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

Take part in the consultation

Stonewater Limited (202337772)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337772

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 reports of issues following a kitchen replacement.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord at the property since 5 July 2021. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
  2. On 3 October 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She said that she had recently received a kitchen replacement and was not happy because:
    1. The decorators had done a “shocking job” and had not finished. However, they had left saying they had to move onto the next job
    2. They had also broken her lamps and got paint on her new sofa and worktops
    3. The tiling was unprofessional
    4. The contractor had stopped replying to her texts
  3. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 10 October 2023 and provided a stage 1 complaint response on 31 October 2023. It said that:
    1. It apologised that the contractor had not replied to some of her texts
    2. It had arranged to meet the contractor and resident at the property on 7 November 2023 during which it would discuss the decoration and damaged items
    3. The resident had asked it to replace the kitchen flooring because the contractor had cut it too short. It confirmed that it would replace the flooring and would discuss this further at the meeting
    4. It offered £500 compensation comprising:
      1. £100 for poor communication
      2. £100 for quality of work
      3. £300 towards any damages
  4. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 9 November 2023 because she was unhappy with the offer of compensation and quality of work completed. The landlord acknowledged receipt of this on 17 November 2023 and provided a stage 2 complaint response on 18 December 2023. It said that:
    1. It accepted that the quality of the work carried out was of a poor standard. It apologised for the distress this had caused
    2. It apologised that the contractors had broken one of her lamps and spilt paint on her sofa. However, this was not covered by its compensation policy and it usually asked residents to claim from their home insurance
    3. It had reviewed the offer of compensation made at stage 1 of the complaints process and increased this to £550 comprising:
      1. £100 for failure to respond within timescales
      2. £350 for the impact of the complaint
      3. £100 for service failures
    4. It also offered a further £500 compensation towards the cost of cleaning and replacement of damaged items. It therefore offered a total of £1,050 compensation

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Scheme states that we will not investigate complaints which in our opinion “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.” This means it is not within our authority or expertise to determine cause, liability, or negligence for damage to the resident’s possessions. However, we can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.

Issues following kitchen replacement

  1. We have seen no evidence that the resident raised the issues with the landlord prior to her complaint. Following this the landlord visited the property within 20 days which was a reasonable action to take. After this it arranged to meet the contractor and resident onsite when it gave the contractor instructions to:
    1. Replace the tiles in the kitchen, apart from behind the fridge
    2. Repaint the ceiling in black or blue
  2. We have seen no evidence regarding the advice the landlord gave the resident at the meeting about the damaged belongings or the kitchen floor. It would have been good practice for the landlord to provide an update by email or letter, so that she was fully aware of what it had agreed to do.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy says that where damage to personal belongings has occurred due to alleged negligence on its behalf it should advise the resident to submit a claim through their own contents insurance. Any policy excess amount paid will be recovered as part of the claim. If the resident does not have contents insurance and the damaged goods are available for inspection, then a claim can be submitted to the landlord which will be passed onto its insurers. It will only pay compensation when advised by its insurers that it is liable.
  4. The landlord initially offered the resident £300 to pay for the damaged lamp and to clean the sofa. There is no evidence that the landlord advised the resident to claim on her own insurance until stage 2 of the complaints process when it also increased this offer to £500. Although the landlord did not follow its procedure and refer the matter to its insurance company if the resident did not have home insurance, we consider that this was a reasonable offer in the circumstances. Therefore, we do not consider that it caused the resident detriment on this occasion.
  5. In summary, the landlord acknowledged that there were issues following it providing a replacement kitchen. It apologised for these and arranged for contractors to repaint, replace the flooring, and retile in visible areas within a reasonable timeframe. It also offered £550 compensation to reflect the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience this caused, and a further £500 for damaged belongings which the resident accepted. We have also seen proof that the landlord has paid this to her. We therefore consider the remedies offered to be reasonable redress in the circumstances of the case. As we have been unable to contact the resident for a recent update, we recommend that the landlord contacts her to ensure that all the work was completed satisfactorily.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of reports of issues following a kitchen replacement.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should contact the resident to make sure that it satisfactorily completed all the work offered:
    1. Floor replacement
    2. Tile replacement
    3. Repainting
  2. The landlord should ensure that all staff are aware of its policy regarding referring claims for damaged belongings to its insurers.