Stonewater Limited (202317567)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317567

Stonewater Limited

30 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints about:
1. Fencing.
2. Bias.
3. Anti-social behaviour (ASB).
4. Compensation for rent issues.
5. Enquiry regarding a neighbour.
We have also looked at how the landlord handled the complaint about its own complaint process as part of this investigation.

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property.
The resident’s tenancy commenced in June 2021.
The property is a 2 bedroom bungalow.
In summer 2023 the resident contacted us. He explained that the landlord had failed to respond to various complaints about different issues (no further details given) in line with its complaint policy. He stated that this demonstrated that the landlord was acting with “bias” towards him.
In response to the resident’s contact we asked the landlord to respond to the resident.
On 17 October 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response following contact with the resident. In summary the landlord said:
1. The resident believed that it had failed to respond or respond fairly to the following matters under its complaint procedure:
  1. Fencing.
  2. Bias.
  3. ASB.
  4. Compensation for rent issues.
  5. Enquiry regarding a neighbour.
2. In respect of fencing (we note the complaint was about the landlord’s action in removing fencing which the resident had erected at his previous property which it owned):
  1. On 14 February 2023 it wrote to the resident to confirm that it had “refused” the complaint about fencing as it was out of time; which was in line with its complaint policy. Within its letter it explained that he may refer the matter to us if he was unhappy with its position.
  2. It acknowledged that when the resident attempted to escalate the complaint it should have reiterated that his recourse was to approach us. It apologised for its oversight.
3. In respect of bias (we note that the complaint was about the resident’s view that the landlord had acted in a biased manner towards him by not responding to or responding fairly to complaints and issues which he had raised with it):
  1. Its records showed the resident contacted it in March 2023 to raise a complaint about “perceived bias”. On receipt of the complaint it should have reviewed the information in order to provide a response. This did not happen.
  2. It noted that the complaint was sent directly to a member of staff who no longer worked for it. It was therefore unable to “carry out a meaningful investigation into the concerns [he] raised at the time”.
  3. It hoped the resident no longer had concerns regarding possible bias.
  4. It would like to award the resident £250 compensation comprising:

(1) £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by not exploring the resident’s complaint about bias.

(2) £100 for the time and trouble taken to follow up the matter.

In respect of ASB:
1. In December 2022 the resident contacted it about an incident with a dog. Its records showed that the landlord advised the resident that the incident did not amount to ASB and therefore an ASB case would not be opened.
2. The resident reported the incident again in March 2023. In response it reiterated that the incident did not amount to ASB and therefore an ASB case would not be opened. It also confirmed that it would not open a complaint about its decision. It advised him to contact us if he disagreed with its position.
In respect of compensation for rent issues:
1. It was sorry that the resident had not received a response to his request for additional compensation following its stage 2 response in relation to a complaint about rent issues.
2. Should the resident remain concerned regarding the level of compensation awarded he may contact us. It noted that the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) did not provide provision for a further response after stage 2.
In respect of the enquiry regarding a neighbour:
1. It was sorry that it had not responded to the resident’s enquiry about a neighbour due to it being “overlooked” when it was received.
2. It would provide a response to the enquiry within 5 working days.
Overall it noted that its communication with the resident had been poor as it had not responded to all of his outstanding concerns. It would therefore like to award £450 compensation for its “repeated poor communication”.

