Stonewater Limited (202401522)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202401522

Stonewater Limited

30 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 noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord since January 2024. The property is a 2-bedroom flat within a block. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident including mental health issues. The resident also told us that she is autistic.
4. The resident complained to the landlord on 14 May 2024 about its handling of ASB from her neighbour. She said she had sent noise diaries which it had not reviewed, and that it had ignored her calls and emails. She said the issues had severely affected her and her young child. She also said she had incurred £85 in costs after glue was put into her locks. She asked the landlord to refund this.
5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 20 June 2024. It said:
   1. there were failings in its communication with the resident and a lack of action after she sent it a noise diary.
   2. it acknowledged the impact the issues had on the resident and her son and said it was now committed to supporting her.
   3. a new case officer would contact her to gather more information and to discuss housing options.
   4. it had awarded her £735. This was in recognition of failings in service, lack of communication, time, trouble and inconvenience and locksmith costs.
6. The resident requested escalation of her complaint in emails she sent to the landlord between 7 and 12 February 2025. She said issues at the property had been more “peaceful” since her neighbour had been stopped from returning. However, she said the situation was not resolved as there was “zero soundproofing” and there was significant household noise from her neighbour in the flat below. Further, she said she had been told by the landlord in October 2024 that a new case officer would be assigned to her case so it could liaise with her about court dates in respect of her neighbour above. She said she had heard nothing further about this.
7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It acknowledged the resident had experience “serious and prolonged” ASB from her neighbour including “harassment, hate speech and criminal damage”. It also noted that a community protection warning had been issued and that an injunction was granted and later breached by her neighbour. It said that it accepted failing including significant delays and a breakdown in communication, particularly since October 2024. It increased its award to the resident to £860. It also set out a number of actions it would take, including contacting her to agree a new action plan and to explore housing options.
8. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman as she remained unhappy with the response from the landlord. She said it had “grossly mishandled” her case after an officer left and that it had not responded to her concerns about noise and soundproofing. She said she wanted increased compensation and for the landlord to consider soundproofing for her property.

