Stonewater Limited (202307114)

Background

1. The resident lives on an estate that includes a shared car park, a communal grassed area, and a bin store area. The landlord knows the resident lives with mental health conditions. The resident reported concerns about the lack of estate maintenance and the presence of pests in the area.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the residents’ concerns about:
   1. grounds maintenance
   2. pest control
3. The landlords handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlords handling of grounds maintenance.
5. There was service failure in the landlords handling to pest control.
6. There was no maladministration in the landlords handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Grounds maintenance

7. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about being charged for grounds maintenance he believed had not been delivered. It did not review whether a refund was appropriate until after it issued its stage 2 response, and it did not tell residents that a refund was due. The refund was only progressed after we highlighted the issue. This meant the resident was left with uncertainty about whether he had been charged correctly.

Pest Control

8. The landlord did not tell the resident the outcome of the inspection until its stage 2 complaint response. This meant the resident did not know what action had been taken and caused the resident avoidable time and trouble and concern about pests.

Complaint Handling

9. The landlord issued both complaint responses within a reasonable timeframe. Although its responses were slightly outside its own targets, the delays were minimal and did not affect the outcome for the resident.

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.

What we have not looked at

10. A new complaint raised by the resident in June 2024 included some related concerns but also introduced new issues that the landlord had not yet considered through its own complaint process. These matters fall outside the scope of this investigation because we only assess issues after the landlord has had a fair opportunity to respond to them under its own procedure. We told the resident he can bring that complaint to us separately once the landlord completes its process. This investigation focuses on events from April 2023 to shortly after the landlord’s stage 2 response in August 2023. We refer to events outside these dates only where they help explain the background and context.

What we have looked at

11. The resident raised his complaint on 27 April 2023 because he was concerned he was being charged for grounds maintenance, that he did not believe the landlord carried out. This caused him frustration because he felt he was paying for a service he could not see being delivered.
12. The resident told the landlord that he lives with mental health conditions and faces daily struggles. He was not asking for any specific adjustment. However, the landlord’s Vulnerable Persons Policy says that each service area should consider whether vulnerable residents need extra support or a variation to the usual service. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s vulnerabilities and explain how it had taken them into account. By not doing so the landlord risked leaving the resident feeling unsupported and increased the impact of the issues on him.
13. In its stage 1 response on 22 May 2023 the landlord recognised issues with its previous contractor and said some visits had been missed during the handover to a new contractor. It arranged an urgent visit the same day, which showed it was taking steps to address the immediate impact on the resident and the estate. However, it did not address the resident’s concerns about the accuracy of the service charge in this response. This left the resident without reassurance about whether he was being charged correctly.
14. The resident escalated his complaint. He said the grounds had not been maintained since September 2022 and that it was not reasonable to be charged for a service, he felt he had not received. While there is no record that he reported this earlier, the landlord did not dispute there were service‑delivery issues during this time.
15. As part of its stage 2 investigation, the landlord met with the resident to discuss his concerns about the grounds maintenance service. It shared its guide explaining the expected frequency of visits and the standards it required from its contractor. The landlord acknowledged that the service fell below these standards and offered the resident £150 to recognise the inconvenience caused. This was a reasonable step because the landlord engaged with the resident and shared information that helped explain its service standards.
16. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about whether he was being charged for services he had not received. It did not have records for the period in dispute, so it could not confirm what work had taken place. This increased the resident’s uncertainty about whether he had received the service he was being charged for and limited how the landlord could respond to his concerns. It is good practice for landlords to keep clear records of grounds maintenance visits because this helps them demonstrate that residents receive the services they are paying for.
17. After issuing its stage 2 response, the landlord visited the estate and agreed in September 2023 to refund service charges for grounds maintenance, but it did not explain which period the refund would cover. The landlord said it had arranged a refund for all affected residents but later confirmed it had not processed it because of an internal error. There is no evidence it informed residents about the refund or the delay. This meant the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about whether he had been charged correctly, and the refund was only progressed after we raised the issue during the investigation. As a result, the resident remained frustrated because he believed the landlord had not agreed to refund charges for services, he felt he had not received, which further undermined his trust in the landlord.
18. The landlord applied a standard 3‑month refund to all residents based on a previous case with us. This did not reflect the resident’s individual circumstances, as he reported the issue affected him from September 2022, and the landlord did not dispute this. The landlord therefore did not recognise the full period of service failure or its financial impact.
19. Although the tenancy agreement requires the resident to pay service charges, it is reasonable for a landlord to refund charges when it has not provided the service. The landlord’s refund did not reflect the full period affected, so we have ordered it to do so.
20. The landlord accepted it had ongoing problems with grounds maintenance. It appointed a new contractor, introduced performance monitoring, and acknowledged early operational issues. These steps showed the landlord was trying to improve the service, although the transition still caused inconvenience.
21. The landlord said it had difficulty locating records because staff involved in the case had left. It carried out a self‑assessment against our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management and shared the findings with its senior leadership team. This was a reasonable step, as it showed the landlord was taking responsibility for the gaps in its record‑keeping.

22. The resident reported rats on 27 April 2023. The landlord arranged an inspection for 23 May 2023. Its policy says first inspections should take place within 24 hours or within 7 working days depending on risk. The landlord did not arrange the inspection until after sending its stage 1 complaint response, which meant the contractor attended 9 working days later than the policy allowed.
23. This was the first time the resident reported the issue, so the landlord should have treated it as a service request and arranged an inspection in line with its policy. The delay did not place the resident at risk, but it would reasonably have caused him concern and uncertainty about what action was being taken.
24. When the resident escalated his complaint, he said no visit had taken place. The landlord’s records show an inspection did occur on 23 May 2023. As the landlord did not tell the resident the outcome of this visit, he was unaware that an inspection had been completed or what action had been taken. Its policy says it will keep residents informed while managing a case, so the landlord should have updated him after the visit. Providing this update earlier would have saved the resident time and trouble in chasing and may have reduced his concerns about pests.
25. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it did not find rat activity. They spoke to other residents who reported seeing water voles. As water voles are protected, the landlord could not safely use poison or bait.
26. The landlord said it would monitor the area quarterly. This was an appropriate step because it followed the contractor’s professional advice and took account of the legal protections for wildlife. Regular monitoring also meant the landlord had arrangements in place to identify and respond to any future pest activity.

27. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time said it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 10 working days. These timescales were quicker than the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which allows up to 20 working days for a stage 2 response.
28. The landlord sent its stage 1 response in 13 working days and its stage 2 response in 11 working days. Although both responses were slightly outside its own timescales, the delays were minimal and did not affect the overall outcome or cause any additional detriment to the resident.

Learning

29. This case highlighted several areas of learning for the landlord, and it reflected on these in its evidence response. It has made improvements to its grounds maintenance service and now has clear guidance on how it measures the success of this work. These changes show the landlord has considered the issues raised in this complaint and has taken steps to improve the quality and monitoring of its estate services.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord recognised the issues in its record keeping and took steps to make changes. This was a positive step, as it shows the landlord has identified weaknesses and is working to improve how it manages and retains information across its services.

Communication

31. The landlord should focus on giving clear, timely updates, explaining reasons for any delays, and confirming when actions have been completed. Improving consistency in these areas will help residents feel informed and reduce the risk of misunderstandings in future cases.