Stonewater Limited (202447449)

Background

1. The resident lives in the property which is a 2-bedroom flat based within a retirement living housing scheme and pays a service charge for several services provided by the landlord. He lives in the property with his wife.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s concerns about service charges.
   2. Multiple concerns raised about the standard of services received. This includes fire alarm testing, window cleaning, grounds maintenance, lift maintenance, heating, fly tipping, laundry facilities, and support from staff.
   3. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
   4. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to concerns about service charges.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to concerns about the standard of services provided.
   3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of ASB.
   4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The response to concerns about service charges

4. The landlord reasonably responded to the concerns raised by the resident about service charges. However, its response regarding the variation to service charges did not sufficiently address the resident’s concerns.

The response to the concerns about the standard of services provided

5. While the landlord admitted failures and refunded some service charges, its responses were reactive rather than proactive. It referred to some of the changes it had made which were positive, but it did not consider that even following those changes, the resident remained dissatisfied with the standard of services received.

The response to reports of ASB

6. It appears this was the first report of nuisance / ASB made by the resident to the landlord. It was appropriate for the landlord to outline that the resident would need to report it via the appropriate channels and it could then respond in line with its ASB policy.

Response to the complaint

7. The landlord reasonably accounted for the delays in responding to the complaint. However, it did not respond to all the issues raised by the resident or his earlier complaints. This likely caused further distress and inconvenience 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.

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.

8. When in contact with this Service, the resident requested a refund of service charges. Determining the reasonableness of service charges, and the liability for services charges, requires a binding decision from a court or other tribunal service such as the First Tier Tribunal Service (FTT). The resident may wish to contact the FTT if he wishes to pursue a refund or challenge the reasonableness of the service charges he incurred.
9. In a telephone note dated 19 February 2024 the landlord said the resident had an issue with the variation to his tenancy where it added charges which were not included on his original tenancy. It said the resident did not agree to the additional costs as it failed to consult with him on applying them and it merely imposed them. The landlord has not provided any evidence of it responding to the resident’s concerns which is a failing.
10. Its stage 1 response confirmed that it did undertake a variation to his tenancy agreement in 2022 and offered to send him a copy. A landlord can only remove or add charges to a tenancy in certain ways and the resident’s tenancy agreement states that it must consult with affected tenants beforehand. We would therefore expect the landlord to have fully explained the process it used to vary the service charge provision. It is not appropriate that it has not provided evidence of it doing so.
11. The landlord took reasonable steps to explain the communal heating charges. It provided a detailed response on 9 May 2023 and again in its complaint responses. It explained how it estimated the charges and how they were spread between individual properties and communal areas. Its response showed that it had considered the concerns raised by residents related to the costs and confirmed that it secured new contracts from June 2024 with cheaper rates. It said all energy service charges had decreased.
12. Similarly, the landlord reasonably outlined what the resident living costs were for and what services were included within it. We will consider the standard of the service provided later in this report.
13. Overall, we have found that the landlord did not sufficiently address the resident’s concerns regarding its process to vary the service charges. We do, however, consider that the landlord has provided adequate explanations of the charges in its responses to the resident. The landlord also provides an annual service charge letter which includes a breakdown of the service charges and any changes made.
14. The landlord must pay £100 to put right its poor communication related to the resident’s queries regarding the service charge variation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a failure which the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge.

Fire alarm testing

15. The landlord’s fire safety policy says it will ensure it regularly tests and maintains fire safety installations. It says the testing of fire safety installations, systems and equipment will be carried out by competent and suitable qualified colleagues or contractors in accordance with relevant legislation/guidance.
16. In his formal complaint the resident said the fire alarm testing had ceased and that it was a safety concern for him. In its complaint response the landlord said there were times when its scheme coordinator was not in post but that other staff had covered the fire alarm testing. It said the resident should let it know if there were specific dates when it did not happen.
17. The landlord has not provided evidence to support how it satisfied itself that it tested the fire alarms on a regular basis and in line with its obligations. Instead of putting the onus on the resident to inform it of times when it may not have tested the alarms, it would have been reasonable for it to have provided records which evidence each time it carried out a test. It would have also been reasonable for the landlord to have outlined the frequency and times when it would carry out the testing to show it was working in line with its policy. In not carrying out those actions the landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations.

Window cleaning

18. The landlord’s estate management document says it will inspect services provided and give a score from A to D, A being “very good”, D being “unacceptable”. Its estate services photobook provides examples to show how it judges the standards of window cleaning and grounds maintenance.
19. The resident described the window cleaning service as dreadful with dirty water being used and no cleaning agent. He said the windows were left smeared and dirty. It was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge that while the resident did not report it at the time, there were limited staff available at the time for him to do so. The landlord said it would “keep an eye on the quality”. It said it would refund a proportion of the window cleaning charges for the last year which was also reasonable given the lack of reports prior to the complaint.
20. However, as what the resident described was not in line with the expectations from its estate management guidance, it would have been reasonable to see evidence of the landlord providing the resident’s feedback to its contractor. The landlord has not provided any evidence of it carrying out an inspection prior to or following the resident’s complaint. The lack of action was not in line with its guidance.