Assessment and findings

Handling of noise nuisance and ASB

9. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will adopt a ‘harm-based triage approach’ in response to ASB reports. It says this recognises that residents experiencing challenging circumstances may have a lower resilience and ability to deal with incidents of ASB. It says this approach also ensures that, where risk factors are identified, action can be taken. It says that for high-harm cases it will contact the resident within 1 working day to agree an action plan.
10. During its consideration of the resident’s complaint, the landlord identified failings in its handling of her reports of noise nuisance and ASB. It acknowledged that, after asking her to complete a noise diary in February 2024, it took no further action. Further, it acknowledged that it had taken too long to contact her to complete an action plan.
11. The resident told the landlord on 13 February 2024 of loud music, screaming and banging from her neighbour. Its request the same day that she keep a diary of noise was reasonable. But she had also told it of how her mental health issues were being “triggered” and that she was “scared” of bumping into her neighbour. In the circumstances, it should have completed a risk assessment. That it did not do so was contrary to its ASB policy which sets out that it will consider the impact of the reported behaviour. Doing so would also have allowed it to fully consider any support it could offer or signpost the resident towards.
12. The landlord missed further early opportunities to act on the resident’s reports. After she sent it noise diaries on 3 April 2024 it opened an ASB case. However, while it noted on 8 April 2024 that a risk assessment and action plan were needed, it still did complete these. It recorded its attempt to telephone the resident on 22 April 2024 and sent her an email the same day. It later said in its stage 1 complaint response that it closed the case after it did not hear back from her. But records show she sent it an email on 25 April 2024 setting out how her neighbour was currently “shouting and screaming” and that the issues were making her “suicidal”. The landlord should reasonably have acted. Instead, it did nothing further until 10 May 2024 when it received negative feedback from her through a survey. Had the landlord completed an action plan at the earliest opportunity it would have resolved the method and frequency of contact with the resident.
13. The landlord said that it re-opened the case on 10 May 2024, but even after this it was slow to act. By the time it did, issues with the resident’s neighbour had escalated significantly. During late May 2024 the resident told the landlord that the local authority had issued a community protection warning to her neighbour Further the police told it on 25 May 2024 that it had recorded a “hate crime” after attending a report. Later, on 29 May 2024, the police contacted the landlord again advising that it had arrested the resident’s neighbour for harassment, and that it was “extremely worried” that the situation may escalate when he was released. Further, the resident told it the same day that her locks had been superglued, and that the police had suggested installing CCTV.
14. The landlord later acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response, it did not provide the resident with a timely response to her request for CCTV. It identified that it had not declined or explored this. Further, we note that it detailed on 3 June 2024 that it should offer the resident a video doorbell but did not act on this until 27 June 2024. The landlord’s lack of urgency was failure to appropriately consider and act on safety concerns raised by the police and resident.
15. The landlord recorded internally on 3 June 2024 that it was “deeply worried” about the ASB and that it should contact the police and consider if an injunction was needed. But that was more than a week after it had been told the police had recorded a hate crime. That was a failing. It should reasonably have taken urgent action to contact the resident. Its ASB policy states that it will “fast track” serious cases such as hate crime incidents and make contact within 1 working day.
16. The landlord contacted the resident by email on 4 and 6 June 2024 and requested a time it could speak with her. It is apparent from her response that she had lost some confidence in its handling of the situation. She said she had “zero faith” in it. The landlord later noted on 10 June 2024 that it was unable to complete an action plan or risk assessment as the resident was away on holiday. Records show it had been copied into an email in which she said she would be away for a week from 6 June 2024. But she had also said she would be contactable by email. Given the circumstances, the landlord should have attempted further contact with the resident during this time and considered other action it could explore to progress the case. This could have included contact with the police, and other residents or the neighbour.
17. The landlord eventually met with the resident on 26 June 20024. It completed an action plan, risk assessment and signposted the resident to support. As noted above, and acknowledged by the landlord, it should have taken this action far earlier. Further, while it had told the resident in its stage 1 response that it would discuss housing options with her during the meeting, there is no evidence it did so. That was a failing. 
18. The landlord acted to liaise with the local authority about the recent community protection notice issued to the resident’s neighbour. Further, it later visited the resident’s neighbour on 10 July 2024 and subsequently sought an emergency injunction. These actions were appropriate. Records also show the landlord maintained contact with the resident and other agencies between July and September 2024. However, there is no evidence it reconsidered its action plan or risk assessment during this time. It should reasonably have done so, particularly as it had noted on 3 September 2024 that the resident’s neighbour had been arrested for threatening her. It later noted on 6 September 2024 that it returned to court and that her neighbour had been “excluded” from the property. While it contacted the resident during this time, there is no evidence it considered or discussed whether any further action to support her was appropriate. It should reasonably have done so.
19. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident’s repeated attempts to obtain an update from its ASB team after October 2024 were “met with silence”. It had updated the resident in September 2024 about the position with court action. However, its communication with her after this date was completely inadequate. By September 2024 both officers handling the matter had either left the landlord’s employment or stopped work on the case. The landlord told the resident on 20 September 2024 her case had been allocated to a senior member of staff “in the interim”.
20. While we have seen no details within the landlord’s records, the resident said in her complaint escalation that the senior member of staff contacted her in October 2024. She said she was told the landlord would assign a new officer who would advise her of court dates so she could appear as a witness. That there is no evidence the landlord communicated with the resident further to provide any clarity about the position with the case is a failing. The resident said in her escalation request that she felt she had been “completely abandoned, yet again”. Further, she contacted the landlord on 17 March 2025 expressing her concern that her neighbour was outside her property and she was unsure if the injunction was still in place. There is no evidence the landlord attempted any appropriate response to these concerns. It is apparent the resident remains unclear about the position with the injunction and her ASB case.
21. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said a named officer would contact the resident to discuss her housing options and complete a new action plan. The necessity to consider housing options is because of the landlord’s failure to effectively deal with the ASB. However, records we have seen show that officer had left the landlord’s employment several months before. The resident contacted the landlord on 22 April and 15 May 2025 to highlight that the named officer had left. She said she was still unclear about whether her neighbour could return to the property. But there is no evidence the landlord responded to her.
22. The landlord has since told us that the neighbour’s tenancy had ended in March 2025. It said that, due to this, “commitments made in our stage 2 complaint response were no longer relevant and were restated from the stage 1 response in error”. However, the landlord should have identified from the resident’s correspondence that she still required clarification about the position with the case. Further, it should have been self-evident that it needed to communicate with her given it had committed to action in its stage 2 response that it no longer considered was necessary. That it did not do so was a further failing that would have added to the resident’s concern and frustration.
23. In her escalation request the resident told the landlord of her ongoing concerns about household noise from her downstairs neighbour. She said this was severely affecting her. She had also raised similar concerns on 31 December 2024. However, there is no evidence the landlord responded to this contact or provided any response in its stage 2 response to this or her request that it soundproof her property.
24. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report about noise complaints was published in 2022. The landlord states in its ASB policy that it has adopted the recommendations of this report. We acknowledge that landlords are not responsible for soundproofing homes above the standard applicable at the time of building. However, the spotlight report recognises that actions taken to prevent or mitigate for typical sources of noise nuisance may be cost effective and will provide a better quality of service to residents.
25. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report recommends that landlords should adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management strategy, distinct to the ASB policy, with clear options for maintaining good neighbourhood relationships. By doing so, landlords can stop escalating such complaints into ASB and focus more on prevention. The landlord should reasonably have addressed the resident’s concerns about the level of household noise from neighbouring properties. That it did not respond appropriately to these concerns was a further failing.
26. We have identified failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB that, when taken together, amount to severe maladministration. So far it has awarded her £775 in recognition of failings. We have considered all the circumstances, and the further failings identified in this report. We have ordered that the landlord increase its award to £2,000. This award is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (the remedies guidance) and is aimed at fully recognising the impact of its failings.

