Stonewater Limited (202452282)

Decision
Case ID	202452282
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Stonewater Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	28 November 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house with her 2 children. The resident has complex medical issues which the landlord is aware of. The resident complained that the landlord had not completed retrofit works and damp and mould works following a previous Ombudsman determination in August 2024.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns it had not completed retrofit works and damp and mould works following a previous Ombudsman determination.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports it had not completed retrofit works and damp and mould works following an earlier Ombudsman’s determination.
There was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

In summary, the Ombudsman found:

Concerns it had not completed retrofit works and damp and mould works following a previous Ombudsman determination

There was a further delay of 5 months in the landlord starting the retrofit works. It delayed in raising an inspection for the extension roof which meant it did not include this in the retrofit works. It did not do enough to mitigate the effects of the damp and mould on the resident during the period of delay. It also failed to proactively communicate with the resident.

Complaint handling

Delayed sending the stage 1 complaint response.

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 person to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a manager. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 07 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,350 made up as follows: £1,300 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the residents reports that it had not completed the retrofit works and damp and mould works following a previous Ombudsman’s determination. £50 for time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 07 January 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by an externally appointed independent surveyor with expertise to complete the type of inspection required. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the whole of the property and produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. The most likely cause of the damp and mould. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works.	No later than 07 January 2026
4	The landlord must consider the resident’s request for compensation for damaged furniture and belongings again. It must then pay to the resident the costs of any items that the resident has shown on a balance of probabilities was damaged due to its failure to effect repairs within a reasonable period of time.	No later than 07 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 August 2024	The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to inspect the property and complete any outstanding damp and mould works. It also ordered the landlord to provide the resident with a date when it would start the retrofit works to the property.
23 October 2024	The landlord informed the resident it would start the damp and mould works and retro works in January 2025.
24 February 2025	The resident complained to the landlord it had not started the works. She said there was still damp and mould in her property and it continued to damage her furniture and belongings.
25 February 2025	The landlord said it hoped to respond to the resident within 2 days but may take up to 5 working days.
5 March 2025	The resident told the landlord she had not received a response.
6 March 2025	The landlord said it had asked Its customer relations team to respond.
10 March 2025	The resident told the landlord she had still not received a response.
11 March 2025	The landlord said it would acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and send a response within 10 working days.
18 March 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It said it aimed to respond by 1 April 2025.
1 April 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said: There had been a further delay with starting the retrofit works due to needing to complete further inspections. It would complete another mould wash. It had provided its insurance details so the resident could make a claim for her damaged belongings. It had provided information on grants and financial support agencies which the resident could contact for financial assistance. It offered £550 compensation for the delays, poor communication, and complaint handling.
3 April 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She complained about the damp and mould, a leak, and damaged belongings.
11 April 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation. It said it would provide a response by 9 May 2025.
14 May 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It said: It would start the retrofit works on 23 May 2025, which included external wall insulation, window replacement, door replacement, and low energy lighting. It would replace the house roof at the same time as the retrofit works. It would pay the resident’s excess if she made a claim against her own contents insurance. It would support the resident to access grants or funding to help with the cost of replacing the damaged items if she did not have contents insurance. Its communication could have been better, in terms of keeping the resident updated. It apologised for the delays and increased the compensation to £600.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us there were still some outstanding issues with the retrofit works and the damp and mould works. As an outcome the resident wanted the landlord to: Complete all the works. Compensate her for the distress and inconvenience, time taken, and for her damaged belongings.

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 the resident’s concerns it had not completed retrofit works and damp and mould works following a previous Ombudsman determination.
Finding	Maladministration

