Stonewater Limited — case 202409485

Decision Case ID 202409485 Decision type Investigation Landlord Stonewater Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 31 March 2026 Background Following a kitchen refit, the resident reported that water was coming through the floor into the hallway. Whilst waiting for the landlord to identify the source of the leak, she found that the washing machine pipe had been incorrectly fitted. The kitchen contractors fixed the pipe, but she requested that the damaged flooring be replaced.

What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Reports of a leak, including subsequent damage to the hallway flooring. Complaint. Our decision (determination) We have found that: The landlord made an offer of reasonable redress which resolved the resident’s complaint about the leak and subsequent damage to the hallway flooring. There was reasonable redress offered for the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We have made a recommendation for the landlord.

Summary of reasons The landlord failed to replace the hallway flooring within the expected timeframes. It also failed to call-back the resident when requested. However, it has offered redress proportionate to the failings identified. The landlord failed to respond to the complaint within the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code. It did offer redress proportionate to the delay. 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. Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations The landlord is recommended to pay the resident £885 in compensation as stated in its stage 2 response, if this has not already been paid. Our findings of reasonable redress is based on the compensation being paid. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 27 February 2024 The resident complained to the landlord as she had not received call-backs following her reports of a leak and damage to her flooring.

She was also unhappy with the investigation of the leak. To resolve her complaint, she requested that the flooring be replaced. 15 March 2024 The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It acknowledged that there were significant delays in contacting her and initiating repair work. It said it would replace the hallway flooring and offered £100 compensation for the inconvenience. 26 March 2024 The resident escalated her complaint as she was unhappy with the compensation offered and did not know when the flooring repairs would be completed.

She also requested a date for when the kitchen flooring would be replaced. 10 April to 8 May 2024 The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 10 April. On 8 May, it issued its stage 2 response and apologised for the length of time taken to resolve the flooring issues. It said the flooring renewal had been completed, but it was aware of issues with the standard so would be arranging for follow up works. It also increased its compensation offer to £885, which included £25 for complaint handling.

Referral to the Ombudsman The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she felt that the ongoing communication with the landlord impacted her mental health and caused her distress. 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 reports of a leak, including subsequent damage to the hallway flooring Finding Reasonable redress The resident reported an impact to their mental health from the communication issues with the landlord. This Service is unable to determine liability or award damages for any impact to health because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so; this would be better suited for a court to decide upon. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced because of the landlord’s handling of the repair.

The landlord’s repair policy says that emergency repairs will be responded to within a maximum of 24 hours and non-emergency repairs within a maximum of 28 days. The resident reported the leak to the landlord on 22 February 2024. The landlord did attend within the expected timeframe for emergencies, but a CCTV inspection was needed which could take up to 10 days. During this time, the resident requested a call-back which she did not receive. On 29 February, the resident asked the landlord to cancel the CCTV inspection as the leak had been fixed by the kitchen contractors.

Once the leak was fixed, the hallway flooring should have been replaced within 28 days as a non-emergency repair. However, it took the landlord a total of 40 working days to do this. The landlord failed to comply with the repair timeframes set out in its policy for non-emergency repairs. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.

In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging and apologising for the missed call-back and repair delays experienced by the resident. It sought to put things right by offering compensation of £860 for the delays, inconvenience and service failures, which shows it considered the impact to the resident.

The landlord also demonstrated learning through team restructuring, staff increases and internal learning sessions. Overall, we consider the landlord’s compensation offer to be proportionate to the failings identified. It was also in line with its own policy and our remedies guidance where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Reasonable redress The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) March 2022 which applied at the time of this complaint, required landlords to respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.

The landlord has provided its complaint policy at the time which had a 10 day target to respond at both stages. The landlord’s complaint policy was updated in May 2024 but for the purposes of this investigation, we have relied on the policy which was in place when the initial complaint was logged. The landlord took 13 days to respond at stage 1 and 29 days to respond at stage 2. The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging and apologising for the delay in responding to the complaint.

It sought to put things right by offering compensation of £25 for the complaint handling delays. We consider this to be proportionate for the short delay in responding to the complaint. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it did not clearly set out that its response only related to the hallway flooring. The resident had also requested an update about the kitchen flooring when she escalated her complaint, so it would have been helpful if the landlord had included this within its response.

However, we understand the kitchen flooring issue was dealt with later as a separate complaint and the resident had a response on this issue. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication Overall, we found no concerns about the landlord’s record keeping and communication during this investigation. The landlord also acknowledged when it had got things wrong and implemented steps towards learning and future improvements. We did note a duplicated paragraph within the landlord’s final response letter.

More robust quality assurance checks can help to avoid similar errors in the future.