Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Stonewater Limited (202403427)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403427

Stonewater Limited

29 September 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Concerns about grounds maintenance.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
  2. The landlord has provided evidence which shows the resident contacted it in April 2023 with concerns about the grounds maintenance service in her area.
  3. On 23 May 2023, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said its ground maintenance contractor had still not attended. It provided its stage 1 response on 7 June 2023, confirming it would raise the issue with its contractor.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 20 June 2023. She stated the grounds maintenance had still not been completed. She also requested a refund of her grounds maintenance service charge.
  5. On 31 July 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It apologised that no grounds maintenance work had been carried out and set out the steps it planned to take to resolve this. It said it had arranged a credit of service charges and offered £200 compensation to the resident, made up of £100 for poor communication and £100 in recognition of the inconvenience she had experienced.
  6. The resident made a further complaint to the landlord on 18 December 2023. She said she had made “tireless contact”, but its ground maintenance contractor had still not attended to her area.
  7. The landlord logged the resident’s concerns as a new complaint. On 7 February 2024, it provided its stage 1 response. It said it had asked the Area Manager to contact the resident with an update about the overdue grounds maintenance. It offered £200 compensation to the resident, made up of £75 for service failures including lack of communication and failure to follow its timescales, £75 for missed appointments, and £50 for inconvenience, time, and trouble.
  8. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 8 February 2024. She said she had received no contact from the Area Manager, and her area had still only received one grounds maintenance visit since September 2022. She said the compensation offered by the landlord had not taken into consideration the money she had paid over a period of 16 months to keep the area tidy.
  9. On 26 March 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said the standard of the grounds maintenance service in the resident’s area appeared to be acceptable. It stated there had been a miscommunication regarding the Area Manager, who had been asked to carry out a site visit rather than to personally contact the resident. It made a revised compensation offer of £325, made up of:
    1. £125 for service failures, including lack of communication and failure to follow its timescales.
    2. £75 for missed appointments.
    3. £75 in recognition of the inconvenience the resident had experienced.
    4. £50 for complaint handling failures.

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. On 9 May 2024, the landlord offered a further £350 compensation to the resident, made up of £275 to reimburse the cost incurred by the resident for a gardener and £75 in recognition of the inconvenience she had experienced.
  2. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 30 May 2024. She said trying to deal with the landlord’s “horrific” complaints process had caused her a lot of stress. She asked us to consider a refund of service charges for the full period her area had been without a grounds maintenance service.
  3. On 3 June 2024, the landlord provided a further stage 1 response. It stated it had recognised that its service had “fallen short” and outlined the steps it planned to take to prevent a re-occurrence of the same issues. It also offered a further £100 compensation to the resident for service failures including poor communication.
  4. On 24 October 2024, the landlord contacted the resident stating it had carried out a review of her case while it was preparing evidence to provide to the Ombudsman. It offered a further £225 compensation, made up of:
    1. £50 for poor complaint handling.
    2. £50 for a lack of detail in its complaint responses.
    3. £25 for failure to follow its process.
    4. £100 for time, trouble, and inconvenience.
  5. During contact with us in September 2025, the resident said that grounds maintenance was now being carried out as scheduled. As an outcome, she told us she would like the landlord to complete more estate inspections. In addition, she asked us to review how the landlord manages complaints.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident said she had been reporting issues to the landlord relating to grounds maintenance for several years. However, we encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner to give landlords a fair opportunity to investigate and address issues while they remain ‘live’. This is important because relevant evidence that may have existed at the time may no longer be available. Accordingly, our investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns from May 2022, covering the 12-month period prior to the first complaint being raised.
  2. During her complaint, and in her contact with us, the resident requested a refund of service charges. The reasonableness of service charges and liability for them can only be determined through a binding decision by a court or tribunal, such as the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), or FTT. The resident may wish to contact the FTT if she wishes to pursue a refund or formally challenge the service charges incurred. It is not our role to assess the quality of grounds maintenance or the amount charged for such works, but rather to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns. We will determine whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, considering its own policies and procedures.

