Stonewater Limited (202337436)

Decision
Case ID	202337436
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Stonewater Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	5 August 2026

Background

1. The resident moved into the property under a mutual exchange contract and complained about the state of the property, including issues with damp and mould. When the landlord failed to attend to assess the issues, stressing concerns about her family’s health, the resident complained again in June 2023, adding concerns about property maintenance. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about:
   1. The property condition following a mutual exchange, including damp and mould.
   2. Window cleaning services.
   3. Grounds maintenance services issues with ivy and garden waste.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decisions (determinations)

4. We found maladministration with the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports about the property condition, including damp and mould.
   2. Window cleaning services.
5. We found the landlord offered reasonable redress for how it handled reports about ground’s maintenance service issues with ivy and garden waste.
6. We found service failure with the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Property condition following exchange, including issues with damp and mould

7. The landlord failed to act on early reports of damp and mould and did not properly acknowledge those reports during its complaints process. As a result, concerns about damp, mould, and the potential impact on the resident’s family’s health were not appropriately addressed for an extended period.

Window cleaning services

8. The landlord acknowledged poor communication about its window cleaning service. However, it further contributed to the resident’s confusion by failing to clearly explain its position in its complaint responses.

Grounds maintenance services issues with ivy and garden waste.

9. The landlord acknowledged that its grounds maintenance service had fallen below the expected standard. It offered compensation that appropriately recognised the impact on the resident and committed to taking steps to improve the service.

Complaint handling

10. The landlord acknowledged its significant complaint handling delays and offered appropriate compensation. However, there were additional complaint handling failures. These included its failure to recognise the resident’s reports of damp and mould as part of her complaint. Also at stage 2 its failure to address her complaint about the removal of garden waste and approach to the issue of overgrown ivy.

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
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is provided by a senior manager the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 02 September 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,025, made up as follows: £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to act appropriately on the resident’s repeated reports about damp. £325 as already offered to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience of the landlord’s complaint handling failings. £100 inclusive of the £50 already offered for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor communication around its window cleaning services. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 02 September 2026
3	Specific action order The landlord must provide the resident with a written explanation setting out: the changes made to the window cleaning service, including when those changes took effect and whether residents were notified in line with the tenancy agreement; and its position regarding any window cleaning charges applied after the service changed, including the outcome of any review it has undertaken.	No later than 02 September 2026
3	Specific action order The landlord must contact the resident to answer unresolved issues raised in her October 2023 escalation, specifically about her concerns about garden waste and approach to eliminating ivy. If the resident remains unhappy with its response, the landlord should set up a new complaint, and she can refer her complaint to us if she remains unsatisfied with its stage 2 outcome.	No later than 02 September 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the £175 it offered in its complaint responses to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by it failings in handling grounds maintenance, if it has not already done so. This recognised genuine elements of service failure and the reasonable redress finding is made on that basis.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between 18 April 2023 and 25 May 2023	The resident complained repeatedly about the “state of the property” following her mutual exchange. She was concerned that the mutual exchange inspection had not identified the damp and mould and was worried about her family’s health. She referred to various issues, such as ivy growth, that she considered could have contributed to the issue. On 24 April 2023 the landlord said she took the property ‘as is’ but said it would send a surveyor.
13 June 2023	The resident asked to make a formal complaint. She said she had no contact from a surveyor and as a result had been unable to complete any decorating at the property.
29 June 2023	The resident complained again about the state of the property, about the landlord’s failure to window clean and to remove ivy and garden waste.
24 August 2023	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It apologised for the failure to complete outstanding repairs and said its supervisor had visited and raised several works. It said it had received a quote to remove the ivy and spoken to its window cleaning contractors. It apologised that this work had not been carried out as it should have been and offered a refund on applicable service charges. It also offered £100 for the delays in its complaints process and £75 for her inconvenience.
6 October 2023	The resident escalated her complaint. She said only some of the works had been completed and some partially. She also said the landlord had failed to inspect the loft for damp and that there were gaps in the roof of the loft.
14 June 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: it acknowledged its delayed response and offered £100 for its late acknowledgment, £50 for poor complaint handling and a further £25 for a typo it made in its stage 1 compensation form it had done some ground maintenance work but would chase contractors to complete it had incorrectly told the resident that it had a responsibility to window clean and offered £50 for this miscommunication the resident had raised damp and mould in October 2023 but then cancelled the appointment saying there was no damp and mould the resident had since raised issues with the guttering in May 2024, which the landlord had referred to its damp and mould team if offered a further £100 for further inconvenience, time and trouble, making its total offer £500
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said the landlord had not attended properly to the ivy growth or garden waste and disagreed that the landlord was not responsible for window cleaning. She also disagreed that she had said there was no damp and mould and said the issues with garden maintenance continued, which she wanted resolved.

