Stonewater Limited — case 202408124

Decision Case ID 202408124 Decision type Investigation Landlord Stonewater Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 30 October 2025 Background The resident has lived in a 3-bedroom house since October 2019. She lives with her two dependent children whom she has reported as autistic. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Kitchen replacement works. Associated complaint. Our decision (determination) We have found that: There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the kitchen replacement works.

There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The handling of the kitchen replacement works The landlord delayed in addressing the concerns raised by the resident regarding the kitchen replacement works. It did not review the situation effectively to identify an effective resolution about the cooker issues. It also delayed in carrying out the cooker replacement as it had committed to do.

It should have acted more promptly and effectively especially in light of the known vulnerabilities in the resident’s household. The complaint handling The landlord delayed in acknowledging some parts of the resident’s stage 1 complaint, as well as her escalation request. It should have made sure it understood the scope of the resident’s complaint. 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: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.

It has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 27 November 2025 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident the total sum of £550, made up as follows: £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by delays in resolving the cooker issues. £50 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by delays in acknowledging the resident’s complaint and escalation request. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid to the resident. No later than 27 November 2025 3 Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.

What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the kitchen of the property and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: Whether the kitchen is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards (in light of the vulnerabilities in the household reported by the resident). Any issues with using the cooker and worktop safely and effectively and what was the cause of these issues. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (including the installation of a new cooker).

The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works. No later than 27 November 2025 4 Completing the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the work (as identified by inspection) is completed 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: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons.

It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or Explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident until the work is completed. No later than 11 December 2025 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 3 May 2024 The resident raised a formal complaint that her cooker was damaged while the landlord fitted her new kitchen.

5 June 2024 The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint. 3 July 2024 The landlord issued a stage 1 response in which it stated: It had spoken with its staff and looked at the repair logs. It apologised for the resident’s time and trouble in raising the complaint, and offered to replace the cooker. It also offered £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused (broken down as £75 for failure to follow policy, £100 for the inconvenience caused and £75 for delay in providing a response).

Between 30 July 2024 and 29 August 2024 The resident asked to escalate her complaint through several emails, saying that she had not yet received the cooker, and the landlord had not addressed issues with the kitchen installation which she had previously raised. These included: The cooker being raised on a slab which she felt to be unsafe The kitchen units being ‘wobbly’ The kitchen flooring not being level. 3 September 2024 The landlord acknowledged the escalation request. 1 October 2024 The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response summarised as follows: Its surveyor had visited the property and confirmed the kitchen installation was not up to standard.

It apologised for this and said it would schedule in a kitchen replacement by 5 October 2024. It apologised that it had not yet ordered or installed the cooker due to internal miscommunication. It would do so by 14 October 2024. As the landlord was considering the resident’s application to move at the time, there was further delay. It increased the offer of compensation to a total of £350 (£100 for ongoing delays and miscommunication, £150 for distress and inconvenience caused, and £100 for failing to meet commitments regarding the cooker replacement).

29 October 2024 The resident referred the matter to this Service. 15 January 2025 The landlord refixed the kitchen units. 27 October 2025 The landlord confirmed with us the cooker has not yet been installed and the kitchen replacement had not progressed further. The resident had started a disrepair case which was at the pre-action stage. 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 The handling of kitchen replacement works Finding Maladministration The landlord carried out kitchen replacement works in October 2023. Records show the resident had expressed dissatisfaction about the kitchen worktops ‘being higher than the appliances’ as of 3 November 2023. From November 2023 to February 2024, while works were ongoing, she also expressed dissatisfaction about several other aspects of the kitchen works, including the flooring being uneven, the base unit being unstable and the new windowsill not fitting her blinds.

The progress of the kitchen refit was interrupted several times. Records show on at least one occasion the resident asked the landlord to discontinue as she believed contractors were ‘bodging’ the job. On another occasion she reported the contractors accessed her home without her permission (this is subject to a separate complaint). The evidence indicates that that this may have contributed to inevitable delays in completing the work to a satisfactory standard, especially regarding the flooring.

The landlord noted internally on 6 November 2023 that it had set the worktops at a specific height to allow airflow above the appliances to allow heat to escape as a fire safety measure. It stated it would adjust the feet of the cooker to make it level with the worktops as per standard practice. It also stated it was following a layout for the refit works which the resident had previously agreed to. It is unclear from the records if the landlord communicated the above clearly to the resident at the time.

It did not refer to this explanation again later throughout its internal complaints process. We consider the landlord should have been more transparent with this and provided this explanation of its intentions to help mitigate some of the resident’s concerns. Several months passed before the resident contacted the landlord again on 30 May 2024 to complain that the cooker was damaged during the refitting works and was being ‘stabilised with a piece of wood’ with a leg broken.