Grounds maintenance

  1. The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord will “provide, manage, and administer” communal landscaping services.
  2. The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy states it will “proactively monitor” the quality of its neighbourhoods through regular inspections. It says when customers report estate services issues, it will triage the report and may ask for photos. If a service failure is identified, the issue will be reported directly to the contractor and to its contract managers.
  3. The landlord’s grounds maintenance schedule of work states it will:
    1. Carry out grass cutting on a fortnightly basis from March to October.
    2. Maintain hedges, shrubs and rosebushes from March to September.
    3. Carry out weed, algae and moss control from March to August.
  4. The landlord’s estate services photobook says it will inspect services provided and give a rating from A to D, A being “excellent” and D being “very poor”. It states when standards fall to a C or D, it will review this with the contractor and ask them to put measures in place to improve the service.
  5. On 3 October 2022, the landlord completed an inspection of the resident’s area and rated the grounds maintenance “very poor”. This should have prompted follow-up action from the landlord in line with its policies and procedures. However, there is no evidence that the landlord reviewed the poor rating with its contractor or took steps to ensure standards improved. This was a missed opportunity to address the issues at an early stage.
  6. On 25 April 2023, the resident reported the communal grass was very high and that no grounds maintenance visits had taken place for several months. On 29 May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again and referred to the complaint she had raised on 23 May 2023. She said that no visits had taken place since September 2022, leading to overgrown grass and shrubs encroaching on the communal path which she used to access her property. She said she had sent photos as requested and was told to “be patient” but received no further response. This suggests the landlord took some steps to investigate, but due to unclear records, it is not possible to confirm what follow-up action, if any, was taken.
  7. In its stage 1 response on 7 June 2023, the landlord said its surveyor was aware of the issues and that these would be raised with the grounds maintenance contractor. While this approach was consistent with its policy, there is no evidence it followed through or progressed the resident’s concerns. This was a missed an opportunity to address the issues early and contributed to the resident’s decision to escalate her complaint on 20 June 2023.
  8. In its stage 2 response on 31 July 2023, the landlord explained that when a new contractor had taken over its grounds maintenance service, the resident’s area had not been included in the contract. It said to address this, a surveyor had visited the site on 24 July 2023 to assess the works needed to bring the area up to the required standard. It stated that once these works were completed, the contractor would then take responsibility for ongoing maintenance. It also said it had arranged a credit of service charges for the period from 3 April to 26 July 2023 and offered compensation. These actions were appropriate and showed the landlord taking steps to put things right. However, the delay in identifying the oversight in the contract and providing clear updates meant the resident experienced avoidable frustration and inconvenience.
  9. Between 5 September and 8 November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord on 6 occasions to request updates about the grounds maintenance. She explained during the summer period, her area had received only one visit from its subcontractor, and as a result, she had paid a gardener to maintain the communal land outside her property. This was likely disappointing for the resident given the commitments set out in the landlord’s stage 2 response (assessed below as part of the landlord’s complaint handling). It also added to her time and effort in trying to get the issues resolved.
  10. On 13 November 2023, the landlord responded to the resident. It advised that a one-off visit had been carried out in August 2023 and confirmed that it had varied the contract to ensure her area was included in the ongoing grounds maintenance schedule. The landlord also said it had requested attendance records from its contractor and would share this information with the resident once received. In addition, it committed to carrying out monthly estate inspections to “get back on top of” the issues in the resident’s area. However, there is no evidence that the landlord subsequently provided the resident with any further updates or a clear plan of action setting out when she could expect its contractor to attend. This was unreasonable given the concerns she had already raised and left the resident with no reassurance that her area would be properly maintained. This led to her making a further complaint to the landlord on 18 December 2023.
  11. The landlord has provided evidence showing that its contractor attended the resident’s area fortnightly between 11 January and 22 February 2024. Records indicate that on each visit, litter and hard standings were cleared, but the grass was not cut. This was consistent with the landlord’s schedule of works, which states that grass cutting takes place between March and October. On 29 February 2024, the contractor’s Area Supervisor also carried out an inspection of the site, which was a positive step. The inspection identified only “minor encroachment” of hedges and shrubs onto pathways and lawns, along with some low-level weeds. In an email to the landlord on 4 March 2024, the contractor reported that the grounds maintenance standard was not a “cause for concern”. This was further supported by monthly estate inspections which were completed by the landlord between December 2023 and February 2024, with the grounds maintenance being rated as “satisfactory” on each occasion.
