Stonewater Limited (202324456)

Decision
Case ID	202324456
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Stonewater Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	27 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3 bedroom house with her mother and daughter. The resident and her mother have health conditions and disabilities. The resident had previously been through the landlord’s complaint process and when repairs were still outstanding, she raised a new complaint in October 2023.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of damage to the garden.
   2. Reports of water ingress in the kitchen.
   3. The resident’s request for assistance installing a gas cooker.
   4. Reports of a leak in the bedroom.
   5. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. The landlord made an offer of redress which resolved the handling of reports of damage to the garden.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress in the kitchen.
   3. The landlord made an offer of redress which resolved the resident’s request for assistance installing a gas cooker.
   4. The landlord made an offer of redress which resolved the handling of a leak in the bedroom.
   5. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

 

 

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of damage to the garden

4. The landlord inspected the garden promptly after receiving the reports of damage but found no evidence of any damage caused. While its responses could have been clearer, it awarded appropriate compensation.

The landlord’s handling of water ingress in the kitchen

5. The landlord failed to evidence what work it completed following the resident’s reports of water ingress in the kitchen. It also failed to evidence it met the commitments it made at stage 2.

The landlord’s handing of the resident’s request for assistance installing a gas cooker

6. The landlord offered assistance installing a gas cooker without doing proper checks. This led to delays in the resident resolving the situation and installing the cooker herself but the landlord’s actions and compensation reasonably resolved these issues.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak in the bedroom

7. There were initial delays in resolving the leak, which the landlord acknowledged and compensated for. It then completed repairs which satisfactorily resolved the leak.

The landlord’s complaint handling

8. The resident raised complaints on two separate occasions that the landlord did not acknowledge or log.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order   The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 06 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £912.50 made up as follows: £437.50 awarded at stage 1 for delays and inconvenience related to the water ingress in the kitchen. £25 awarded at stage 2 for the late response. £100 awarded at stage 2 for the late response. £300 for the failures identified in its handling of reports of water ingress in the kitchen. £50 for complaint handling failures.    This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 06 January 2026
3	Inspection order   The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.   What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Contacts the resident and confirms any actions that she must take in advance of the appointment. Inspects the kitchen of the property and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards The most likely cause of the damp and water ingress Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) The likely timescales to commence and complete the work Any recommendations that the resident must adhere to in relation to the installation of artificial grass. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works.	No later than 06 January 2026

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
In terms of record keeping, we recommended that the landlord consider updating its practices. In doing so it should have regard to the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.
It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the £887.50 compensation it awarded in through the complaints process if it has not done so already. The £887.50 compensation was awarded for: £200 at stage 1 in relation to the complaint about damage in the garden. £437.50 at stage 1 in relation to delays and inconvenience in repairing the bedroom ceiling. £250 at stage 2 in relation to the installation of the cooker. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
18 August 2023	The resident made a complaint that her garden had been damaged while contractors put scaffolding up to complete repairs at her property.
28 August 2023	The resident made a separate complaint to the landlord. She was unhappy that repairs were still unfinished. She said some completed repairs were faulty, and slugs had entered her home, even in the kitchen cupboards. She explained that these issues were causing her distress. She wanted a home free from damp, leaks, ceiling damage and electrical faults.
18 September 2023	The landlord responded at stage 1 to the complaint about damage in the garden. It inspected the garden on 29 August 2023 and could see no evidence of rust marks or dents to the grass. It apologised for any inconvenience the resident may have experienced and awarded £200 compensation. This was broken down as £100 for time and trouble, £50 for poor communication and £50 for distress.
6 October 2023	The landlord replied at stage 1 in relation to the complaint about outstanding repairs. It apologised for the inconvenience and said it had planned repair work. The schedule included pipe insulation, vent installation, and repairing door handles. It also listed a shower hose replacement, balcony decking removal, gully clearing and a ceiling repair. The landlord continued to address the damp issue, which might have attracted slugs, and advised the resident to use pest control items until resolved. It acknowledged it had not met the resident’s expectations and awarded £900 in compensation. This included £425 for incomplete repairs, £450 for stress and inconvenience and £25 for the late complaint response.
30 October 2023	The resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2. She said the landlord had repaired the damage. However, she felt the source of the issue remained unresolved. She also could not use her cooker due to a gas pipe fault. Additionally, over the weekend, a leak caused the bedroom ceiling to collapse.
19 January 2024	The landlord responded at stage 2. It said: All outstanding repairs detailed at stage 1 had been completed. It had not checked if the resident’s cooker would fit safely in the kitchen space. It apologised for poor communication and said it had repaired the damage and restored the gap to standard size. This allowed the resident to buy a cooker that fit the kitchen. It found no record of permission granted to install artificial grass, so contractors were not told to protect it. It had identified two sources of water entry. One was the flat roof, where repairs were completed to stop further leaks. The second was the kitchen, where a survey found the artificial grass was installed without a drainage channel. This caused water to enter below the damp proof course. The artificial grass must be removed before a further inspection on 24 January 2024. It offered £350 compensation: £250 for poor communication about the cooker installation and £100 for the late stage two reply.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and wanted this Service to investigate. She said that issues were still ongoing and the landlord had not completed all repairs. As an outcome the resident wanted compensation due to the stress caused by the delays.

