Stonewater Limited (202432300)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202432300

Stonewater Limited

25 July 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), in particular her reports of her neighbours using chemicals to kill weeds in communal areas.

Background

The resident is a joint-assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a one-bed flat in a low-rise block. The resident shares a private pathway with her neighbours which leads to their private gardens and the car park. Reports by the resident of ASB by the neighbours, including verbal abuse, contributed to the landlord deciding to install wooden fences either side of the pathway. The fences, which were installed in March 2023, were intended to reduce contact between the parties.
On 15 August 2023, the resident reported her neighbours sprayed a pesticide (weedkiller) on her, which triggered respiratory problems and medical intervention. On 4 September 2023, the landlord sent a letter to all residents. It requested no-one use chemicals of any kind in communal areas, inside and outside, as a resident had required medical treatment.
On 21 September 2023, the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of her ASB case at that time, including the spraying of chemicals. In its complaint responses of 5 October 2023 and 30 November 2023, the landlord noted it had contacted the resident on 12 October 2023. It said it had investigated an alleged assault with the police. It noted the police force was not progressing criminal enforcement, so it had spoken to her and her neighbours about mediation on 31 October 2023. The landlord also offered compensation of £800 comprising:
1. £25 for the failure in service for the ASB case to be allocated.
2. £50 to address the lack of communication and failure to return calls and emails chasing a response.
3. £700 to address the overall inconvenience, time, and impact caused by the mishandling of the ASB case.
4. £25 for the delay in the stage 2 response.
On 4 September 2024, the resident raised a further complaint. She stated that the neighbours continued to use chemicals in a public area without the landlord taking action. She also raised concern about an email from the landlord on 27 August 2024 in which it closed her ASB case.
The landlord sent the stage 1 response on 18 September 2024:
1. It said it had reviewed the letter outlining action taken on the ASB case and a follow up email of 13 September 2024.
2. It advised the resident she could escalate her complaint to ASB Case Review Panel.
3. It advised the resident it could refer her to its counselling service.
4. It offered £175 compensation, comprising:
  1. £50 for failure to follow process/policy.
  2. £125 for inconvenience caused.
On 18 September 2024, the resident escalated her complaint:
1. She stated the landlord did not provide dates, times, and evidence of counter-allegations.
2. She requested the landlord update her housing records to reflect she did not refuse mediation or police visits.
3. She had requested documentation regarding the use of pesticides and chemicals in the communal areas.
4. She considered the landlord dismissed her concerns regarding her most recent report of an “assault” without proper investigation.
On 7 November 2024, the landlord sent the stage 2 response:
1. It confirmed its records accurately reflected the resident did not refuse mediation. However, it noted she declined an offer of conflict resolution training with the mediator.
2. It accepted the resident did not explicitly refuse police visits, but noted she chose not to take up the offer to engage with the police.
3. It confirmed the neighbours did not provide specific dates, times, and evidence of counter-allegations.
4. It said regarding the allegation of pesticide use in communal areas, it liaised with the police. It found the neighbours used a legal, commercially available weedkiller.
5. It confirmed the most recent incident did not meet the criteria for ASB. The ASB Case Review panel could reassess the reports made.
On 24 November 2024, the resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated she thought the landlord deflected blame by downplaying the spraying incident and by referring to unsubstantiated counter-allegations. She noted her neighbours continued to use chemicals to treat weeds in communal areas, in particularly the path, therefore she wanted the landlord to enforce the warning letter.

Assessment and findings

It is important to reiterate at the outset that it is not for the Ombudsman to determine if the behaviour evidenced here constituted ASB, as that was a judgement which fell to the landlord to determine. It must also be recognised that responsibility for ASB lies with the perpetrator, not the landlord. The landlord, however, has a responsibility to ensure that it takes appropriate and proportionate action to address and seek to resolve reported ASB.
