Stonewater Limited (202501523)

Background

1. The resident has lived at the property, which is a ground floor flat, since November 2022. She has told the landlord that she has experienced difficulties with her mental health.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
   1. Leaks, damp and mould in her home.
   2. Missed appointments by its contractors.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould in her home.
5. The landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of the missed appointments by its contractors.
6. There was service failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
7. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

8. There were delays in the landlord identifying the cause of the damp and mould within the resident’s home. It did not carry out an inspection of the property at the earliest opportunity when it received her initial report. It only carried this out 3 months later, identifying that the leak was external relating to the guttering and flat roof. There was then a significant delay in the landlord completing the repairs to the resident’s home.
9. The landlord acknowledged the missed appointments by its contractors in its stage 2 complaint response and made an offer of compensation to the resident that we consider to be appropriate in the circumstances.
10. The landlord failed to fully investigate the resident’s complaint at its first stage or set out clearly the steps it would be taking to ensure that it completed the necessary repairs.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

We have considered if the landlord took reasonable steps, in line with its policies and procedures, to investigate the resident’s reports of damp in her home. Further we have considered the extent to which any failures may have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.

What we did not consider

11. The resident has told us that the presence of damp in her home has affected her health. She also told us that it caused damage to her belongings. We are unable to draw conclusions on liability in such circumstances. These are better addressed by way of the courts or through the landlord’s insurer.
12. We are aware that the landlord has dealt with more recent complaint about the condition of the resident’s home and the time taken to complete repairs. This complaint and the landlord’s response are not within the remit of this investigation. We have focused on the complaint brought to us by the resident in April 2024.

13. The resident raised issues with damp and mould at the end of October 2024. She told the landlord that there was water seeping into her bathroom and that there was a crack in the wall. The landlord contacted her on 4 November 2024. She told it that there was mould affecting her bathroom, bedroom and kitchen. She said that there was water coming up from the floor and that her living room carpet was wet. The resident provided photographs to the landlord on 11 November 2024.
14. Following a review of the photographs provided, the landlord raised repair orders on 26 November 2024. These were to repair the leaking pipe, remove plaster and inject the walls with fungicide, to renew the plaster and skirting boards. The landlord’s records show that it completed these works on 31 January 2025. Further its contractor attended on 14 January 2025 to complete an inspection and said that the issue was due to an external leak.
15. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 January 2025. She raised a complaint as she said that it had not completed the repairs and the issues in her home remained. The landlord’s surveyor completed an inspection on 10 February 2025, finding the source of the leak to be external to the resident’s home, confirming the finding of its contractor. It found holes within the external flat roof and issues with the guttering. It raised a works order on 13 February 2025 to renew the flat roof and replace the guttering, together with an order to carry out a CCTV drain survey.
16. There were significant delays in the landlord finding and addressing the cause of the water, damp and mould in the resident’s home. Having first contacted it at the end of October 2024 the landlord did not carry out an inspection. It relied on photographs provided by the resident to diagnose the source of the leak. Given the extent of the issue reported by the resident it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have arranged to visit earlier on receiving her reports.
17. Its damp and mould policy says that it will contact residents to understand the intervention required and the urgency of this. It says that it will use data to assess if a property is “high risk”. This will be based on the level of contact from the resident and its own knowledge of the property. The resident had previously reported issues with damp and mould, and the landlord had responded to a complaint in September 2024 on this issue. Given this history it would have been right for the landlord to have visited at this earlier stage.
18.  Its contractor reported on 14 January 2025 that the leak was external to the property. The landlord did not attend the property until 10 February 2025, almost a month after this report, and 3 months after the resident’s first reports of damp and mould in her home. This was a failure by the landlord to respond promptly to the resident’s concerns.
19. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould highlights the need for a timely response by landlords to reports of damp and mould. The report set out that “landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and wellbeing of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner. Landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly to residents so their expectations can be managed.” The report further highlighted the need for residents to be kept informed. It recommended that landlords should “ensure that it clearly and regularly communicated with its residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.”
20. Having raised works orders with its contractors on 13 February 2025 the landlord set out the urgency with which its contractors should attend. The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted it several times through February 2025 seeking updates on when the repairs would be done. On 27 February 2025 she contacted her MP and asked the landlord to escalate her complaint as the issue of damp and mould remained outstanding. From the evidence provided the landlord remained in contact with its contractor about when it would start the works and to further discuss the scope of internal repairs needed. There is however little evidence of it providing regular updates to the resident. On 28 February 2025 the landlord asked its contractor to contact the resident to provide an update, but there is no evidence that it did so. This left the resident to pursue the landlord for updates. This was understandably frustrating to her.
21. It updated her on 2 April 2024. It said that it expected the works to begin within the next 2 – 3 weeks. On 10 April 2025 when she contacted us, she told us that the only visible sign of any work was the scaffolding that had been put in place. She said that while the landlord had taken responsibility for the water damage in her home it was in no hurry to complete the repair. There was a significant failure by the landlord to ensure that the works were dealt with as a priority and that there was regular contact with the resident about the steps it and its contractor would be taking.
22. There is a lack of clarity within the records provided when it completed the external works. The landlord has told us that it completed these on19 May 2025. It recorded that there were delays with the scaffolding at the property as this needed amendment to allow access to the flat roof. The landlord chased the contractor for an update on 14 May 2025. The resident had contacted it, reporting that the condition of her home was getting worse. In this the landlord recorded that during an inspection it had noted an amount of standing water on the kitchen floor. There is no evidence that the landlord considered temporarily moving the resident while the work remained ongoing. Given the extent of the damp in her home it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have done so. The condition of her home was a cause of distress to the resident.
23. The landlord left the coordination of the external and internal repairs to its contractor. This led to a lack of clear communication with the resident and a lack of ownership by the landlord. It began the internal works on 10 July 2025. It has confirmed that it completed the works on 29 July 2025, 9 months after the resident first reported an issue of damp and mould.
24. There were significant delays in finding the cause of the damp and mould and in completing repairs to remedy the same. This amounted to maladministration by the landlord. Through its complaint responses the landlord offered a total of £300 compensation for both the delay in finding the cause of the damp and for the time and inconvenience caused to the resident. We do not consider that this is proportionate in the circumstances of the resident’s complaint.
25. We have considered both our guidance on remedies and the landlord’s own compensation guidance in making an order for an added amount of compensation. This recognises both the loss of amenity to the resident and the level of inconvenience and disruption caused to her.