  12. While these records provided some assurance that grounds maintenance was taking place, the findings and feedback were not proactively shared with the resident (assessed below as part of the landlord’s complaint handling).In its stage 2 response on 26 March 2024, the landlord explained it had reviewed its contractor’s records against the schedule of expected works and concluded that the grounds maintenance service in the resident’s area met an acceptable standard. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the professional competence of its contractors when making such assessments. However, given the apparent discrepancy between the contractor’s records and the information the resident had shared in her complaint and escalation request, it would have been good practice for the landlord to speak directly with the resident. Doing so would have allowed the landlord to clarify the resident’s concerns and better understand her experience of the service, which may have enabled it to resolve the complaint at the time of its final response.
  13. Between 2 April and 26 April 2024, the resident contacted the landlord on a further 4 occasions, explaining that her area was still not receiving regular grounds maintenance and she had not seen anyone on site since August 2023. This caused the resident considerable time and effort in trying to get the issues resolved. On 29 April 2024, the landlord responded and agreed to raise a new stage 1 complaint. It also confirmed it would review the resident’s request for reimbursement of the costs she had incurred in paying a gardener to maintain the communal land, which was a positive step.
  14. On 8 May 2024, the resident informed the landlord that its grounds maintenance contractor had attended her area and carried out the work to a good standard. On 9 May 2024, the landlord said it had identified a small area of land directly outside the resident’s property which had not been originally included on the contractor’s maintenance schedule. The landlord offered further compensation to address this including £275 to reimburse the cost incurred by the resident for a gardener. This was reasonable given the landlord had failed to provide a service in line with its contractual obligations.
  15. The records confirm that no estate inspections were completed by the landlord between February and June 2024. Routine inspections are key for identifying and addressing grounds maintenance issues in a timely manner. This gap likely contributed to delays in resolving the resident’s concerns and indicates a lack of oversight of the contractor.
  16. On 3 June 2024, the landlord provided a further stage 1 response. It said it had arranged a meeting with its contractor, and it had instructed them to maintain the land outside of the resident’s property from then onwards. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident experienced any further issues with grounds maintenance after this date. The landlord’s records confirm that monthly estate inspections were completed between June and September 2024, with the grounds maintenance being rated as either “excellent” or “satisfactory” on each occasion, requiring no further follow-up.
  17. The lack of effective communication from the landlord to the resident contributed to its failings. Throughout the timeline of our investigation, it was largely left to the resident to initiate contact and seek updates from the landlord. It should have been more proactive in providing the resident with regular updates. If it had done this, it may have avoided additional time and trouble for the resident.
  18. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will consider compensation under certain circumstances, including a failure in its service. It does not provide any specific details of the awards it will make, but states that failures will be categorised as minor, moderate, or severe. The level of compensation offered will be informed by this categorisation which will be determined by factors such as the duration of the problem, the extent and severity of the service failure, and the impact on the resident.
  19. Throughout the timeline of our investigation, the resident received various service charge refunds for the grounds maintenance charge covering the period from April 2023 (when she first reported the issue) to May 2024 (when she has confirmed the service resumed). This shows the landlord acknowledged the service failure and took steps to address this, which was fair in the circumstances.
  20. The landlord also offered the resident £475 in compensation for the substantive issue across its 4 complaint responses issued between 31 July 2023 to 26 March 2024. It subsequently made an informal offer of £350 on 9 May 2024, followed by a further £100 as part of an additional stage 1 response on 3 June 2024. The resident’s complaint was accepted for investigation by the Ombudsman on 2 October 2024, by which point the landlord had offered a total of £925 in compensation.
  21. On 24 October 2024, the landlord offered the resident an additional £125 compensation for the substantive issue (increasing its total offer to £1,050). This offer was prompted by the Ombudsman’s involvement and therefore, cannot fairly be considered part of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP).
  22. Overall, there were unreasonable and unexplained delays, with regular grounds maintenance taking approximately 13 months to resume in the resident’s area from the time she first raised the issue with the landlord. In its response to the resident’s reports, the landlord showed a lack of ownership of her case and a lack of urgency to resolve her complaint through to completion. Poor communication and record keeping also contributed to its failings.
  23. Throughout the timeline of our investigation, the landlord did acknowledge many of its failings and took steps to put things right for the resident. The landlord’s ultimate offer of compensation was substantial and exceeded the level of award we would expect in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there has been a failure by the landlord in the service it provided which adversely affected the resident. Considering the circumstances of the case, the landlord has provided reasonable redress for the failures identified in this report.

