Stonewater Limited (202525242)

Background

1. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident reported damp and mould affecting the floors in the kitchen, hallway and living room to the landlord in July 2024. The landlord carried out repairs and replaced some of the flooring. It completed the full works in December 2025. The resident raised concerns about delays, the standard of work and the landlord’s communication.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found the landlord responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
5. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

6. The landlord did not keep adequate records or provide inspection reports that explained the cause of damp and mould. It did not respond promptly or appropriately when the resident raised concerns about the standard of work. It missed opportunities to identify and resolve the underlying issues, which led to avoidable delay. While it acknowledged some failings and attempted to put things right, it did not identify or address all of the failings, and as such its offer of compensation was not sufficient to put things right.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord’s offer of compensation for its delay in acknowledging the resident’s complaint at stage 1 was proportionate. It responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint within its published timescales.

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.

Damp and mould

8. The resident reported damp and mould affecting the floors on 22 July 2024. The landlord’s contractor attended on 16 August 2024, which met its published 28-day target for non-emergency repairs. The contractor returned on 28 and 29 October 2024 to replace the subfloor in the hallway and living room and to treat the mould. They also inspected the kitchen floor by lifting the vinyl but did not replace it.
9. The landlord did not provide a damp and mould inspection report from this time. It also did not explain the cause of the damp and mould. This meant it could not demonstrate that it understood the problem or that it had shared that information with the resident.
10. The resident told the landlord she was unhappy with the standard of work carried out by its contractor on 30 October 2024. The landlord delayed responding to the resident’s concerns and waited until 18 November 2024 to ask its contractor to return. It should also have considered inspecting the standard of work itself at this time.
11. The contractor returned on 23 December 2024, treated the mould but did not review the quality of their work. They also noted that the kitchen vinyl had not been replaced because the works order had been incorrectly closed. There is no evidence the landlord took steps to correct this, which left the resident without a floor covering for part of the kitchen. It also failed to request further information from its contractor in response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of their work.
12. The resident continued raising concerns in January 2025, including reports of further mould growth on the floors. The contractor returned on 17 February 2025. They said the marks were dirt rather than mould but did not provide evidence to support their position. The landlord took no further action until 24 March 2025, when the resident reported that her foot went through the kitchen floor and asked that its surveyor attend to inspect the contractor’s work.
13. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the contractor’s work on 10 April 2025 and found it had not been completed to an acceptable standard. The landlord did not provide the surveyor’s report, so it is unclear what issues were identified. This lack of information caused the resident distress as she told the landlord she was concerned about the impact of damp and mould on her health and ability to enjoy her home. Furthermore, the landlord provided no evidence that it discussed its findings of poor workmanship directly with its contractor. It did not take accountability for the actions of its contractor. This was inappropriate.
14. It was appropriate that the landlord then agreed to instruct a new contractor to complete further works. At the resident’s request, this appointment was scheduled for November 2025 which was not an unreasonable delay.
15. The landlord’s stage 2 response stated no further steps were needed because it had completed repairs to the kitchen flooring. This was incorrect, as we have seen evidence that the outstanding work remained to the hallway and living room floors, matters which formed part of the resident’s complaint. We have therefore extended the scope of this investigation beyond the landlord’s final response to address these issues.
16. The new contractor attended on 7 November 2025 and noted additional works were needed to replace the subfloor in the hallway and lounge. It is unclear why this had not been identified earlier, as the landlord’s surveyor and its new contractor had already attended to the resident’s home to complete an inspection of the works required. The evidence indicates the landlord missed opportunities to identify these works in April and again in June 2025, which caused unnecessary delay. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. She said she was unable to have guests visit her home due to outstanding repairs during this period and felt isolated as a result. She also explained that her daughter who had a diagnosis of autism, was particularly affected by not having proper flooring.
17. It is unclear why the landlord instructed the original contractor to complete these additional works, which they completed in December 2025. Given the resident’s concerns about this contractor and its surveyor’s findings of unacceptable standards, the landlord should have considered using a different contractor. If that was not possible, it should have explained why to the resident and monitored their performance during and after their work. The landlord did not provide evidence that it did so.
18. During this time, the resident repeatedly chased the landlord for updates. The landlord has not provided sufficient evidence that it responded to her promptly or consistently. This exacerbated the distress and inconvenience already being caused.
19. After the resident referred her complaint to us, the landlord offered her a further £450. As the additional offer of compensation was prompted by our investigation, the landlord failed to use its own complaints process to put things right for the resident in a timely manner. It also failed to provide sufficient evidence it had taken learning from the complaint.
20. The landlord’s compensation offers made at stage 2 and after the resident had referred her complaint to us were in relation to its handling of the replacement of the kitchen floor. It therefore failed to offer suitable redress for the failures identified in this report related to its handling of repairs to the living room and hallway floor too. Our remedies guidance sets out that payments between £600 and £1000 are appropriate where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. In ordering £800 (inclusive of the landlord’s offer of £650), we have considered further failings related to the living room and hallway floors which the landlord did not identify itself and which had a significant impact to the resident.

21. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgement.
22. The landlord delayed acknowledging the resident’s stage 1 complaint and did so 9 working days after the resident’s initial complaint.  The landlord acknowledged its delay and made an offer of £25 compensation which was appropriate for delays of this nature.
23. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint 21 working days after her escalation request. This was in keeping with the timescale set out in its complaints policy. The landlord did not provide a sufficient remedy during its complaint process and did not identify all of its failure. However, we have looked at this as part of its substantive issue handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord’s record keeping in relation to repairs and its damp and mould inspections was poor. Had it maintained robust records of repairs with clear and accurate information, this would have enhanced the landlord’s ability to respond to the resident’s concerns in a timely and appropriate manner.

Communication

25. The landlord’s communication with the resident regarding her reports of damp and mould was poor. Had it told her its understanding of the underlying causes of damp and mould and provided her with timely updates regarding repairs, it might have reduced the amount of distress caused to her by this issue.