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	Property condition following mutual exchange, including issues with damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

11. The resident told us that the conditions she was living in affected her family’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
12. The resident has raised issues related to roof repairs and about damp and mould since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. Therefore, we have not investigated these.

What we have investigated

13. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy says that properties that are proposed for exchange will be subject to an inspection prior to that exchange. It may withhold consent for the exchange to go ahead if the property is not in an acceptable condition, such as unauthorised alterations and the property or garden is in poor condition. The policy also says that it will have no responsibility for any contents left in the property and the outgoing resident is responsible for clearing all areas of the property before leaving. This includes loft spaces, gardens and the interior of the property.
14. The landlord’s 2021 responsive repairs policy says that it will deliver all non emergency repairs within 28 days from notification and within a maximum of 42 days where there is a significant amount of work required beyond the original repair. Its 2023 damp and mould policy says it took a zero-tolerance approach to the issue, supporting residents quickly and responding to raised cases.
15. The landlord conducted an inspection of the property in February 2023 and the outgoing tenant signed to say they would rectify any issues as agreed. The resident agreed to take the property in that condition. She signed to say that she understood the landlord could not take any action for any issues that were not rectified or for items left.
16. Therefore, the landlord was not responsible for those issues that were identified in the inspection as being the responsibility of the previous tenant. These included a kitchen door not being hung, a window handle not working and decorating.
17. However, the records indicate that the survey was conducted over video and did not reveal the full extent of the issues at the property. In June 2024, a surveyor commented that multiple repairs had been required at the property and considered that “this was a [mutual exchange] that I don’t believe should have gone through”, commenting that “so much was missed” at inspection.
18. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it did not acknowledge what the resident had said about how unhappy she was with the “state of the property”. Instead, it apologised for delayed outstanding repairs, which it failed to itemise. This was a failure to acknowledge the core of her complaint.
19. The landlord also failed to address her complaints about damp and mould, which it had recorded on 18 April 2023, as being “primarily” her main concern. Neither did it address her claim on 24 April 2023 that the inspection report had failed to note the damp, water marks and mould and that the hallway/stairway walls were “soft”.
20. The landlord also failed to acknowledge that the resident had to chase for a survey after reporting concerns about ventilation and guttering, which she believed were contributing to damp and mould.
21. An operative attended to treat black mould on 23 May 2023. However, on 24 May 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to say someone needed to survey the whole property. She said the operative who attended said that he could not treat the other rooms because “potentially the whole ceilings are damp” (sic). She was concerned about the impact on her children’s health.
22. By 13 June 2023 the resident wrote again to the landlord saying it had still not surveyed the property. Given the landlord’s commitment to taking a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, its failure to respond to repeated concerns about the issue and to address it in its stage 1 response, was a significant failing.
23. When the resident escalated her complaint, in the landlord’s 17 May 2024 stage 2 acknowledgment it said it would not be able to look at the issues she had raised about damp and mould or missing roof tiles as they had not been raised at stage 1 of her complaint. However, this was not correct. If the landlord had properly acknowledged the resident’s repeated complaints about damp, it would have noted that her main concern about the property condition, which was part of her stage 1 complaint, was with damp.
24. At stage 2, the landlord again failed to acknowledge the resident’s earlier April, May and June 2023 reports about damp. It said she had reported damp in October 2023 but that this had been “cancelled by yourself” because there was no mould. The resident said she does not recall doing this and the records do not evidence this was the case.
25. The records say the treatment of damp and mould, raised on 2 October 2023, was completed on 23 October 2023. In the resident’s escalation on 6 October 2023 she said that someone had left a message about attending to treat the mould on 12 October 2023. She said that this had already been done but was concerned that as the damp in the loft had not been addressed, it would recur. This was not the resident cancelling an appointment but alerting the landlord to a deeper problem.
26. In its stage 2 response, the landlord also said that the resident had raised issues with the gutters on 3 May 2024. It said it had referred this to its damp and mould team. However, the resident had raised concerns that issues with the guttering could be causing damp on 24 April 2023. Despite the resident chasing for a response, it had not responded to her report.
27. The landlord’s failure to recognise the resident’s earlier reports was contrary to its zero-tolerance approach and meant concerns first raised at the start of the tenancy were not properly addressed for over a year.
28. The evidence indicates that the landlord’s mutual exchange inspection was inadequate and may not have identified the full extent of the property’s defects, including potential damp and mould issues. It also failed to respond appropriately to repeated reports of damp and mould from the resident, despite her concerns about black mould and the impact on her family’s health. These failings meant concerns raised at the start of the tenancy were not properly addressed for over a year and amounted to maladministration.
29. The landlord did not acknowledge any failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and, as a result, did not offer any compensation. Therefore, to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused, we have ordered compensation in accordance with our Compensation Guidance. In determining the award, we acknowledge that the June 2024 survey did not identify a significant damp and mould issue.
30. However, we have taken into account the resident’s repeated attempts over the course of a year to obtain a response, as well as the impact of the landlord’s failure to respond appropriately to her ongoing concerns. This was particularly concerning given the resident’s expressed worries about the health and wellbeing of her family and the uncertainty caused by the landlord’s lack of engagement.

