Stonewater Limited (202314827)

Decision
Case ID	202314827
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Stonewater Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	29 April 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat above a car park. The car park ceiling sits directly below her property. She, and her representative, reported several incidents where high‑sided vehicles damaged the car park ceiling. She was concerned the damage posed a fire risk to her flat. After a third incident, she complained to the landlord about how it handled the issue. She remained dissatisfied with its response and referred the complaint to us.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. reports of damage to the car park ceiling.
   2. complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to the car park ceiling.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to the car park ceiling

5. The landlord appropriately acknowledged there had been delays in its handling of the repair to the car park ceiling. It apologised and offered a reasonable level of compensation for the delay and its poor communication. However, it failed to address the resident’s concerns about its communication with the fire service.

Landlords handling of the resident’s complaint

6. The landlord’s responses at both stages of the complaint process were issued slightly outside the timeframes set in its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). While it failed to acknowledge either delay in its responses, the delays were minimal and had no adverse effect.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
2	Written response The landlord must provide a written response to the resident regarding her concerns about the communication it had with the fire service while the ceiling repair in 2023 was outstanding. The landlord must ensure its response thoroughly addresses the concerns the resident raised in her complaint about potentially incorrect information it shared with the fire service. The landlord must provide the response to the resident and provide evidence of this to us by the specified deadline.	No later than 27 May 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
23 October 2023	The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of repairs to the car park ceiling after a further incident. She said the repair remained outstanding a month after she reported it. She was concerned the damage may have affected fire‑resistant cladding, creating a fire risk to her flat and neighbouring homes. She also raised concern that this was the fourth similar incident since 2019. She wanted the landlord to complete the necessary repairs.
9 November 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It acknowledged delays in repairing the most recent damage due to confusion with its contractor. It apologised and said the contractor would contact the resident with an update on when the work would be completed. It also offered £150 compensation.
12 November 2023	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the repair remained outstanding and that the landlord had not addressed her concerns about the damage posing a potential fire risk. She also said she contacted the local fire service and from that she believed the landlord gave the fire service inaccurate information about the action it was taking.
14 December 2023	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It again acknowledged delays in repairing the most recent ceiling damage. It apologised and said the repair was now complete. It stated the damage did not pose a fire risk because the ceiling did not contain cladding or other fire‑safety materials. It also said it was exploring ways to prevent the issue from happening again and repeated its offer of £150 compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She confirmed the landlord had completed the repair but said it had not addressed her concern that it gave inaccurate information to the fire service. She wanted the landlord to respond to her concerns about what it told the fire service while the repair remained outstanding.

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	Landlord’s handling of the residents reports of damage to the car park ceiling
Finding	Service failure

7. The resident complained that the landlord delayed repairs to damage to the car park ceiling. She said the damage affected fire‑resistant cladding and increased the risk of fire spreading to the flats above. She also said the landlord told the local fire service it was taking action that it had not. She wanted the landlord to complete the repair and investigate the information it gave to the fire service.
8. In response, the landlord acknowledged there had been delays in repairing the ceiling, which it attributed to contractor availability. It apologised and offered £150 compensation, comprising of £100 for delay and £50 for poor communication. At stage 2 it confirmed the repair was completed in November 2023. It said the ceiling did not contain fire resistant materials, the damage did not pose a fire risk, and the building did not require a fire risk assessment as it did not meet the necessary thresholds. It also said it was exploring ways to prevent further damage.
9. When the resident referred her complaint to us she confirmed the landlord had repaired the damage and the issue had not reoccurred since. However, she remained unhappy that it had not addressed her concerns about misinformation she felt it had given the fire service while the repair was still outstanding. She said she was aware that the landlord had given the fire service incorrect information about when it would repair the damage.
10. Parts of the landlord’s response were reasonable. There had been delays in it completing the necessary repair. It was therefore appropriate for it apologise. Additionally, the £100 compensation offered was reasonable, and in line with our guidance, given the length of the delay and the fact the issue, while a concern, did not have a direct impact on the residents ability to live in her property.
11. Furthermore, it was appropriate for the landlord to clarify that the damage caused did not pose a fire risk as this was a particular concern for the resident. In its response it explained there was no fire safety cladding, or similar material, within the ceiling and that this was not required due to the design of the building. Nothing in the evidence contradicts its explanation.
12. However, the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about the communication it had with the fire service. This was not appropriate, as this was another particular concern for the resident that she raised in her complaint. In line with the Code, it should have addressed this in its response in an effort to clarify what it had told the fire service. As such, the issue is still an outstanding concern for the resident.
13. Overall the majority of the landlord’s actions and response were reasonable. It acknowledged the repair delays, recognised its communication had been poor and both apologised and offered a reasonable level of compensation for these failings. However, it failed to address her concerns about the communication it had with the fire service about the issue in its response despite her raising it in her complaint.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

14. The landlord’s complaints policy states it has a two stage internal complaints process. Its definition of a complaint and its response timescales were in line with the Code.
15. The landlord’s responses at both stages of the complaints process were issued 3 days after their respective 10 and 20-day policy timescales. It failed to acknowledge these delays in either of its responses.
16. The landlord should have recognised these delays and apologised for them. Nonetheless they were very short, and there is no indication they caused any adverse effect.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. The landlord did not have robust records of its communication with the local fire service or its contractors. We recommend it refers to our knowledge information management (KIM) spotlight report for further information about good practice.

Communication

18. The landlord’s communication with the resident about the progress of the ceiling repair was poor. However it appropriately recognised this in its response. Nevertheless, we recommend it refers to our Communications spotlight report for further guidance.