Stonewater Limited (202504495)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat with her teenage son. She has anxiety and high blood pressure. Her son has a heart condition. The landlord became aware of this during 2024. She complained about the condition of her property and its delay in resolving the issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of leaks, damp and mould.
   2. Reports of silverfish.
   3. Reports of damage to the hallway flooring.
   4. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of leaks, damp and mould.
   2. Reports of silverfish.
   3. Reports of damage to the hallway flooring.
4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

5. The landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress prior to investigation, which resolves its handling of the complaint.

Summary of reasons

In summary we found the landlord:

6. Responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould. It acted in accordance with its policies. It acknowledged there were delays, but these were due to factors outside of its control. It considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and offered appropriate reasonable adjustments to progress a resolution. It continued to act, showing its commitment to investigating and providing a resolution to the issue.
7. Acted in line with its pest control policy which states silverfish infestations are resident’s responsibility to treat. It inspected several times to assess the extent of the problem but could find no evidence of an infestation. It sent pest control contractors who experienced access difficulties. It has since found a potential access point for silverfish through damaged pipework, which it has agreed to fix.
8. The landlord acted in line with its repairs policy and confirmed the flooring was the resident’s responsibility. Despite this, it has since agreed to replace the damaged flooring.
9. The landlord recognised its complaint handling failures, apologised to the resident and made her a proportionate offer of compensation to put things right.

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.

What we did not investigate

10. The resident told us that the poor condition of the property has had a detrimental impact on the family’s health and wellbeing. 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.

What we did investigate

11. On receipt of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould the landlord raised timely inspections to assess the extent of the problem. This aligned with its obligation to ensure its rented properties are fit for human habitation.
12. The landlord’s early investigations of damp in February and September 2024 found no evidence of leaks or structural defects. It said mould growth was minor which it determined it to be condensation. It noted the resident had taped over air vents and turned off the mechanical extraction because it was noisy.
13. The landlord’s damp inspection on 27 September 2024 identified several minor repairs. Once allocated, its process is for planners to contact the resident and arrange appointments aimed at meeting its repair policy response times. Its repair records and contractor updates confirmed this process was followed, meeting its repairing obligations.
14. The resident complained about the landlord’s failure to carry out the repairs. Its stage 1 response stated this was due to access issues. It noted that on 25 October 2024 she would not accept an appointment for the overhaul of her extractor fan. She disputed this stating it had allocated the incorrect contractor to overhaul the fan. This may have been a valid point as previous notes from this contractor had stated a specialist was required. It said on 12 November 2024 she also requested it cancel all jobs for plastering.
15. The resident’s escalation request complained that the landlord had failed to resolve her leak for over 3 months. In its final response it noted that on 3 occasions between 17 October 2024 and 4 December 2024 the resident had rearranged or cancelled repair appointments on the day. This caused further delays which the landlord cannot be held accountable for. The resident’s tenancy agreement requires that she provides the landlord with access to inspect or carry out repairs.
16. The landlord gave the resident the earliest appointment available for the work on 8 January 2024. However, she reported that water still intermittently pooled on the bathroom floor. It responded appropriately by arranging for a specialist damp contractor to carry out a full survey. They found the cause to be the shower mixer tap leaking under the bath and inadequate ventilation.
17. The cause of a leak, damp and mould is not always easy to identify. It can be a combination of factors or require a process of elimination before the landlord finds the source. We need to account for this when considering the time taken to resolve. As the landlord was pro-actively investigating and acted on new reports, this was reasonable.
18. The damp specialist devised a schedule of works. This included renewing the taps, overhauling the mechanical ventilation system, adding external ventilation in the roof space and increasing the loft insulation. Their schedule also included remedial work such as new skirting boards, decorating and replacing the damaged laminate flooring. They advised the landlord to discuss the importance of ventilation with the resident and the correct use of the ventilation systems.
19. The landlord advised us that the damp works recommended did not progress. This was because the contractor experienced access issues and reported several abortive calls. They also said that the resident’s communication and behaviour towards their staff was unacceptable. They later withdrew from the contract. The problems gaining access and the breakdown in the relationship caused further delay, but this was outside of its control.
20. The landlord has said it also had challenges managing the resident’s communication which was often excessive and sometimes considered inappropriate towards its staff.
21. The landlord’s stage 2 investigation, however, recognised the resident was frustrated and that appointments could be difficult for her. It agreed to make reasonable adjustments. It arranged for her to have a single point of contact for any further communication. For future appointments it offered for her to choose dates and to have a chaperone present. This showed that it had considered her vulnerabilities and acted accordingly.
22. The landlord advised there was further delay to the work due to the resident’s extended holiday. Since her return new specialists have inspected and compiled a new schedule of works. This showed its commitment to fully resolve the issues in her property.

23. The resident submitted pictures and videos to the landlord of individual silverfish in her property on several occasions.
24. The landlord’s pest control policy states that the treatment of silverfish is considered to be the resident’s responsibility. It is not, therefore, required to act on a report.
25. Although this was its policy, the landlord raised orders for pest control to attend on three separate occasions throughout 2024 and 2025. Its notes indicated contractors were unable to gain access to the resident’s property and it closed the job. This was not unreasonable in the circumstances.
26. The landlord also checked for silverfish during its damp and mould inspections. Given it found no presence of an infestation, there was no action it could take.
27. An update from the landlord advised a recent property inspection suggested that silverfish maybe entering from the pipework under the bath. It witnessed none at the time of the inspection but has agreed to complete repairs to this pipework.

28. The resident complained that her hallway flooring was damaged from water penetration from the bathroom. She wanted her flooring replaced.
29. Landlords expect residents to take out household insurance to protect themselves against loss or damage. Its repairs policy states it is only responsible for non-slip floor covering usually found in kitchens and bathrooms. Her hallway flooring was laminate and not non-slip. Consequently, its stage 1 response determined it was not required to replace it which was appropriate and in line with its policy
30. The landlord’s final response repeated its decision that replacement of the damaged laminate flooring was the resident’s responsibility. Unless the damage was caused by the landlord’s failure to act its repairs policy applied. The evidence shows it responded to reported repairs but did not get timely access from the resident.
31. The landlord has since agreed to replace the flooring. This was a positive gesture, to rebuild the landlord tenant relationship, given it was not required to do so.

32. From 31 December 2020, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
33. The resident complained on 17 January 2025. The landlord acknowledged her complaint in the required time on 21 January 2025.
34. If a landlord cannot investigate a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days, it must advise the resident it needs an extension of time. This extension should not exceed a further 10 working days. It contacted her on 4 February 2025 to extend the date by 10 working days. It responded within the extended deadline.
35. The landlord’s response recognised it took longer than 10 days to reply to the complaint. It apologised and offered the resident £100 compensation for the delay. This offer was within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for a minor failing that continued for a short duration. Its offer was therefore proportionate.
36. The landlord’s acknowledgement on 11 March 2023 of the resident’s escalation request apologised that it had not acknowledged her complaint within time. It committed to address this delay in its complaint investigation.
37. The landlord’s final response was sent within its complaint policy timescale. It offered the resident a further £250 compensation for failing to acknowledge her escalation request and the impact this delay had on her. This offer was within the range we would recommend for the short duration that this failure occurred. Its total offer of £350 compensation was reasonable to address its identified failings.

Learning

We did not identify any concerns with the landlord’s communication or record keeping in this case. It was, however, a positive step that the landlord identified improvements it could make to its communication and has taken steps to implement the changes.