The resident told us that her medical conditions had worsened due to delays and poor communication. 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. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
In August 2024 we made the following orders which the landlord had to complete by 16 September 2024.
1. Inspect the property to identify the cause of the damp and mould. If further works were needed, it should provide the resident with a schedule of works with anticipated completion dates. It should also keep the resident updated until it completed the work.
2. Provide the resident with a date when it would start the retrofit works. The landlord should provide the resident with a schedule of works and anticipated completion dates. It should also keep the resident updated until it completed the work.
The landlord arranged to inspect the property on 17 September 2024. This was a joint inspection with the damp and mould team and the repairs team.
However, at this point the landlord was in breach of the orders of the Ombudsman. The inspection was out of time by one day. It also meant it could not achieve the follow-on actions by 16 September. This was to provide the resident with a schedule of works with anticipated completion dates in relation to damp mould. The landlord also failed to provide the resident with a date when it would start retrofit work, a schedule of works and anticipated completion dates.
It was also to post inspect damp and mould works in the kitchen which the landlord completed in August 2023. The resident called the damp and mould team on the morning of the inspection and asked it to rearrange. The landlord rearranged the inspection for 1 October 2024. This visit did not go ahead due to the resident receiving treatment for her medical condition.
In September 2024 the landlord informed us its retrofit manager had spoken to the resident and told her it was consulting with planners on how to progress the retrofit works. It hoped to be able to confirm the works programme by the end of October 2024. It would prioritise the resident’s property. However, this was outside the timescales in the Ombudsman’s previous order.
On 11 October 2024 the landlord told the resident it was aiming to start the retrofit works in January 2025 but could not provide a specific date. This was due to new recommendations made by the planning office. It had asked its contractors to provide an updated quote. This did not meet the requirement of the Ombudsman’s order.
Given the timescales in the order the landlord should have given itself enough time to inspect and prepare schedules to meet its obligation.
The landlord inspected the property on 24 October 2024. It discussed the resident’s concerns regarding the damp and mould and other issues, including the roof, and drafty windows. The landlord told the resident it would carry out further inspections and start retrofit works in 2024. However, this was not in compliance with the order. We appreciate some of this lapse in time is due to the resident being unable to provide access. However, the landlord was tardy at the outset
The Ombudsman’s orders does not absolve the landlord of his obligation under it various policies, procedure and the law. At the time of the inspection the landlord had a damp and mould policy. Its policy says it takes a zero-tolerance approach. It provides its customers with targeted and proportionate support. However, it does not set timescales for treating damp and mould.
However, in the resident’s case the damp and mould and other issues were attributable to disrepair. The landlord’s repair procedure therefore applied. It sets out a maximum of 28 days for non-emergency repairs and a maximum of 42 days for major repairs.
On 24 October 2024 the landlord raised a job to inspect the house roof. It initially arranged to attend on 14 November 2024 but this appointment did not go ahead due to the resident being unwell. It agreed to re-raise the job when the resident was better, which was reasonable. The landlord’s damp and mould assessment says it will proactively ensure that it will rearrange any missed appointments quickly. It did not do this when the resident missed her appointment. The landlord did not take any further steps in relation to this work until the resident contacted it for an update on the retrofit works in February 2025. This was a delay of approximately 3 months.
On 24 October 2024 the resident reported that damp and mould had returned to her kitchen, bedrooms, and hallway. The landlord completed some damp works on 19 November 2024 (within 27 calendar days). This included mould washes, application of anti-condensation paint, and repainting the affected areas in the bedrooms, hallway, kitchen, and rear extension. It was reasonable that the landlord addressed the damp and mould, however, without it addressing the underlying cause the damp and mould would return.
During the visit the resident asked the contractor to complete further works which the landlord had not included in the works order. This included an overhaul of the bathroom window to ensure ventilation and applying emulsion after the damp and mould treatment. After discussing this with the resident the landlord agreed to complete these works. This was reasonable and showed it was listening to the resident. It also showed it was taking steps to mitigate the impact of the damp and mould until it completed the retrofit works.
On 22 November 2024 the contractor updated the landlord on the damp works it had completed. It informed the landlord it could not paint the wall of the rear extension due to it being soaking wet. It said there was an issue with the extension roof. Following this the landlord should have inspected the extension roof to identify what repairs it needed to complete. It should then have completed the repairs within its repair timescale. The landlord did not take any steps in relation to the extension roof until August 2025. This was out of the timescale in its repairs policy and beyond the deadline in the Ombudsman’s order.
In February 2025 the resident contacted the landlord for an update on the retrofit works. She was concerned the landlord had told her it would start the works in January 2025 but this had not happened.
On 4 March 2025, following contact from the resident, the landlord reraised the job to cut inspection holes in the loft ceiling and inspected the roof timbers on 12 March 2025. The landlord asked its contractor to take photographs and gather information for the retrofit team. However, the contractor did not gather the required information which meant the landlord had to arrange another visit. This caused further inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord inspected the house roof on 26 March 2025. It updated the resident that it would replace the roof. It took reasonable steps to reduce the impact on the resident by adding it to the retrofit works. However, the landlord failed to inspect the rear extension roof at this time, despite its contractor informing it there was an issue with water ingress in November 2024. This meant the landlord did not complete work to the extension roof as part of the retrofit works.
