Stonewater Limited (202415013)

Decision
Case ID	202415013
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Stonewater Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	11 December 2025

Background

The complaint which was made to the landlord was submitted as a group complaint by the resident. The complainants are all tenants occupying properties in the same building. The resident set out that the matters complained of concerned all tenants and impacted on them in the same way. The landlord treated the complaint made by the resident as a group complaint.
The resident complained that the landlord had failed to respond to and address various maintenance and repair issues in the building. As part of the complaint the resident also requested clarity on issues such as service charges, CCTV and fire safety.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Request for information about the building.
2. Concerns regarding internal and external maintenance.
3. Concerns regarding a known hazard on the building.
4. Request for improvement works to be completed.
5. Reports of damp and mould in properties.
6. Reports of repairs needed to balconies.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was no maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s request for information about the building.
There was service failure by the landlord in response to the resident’s concerns regarding internal and external maintenance.
There was maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s concerns regarding a known hazard on the building.
There was service failure by the landlord in response to the resident’s request for improvement works to be completed.
There was no maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
There was maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s reports of repairs needed to balconies.
The landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress to each of the tenants involved which satisfactorily resolves the failings in its complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about the building

The landlord provided comprehensive responses to address the queries which the resident raised.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding internal and external maintenance

The landlord has not provided a clear outcome to address the resident’s concerns that the windows behind the netting are not being cleaned.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding a known hazard on the building

Despite the landlord being aware of a hazard on the building from at least the start of 2023 it has not completed the required repairs.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for improvement works to be completed

The landlord has not provided clear information or updates regarding the improvement works to be completed in the building after it explained why they had been delayed.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp and mould was appropriate. This is because it inspected the impacted properties and completed repairs.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs needed to balconies

Despite the landlord identifying that repairs were required to some balconies it has not provided sufficient information to tenants on the status and severity of the problem.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord has awarded appropriate compensation to the tenants in recognition that it delayed in responding to the complaint.

