Stonewater Limited (202505383)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202505383 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Stonewater Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
24 November 2025 |
Background
- The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house with her 3 children. She has vulnerabilities that are known to the landlord.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
- We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found:
- Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
- Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- We have found that the landlord:
- Excessively exceeded its repair timescales in its handling of the leaks, damp and mould. At the time of our investigation, the evidence suggested that the issue remained outstanding.
- Failed to effectively use its complaints process to ensure the substantive issue was resolved efficiently and in a timely way.
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 23 December 2025 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £900 made up as follows:
The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made. However, this does not include the reimbursement payment of £255 it made for the dehumidifier running costs. The landlord must pay this directly to the resident and provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. |
No later than 23 December 2025 |
|
3 |
Completing the works The landlord must contact the resident to arrange a post–works inspection. If during the inspection it identifies any outstanding issues, it must take all steps to ensure the repairs are resolved promptly and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date:
|
No later than 27 January 2026 |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
5 February 2024 |
The resident requested an update from the landlord on the status of some external repairs, including those to the roof. She said she was concerned about how the mould in the property was affecting her health. |
|
7 February 2024 |
The landlord escalated the resident’s concerns to its complaints team. |
|
28 February 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It upheld the resident’s complaint and said:
|
|
20 May 2024 |
The resident requested to escalate her complaint. She said this was because the landlord had decided to undertake repairs to the roof, rather than replace it. |
|
19 June 2024 |
The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
In May 2025, the resident referred her complaint to us. She said this was because the repairs were still outstanding. As an outcome, she wanted the landlord to complete the repairs and pay further compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. |
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 |
Leaks, damp and mould |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
What we did not investigate
- The resident told us that the landlord’s handling of the repairs had negatively impacted on her 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 an 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
- The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes the roof, outside walls, internal walls, and plasterwork.
- The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it will complete:
- Emergency repairs within 24 hours.
- Non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
- Major repairs within 42 days where there is significant work beyond the original repair.
- On 19 November 2023, the resident reported that she had noticed damp patches in the dining room and living room. She said she suspected that the gutters were blocked, and she had previously been informed that there were “lots of cracks” on the external walls. On 20 December 2023, she further reported that water was running down the walls in the front bedroom.
- Overall, we found the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould between November 2023 and February 2024 to be unsatisfactory. This is because:
- Its communication with the resident was lacking and inconsistent.
- Its record keeping was poor, and it appeared to lack oversight on the progress of repairs.
- It failed to complete the repairs within its target timescales.
- It was therefore appropriate that, within the landlord’s stage 1 response, it acknowledged the delays and apologised to the resident for falling short of the service standards it aimed to provide.
- Within the stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed that its surveyor had “recommended that the roof was prioritised for replacement [via] planned works, in the summer of 2024”. This is supported by the landlord’s inspection records from the appointment on 9 January 2024. However, between March 2024 and April 2024, the evidence suggests that the landlord provided the resident with inconsistent and conflicting information about the roof replacement, which was inappropriate. However, in a bid to confirm the exact work required, the landlord appropriately arranged for a specialist contractor to survey the roof.
- We do not dispute the resident’s comments that the contractor had told her during the roof survey appointment on 14 May 2024 that it would be “recommending for the landlord to replace the roof”. However, based on the survey report and emails between the landlord and contractor, we are satisfied that its decision to not replace the roof was informed by the recommendations of a suitably qualified contractor. We appreciate the change in proposed works would have been frustrating for the resident. Nevertheless, it was appropriate that within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it explained its reasoning for changing its decision and apologised to her for its poor communication regarding the matter.
- The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will consider awarding “discretionary compensation” to a resident when it has failed to meet repair target timescales. It uses our remedies guidance as a guide to calculate the amount of compensation it awards. It is not clear if the landlord’s stage 2 compensation award of £75 was in addition to or superseded the £50 it offered at stage 1. Regardless, as the works were still outstanding approximately 7 months after the resident had first reported the issue, we find both offers of compensation disproportionately low.
- Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it committed to completing the required internal and external repairs. These works were due to start in the week commencing 24 June 2024. The landlord’s repair records during this period are lacking. This has made it difficult for us to assess its handling of the matter. However, emails between the resident and landlord suggest that the works were completed at some point between September 2024 and October 2024. This was a further unreasonable delay, and we find it unfair that the resident had to request updates from the landlord on numerous occasions. It is apparent that the landlord failed to effectively manage its contractors to ensure prompt completion of the repairs, for which it was ultimately responsible.
- On 22 October 2024, the resident informed the landlord the mould wash treatment on the staircase was still outstanding. She also reported that “water was running down the walls again”. Despite the landlord arranging 2 inspections (on 12 November 2024 and 4 December 2024), it failed to progress the repairs in a timely and appropriate way. This led to the resident contacting the landlord on 13 January 2024 to request a schedule of works.
- The outstandingrepairs did not progress in February 2025. However, we acknowledge that this was at the request of the resident, who was awaiting the outcome of an environmental health inspection via the local authority.
- The landlord received the outcome of the environmental health inspection on 28 February 2025. Within an internal email on 4 March 2024, it said it agreed with the proposed works and that it aimed to commence the works “by the end of March, with a completion by end of April”. As before, the landlord’s repair records are lacking, and it is therefore unclear if and/or when it raised the required works. However, the evidence shows that the resident was still chasing the landlord for an update on the repairs 5 months later, on 15 July 2025. This was inadequate, as it was 18 months after she first raised the issue with the landlord, and 12 months after she had exhausted its complaints process.
- In November 2025, the resident told us that the landlord had undertaken some repairs in September 2025. Despite our request, the landlord has not provided any documentary evidence of the repairs, which amounts to a further record keeping failure. The resident also provided evidence which shows that she had attempted to contact the landlord on 3 occasions between 10 September 2025 and 14 October 2025 regarding her concerns about the works not being fully completed. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to her. The importance of effective communication is again highlighted.
- For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of maladministration. To put things right for the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay her compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance. As explained above – that it is not clear what total amount of compensation the landlord awarded the resident during its complaints process – our order replaces any compensation previously offered.
|
Complaint |
Complaint handling |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It aims to respond within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. At stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and aims to provide its final response within 20 working days. This is in line with the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).
- The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by its own staff, or those acting on its behalf. It further states that customers do not need to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord recognised the resident’s dissatisfaction within her email on 5 February 2024, and escalated her concerns to its complaints team 2 working days later. This is evidence of a positive complaint handling culture.
- The landlord appropriately adhered to its complaint handling timescales at both stages of the complaints process.
- As mentioned earlier, it is not clear how much total compensation the landlord awarded the resident for its handling of the substantive issue (£75 or £125). The landlord’s lack of clarity is a failure in its complaint handling, as it caused the resident to feel that her concerns were not being taken seriously. It also made it impracticable for us to fully assess the appropriateness of its compensation offer.
- An effective complaint resolution requires a process designed to put things right. We find that the landlord’s lack of action and ownership to undertake the outstanding repairs promised was unreasonable. It would have been appropriate for it to monitor the agreed actions through to resolution, with regular updates to the resident.
- It is noted that in March 2025, the landlord followed its compensation policy when it reimbursed the resident for the costs she had incurred (£225) when using the dehumidifier between December 2023 and March 2024. However, we find that it would have been more appropriate for it to offer this to her during its complaints process, as a way of putting things right for her. It was also unreasonable that the resident had to chase the landlord for the payment. This was an expenditure of her time and effort which should not have been necessary.
- For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of service failure.
Learning
Knowledge and information management (record keeping)
- The landlord’s repair records were poor. Where information was provided, it lacked specific or relevant detail. This is concerning and has made it challenging for us to assess its handling of the issue. Also, several pieces of key information were provided to us by the resident, rather than the landlord. The landlord should endeavour to keep contemporaneous records of all correspondence it has with residents.
Communication
- The landlord’s communication with the resident during the complaints process was generally positive. However, its communication with her throughout the repair journey was consistently poor. Good communication plays a key role in an effective repairs system, and the landlord should consider how it can improve its communication with residents.