The landlord completed another mould wash to the resident’s bedroom in March 2025.
There was a delay of approximately 5 months before the landlord started the retrofit works (January 2025 to May 2025). In its complaint responses it said it had been waiting for better weather. We understand that timescales for planned works, such as retrofit works, can change due to various reasons. However, the landlord should provide regular updates on progress to residents and ensure it keeps them informed. In this case, whilst we can see the landlord was in regular contact with the resident about the damp and mould works, it did not provide regular updates regarding the retrofit works. This meant the resident had to chase it for updates which was not acceptable.
The landlord started the retrofit works on 23 May 2025 and completed them by the beginning of August 2025.. Once the landlord started the works we would expect it to complete them within a reasonable timeframe. Given the amount of works the landlord needed to complete in this case we would consider 2 months to be reasonable.
We can see the landlord attempted to keep the resident updated but this was mainly following contact from her. Had it communicated with the resident more proactively about the delays and outcomes of inspections, it could have ensured she knew what was happening and when. This would have managed the resident’s expectations and she may not have felt it necessary to raise a complaint. The landlord acknowledged this within its complaint responses.
The landlord took some steps to reduce the impact of the damp and mould on the resident by completing mould washes in August 2024, November 2024, March 2025, and by completing some remedial repairs to the kitchen and bathroom. It also attempted to complete damp and mould inspections in September 2024 and October 2024 to monitor the damp and mould.
The landlord failed to comply with the Ombudsman’s orders. It failed to comply with its damp and mould policy. It failed to comply with its repairs policy. There were some additional failures in this case which caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident. This included:
1. Failing to proactively monitor and rearrange the appointment to open the loft ceiling and inspect the roof timbers in October 2024.
2. Having to inspect the roof timbers twice due to its contractor not collecting the required information.
3. Failing to keep the resident updated about the retrofit works.
The landlord attempted to put things right by acknowledging and apologising for the additional delays and offering compensation of £550. However, it failed to identify the failures set out above. Also, based on the available information and what the resident has told us, we cannot be satisfied that it has completed all the works. This leads to a finding of maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to increase its compensation to £1,300 (an increase of £700).
This sum also reflects our remedies guidance which says such a sum would be payable where there has been a significant impact on the household. It also reflects the vulnerabilities of the household which meant the failures and the landlord’s handling of the issues would have had a more severe effect on them compared to other residents in the same position without their vulnerabilities.
We have also made orders that the landlord arrange an independent inspection of both the retrofit works and the damp and mould works
In relation to the resident’s furniture and personal belongings, the landlord accepted there had been failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and retrofit works. It had hoped to consider the damages under its discretionary compensation policy. This was not possible due to the amount of compensation the resident was asking for, which was approximately £10,000. It referred the resident to its insurance providers in the first instance. The resident submitted a claim in October 2024 and the insurer refused the claim. The landlord said this was because the damp and mould was not caused by a leak.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will provide information and guidance on grants and financial assistance for replacing damaged items for residents who do not have their own contents insurance. The landlord provided this information to the resident.
However, because the damage stemmed from a failure on the landlord’s part, it should award compensation to recognise the fact the resident had incurred losses which may not have arisen had the failures not occurred. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay to her the costs of any items that the resident has shown on a balance of probabilities was damaged due to its failure to complete repairs within a reasonable period of time.

Complaint	The handling of the resident’s complaint.
Finding	Reasonable redress

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are:
1. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
2. The landlord responded at stage 1 within 27 working days (24 February 2025 to 1 April 2025) – which was not compliant with the Code. The landlord had 5 working days to acknowledge and 10 working days to answer the complaint (up to 15 working days). In this case, as it did not acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days, it needed to provide a response no later than 17 March 2025. The landlord therefore acted outside its policy and the Code.
Our guidance on remedies suggest that an award of £50 may remedy the failure acknowledged by the landlord which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome. Given the failure, the apology made, and the compensation awarded this leads to a finding of reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

The landlord showed good practice by completing regular reviews of is actions in relation to the damp and mould. It also kept a record of each review which showed good recording keeping.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord demonstrated good record keeping in respect of the matters we have investigated in the case. This allowed us to create a clear timeline of events and helped with our investigation.

Communication

The resident had to chase the landlord for updates in relation to the retrofit works and her complaint. Whilst the landlord responded to some contacts, its communication and updates could have been better. The landlord should ensure it identifies complex cases, such as this, at an early stage and has a strategy in place for keeping residents informed.