Grounds maintenance

21. The resident has a previous complaint with this Service (reference: 202010070) in which he raised concerns about the grounds maintenance and communal cleaning services. The finding from the report highlighted that the landlord missed opportunities to make clear the details of its schedule and the standards/specification for the concerns raised. It also failed to evidence its arrangements for monitoring performance.
22. Similar to the window cleaning and the previous determination, it was disappointing that the landlord could not provide details of the works carried out on visits or what inspections it had carried out to monitor the service provided. This suggests the landlord did not learn from the previous complaint. This likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident in having to raise the issues again.
23. In its stage 2 response the landlord went some way to putting things right. It refunded the service charge to the resident for the time in which he had complained about the condition of the garden. It also outlined the services included within the contract and said it would undertake a consultation with residents on the grounds maintenance service it provided. We have not been provided with the outcome of the consultation or the surveyor’s findings regarding the uneven footpath.

Lift breakdowns

24. In his formal complaint the resident raised concerns regarding the lifts frequently breaking down. We have not seen evidence of the resident reporting this issue prior to the formal complaint. The landlord has provided some records related to the lift but it is unclear if it included every instance of the lift breaking down and what steps it took at time. However, it did not dispute that the number of breakdowns was higher than average. The lift went into service on 2 November 2023 and the defects liability period ended on 1 November 2024. This was then extended due to the number of callouts. The frequent breakdowns likely caused inconvenience for the residents in the building.
25. The landlord acknowledged that its communication was poor during that time and that it did not provide updates as expected. It said if anyone needed extra support they could contact it. A more proactive approach would be for the landlord to make note of which households would need support and to contact them when it becomes aware of a breakdown which is likely to impact them.
26. The landlord confirmed to this Service that there was always a stair lift available for when the lift was out of use. The landlord also refunded all properties for their service charges when the lift was out of use and offered the resident £50 for its poor communication, which was reasonable. It is difficult to determine the level of detriment caused to the resident as it does not appear the issues were raised at the time.

Heating and hot water

27. The landlord reasonably addressed the resident’s concerns regarding the communal heating and hot water. It confirmed the heating was not on during the summer months and considered the increase in energy prices. It outlined what steps it had considered to address the issues with the temperatures during summer such as boxing in the hot water pipes and having more fans available.
28. In relation to the concerns about hot water temperatures in the resident’s property. It confirmed it had checked the communal hot water and could not see where it was scalding hot. It encouraged the resident to report an emergency repair if he ever had scalding hot water from his taps.  It would have been reasonable for it to have evidenced that it had also checked the taps in the resident’s property. The resident has confirmed this is no longer an issue for him.

Fly tipping

29. The complaint referred to a resident in the block being responsible for fly tipping. The landlord responded by saying there were rumours of a certain resident fly tipping but it did not have definitive proof of that. It confirmed its refusal disposal service charge covered the costs of paying for the disposal of fly-tipped items. It acknowledged the frustration of the resident incurring charges for something which he had not done himself. It said it encouraged residents to send any evidence of fly tipping to it.
30. The landlord’s response was reasonable. The resident has informed this Service that there is CCTV which the landlord could review to identify perpetrators of fly tipping. The landlord should ensure it is exploring all options available to it to deter fly tipping. If it is happening often, it should consider what communications it may need to send out to all residents to remind them of the expectations in line with their tenancy agreements.

Laundry facilities

31. The resident complained that there were not enough machines available for the number of residents in the block. He said there were 2 washing machines and 2 dryers available for 45 flats and some residents were having to get up in the night to wash their clothes.
32. In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged a period of 3 weeks in the previous year where there were issues with the laundry room and said it would reimburse all residents for their service charges during that time period. It acknowledged that other residents had also raised issues with finding an available machine to use. It stated that adding an extra machine would increase the service charges but it would consult with the residents on that. It said if the majority vote to increase the charges, then it would increase the number of machines. It said an alternative was to consider a rota system and it would discuss it in the resident meeting on 23 May 2024.
33. The landlord’s response regarding the number of washing machines was fair. There is no specific legislation which dictates the exact number or ratio of washing machines a block of flats must have. However, it was reasonable to consider the costs of servicing and maintaining any additional machines. It would have been appropriate for it to outline the outcome of the meeting on 23 May 2024 in its stage 2 response and the next steps it would take to resolve the issue. In the absence of that information, it remains unclear if it has resolved the situation.
34. The landlord has not provided records which outline the specific issues experienced with the laundry room in the previous year and therefore we cannot determine whether its handling of the issues was appropriate at the time. It was reasonable to reimburse all resident’s service charges if the facilities were not available.

