Stonewater Limited (202307883)

Background

1. The resident owns and lives in an apartment within a block. The landlord is the freeholder and is responsible for services to the communal areas and estate. The resident is responsible for paying a variable service charge for these services. He complained the landlord was not properly managing the building and the estate. His son represented him in his complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Management of the building, estate and the associated charges.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s management of the building, estate and the associated charges.
   2. 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 management of the building, estate and the associated charges

4. The landlord accepted failings with its repairs service, cleaning and grounds maintenance. It offered refunds and compensation, but its explanations were unclear and sometimes contradictory, leaving the resident unsure what has been paid or agreed. Although the compensation amounts offered were reasonable, the lack of clarity amounted to service failure.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy or our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It failed to tell him when it cancelled a complaint and repeatedly missed its response deadlines. The landlord later apologised and offered compensation, but it did not include a £125 offer in its final written response. We found service failure and ordered the landlord to pay the full £375 compensation it offered.

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.

Recommendations

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

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 has happened or comment on all the information we have reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not considered

6. The resident complained about the reasonableness of some of the service charges he incurred. The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) is responsible for determining the reasonableness of service charges, so we have not considered this. The resident may wish to get further advice if he wants to pursue this matter through the FTT. 
7. The resident complained about the landlord failing to provide personal information when he made a Subject Access Request. Complaints about this issue can be raised with the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) and we do not investigate specific complaints about it. The resident may contact the ICO about this matter if he has not already done so.
8. The resident said the landlord failed to address all the matters and he made a new complaint about ongoing issues in May 2024. They include delays in repairing a light, repairs to the car park due to flooding and fly tipping from temporary guests. The resident escalated this complaint to us, so we have not considered issues from 6 January 2024 in this report.

What we have considered

9. The resident has raised several complaints with the landlord. We have considered the landlord’s actions following its final response to another complaint on 19 May 2022 up to its final complaint response to his subsequent complaint on 5 January 2024.

Cleaning services, repairs and maintenance of communal areas and the estate

10. The resident’s lease says the landlord is responsible for repairing, maintaining and redecorating the building’s structure. The landlord’s policy says it will conduct most non-urgent repairs within 28 days and major repairs within 42 days. The resident reported repeated repair issues before and during his complaint, such as problems with the communal door, fencing and lighting. He complained the landlord took too long to respond to repairs and it had not done them properly.
11. The landlord acknowledged its response to the repairs was delayed and the resident spent time and trouble reporting them. It attempted to put things right by apologising and offering compensation. It said it resolved the repair issues except the metal fencing. It confirmed this was not causing a hazard and agreed to complete this work within the next financial year.
12. The resident’s lease says the landlord is responsible for cleaning the common parts and grounds maintenance. The landlord said it usually maintained the grounds on a fortnightly basis during the summer and monthly in the winter. It said it cleaned the communal areas weekly and the windows monthly. The resident is responsible for paying a monthly charge for these services.
13. The resident told the landlord that its contractors were not gardening and cleaning windows as frequently as they should have been. He said the communal cleaner was doing a “good job” but was missing areas.
14. The landlord’s policy says it will regularly check its cleaning and grounds maintenance, and it uses a scale to monitor standards. It recorded its service to be either “good” or “satisfactory” on most occasions during 2023. However, it did not do regular checks as it missed months, including in July 2023. When it monitored the site in August 2023 it found its cleaning services to be “poor” and its grounds maintenance to be “very poor”.
15. The landlord acknowledged its services had been below standard at times. It said it valued the resident’s input into improving these. It said it was trying to put things right and had changed its contractors in April 2023 and it produced a leaflet which outlined its service standards. Its actions, offer to refund service charges, and provide compensation went some way to resolving this complaint.

