Our Business Plan 2026-27 consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Stonewater Limited (202317276)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317276

Stonewater Limited

8 August 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 birds living in the property’s walls and associated repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, which is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. The resident contacted us on 11 August 2023 to say that she had complained to her landlord on 22 June 2023 about its failure to deal with birds living in an internal wall at the property. The landlord said it would respond by 8 August 2023, but it had not done so. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 10 October 2023. It apologised for the delay and acknowledged its poor complaint handling. The landlord said it had arranged an appointment with a pest control subcontractor for 11 October 2023. A surveyor would then visit and order any necessary follow-on works. The landlord offered the resident £650 compensation, to recognise the adverse effect of complaint handling delays, delays in arranging pest control, and poor communication.
  3. The resident made a second complaint to the landlord on 8 March 2024, as the landlord had not completed remedial works to the brickwork and a hole where the birds were entering.The resident complained of poor communication, and that the landlord had not provided updates as promised.
  4. The landlord has provided us with copies of 2 responses to the complaint. The first, dated 15 April 2024, was described as a “compensation review”. The landlord said it had raised a job for the remedial works on 21 January 2024. It noted that the resident chased for an update on 5 occasions and that the pest control subcontractor had not contacted her. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its communication failings. The landlord offered the resident £375 compensation. A separate response, dated 16 April 2024, referred to a complaint about overgrown vegetation and a boundary fence, but provided the same summary of events and conclusions relating to the complaint about pests as the response dated 15 April 2024. The response of 16 April 2024 offered £275 compensation.
  5. On 30 April 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said she had not been contacted by any of the landlord’s contractors despite it raising a new works order on 9 April 2024. The landlord provided a final complaint response at stage 2 of its complaints process on 23 May 2024. It noted that it had raised an order for the remedial works on 21 January 2024, but its contractors had not completed any works until March 2024, when the pest control team placed a temporary mesh over the hole where the birds were entering the property. The landlord raised an order on 9 April 2024 to repair the access hole, but the contractor had sent the wrong operative to the resident’s home and the works had not been completed. The landlord said that the contractor had attended on 20 May 2024 and completed the outstanding works. It offered the resident £475 compensation.
  6. After the final complaint response, the resident contacted us on 24 May 2024. She said that the contractor had not completed any works at the visit on 20 May 2024 and that the issue was not resolved. The resident later told us that the landlord had erected scaffolding at the property on 2 July 2024, without informing her beforehand, and completed the repair. The contractor confirmed to the landlord on 3 July 2024 that all works had been completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. We have limited the scope of our investigation to the events that have happened since 10 October 2023, which was the date of the landlord’s first stage 1 complaint response to the resident. This is because the landlord investigated events before that date as part of the complaint made by the resident on 22 June 2023. There is no evidence that the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint after the stage 1 response. It would not be fair for the Ombudsman to make findings about events before that date, as the landlord did not have an opportunity to respond at stage 2 of its complaints process.
  2. The resident made a new complaint, which is the subject of our investigation, on 8 March 2024. The landlord treated this as a new complaint, which was reasonable given the length of time that had passed since its stage 1 response to the initial complaint. Our investigation has considered the overall length of time that the issue was unresolved when considering the level of redress offered by the landlord in its final complaint response.

Presence of birds and repairs

  1. The landlord has provided a copy of its Pest Management Policy. We note this is dated 20 June 2024, which is after its final complaint response. For the purpose of our investigation, we have assumed that it is not significantly different from the policy in place at the time. The Pest Management Policy states that where birds were present within a property but have left the nest, the landlord can fill holes to prevent reoccurrence, depending on the species. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy says that it will complete non-emergency repairs within 28 calendar days from the customer’s first notification.
  2. The landlord has told us that when a customer reports pests in their property, it will raise a job with its pest control contractor, who will contact the resident to arrange an appointment. Pest control will produce a report, including any recommended remedial works, which will be raised by the landlord’s contractor once it has received confirmation from pest control that the pests are no longer present.
