Stonewater Limited (202438434)

Background

1. The resident reported ongoing antisocial behaviour (ASB) from June 2024 and raised concerns about the landlord’s response to those reports and its complaint handling.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:

1. Reports of ASB.
2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for:

a. Service Failure in its response to reports of ASB.

b. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord experienced a short delay at the outset in progressing the resident’s reports of ASB. However, it subsequently took reasonable and proportionate action in line with its policy, including risk assessment, multi-agency working, and enforcement measures.
5. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy and there were no failures in its complaint handling.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

6. The landlord’s ASB policy requires it to assess reports based on harm and risk, complete a harm risk assessment, agree an action plan, maintain regular contact, and take proportionate action using available tools including good neighbourhood agreements and warning letters. It also requires the landlord to act promptly once reports are received.
7. The resident first contacted the landlord on 10 June 2024, shortly after moving into the property, reporting noise, environmental ASB, safeguarding concerns, and ASB affecting her children’s sleep. The landlord logged further reports on 18 June and 20 June 2024, whereby the resident described persistent night-time noise, litter, racing vehicles, and concerns about children and drug use.
8. On 10 June 2024 internal emails between landlord staff referenced emerging concerns at the development. On 18 June 2024, the landlord attempted telephone contact with the resident and arranged a follow-up call to complete a harm risk assessment. This shows early awareness and an attempt to engage.
9. On 20 June 2024 the landlord recorded detailed reports from the resident including night-time noise, shouting, racing vehicles, environmental issues, and safeguarding concerns relating to children. A further internal record on the same date noted these concerns as ASB-related and acknowledged the resident’s distress. However, at this stage, no formal ASB case structure had yet been put in place.
10. On 30 June 2024, the resident sent a further email reporting ASB as occurring “24/7”. This was escalated internally to the landlord’s resolution (ASB) team. While escalation was appropriate, the evidence does not show that a harm risk assessment or action plan was completed at this point, despite repeated reports throughout June.
11. The landlord completed a harm risk assessment on 9 July 2024, around four weeks after the first report. The assessment recorded a score of 22, which falls within the medium-risk category under the landlord’s framework and required timely structured intervention. At this point, the landlord also agreed an action plan and began structured engagement.
12. From 9 July 2024 onwards, the landlord’s actions broadly aligned with its policy. It contacted the police and the council, referred the case to multi-agency partners, and arranged a Hate and Anti-Social Behaviour Risk Assessment Conference (HASBRAC), which took place on 23 July 2024. The landlord also offered evidence-gathering tools, including a video doorbell, and explained the need for specific incident details to enable enforcement. The evidence also shows that the landlord carried out site visits, issued good neighbour agreements, sent warning letters where appropriate, and continued multi-agency working. We are satisfied that, from mid-July 2024 onwards, the landlord acted reasonably and proportionately.
13. The service failure therefore relates to the initial handling period between approximately 10 June and 9 July 2024. During this time, the landlord was aware of the reports and made some contact attempts but did not promptly implement the full ASB management framework set out in its policy.
14. This period amounts to a delay of approximately three to four weeks before the landlord fully implemented its ASB policy framework. While this delay did not prevent later action, it represented a missed opportunity to provide early reassurance, clarity, and structured support.
15. We do not assess whether the reported ASB occurred. The assessment is limited to whether the landlord responded reasonably and in line with its policy. In this case, the landlord’s response improved significantly after July 2024, but its early handling fell short of policy expectations.
16. Our remedies guidance suggests awards of between £50 and £250 for service failures that adversely affect a resident but result in no permanent impact. While the landlord acknowledged concerns and later took appropriate action, its early handling of the resident’s ASB reports was not as prompt or clear as it should have been. The landlord’s offer of £25 does not fall within this range and does not adequately recognise the distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble experienced by the resident while seeking action during the initial reporting period in June and early July 2024. This missed opportunity to take prompt and effective early action supports a finding of service failure.
17. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £100 in recognition of these failures bringing the total compensation to £125. This amount appropriately reflects the limited duration of the service failure, the absence of permanent impact, and the escalation of appropriate action once formal ASB processes were in place.

18. The landlord’s complaints policy requires it to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within five working days and provide a response within ten working days, unless an extension is agreed. For stage 2 complaints, the policy requires acknowledgement, a senior review, and a response within 20 working days, with extensions permitted where communicated.
19. The resident’s complaint was formally logged at stage 1 on 30 July 2024, following her email of 21 July 2024 raising dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of ASB and communication. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same date and clearly set out the issues under investigation, which included ASB handling and communication.
20. On 14 August 2024, the landlord informed the resident that it required additional time to complete its stage 1 investigation and provided a revised response date of 27 August 2024. This extension was communicated in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
21. The resident remained dissatisfied with the stage 1 response and requested escalation. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 4 September 2024. The acknowledgement confirmed that the complaint would be reviewed by a senior manager and clearly defined the scope of the stage 2 investigation as complaint handling and communication, rather than the underlying ASB itself.
22. The landlord advised that it aimed to issue the stage 2 response by 2 October 2024. When additional time was required, the evidence shows that the landlord extended the deadline to 30 October 2024 and communicated this to the resident. The stage 2 response was issued on 30 October 2024, within the revised timescale.
23. In this case, the landlord provided a formal response at both stages of the process within the timescales set out within its policy and our Complaint Handling Code. Accordingly, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Learning

Communication

24. This case highlights the importance of landlords acting promptly and clearly at the earliest stage of ASB reports. While the landlord ultimately implemented its ASB policy framework, earlier clarity about next steps, timescales, and how reports would be assessed may have reduced the resident’s uncertainty and frustration during June 2024.
25. The landlord should reflect on how it communicates during the initial handling of ASB reports, particularly where concerns are escalating quickly. Providing early reassurance, explaining when formal processes will be put in place, and confirming expected timescales for action would help manage residents’ expectations and improve confidence in the landlord’s response.

Record Keeping

26. The landlord kept comprehensive records once the ASB case was formally opened. However, clearer recording at the outset of when repeated reports triggered formal ASB case management may have supported earlier implementation of its policy and reduced uncertainty for the resident.