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 tenants for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. The apology has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 15 January 2026
2	Action Order The landlord must provide a written update to all tenants in the building on its progress in finding a solution for window cleaning behind the netting.	No later than 15 January 2026
3	Action Order The landlord must provide a written update to all tenants in the building on works to address the hazard. The update should include timescales for the work to be completed, even if provisional.	No later than 15 January 2026
4	Action Order The landlord must provide a written update to all tenants in the building on the planned improvement works. The update must include information on how a tenant may make an enquiry about their own property and what works have been identified.	No later than 15 January 2026
5	Action Order The landlord must write to all tenants where the inspection identified a repair issue to their balcony. The letter should explain the nature of the repair and what works are required to address the issue. The landlord must include timescales for the work to be completed, even if provisional.	No later than 15 January 2026
6	Compensation Order The landlord must pay each tenant involved in the complaint £100 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience cause by the landlord’s handling of matters relating to the window cleaning, the hazard, the improvement works and the balconies. This is in addition to the landlord’s own offer of compensation.	No later than 15 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
24 April 2023	The resident made a complaint to the landlord. In summary she said: Service charges Tenants would like information relating to the service charges and how they were calculated. This included confirmation that all tenants were paying the same amount and refunds would be applied where items had been overcharged. The service charge did not provide value for money as upkeep and cleaning of the internal and external areas was poor. Despite a service charge for window cleaning, this service was not provided. CCTV – Tenants wanted confirmation that the CCTV in the building was recording and could be used to investigate theft and anti-social behaviour (ASB). Tenants would like CCTV installed in the lifts. Tenants wanted confirmation that CCTV in other schemes was included as an additional service charge cost payable by tenants. Property improvements – Despite the landlord committing to replace the kitchen, bathroom and windows in each property the work had not gone ahead. The windows in the building were in a poor condition. This resulted in cold living conditions and higher utility bills. It was unfair that void properties were prioritised for improvements over occupied properties. The landlord had not addressed damp and mould in the properties. The landlord had failed to address leaking balconies. External and internal issues – The landlord had not provided the safety reports following the installation of aerials on the building by a telecommunications company. The landlord had not removed Heras fencing from outside of the building. The landlord had not maintained the communal flower beds. They were therefore turning to “areas of mud”. The landlord had failed to maintain the road and path outside of the building. The landlord had not completed cyclical redecoration as required by the tenancy agreements. Fire safety – Tenants would like confirmation that all smoke alarms in the building had been tested and were working.
10 May 2023	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. In summary it said: Service charges – Service charges were set using “different criteria”. It went on to provide a brief explanation. While service charges costs were split evenly across all properties in the building all tenants did not pay the same amount. It explained this was due to a number of reasons including type of tenancy, affordable or social rent, and whether the service charge was fixed or variable. It also explained when a service charge underspend was refunded. It provided copies of service charge documents. Following the complaint it had met with the cleaning contractor to discuss the standard of cleaning. It confirmed the standard of cleaning was monitored during the quarterly estate inspections it completed. If tenants noticed any issues it should report them so it could be addressed at the time. The cleaning contractor had provided evidence that the windows had been cleaned in March and April 2023. All windows were cleaned internally and externally with the exception of the windows behind the bird proof netting. It confirmed that it was exploring options to clean behind the netting. CCTV – The CCTV installed was fully functioning and recorded footage. CCTV footage would be used to investigate criminal activity and ASB. CCTV in the lifts had been discussed at the time of installation. It did not go ahead as the cameras could be easily tampered with due to the height of installation. Where CCTV was installed in other schemes the cost was covered through service charges also. Property improvements – It issued an update to all tenants “last year” explaining why expected planned works had been delayed. The letter confirmed this was because it had to prioritise fire safety work across its portfolio of properties and schemes. The results of the recently completed stock condition survey would create a new planned works programme. The results would be communicated to all tenants. It noted the survey had highlighted that the windows, kitchens, and bathrooms were “not a priority for [the] coming year”. Window replacement was not currently scheduled for the building. It would continue to repair individual windows as life extension repairs until all the windows could be replaced. Each tenant who had a problem with damp and mould should report the issue as a reactive repair. It confirmed it had only received 1 report of damp and mould within a property. Each tenant who had a problem with their balcony should report the issue as a reactive repair. External and internal issues – The structure of the building was “more than sufficient” to take the weight of the aerial equipment installed. This was evidenced by a report dated 2021 completed by a chartered surveyor. It was sorry if tenants were led to believe that an annual safety report would be provided. The Heras fencing was protecting an area from risk of falling debris from the building (the hazard). It would be removed once repairs had been completed. The work was not included in the programme for 2023. Maintenance of the flower beds was not part of the service charge. It could apply for a community improvement budget for planters, however the tenants would be responsible for maintaining them. It had reported the condition of the road to the local authority as it was land that it did not own. It had reported the condition of the pavement outside of the building to its contractor for assessment. Planned works which included redecoration were delayed due to fire safety works. Cyclical decorations to the communal parts were due to be carried out that year. Fire safety – The communal fire alarm was tested on a weekly basis and serviced on a quarterly basis. The testing was documented including in a log book kept in the building. It was a tenant’s responsibility to ensure that the smoke alarms in their property were working. It would arrange for a repair or replacement to be undertaken when a fault was reported to it. Smoke alarms were checked for functionality and expiry as part of its 5 year Electrical Condition programme. As part of planned works for 2023-2024 “dwelling detection” would be upgraded.
19 May 2023	The landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it would escalate the complaint to stage 2. It confirmed that it understood that the tenants wanted to escalate the complaint because: Tenants were unhappy with the cleaning in the communal areas. Tenants did not believe that window cleaning was taking place. Tenants would like the landlord to resolve leaking balconies. Tenants were unhappy that the works to replace the kitchen, bathroom and windows had been delayed. Tenants were unhappy with the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
5 June 2023	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. In summary it said: The cleaning contractor had investigated the tenants’ concerns and agreed that the standard of cleaning had fallen short. The cleaner was therefore changed and it would arrange some deep cleans. It would review the window cleaning contract to see if it needed to be changed. The current contractor was considering options to clean the windows behind the netting. It had agreed to inspect 3 properties for leaking balconies to determine the extent of the problem and any works needed. It had finished the review of the stock condition survey which confirmed: The windows did need replacing. It would start the procurement exercise this year with a viewing to completing the work in 2023-2025. Many kitchens were close to needing replacement and these would be prioritised to be completed in the earlier part of the next 5 year planned maintenance programme. “Most” bathrooms were well within their life cycle. It would contact tenants on an individual basis for any bathrooms which required earlier replacement. It had secured the Heras fencing and tidied the area within. It had requested an updated report on the hazard it was protecting to inform next steps. It was in the process of arranging appointments to inspect several properties for damp and mould . It upheld the complaint because: The cleaning contract had not been carried out to an appropriate standard. It had delayed in providing information about planned works. It had delayed in confirming next steps to investigate leaking balconies and damp and mould.
14 September 2023	The resident requested to escalate the complaint.
10 October 2023	The landlord met with the tenants to discuss the complaint.
Early 2024	The resident chased the landlord on multiple occasions for its stage 3 response.
2 July 2024	The landlord provided it stage 3 response. In summary it said: It acknowledged that its complaint handling and communication had not been satisfactory. Damp and mould – It understood that works to address damp and mould in all affected properties had been completed by December 2023. It however invited tenants to report any ongoing or new damp and mould for it to investigate. It was sorry that tenants felt that it had blamed damp and mould on lifestyle. Planned works; kitchens, bathroom and windows – It acknowledged that commitments had been made regarding planned works which had been “deferred [or] not kept”. It noted that this was in part due to the need to prioritise fire safety works. Following the most recent stock condition survey it was in the process of putting together a planned works programme to ensure that all homes met the Decent Home Standards. It would arrange a resident meeting to talk through the outcome of the planned work programme. Leaking balconies – Despite inspecting several balconies to identify a solution the outcome was not communicated to tenants. The “ideal long term solution” involved scaffolding. The work would be deferred to coordinate with other repairs requiring scaffolding to ensure value for money. Communal upkeep – It was sorry that deep cleans were not completed. It had reviewed the estate inspection reports documenting the communal areas in June 2023 and November 2023. On both occasions the cleaning was described as “satisfactory”. In October 2023 it completed an audit check on the cleaning contractor’s work. Some areas were rated as “poor”. It had discussed the findings with the contractor. Overall it was satisfied that cleaning had not fallen below standard. It had completed cyclical decorations during financial year 2023-2024. It had not received any further reports about incomplete decorations. The communal flower beds referenced in the complaint were “complete”. Window cleaning – It would meet with the contractor to discuss options for cleaning behind the netting. It records evidenced that the windows were cleaned in July and November 2023. Service charges – it reiterated its response from stage 1. CCTV – it reiterated its response from stage 1. Heras fencing The fencing was deemed necessary in the event of brickwork or masonry falling from the building. This was confirmed by a report dated September 2023 which noted that the “current condition of the brickwork at high level [would] continue to deteriorate and lead to the potential for brickwork to fall from the building without intervention”. The report recommended that repairs were completed as soon as possible. While it wanted to complete the repairs as soon as possible it needed further information to do so. This would involve a further report. It wrote to all tenants in December 2023 setting out that despite the repair issue to the brick work the building was not at risk of collapse. External roads and paths – it had worked with the local authority and its contractors to address the issue. It would like to offer the tenants compensation in recognition of its poor complaint handling. It confirmed the tenants who would receive £100 and those that would receive £75. It explained that different amounts were offered depending on when the tenant had become involved in the complaint. Within its response the landlord also addressed other issues which the tenants raised during the meeting on 10 October 2023. This included communal bins, ASB, vetting for future tenants, fire hazards, fire doors, car parking, emissions from aerial on the building, garages and storage units.
Referral to the Ombudsman	As the tenants were not happy with the landlord’s final response to the complaint the resident referred the matter to us. The resident explained that the tenants did not consider all issues resolved and believed the landlord was not providing an appropriate standard of service overall.

