Stonewater Limited (202439795)

Decision
Case ID	202439795
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Stonewater Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	01 April 2026

Background

At the time of her complaint, the resident lived with her partner and son. Members of the household have asthma. She reported there was damp and mould throughout the property, which had damaged personal belongings and impacted the family’s health. The resident’s partner has acted as her representative. For readability, this report has referred to the resident and her partner as ‘the resident’ throughout.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s responses to the resident’s:
1. reports of damp and mould
2. reports of damaged personal belongings and impact to health
3. complaint

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. reasonable redress in the landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports of damp and mould
2. no maladministration in the landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports of damaged personal belongings and impact to health
3. no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

The landlord delayed addressing the damp and mould and did not show it considered the household’s vulnerabilities. It did not follow its Repairs Policy timeframes and missed opportunities to put things right sooner. However, its apology, compensation offer and delivery on its response commitment went far enough in putting things right.

Damaged personal belongings and impact to health

The landlord explained it could not assess or compensate for impacts on resident’s health because these should be addressed through a personal injury specialist. It considered paying the resident’s contents insurance excess and signposted her to support options.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint acknowledgements fell slightly outside of the timeframes set out in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, there is no evidence this had a significant impact on the resident. Its following actions were timely and appropriate.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
Our finding of reasonable redress is based on the landlord paying its final compensation offer. We recommend that the landlord contacts the resident and pays total £725 compensation it offered in its stage 2 response.
We recommend the landlord provides the resident with information on how to make a claim through its liability insurer for any impact to health or personal belongings damage caused by damp and mould.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 November 2024	The resident made a complaint. In summary, she said: damp and mould had been present in the property for 10 years she and her son have asthma the landlord had cleaned the mould, installed extra loft insulation and air vents, which made the problem worse mould would return within 1 week after treating it the wooden windows and doors were rotten an appointment had been made for 31 January 2025 to look at the problems she would like a ‘professional’ to investigate the damp and mould
7 January 2025	The landlord gave its stage 1 response. In summary, it said: the resident had reported damp and mould multiple times since 2022 in June 2024 it completed repairs, but damp persisted it had arranged to assess the damp and mould on 31 January 2025 it could not give compensation for damaged health as these claims were better suited for a personal injury specialist, but it could compensate for the impact of the problems it promised to assess and resolve the damp and mould It offered the resident £600 compensation, made up of: £50 for miscommunication £25 for failing to follow its process £50 for time and trouble £475 for distress and inconvenience
Between 7 and 9 January 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. In summary, she said: the landlord’s compensation offer was “unacceptable” she had waited since November 2024 for the January appointment the household’s health had been affected by the damp and mould
11 February 2025	The landlord gave its stage 2 response. In summary, it said: it repeated its stage 1 findings about events that had happened since November 2022 it had raised several work orders following a surveyor visit on 14 January 2025, including mould treatment, ventilation, drainage, and insulation works it did not attend on 17 January 2025 as planned to complete the repairs it completed the external repairs on 29 January 2025 and internal repairs between 3 and 4 February 2025 it could not compensate for damaged personal items, but signposted the resident to her contents insurance and grant schemes it would post inspect the completed works It increased its compensation offer to £725, made up of: £175 for service failures £450 to recognise the inconvenience, time, trouble and impact £50 for repair failure £50 missed appointments
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us as she was unhappy with the landlord’s responses and compensation offer. To resolve her complaint, she wanted the landlord to: apologise increate its compensation offer

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 responses to reports of the damp and mould.
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not investigated

The resident said damp and mould had been present for 10 years. The landlord’s responses referred to concerns dating back to 2022, and its records show further reports in May 2023 and January 2024. However, the records show no evidence that the resident raised any issues between these dates. Under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), residents should raise concerns within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the event. Given the limited evidence before January 2024, and because the landlord completed the repairs linked to this complaint in April 2025, it is proportionate for this investigation to focus on events between January 2024 and April 2025. References to events outside this period are included only for context.
The resident later reported that damp and mould had returned in December 2025, more than 6 months after the landlord completed repairs. We can only investigate issues that the landlord has had a fair opportunity to respond to. If the resident is unhappy with these repairs, she would need to raise a new complaint with the landlord.

