propose this offer during the complaints procedure. The subsequent award has not considered any additional factors and therefore could reasonably have been made sooner.
- As a result, the timing of the offer reduces the extent to which it puts things right, and the landlord missed the opportunity to address the detriment to the resident during the complaints procedure. As it is unclear whether the landlord has paid this award to the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay it if it has not already done so.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaints |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- The landlord has a 2‑stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy says it will acknowledge a complaint at stage 1 within 5 working days and send its response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. At stage 2, it says it will respond within 20 working days. This is in line with the Code.
- On 3 July 2024, the landlord recorded that it would raise a complaint on the resident’s behalf about its handling of repairs following the inspection completed in April 2024. The resident had expressed clear dissatisfaction with how those repairs were managed. In line with the landlord’s complaints policy, this met the criteria to be treated as a complaint. It was therefore a failure that the landlord did not progress the complaint further. This caused the resident unnecessary inconvenience, as she chased the landlord about her complaint on at least 3 occasions between 3 July 2024 and 12 August 2024, before raising a further complaint on 12 August 2024.
- The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint (complaint A) on 16 August 2024 and said it would respond by 30 August 2024. The landlord’s complaints policy allowed it to extend the time for its response. However, it did not tell the resident about the extension until 30 August 2024. It is unclear why the resident was not told about this at an earlier stage. This may have caused the resident some frustration. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 16 September 2024, in line with the revised date it provided when it confirmed the extension.
- However, its complaint response did not address the issues the resident raised in complaint A. Instead, its response related to matters the resident had not complained about. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said this happened because of “administrative errors”. This indicates a lack of due diligence and shortcomings in the landlord’s complaint handling, likely reducing the resident’s confidence in the landlord. It also meant the resident had to raise a further complaint to have her original concerns addressed, which caused additional inconvenience. It is positive that the landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s subsequent stage 2 complaint within reasonable timescales.
- The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint B within a reasonable timescale. While it said it would issue its stage 1 response by 24 March 2025, it notified the resident on the due date that it required additional time. This indicates a recurring pattern of the landlord not communicating response timescale extensions to residents proactively. This again caused the resident some frustration. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 7 April 2025, in line with the revised date it provided when it confirmed the extension.
- On 13 April 2025, the resident escalated complaint B to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. It acknowledged this on 24 April 2025, which it apologised for in its stage 2 response for not being within a reasonable timescale. This showed accountability. It issued its stage 2 response on 23 May 2025, which was reasonable.
- The landlord awarded the resident £125 in total during the complaints procedure for the identified failures. This amount was proportionate to reflect the complaint handling failures we have identified and to recognise the resident’s distress and inconvenience at the time. Therefore, this resulted in our finding of reasonable redress. In February 2026, the landlord also increased the total award by £25 to £150 when it reviewed the case (as referenced above).
Learning
Knowledge and information management (record keeping)
- The landlord’s records did not always contain the level of detail we would expect as part of good record keeping. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate and accessible records that provide a clear audit trail. The landlord may wish to review its record keeping practices in line with the recommendations set out in our spotlight report, in addition to the learning it has told us it is already implementing.
Communication
- The landlord’s communication with the resident was often reactive and fell short of expectations around effective communication. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that proactive and tailored communication can reduce distress and minimise the impact of failures. The landlord may wish to review its communication with residents in line with the recommendations set out in our spotlight report.
Complaint handling
- The landlord’s complaint handling did not meet the requirements of the Code. This includes making late remedy awards outside of the complaints procedure. The landlord may wish to review the training provided to staff and its procedures to ensure that its complaint handling is in line with these requirements.
- The landlord’s compensation policy refers to our remedies guidance when deciding compensation awards. We have recently published a compensation policy, which the landlord may wish to review to align its approach with this new guidance, if it has not already done so.