Stonewater Limited (202405406)

Decision
Case ID	202405406
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Stonewater Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	2 June 2026

Background

1. The resident is vulnerable and has mental health conditions, which the landlord was aware of. He asked the landlord to install a shower in his property. The landlord referred him to its adaptations policy and advised him to complete an occupational therapy (OT) assessment. What the complaint is about
2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s request for a shower installation.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a shower installation.
4. The landlord has offered redress to the resident in relation to its handling of his complaint which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord acted reasonably and followed its policies by directing the resident to the adaptations process, explaining the requirement for an occupational therapist (OT) assessment, and considering its equality duties. Although it did not respond promptly to the initial request, this delay did not affect the overall outcome. There is no evidence of unfair treatment by the landlord, and it clearly set out the resident’s responsibilities when permitting him to install his own shower.
6. The landlord appropriately acknowledged its complaint handlings failings. It offered compensation to the resident which reflected the impact on him.

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 recommendations
We recommend that the landlord pays the £190 compensation it offered during the complaint process, if it has not already done so. We made our finding of ‘reasonable redress’ on this basis.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
23 October 2023	The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of his request for a shower. He said his neighbour had a shower installed by the landlord. The landlord directed him to the OT. He said that the landlord treated him unfairly when doing so because he had shared his protective characteristics when he made the request.
30 November 2023	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said: It could not share information about the resident’s neighbour due to confidentiality requirements. It had policies and procedures in place to assess requests for adaptations and assured the resident that it had followed these. It also explained it had considered its obligations under its equality, diversity and inclusion policy. It outlined the process and criteria for adaptations under its adaptations policy and signposted the resident to this policy.
2 February 2024	The resident escalated his complaint, maintaining that the landlord had treated him less favourably than his neighbour. He said that it installed a shower for the neighbour, despite the neighbour not disclosing any protected characteristics. In contrast, he said that when he requested a shower, he had disclosed his own protected characteristics, and the landlord directed him to the OT. He believed that the landlord had treated the neighbour more favourably on that basis.
6 June 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: It found no evidence that it had discriminated against the resident. It was satisfied that it had acted in accordance with its policies and that its stage 1 response was correct and fair. It would only replace items where there was a clear necessity, such as a verified medical need or where an item was beyond economical repair. If the resident had a medical need for a shower and could provide supporting medical evidence, it could consider this request under its adaptations policy. It acknowledged failings in its complaint handling at both stages and offered £190 compensation to reflect the impact of these.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought the complaint to us as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. He sought reimbursement for the cost of installing his own shower. He also requested that we review the level of compensation offered by the landlord in relation to its poor complaint handling.

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	Request for a shower installation
Finding	No maladministration

7. We understand that the resident believes the landlord treated him unfairly in comparison to the way it treated his neighbour. We recognise that both parties agree that the neighbour had a shower installed by the landlord. However, we are unable to comment on the landlord’s actions in relation to the neighbour. Our investigation concerns the landlord’s actions, or lack of action, in respect of the resident, and we are therefore not commenting on its actions toward the neighbour.
8. In June 2023 the resident asked the landlord to install a shower over his bath, like installations it had carried out for other residents. While the landlord acknowledged the request, there is no evidence that it provided a substantive response at that time. However, there is also no evidence that the resident followed up on this request until September 2023, when he repeated it. Although the landlord should have responded to the initial request, we do not consider that this omission had a material impact on the overall outcome for the resident.
9. Between September and October 2023, the landlord discussed the request with the resident. During that period, it explained the adaptations process and the need for an occupational health assessment. It also advised him how to request an assessment, reviewed his supporting letter, and confirmed he needed an assessment. These were reasonable actions, in line with the landlord’s adaptations policy. The policy required the landlord to assess health-related alteration requests and refer residents to an OT if appropriate to do so.
10. The landlord explained why it advised the resident to request an OT assessment. It said that, once he disclosed his disability and provided a supporting letter, a referral was appropriate. This was in line with its approach to requests that may involve major adaptations. The landlord did not confirm whether installing a shower was a major adaptation. However, in the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to treat it as such. This showed the landlord’s commitment to ensuring any adaptation met the resident’s needs. The landlord explained its position clearly to the resident, which was reasonable.
11. We do not have the legal authority to determine whether the landlord breached the Equality Act 2010. However, we can assess whether it considered its obligations under that Act. The resident raised concerns that the landlord had discriminated against him by referring him to the adaptations process. The evidence shows that the landlord considered this concern and provided an explanation for advising him to undergo an OT assessment. In addition, the evidence demonstrates that, in November 2023, the landlord sought advice from its equality, diversity and inclusion specialist. These were reasonable steps and indicate that the landlord had due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
12. During this period, the resident repeatedly told the landlord that it had installed a shower for his neighbour. He also provided a supporting letter from the neighbour confirming this. The resident expressed frustration that the landlord had declined his request and treated him differently. The landlord investigated these concerns. It confirmed that it had installed a shower for the neighbour but explained that it could not share specific details about the work. It reassured him that it had processed his request in line with its policies. We did not see evidence to support the assertion that the landlord treated the resident less favourably due to protected characteristics or any other improper reason. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances as it investigated the concerns and provided a clear explanation for its findings.
13. In addition, the landlord authorised the resident to purchase and install his own shower. It explained that he would be responsible for maintaining and repairing it. This approach was in line with its process for residents making improvements and consistent with the terms of the tenancy agreement.
14. We understand that, as a resolution to his complaint, the resident is seeking reimbursement for the cost of the shower. However, we are satisfied that the landlord made its position on responsibilities clear when it authorised the resident to install his own shower. Furthermore, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord agreed, or was obliged, to reimburse the resident and, as such, we cannot require it to do so.
15. It is evident that the situation caused distress to the resident. However, the landlord acted in line with its policies by appropriately directing the resident through the adaptations process, explaining the need for an OT assessment, and considering its equality obligations. While it did not respond to the initial request promptly, this had no material impact on the outcome. We saw no evidence that the landlord acted unreasonably.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

16. During the complaint process, the landlord acknowledged its complaint handlings failings. Where a landlord admits failings, we consider whether its offer of redress put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. In doing so, we assess whether the redress aligns with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. We also consider whether any compensation offered is consistent with our guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy.
17. In this case, the landlord offered £190 compensation to reflect the impact of its complaint handling failings on the resident. This amount aligns with our guidance for cases where failures have had a significant impact. The compensation appropriately reflects the delayed stage 1 response, the 2-month delay in acknowledging the stage 2 complaint, and the time and effort the resident spent chasing responses.
18. In addition, the landlord demonstrated learning and took steps to improve its complaint handling, including introducing quality measures, reviewing its policy, implementing staff training and recruitment measures.
19. We determine that the compensation offered was reasonable and proportionate to the adverse impact on the resident and that the landlord demonstrated appropriate learning from its failings.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord provided copies of its records, including its CRM and repairs records. These demonstrate good record-keeping practices. The records are detailed and provide sufficient information to understand the nature of the requests, the contact made, and the actions taken, including who carried them out and when. The tone of the records reflects an appropriate and considerate approach towards residents.

Communication

21. We welcome that the landlord has taken steps to improve its complaint handling. However, in this case, it did not communicate effectively with the resident about his complaint and the delays. It is important that residents are updated and feel heard, particularly during the complaints process. This provides an opportunity to resolve issues promptly and to rebuild trust with residents.