The landlord’s ASB Procedure allowed for the prioritisation of reports and provided a number of measures that the landlord could take either in isolation or in conjunction, depending on the severity and urgency of the reports. The Ombudsman must therefore consider whether the landlord followed its own procedure in response to the reported ASB and whether its actions were appropriate and proportionate.
The landlord’s records show that the resident has made reports about her neighbours causing nuisance and ASB since at least 2022. Reports included keeping objects in the communal path, their dog off the lead, and offensive language. In March 2023, the landlord installed fences at either edge of the communal path, on the boundaries of the resident’s and her neighbours’ gardens. It intended to minimise contact between the parties as well as to stop the neighbours’ spotlight for the path shining on the resident’s property. The resident’s photographs show the fences have the effect of enclosing the communal path. They also show the neighbours have laid down gravel and plant pots on their side of the path and they treat weeds.
On 15 August 2023, the resident reported the neighbours had sprayed a pesticide on her which triggered an asthma attack. As a consequence, she required medical treatment. The resident also reported the incident to the police. On 23 August 2023, the resident expressed concern to the landlord that it had not taken action to prevent further spraying since the incident, despite her husband calling every day. She said doctors informed her encountering the spray again would be “extremely” serious for her health. She said she could not leave the property before her husband checked the communal areas.
On 4 September 2023, the landlord sent a letter to all residents. It requested no-one use chemicals of any kind in communal areas, inside and outside, as a resident had required medical treatment. In sending this letter the landlord took reasonable action to prevent the resident experiencing the same reported adverse reaction to the spray used by the neighbours. However, it was unreasonable that the landlord took nearly 3 weeks to send the letter, in particularly as the resident reported the continued use of the spray by the neighbours.
The resident made further reports of the neighbours using weedkiller in September and October 2023. She said the spray was causing ongoing respiratory issues and an eye problem. She reiterated her husband had to check the path before she could leave the flat. She also objected to the neighbours using chemicals in the internal communal hallway.
The landlord raised a complaint about its handing of the resident’s ASB case regarding the spraying of chemicals. In the original complaint responses of 5 October 2023 and 30 November 2023, the landlord accepted it delayed in allocating the ASB case, failed to return calls and emails chasing a response, and failed to generally communicate effectively. Given these failures, it was appropriate it apologised and offered compensation as redress. The resident has not complained to the landlord or the Ombudsman about the level of compensation awarded. Nonetheless, we consider the award reasonable and proportionate for its handling of the case at that time. This is because the landlord’s Compensation Policy states, “We follow the Housing Ombudsman Service’s guidance on remedies as a guide to calculate the compensation payable.” The landlord’s award is within the range of compensation in the guidance for cases where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident.
The resident continued to report ASB from her neighbours. On 9 January 2024, the landlord completed an action plan. This involved completing a risk assessment, contacting the police for information, obtaining incident logs, speaking to the neighbours, updating the resident, and providing options for moving. In forming an action plan, the landlord followed its ASB procedure. This states, “When a customer makes contact to report ASB, we will agree a clear Action Plan with them. This will set out specific actions and timescales to progress the investigation. The Action Plan may be subject to change as the investigation progresses and the customer will be updated should this be the case.”
Diary sheets allow landlords to understand the nature, frequency, duration, and impact of ASB incidents. This in turn can inform what further action the landlord can take. It was appropriate therefore that the landlord sought to obtain incident logs.
Between January and June 2024, the landlord sent warning letters to the neighbours about their language, control of pets, use of their flood light, and other issues. It visited the neighbours with the police and agreed they should sign an ASB contract (ABC) on 23 May 2024. The landlord also asked the police to confirm if comments by the neighbours to the resident were a hate crime; the police said they were not.
The landlord also offered mediation. This was appropriate as mediation is commonly explored as a way to resolve disputes between neighbours. It allows the parties to understand the position of the other and reach agreed solutions with the assistance of a mediator. The parties agreed to engage in mediation before the neighbours withdrew. The landlord offered the resident conflict resolution sessions with the mediator which she declined.
