Stonewater Limited (202325507)

Background

1. The resident’s home is an alms-house leased from the local Council. The landlord took over the lease through a stock transfer from another Housing Association in 2020. The resident complained the landlord had not replied to her requests for it to review its service charges and provide her with information. She also complained about its cleaning service and that it had not replaced her windows.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s requests for it to review its service charges and provide her with information.
   2. Her concerns about the cleaning service.
   3. Her requests for it to replace her windows.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s requests for it to review its service charges and provide her with information.
   2. Her concerns about the cleaning service.
   3. Her requests for it to replace her windows.
   4. The complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord did not follow its policy in administering the residents service charge. It failed to provide timely responses to her queries and requests for information including a breakdown of the service charge.
6. The landlord did not thoroughly investigate or respond to the resident’s concerns about the cleaning service.
7. The landlord consistently failed to keep the resident updated about its plans to replace the windows.
8. The landlord did not meet its policy timescales for acknowledging the complaint and giving a stage 1 response. Its stage 2 response was inadequate and it failed to follow through with the commitments it gave in its complaint responses.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

9. In its correspondence, the landlord says the resident’s service charge is variable. In our view, her tenancy agreement is not explicit that the charge is variable. The landlord may wish to seek specialist advice to assure itself it has defined the service charge correctly and is applying increases in line with the tenancy agreement.
10. Given the landlord’s view the charge is variable, we have assessed its handling of the service charge issues on that basis. We expect landlords to be able to explain what variable service charges are for, how they are calculated and the reasons for any increases.
11. Following the stock transfer in 2020, the resident raised multiple queries about her service charges. The landlord’s responses show it did not answer all her queries and suggest it was not able to give a breakdown of the service charge. While the landlord may not have had all the information needed to answer her queries, it could have asked the previous landlord for any relevant information it needed. We cannot tell from the evidence seen what enquiries the landlord made at the time.
12. The resident continued to ask multiple times for a breakdown of her service charge. There is no evidence the landlord gave a breakdown and, in March 2023, it told her it was not able to do so. A breakdown of how the service charge was made up is basic information which the landlord should have been able to give.
13. The landlord’s service charge policy says it will reconcile its actual costs against estimated charges each year and apply any over or under payments to residents’ accounts. There is no evidence it reconciled its charges against actual costs before February 2024. As such it is not clear if the service charge reflected the landlord’s actual cost of providing the services.
14. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s specific queries including the costs it had incurred for cleaning, how it was apportioning fire alarm costs and why the service charge was so high. This, and the failure to provide a breakdown of the service charge, led to the resident’s complaint of 23 June 2023.
15. In its stage 1 response of 16 August 2023, the landlord said it was reconciling its actual costs against its estimated charges. It said it would update the resident afterwards but there is no evidence it did so and it did not give a breakdown of how the service charge was made up.
16. It repeated the same information in its stage 2 response of 27 February 2024. Later in February 2024, it sent the resident copies of invoices and a comparison of estimated and actual costs for 2022-23. We have not seen copies of the information it sent.
17. Overall, the landlord did not administer the service charge as it should have and did not respond to all the resident’s queries. Its failings caused distress and inconvenience because the resident had to raise the same queries multiple times over several years.

18. Following the stock transfer, the resident told the landlord that she and other residents in the block cleaned the communal areas. She explained the arrangement was agreed with the previous landlord and had been in place for 7 years. The landlord had acknowledged this information.
19. It is not clear when, or why, the landlord appointed a contractor to do the communal cleaning. There is no evidence it had consulted with residents before doing so or took account of the arrangement agreed between the residents and the previous landlord.
20. Part of the reason the resident wanted a breakdown of the service charge was because she thought the landlord was charging for cleaning the communal areas. On 23 May 2023, she told the landlord no cleaners had visited the block since 2020. There is no evidence the landlord replied at the time.
21. The evidence shows a contractor was in place from at least 6 April 2023 but cleaning was only marked as completed on 1 visit (11 May 2023) up to the resident’s complaint of 23 June 2023. In her complaint, she said she was not getting a cleaning service and should not have to pay for one.
22. During the complaint investigation, the contractor told the landlord it was unable to access the block as it did not have a key for the communal door. The landlord should have made the necessary access arrangements when it set up the cleaning contract.
23. The evidence shows the landlord resolved the access issues in August 2023. Most of the cleaning visits were marked as completed from then. However, the resident continued to complain about the quality of the cleaning service, say the contractor was not attending as it should and tell the landlord she did not want the service.
24. Through its complaint responses, the landlord said it would decide if it should refund the resident for the cleaning service and contact her separately about this. There is no evidence it contacted her as promised or paid any refund.
25. Further, the landlord did not consider the resident’s point that she did not want the service. Its Service Charge Setting and Review Policy says it will make sure services are “required” as well as being affordable and value for money. It would have been reasonable for it to have considered if it needed to provide the cleaning service and investigate its contractor’s performance.
26. After the end of the complaint process, the resident continued to tell the landlord the cleaning contractor was not attending. She also continued to say she and other residents did not want the service. Following its case review of 5 September 2024, the landlord told the resident it would review its contractor’s performance. The resident told us she did not hear anything further and there has been no improvement in the frequency or quality of the cleaning service.
27. As such, her concerns remain unresolved and the landlord has not followed through with the commitments it gave through its complaint process and case review.