What we have looked at

On 24 January 2024 the resident reported damp and mould in both bedrooms, the bathroom and the living room. She also reported rotten wooden window frames. The landlord opened a damp and mould case and raised repairs.
There is no evidence the landlord acted until 7 March 2024, when the resident asked it to investigate the cause rather than cleanthe mould. Throughout March 2024, the landlord had difficulty inopening the resident’s photos.It closed the damp and mould case on 19 April 2024.
Given the resident’s repeated attempts to provide evidence of the mould, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to inspect the property. Its Damp and Mould Policy requires the landlord to provide ‘proportionate support’ but its approach did not reflect its policy.
On 23 April 2024, 64 working days after the landlord raised repairs, it started work on the windows and guttering, and carried out a mould wash. This exceeded its Repairs Policy timeframe of 28 days for routine repairs and 42 days for complex repairs. The policy also says repairs must be completed as quickly as possible. The delay likely made the resident feel that her concerns were not taken seriously.
Between April and June 2024, the landlord completed these repairs. However, on 12 June 2024 the resident reported damp and mould persisted. After this report, the landlord inspected the roof, treated the mould again, and improved the damp-proof course. These repairs were completed by 15 October 2024.
The landlord inspected the roof within its 28‑day timeframe. However, it did not treat the mould or complete the damp proof course within policy timescales. The resident had to chase for an update on at least 1 occasion. The delays likely increased her distress and inconvenience.
On 18 October 2024 the landlord asked the resident if the damp and mould issues persisted. It closed the case on 25 October 2024 and recorded it did not receive a response. The resident responded on 4 November 2024 and asked it not to close the case because the issues returned in winter.
The landlord explained it would close the case because no issues were active and would review it in 6 months. This was consistent with its Damp and Mould Policy to review cases after this period. It reopened the case on 22 November 2024, 1 day after the resident reported a roof leak. It is unclear what prompted this, as the resident disputes raising this repair. Keeping clear and accurate repair records is important as it allows landlords to show what action it took, and when.
On 26 November 2024 the resident made a formal complaint. She said damp and mould had been present for more than 10 years. She explained that she and her child had asthma.
The landlord’s policy says its Surveyor will assess the cause of the damp and mould if there are repeated problems. Although historic reports existed, it did not do this. Instead, it booked an appointment for 31 January 2025. This delay likely caused the resident uncertainty as to when she could reasonably expect for the damp to be resolved. The landlord knew the household was vulnerable and it missed an opportunity to show it had offered proportionate support as set out in its policy. It could have considered whether it was appropriate for it to attend sooner.
On 2 January 2025 the landlord asked whether the damp had been resolved. It is unclear why it had asked this considering no one had inspected the property since prior to her complaint. An inspection was arranged for 3 January 2025. However, the landlord failed to attend. This likely caused the resident frustration and inconvenience, as she had waited in for the appointment.
On 7 January 2025 the landlord gave its stage 1 response. It reviewed its records and gave a timeframe of events since November 2022. This showed it had considered the resident’s comments of the issues being long standing. It explained that an appointment had been made for 31 January 2025 to assess the mould. It promised to assess and resolve the damp and mould.
Although the landlord acknowledged the household’s vulnerabilities in its response, it missed the opportunity to bring the appointment forward. However, its £600 compensation offer was reasonable and consistent with both its Compensation Policy and our compensation guidance. This suggests a payment of up to £600 where there have been failings that have adversely affected a resident.
After the resident escalated her complaint on 7 January 2025, the landlord moved the appointment to 14 January 2025. It subsequently raised work orders for a mould wash, extractor fans, heat recovery vents, insulation and drainage.
Repairs began on 15 January 2025 and were reported complete by 4 February 2025. During this time, the resident contacted the landlord at least 3 times about missed appointments and wrong mould treatment. This caused the resident inconvenience, as she had taken time off work for the appointments.
On 11 February 2025 the landlord gave its stage 2 response. It repeated its stage 1 findings and summarise recent events. It accepted it had missed an appointment and attended with the wrong mould treatment. This showed it understood the events and awareness of its failings.
It set out the improvements it had made to its service, such as communication training for staff and system development to improve oversight. It considered the missed appointments, distress, inconvenience, time and trouble and increased its compensation offer to £725. It promised to complete a post-inspection of the repairs to ensure the issues have been resolved.
The landlord honoured its commitment to post inspect the works on 25 February 2025. When it did, it found some of the repairs were incomplete. It raised further work orders for the kitchen extractor fan, plastering and redecorating. The repairs were completed by 9 April 2025, 43 days after they were raised. This fell 1 day outside of its 42-day policy timeframe for complex or significant repairs. However, there is no evidence this had a significant impact on the resident.
Overall, the landlord’s oversight of the issue was poor. It delayed completing the initial property inspection, missing the chance to complete repairs sooner. It did not show that it had considered the household’s vulnerabilities in its approach. However, it apologised and reasonably compensated for its delays, missed appointments, and the distress and inconvenience it caused. Its compensation offer aligned with our compensation guidance for where the landlord’s failures had a significant impact on the resident.