  3. The landlord’s records from 20 October 2023 show that its pest control subcontractor completed proofing works to prevent bird access on or around that date. A job was raised for remedial works on 21 January 2024, which was 93 calendar days after the pest control subcontractor completed the temporary repair. The landlord has not explained this delay, and in the absence of further evidence, we cannot conclude that the timeframe for raising the order for permanent works was reasonable.
  4. The contractor emailed the landlord on 29 January 2024 and 13 February 2024 requesting confirmation that the pest control team had removed the pests and installed a temporary cover. It also queried whether this was a roofing job or a brickwork issue. The landlord did not respond. On 5 March 2024, the contractor closed the job raised for remedial works, as it had not received confirmation that the pest control works had been completed. The landlord’s failure to respond to its contractor meant that the works were delayed, causing further, avoidable inconvenience to the resident.
  5. The resident made 4 attempts to contact the landlord to chase the repair, on 14, 16, 22 and 27 February 2024. The landlord did not respond. Its next contact with her was to acknowledge her formal complaint on 15 March 2024. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. Its failure to respond and to proactively provide updates increased her frustration and ultimately led to the formal complaint. In its stage 1 complaint response of 15 April 2024, it acknowledged this and offered a total of £300 compensation for the adverse effect of its repairs handling, plus £75 compensation to recognise its poor complaints handling. The landlord did make appropriate efforts in the stage 1 complaint response to provide redress to the resident for the failings identified up to that point.
  6. It took the landlord a month to raise a new works order on 9 April 2024 for the repairs after it received the resident’s stage 1 complaint. The landlord has not explained this delay, which in our view was unreasonable. The landlord should not wait until the deadline for providing a complaint response to take action to address the issues that are the subject of the complaint. Complaints should be reviewed promptly so that landlords can take any necessary action to put things right and avoid further delays and additional service failures.
  7. After the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 15 April 2024, it did not contact the resident to organise the repair, despite her chasing on 25 April 2024. Having acknowledged and apologised for its poor communication, the landlord failed to improve its service. This undermined the resident’s faith in the complaints process and led her to escalate her complaint on 30 April 2024.
  8. The landlord contacted its contractor for an update on 8 and 15 May 2024 and a job was booked for 20 May 2024 to complete the works. The landlord did take proactive steps after the complaint escalation to work with its contractor to progress the repair. The landlord’s repairs records clearly stated that 2 men with a ladder were required for the appointment on 20 May 2024, but only one man attended and no works were completed. The stage 2 complaint response of 23 May 2024 then erroneously stated that all works had been completed at that visit. The landlord should have made enquiries with its contractor before sending the stage 2 response and there is no evidence that it did so. The resident was put to further time and trouble to contact us to report the ongoing issues, and to pursue the repair with the landlord.
  9. Once it became aware that the works were not completed, the evidence shows that the landlord did not chase its contractor for an update until 12 June 2024. In our view, this was unreasonable given the length of time that the works had been outstanding, and because completion of the works formed part of the landlord’s complaint resolution. It sent a second chaser on 17 June 2024, and the contractor said the works were rebooked for 24 June 2024, but they were not completed until 2 July 2024. The landlord contacted its contractor on 3 July 2024, when it confirmed the works were completed, but it does not appear that the landlord was aware of the additional delay. The landlord failed to communicate appropriately with its contractor to make sure the works were completed.
  10. The resident has told us that she was frustrated that at the repair visit on 2 July 2024, it only took 90 minutes to complete the repair, despite months of chasing. The landlord should have completed a permanent repair within 28 calendar days of the pest control team attending to complete temporary proofing works on or around 20 October 2023. This would have been by 17 November 2023. As the works were completed on 2 July 2024, there was an unexplained and, in our view avoidable, delay of 228 calendar days in the landlord completing the permanent repair.
  11. In its complaint responses, the landlord accepted that there had been unreasonable delays and poor communication with both the resident and its contractor. It apologised and offered compensation of £300 at stage 1 and £450 at stage 2 in respect of the repairs issues.
  12. The Ombudsman would have made a finding of reasonable redress had the works been completed by the date of the final complaint response. We would consider £750 a reasonable sum, in line with the range set out in our remedies guidance, to recognise the adverse effect on a resident of unreasonable delays in completing repairs of this nature. However, the landlord failed to identify that the repairs were still outstanding in its complaint response, and these were not completed for another 40 calendar days. The Ombudsman therefore considers it appropriate to order an apology and additional compensation for the adverse effect on the resident of the additional delay, the time and trouble she was put to, and the stress and inconvenience caused.
