Stonewater Limited (202408404)

Decision
Case ID	202408404
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Stonewater Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	23 December 2025

Background

1. The property is a 1-bedroom first floor flat that the resident has occupied since January 2019. The resident has a long-term health condition that requires daily use of a nebuliser. The complaint relates to the landlord’s handling of several issues, including concerns about rent and service charges, repairs to the kitchen window and flooring, fire safety, potholes in the car park, and the resident’s request to change energy supplier.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns regarding his level of rent.
   2. Reports of repairs.
   3. Fire safety concerns.
   4. Concerns regarding service charges.
   5. Request to use an independent energy supplier.
   6. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that:
   1. The complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding his level of rent is outside of our jurisdiction.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of repairs.
   3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s fire safety concerns.
   4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding service charges.
   5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to use an independent energy supplier.
   6. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Level of rent

4. The issue of the resident’s level of rent does not fall within our jurisdiction for consideration.

Report of repairs

5. The landlord failed to respond appropriately to concerns about poor workmanship after the September 2023 flooring replacement, with no evidence of timely follow-up or corrective action. It also missed an opportunity to inspect at stage 1 and kept insufficient records to demonstrate actions taken.

Fire safety concerns

6. Fire safety risks remained unresolved for an extended period, despite being flagged as requiring a competent person to carry out the works.

Concerns regarding service charges

7. The landlord refunded undelivered services and clarified charges, but responses were delayed and lacked proactive investigation, transparency, and timely communication.

Request to use an independent energy supplier

8. Although the landlord gave correct legislative guidance, it consistently failed to address the resident’s main concerns.

Complaint handling

9. There were delays in acknowledging the resident’s complaint, and the extension for the stage 2 response was communicated after the original deadline.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £700 made up as follows: £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his reports of repairs. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his concerns regarding fire safety. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his concerns regarding service charges. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his request to use an independent energy supplier. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. It may deduct any payments it has already made.	No later than 03 February 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 November 2022 to 17 December 2023	The resident reported several issues, including: Poor workmanship following repairs to his kitchen floor and window replacement. Potholes in the communal carpark. Lack of window cleaning, despite him being charged for this service. The landlord’s refusal to provide invoices for service charges and energy supply. Fire safety concerns about communal doors to the ground and first floors.
5 March 2024	The resident raised a complaint, expressing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s responses and requesting a refund for services not delivered.
10 April 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It summarised events and actions it had taken, stating that the resident’s satisfaction and peace of mind were its “top priorities”. It acknowledged compensation was appropriate and offered £200.
17 April 2024	The resident escalated his complaint, saying the landlord had not properly addressed his concerns and had overlooked several issues.
22 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It outlined the action it had taken. It confirmed it would refund service charges and committed to monitoring services going forward. It maintained that the £200 compensation offered at stage 1 was sufficient.
28 August 2025	The landlord contacted the resident and accepted that not all issues had been addressed. It increased its compensation offer to £400.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us that all the potholes had been repaired but expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s workmanship. He said he had completed some repairs in the property himself and wanted the landlord to contribute to those costs.

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	Level of rent
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

10. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. We do not investigate complaints about the level of rent. As the resident’s complaint centres on the difference in rent between himself and a neighbour, it is ultimately about the level of rent and so we will not investigate it. The First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) are best placed to consider this matter, given their powers and expertise.

Complaint	Report of repairs
Finding	Maladministration

11. The landlord’s repair policy says that:
    1. Emergency repairs that pose a safety risk will be completed within 24 hours, with faster attendance for heightened risks.
    2. Non-emergency repairs will be completed within 28 days of notification.
    3. Major repairs requiring significant work will be completed within 42 days.