Complaint	The landlord’s responses to reports of damaged belongings and impact to health.
Finding	No maladministration

The resident told us that the damp and mould had affected the household’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience. This investigation therefore focuses on how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of damaged personal belongings and impact on health.
On 26 November 2024 the resident made a complaint. She told the landlord members of the household had asthma and would often get chest infections.
On 7 January 2024 the landlord gave its stage 1 response. It said that it could not assess health impacts as it was not a “medical expert” but could consider compensation for the impact and inconvenience. It advised the resident to make a personal injury claim through a solicitor.
The landlord’s response was appropriate. It was consistent with its Compensation Policy, which says it will not compensate for personal injury claims as they are handled by its insurers. It explained why it could not award compensation for health impacts. However, it fell short of providing her withdetails of its liability insurerso the resident could contact them directly.
In her escalation dated 7 and 9 January 2025, the resident repeated her health concerns and said damp and mould had damaged her personal belongings.
On 11 February 2025 the landlord gave its stage 2 response. It repeated its position on personal injury. It signposted the resident to claim through her contents insurance for her damaged belongings. It explained it was unable to offer her compensation as it could not “look at claims” the same way an insurance provider would. However, it would consider paying the resident’s policy excess.
The landlord’s response was consistent with its Compensation Policy. This says residents should claim through their own contents insurance, but it may pay any excess. Considering this, its offer was reasonable and fair. It also signposted her to an agency and explained they may be able to help replace the damaged belongings.
While the landlord fell short of providing its insurers details, it explained what it could compensate for. It considered paying the resident’s contents excess and set out how she needed to make a claim for personal injury. Its responses with consistent its obligations under its Compensation Policy.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s Complaints Policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
On 26 November 2024 the resident made a complaint. The landlord acknowledged this 8 working days later on 6 December 2024. This fell outside of the 5-working day acknowledgement timeframe set out the landlord’s policy and Code. However, there is no evidence this had a significant impact on the resident.
On 20 December 2024 the landlord extended the response deadline as it did not have all the information needed to respond. This met the Code, which allows a 10-working day extension.
The landlord’s stage 1 response, dated 7 January 2025, was 9 working days after it extended the complaint deadline and met the new timeframe. The landlord’s complaint definition also complied with the Code.
Between 7 and 9 January 2025 the resident escalated her complaint, which the landlord acknowledged on 15 January 2025. This was 1 day outside of its 5-day target. However, the landlord had contacted the resident on 9 January 2025 to confirm she wanted to escalate her complaint.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 11 February 2025, 20 working days later. This met the 20 working day timeframe in the Code and its policy.

Learning

The landlord’s approach to addressing the damp and mould was delayed. It did not complete investigations in a timely way or provide clear updates. However, the landlord has introduced several measures to strengthen its oversight of damp and mould cases. These include triage at the first point of contact, action plans that set out the works and estimated timescales, and the use of specialist contractors for complex issues. These changes show a positive step towards improving case visibility, risk management, and communication with residents.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord could improve the quality and consistency of its repair records. In this case, repairs were marked as completed even though works such as mould washes and extractor‑fan installations were not finished. Appointment details and actual completion times were also unclear. More accurate records would help the landlord manage repairs and show it has met its obligations. It may also wish to consider whether its systems reliably record all appointments and repair stages.

Communication

The landlord’s practice of contacting residents at 6‑month intervals after completing damp and mould repairs is a positive approach. It helps it understand whether issues have improved and supports early identification of recurring problems. The landlord may wish to consider whether more frequent contact, such as every 3 months, would allow it to capture problems sooner and offer timely support.