Through taking these steps, the landlord took reasonable steps to resolve the ASB case that were consistent with the ASB Procedure. This states, “Where incidents warrant more formal action due to their severity and/or intensity, we may utilise the following tools and powers (non-exhaustive):
1. Acceptable Behaviour Agreements.
2. Civil injunctions (and any other Injunction or legal Undertakings).
3. Possession action (including the ‘absolute’ ground).
4. Community Protection Notices (in partnership with the local authority).
5. Closure Notice/Orders (in partnership with Police/local authority).
6. Warnings.
7. Good Neighbour Agreements.
8. Mediation.
9. Conflict Resolution.”
The landlord also sought to resolve the ASB case by offering the resident a management move. The landlord exercised its discretion in making the offer as the ASB Procedure does not provide for a housing transfer. The resident declined a management move.
The evidence on file indicates the resident reported the neighbours using pesticides from May onwards. On 26 July 2024, the landlord raised the reports with the neighbours who advised they had been using soapy water since the letter. The neighbours also denied being verbally abusive and made counter-allegations about the resident’s behaviour towards them. On 29 July 2024, the resident highlighted to the landlord that since the incident of August 2023, she had a very low tolerance to any chemicals. She said the neighbours’ use of “chemical irritants” in communal areas therefore was a high risk to her. With regards to the neighbours using soapy water, the resident stated, “a detergent (or surfactant) is a chemical compound which has surfactant properties”. The resident also maintained her view that the landlord should maintain the communal path.
On 27 August 2024, the landlord informed the resident it would close her ASB case. It noted the actions it had taken since 2022. It stated after the resident reported being sprayed with a pesticide, it investigated the matter with the police. It did not take further action as the pesticide was a brand that could be purchased at shops and stores and was not industrial strength or illegal. The neighbours had confirmed they had since been using soapy water, and it had no reliable evidence to refute this.
The resident replied on 27 August 2024. She contended that she provided reliable advice the neighbours were using weedkiller as she provided images of them spraying from a branded bottle. She noted the weedkiller used in the incident of August 2023 contained glyphosates and other dangerous propellants. She highlighted she did not refuse mediation and was not in a position to accept mediation coaching. She stated if the landlord stopped the neighbours using the communal areas as an extension of their garden, this would avoid future incidents. She added she thought the landlord should make clear all maintenance was its responsibility. The landlord dealt with the reply as a complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by her neighbours. In its acknowledgment it stated “Specifically, you’re unhappy that the use of chemicals in the communal public area continues without any action being taken. Additionally, you’re dissatisfied with the email you received from one of our staff members regarding your complaint.”
While waiting for the stage 1 response, the resident on 10 September 2024 reported a further incident. She stated after she asked the neighbours to pause using a spray cleaner around their front door, they pointed the spray in her face. She stated the neighbours advised that it was a plant-based spray.
In the stage 1 response of 18 September 2024, the landlord apologised for the resident’s distress and delays. It noted a follow up email of 13 September 2024 had reiterated its position on the resident’s ASB case and it could not offer a different resolution. It advised the resident to escalate the case to a local ASB Case Review Panel.
The resident escalated her complaint and stated the landlord did not address all the points she had raised. This included her requests for details of counter-allegations, for her housing records to reflect she did not refuse mediation or police visits, and for documentation on the use of pesticides and chemicals in communal areas. The resident also said she thought the landlord dismissed the latest incident without proper investigation.
The landlord’s stage 2 response confirmed what its records stated in respect of the offer of mediation, police visits and counter-allegations. It therefore took reasonable steps to resolve these aspects of the resident’s complaint. The landlord also advised the most recent incident did not meet the criteria for ASB, but she could refer her ASB case for review by the local multi-agency ASB Case Review Panel. The ASB Procedure states “We will ensure that any person wanting to activate their local ASB Case Review (formerly Community Trigger) is advised how to do this.” The role of the ASB Case Review Panel is to consider reports of ASB made to landlords and the landlord’s response. It can assess whether the landlord could or should have taken other action. As the resident was dissatisfied with the outcome of her ASB case, including her most recent report, it was appropriate that the landlord advised her of this option.