Service charge calculations, refunds and compensation offers

16. The resident complained about paying service charges for services he said he had either not received or were inadequate. He also said the landlord had not paid the compensation and service charge refunds it offered in relation to a previous complaint.
17. In its stage 1 response on 11 October 2023, the landlord agreed to pay £900 compensation, made up of £250 for its complaint handling and £650 for poor communication and the distress caused. It also acknowledged it had not refunded 2 months of service charges totalling £216 and said it would write off the resident’s arrears of £602.55. In addition, it accepted it had not adjusted the resident’s direct debit overpayment of £41.20 when it reconciled the accounts.
18. When escalating his complaint on 19 October 2023 the resident asked the landlord to:
    1. Write off the current arrears which he had accrued due to withholding payments.
    2. Pay compensation of £1,200 which he said the landlord verbally agreed to pay to settle his complaint at the end of 2022.
    3. Refund 2 months worth of charges it agreed to credit, totaling £216.
    4. Refund his direct debit overpayment of £41.20 when it reconciled his accounts.
19. In its final complaint response, the landlord confirmed it paid the resident £1,400 in December 2022 for his previous complaint and refunded the service charges for that period. It said it added further service charge credits for 2023 and had refunded £41.20 for a direct debit overpayment. It also agreed to pay £1,000 in relation to the resident’s current complaint, which included £250 for its complaint handling.
20. Where a landlord admits failings, our role is to consider whether the redress it offered was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord’s offers were reasonable as they were in line with its policy and our remedies guidance. However, we found service failure as its explanations were confusing, contradictory and unclear.
21. The landlord provided evidence it credited £216 in service charges in January 2024. It also credited 50% of the cleaning charges (totaling £5.50) and maintenance charges (totaling £34.65) for the period 3 April 2023 to 3 September 2023. However, it is has not clearly explained to the resident whether it credited his account to clear his arrears which it said were £602.55 on 19 October 2023. This leaves the complaint unresolved.
22. We ordered the landlord to pay the resident the £750 compensation it offered if it has not already done so. This was in relation to its poor communication and the distress and inconvenience it caused. We also ordered it to check it has credited what it agreed to pay in relation to service charges in 2023 and 2024. This includes the amount it agreed to pay to settle his arrears as they stood on 19 October 2023. As the resident said its offers were unclear, we ordered it to provide evidence of it paying £1,400 compensation in December 2022 regarding his previous complaint. 
23. We have not made any further orders in relation to ongoing issues as the resident has raised these as a separate complaint to the landlord and escalated this to us. We will be investigating this in a separate case (reference 202509434).

24. The landlord’s complaints policies dated September 2022, and September 2023 applied at the time of the complaints we investigated. They said it would acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 2 working days and respond to them within 10 working days. These response times were not in line with the 2022 version of our Code, which applies in this case. However, the landlord’s latest policy complies with our Code.
25. The landlord followed our Code when it encouraged the resident to contact us for advice in April 2022. This was prior to it issuing its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 19 May 2022. However, the landlord should have referred the resident to us when he said he was unhappy with its final response on 30 May 2022. It failed to explain he had exhausted its process, which was not in line with the Code.
26. The landlord’s service failed when the resident complained again in February 2023, as it did not let the resident know it cancelled this complaint, or refer him to us. When the resident complained again on 13 June 2023 it acknowledged the complaint on 19 June 2023. However, it failed to respond within its policy timeframe and the resident contacted us. We contacted the landlord and it acknowledged the complaint again and responded on 11 October 2023. As it took nearly 4 months to respond this was a substantial delay.
27. When the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 19 October 2023 it took too long again to respond. We contacted the landlord and it acknowledged the complaint 2 months after he requested the escalation. It apologised and offered £125 compensation for the delay but forgot to include this additional offer in its final response.
28. The landlord attempted to resolve its complaint handling failures by apologising and offering compensation. If the landlord had included all its compensation offers in its responses, we would have found its complaint handling redress was reasonable. However, we found service failure as it did not include the £125 compensation it offered on 19 October 2023 within final complaint response on 5 January 2024. We have ordered the landlord to pay the full £375 compensation it offered, if it has not already paid this.

Learning

29. The landlord identified its learning from the resident’s complaints. It said it has made significant improvements to its grounds maintenance and other estate services. It also produced new service standards and provided these to the resident.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord’s record keeping was good in parts as it recorded a lot of its communications with the resident. However, it should improve its processes for recording compensation and service charge refunds, so it is clear what it has offered. The resident said he was offered compensation verbally and there was no record of this. The landlord should keep thorough records so it can better manage residents’ issues and provide a good service.

Communication

31. The landlord acknowledged it did not properly manage the communications between the resident and his representative. The landlord should consider how it can improve its communications overall, especially when dealing with representatives.