 

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 landlord’s handling of reports of damage in the garden
Finding	Reasonable redress

9. On 18 August 2023 the resident complained that scaffolding erected on her property had damaged the garden, caused rust stains and flattened the grass.
10. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had inspected the garden on 29 August 2023. It did not see rust stains or dents in the artificial grass. It apologised for any inconvenience and awarded £200 in compensation. The landlord said this was £100 for time and trouble in pursuing the matter, £50 for poor communication and £50 for distress.
11. The response did not highlight what communication failures the landlord had identified. While it is positive that it sought to offer a remedy to put things right, it should have been clear about what it had awarded compensation for.
12. The resident remained dissatisfied, and the matter was escalated to stage 2. In its response, the landlord said the resident had not sought permission for the artificial grass, which was required under her tenancy agreement. It explained that meant it was not able to inform contractors about the artificial grass. While it accepted contractors should take reasonable care of the property, it awarded no further compensation which was appropriate given the award at stage 1.
13. The response was likely to have caused confusion as it did not reference that its investigation at stage 1 had not found any evidence of damage caused.
14. The landlord showed it took the resident’s concerns seriously. It carried out a prompt inspection and found no evidence of damage. Despite this, it sought to put things right with an offer of compensation totalling £200. While we have seen that its responses could have been clearer the compensation it has already offered is proportionate to the failing and amounts to reasonable redress.

 

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of water ingress in the kitchen
Finding	Maladministration

