Stonewater Limited (202423293)

Decision
Case ID	202423293
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Stonewater Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	25 November 2025

Background

The property is a 2-bedroom flat in a block. The resident has advised that she moved out of the property in May 2025. She complained about the landlord’s handling of her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), including intimidation by neighbours, inappropriate use of communal areas, parking disputes, and litter. She also complained about its handling of her request for a managed move.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Request for a management move
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management move.
There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord did not follow its ASB policy when responding to all of the resident’s reports of ASB. It apologised and offered compensation but did not fully recognise all of its failings or address the resident’s concerns about the petrol bomb incident or contact the police as agreed in its action plan.
The landlord gave advice about management moves consistent with its published guidance and provided a full explanation of the process, criteria, and alternative rehousing options.
The landlord apologised for the delays in issuing its complaint responses and its compensation offer was in line with our remedies guidance.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 23 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her ASB reports (inclusive of the £500 it awarded through the complaints process). The landlord may deduct any payments it has already made from this total figure. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 23 December 2025

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Apology order

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:

The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.
It has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than

23 December 2025

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her ASB reports (inclusive of the £500 it awarded through the complaints process).

The landlord may deduct any payments it has already made from this total figure.

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than

23 December 2025

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £125 for its complaint handling failures offered through its complaint responses. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this amount is paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
25 April – 22 May 2025	On 24 April 2024, the resident raised concerns about her neighbours’ inappropriate use of communal areas. On 22 May 2024, she reported that they were intimidating towards her and continued to use communal areas inappropriately.
3 June 2024	The resident made a complaint. She said that she had experienced intimidation from her neighbours and that there were car parking issues and litter in communal areas. She first raised these concerns in April 2024 but did not receive a meaningful response. She called the landlord on 22 May 2024 to request its policies on neighbourhood issues and diary sheets but felt it dismissed her request and did not call her back within 5 working days as agreed. She asked for the landlord to investigate the ASB and consider a management move.
15 July 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: It had mostly handled the ASB reports promptly and provided diary sheets when needed. It apologised for not responding to the resident’s report of neighbour concerns made on 22 May 2024. It had not received any further reports of parking nuisance. It said it had completed an estate inspection and would review the diary sheets that the resident had provided. It advised the resident to contact the police if she felt she was in imminent danger. It had provided the appropriate advice regarding the request for a management transfer. It apologised for the delay in its stage 1 response and awarded £50 for poor communication and £25 for the stage 1 delay.
28 July 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said the landlord told her it did not offer managed moves, but its policy stated otherwise. She raised her concerns several times, completed diary sheets, and sent evidence but received no response. The situation had worsened 2 weeks earlier when someone petrol-bombed a neighbour’s car, with her car parked next to it. She had CCTV evidence, which the police and fire service were using, and described this as a threat to life and a safeguarding risk.
6 November 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: It contacted the resident promptly, discussed rubbish and parking disputes and spoke with neighbours. It closed the ASB case on 11 October 2024 because the resident did not make any further reports. It acknowledged her concerns about the poor handling of communal area issues and apologised for this. She should keep diary records to gather evidence about reports of abuse and harassment. It told her to do this only if she felt safe and to contact the police if she faced any danger. It only approved management moves in exceptional circumstances where there was evidence of a serious risk. It recommended that the resident apply for properties through the Local Authority or explore mutual exchange options. It apologised for its delays in issuing the stage 2 response. It offered £550 compensation made up of: £450 for inconvenience. £50 for repeated contact chasing a complaint response. £50 for unsatisfactory handling of the complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked this Service to investigate because she was unhappy with how the landlord handled her reports of ASB. She said the issues were ongoing, and she wanted to move to another property to resolve her complaint.

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	Reports of ASB
Finding	Service failure