Support from staff

35. In his formal complaint the resident stated that there was a lack of presence from the housing scheme manager and there was no opportunity to voice concerns or receive assistance. He said it was unclear who the staff members were and although the residents had requested face to face meetings, the landlord had only offered virtual meetings.
36. In a letter dated 9 May 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed that he had been receiving a reduced service due to the lack of staff on the scheme. It noted that the resident had said there was no staff on the scheme and it said it had reduced his retirement living charge to reflect the reduced service. It reduced the charge from £12.82 to £9.40. It would have been reasonable for it to outline what services it was still offering to the resident to justify the charge and what steps it was taking to remedy the reduced service.
37. In emails dated October and November 2023, the resident queried what he was paying for within the retirement living costs. He said the scheme coordinator had been absent for 2 years and there were just rare moments when someone would appear for a few days. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to the resident which is a failing.
38. In its complaint responses the landlord confirmed that the service charge was to cover staffing costs associated with having a scheme co-ordinator available. It outlined what the scheme co-ordinator could assist with. It said that since a staffing restructure in September 2023 there had been a permanent co-ordinator on site as well as manager visits to bring services back to where they should be. It confirmed that meetings had taken place and it had arranged a meeting for 23 May 2024 to meet staff members and to voice any concerns and feedback. It said it would refund the service charge paid by the resident for the period where it struggled to find suitably matched staff. It also offered £50 for the inconvenience caused by not having the support of a scheme coordinator and £50 for its poor communication.
39. The landlord’s response went some way in acknowledging the resident’s concerns and putting things right. The landlord said there had been improvements since the staff restructure. It would have been reasonable for it to acknowledge that the resident had continued to complain and make reports about poor services since the restructure too. We have seen evidence of the landlord not responding to the resident following the restructure and it would have been appropriate for it to have made further enquiries internally as to why the issues were ongoing.

Overall response to service provision concerns

40. Despite having the tools available for it to do so, the landlord has not sufficiently demonstrated a consistent approach in addressing the standard of services, and monitoring the contracts and quality of works involved. We do not have evidence of the landlord discussing the issues with its service providers or identifying any changes in the services required, despite providing service charge refunds to the resident.
41. The landlord did state that it had reviewed its estate services commitments and had recruited a new estate service contract manager in January 2024. It said it had also introduced a new reporting tool to report issues with grounds maintenance and cleaning. These are positives steps to take. However, as there were a number of issues which remain unresolved and which the resident still has concerns about, we cannot conclude that this was sufficient redress.
42. The landlord offered a total of £125 which was to acknowledge not providing a copy of the tenancy agreement, its poor communication, and the lack of support coordinator. We consider that this was not proportionate to the failings identified. In line with our remedies guidance, the landlord must pay a further £200 to put right the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to evidence that it followed up on its commitments and fully addressed all the issues in line with its policies.

43. The resident’s formal complaint referred to communal nuisance caused by the grandchild of another resident who was not addressing the issue. The landlord’s response said that it could not see any previous reports of that ASB and for the resident to report any occurrence of ASB through the range of channels as they happen. It said it now had more staff on site and could not see any new reports but to let it know if the resident caused any unnecessary disturbances.
44. As the landlord did not appear to have received any previous reports of the issue, its response was reasonable. The resident has informed this Service that he did not report any further issues following the response. He said the main concern was that the grandchild appeared to be living at the block of flats and he believed that the flats should only be occupied by people living over the age of 55. We cannot see that this was raised with the landlord within the complaints process, therefore we are unable to investigate this element of the resident’s complaint.

45. The landlord provided its stage 1 response 19 working days after the formal complaint. However, it reasonably managed the resident’s expectations by acknowledging the complaint within 4 working days and informing him of the need to extend the deadline on 2 May 2024. These actions were in line with its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
46. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 escalation until 9 working days after, which was not in line with the Code. It did apologise at the time and confirmed it would respond within 20 days, which it did do. It offered a total of £50 for the complaint handling delays, which was reasonable.
47. While the landlord addressed most of the complaint issues, there were some aspects of the resident’s formal complaint that it failed to respond to. These included his reports of uncomfortable seating in the living room, communal lighting issues, a hole in the carpet which was dangerous, refurbishing the block, and his request to move. In not providing a response to these issues, the landlord missed an opportunity to resolve all the issues satisfactorily. This also likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident in not feeling listened to by the landlord.
48. The resident also stated that he had complained several times and received no response. The landlord’s responses did not sufficiently address this part of this complaint. We have seen evidence of the resident contacting the landlord on 24 October 2023, again in November 2023, and on 18 February 2024 to raise complaints about the services charges and services provided. The landlord documented his concerns but there is no evidence of it following up with the resident or addressing any of the issues raised, which is a failing.
49. The landlord clearly had opportunities to respond to and resolve the resident’s complaint much sooner than it did. This likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience in having to repeatedly raise the issues and using an advocate to eventually receive a response. While the landlord referred to staffing issues, it did not acknowledge or apologise for its delays in responding to him.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

50. The landlord has not provided records of surveys or inspections related to the quality of works, meeting notes, communal maintenance logs, or internal correspondence related to concerns raised. The lack of records would have impacted the landlord’s service delivery and oversight of the issues. In this case the landlord often refunded service charges based on the resident’s account, rather than its own information. Effective record keeping would have helped the landlord to ensure its decisions were based on its actions and evidence available to it from the time.