Kitchen flooring

12. On 10 November 2022, the resident reported a repair issue concerning the vinyl flooring in the kitchen. Records show that this repair was marked as completed on 4 January 2023. However, on 1 September 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again to report that the kitchen flooring had been replaced following a leak, but the contractor’s workmanship was unsatisfactory. Specifically, he said the contractor cut the flooring too short and left silicone residue on the surface. Case notes indicate that the resident expressed general dissatisfaction with the contractor’s performance.
13. Despite these concerns, there was no evidence that the landlord provided a meaningful or timely response to address the resident’s complaint about the poor quality of the work. This lack of follow-up was inappropriate and unfair to the resident, as the landlord has a responsibility to ensure repairs are completed to a reasonable standard and to take corrective action when issues are raised.
14. On 5 March 2024, the resident submitted a formal complaint stating that he had to repair the kitchen flooring himself due to poor workmanship by the contractor. While the resident had previously raised concerns on 1 September 2023 about the quality of the flooring installation, there was no evidence to suggest that the issue was mentioned again or pursued between that date and the time the complaint was lodged.
15. It was reasonable for the landlord to expect that if the problem persisted or worsened, the resident would have followed up sooner. However, it was equally reasonable for the resident to assume that the landlord would respond promptly to the initial report in September 2023. The absence of any response from the landlord during this period represents a failure to meet its obligations to investigate and resolve reported defects.
16. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord referred to the action taken to repair the kitchen flooring on 4 January 2023. However, it failed to acknowledge or address the resident’s follow-up report made on 1 September 2023 regarding poor workmanship and defects in the flooring. By omitting this key issue, the landlord did not provide a comprehensive or adequate response to resolve the concerns raised by the resident.
17. The resident remained unhappy and said that the flooring replaced by the contractor looked like it had “mumps”. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it said it would carry out an inspection to the flooring to assess any repair issues. This was resolution focused.

Kitchen windows

18. In his complaint dated 5 March 2024, the resident raised concerns about the quality of workmanship following the installation of a kitchen window. He stated that the landlord had been aware of these concerns since April 2023 and had requested an inspection. In its stage 1 response, the landlord outlined the work carried out on the kitchen window between April 2022 and August 2023, which included replacing a double-glazed unit, a broken windowpane, and a damaged handle, and addressing damage caused by its contractor. Ultimately, a new unit was installed in August 2023.
19. However, we have not seen any records to verify these actions and are therefore unable to confirm what took place. This is because our investigations rely on documented evidence. Furthermore, the tenancy agreement states residents are responsible for reporting repairs promptly. There was no evidence to show that the resident reported any further issues with the window between August 2023 and his formal complaint on 5 March 2024.. The absence of records from the landlord indicates a failure in record keeping, which makes it difficult to establish what occurred.
20. In his stage 2 escalation request, the resident stated that the window had been poorly fitted and that the contractors left a “mess”, advising they would return within 4 weeks. He said this did not happen, and as a result, he carried out the work himself. While the landlord remained responsible for ensuring the repair was completed to a satisfactory standard, there was no evidence that the resident followed up on the matter before deciding to undertake the work himself.
21. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that it would arrange an inspection to address any outstanding repair issues. This was a resolution-focused approach intended to meet the resident’s request for a visit. However, the landlord failed to consider this at stage 1 when the resident initially requested it, resulting in an unnecessary delay in resolving the matter.
22. The repair log shows that a works order was raised on 23 May 2024 in relation to “overhauling the kitchen window”. This was evidenced as completed on 17 June 2024. This was over 3 months after the resident had raised his concerns regarding the window, exceeding both its non-emergency repair and major works policy timescale.