The landlord uses the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014’s definition of ASB, as conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person. The resident’s allegations about her neighbours’ use of the communal areas and intimidation may be considered ASB under this definition.
In cases relating to ASB, it is not our role to determine whether the ASB occurred or who was responsible. Rather, we assess how a landlord dealt with the reports it received, and whether it followed its policy and good practice.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it will respond in line with its customer service standards of 2 working days for emails and 5 working days for letters. It will record and monitor ASB incidents, agree an action plan with residents, and use all available tools to tackle ASB, such as direct contact with the alleged perpetrator.
The resident raised concerns on 25 April 2024 about her neighbours using the outside communal area for BBQs, a play area for children, and swimming. The landlord offered to investigate, but the resident declined at the time. There were no failings by the landlord here. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns and offered to act if needed.
The resident reported intimidation from her neighbours and rubbish in the communal areas on 22 May 2024. The landlord did not contact her until 7 June 2024. It was positive that it apologised for its communication failures and offer £50 compensation in its stage 1 response. It should have treated this report as ASB and opened a case. Its policy defines these types of behaviours as ASB, but the landlord did not follow its own policy at this early stage. A full action plan and consideration of ways it could resolve the ASB at this point may have prevented the resident’s later reports of escalating behaviour and given her reassurance on the next steps the landlord could take. It was aware by this point that parking and littering concerns were contributing to a potential neighbour dispute so options such as mediation or acceptable behaviour contracts may have reduced the likelihood of escalation.
However, the landlord later acted on the resident’s reports. On 24 June 2024, it sent diary sheets and asked her to return them within 14 days to evidence her concerns. It inspected the car park and communal area on 11 July 2024 and issued TORT notices to remove items. After reinspecting on 7 August 2024 and finding the items still there, it sent tenants a text and a letter instructing them to clear the shared areas. On 7 October 2024, it arranged for the rubbish to be removed. These actions were appropriate and in line with its policy.
On 28 July 2024, the resident reported an incident where a neighbour’s car was petrol bombed, and her car had been parked next to it. She raised concerns about threats to life, safeguarding, and inadequate fire safety. Despite this, there is no evidence the landlord opened an ASB case at that time, properly responded to her concerns or completed a risk assessment. This was a failing as its policy requires it to take prompt action on ASB reports. The lack of action likely left the resident feeling it was not taking her concerns seriously. The landlord missed an opportunity to check the resident was receiving enough support.
On 19 September 2024, the landlord opened an ASB case following the resident’s contact on 16 September 2024 about threats, physical violence, and the petrol bomb incident. It completed an action plan and a risk assessment, provided diary sheets, and maintained contact with the resident. By 11 October 2024, it had spoken to the alleged perpetrator of the threats and addressed the matter with them. It also spoke with 5 other neighbours, but none reported any concerns. It informed the resident that it was closing the case because it had not received any further evidence. These were appropriate actions in line with its ASB policy.
However, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the police about the petrol bomb incident, despite agreeing in its action plan to do so. An internal email dated 24 October 2024 confirms it did not contact the police as planned. This was a failure to follow its own ASB policy and to carry out agreed actions.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for its earlier poor handling of the resident’s ASB reports and provided practical advice, such as keeping diary records and contacting the police if she felt unsafe. However, it did not address the petrol bomb incident or explain what actions it had taken in response to this report. By not addressing this issue, it did not fully address the resident’s concerns or put things right.
The landlord acknowledged some failings, including delays and poor communication. However, it did not follow its ASB policy when responding to all the resident’s reports. It also did not address her concerns about the petrol bomb incident or contact the police as agreed in its action plan. Although the landlord offered £500 compensation across both complaint responses, this did not cover all its failings so we cannot conclude that it provided reasonable redress. For these reasons, we have found service failure in its handling of ASB reports.
In light of the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident, we award an additional £100 compensation for the further failures noted in this report. This is in line with our remedies guidance when the landlord has not fully acknowledged its failings and there was adverse impact on the resident.

Complaint	Request for a management move
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord does not have a specific policy on management moves, but its website provides guidance and criteria for assessing requests. This states that the landlord may consider management moves in exceptional circumstances, such as significant health or safeguarding risks, and when tenants provide supporting evidence. Its panel reviews applications, and it advises tenants to also apply for rehousing through the local authority, which usually has more properties available.
The resident requested a management move on 4 June 2024. The landlord spoke to her on 7 June 2024 and advised that it does not offer direct transfers but provided alternative rehousing options. In its stage 1 response on 15 July 2024, it repeated this advice, which aligns with its published guidance. However, it did not explain the management move criteria or the evidence needed. This was a shortcoming as clearer guidance may have helped the resident understand the process and what she would need to demonstrate to progress her request.
On 28 July 2024, the resident asked why the landlord had not given specific advice about management moves in its stage 1 response. At stage 2, it acknowledged this and explained its criteria. It said it would only consider a management move if the current home posed a significant risk to physical, emotional, or mental health. Requests would need to be supported by evidence, and all other options would need to have been explored. It appropriately advised the resident about alternatives such as mutual exchange and offered support with a local authority application. At this point, the landlord had closed the ASB case because it had not received further evidence, so it was reasonable to explain that the resident did not meet the criteria for a management move.
We find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the management move request. The landlord gave advice consistent with its published guidance and later provided a full explanation of the process, criteria, and alternative options. Although the initial response lacked detail, the landlord addressed this at stage 2 and ensured the resident had the information she had requested about management moves.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord uses a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out our expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states the landlord must send stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days.
The resident raised a complaint on 3 June 2024, and the landlord responded 30 working days later on 15 July 2024, outside the Code’s timeframe. The resident escalated the complaint on 28 July 2024, and the landlord confirmed on 30 July 2024 that it would progress to stage 2. However, it did not issue the stage 2 response until 6 November 2024, 72 working days later.
It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delays in its complaint responses. To put things right, it offered £25 compensation at stage 1 and a further £100 at stage 2. The compensation offer was in line with our remedies guidance for cases where there was a failure that adversely impacted the resident. In our opinion, the amount reflects the inconvenience caused. Therefore, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

Learning

ASB

The landlord should consider staff training on responding promptly and consistently to ASB reports in line with policy requirements.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord maintained good records of the efforts it took to investigate the resident’s ASB reports and its communications with her.

Communication

The landlord did not meet the Complaint Handling Code timeframes which caused delays and inconvenience. It could consider staff training on the Code and effective monitoring and communication to ensure timely complaint responses.