Stonewater Limited (202528873)

Decision
Case ID	202528873
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Stonewater Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 February 2026

Background

1. The resident reported a racially motivated incident to the landlord. Following this, she also reported ongoing harassment from her neighbours. The resident has mental health conditions. She lives with her son, who is vulnerable.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB.
5. We find no maladministration in the landlord’s handing of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord took some appropriate steps to address the ASB incidents, including contacting and working with the police, issuing warnings, and considering some safeguarding measures. However, it did not meet key requirements of its ASB policy, particularly in responding to hate‑related and high‑risk incidents. It did not always provide clear and timely communication.
7. In our view the delays in the landlord’s handling of the complaint were minimal and did not have a significant impact.

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 26 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £400 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of ASB. 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 26 March 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should contact the resident to discuss any current ASB concerns.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 July 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She said there had been poor communication and little action regarding the ASB incidents. She said she had asked for a manager to call her, but this had not happened. She also said she did not want to speak to her case manager.
29 July 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It: Said it was handling the case, and counter‑allegations made against the resident, in line with its ASB policy Said the case handler had submitted a management transfer application and had remained in contact with the resident. Said its options were limited until the police investigation concluded. Identified learning, including improving communication during staff handovers and being clearer about the limits of its role.
30 July 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: The landlord had not taken her health circumstances into account and had been dismissive. The landlord should have taken action to safeguard her. She had experienced racial discrimination from her neighbours. There was no evidence to support the counter‑allegations made against her. She wanted an investigation into her case and regular updates on any actions taken. The landlord should have acted in line with its ASB policy while the police investigation was ongoing.
2 October 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: It did not identify a service failure. It said it had acted in line with its ASB procedure and had maintained appropriate communication. There had been a pause in contact due to staff leave, but the case had remained active. It had processed a managed move request. It would continue to liaise with the police. The police did not consider the situation to require an emergency relocation. It would not change the case worker, as this would support consistent handling. It had sent letters to all residents to encourage reporting and did not intend to single out any individual. It invited the resident to contact it for signposting to support for stress and anxiety. It would continue to monitor the case and contact the resident.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In summary, the resident was unhappy with how the landlord handled her ASB reports. She said the incidents had been ongoing since November 2024 and that she felt unsafe in her home, which affected her and her child’s wellbeing. She did not feel her reports had been taken seriously.

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	The landlord’s handling of anti-social behaviour (ASB)
Finding	Maladministration

