Stonewater Limited (202207436)

Decision
Case ID	202207436
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Stonewater Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	24 March 2026

Background

The resident lives in a house and has previously made complaints of noise nuisance caused by a dog at the neighbouring property. She then complained about a new dog and ivy growing through a dividing garden fence.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. A dog at the neighbouring property.
2. Plant growth coming from the neighbouring property.
We have also looked at the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a dog at the neighbouring property.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of plant growth coming through the fence from the neighbouring property.
3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns over the dog at the neighbouring property. It was not provided with evidence the dog was causing a nuisance and took appropriate steps to resolve the issue.
The landlord acted quickly and proactively to investigate the resident’s concerns about plant growth. It provided the appropriate advice to the resident and treated her fairly.
The landlord identified failures in its handling of the complaint. It provided appropriate redress to the resident which was in line with its policy and our remedies guidance.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the £350 it offered in its stage 2 response. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this is paid.
The landlord should consider making changes to its pet policy to clarify what is meant by a visiting pet and how it treats these.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
16 April 2023	The resident reported the presence of a dog at the neighbouring property to the landlord.
26 May 2023	The resident raised her stage 1 complaint. She was unhappy that there was a dog barking next door and that there was ivy growing through the dividing fence.
15 June 2023	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said: The presence of a dog at the neighbouring property had been investigated and was not against the landlord’s policies. The landlord asks the resident to provide evidence of the ivy that was coming through the fence.
June/July 2023	It is not clear when the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated. The landlord provided an acknowledgment of the escalation on 17 July 2023. The resident appears to have been unhappy that no action had been taken to resolve the concerns that she had.
31 July 2023	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: It had not seen any evidence to suggest that the dog was causing a nuisance and as such it would not be taking any action. It also said that it would not take action over the encroaching ivy as there was only a small amount encroaching into the resident’s garden. It accepted that there had been poor complaint handling and offered £200 compensation for this. It identified some examples of poor communication and a lack of contact with the resident. It offered £150 compensation for this.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident bought her complaint to the Ombudsman as the issues she had complained about were still unresolved.

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 resident’s reports of a dog at the neighbouring property.
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not considered

The resident has previously reported her concerns about dogs barking from the neighbouring property from 2018 onwards. These events were the subject of other complaints raised by the resident and investigated by the landlord. The last of these was raised in July 2022 and was about the landlord’s actions since the resident reported her concerns about a dog in April 2023. We will only be looking at events from this date as these are the events that the landlord considered as part of its complaint responses. Under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme we may not consider events which were not raised as a complaint to the landlord within a reasonable time.

What we have considered

The landlord’s pet policy explains that owners of pets should ensure that their pet does not cause annoyance, nuisance or disturbance to their neighbours. It says that visiting pets will be subject to the same rules. It also explains that reports of nuisance caused by pets will be treated as antisocial behaviour and will be dealt with in accordance with its antisocial behaviour policy.
The resident reported the presence of a dog at the neighbouring property to the landlord on 16 April 2023. The landlord explained that the presence of a dog alone is not a problem and that they would need evidence that the dog is causing a nuisance to take any action.
The landlord contacted the neighbour who said the dog was visiting and was not their pet. The landlord then treated this dog as a visiting pet. The landlord’s pet policy mentions visiting pets but does not specify what criteria are used to determine the difference between a resident’s pet and a visiting pet.
The landlord explained its position on the neighbouring dog to the resident on 13 June 2023. It said that no action would be taken as its policy on pets had not been breached and it had not been provided with any evidence to show that the dog was causing a nuisance. It repeated this in the stage 1 response issued on 15 June 2023.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 18 July 2023 and again set out its position that there was no reason for it to take action over the dog. It again asked the resident to collect evidence if the dog was causing a nuisance and said it would act appropriately once evidence was provided. On 21 July 2023 the resident agreed to compile a log of the noise for 14 days to provide evidence to the landlord.
The landlord spoke to the resident and her neighbour, explained its expectations around pet ownership and nuisance, and offered mediation between them. These actions show that it took reasonable steps to understand the resident’s concerns and to identify if the dog was causing a nuisance and should be dealt with under the landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy.
As the landlord was not provided with evidence showing the dog was causing a nuisance, the informal actions taken by the landlord were appropriate as a means of addressing the resident’s concerns. The landlord explained that without clear evidence of the nuisance being caused it would not be able to take action.