26. At both stages of the resident’s complaint the landlord acknowledged that there had been missed appointments and delays in it attending the resident’s home. At stage 1 it offered the resident £25 for its failure to attend an appointment within its 28 day target for the repairs. At stage 2 it offered a further £50 for missed and failed appointments. It said that there had been several occasions where its operatives had attended the resident’s home without full information and had not progressed repairs. This was understandably frustrating for the resident. This also shows a failure in oversight by the landlord of its contractors.
27. We consider that there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs. It did not communicate effectively with its contractor the works to be carried out or maintain oversight of the works being done. It acknowledged this failure in its complaint responses to the resident and offered compensation in line with its own compensation policy. We consider the total amount of compensation offered appropriate in the circumstances of the resident’s complaint and the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies. This offered a level of redress appropriate to resolving the resident’s complaint.

28. The landlord has a 2 stage complaint’s process which is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This is in its definition of a complaint and the timescales it sets to respond.
29. The resident first raised a complaint with the landlord on 27 January 2025. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days. It wrote to the resident after a further 10 working days to say that it required more time to investigate her complaint. It then provided its final response within 10 working days of this extension. There is no evidence that it agreed the extension with the resident. It would have been right for it to have done so and in line with its policy.
30. In its stage 1 response it did not consider the wider issue of the resident’s report of damp and mould within her property. It focused on 3 repair orders that it had raised in November 2024. It set out how it had attended to these and the timeframe within which it had done so. It highlighted that it had rearranged an appointment at the request of the resident and that the resident had not kept another, leading to the contractor reporting that it could not get access. When its contractor attended the property in January 2025 it found that there was an external leak. The complaint response noted that it had referred this to its damp and mould team. It said that it would contact her but did not set a timeframe on this or provide any reassurance that it would take further action to address the issue in her home. This was a failure by the landlord to find a resolution to the resident’s complaint and put things right for her at this early stage.   
31. The landlord’s handling of the complaint at stage 2 was within its published timeframes and provided a more detailed response to the issues that she raised. This acknowledged that she had previously raised an issue with leaks to her bathroom and kitchen in April 2024 and that this had been the subject of an earlier complaint concluded in August 2024. Given the time that had elapsed it said that it could not reinvestigate its handling of this earlier complaint. It would however have been reasonable for it to have considered that her report of extensive mould in her property in November 2024 may have been linked to an earlier failure to address repairs to her property. There was a failure in its service in that it did not do so.
32. Having acknowledged the extent of the required repairs within its stage 2 it noted that scaffolding was now in place and that it would complete the repairs within the next couple of weeks. It noted a level of learning from the complaint in reviewing complex leak cases but did not provide details to the resident on how it would keep oversight to ensure that her repairs were completed.
33. The landlord offered the resident £25 compensation for a delay in acknowledging the escalation of her complaint. Considering the circumstances of her complaint we have ordered further compensation in recognition of the missed opportunity to resolve the complaint at the earlier stage.

Learning

34. The landlord identified learning from the resident’s complaint. It said in its stage 2 response that it would review how it managed complex leak cases in the future. It should ensure that this process is implemented. We have made a recommendation here that it review its handling of the resident’s reports as part of this process.

Record keeping

35. The landlord has told us that it is reviewing its repairs team record keeping to ensure that it accurately captures and shares information when repairs are raised with it. It intends that this will reduce instances of miscommunication around repairs. This is a positive outcome from the resident’s complaint

Communication

36. There were failures in the landlord’s communication with the resident which have been addressed within this report.