15. On 27 June 2023, the resident told the landlord the kitchen was constantly flooding and the floor was falling through. The landlord noted that it had emailed its surveyor to contact the resident. There was no evidence this occurred at the time. The landlord inspected the property on 27 July 2023. There were no records to indicate what prompted the visit, but it likely followed the resident’s report in June.
16. During the inspection, the landlord noted that the skirting board tested positive for damp and the garden had artificial grass laid that was touching the wall. It also said there was possible damp coming from a damaged down pipe and shared hopper.
17. At this stage it would have been reasonable for the landlord to make further investigations into the source of the damp in the property. It had identified two possible causes; artificial grass laid against the property and a damaged pipe. There was no evidence the landlord took any further action, and the resident raised a complaint in August 2023. Her email clearly highlighted her frustration with the ongoing issues.
18. In its response the landlord said its surveyor was working on a remedy for the damp issue. It advised the resident to use pest control items to tackle the problem with slugs. It acknowledged delays in resolving the issue of damp in the kitchen and a leak in the bedroom and awarded £425. It also awarded £450 for stress and inconvenience.
19. As the landlord did not specify how the compensation was divided between the two issues, we have taken this to mean that it was intended to be split equally. This means for the purpose of this assessment; we determine the landlord awarded £212.50 for delays resolving water ingress in the kitchen and £225 for the stress and inconvenience caused.
20. While the landlord showed it considered the impact of the delays on the resident and offered appropriate compensation, its response was not comprehensive. It made no note of its earlier findings of potential sources of damp. It did not explain what investigations had already been completed or what it had found. It was not specific on how it intended to resolve the issue. The response was unlikely to have reassured the resident that the landlord was doing all it could to find a permanent resolution.
21. Damp is categorised as a hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System and landlords have a responsibility to ensure properties are safe and free from hazards. The landlord’s records showed it was aware household members suffered from multiple respiratory issues, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma. The resident had also told the landlord her mother had part of her lung removed and was prone to pneumonia. Such conditions can make a person more vulnerable to the effects of damp. These reports should have prompted the landlord to carry out a risk assessment but there was no evidence it did so.
22. The resident was decanted from her property for repairs to be carried out from 9 November 2023 until mid-December 2023. There was no evidence that the landlord completed any works in the kitchen at that time. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to complete further investigations and any necessary works while the property was empty.
23. The landlord met with the resident on 21 December 2023, following her return home. She told the landlord that she had ongoing issues with damp in her kitchen and had not heard anything back. At that point, the landlord suggested removing bricks from the effected wall and inspecting.
24. On 19 January 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said a surveyor attended on 5 January 2024. The surveyor found artificial grass had been laid without permission, breaching the tenancy agreement. The grass had been laid up to the house with no drainage, allowing water to enter the property below the damp course. The landlord said the resident needed to remove the grass for a surveyor inspection on 24 January 2024.
25. The response did not acknowledge that the issue remained unresolved from stage 1. It offered no apology for further delays or any other redress. It also failed to note that the landlord had already identified the artificial grass may have been the cause of water ingress in July 2023, 6 months before its stage 2 response and it has not carried out any further investigations at the time.
26. The landlord could not confirm if the inspection scheduled for 24 January 2024 went ahead or provide a copy of the report. This could indicate record keeping issues, or that the inspection did not take place. Either way, we were unable to confirm that the landlord met the commitments it made at stage 2.
27. In June 2025, the landlord told this Service all works were complete and there had been no further cause for concern. However, the resident said that issues with water ingress remained ongoing and was not fully resolved.
28. The landlord’s records do not show what work it completed following the resident’s reports. The landlord should be able to clearly show how it responded to repair reports and evidence whether it followed its repairs policy. The lack of detail likely contributed to delays in completing repairs and finding a permanent solution to the water ingress. Efficient record keeping and effective systems allow landlords to track the status of repairs, ensuring timely completion.
29. In summary, the resident reported issues with water ingress and damp in her kitchen on 27 June 2023. The landlord inspected the property in July 2023 and identified possible causes. It awarded £437.50 compensation in October 2023 for delays and stress. It visited in December 2023 and suggested further investigation, and a surveyor attended in January 2024 and made more recommendations.
30. However, there was no evidence that the landlord raised any jobs or that any work was carried out to resolve the issue. While it offered redress at stage 1, its actions following that did not show that it had learnt from the failings in the complaint. The landlord also failed to evidence that it met commitments it made at stage 2 and it is unclear if the issue is resolved.
31. This leads us to find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress in the kitchen and we have made an order for further compensation in line with our remedies guidance. As it is unclear if the issues are resolved, an order has also been made for the landlord to inspect the property, identify any outstanding repairs, and create a plan of works if needed.

Complaint	The landlord’s handing of the resident’s request for assistance installing a gas cooker
Finding	Reasonable redress