Pothole repairs

23. The repair logs indicate that a works order for pothole repairs in the communal car park was raised on 24 April 2023 and marked as completed on 5 June 2023. This means the work was finished within 42 calendar days, in line with the landlord’s major works policy. It was reasonable for the landlord to apply this timeframe, as the nature of the work required tendering for contractors and was outside the landlord’s in-house expertise.
24. The resident raised further concerns regarding potholes in the communal carpark in his complaint of 5 March 2024. The landlord confirmed on 7 March 2024 that it had raised the issue with the complaints team. This was appropriate as the resident had raised the issue as a formal complaint.
25. In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that it had addressed the pothole repairs, confirmed the work was completed, and noted a follow-up visit on 5 June 2023, with no outstanding issues. While this may have been accurate, the landlord did not provide evidence of an inspection following the resident’s complaint. The only post-inspection on record occurred 9 months before the formal complaint. Therefore, the landlord should have carried out a further inspection to ensure no additional works were required.
26. On 17 April 2024, the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2, expressing dissatisfaction that although some shingles had been placed in the potholes, this was inadequate and an estate inspection was necessary to assess the overall condition. In response, the landlord raised a repair order for the potholes the following day. This was a prompt and appropriate action. However, such steps should have been taken earlier, particularly given the resident’s previous concerns. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that an inspection had been arranged for 29 May 2024 and stated it would monitor estate management going forward. This approach demonstrated a resolution-focused intent, aiming to address the underlying issue and prevent recurrence.
27. Further repairs relating to the potholes were raised on 23 May 2024 and recorded as completed on 13 August 2024. This raises questions as to why 2 separate repair orders were issued for the same issue (on 18 April and 23 May 2024). Maintaining clear and accurate repair records is essential, as it enables the landlord to monitor progress and ensure timely completion. In this case, the repairs took almost 4 months to complete, which represents a significant delay. The landlord did not provide any explanation or mitigating factors for this extended timeframe, suggesting shortcomings in record-keeping and communication. Such gaps can lead to confusion, inefficiency, and reduced accountability in service delivery.
28. In summary, the landlord did not respond appropriately to the resident’s report of poor workmanship following the flooring replacement in September 2023. Despite its responsibility to ensure repairs were completed to a reasonable standard, there was no evidence of timely follow-up or corrective action once concerns about the window were raised. Additionally, the landlord missed the opportunity to arrange an inspection at stage 1 despite the resident’s request, which delayed resolution. Its record keeping was also insufficient to demonstrate the actions taken.
29. Overall the landlord offered the resident £200, broken down into £75 for service failures and £125 for any inconvenience experienced. This amount was a total award for multiple complaint issues (not just relating to the repairs), so it’s difficult to apportion an amount for this part of the complaint. Therefore we have made an award of compensation to replace the landlord’s offer, in line with our remedies guidance where maladministration has been found.

Complaint	Fire safety concerns
Finding	Maladministration

31. The landlord’s fire safety policy says it is designed to provide clear direction for the landlord in its application of fire safety risks. For example, it commits to:
    1. Retaining a competent source of advice for fire safety.
    2. Ensuring suitable and sufficient fire risk assessments are undertaken by a competent third party certified consultant.
    3. Ensuring that all fire safety passive and active systems are subject to a suitable inspection and maintenance regime.
32. On 27 July 2023, a works order was raised concerning the communal hallway doors on both the ground and first floors. The notes highlighted defects with the smoke seals and overhead closers and specified that the landlord needed to engage a competent engineer to install new smoke seals. Despite this clear requirement, between October and December 2023 the resident continued to report ongoing issues with the communal fire doors, stressing that the disrepair posed a serious fire risk as it could allow fire to spread easily.
33. Although the need for a qualified professional was identified early, there was no evidence that a competent engineer was instructed at that time. The repair log notes that works were completed on various dates, but contains no detail as to what works were actually carried out. This makes it difficult for us to determine that the landlord took the appropriate action to address the fire safety concerns. Action was only documented on 15 November 2023, when a fire safety report was carried out and the necessary works were reportedly completed. This was followed by a certificate of conformity (CoC) being issued on 22 November 2023. A CoC is an official document to prove that a building or product meets fire safety standards.
34. A further fire safety inspection took place on 5 December 2023, which resulted in the replacement of intumescent strips to another door on the same day. A CoC was also provided immediately after these works were complete.
35. On 5 March 2024, the resident formally raised concerns about the condition of the fire doors in his complaint. The landlord failed to address these issues in its stage 1 response, which was not appropriate and demonstrated a lack of thorough investigation. Dissatisfied, the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 17 April 2024, stating that the landlord had “overlooked” the matter.
36. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns but provided aninadequateresolution, only stating that an inspection would take place on 29 May 2024 to review the doors. There was no evidence that this inspection was carried out, which demonstrates poor record keeping.
37. In summary, the landlord repeatedly failed to take timely and appropriate action to address serious fire safety concerns. Although issues with smoke seals and overhead closers were identified as early as July 2023, there was no evidence that a competent engineer was engaged promptly, and repair records lack sufficient detail to confirm what works were completed. While certificates of conformity were eventually issued in November and December 2023, these came only after prolonged delays and repeated reports of concern from the resident about the risk of fire spread.

