From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Stonewater Limited (202417872)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417872

Stonewater Limited

11 September 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of grounds maintenance issues in the communal garden.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives in a 2 bedroom house with a communal garden, shared by two other properties.
  2. The resident said that the communal garden has not been properly maintained in the 12 years she has lived in the property. This is with regards to the cutting of the grass and condition of a perimeter wall.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 occasions between August 2023 and May 2024. On each occasion she expressed her dissatisfaction with the condition of the communal garden and frequency of maintenance visits. She requested that the communal garden be split for each individual property.
  4. The resident first asked the landlord to raise a complaint on 30 May 2024. She said that as the grass had not been cut for so long, she had done it herself. She requested that the landlord separate the communal gardens into individual ones for each property. She reported old and broken items in the communal garden belonging to other residents.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 18 June 2024 advised of the following outcomes:
    1. The ground maintenance records confirmed grass cutting had taken place in line with its policy. It would ensure future visits were more thorough and address the specific concerns raised by the resident.
    2. It would refer the items left in the communal garden to the neighbourhoods team to investigate. If they were not removed voluntarily, it would issue a TORT notice. The landlord provided a point of contact to liaise with moving forward.
    3. The separation of the garden was a complex issue as each property would have to agree. It involved cost implications for the purchase and installation of fencing. The service charges would also need recalculating as the maintenance responsibility would change for the residents.
    4. It offered £25 compensation for its failure to refer the resident’s original request for the garden separation to the neighbourhoods team in August 2023.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 18 June 2024. She said the landlord had not addressed that maintenance issues were ongoing since 2022. She listed 17 messages between May 2022 and June 2024 that she had sent to the landlord. She advised the garden needed a complete overhaul as the perimeter wall was also crumbling and dangerous.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 26 July 2024 advised of the following outcomes:
    1. It acknowledged some missed appointments by its maintenance contractor which was below standard. It said that it would monitor performance for attendance and quality.
    2. The items left in the communal garden had now been removed.
    3. A specialist contractor had assessed the perimeter wall and provided a quotation, which the landlord would approve shortly.
    4. It acknowledged the delays in its complaint response and apologised for the inconvenience caused.
    5. It had also reviewed the compensation offered at stage 1 and increased this to £225. This consisted of:
      1. £25 offered at stage 1.
      2. £50 for poor communication.
      3. £25 for complaint response times.
      4. £125 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 4 August 2024. She said the garden was still in need of repair, even though the landlord had closed the case. She stated that there were fence panels still broken along with debris on the ground which made the area unsafe.

Assessment and findings

Policy and procedures

  1. The landlord’s grounds maintenance policy states that grass cutting will occur during the months March to October. Grounds will be treated for weeds and algae between March and August with hedges and shrubs being trimmed from March to September.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy states that upon receipt of a complaint, it will log the report within 5 working days. It will then respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. At stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days.

Reports of grounds maintenance issues in the communal garden

  1. The resident has raised separate elements within the overall subject of grounds maintenance. As such, our investigation is separated into each of these points below.

Grass and hedge cutting

  1. The records show the resident reported longstanding issues with grass cutting on 10 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged her reports the same day and identified an area of the communal garden that it had omitted from its maintenance map. It promptly rectified this oversight with its contractor and attended to the area. It took her reports seriously and used initiative to resolve the issue.
  2. However, the landlord stated that it provided this additional service as “a gesture of goodwill”. The evidence available to the Ombudsman shows that the area concerned formed part of the existing communal area. The landlord was, and remains, responsible for the maintenance of this area. It was, and is, therefore obliged to ensure that the area was included in future maintenance programmes. Further, the landlord was silent on the resident’s request for a reimbursement of charges she paid for garden maintenance. It is unreasonable that the landlord did not offer an answer on this point even after it became aware that a part of the garden had been missed from its maintenance schedule.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord an additional 4 times throughout May 2024. On each occasion she expressed her dissatisfaction with the condition of the garden. She provided photographic evidence of its condition following the use of weed killer over the grassed area. She said the condition was unacceptable and needed to be resolved. She requested the landlord consider separating the communal garden into 3 individual gardens for each property.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 18 June 2024, it acknowledged the resident’s concerns regarding the quality of the grounds maintenance work. It advised of cost implications around the separation of the garden which would require approval from all affected residents. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide her with the information relevant to her request. It was also reasonable that it acknowledged its failure to action the resident’s original request to separate the garden from August 2023. In recognition of this, it offered £25 compensation for the delay. It was positive that the landlord recognised its failing and awarded compensation for the resident’s time and trouble.
  5. However, the landlord failed to provide any conclusion to this matter. It would have been reasonable for it to decide whether it would begin the required consultation with the other residents and provide more detail regarding the cost implications (of the fencing). It confirmed in its stage 2 response that there was a lack of response. Nevertheless, we have seen no evidence that the landlord gave the resident any further answer or final outcome on the garden separation request.
  6. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with information on how it intended to monitor the quality of the grounds maintenance contractor’s work. Its failure to do so likely caused her additional time and trouble pursuing her complaint.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 26 July 2024 provided further information regarding the grounds maintenance. It stated that some of the resident’s reports were not acknowledged as they were received by different teams and found that there “might have been missed appointments”. It also confirmed that, due to items left in the garden, its contractor could not maintain the whole area (this is addressed further in our assessment below). It confirmed that its neighbourhood team would be looking to resolve this issue. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge these failings.
  8. However, it did not provide any detail on its plan to monitor its contractors’ work quality. This would have provided the resident with assurance that the landlord had listened to, and acted appropriately on, her request for an improved service. It would have also contributed to rebuilding the relationship between resident and landlord. The landlord’s failure to provide a definitive and measurable solution left the matter unresolved and likely caused the resident further inconvenience.

