Stonewater Limited (202230840)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230840

Stonewater Limited

30 May 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 about:
    1. The level and reasonableness of estate service charges
    2. The ground maintenance service.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner of a flat owned by the landlord, which is a housing association. The lease began in 2019. The building is set within a complex of mixed-tenure properties.
  2. On 4 October 2022 the resident told the landlord that she was paying for grounds maintenance services she did not receive. She said she had sent the landlord videos showing its contractors sitting in their van for 30 minutes and then leaving the site without doing any work. She said she was being financially burdened and, despite repeated reports to the landlord, the issues remained unresolved. She asked the landlord to meet her on site to discuss her concerns.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 10 November 2022. It said it had discussed the matter with its contractor, reviewed their attendance records, and examined the pictures they submitted to demonstrate their work. It said that it was satisfied that the service was delivered to standard.  However, it said it would arrange for a surveyor to meet the resident on site to discuss her concerns, and ask its service charge officer to agree with the resident on a payment plan she could afford for her service charge arrears.
  4. The resident contacted the Service on 7 March 2023. She said she had asked the landlord to escalate her complaint in November 2022 and February 2023, but the landlord did not respond. Following our advice, she wrote to the landlord on 7 March 2023. She said, despite assurances given in its complaint response, its officers had not contacted her.
  5. The landlord sent its final complaint response on 28 March 2023. It acknowledged issues with its ground maintenance contractors. It said it had reminded all operatives that they must not take breaks on site and must pick up litter on every visit, regardless of adverse weather conditions. It also said it would conduct monthly estate inspections to ensure service standards. It also apologised for the delayed response to her complaint and offered the resident £75 in compensation.
  6. The resident requested the Service to investigate her complaint on 30 October 2023. She stated that there were ongoing issues with the performance of its ground maintenance operations. She said she paid for services the landlord had not delivered. To resolve her complaint, she would like the Service to investigate her concerns and decide whether the landlord had acted fairly.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Under paragraph 42.d. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of service charge or the amount of service charge increase.
  3. In line with her lease, the resident pays variable service charges. In her formal complaints, the resident explained her dissatisfaction with the level of service charges, in particular the apportionment methods used and whether these were reasonable.
  4. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay service charges are more appropriately dealt with by the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). Should the resident remain dissatisfied with this aspect of the complaint, she may wish to seek legal advice from the LEASE Advisory Service.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports about the ground maintenance service

  1. The resident’s lease says the landlord is obliged to maintain the standard of the communal areas on behalf of the resident, for which the resident shall pay a service charge.
  2. The landlord’s service charge policy states that it will regularly review contractors’ performance and compliance with agreed specifications. It will provide customers with clear, easily understood information about the services being delivered and actively collect feedback from residents to monitor service standards. It will take prompt action if a contractor or service provider fails to meet the required standards.
  3. The landlord has a photobook of estate services showcasing a grading system from (A) to (D). An (A) grade indicates freshly cut grass and no litter on the ground, while a (D) grade may have overgrown grass encroaching on paths and flower beds, along with a build-up of litter and leaves from previous seasons. If a scheme is rated (C) or (D), the landlord will inform the contractors to address the issues. If standards remain below (C), the landlord will discuss improvements with the contractor.
  4. We have not seen the ground maintenance contract. The landlord stated there will be fortnightly visits in summer and monthly visits in winter.
  5. In her 4 October 2022 complaint, the resident said the landlord had told her the ground maintenance contractor would visit on a fortnightly basis in summer, however, no work had been carried out since 20 September 2022. The landlord responded in its 10 November 2022 stage 1 letter that it had discussed the case with the contractor, reviewed the attendance log and was satisfied the service was delivered to standards. However, according to the evidence, the landlord last inspected the grounds on 20 September 2022 and marked the job as “grade C – poor”. The landlord’s records corroborate the resident’s reports, but the landlord failed to acknowledge this in its complaint response which was a missed opportunity.
  6. The estate’s services photobook says that when the grade is (C) or below, the landlord would inform the contractor to “put things right”. However, the landlord provided no evidence of its discussion with the contractor. Additionally, although the landlord assured the resident in its complaint response that it would send a surveyor to discuss her concerns, this did not happen.
  7. In its final complaint response letter, the landlord acknowledged issues with its ground maintenance contractors, stating it had reminded operatives not to take breaks on site and to collect litter on every visit, regardless of the weather. However, the landlord did not provide evidence to show that the contractors serviced the estate between 20 September 2022, two weeks before the resident’s complaint, and 29 March 2023, two days after the landlord’s final response. This suggests that there was no grounds maintenance service at the block between those dates. That was a service failing.
  8. After its final response letter, the landlord introduced a monthly estate inspection. The evidence shows that its inspectors have been visiting the sites almost on a monthly basis, and the grading of the quality of the grounds maintenance has since improved.
  9. Nonetheless, the resident was adversely affected by the landlord’s failure. She regularly recorded videos of the operatives and reported the contractor’s performance to the landlord, which required an unreasonable level of involvement on her part. She also had to chase the landlord for updates about when he might send his surveyor to speak with her, which ultimately failed to materialise.
  10. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principle, we have ordered the landlord below a redress package to put things right for the resident. Accordingly, the landlord would write a letter of apology to the resident for the failure identified in this report.
  11. As the landlord was unable to demonstrate that it had provided its ground maintenance service between September 2022 and March 2023, delivered to a reasonable standard, we have made an order the landlord to consider if a refund of service charges to the resident is appropriate for that period.
  12. In assessing the level of compensation to put things right, we have relied on our Remedies Guidance. For situations where a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident but for a limited time without permanent impact, in the Ombudsman, a payment of £120 is proportionate to put things right for the resident. An order has been made below for the landlord accordingly.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. 

  1. On 28 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response and asked that the landlord keep her complaint open. This was a clear expression of dissatisfaction and should have been treated as such by escalating the complaint to stage 2.
  2. The resident followed up on the complaint in February and March 2023. Against a target of 20 working days, the landlord responded to the resident 83 working days later on 27 March 2023, after an intervention by the Service. That delay was a service failing. In its complaint response it failed to explain what had gone wrong or what it would do differently in future, and therefore the landlord did not follow the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, and it did not fully resolve the complaint.
  3. The landlord offered compensation of £75 for its poor complaint handling. It also explained that, since the resident’s complaint, it has taken measures to improve its complaint handling.
  4. Nevertheless, the resident dedicated time and effort to pursuing the landlord to fulfil the assurance it had provided in stage 1. She subsequently contacted the landlord in November 2022 and February 2023. She had to approach the Service to escalate her complaint to stage 2, which was not reasonable. Consequently, its offer of £75 in compensation was insufficient to rectify the situation for the resident. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £150 in compensation, including the £75 it had offered in its internal complaint process.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.d. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the level and reasonableness of estate service charges is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports about its ground maintenance service.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must take the following action:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in the report.
    2. Consider if a refund of service charges to the resident is appropriate for the lack of grounds maintenance services over the winter of 2022-2023. Write to the resident (and us) with its decision.
    3. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the ground maintenance service, we order the landlord to pay £120 in compensation.
    4. In recognition of the delay in its complaint handling and the time and effort expended by the resident, the landlord is ordered to pay £150 in compensation (which includes the £75 previously offered). The landlord should deduct any payment previously made. These sums should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against arrears, where they exist.