Stonewater Limited (202508686)

Background

1. The resident has said she has mental health vulnerabilities. The landlord has told us that it has vulnerabilities for the resident recorded on its systems due to medical conditions and mental health difficulties. The resident reported a water leak from an air source heat pump in her property on 27 December 2024. The landlord raised emergency repair jobs to fix the issue, although it was unable to fully resolve the problem until early February 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a water leak at her property and its handling of the associated repairs.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a water leak at her property and its handling of the associated repairs.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to water leak

6. The landlord’s evidence indicates the resident’s property was uninhabitable for 42 days. It did not offer the resident temporary accommodation for the full 42 days her property was uninhabitable. It did not give sufficient consideration to the impact of not offering this on her mental health, despite its own concerns.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord’s complaint response did not identify its stage 1 acknowledgement was outside of its complaints policy timeframe. Its complaint process was unduly long, and its stage 2 response was outside its revised timeframe after it had agreed an extension with the resident.

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.

Recommendation

Our recommendation is not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow this.

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.

8. On 27 December 2024 the resident contacted the landlord. She reported a burst water pipe and water running into the electrics at her property. It raised 2 emergency repair jobs on the same day in response. Its repair records show that it turned the resident’s electricity off and stopped the water leak around 6 hours after she had contacted it. This was reasonable and in line with its repairs policy to attend emergency repairs within 24 hours. The leak was related to the air source heat pump in the resident’s property.
9. The landlord’s repair records described the repair as an uncontrollable leak from the air source heat pump, with water gushing into the resident’s property for a few hours. Its electrician who visited her property said they “could not touch” the air source heat pump and had to turn the electricity off. It also needed a specialist contractor to visit the property to fix a pipe on the heat pump. The landlord’s internal communication on 30 December 2024 shows that it was unsure which of its contractors were responsible for repairing the air source heat pump. This was a record keeping failure that delayed it completing its repairs.
10. The landlord’s records show that it provided the resident with a dehumidifier on 30 December 2024. This was reasonable. However, it raised a repair job to provide her with temporary heaters with the wrong contractor. As a result, she was left without any form of heating until 4 January 2025, when it delivered the temporary heaters to her property. This was unreasonable and a failure to follow its compensation policy. This says it will provide alternative sources of heating and/or hot water due to a repair related issue.
11. The landlord’s temporary accommodation policy says it will provide emergency accommodation to residents where it cannot resolve an immediate health and safety risk. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and that she was without heating or hot water from 27 December 2024. There is no record that it confirmed the water leak did not pose a health and safety risk to the resident, or that it offered to provide her with temporary accommodation at this point. Its vulnerable persons policy says when it makes decisions relating to a customer, it will be clear on the overall aim of any action or decision it takes. However, there is no record that it confirmed its position whether it needed to offer her temporary accommodation. This was not reasonable and a failure to follow its temporary accommodation policy and vulnerable persons policy.
12. When the resident raised her complaint, she told the landlord she was unhappy that it had not provided temporary accommodation for her and her pets. She said the situation had affected on her mental health and she wanted “to end her life over it all.” The landlord’s records show that it completed a safeguarding action plan on 13 January 2025. It contacted her on 17 January 2025 when she told it she was no longer feeling suicidal. This was in line with its safeguarding adults policy that says it will take action to protect vulnerable persons. 
13. On 21 January 2025 its project manager requested the landlord arrange a single point of contact for the resident. This was in response to her concerns about multiple contractors visiting her property. This was positive. Despite this there is no record it did this or made any reasonable adjustments for the resident who it knew had vulnerabilities. However, its stage 2 response recognised this failure and offered the resident £50 compensation as a result. This was reasonable.
14. The landlord’s records show that its project manager completed a temporary accommodation request form on 24 January 2025. Its records show its project manager “felt strongly” that it needed to protect the resident from further decline by. They recommended it provided her with temporary accommodation for a minimum of 14 nights while it completed its repair works. This was reasonable and shows that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities.
15. The landlord’s evidence shows it discussed the temporary accommodation request. It wanted to know if the property and its repair work posed a risk to the resident. Its records show that it considered her property was habitable only if it topped the pressure in her heat pump up daily. However, once it began its repair works her property would not be habitable. It is a concern that despite knowing of the impact the situation was having on the resident it only agreed to provide her temporary accommodation for the weekend pending a further discussion the following week. Although it has told us that the resident declined its offer to provide her with temporary accommodation for the weekend, there is no record in its evidence that confirms this or that it discussed the issue again. This was not reasonable and a record keeping failure.
16. The landlord told us that the property was habitable throughout its repair process. This is contrary to the information in its temporary accommodation form and its stage 2 response. There is no record that it told the resident that its view had changed and the property was habitable and that it would not be offering her temporary accommodation. This was not reasonable and a record keeping failure.
17. The landlord’s internal communication on 20 February 2025 shows that it could not guarantee it had resolved the fault on the resident’s heat pump and would need to continue to monitor the problem. This indicates that it was not satisfied it had fully resolved the problem. However, its stage 1 response said that it completed its repair of the heat pump in early February 2025. This has caused this investigation confusion. It would have been reasonable for it to have set out its position on the effectiveness of its repair and the steps it would take given its own doubts on this. This was not reasonable and a record keeping failure.
18. The landlord’s records show that it raised further repairs to the heat pump on 10 March, 15 May and 20 May 2025. This shows that its initial repairs had not been effective and caused the resident inconvenience as she had to chase it for answers.
19. The landlord’s evidence shows that it arranged to visit her property 3 times a week from January to April 2025, to check the heat pump. This was reasonable and shows that it provided her with support during its repair process. Its records show that its resident liaison officer also provided support to the resident, by telephone or home visit. The resident recognised the efforts of the resident liaison officer on 28 January 2025 when she thanked them for their support which went “above and beyond.” This was positive.
20. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 March 2025. She told it that there were noises coming from the heating system that were causing her distress. The landlord’s records show that it visited her property to inspect the issue on 22 April and 28 April 2025. However, it is unclear what it did to resolve the issue, as on 13 May 2025 it asked her to record the noise. This is likely to have caused the resident confusion and its records do not confirm whether it visited her property again about the issue or the problem had been resolved. This was not reasonable. It should have considered confirming its position and explaining what steps it would take to resolve the issue if it had not been fixed.
21. The landlord’s records show that it completed its decorating works to the resident’s kitchen which had water damage on it on 17 February 2025. This was reasonable. However, the resident was unhappy that the water leak had also caused damage to her laminate flooring. The landlord’s contractor disputed this. After she sent it photos of the flooring, it was reasonable that its stage 2 response arranged for a further inspection of the issue by 31 May 2025. The resident told us that the landlord has replaced the flooring in her bedroom, lounge and stairs. However, she has said that there are holes in her kitchen flooring, which it has not yet repaired. It is unclear why it has not done this and there is no record that it kept the resident informed on the progress of this. This was not reasonable and caused the resident inconvenience, as she chased it for answers on the issue on 5 August 2025.
22. The landlord’s failure to offer the resident emergency temporary accommodation when she reported the water leak, is a concern given her vulnerabilities. It was reasonable that its stage 2 response told her of the reasons for this.
23. The landlord’s decision not to offer the resident temporary accommodation for the full duration of its repairs to her property, left her living with friends. She told us that this caused her inconvenience and financial distress. When it did look to provide her with temporary accommodation it ignored its own recommendations and concerns about the impact that staying at her property would have on her mental health. This was not reasonable and a failure to follow its vulnerable persons policy. This says it will consider what more support it can provide or variation in its usual service provision for vulnerable customers.
24. The landlord’s complaint responses did recognise and acknowledge its failures. This was reasonable. It apologised to the resident and explained the reasons for its failures. It accepted that its response to the issue and poor communication had caused her distress, hardship and inconvenience. It accepted that it had left a vulnerable resident without heating and hot water for a prolonged period after the water leak. This along with its project manager’s comments indicates that her property was uninhabitable. While its offer of compensation partly recognised this, we do not consider it adequately reflected the 42 days her property was uninhabitable for, which had a significant impact on the resident.
25. With consideration to the circumstances of the case, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for failures that adversely affected the resident we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay her a further £503.12 compensation. We have calculated this using the resident’s weekly rent of £121.23 multiplied by the 6 weeks her property was uninhabitable for. We have deducted the £75 compensation the landlord offered for not providing her with temporary accommodation and the £149.26 compensation for loss of heating and hot water. We have also ordered the landlord to inspect the resident’s kitchen flooring and confirm that the air source heat pump is working effectively.

26. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It will send its stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgment and 20 working days at stage 2. If its responses will take longer than this it will tell the resident. If its responses will take longer than a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2, it will agree an extension with the resident.
27. The landlord sent its stage 1 acknowledgment 8 working days after the resident raised her complaint on 5 January 2025. This was not reasonable and a failure by it to follow its complaints policy’s published timeframe.
28. The landlord contacted the resident on 29 January 2025. It said it needed to extend her complaint and would send its stage 1 response by 12 February 2025. However, this was 2 working days after its response was due. This was not reasonable and a complaint handling failure.
29. On 13 February 2025 the resident agreed to a further extension to the landlord’s stage 1 investigation. It said it needed a further extension to allow it to complete a comprehensive investigation. This was not reasonable and a failure to follow the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which says landlords must clearly explain the reasons for an extension to a resident.
30. The landlord sent its stage 2 acknowledgement 5 working days after the resident had escalated her complaint. This was reasonable and within its complaint policy’s timeframe.
31. The landlord’s complaint timeline says it contacted the resident on 10 April 2025. It extended its stage 2 investigation until 24 April 2025. However, there is no record that it told the resident of this or agreed to a further extension with the resident. This was not reasonable and a complaint handling failure that delayed the resident accessing this Service.
32. The landlord’s complaint responses were of a good quality. It used clear, plain language, explained the reasons for its decision to the resident and offered her a remedy to put things right. This was reasonable and in line with the Code.
33. The landlord’s stage 2 response said that it had sent the resident its responses within its agreed timescales. However, it did not recognise its complaint handling failures which we have found and offer her a remedy due to this. The resident’s complaint took 90 days to complete the landlord’s complaint process, which was unduly long. This was not reasonable and a complaint handling failure.
34. With consideration to the circumstances of the case, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for minor failures which do not reflect the detriment to the resident, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay her £75 compensation in recognition of its complaint handling failures. We have also recommended that the landlord arranges complaint handling training for its staff.

Learning

35. The landlord has shown learning from the resident’s complaint. It said it needed to implement better communication protocols. It should continue to monitor and review its introduction of these measures to ensure its residents receive prompt, accurate updates, especially in emergencies for any future cases.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

36. We found record keeping failures in the landlord’s response to the issue the resident raised. Maintaining accurate, detailed records of its decisions will help to improve transparency and accountability.

Communication

37. The communication of the landlord’s resident liaison officer with the resident was positive, along with the efforts of its project manager. The evidence shows that they took steps to provide her with advice and support, which should be commended.