32. On 3 July 2023, the resident told the landlord she had purchased a new cooker, but the gas was capped. As she had previously had an electric cooker, she wanted the landlord to confirm if there was a gas supply.
33. On 27 July 2023, the landlord raised a job to fix a radiator and check the height of the gas cooker outlet. Contractors repaired the radiator but no reference was made to the cooker outlet and the job was closed as complete.
34. When the resident escalated her complaint, she said the gas pipe had still not been relocated and she could not use her cooker. The landlord raised a further job in December 2023 to alter the height of the cooker installation pipework.
35. On 21 December 2023, the landlord assessed the cooker connection. It found that the resident had removed a kitchen unit to make room for her new cooker and that there may no longer be an adequate heat break to meet gas and fire regulations. It noted it would need to seek further guidance.
36. The resident chased the landlord at the end of December 2023 and said she was still without the use of a cooker. A contractor told her they would attend on 22 January 2024 to alter the gas pipe. When she queried the appointment, she was later told that there was no record of an appointment booked for that day. This would have likely caused frustration for the resident who was seeking to resolve the situation and restore the use of a cooker in her home.
37. The landlord then said it would no longer facilitate the installation of the cooker due to health and safety risks it had identified in the lack of a heat break. It advised the resident to instruct a gas engineer to install her cooker and provide the landlord with evidence that the installation was done to the relevant standards.
38. The resident was understandably frustrated by this and told the landlord she had been without a cooker since June and had she been aware it was her responsibility she would have resolved the issue sooner.
39. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained its lettings standard is for its kitchens to have space for a 60cm cooker. The resident had altered the kitchen, without permission, to make space for a 100cm cooker. The alterations meant that the kitchen no longer met relevant standards. The landlord said it had completed repairs and returned the kitchen back to the original lettings standard, with additional  features such as matching the resident’s bespoke tiles. It had opted not to recharge the cost of the repairs to the resident, even though its repair policy says it could do so. It advised the resident to purchase a cooker to fit the space in the kitchen.
40. It acknowledged that it had offered help to install the cooker without first checking there was necessary space available and that it could have explained the gas safety regulations to the resident sooner. It apologised for the poor communication and awarded £250 compensation. Its complaints policy says it can offer compensation if it is appropriate and its offer reflects the consideration given to the impact the poor communication would have had on the resident.
41. The landlord did not recharge the resident for repairs when it could have done so. It acknowledged it should not have offered assistance without carrying out the required checks and that it could have communicated better with the resident. It offered £250 compensation which was in line with what our remedies guidance says may be applicable where there is maladministration and failings that have adversely affected the resident but had no permanent impact. We find that the redress offered is proportionate to the identified failings and amount to reasonable redress.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak in the bedroom
Finding	Reasonable redress

42. The complaint is about a leak in a bedroom that came from decking installed on a balcony on the flat roof above it. The resident had raised a previous complaint in relation to the issue which exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. Compensation was agreed and accepted by the resident in June 2022. This investigation focuses on events from November 2022 when the resident raised that she had experienced further issues with a leak.
43. On 3 November 2022, the resident told the landlord the bedroom ceiling was about to collapse. The landlord logged it as a 24 hour repair, but there was no evidence to show how it responded. The resident chased the landlord on 23 December 2022 and said the ceiling had now gone through. Again, there was no evidence showing the landlord raised a job or how it responded.
44. The landlord should be able to evidence how it responds to repair reports. Efficient record keeping and effective systems allow landlords to track the status of repairs, ensuring timely completion. The lack of detail likely contributed to delays in completing repairs and indicate record keeping issues.
45. There were no further records about a leak in the bedroom until the landlord inspected the property in July 2023. It noted there was stains on the ceiling and water sitting under the decking on the roof. It was unclear what prompted the visit.
46. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said a surveyor visited the property on 21 September 2023 and a list of works had been raised. The works included repairing the balcony decking to prevent it trapping water.
47. As detailed earlier in this report we have split the compensation awarded at stage 1 by the landlord which means it awarded £212.50 for delays in resolving the bedroom leak and £225 for the stress and inconvenience caused.
48. The landlord confirmed the works it planned to complete and apologised for the delays. It offered appropriate compensation at the time that aligned with our remedies guidance when a landlord identifies a failing that adversely effected the resident.
49. Throughout October and early November 2023, the resident continued to chase the landlord for repairs to be completed to resolve the leak. She told the landlord the bedroom affected by the leak was used by her mother, who suffers from multiple health conditions that made her particularly vulnerable. 
50. On 6 November 2023, it noted that a major overhaul was needed for the decking. The next day the landlord confirmed that the ceiling was stable and the resident did not need decanting while it carried out works. However, on 9 November 2023 the resident was decanted into temporary accommodation. While it is unclear how the decision to decant the resident was made, given the household vulnerabilities, it was positive that the landlord considered alternative accommodation for them while it completed works.
51. During the decant period, the resident was offered a permanent alternative property. Although the resident declined the offer, its actions showed the landlord considered how multiple repairs and delays affected the resident and sought a permanent resolution.
52. The landlord’s records showed completion of works was scheduled for 15 December 2023, when the resident could return home. The resident said she was told she could return on the 14 December and did so, finding the property not properly cleaned. The landlord explained cleaning was not finished because the resident returned earlier than expected.
53. The landlord met with the resident to discuss her concerns and agreed to complete carpet cleaning. This was reasonable and showed that the landlord was willing to work with the resident to resolve these issues.
54. The resident confirmed that the work completed in December 2023 resolved the leak and she has had no further issues.
55. There were initial delays in the landlord completing works, it acknowledged this in its stage 1 response and offered appropriate compensation. Following this, the repairs were completed within 3 months. While this may seem delayed, this Service recognises that some repairs can take longer to complete, especially if they are complex in nature and need multiple contractors.
56. The landlord showed it considered the household vulnerabilities and offered temporary accommodation while it carried out these works. It then sought a permanent resolution to the resident’s ongoing issues by offering an alternative property. While record keeping issues will be addressed in a recommendation, overall, the landlord’s actions and compensation were proportionate to the failings and we find they amount to reasonable redress.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