On 18 October 2023 the resident requested to escalate the complaint at he was “extremely dissatisfied” with the responses given to the issues. In summary the resident said:
1. In respect of the fence:
  1. He was considering whether to refer the matter to us or initiate legal proceedings.
2. In respect of bias:
  1. He had previously informed the landlord that he had evidence of the bias which he had experienced from it. He stated it was unsatisfactory that the landlord had not requested his evidence to carry out an investigation.
  2. He was due compensation for the suffering he had experienced and the landlord’s failure to investigate this matter.
3. In respect of ASB:
  1. The landlord had breached its ASB policy by not investigating the incident with the dog.
  2. The landlord had breached its complaint policy by not considering its decision to not investigate the incident with the dog under its complaint procedure.
  3. He was due compensation for the suffering he had experienced and the landlord’s failure to investigate the matter.
4. In respect of compensation for rent issues:
  1. The landlord’s complaint policy provided for a 3 stage process. Therefore the landlord should have considered his request for additional compensation formally.
5. In respect of the enquiry regarding the neighbour:
  1. It was unsatisfactory that the landlord had overlooked his enquiry about the neighbour on receipt.
6. He did not accept the landlord’s offer of compensation as he did not consider that all issues subject of the complaint had been addressed.
On 12 December 2023 we wrote to the landlord following contact from the resident advising that he had not received a stage 2 response despite escalating the complaint. We asked the landlord to provide a response if it had not already done so.
On 14 December 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident setting out that it would not be escalating the complaint to stage 2. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry that it had not responded to the escalation request on receipt. It explained that a response was not provided as the escalation was sent directly to a member of staff who had left “that week”. It explained that after the staff member left the email account was not monitored. It would like to award £100 compensation comprising:
  1. £50 for the time and trouble taken in following up the matter.
  2. £50 for not responding within its service standards.
2. It would not escalate the complaint about the fence as it was out of time.
3. It would not escalate the complaint about bias as it would not be able to “complete a fair or thorough investigation into the matter” based on the resident’s historic evidence alone. It confirmed that it would however consider any “new” evidence of bias he may have.
4. It would not escalate the complaint about ASB as the incident with the dog did not amount to ASB.
5. It would not escalate the complaint about compensation for rent issues. It explained that this was “based on [a]recommendation in a determination sent by the Housing Ombudsman”. It confirmed that the resident may refer the matter to us if he was not happy with the level of compensation it had awarded.
6. It would not escalate the complaint about the outstanding enquiry regarding the neighbour as the 5 working day deadline to provide a response to the matter had not expired when the escalation request was submitted. The landlord did not say whether a response had been provided within the deadline.
On 18 March 2024, following a conversation with the resident, the landlord wrote to him to confirm that it would consider his complaint at stage 2 as he remained concerned with its position.
On 24 April 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2, final, response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It had reviewed its stage 1 response and was happy with its findings.
2. Its records showed that the resident requested to escalate the complaint on 18 October 2023 but no response was provided at that time.
3. The complaint was escalated on 18 March 2024 following a telephone conversation with the resident where he expressed dissatisfaction with its response.
4. It was sorry for the delay in the provision of its stage 2 response after it had agreed to provide a stage 2 response in March 2024.
5. It recognised that its communication with the resident had been poor.
6. It was satisfied that its decision to not investigate the incident with the dog as ASB was appropriate.
7. It was sorry that the resident felt that he had experienced bias in respect of its complaint handling. In responding to complaints it always followed its processes and policies and its staff attended various training courses.
8. It was unable to share any information on the neighbour due to data protection restrictions.
9. Following a review of the service it had provided to the resident it acknowledged that it had fallen short. It would therefore like to offer a total of £950 compensation comprising:
  1. £700 awarded at stage 1.
  2. £50 for poor complaint handling.
  3. £100 for poor communication.
  4. £100 for the delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2.
10. The resident may refer the complaint to us if he was not happy with its response.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about fencing

The evidence shows that the landlord wrote to the resident on 13 February 2023 to confirm it was not able to consider his complaint about compensation for fencing relating to his previous tenancy with it. It explained that this was because the matter complained of was out of time.
The landlord’s complaint policy, which was in place at the time of the complaint, sets out that there are circumstances where it will not accept a complaint which includes where the “issue took place more than 6 months before [it] received the complaint”. This was in accordance with the Code which came into effect in April 2022.
As the resident’s complaint about the fence concerned matters which occurred more than 6 months before the complaint was raised, and concerned a tenancy which ended in 2021, the landlord’s decision to refuse to consider the complaint was reasonable. There was therefore no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the complaint about fencing. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’ and while the evidence is available to reach and informed conclusion on the events which occurred.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about bias