8. The landlord provided us with its records showing how it responded to the resident’s ASB reports. While the resident’s dissatisfaction is noted, this report does not address every issue or incident individually. We consider all available evidence and assesses the landlord’s overall handling of the case.
9. The landlord’s ASB policy commits to tackling all forms of hate incidents linked to protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. It also states that when working with partner agencies, and where it is not the lead agency, the landlord will continue to investigate and take reasonable action to support residents.
10. On 5 November 2024 the resident reported that neighbours had threatened her and made racial remarks about her and her son in a WhatsApp group chat. The landlord opened an ASB case the same day. A case officer contacted her 2 working days later. Under its policy, the landlord should fast‑track serious cases, including hate crime, and issue an action plan within 1 working day.
11. The landlord created an action plan when it opened the case. It updated her regularly and its actions showed it took her concerns seriously. In response it:
    1. Assessed the case as high risk.
    2. Contacted the police.
    3. Arranged for a fireproof letter box to be installed.
    4. Spoke with other residents to gather information.
    5. Issued warnings to some members of the WhatsApp group chat.
    6. Assisted with the resident being given a higher housing priority with the local authority.
12. On 10 December 2024 the landlord provided a written update to the resident of actions it had taken. This was positive as it kept the resident informed and reassured her that action had been taken.
13. The landlord took 7 months to install the fireproof letter box from when it first agreed. This was a significant delay in completing a safeguarding measure.
14. The landlord offered mediation between the resident and a neighbour. Mediation can be appropriate where both parties feel safe and willing to take part. By this stage, the landlord had taken several reasonable steps to address the risk. Offering mediation was therefore reasonable. The resident declined and asked for no contact with the neighbour, which the landlord respected.
15. On 13 May 2025 the resident agreed that the case could be closed as the situation had improved.
16. On 16 June 2025 the resident reported further ASB, including cat faeces being thrown towards a visitor in her garden. The next day she also reported racial remarks and threats. The landlord opened a case and it was assessed as high risk. The landlord’s risk matrix sets out actions the landlord should take for high risk cases. The landlord spoke with the police and the resident. It did not discuss an action plan as the resident ended the call. It did not follow up and provide one in writing. It did not offer referrals to partner agencies or consider raising a safeguarding alert, which was not in line with its risk assessment matrix. It missed the opportunity to consider the resident’s support needs.
17. The landlord completed a managed move application for the resident, which was approved by its panel. This was positive, as the resident had asked to move. However, the landlord wrote to the resident on 13 August 2025 saying it could not proceed with a managed move due to a lack of evidence. During our investigation, we asked the landlord for further information, and it has now written to her confirming she is on the managed move list. The miscommunication caused the resident distress.
18. The landlord told the resident that counter‑allegations had been made about her. Its ASB policy says that when counter‑allegations are received, it may agree a new action plan with the resident. We have not seen evidence the landlord discussed with the resident what the counter‑allegations were. It would have been best practice for the landlord to discuss this as it would have ensured transparency and managed her expectations.
19. The resident felt there were gaps in communication from the landlord and the caseworker changed often. The landlord’s position in its complaint responses was there was not a service failure as her case progressed despite the changes in caseworkers. However, on occasions the resident reported ASB incidents to the landlord and did not receive a response. She also requested call backs from managers which did not happen. This made her feel that her concerns were not being taken seriously. Examples include:
    1. The resident contacted the landlord on 5, 21 and 24 and 26 February 2025 to discuss incidents with her neighbours. There is no evidence the landlord contacted her until 1 April 2025. The landlord liaised with the police and the local authority during this period, however it should have also communicated with the resident directly.
    2. On 2 July 2025 the landlord asked the resident for details of incidents from the previous 6 months. She sent information about 6 incidents and provided videos on 3 July 2025. The landlord acknowledged receipt but did not give feedback. It missed the opportunity to explain what action it could or could not take, which was a failing because it did not manage the resident’s expectations or provide reassurance about how it would progress the case.
20. The landlord told the resident on 21 August 2025 that it would be closing the case. It said it would not take the hate crime investigation further as the police filed it due to lack of evidence. It was positive for the landlord to take a joint up working approach to investigating the issues, however it should not have relied solely on the police investigation in its decision making. The landlord should have considered its own evidence threshold and if it could take any proportionate action under its ASB policy. In our view the landlord’s actions when the resident first reported hate related incidents were proportionate. When the resident reported further hate related incidents in June 2025, it relied too heavily on the police outcome, which was not in line with its policy.
21. The resident told us she feels there was indirect discrimination because racially motivated incidents were referenced to her as a neighbour dispute. We acknowledge the distress this caused the resident. She did not raise concerns about discrimination in the landlord’s actions or language as part of her complaint, so the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond. The service failings we identified relate to communication and application of its policy, rather than discriminatory treatment. However, clearer communication and consistent application of policy may have helped the resident understand the landlord’s approach and reduced her feeling that her concerns were being minimised.
22. Overall the landlord took some appropriate steps, including contacting the police, issuing warnings, and requesting safeguarding measures. However, it did not meet key requirements of its ASB policy, particularly in responding to hate‑related and high‑risk incidents. The landlord failed to issue required action plans and delayed safeguarding works. It did not always provide clear or timely communication, including incorrectly telling the resident that her managed move was not approved. It offered the resident support in its stage 2 complaint response but it should have considered her support needs much earlier.
23. These failures amount to maladministration. They caused the resident distress, uncertainty and contributed to her feeling that her concerns were not being taken seriously.
24. We have ordered the landlord to pay £400 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance where the resident has been adversely impacted and the landlord has not acknowledged its failings.
25. The resident has told that us that she continues to experience ASB and does not think she has a current case open. We have therefore recommended the landlord contact the resident to discuss any current ASB concerns.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint
Finding	No maladministration

26. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgment and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledgment. The policy also allows for an extension to be agreed with the resident if more time is needed.
27. The landlord provided its stage 1 acknowledgment and response on time, in line with its policy.
28. It acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint 1 working day late, which was a minor delay. It extended the stage 2 timescale, as allowed, but did so when the response was already 1 working day overdue. It should have told the resident sooner that it would not meet the deadline to set her expectations. The landlord provided its response in the revised timescale.
29. In our view the delays in the landlord’s handling of the complaint were minimal and did not have a significant impact. We find no maladministration.

Learning

30. The landlord has shown willing to learn from this case and has said it will:
    1. Complete a formal handover when case ownership changes.
    2. Communicate managed move outcomes to the case officer and applicant.
    3. Remind staff to clearly explain how resident submitted evidence is used and whether additional submissions are necessary.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. The landlord provided adequate records for our investigation.

Communication

32. There is further learning for the landlord to take from this case around how it manages hate‑related and high‑risk incidents. This includes consistently implementing a clear action plan and following the requirements of its risk assessment matrix.