Stonewater Limited (202425538)

Decision
Case ID	202425538
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Stonewater Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	13 February 2026

Background

1. In September 2024 the resident raised a complaint, she said repairs resulted in her family requiring temporary accommodation for 3 days in 3 different hotels. She also raised concerns about the standard of works completed.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of repairs.
   2. Handling of temporary accommodation.
   3. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Service failure with the landlord’s handling of repairs.
   2. Reasonable redress with the landlord’s handling of temporary accommodation.
   3. No maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of repairs

4. The landlord did not update the resident about the outstanding works it planned to complete at a later date. Further, it failed to provide its liability insurers details to the resident to claim for damage to her belongings or furnishings in line with its compensation policy.

Handling of temporary accommodation

5. The landlord took a reasonable approach to the resident’s complaint regarding temporary accommodation, it identified its service failures, apologised and offered proportionate compensation. However, it did not communicate with its contractor to understand the full extent of the delayed works.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord did not meet the required timescales for acknowledging the stage 1 and stage 2 complaints. However, the landlord acknowledged the delays and apologised. The delays did not cause significant detriment to the resident.

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 13 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident: £150 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the repairs. This must be paid directly to the resident, and the landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date	No later than 13 March 2026

 

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 £300 offered in the complaint responses. Our finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of temporary accommodation is made on the basis this compensation is paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 September 2024	The resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She said: the family was placed in 3 different hotels over 3 nights during recent works because of poor communication, planning, and an unclear scope of works when she returned home, some works remained outstanding and other repairs had caused damage she raised concerns about paint fumes because she has a risk of anaphylaxis from chemicals and said she could not stay in the property while the painting was completed.
21 October 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said: the family stayed in temporary accommodation due to a delay to the bathroom works it was sorry for a lack of clarity or confusion regarding the outstanding repairs and said some repairs had been agreed directly with the contractor, while others were agreed via the tenancy team it understood the resident’s concerns regarding the quality of the outstanding work and her preference for temporary accommodation but confirmed this was not necessary the understairs were plastered and bathroom painted using a low‑fume paint on 2 October 2024 it arranged for its surveyor and contracts manager to assess the quality of the works completed and agreed to complete a repair to the stairs its contractors expected to leave the bathroom facilities in working order on the first day of the works. This did not happen. To recognise this, it offered £300 in compensation for time, trouble, inconvenience, and impact.
21 October 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the repairs remained outstanding and the compensation was not adequate for the distress caused.
22 November 2024	The landlord provided it stage 2 response. It confirmed its stage 1 response and: provided an update regarding repairs advised on the process for claiming for personal injury identified learning around the resident’s emergency accommodation experience said it did not uphold the residents complaint regarding its handling of repairs said it did uphold the complaint regarding its handling of the temporary accommodation and re-offered £300 compensation for the time, trouble, impact, and inconvenience caused due to the resident’s vulnerabilities.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to us and said that she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and offer of compensation. She said the lack of communication led to stress, anxiety and upset.

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	Handling of repairs
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

7. The resident has raised complaint issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised the complaint about a leak, sinking driveway and further repairs, which have been reported since the landlord’s final complaint response in November 2024. Therefore, we have no power to investigate these issues.

What we have investigated

8. The resident requested repairs on 14 July 2024. The landlord issued a scope of works on 30 July 2024. Its responsive repairs policy says it may group repairs and place them into a planned programme to provide a more efficient service, which it aims to complete within 60 days. The landlord agreed to start works on 17 September 2024 and said it would take 3 days. It was reasonable to treat the works under a planned programme as they involved a bathroom overhaul and this approach was likely to reduce disruption and inconvenience for the resident.
9. The landlord started works on 17 September 2024 and the resident returned home on 20 September 2024. She said most of the works had been completed but some remained outstanding, including relaying the carpet and redecorating the bathroom and understairs. The landlord said confusion arose because its contractors completed some works while its in-house team completed others. The resident expected all works to be completed, and the lack of a progress update contributed to her disappointment when she returned home.
10. The landlord’s records show that it completed the outstanding paint work to the bathroom and understairs on 2 October 2024. The landlord said it took the resident’s concerns and vulnerabilities into account by using low-fume paint. Although the resident was frustrated that the contractor needed more time to finish the works, it was reasonable for the landlord to complete these minor remedial works at a later date.
11. On 1 October 2024 the resident reported that the stair carpet and some painted areas were damaged. The landlord said that the carpet was the resident’s responsibility and its photographs showed the marks to the walls were present before works started. The resident disagreed. The landlord also said it had reviewed photographs of the carpet and considered the refitting to be good quality. After further reports, the landlord’s contractor attended and repaired a step. The resident remained dissatisfied. Under its compensation policy, the landlord should have given the resident its liability insurer’s details because damage should be managed under this process. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not provide these details when the resident first reported the issue.
12. Considering all the circumstances of the case, the landlord acted reasonably. It started the works on time, apologised for the outstanding works, and completed them promptly. Further it investigated the resident’s reports of dissatisfaction and provided its response. However, the landlord should have updated the resident sooner when it realised that the works would not be completed as planned. It should also have given her the details of its liability insurer when she reported damage to her carpets and walls. Therefore, we have found service failure. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The amount is in line with our remedies guidance for a failure that had a short-term impact on the resident.

