Stonewater Limited (202329861)

Background

1. The resident is a leaseholder. She raised concerns in 2023 that cleaning and grounds maintenance services included in her service charges were not being delivered.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:

1. Reports of cleaning standards in communal areas.
2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of its response to the resident’s:

1. Reports of cleaning standards in communal areas.
2. Complaint.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord did not ensure that estate cleaning and grounds maintenance services were delivered to the expected standard. It has since acknowledged these failings and implemented an improvement plan with its contractor. It also offered compensation and a refund to recognise the inconvenience caused. We consider the landlord took appropriate steps to resolve matters and offered reasonable redress.
5. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its procedure. It accepted the failings identified, communicated appropriately with the resident, and offered proportionate redress to resolve the matter.

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 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’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.

6. The resident reported that the communal cleaning, window cleaning, and grounds maintenance services included in her service charges were not being carried out properly. She explained that the cleaners did not clean windowsills or handrails, cobwebs were left for long periods, the grounds were untidy, and contractors attended irregularly.
7. The evidence shows that the landlord’s contractor did not regularly carry out grounds maintenance visits in the first half of 2023. The landlord’s investigation confirmed that its contractor had fallen behind due to staff shortages and capacity issues. The contractor was required to complete 16 visits per year, but the landlord acknowledged that they had not been met this schedule.
8. The landlord’s surveyor later visited the site and confirmed that the grounds had been brought back up to standard by June 2024, once additional teams had been drafted in under a “recovery plan.” The landlord apologised for the lapse and confirmed that ongoing monitoring would take place to ensure regular attendance.
9. Although the interruption was caused by the contractor, the landlord remained responsible for contract oversight and ensuring continuity of service. Its failure to identify and act sooner on the missed visits demonstrates a lapse in monitoring. However, once notified, the landlord took appropriate action to investigate, liaise with the contractor, and reinstate the service.
10. The landlord also confirmed that window cleaning had not been carried out for several months because the scheme was mistakenly omitted from the contractor’s schedule. This was a clear administrative error and a failure of quality control. The landlord apologised and arranged for the property to be added to the schedule, confirming that regular window cleaning had since resumed.
11. The landlord also applied a refund of £87.20 to the resident’s rent account to cover the period between 3 March 2023 and 3 September 2023, when communal cleaning services were not delivered. This was an appropriate and proportionate remedy in line with our remedies guidance and the landlord’s service charge policy, which requires refunds where services are missed.
12. The landlord accepted that internal communal cleaning had not been completed to an acceptable standard. There had been a gap in service delivery when the previous cleaning contract had ended, and a new provider had not yet been appointed. During that period, residents were still being charged for cleaning services that were not provided.
13. The landlord subsequently arranged a new contract, verified completion through its surveyor, and confirmed that cleaning had resumed. It also offered £225 compensation (made up of £75 for communication failings and £150 for the inconvenience of having to report the issue multiple times).
14. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy places ultimate responsibility on it for ensuring that all estate services are completed as agreed, regardless of whether they are performed by external contractors. It should have systems in place to monitor contractor performance, identify missed visits, and keep residents informed. The evidence shows that these controls were not effective in this case, leading to periods of non-delivery and inconvenience to residents.
15. However, the landlord acknowledged these failings, took steps to restore all three services, provided refunds for undelivered cleaning and window cleaning, and issued compensation to reflect inconvenience and poor communication. Its total redress and follow-up actions were proportionate to the level of service failure and demonstrated learning and accountability. We consider the landlord’s overall response provided reasonable redress for the identified failings in its handling of these services.

16. The resident submitted her complaint about the lack of services in June 2023.
17. The landlord’s complaints policy states that:
    1. stage 1 responses should be issued within 10 working days of receiving the complaint.
    2. stage 2 reviews should be completed within 20 working days of escalation.
    3. where these timeframes cannot be met, the landlord should keep the complainant updated and agree a revised deadline.
18. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 3 July 2023, aiming to respond by 17 July 2023, and issued its stage 1 response on 21 July 2023. Although this was slightly outside its 10-working-day target, the delay was minor.
19. In its response, the landlord apologised for its acknowledged failings, confirmed service reinstatement, and offered compensation. for its complaint handling delay. The stage 1 response demonstrated that the landlord had investigated the issues raised and acknowledged clear failings. Its apology and initial redress were proportionate at this stage.
20. The resident escalated her complaint in September 2023, stating that services remained inconsistent and expressing dissatisfaction with the compensation offered. The landlord acknowledged the escalation and issued its stage 2 response on 24 October 2023, around five weeks later. This slightly exceeded its 20-working-day target but was not an excessive delay.
21. The landlord’s final response again upheld the complaint. It increased the total compensation offered and detailed how it was monitoring the contractor’s performance to ensure service standards improved. This response was comprehensive and demonstrated learning. It referenced the introduction of new oversight measures and confirmed that contractor attendance would be checked more closely going forward.
22. While the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 responses were both issued slightly beyond its published timeframes, the delays were short and were unlikely to significantly disadvantage the resident. The responses were transparent, accepted fault, and provided meaningful redress that met the principles of fairness and accountability.
23. The landlord offered £100 for its complaint handling delay. This reflects a proportionate remedy in line with our remedies guidance for a service failing of short duration which would likely have had minimal impact on the resident.
24. For these reasons, we find that the landlord’s response to the complaint provided reasonable redress.

Learning

25. The landlord identified learning from this complaint, acknowledging weaknesses in its monitoring of estate service contracts. It confirmed that new oversight arrangements had been implemented, including:

• Regular checks by the partnering surveyor to verify contractor attendance and quality of work.
• Improved communication channels between the landlord’s service teams and contractors to ensure missed visits are reported promptly.
• A review of contract mobilisation procedures to prevent future service gaps when contracts change.

26. These measures are appropriate and, if sustained, should reduce the risk of similar failures recurring. The landlord’s actions therefore demonstrate that learning has taken place and been applied in practice.