However, a significant issue of dispute was the use of sprays by the neighbours. The landlord had informed all residents not to use chemical sprays in communal areas. The ABC that the neighbours signed addressed several issues that the resident had raised, including verbal abuse. The neighbours agreed not to breach conditions relating to their behaviour as this would be a breach of their tenancy agreement. However, the ABC was silent on the use of chemical sprays which was a missed opportunity.
The resident made further reports of her neighbours using sprays. The landlord accepted the neighbours’ statement that they were now using soapy water, not weedkiller. The Ombudsman appreciates it may be difficult for the landlord and resident to disprove this. Nonetheless, the landlord’s statement that it received no conclusive evidence to refute the neighbours’ statement was accurate.
However, the fundamental issue here was the resident’s claim that the general use of chemicals in communal areas, including those in detergents and cleaning products, would harm her. Also, the original issue was the use of pesticides which may be hazardous substances under Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) regulations. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord did not carry out a risk assessment at any stage. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to simultaneously have sought medical evidence from the resident. This would enable it to confirm exactly how she was affected by the use of products with chemicals in public areas, and how any risk could have been mitigated. The landlord could also have confirmed with the neighbours what products they were using. The fences that it installed enclosed the path therefore it was all the more important it carried out an assessment.
A risk assessment would have helped the landlord clarify to all parties what products or type of products it would permit in communal area. This was necessary, not least because the letter of 4 September 2023 referred to “chemicals of any kind”. By not providing this clarity, the landlord missed an opportunity to manage the expectations of all parties and possibly reduce the likelihood of disagreements.
The resident requested the landlord take responsibility for dealing with plant growth on the path. As the resident made this request as a way of resolving difficulties with her neighbours, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not reply. In fact, the resident’s tenancy agreement shows that she pays a service charge for grounds maintenance. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to make clear exactly what the grounds maintenance schedule was. In particular, it could have made clear whether the schedule extended or could be extended to the upkeep of the communal path area and other communal areas. The landlord could also have made clear if it had any issue with residents treating communal areas in between any visits it may make.
In summary, the landlord took a range of action in line with its ASB Procedure when handling the resident’s ASB case. It also offered redress for its initial delay in responding to the incident of August 2023 where the neighbours sprayed the resident. However, the landlord did not carry out a risk assessment or provide clarity to all parties on what products it would permit in communal areas. It also failed to respond to the resident’s request that it take responsibility for the path. For these reasons, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure by the landlord.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord offered compensation of £175 in its response of 18 September 2024. However, this award was not for the failings identified in this report. In fact, the response did not identify any specific failings so did not make clear why the landlord was offering compensation. Therefore, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay further compensation of £100. In making this award we have considered that the total award of £275 is within the range of compensation suggested in our Remedies Guidance for cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, in particular her reports of her neighbours using chemicals to kill weeds in communal areas.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within the next 4 weeks, to:
1. Pay the resident £275 compensation in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of the resident’s case. This comprises:
  1. paying the £175 offered in the stage 1 response of 18 September 2024, if this has not already been paid.
  2. paying a further £100 compensation which accounts for the failings identified in this report.
2. Complete a risk assessment regarding the use of weedkillers and cleaning products at the resident’s block. It should allow the resident the opportunity to provide evidence to support her reports of adverse reactions when in contact with chemicals. It should then inform the resident and her neighbours what types of products can be used in communal areas and any conditions regarding the use.
3. Confirm to the resident the grounds maintenance schedule. In particular it should make clear whether the grounds maintenance service includes any upkeep of the communal path area.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord to consider revisiting mediation and/or the possibility of managing the communal area/grounds maintenance scope to design out difficulties between the resident and her neighbours.