Complaint	Handling of the resident’s temporary accommodation
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we did not investigate

13. The resident told us that the period of temporary accommodation has caused her anxiety and stress. This is not disputed, however, it would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have investigated

14. The resident asked if temporary accommodation would be needed while the planned repairs were completed, but the landlord said this was not required. The landlord was entitled to rely on its professional assessment when deciding whether temporary accommodation was necessary. Where it reasonably considers that works can be completed safely without making the property uninhabitable, it is appropriate for the resident to remain in situ. The landlord would be expected to monitor the works and reassess the position if the situation changed.
15. The landlord started the works as planned on 17 September 2024. By the end of the day, it confirmed that the shower works had been delayed and that bathing facilities would not be available. The resident’s single person contact (SPOC) took her vulnerabilities into account and arranged temporary accommodation for the family. The landlord recognised that the delay left the resident without bathing facilities and, in view of her vulnerabilities, it acted appropriately by arranging accommodation.
16. The resident contacted the landlord on 18 September 2024 to express her frustration. She said the hotel accommodation had not been provided until 8.30pm and when she returned home, contactors were still working on the stairs and in the bathroom. She said that due to the household’s vulnerabilities, they were unable to rest in those circumstances. She also said the boiler was due to be fitted, which would leave her without water, and she would need further temporary accommodation if works affecting the utilities continued. The landlord agreed and through the resident’s SPOC arranged a further hotel stay. The resident reported similar issues the following day and was moved to a different hotel for an additional night. This would have caused inconvenience to the resident.
17. The resident moved between 3 different hotels over 3 nights. The landlord’s records do not show whether it contacted its contractors to clarify the extent of the delay once it became aware that temporary accommodation was required. In the absence of this evidence, it is unclear whether the landlord took steps to understand the level of disruption or how long temporary accommodation would be required. This caused inconvenience, disruption, time, and trouble to the resident and her family.
18. The landlord explained that accommodation was required because bathing facilities were temporary unavailable. It said this would not normally meet the threshold for temporary accommodation, but when it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities it said providing accommodation was a reasonable and proportionate response. This was consistent with its ‘decant’ policy, which says a move may be considered where emergency or significant works make a property temporarily uninhabitable and health and safety risks cannot be mitigated while the resident remains in occupation. In this case, the landlord acted reasonably in offering temporary accommodation in view of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
19. The landlord admitted some failings and offered £300 compensation. Where there are admitted failings, our role is to determine whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
20. Overall, it is understandable that the resident felt frustrated regarding the landlord’s handling of the temporary accommodation. However, the landlord acted in line with its decant policy, considered the resident’s vulnerabilities, and provided accommodation, a food allowance, and travel expenses. It also identified its mistakes, apologised and offered £300 compensation. This amount is in line with what we would usually award for maladministration. Therefore, we have found reasonable redress. This aligns with our remedies guidance for failings that had an adverse effect on the resident and where the landlord has taken steps to address the detriment.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

21. Our Complaint Handling Code (the code) required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. The landlord’s policy complies with the Code.
22. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 30 September 2024. The landlord acknowledged it on 9 October 2024 and issued its response on 21 October 2024. The stage 1 acknowledgement was 3 days late and the response was 1 day late. This was not in line with its policy.
23. The resident experienced similar delays at stage 2, the acknowledgment was 3 days late. The landlord acknowledged the delay and apologised. It is noted that the stage 2 complaint response was provided on time.
24. Overall, the landlord did not meet the required timescales outlined within its policy for acknowledging the stage 1 and stage 2 complaints. However, the landlord acknowledged the delays and apologised. The delays did not cause significant detriment to the resident. Therefore, we have found no maladministration.

Learning

25. The landlord made the same error at both stage 1 and 2, as the complaint acknowledgements were issued slightly late. The landlord should consider how it can learn from this to improve the timeliness of future acknowledgements.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. We did not identify any record‑keeping failures. The information from the landlord was clear, consistent, and easy to interpret.

Communication

27. The landlord should ensure that contractors and in‑house teams communicate effectively. A shared understanding of who is responsible for each task would reduce confusion and support accurate updates to the resident.