Stonewater Limited (202532282)

Decision
Case ID	202532282
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Stonewater Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	26 May 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1 bedroom flat in a 4 storey building. When he told the landlord he was planning on selling the flat, it provided a sales pack which contained the EWS1 form. The potential buyer of the property did not proceed with the sale due to concerns about the supplier of the EWS1 form. The landlord agreed to assess if any compensation was payable if the potential buyer did not proceed with the sale of the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about your landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Concerns regarding the EWS1 certification for the building.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the EWS1 certification for the building.
   2. Service failure in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord’s failed to inform the resident about the possibility of the EWS1 affecting the sale of the property. In its complaint response it said it would assess if compensation was payable if the potential sale did not go ahead. The landlord did not do this until after our involvement. While the compensation offered fell within the range of compensation we would made, it was made too late to be considered as reasonable redress for the landlord’s failings.
5. The landlord did not follow its complaints procedure and did not recognise its failings during its complaints review. This caused inconvenience to the resident. It offered proportionate compensation for the impact on 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 26 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £600 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s concerns regarding the EWS1 certification for the building. 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 June 2026
3	Providing information The landlord must take all reasonable steps to provide the resident with the new EWS1 reassessment of the property and give reasons and a revised date if it is unable to do so.	No later than 26 June 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, within the next 3 weeks, if it has not already done so, it should pay the £65 outlined in its complaint responses. The finding of reasonable redress is dependent on this being paid.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
4 June 2025	The resident complained his buyer withdrew from the sale due to issues with the EWS1 it had provided. He said the landlord should have known there were issues with the EWS1 form as other sellers had been affected.
27 June 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. The main points were: It acknowledged the collapse of any sale can cause stress and frustration. When the sales process started in October 2024 it used an accredited company to carry out the EWS1 assessment. At that time, it had no reason to expect issues with the building’s certification. As it could not rely on the EWS1 assessment, it decided to commission a further assessment. It expected the reassessment to be completed by July 2025. Some lenders still offer finance for properties affected by EWS1 issues but acknowledged all lenders did not take that approach. It accepted that it should have informed the resident earlier about the potential issue with the EWS1 form. It confirmed that, if the buyer chose not to proceed, it would assess appropriate compensation. It said it had learned from the complaint and would improve its communication by giving residents information at the earliest opportunity. It offered the resident £75 compensation for its delays.
20 August 2025	The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint. He said: The landlord had not responded to his messages. The landlord had not provided the outcome of the external wall survey. The landlord agreed to review the compensation once the buyer made a decision about the purchase of the property but had not done so. The buyer had withdrawn from the sale because the landlord took too long to complete the EWS1 reassessment.
24 October 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. The main points were: In January 2024, when it completed the EWS1 assessment it had no concerns about the accredited company’s competence or qualifications. The assessment did not identify any fire safety issues or interim measures. It decided to carry out a further EWS1 assessment once it had become aware of formal concerns about the company. It completed the reassessment in September 2025 and its independent fire safety expert was reviewing the report. It would share the updated report and provide further updates. It identified interim fire safety measures but did not believe they pose a direct safety risk. It acknowledged that it should have done more to support the resident, including providing support when issues with the EWS1 form arose. It knew that the sale had been placed on hold. It accepted that it should have acted sooner when it became aware of potential delays so the resident could make an informed decision. It offered an additional £40 compensation for the delay in acknowledging the complaint at stage 2.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said the landlord had not shared the outcome of the reassessment and had not reimbursed him of the costs he incurred.

 

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	Concerns regarding the EWS1 certification for the building
Finding	Service failure

6. Our spotlight report on cladding complaints (May 2021) states that landlords should give leaseholders clear information so they can make informed decisions to avoid unnecessary costs.
7. The resident told the landlord he wanted to sell his interest in the property. By December 2024, the landlord gave permission for the sale on the open market. The resident accepted an offer in March 2025 and paid for the seller’s pack in May 2025. The landlord confirmed the property required an EWS1 form and included this in the seller’s pack.
8. The resident later told the landlord that his buyer had withdrawn because their lender had raised concerns about the validity of the EWS1 form. We cannot comment on the lender’s decision, as each mortgage provider sets its own criteria. The landlord acted reasonably in its stage 1 response when it said it would wait to see whether the sale could proceed without an EWS1 form.
9. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it did not know about any issues with the accredited company when the sales process began in October 2024. However, the Institute of Fire Engineers was investigating the company and published sanctions against the company in November 2024. The landlord missed an opportunity to explain these issues earlier and outline the potential impact on the sale. This information would have helped the resident understand the risks when he put the property on the market.
10. The landlord should have acted in an open and transparent way before the resident incurred costs. It appropriately recognised that it should have communicated more proactively about the potential risk the EWS1 form caused to the potential sale.
11. The landlord followed our guidance when it arranged a further EWS1 assessment. It managed the resident’s expectations by explaining that delays might occur due to high demand for fire engineers. The reassessment took place in July 2025, and the landlord received the report in September 2025. It told the resident in its complaint response its legal team would review the report before it would be passed to its fire safety expert. The landlord said it would share the outcome of the reassessment. This was reasonable.
12. Good communication is essential for residents to understand the landlord’s responsibilities, especially in situations like this. The resident has disputed the landlord’s assertion that it provided updates about the outcome of the survey and maintains he has not received a copy of the new EWS1. We have therefore ordered the landlord to share this report with the resident.
13. The landlord acknowledged that it had not communicated proactively and awarded £50 compensation at stage 1. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord did not assess whether compensation was due to the resident once the sale did not go through as it agreed to do. On 18 May 2026, after the complaints process ended, it reviewed the case and apologised for not fully considering the impact on the resident. It increased the compensation award to £600, made up of £200 for refunded sales fees, £200 for estimated valuation costs, and £200 for delay, distress, and inconvenience. It also said it would review the amount if the resident provided evidence of higher valuation costs. We consider this sum to be appropriate along with the landlord’s offer to reconsider it on production of evidence from the resident. The sum of £200 for inconvenience and distress is in line with our compensation guidance.
14. The landlord missed the opportunity to address this issue earlier with the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have made this offer at the appropriate stage of the complaints process. The late offer does not prevent an adverse finding.

 

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

15. The landlord’s complaints procedure states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. The resident made his complaint on 6 June 2025, and the landlord acknowledged it on 13 June 2025. The landlord issued its response on 27 June 2025. This met its published timescales.
16. The resident escalated his complaint on 20 August 2025. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 29 August 2025 and requested an extension to respond by 24 October 2025. This followed its complaints procedure, which requires it to contact the resident and agree an extension if it cannot meet its stage 2 timescale.
17. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 24 October 2025. It took 40 working days to provide this response. The landlord apologised and awarded £65 compensation for the delay and inconvenience. This aligns with our compensation guidance, which allows payments of up to £100 for delayed complaint responses.
18. The resident said he did not receive the stage 2 response on 24 October 2025 and had to contact us before he received it. The landlord provided evidence that it sent the response by post and said it could not take responsibility for any postal delays.

Learning

19. The landlord should follow its complaint procedure.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. Generally the landlord kept good records setting out the actions it had taken.

Communication

21. The landlord has acknowledged the need to proactively communicate with residents.
22. Keep residents updated and manage expectations by sharing information as promised.