Complaint	Concerns regarding service charges
Finding	Service failure

40. Part of the resident’s complaint relates to the difference in service charges between himself and a neighbour. This aspect will not be investigated, as (as explained in paragraph 10 above) the First-Tier Tribunal is better placed to consider such matters.
41. The resident expressed concerns about the quality of window cleaning and indicated he was considering withholding service charge payments due to affordability. The landlord explained that it operates as a non-profit organisation and that charges cover costs. On 15 April 2023, the resident raised further concerns about the amount paid for window cleaning, noting his dissatisfaction that the contractor only attended twice in the previous year. The resident called again on 11 May 2023, stating the cleaning was not being carried out. The landlord responded the following day, advising that the service charge would remain unchanged. On 30 June 2023, the resident disputed the charge again but acknowledged receiving a letter about amended service charges.
42. While the landlord responded promptly in one instance and gave a general cost-recovery explanation, it did not engage with the resident’s repeated and specific concerns about service delivery. Its responses focused on stating its position rather than solving the problem. The responses did not include any investigation or clear explanation based on the resident’s points.
43. There was no evidence of further contact between the resident and landlord until 8 November 2023. At this point, the landlord applied a credit to the resident’s account for a refund covering April 2021 to October 2023, as no window cleaning had been carried out. While issuing the refund was appropriate and fair, it was delayed given the resident had raised the issue more than 6 months earlier. This approach was reactive rather than proactive, which is not considered good practice in handling complaints.
44. The resident said in his formal complaint that the indoor call system had not worked for years, and that window cleaning and ground maintenance were not carried out for 2years,but he was still being charged. He said that the communal cleaner falsely claimed to clean the summer house without having a key and the log sheet for this work was missing. Additionally, he requested copies of invoices.
45. On 7 March 2024, the landlord contacted the resident to confirm that it would escalate the matter to its complaints team. It explained that it could not provide copies of invoices because the right to inspect these documents was set out in Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which only applied to customers with variable service charges. This advice was accurate and in line with the legislation.
46. At stage 1, the landlord confirmed that a refund for call system charges covering the past 2 years would be processed. It clarified that the resident was not being charged for window cleaning because this service was not currently being provided. The landlord stated that general cleaning was being carried out and shared a cleaning schedule with him. It also noted that a supervisor conducted regular inspections, and invited the resident to contact the management team with any concerns. The landlord showed some positive steps, such as confirming a refund for the call system and clarifying that window cleaning charges were not applied. Sharing a cleaning schedule and inviting further contact also demonstrated transparency.
47. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to stage 2. In response, the landlord explained that it had consulted with the service charge manager regarding the concerns about the entry door. It confirmed that a credit was applied for the period from 4 April 2022 to 31 March 2024, and the charge was subsequently removed effective 1 April 2024.
48. In summary, the landlord eventually took steps to address the resident’s concerns by issuing refunds for undelivered services and clarifying charges. However, its responses were often delayed, reactive, and did not fully engage with all issues raised. While the tone was generally polite and empathetic, the handling sometimes lacked proactive investigation, transparency, and timely communication.