Complaint	Handling of window cleaning services
Finding	Maladministration

31. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will provide window cleaning services and, if it proposes changes to chargeable services, it will notify residents and seek their comments before making those changes.
32. After the resident complained that the landlord had failed to clean the property windows, the landlord apologised in its stage 1 response of August 2023. It said it had contacted its contractor and that the windows had since been cleaned.
33. However, when the resident escalated her complaint in October 2023, she said the windows had last been cleaned in July 2023. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had provided incorrect information at stage 1. It explained that, following changes to its contract specification in April 2023, only communal windows were cleaned. It offered £50 compensation for the misinformation.
34. The landlord’s explanation created further confusion. It did not explain why window cleaning had apparently continued after the contractual changes took effect, nor did it clarify whether residents had been notified of the change in service as required by the tenancy agreement.
35. The landlord also said that it had continued to charge the resident for window cleaning after the service had apparently changed. While it said it would review those charges, it did not clearly explain the change in service. This was a communication failure and a service failure. We have therefore ordered additional compensation for the confusion caused and required the landlord to clarify its position regarding both the service provided and any charges applied.

Complaint	Grounds maintenance services issues with ivy and garden waste
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not investigated

36. The resident says there are ongoing issues with garden maintenance. In the same way as set out above, we cannot investigate complaints that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint’s process. If she remains unhappy with the landlord’s garden maintenance following the final response in June 2024, she should raise this with the landlord in the form of a new complaint.