57. The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. It says it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and stage 2 within 2 working days. It then aims to provide a formal response at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. If it is unable to meet these timescales it will agree an extension with the resident.
58. In June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to complain about outstanding repair issues in the kitchen, including it flooding regularly. Early in August 2023, she contacted the landlord again and asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 as issues persisted. There is no evidence to show that the landlord acknowledged or logged these complaints.
59.  The resident raised a separate complaint on 18 August 2023 about damage in her garden caused by contractors. The complaint was acknowledged 4 days late and the response sent 1 day late. While the landlord did not acknowledge the late response, it did award the resident £200 compensation for the time and trouble caused in having to raise the complaint, poor communication and for any distress caused which showed that it had considered any impact on the resident.
60. On 28 August 2023, when the resident continued to have issues with outstanding repairs, she emailed a senior member of staff directly for help. Her frustration was clear in the email, and she asked the landlord to review her repair history and assist.
61. The landlord accepted the resident’s email as a new complaint. While it was positive the landlord eventually raised a complaint about the outstanding repairs, it should have done so without the resident needing to seek alternative ways to get her complaint heard. 
62. The landlord was 4 days late acknowledging the complaint. It was unable to provide a response on time but wrote to the resident, in line with its policy, advising of the need for an extension. Its stage 1 response was then issued one day late to the resident.
63. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its response, apologised and awarded £25 compensation which was appropriate and showed the landlord considered its compensation policy, which allowed awards for poor complaint handling.
64. The resident then requested to escalate her complaint, and this was acknowledged in line with the landlord’s policy. The response was due by 20 November 2023. When it was unable to provide a response in time, it contacted the resident, in line with its policy, and requested an extension to respond by 8 December 2023. On that day, it requested a further extension to respond by 11 December 2023.
65. The landlord did not respond at stage 2 until 19 January 2024, 26 days after the agreed extension date. However, the landlord acknowledged the delay in its response, apologised and offered £100 compensation. This was reasonable and showed the landlord considered the impact of the delay on the resident.
66. While the landlord acknowledged its delays at stage 1 and 2 and offered compensation of £325 through the complaints process, it did not recognise its failure to raise complaints in July and early August 2023. It did not acknowledge the impact this may have had on the resident or attempt to put it right. This leads the Ombudsman to find a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling and order further compensation.

Learning

Communication

67.  The landlord could improve its communication with residents by providing timely updates on the progress of repairs and inspections. The resident experienced prolonged periods without updates, which contributed to distress and escalation of the complaint.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

68. The landlord’s repair logs were unclear about what work was completed under each order, and it was unable to provide some information for this investigation.  The landlord is encouraged to reflect on how to ensure its records are accurate and detailed. Taking into account the guidance we have published on knowledge and information management.