Complaint	The resident’s reports of plant growth from the neighbouring property.
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s tenancy agreements explain that each resident is responsible for ensuring that their garden is kept in a neat and tidy condition. The landlord does not have any other policies that explain when or how it will intervene if this is not the case.
The resident reported concerns about plant growth from the neighbouring property on 3 May 2023. This was reported again on 23 May and 6 June 2023. The resident provided the landlord with photos of the plant growth on 28 June 2023.
The landlord contacted the neighbour to discuss the issues with plant growth on 4 May 2023. This was the day after being advised of the resident’s concerns. This shows that the landlord took reasonable and proactive steps to try to resolve the issues the resident was experiencing.
The landlord reviewed the evidence of plant growth it received and concluded that the issue was not significant and that it would not take action. It explained this to the resident and encouraged the resident and her neighbour to be considerate and attempted to mediate the dispute.
The landlord also provided appropriate advice to the resident that she was entitled to cut back any growth that was encroaching into her garden. The landlord’s actions were appropriate and it made good attempts to informally resolve the dispute.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. At stage 2 it will respond to the escalation request within 2 working days and then provide its stage 2 response within 10 working days.
The resident raised her complaint on 26 May 2023 and received an acknowledgement from the landlord on 1 June 2023. This was in line with its policy. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 15 June 2023. This was also in line with its policy.
We have not seen evidence of when the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process, but the landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 17 July 2023. In this acknowledgement it identified that it had not done so in line with its policy. It also said it would respond by 31 July 2023.
The landlord provided its final response to the complaint on 31 July 2023. This was in line with the time allowed in its policy and in line with what it said in its acknowledgement of the resident’s escalation request.
The landlord identified that there were failures in its handling of the resident’s complaint, including a delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2 and the poor quality of the stage 1 response. It offered £200 compensation for these failings in its stage 2 response. It is positive that the landlord identified this as part of its complaint response.
The landlord’s compensation policy does not set out bandings for specific failures, but says that payments will depend on the impact caused. A payment of £200 is in line with a finding of maladministration in our remedies guidance. Considering the short duration of the delay experienced and the impact this is likely to have had on the resident, we find that the compensation offered by the landlord was appropriate.
The landlord also identified that it had failed to contact the resident as it had agreed during the period that it was investigating her complaint. It provided an apology for this and offered a payment of £150 to reflect these failings. There were 3 occasions that calls did not take place as agreed between 1 July 2023 and 18 July 2023. These failings contributed to the resident’s concerns that her complaint was not being taken seriously and meant she had to chase up a response from the landlord.
The payment of £150 offered by the landlord is in line with a finding of maladministration in our remedies guidance and reflects the impact these failings had on the resident. We find that this offer of compensation was appropriate to remedy these failings.

Learning

The landlord made references to visiting dogs in its communication with the resident. There is no clear explanation in the landlord’s pet policy of what counts as a visiting dog and the landlord’s approach to these. There does not appear to be a consistent approach to this amongst its staff. The landlord should consider clarifying this in a future version of its pet policy.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

There was some missing information in the evidence provided by the landlord. This included the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord should ensure that these records are appropriately kept and provided to us when requested.

Communication

The communication between the landlord and the resident was sometimes unclear and there were times when calls that were promised did not take place. This negatively impacted the relationship between the landlord and the tenant. The landlord should ensure it contacts residents when it has said it will.