What we have investigated

37. The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord will provide garden maintenance and charge for this through its service charge.
38. At stage 1 the landlord apologised the resident was unhappy with its service and said that it had received a quote to remove the ivy. It also said it was going to have a meeting with its contractors to ensure garden maintenance works were carried out to a proper standard. It offered £75 for the general inconvenience she had experienced and said it would refund her service charge for the period between April 2023 and August 2023. It was not clear, however, how much of a service charge refund it would provide.
39. The resident escalated her complaint in October 2023. She said that the garden waste had not been removed, bushes in the front garden had not been trimmed back and other gardening issues.
40. At stage 2 the landlord acknowledged issues with the removal of ivy. Appropriately it committed to chase its contractors to improve this service. However, it failed to address her complaint about garden waste removal, which we have commented on in the complaint handling section below.
41. The landlord said there had been some confusion over what areas of the garden its contractors were to attend too. However, it said this had since been addressed and it had been regularly provided with attendance logs and photos as evidence of the work completed. We have seen copies of these, and they demonstrate the landlord was working towards improving its service as it had promised to do.
42. The landlord’s compensation policy did not specify compensation ranges for different levels of service failure. However, it stated that it was informed by the Ombudsman’s Compensation Guidance. Overall, the landlord’s offered total compensation of £75 at stage 1 and a further £100 at stage 2, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.  This was broadly consistent with the level of compensation that we would typically award in accordance with our Compensation Guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

43. At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a 3-stage complaints process comprising stage 1, stage 2 and a customer complaints panel. It said it would acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days and respond within 10 working days. It also said it would respond to stage 2 complaints within 10 working days, although it did not specify a timescale for acknowledging escalations.
44. Apart from the option to take a complaint to a panel, the above was broadly in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) relevant at the time.  The Code allowed a landlord an extra 3 working days to acknowledge a complaint and an extra 10 working days to respond at stage 2.
45. In line with the Code, the landlord should have treated the resident’s expressions of dissatisfaction in April and May 2023 as complaints. The resident first expressed dissatisfaction on 18 April 2023, the day she moved into the property. However, the landlord did not acknowledge a complaint until 28 July 2023 and did not issue its stage 1 response until 24 August 2023. This represented significant delays.
46. The landlord did not apologise for this delay at stage 1. However, it offered £100 compensation, which went some way towards recognising the impact.
47. The resident escalated her complaint on 6 October 2023 and the landlord then took until 17 May 2024 to acknowledge this. This did not demonstrate that it had taken any learning from its earlier delays. It took 174 working days to provide a stage 2 response, which was 164 working days after it should have provided its response. This was another significant delay.
48. The landlord later acknowledged its delays and poor complaint handling and offered a further £150 compensation. This meant it offered a total of £325 for complaint handling failures, which is at the upper end of the range we would typically award under our Compensation Guidance and broadly recognises the impact on the resident.
49. There were additional complaint handling failures, as identified in the damp and mould section above. For example, the landlord failed to recognise the resident’s early expressions of dissatisfaction as complaints and incorrectly stated that damp and mould had not formed part of her original complaint.  We have not ordered any extra compensation for these errors as we have already taken them into account.
50. However, the landlord did not address the resident’s complaint about its failure to remove garden waste or why it had not sprayed the ivy to eliminate its presence on a more permanent basis in its stage 2 response. This meant that these aspects of her complaint remained unresolved. While we consider the compensation offered reasonably recognises the impact of the landlord’s complaint handling failures overall, we have ordered the landlord to respond to these outstanding complaint issues.

Learning

51. We encourage landlords to visit the library of resources on topics such as complaint handling, repairs, knowledge and information management, and Awaab’s Law which can be found on our website.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

52. The landlord could improve the quality and consistency of its repair records. In this case, repairs were marked as completed even though it said, in its complaint response, that the resident had cancelled them. It should consider the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management for accurate record keeping.

Communication

53. When residents repeatedly report the same issues, it can undermine their confidence in the landlord’s ability to resolve them. The landlord could consider improving how it records and tracks reports to ensure issues are not overlooked, and keeps residents updated about progress. This approach would help prevent residents from spending time and effort making multiple reports.