Complaint handling

27. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to those at stage 2 within 20 working days.
28. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s initial complaint and set out its aim to respond by 5 June 2024. It appropriately communicated with her to explain that its response would be delayed. Its eventual stage 1 response of 20 June 2024 was a just a day outside the extended timeframe. However, it should still have acknowledged and apologised for this delay. That it did not do so was a failing.
29. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was more significantly delayed. It was appropriate that it acknowledged and apologised for an initial delay caused by it misdirecting her escalation request. It noted in its stage 2 response that it had extended its complaint investigation due to the complexity of issues. However, we have seen no evidence it communicated this to the resident in advance and that was a failing. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), it should have done so.
30. As outlined above, the landlord’s stage 2 response set out action it would take to contact the resident. In addition to naming an officer who appeared to have left its employment, the landlord later said the commitments it set out in its stage 2 response were no longer “relevant”.
31. The landlord should have taken sufficient steps to fully understand the position on the case before making commitments in its stage 2 response. Its failure to carry out actions it had agreed, or communicate with the resident to correct its error, was a complaint handling failing. Further, it wrongly noted it had not followed up on its commitment in June 2024 to provide the resident with a video doorbell. As identified earlier, it also failed to respond to the resident’s ongoing concerns about noise from her downstairs neighbour or her request for soundproofing. In line with the Code, it should have ensured that it provided a response to all points raised in the complaint.
32. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. These failings caused the resident additional concern, frustration and time and trouble. With consideration to all the circumstances, we have ordered that it make an award to her of £250 in recognition of this. That amount is in line with the remedies guidance.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of noise nuisance and ASB.
    2. maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

34. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord’s chief executive must write to the resident to apologise for the failings we have identified in this report.
35. Also within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. pay the resident £2,335 made up of:
       1. £2,000 for failings in its handling of noise nuisance and ASB. This includes the £775 it previously awarded.
       2. £250 for failings in its complaint handling.
       3. £85 previously awarded for locksmith costs.
       4. any payment already made to the resident should be deducted from the total.
    2. contact the resident to provide clarity about the position with her ASB case.
    3. contact the resident to discuss any action it can take, or advice/support it could provide, to minimise noise transference from neighbouring properties.
36. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must review failings in its handling of ASB and noise nuisance reports. This includes delays completing and failure to review risk assessment/action plans, and failings in its communication. It should consider whether it has adequate training/guidance to staff to ensure these failings are not repeated. It should provide the Ombudsman with the outcome of this review within the same timeframe.

Recommendations

37. We recommend that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should contact the resident to ensure it has an accurate record of her vulnerabilities.