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	The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about the building.
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information on service charges was appropriate as it addressed the general questions raised. It explained:
1. How the service charges for the building were set.
2. Why there was variation in the service charges paid by individuals tenants.
3. When a service charge underspend would be recharged.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information on the CCTV in the building was appropriate as it addressed the general questions raised. It confirmed:
1. The CCTV was operational.
2. How the CCTV could be used in ASB cases. We note that no ASB was raised as part of the complaint for the landlord to investigate.
3. Why additional CCTV was not installed in the lifts.
In response to the resident’s concerns regarding the aerial the landlord shared information to confirm that the building could take the additional weight of the equipment. This was appropriate.
In response to the resident’s concerns regarding fire safety the landlord shared information detailing how it ensured the communal fire alarm was tested and serviced. This was appropriate to demonstrate that tenants would be alerted should there be an incident within the building.
The landlord’s tenancy handbook documents that a tenant is responsible for testing the smoke alarms in their properties to ensure that they were working. It was appropriate that the landlord shared this information within its complaint response. It was also appropriate that the landlord confirmed that it would replace a faulty smoke alarm on notification.
Within its stage 1 response the landlord confirmed that it would update “dwelling detection” within the building. The landlord wrote to tenants in December 2023 to confirm it had installed or upgraded smoke and heat detectors where needed. This was appropriate as it was a commitment it had made to ensure the safety of the building.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding internal and external maintenance.
Finding	Service failure