There is no record that the landlord requested photo evidence of the damage to the cooker or carried out a further inspection. The landlord should have taken the time to thoroughly understand the resident’s concerns, namely that the cooker’s legs were extended in order to fit with the height of the worktops, but the extension was ‘so high that it snapped off’. The worktop height lies at the heart of this complaint and the landlord should have examined this in more detail. Despite the lack of evidence that the cooker was damaged during the kitchen refit works, at stage 1 the landlord offered to purchase and install a new cooker, which was reasonable.

The resident had already accepted this offer at stage 1. However the installation did not go ahead and this became part of the complaint at stage 2. The landlord explained at stage 2 the cooker had not been installed due to internal miscommunication and set a deadline for installation for October 2024, which it subsequently failed to meet. We understand from both parties that the cooker has still not been replaced a year on from the stage 2 response. While we understand the landlord has been trying to resolve multiple simultaneous complaints from the resident, which may have made communication more difficult, it is not acceptable that a year has passed without it fulfilling its prior commitments, or finding an alternative solution.

The resident has been left without a fully functional cooker for more than a year. This has caused distress and inconvenience. This impact is more significant in view of the vulnerabilities in the resident’s household, specifically, her two autistic children which the landlord was aware of. The resident has told us she needed to prepare different foods for her two autistic children and was put to more time and trouble preparing food due to the cooker not being fully functional.

Regarding other aspects of the kitchen refit, including the flooring and the kitchen units, the landlord apologised for the work not being ‘carried out to an acceptable standard’ and arranged for a supervisor to attend and re-inspect by October 2024. Records show a surveyor conducted a site visit in early December 2024 and the landlord carried out works to fix the kitchen units in mid-January 2025. It is unclear what caused the delay to the site visit. It is also unclear if the flooring issues have been resolved, although records show the resident has not further referred to the flooring since September 2024.

Overall the evidence shows the landlord’s communication with the resident over the cooker issues was poor. It delayed in taking action to resolve the issues. It did not have sufficient oversight on all the kitchen refit issues. It did not make sufficient effort to gather enough information about the extent and nature of the issues to enable identifying the appropriate next steps. It delayed in taking action over the flooring and kitchen units although we accept the landlord has faced challenges in making mutually agreeable appointments with the resident.

The landlord has offered a total of £350 at stage 2 to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused including the distress due to failure to meet the commitments it made at stage 1. Given the resident had experienced those issues for about 5 months at the time, this would have been appropriate remedy. However we understand the cooker issues have persisted for a year and the landlord still have not met its commitments at stage 2, or found an alternative solution.

In light of this we find maladministration in how the landlord has handled the kitchen replacement issues. Complaint The complaint handling Finding Service failure The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the worktop height and lack of drawer space in her kitchen as of November 2023 while the works were ongoing. Around the same time she also reported dissatisfaction multiple times over other aspects of the refit works such as a socket missing and the flooring being uneven.

In January 2024 she again voiced her dissatisfaction with the cooker being ‘wobbly’, the kitchen units being unstable and the kitchen windowsill not being the right size for her. It was not until 30 May 2024 (after a break in the record of communications) that the landlord formally accepted the resident’s complaint about the cooker being damaged and not the right height. She stated at the time she was ‘adding this onto the previous complaint’. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint in early June 2024 but only addressed the cooker, not the other issues.

The evidence suggests the landlord delayed in acknowledging some of the resident’s complaint. Additionally the landlord should have held a discussion with the resident at stage 1 to identify the scope of her complaint more comprehensively. This might have helped it to resolve these issues sooner. The resident also asked to escalate her complaint as early as 30 July 2024 but this was not acknowledged until 3 September 2024. There was an issue with delays in acknowledging the resident’s escalation request.

We understand the resident was bringing multiple complaints and reporting multiple issues in different emails at the same time, which added to the difficulty in complaint handling. However it was still the landlord’s obligation to address the resident’s complaints comprehensively and in a timely manner. Overall we find service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling due to the repeated delays in acknowledging the resident’s complaint and escalation request, as well as a lack of comprehensive understanding of what the resident’s complaint was about.

What we have not looked at The resident has raised other complaints which we have dealt with/will deal with in separate investigations. These are in relation to: Repairs to the bathroom (involving a cracked bathtub, a faulty shower, fluctuating water temperatures). Although the landlord has also responded to this issue at stage 2 of the present complaint, we will not consider these issues further as they have already been investigated under a separate complaint (202332610). The landlord’s contractors accessing the property without her permission.

These issues will be considered under a separate complaint (202346045). Learning Communication and record-keeping Our findings indicated the landlord did not have a comprehensive oversight of all the issues the resident complained about. Staff were unable to put together the resident’s information from previous email records and assess the situation comprehensively, contributing to subsequent poor communication. The landlord also experienced internal miscommunication, which contributed to delays in resolving the cooker issues.

In this case, the resident’s frustration and dissatisfaction might have been avoided if the landlord had: conducted a comprehensive review of the issues raised by the resident in previous communications. conducted a meeting/discussion with the resident early on to gather information and fill in gaps in the records. formally acknowledged the reported vulnerabilities and needs of the resident’s children.