Items left in the garden

  1. In the resident’s communication on 10 April 2024, she raised concerns about the presence of discarded items in the communal garden. These included children’s toys, broken garden furniture and broken garden pots.
  2. In its stage 1 response on 18 June 2024, the landlord reassured the resident that its neighbourhoods team was actively investigating the issue. It said that once it was able to identify the owners of the items, it would take further action and keep her informed of the progress. This was an appropriate response by the landlord to firstly investigate and establish ownership of the items, allowing the owner an opportunity to remove or dispose of them.
  3. The landlord’s records show that it identified owners of some items and issued TORT notices. As such, where the owner did not remove the items within 14 days, the landlord was able to remove them itself. This was a reasonable approach and allowed for the landlord to clear the area itself if needed.
  4. However, the landlord’s records show that it served TORT notices on various items that included plant pots on the stairway and large storage containers under the stairs. While it was appropriate to identify and address any health and safety concerns present during its inspections, it should have also addressed the specific items reported by the resident in her complaint. These items were all located within the communal garden. The failure to do so caused the resident additional inconvenience later in the timeline.
  5. In its stage 2 response on 26 July 2024, the landlord confirmed that its neighbourhoods team had now investigated the concerns. It had raised TORT notices regarding the removal of the items and closed the case as of 10 July 2024. While it was reasonable for the landlord to follow the TORT process to allow owners to resolve the items left in the communal area (and prevent potential additional service charge costs), it did not resolve the specific items that were causing the resident concern.
  6. On 21 August 2025, the resident provided evidence to this Service showing several items and debris from the wall repair still present in the garden. The evidence provided shows old children’s toys, broken garden furniture, old barbeques and scattered bricks. This shows that there are potential hazards still present in the communal area.
  7. We cannot determine that these are the same items that were reported in 2024 but the resident has provided photographs matching items that were listed in her original complaint. This indicates that the landlord failed to follow through on commitments set out in its complaint responses and that it has allowed a similar situation to develop in the garden which previously impacted its contractor’s ground maintenance performance.

Summary

  1. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 26 July 2024. It appropriately acknowledged certain service failures and, as such, it reviewed the compensation offered at stage 1. It increased its offer of compensation to £200. This consisted of:
    1. £25 for delay in responding to the request for the garden separation.
    2. £50 for poor communication.
    3. £125 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused.

This was an appropriate response by the landlord. It was fair to review the amount awarded at stage 1. The total offer of £200 was reasonable and reflects the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies for service failure which adversely affected a resident.

  1. However, while the landlord identified its service at points fell below that which it expects, it failed to fully put things right and learn from the outcomes of the complaint. There was no answer given by the landlord on the requests for the garden to be split and for a reimbursement of grounds maintenance charges.
  2. The resident’s recent photos show that there is still an ongoing issue with debris and damaged items in the communal garden that match the items initially reported in April 2024. She has also said problems with the quality of the grounds maintenance continue and have not improved despite the landlord’s earlier assurances. The landlord’s failure to put things right and fully conclude her complaint points caused the resident additional time and trouble.
  3. Overall, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of grounds maintenance issues in the communal garden. We recognise that the landlord’s offer of compensation for the failings was proportionate, and it acknowledged delays and inconvenience caused. However, due to its failure to provide an appropriate solution to each element of the resident’s complaint, this left her with an unresolved situation which caused additional inconvenience in her pursuit of a resolution.

The associated complaint

  1. The resident raised a complaint on 30 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 6 June 2024 and issued its stage 1 response issued on 18 June 2024. Both responses were within the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy.
  2. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 18 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged her request 8 working days later on 28 June 2024. This was 3 working days over the timescale in the landlord’s policy.
  3. In its stage 2 response on 26 July 2024, the landlord apologised for the delay and advised staff had been reminded of the importance of responding to complaints within stated timescales. The landlord acknowledged its failure to issue the acknowledgement within timescales and offered £25 compensation for complaint handling failures.
  4. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress in its handling of the associated complaints. Although there was a short delay in acknowledging the escalation, the landlord appropriately addressed this in its complaint responses. The landlord’s offer of £25 compensation for complaint handling failures was reasonable for a delay of a short duration and put things right in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s grounds maintenance issues in the communal garden.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a reasonable offer of redress made by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Write to the resident to:
      1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
      2. Confirm whether it is willing to reimburse her for any communal maintenance charges given the “missed appointments” it acknowledged and the exclusion of part of the garden that was not part of its maintenance map until April 2024. It should fully explain its decision.
      3. Provide a full answer to her request for it to split the communal garden. It must explain whether it is willing to start a consultation exercise with other affected properties and what the future service charge and maintenance implications are. It should fully explain its decision.
    2. If not already done, pay the resident the £200 offered at stage 2, which consists of:
      1. £25 for the delay in responding to the request for the garden separation.
      2. £50 for poor communication.
      3. £125 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused.
    3. Visit the communal garden to assess what items need to be removed to ensure a safe environment and provide the resident and this Service with an action plan, including timescales.
    4. Provide the resident with a plan of how it will monitor the frequency and quality of its contractor’s ground maintenance work.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident £25 offered at stage 2 for delays in its complaint response. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this amount is paid.