The primary concern raised by the resident in relation to internal and external maintenance related to the standard of cleaning in the communal areas and to the windows.
In response to the resident’s concerns regarding the standard of cleaning the evidence shows that the landlord engaged with the contractor. This was appropriate so that action could be taken to investigate and improve the level of cleaning provided. We note that the landlord has provided evidence that the windows were cleaned during the period under investigation.
In order to monitor the level of cleaning following the complaint the landlord has provided evidence of quarterly estate inspections. The report following the inspection documents where cleaning/ maintenance is found to be satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Where an item is unsatisfactory the report sets out what actions must be taken. We consider that the landlord’s approach is reasonable. We note that tenants are welcome to join the landlord for estate inspections. This is a positive action to engage tenants by allowing them to actively contribute to matters concerning the building.
By the end of the complaint procedure the landlord had not provided a clear outcome to address the resident’s concerns regarding window cleaning behind the netting. This is unsatisfactory as the matter had been outstanding for over a year without a resolution. This will have resulted in uncertainty to the tenants. While we can see that the landlord did engage with the contractor regarding the issue there is no evidence that it pursued a solution or explored other options itself.
It was appropriate that the landlord explained why the communal flower beds had not been maintained as they were not included in the service charge. We understand in response to the complaint the landlord arranged for the communal flower beds to be attended to. This was reasonable as the resident had described that the areas had become muddy.
In response to the resident’s concerns regarding the condition of the road outside the building the landlord contacted the local authority. This was a reasonable approach as it was land which it did not own and was therefore not responsible for repairing. The landlord has confirmed that the local authority has carried out repairs.
The landlord has provided photographic evidence demonstrating that it completed repairs to address the path outside of the building.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding a known hazard on the building.
Finding	Maladministration

The evidence confirms the hazard on the building is loose brickwork which is at risk of falling. From the evidence it is not clear when the hazard was first identified. However we can reasonably assume that the hazard was live from at least the start of 2023 as it formed part of the complaint.
In an update to us the landlord has confirmed that the report on the hazard is due to be concluded by mid December 2025 and works will follow thereafter. It is concerning that work to address the hazard has not yet been completed despite a period of at least 2 years having elapsed. As the landlord had information from September 2023 confirming the brickwork would continue to deteriorate and could result in it falling without intervention it is unsatisfactory that the hazard has not been prioritised for completion.
We acknowledged that the landlord has installed Heras fencing as a safety measure it is unsatisfactory that the hazard has not been prioritised for completion,

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for improvement works to be completed.
Finding	Service failure

The landlord wrote to tenants in July 2022 to confirm that “planned/ major works” which it had committed to completing had been delayed. It explained this was due to prioritising fire safety works across its portfolio of properties. It was appropriate that the landlord offered an explanation to clarify why the works had not gone ahead as proposed. It was also appropriate to manage tenants’ expectations and in the interest of being transparent. The landlord reiterated this explanation at stage 1.
As part of the stage 3 response the landlord said it was in the process of putting together a planned works programme which it would communicate with tenants. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it has delivered on this commitment. The landlord said in an update to us in December 2025 that it did not “usually advise [tenants] of this unless they are on a programme to have works done”. This is unsatisfactory as the landlord had indicated in earlier correspondence that some improvement works were necessary and would be scheduled. For example at stage 2 the landlord said that it planned to be on site in financial year 2024-25 in relation to the window replacement project. The landlord’s communication was therefore poor and will have resulted in confusion and uncertainty to tenants on what works, if any, would be undertaken.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
Finding	No maladministration