  13. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of birds living in the property’s walls and the associated repairs. Its communication with both the resident and its contractor was poor, and it failed to follow up to make sure repairs were completed within a reasonable time. The landlord is ordered to apologise to and pay the resident an additional £150 compensation, to reflect the further delays after the date of its final complaint response. This amount falls within the range set out in our remedies guidance to recognise occasions where the landlord’s service failure has adversely affected a resident. It is also recommended that the landlord review its processes to make sure that works orders are raised in a timely manner and queries from its contractor are responded to promptly.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s Complaints, Compliments and Comments Policy in use at the time of the complaint said it would acknowledge complaints and complaint escalations within 2 working days. At stage 1, it aimed to provide a response within 10 working days unless “exceptional circumstances” meant that it required additional time, in which case it would keep the resident updated. At stage 2, it aimed to respond within 10 working days and would contact the resident to agree any extension beyond that timeframe. The landlord issued an updated complaints policy on 1 May 2024 to align with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. At stage 1, it took the landlord 17 working days to acknowledge the resident’s complaint for a second time, which was 15 working days more than its published timescale. As a result, it took the landlord 25 working days to provide a stage 1 complaint response, which is more than double the length of time described in its own complaints policy and the Code.
  3. According to the information sent to us, the landlord provided 2 stage 1 complaint responses to the resident, dated 15 and 16 April 2024. This was no doubt confusing for the resident, although it appears to have happened in error. Both responses include the same complaint reference number, but the response of 15 April 2024 is described as a “compensation review” and the response of 16 April 2024 referred to issues that were not the subject of the resident’s complaint, including complaints about a boundary fence and overgrown vegetation. Although the consideration of the complaint about the access point repairs was materially the same, the two responses also offered different amounts of compensation. At stage 2, the complaint response also contained inaccurate information, as the repairs were not yet completed.
  4. We urge the landlord to take care to make sure that its responses are accurate. Its failure to provide timely and accurate complaint responses undermined the resident’s trust and confidence in the complaints process and called into question the consistency of its approach to calculating compensation. The landlord’s policies do not appear to provide for a “compensation review” and describing the complaint response of 15 April 2025 in this way may have led the resident to believe it was associated with her previous complaint. The landlord should be clear about which complaint a response relates to and what stage the complaint is at. Failure to do so can delay the complaint’s progress through the internal complaint stages and leave residents confused about how to escalate their concerns.
  5. At stage 1, the landlord offered £75 for the delay in providing its complaint response. At stage 2, it offered an additional £25 for the delay in escalating to stage 2, although we have not seen any evidence of delays in its complaints handling at stage 2. The landlord has acknowledged some of its complaint handling errors and provided some redress. In our view, additional redress is appropriate to recognise the adverse effect on the resident of the errors contained in its stage 2 response, which meant that she had to contact us to pursue her concerns and get the issues resolved.
  6. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord is ordered to apologise to and pay the resident an additional £100 compensation to recognise the time and trouble she took to pursue her complaint after the final response, and the stress and inconvenience caused. This amount falls within the range set out in our remedies guidance to recognise occasions where the landlord’s service failure has adversely affected a resident. We also recommend that the landlord reviews its complaints handling processes, to make sure it acknowledges complaints in a timely manner and that its responses contain clear and accurate information.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of birds living in the property’s walls and associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £150 additional compensation to recognise the stress and inconvenience she experienced because of the additional delays following the landlord’s final complaint response.
    3. Pay the resident £100 additional compensation to recognise the time and trouble the resident was put to in order to pursue her complaint after the landlord’s final complaint response, and the stress and inconvenience caused.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review its repairs procedures to make sure it has effective processes in place to raise works orders in a timely manner, and to respond promptly to queries from its contractors.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord review its complaints handling procedures to make sure that complaints are acknowledged in a timely manner, and that complaint responses contain clear and accurate information about the stage of the complaint and the actions taken by the landlord and/or its contractors.