Associated complaint 

  1. The landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process at the time of the resident’s complaints. Its policy stated it would acknowledge complaints within 2 working days and respond within 10 working days at both stages. It said if a response could not be provided within these timescales, the landlord was expected to keep the customer updated, and if an extension beyond 20 working days was required, this should be agreed with the customer.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), which became statutory in April 2024, sets out that complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2. This Service notes that the landlord has since updated its complaints policy to reflect the timescales set out within the Code.
  3. There were delays in the landlord both acknowledging and responding to the resident’s complaints throughout the timeline of its ICP. Across its 4 complaint responses, issued between 23 May 2023 and 26 March 2024, the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaints within its policy timescale of 2 working days on all 4 occasions, resulting in a combined delay of 33 working days. It also failed to respond within the required 10 working days on 2 occasions, leading to a further combined delay of 19 working days. This resulted in the resident frequently chasing the landlord for an update on her complaints, causing her avoidable distress and inconvenience.
  4. The landlord did not effectively monitor the commitments it made in its complaint responses. In its first stage 2 response on 31 July 2023, the landlord stated it would arrange a one-off grounds maintenance visit to tidy the resident’s area, after which its contractor would take responsibility for ongoing maintenance. While the one-off visit was completed, regular maintenance did not resume. This led the resident to raise a further complaint about the same issues 5 months later, in December 2023. The landlord should have tracked the outstanding actions identified in its stage 2 response and kept the resident updated. Is failure to do so contributed to the delays the resident experienced. This was not fair or reasonable and demonstrates a lack of effective complaint handling and follow-through.
  5. The landlord’s complaint responses also failed to fully address the actual issues raised by the resident and showed a lack of thorough investigation. Its second stage 1 response on 7 February 2024 did not refer to its earlier complaint responses or acknowledge where service failures had occurred, which led the resident to escalate her complaint. In its final response on 26 March 2024, it stated that the grounds maintenance service was being carried out to an acceptable standard but did not provide the resident with the information she had specifically requested – namely, details of when visits had taken place and a schedule for future visits. Both responses also failed to address the resident’s request for reimbursement for the gardener she had paid to maintain the area. As a result, the landlord missed opportunities to remedy the substantive issue and improve the landlord-tenant relationship. It consequently failed to use its complaints process as an effective tool to put things right.
  6. In its stage 2 response on 26 March 2024, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint and offered £50 for its complaint handling failures. On 24 October 2024, the landlord offered the resident an additional £100 compensation for complaint handling (increasing its total offer to £150). This shows an attempt by the landlord to address the detriment to the resident and to put things right, which was reasonable. However, given its more substantial compensation offer was 7 months after it had issued its final complaint response and was prompted by the Ombudsman’s involvement, this is not considered proportionate to redress the failings identified in this investigation and cannot fairly be considered part of the landlord’s ICP.
  7. Considering the circumstances of the case, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord’s compensation policy does not provide any details of the awards it will make in the event of a failure in complaint handling. We consider an additional payment of £50 to be appropriate compensation to recognise the landlord’s failure to monitor the commitments it made in its complaint responses. This brings the total compensation the landlord is ordered to pay for complaint handling to £200. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there has been a failure by the landlord in the service it provided which adversely affected the resident. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £150 for complaint handling, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.
  8. In October 2024, the landlord carried out a review of the resident’s case. It appropriately reflected on its own complaint handling and said it had given further support and complaint handling training to its relevant staff. Therefore, no orders or recommendations have been made for training that would duplicate the ongoing work of the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about grounds maintenance.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. This should be written by a senior member of staff.
    2. Pay the resident £200 compensation for the complaint handling failures identified. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £150, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid. This should be paid directly to the resident and must not be offset against any arrears.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £1,050 previously offered for its failures relating to grounds maintenance, if it has not already done so. Our reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this being paid.
  2. To ensure timely identification of service failures and more effective oversight of its contractors, it is recommended that the landlord reviews the frequency of its estate inspections, if it has not done so already.