28. The previous landlord had intended to replace the resident’s windows but did not get the required consents to do so before the stock transfer. Following the stock transfer, the resident asked the current landlord when it would replace her windows. The landlord said plans were on hold due to Covid-19 restrictions. This was reasonable under the circumstances.
29. We can see the window replacement was in the landlord’s programme for 2023-24 but placed “on hold” from April 2022 because the building is listed. There is no evidence the landlord had updated the resident on its plans between November 2020 and June 2023 when she complained.
30. In both its complaint responses, the landlord confirmed the window replacement was in its programme for 2023-24. It said its contractor was checking permissions needed before starting works and it would update her when it knew start dates.
31. By the time the landlord gave its stage 2 response, on 27 February 2024, there was only 1 month left of its 2023-24 window programme. There is no evidence the landlord gave the resident any further updates after its stage 2 response until it reviewed her case on 5 September 2024.
32. In its letter of 5 September 2024, the landlord acknowledged it should have kept the resident updated. It told her it had applied for planning permission to replace the windows but did not give any update on likely timescales. There is no evidence it has given any further updates since and the windows had not been replaced by 19 November 2025 when we spoke to the resident.
33. There is no evidence to explain why the window replacement was delayed. There may be justifiable reasons for the delay. However, the landlord should have kept the resident updated and it consistently failed to do so, even after acknowledging this failure in September 2024. Its consistent failure to update the resident caused her inconvenience. Since 2020 she has made multiple enquiries and complaints and the landlord has given no specific updates or proper explanation of the delays.
34. The landlord told us it now intends to replace the windows by April 2026 but there is no evidence it has told the resident this. This suggests the landlord is continuing to repeat the same failings.

35. The resident made her complaint of 23 June 2023 through the landlord’s website and received an automated response confirming the landlord had received it. It acknowledged her complaint 22 working days later on 25 July 2023.
36. The landlord did not give its stage 1 response within the timescale it gave in its acknowledgement. Its response was already late when it extended the response timescale on 15 August 2023. Although it gave its stage 1 response the following day, it did not meet the timescales required by its policy for acknowledging a complaint and giving a stage 1 response.
37. The resident wrote to the landlord on 29 August 2023 and sent further emails saying her complaint was not resolved. It was reasonable the landlord sent her a copy of its stage 1 response and asked what remained unresolved. The resident replied asking the landlord what it felt it had resolved. While this was not a clear escalation request, the landlord could have called her to find out what she considered unresolved and if she wanted to escalate her complaint.
38. After our intervention, the landlord promptly acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. It gave its stage 2 response of 27 February 2024 within the 20-working day timescale required by its complaints policy.
39. However, its stage 2 response mostly repeated what its stage 1 response had said. It did not explain why so little had changed over the 6 months since its stage 1 response or acknowledge it had not followed through on the commitments it gave then. While the landlord increased its compensation offer, it missed the opportunity to resolve the matters complained about. It did not acknowledge all the failings in its complaint handling until its case review of 5 September 2024.

Learning

40. The landlord reviewed the case when we asked it for evidence for our investigation. It would have been better if it had done this as a learning review sooner after giving its stage 2 response. Its review did not result in it following through on the commitments given in its complaint responses or the review itself. The landlord may wish to consider how it can make its case reviews more effective in future.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

41. The landlord did not use the knowledge and information available to it when responding to the resident’s concerns.

Communication

42. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor in all the areas we investigated. It did not give her specific, accurate and timely information and often did not respond to her contacts at all.