The evidence shows that on 10 March 2023 the resident submitted a complaint about “staff conduct”. The resident set out that he had evidence which demonstrated “a clear bias” and discrimination towards him by landlord officers. He stated that officers had shown a “disregard” towards his “issues” by “clearly favouring others” to his detriment – no further information given.
Where a resident raises concerns regarding bias and / or discrimination a landlord must take steps to review the alleged behaviour and conduct to determine if any action is needed. Despite receiving the complaint the evidence does not document that the landlord opened a complaint at that time in order to investigate the alleged behaviour. This is unsatisfactory and will have left the resident feeling his concerns were not being taken seriously and will have resulted in a further loss of trust in the landlord.
In responding to the complaint on 17 October 2023 the landlord apologised that it had not responded to the complaint about bias and awarded £250 compensation. It also advised that it was unable to investigate the issues as the associated staff member no longer worked for it.
The landlord’s apology was appropriate to demonstrate that it recognised that the service it had provided the resident had fallen below what was expected and therefore he had been impacted.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out where it fails to meet the level of service set out in its published standards it may offer compensation as a gesture of goodwill. As the landlord had identified a service failure it was appropriate that it engaged its compensation policy. In our opinion the landlord’s offer of compensation was proportionate to reflect that it had failed to consider the complaint and that he had therefore been adversely impacted. We also note the offer was within the appropriate range for cases where there were failings which had a significant impact on a resident.
While the apology and compensation were appropriate, the landlord’s decision to not investigate the allegations of bias was unsatisfactory. By not undertaking an investigation the landlord failed to show that it was taking the resident’s allegations seriously. It was unreasonable for the landlord to suggest that an investigation would not be thorough or comprehensive as a member of staff no longer worked for it. The landlord should have reviewed its contemporaneous records of its contact with the resident in addition to the evidence which the resident had collected on the matter.
There was maladministration by the landlord in its decision to not open a complaint to investigate the resident’s concerns regarding bias. In not considering the complaint the resident was left without an answer to his concerns. It also meant the landlord failed to identify whether any inappropriate conduct had occurred which had resulted in the resident being disadvantaged or receiving a lesser service.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about ASB

The evidence shows that on 27 December 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report an incident which had taken place at his ex-partner’s home – who also lived at one of its properties. The resident stated a dog, who belonged to his ex-partner’s neighbour, was “running and jumping up on him”. The resident wanted to know if the neighbour had permission for the dog.
The landlord responded to the resident on the same day. The landlord thanked the resident for the information and explained it would not be able to disclose information confirming if one of its residents had permission to keep a pet. The landlord also explained that its residents were able to keep pets if they did not cause a nuisance. The landlord confirmed that the one-off incident reported by the resident did not amount to a nuisance and therefore it would not be opening an ASB case to investigate the matter further. The landlord advised the resident that his ex-partner should contact it if she was experiencing on-going issues with an animal causing a nuisance.
The evidence shows that on 17 March 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about its decision to not investigate the incident with the dog as ASB. He noted that despite informing the landlord that he had evidence showing the incident, CCTV and audio, he had been ignored.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 22 March 2023. It said that it was unable to consider the matter as a complaint as there “had been no service failure” in how it had responded to the incident on receipt. The landlord said that it had given appropriate advice regarding the incident in accordance with its ASB policy which sets out that there are some behaviours or situations which it does not consider to be ASB. It confirmed that where this is the case appropriate advice and information will be given to the reporting person which it had done. It further noted that its complaint policy stated that it will not accept a complaint when it relates to a policy that has been approved by its Board, unless the complaint is about a failure to comply with the policy. The landlord concluded the complaint by confirming that the resident may refer the complaint to us if he was not happy with its decision.
The landlord’s decision to not consider the resident’s complaint about its decision to not open an ASB case about the incident with a dog was reasonable. As the landlord was able to demonstrate that it had responded to the incident in accordance with its ASB policy it was reasonable for it to decline to consider the matter under its complaint procedure. It was appropriate that the landlord signposted the resident to us should he disagree its decision for an impartial review of its position. There was therefore no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint about ASB.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about compensation for rent issues