Complaint	Request to use an independent energy supplier
Finding	Service failure

49. In the resident’s formal complaint, he said that he had previously requested to choose his own energy supplier and have an individual electric meter. He was also unhappy with the lack of energy invoices andrequested full details. On 7 March 2024, the landlord explained that invoices could not be provided because the right to inspect such documents falls under Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which applied only to tenants with variable service charges. As above, this advice was accurate and aligned with legislation. However, the landlord did not address these concerns in its stage 1 response, indicating a lack of thorough investigation.
50. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2, requesting an individual electricity meter to enable access to an off-peak tariff. The landlord did not address this issue in its stage 2 response, prompting the resident to follow up again on 23 May 2024. The failure to respond to this matter was not appropriate and demonstrated, once more, a lack of thorough investigation into the resident’s concerns, which was unfair to him.
51. The landlord explained to us that from 9 June 2025, individual electricity charges were removed because the flats in the resident’s block now had their own meters. Additionally, residents paid a fixed service charge, so the accounts were not adjusted based on actual usage. It went on to say service charges were calculated in advance using estimated costs from contracts, business knowledge, and past expenses. While this response was reasonable, there was no evidence that this was clearly explained to the resident.
52. In summary, while the landlord provided accurate legislative advice, it repeatedly failed to address the resident’s key concerns in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses. This lack of timely and thorough investigation, coupled with poor communication, was unfair to the resident and delayed a resolution to his complaint.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

53. The landlord’s complaints policy in place during the period of the investigation states that stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. In addition, the policy requires that all complaints be acknowledged within 2 working days of receipt and allows for up to 20 working days for an extension. The policy was updated on 24 April 2024, in line with our Complaint Handling Code, but this did not affect the timescale for this investigation.
54. The resident submitted a complaint on 5 March 2024. The landlord contacted him on 7 March to clarify the issues. This was within 2 working days as per its policy. However, it did not formally acknowledge the complaint until 14 March 2025, which was 7 working days later. It did, however, apologise for the delay in raising the complaint and said it would provide a response by 27 March 2024, which was appropriate.
55. On 27 March 2024 the landlord contacted the resident to explain that an extension would be necessary and provided a revised response date. Although requesting an extension was appropriate and aligned with the policy, the communication advising of the revised timescale was sent the day the stage 2 response was due. This was not appropriate. The landlord ultimately issued its stage 2 response within the extended 20-working-day timeframe, as previously advised to the resident.
56. On 17 April 2024, the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged this after 4 working days, which was 2 days outside its policy timescale. It advised it would respond by 21 May 2024. It then issued its stage 2 response on 22 May 2024, failing to meet the timescale provided to the resident. The landlord offered £50 compensation for the delay in escalation, which was a positive step towards resolution.
57. In relation to the total compensation offered to the resident during the complaint process, the landlord did not show how this was broken down to reflect each complaint point. A detailed breakdown would have provided greater clarity. On 28 August 2024, the landlord said it had reviewed its responses and increased its offer from £200 to £400. While these actions were positive, they cannot be considered reasonable redress as they occurred only after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints process and following our involvement.
58. In summary, the landlord failed to comply with its complaints policy by not formally acknowledging the resident’s initial complaint until 7 working days after receipt. While it appropriately sought an extension for its stage 1 response, it only communicated this on the original response due date. Furthermore, the landlord did not adhere to its policy when handling the stage 2 escalation, acknowledging it after 4 working days instead of within the required timeframe. It also issued its stage 2 response one day later than the revised deadline, resulting in further non-compliance. The £50 it offered specifically for complaint handling failures, though welcome, did not go far enough to put things right.

Learning

59. Our investigation found the following points of learning for the landlord:

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

60. It should improve its record keeping practices by ensuring that clear and accurate documentation is maintained, particularly regarding contact with residents, monitoring outstanding repairs and clearly confirming their completion. Our spotlight reports on complaints about repairs and knowledge and information management can assist with this.

Communication

61. The landlord should review how it applies its complaints policy to ensure acknowledgements are issued within the required timescales. In doing so, it may wish to refer to our Complaint Handling Code for guidance.
62. Although the landlord’s responses did not always address every point raised by the resident, they were generally apologetic and showed empathy. The landlord’s approach reflected good customer service principles in the tone of its communication, but fell short in execution. Combining empathy with thorough investigation, clear evidence, and proactive resolution would have significantly improved the handling of the complaint.