In determining this part of the complaint we shall not be looking at the landlord’s response to address damp and mould in individual properties. We shall look at the landlord’s overall response and approach to the issue. This is because damp and mould will impact upon a tenant and their use of the property differently.
In responding to the complaint at stage 1 the landlord requested that tenants contact its repairs team directly to report damp and mould. This was reasonable. This is so the landlord could raise a work order to inspect each affected property to see whether there was an issue which required its intervention.
As part of its stage 1 investigation the landlord reviewed its repairs records for the building. This was appropriate to see if damp and mould was a known issue within the building prior to the complaint and whether it had failed to respond. It identified that it had 1 open case relating to damp and mould. We note that a landlord can only respond to a repair issue where it has been put on notice of the problem.
During the period under investigation the evidence shows that the landlord was in contact with several tenants regarding damp and mould in their properties. This was appropriate to ensure that it was meeting its repair obligations. We can see that the landlord arranged mould treatments, stain blocking and make good works.
The landlord confirmed within its stage 3 response that following its intervention all damp and mould had been resolved. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its records to confirm its position. The landlord also invited tenants to report any new damp and mould to it. This was appropriate as the landlord’s repairing responsibilities are ongoing.
During the complaint procedure the landlord apologised if tenants felt it had blamed them for causing damp and mould. This was appropriate to acknowledge the impact of its handling of the matter may have had on tenants.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs needed to balconies.
Finding	Maladministration

For the reasons stated above we shall be considering the landlord’s overall response to repairs needed to balconies.
In responding to the complaint at stage 1 the landlord requested that tenants contact its repairs team directly to report repair issues to their balconies. This was reasonable. This is so the landlord could raise a work order to inspect each affected balcony to see whether there was an issue which required its intervention.
The evidence documents that while the complaint was live it inspected several balconies to see what repairs, if any, were required. This was appropriate as the landlord had been made aware of a potential defect.
Despite the inspections we cannot see that the landlord shared its findings with the relevant tenants. This is unsatisfactory. Following an inspection a landlord should share the findings to manage a tenant’s expectations on the issue and to help them understand any works needed.
At stage 3 the landlord confirmed that scaffolding was required to repair the balconies. It did not go on to provide further information on the nature of the repairs required. This is unsatisfactory. The tenants were therefore left uninformed on the status and severity of the problem affecting the balconies.
In an update to us in December 2025 the landlord has confirmed that it has “not been able to find any further information” in relation to the balconies. This is unsatisfactory as the repair issue is outstanding. This demonstrates a lack of oversight by the landlord.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The complaint procedure which the landlord operated on receipt of the complaint in April 2023 had 3 stages. We note that the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) was not mandatory at that time and some landlords operated a 3 stage complaint process.
The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 responses were provided promptly within 11 working days. The landlord’s stage 3 response was significantly delayed. The landlord provided its response on 2 July 2024 which was approximately 184 days after it met with the tenants in October 2023 to discuss the grounds for escalation. The delay in providing a stage 3 response was unacceptable. We expect a complaint to progress in a timely fashion as this provides the best opportunity for a complaint process to act in a complementary manner to its overall service delivery; enabling potential issues to be identified and addressed. While the response was outstanding the resident will have felt that the concerns raised by the tenants were not being taken seriously.
The landlord offered the tenants compensation in recognition of the delay in complaint handling. We consider that the landlord’s offer of £100 and £75 (depending on individual circumstances) was fair to reflect the service failure.
In responding to the complaint at stage 3 the landlord informally addressed other issues which the tenants raised during the meeting on 10 October 2023. This was reasonable in order to confirm its position on each of the points raised. We will not comment on the landlord’s response to each of these issues as they do not fall within the scope of the investigation.

Learning

Within the landlord’s stage 3 response it provided a comprehensive learning section against each complaint issue. The landlord set out the learning opportunities which had been identified as a result of the complaint. This is good practice and in line with the principles of the Code which requires a landlord to use complaints to deliver service improvements.
The investigation has highlighted that the landlord’s communication with the resident and other tenants fell short on occasions. Good communication by a landlord is essential for preventing complaints, building trust and ensuring issues are resolved effectively.
We did not note any concerns about the landlord’s record keeping during this investigation