On 3 July 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint about rent issues. The landlord concluded its response by setting out that the response was “[its] final response, however [the resident did] have the option to request a review by [its] Customer Complaints Panel (CCP)”. This was in line with the complaint policy which the landlord operated at the time. The policy set out that a resident could request for the CCP to review their complaint following its stage 2 response.
On 5 July 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord to request for the complaint be reviewed by the CCP. We cannot see that the landlord responded to the resident’s request on receipt. This is unsatisfactory. On receipt of the resident’s request the landlord should have arranged a meeting for the CCP to review the complaint in line with its complaint policy.
In October 2023, as part of its stage 1 response, the landlord said that it had not escalated the resident’s complaint about rent for consideration by its CCP as the Code did not provide provision for a 3 stage complaint process. In December 2023 it added that it no longer escalated complaints to stage 3 based on a recommendation by the Ombudsman in respect of its complaint process. In both responses it advised the resident that he may bring the complaint to us if he was unhappy with its position. This was appropriate.
The Code was introduced in April 2022. The Code set out that a 2 stage complaint procedure was “ideal” and a complaint should only go to stage 3 where the “resident [had] actively requested a third stage review”. The Code was updated in April 2024 and confirmed that “a process with more than 2 stages [was] not acceptable under any circumstances”. Therefore while the landlord may have received a recommendation from this Service about the complaint procedure it was operating in 2023 its decision to not refer the complaint for consideration by its CCP was unfair. As the landlord had offered a third stage within its stage 2 response it was unfair for it to then withdraw it. This takes into account that the 2022 Code did allow for a stage 3 in certain circumstances. We can see that the landlord updated its complaint procedure, to operate a 2 stage process, in May 2024 to bring it in line with the 2024 Code.
There was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint about compensation for rent issues. The landlord’s decision to not review the complaint at stage 3 was unfair as the complaint policy which it operated at the time provided for a 3 stage process. The resident was therefore denied proper access to the landlord’s complaint procedure. While the landlord did inform the resident of his right to refer the complaint about rent issues to us it delayed in doing so by a period of approximately 3 months after his request to escalate the complaint for review by the CCP.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint about an enquiry regarding a neighbour

The evidence shows that on 10 April 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about a neighbour. He set out that he was concerned that the landlord had granted the neighbour a tenancy as they were a “convicted person” which was a safeguarding issue for others living in the area.
Following a review of the landlord’s records we cannot see that it replied to the resident’s complaint. This is unsatisfactory as the purpose of a formal complaint procedure is to address complaints at the earliest stage. While the information which the landlord would likely have been able to share about the neighbour would have been limited, it does not mitigate its lack of response to the complaint.
In responding to the complaint on 17 October 2023 the landlord apologised and committed to providing a response within 5 working days. Despite the landlord’s commitment to provide a response to the resident’s enquiry about the neighbour there is no evidence that it did so. This is unsatisfactory as it was a commitment that it made in order to resolve the matter.
In responding to the complaint at stage 2 the landlord confirmed that it was unable to share information on the neighbour due to data protection restrictions. While it was appropriate that the landlord confirmed its position regarding the neighbour it was unsatisfactory that the landlord significantly delayed in doing so.
There was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the complaint about an enquiry about a neighbour. This is because the landlord failed to respond to the complaint on receipt and then failed to follow up on the action it had committed to complete in order to resolve the matter. While the landlord did confirm its position regarding then neighbour within its stage 2 response, the response was provided 12 months after he first submitted it and 6 months after it committed to providing a response at stage 1. While the response was outstanding the resident will have experienced uncertainty and raised expectations.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint about its own complaint process

The chronology of the complaint demonstrates that the landlord’s handling of the complaint was unsatisfactory. This is because it failed to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request on receipt and delayed in issuing its stage 2 response. In responding to the complaint at stage 2 the landlord acknowledged its failings in this regard and therefore apologised and awarded a total of £250 compensation. In our opinion the landlord’s offer of compensation was proportionate to reflect that it had failed to consider the complaint in line with its own service standards.
In considering the complaint the landlord found that there had been incidents of poor communication with the resident regarding the issues subject of the complaint. Specifically that it had not taken the time to make sure that it had made its position on each matter clear to the resident. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord awarded a total of £550 in recognition of this.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint was not always satisfactory. This included delays and lack of clarity on its position on the issues subject of the complaint. It has since recognised its shortfalls, apologised and awarded appropriate compensation in recognition of this. The landlord has therefore made an offer of redress to the resident in recognition of this. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s offer of redress resolves this part of the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman finds:
1. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling about the resident’s complaint about fencing.
2. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling about the resident’s complaint about bias.
3. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling about the resident’s complaint about ASB.
4. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling about the resident’s complaint about rent issues.
5. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling about the resident’s complaint about an enquiry regarding a neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which satisfactorily resolves its handling of the complaint about its own complaint process.

Orders

The landlord should, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, provide a written apology to the resident in respect of the failings identified by this investigation.
The landlord should pay the resident a total of £1450 compensation. This includes the £1050 which the landlord awarded in addition to £400 comprising:
1. £200 for not investigating the resident’s concerns regarding bias.
2. £100 for not escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 3.
3. £100 for providing a response to the resident’s enquiry about a neighbour.