Stonewater Limited (202328956)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328956

Stonewater Limited

11 June 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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to the:
1. resident’s concerns about a fault with her solar panels.
2. associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder through a government shared ownership scheme with the landlord, who is the freeholder. The landlord owns the majority share. The resident purchased her share of the 2-bedroom house from the previous owner (the seller) in early 2023.
On 24 May 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She said:
1. the seller told her that they benefitted from reduced energy costs from using the solar panels. She was unhappy to find on moving in that the panels had not been registered for use and there was a fault with them.
2. she “assumed” the landlord had monitored whether the seller was upholding the lease agreement to maintain the property. She was unhappy to learn it did not.
3. she found responses to queries she had made to the landlord in weeks prior “unhelpful”. She was also unhappy it had made no attempts to contact the contractor who installed the panels to check if they were in warranty.
4. She wanted “support/guidance” about how she could resolve the issues she had with the panels.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response dated 27 June 2023 it said:
1. the resident purchased the property directly from the previous owner and the issues relating to potentially being misled about the solar panels was therefore a legal matter.
2. it did not monitor if a leaseholder upheld the terms of the lease.
3. it did not have any maintenance or repair obligations for the building so the resident would need to claim under the warranty herself.
4. it was sorry for its poor communication with her and awarded £75 compensation.
About 2 weeks later, the resident escalated her complaint. She said:
1. she had received no reply to her query about the warranty from the original contractor who installed the solar panels.
2. her neighbour, a tenant of the landlord, told her its current solar panel contractor had advised they had not been installed correctly and did not comply with health and safety regulations.
3. in the circumstances the landlord should take responsibility and asked it to:
  1. confirm if the solar panels met the required installation and safety standards.
  2. repair the panels.
The landlord sent a stage 2 response on 28 July 2023. It said:
1. it was sorry that she had not heard back from the original contractor and would itself continue to attempt to reach them.
2. its current contractor had advised the placement of the panel’s meant scaffolding was needed for access but this was not a health and safety issue.
3. communication from it and the original contractor had been poor and there was a delay in issuing the stage 2 response.
4. it had awarded compensation of £400, made up of:
  1. £150 for poor communication.
  2. £100 for poor complaints handling.
  3. £150 for distress and inconvenience.
In early August 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to the landlord’s review panel stage. She was unhappy it had not considered an email she had forwarded from the original contractor before it issued the stage 2 response. She later added that she had received a quote from an independent contractor which said the panels had not been used for a long time and recommended they be repositioned. The landlord responded on 3 October 2023. It repeated that it was not obligated to maintain the panels under the terms of the lease. It also said there was no installation issues with the panels on its tenanted properties. The landlord signposted her to organisations she may obtain legal advice from about potentially being mis-sold the property. It also awarded a further £100 (£500 in total) as a gesture of goodwill towards her getting a second opinion.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman because she:
1. believed that the landlord should have ensured the previous owner maintained the solar panels.
2. felt it did not give her enough support or advice in response to her queries.
3. said she did not receive the third and final decision letter.

The resident said her complaint had caused her distress and inconvenience in having to find out information herself. She advised us that she is seeking the landlord to share responsibility for the cost of repairing the solar panels. She also wants it to provide an option to shared owners to pay an additional charge in their rent to cover maintenance costs.

Assessment and findings

The lease is a legally binding agreement which both the resident and landlord agreed to uphold the terms of. We do not have the power to vary or amend the terms of the lease. The parties may agree to this voluntarily, or it may be ordered by a court in the event of a dispute. The outcomes the Ombudsman can achieve are aimed at putting the resident back in the position they would have been, so far as reasonably possible, had a failing not occurred. We are, therefore, unable to achieve the outcome the resident is seeking in relation to the landlord including a fee in the rent to cover maintenance of the solar panels. The resident may wish to consider applying to HM Courts and Tribunal Service to request an alteration to the lease.
In this case, we will consider if the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the solar panels fairly and reasonably. Where we find a failing, and the landlord has not taken any or sufficient action to put things right, we may order it to. Such actions include apologising, paying compensation, and/or reviewing any relevant policies.

Repair responsibilities

The resident signed a purchase agreement in October 2022 agreeing to the terms of the lease. Both this and the lease state that the leaseholder is to keep the property “repaired and maintained”. In her initial complaint, dated 24 May 2023, the resident said she assumed that the landlord would have checked this term was being adhered to while the property was owned by the seller. She said she believed this because it was the majority shareholder.
In all its responses, the landlord clearly explained the resident’s repair and maintenance obligations. This condition also reflects the Government guidance on the shared ownership scheme that “[the shared owner] will need to pay for repairs and maintenance no matter what share [they] own”. Therefore, the evidence shows us that the fact the landlord owned the majority share does not alter the resident’s repair and maintenance obligations.
We have also seen no evidence or challenge from the resident that persuades us the landlord must ensure its leaseholders adhere to the terms of their agreement. Nor have we seen that it is best practice for social housing landlords. Therefore, it is our view that the landlord’s response that it does not “actively monitor” leaseholder’s compliance and to do so would be “impractical” was reasonable. As explained earlier, if the resident thinks the lease should be altered to include this requirement, she will need to apply to the courts.
It was also reasonable, in our view, for the landlord to highlight in its responses that the information the seller gave her about the solar panels was a legal matter. This is because the legal principle of ‘caveat emptor’ or ‘let the buyer beware’ applies in property transactions. This means it is up to a buyer and their solicitor to establish that a property is suitable and there are no problematic issues prior to purchasing it. Equally, a seller has an obligation to not deliberately mislead a purchaser. As the resident bought the property from the previous owner, the responsibilities lay with her and the seller. We agree therefore with the landlord’s position on her concerns that she was misled were a legal matter between the resident, her solicitor, and the seller.
One of the reasons the resident escalated her complaint in July 2023 was because she believed the fault was caused by the improper installation of the solar panels. She said she had learned this through the landlord’s tenant who in turn had been advised by its current contractor. The resident said she was seeking assurances that the panels were safe and properly installed. The landlord took appropriate action to investigate the matter with its contractor about their findings at its tenanted property. We have seen evidence of its exchange with them and this supports its explanations that there were no health and safety or installation problems identified. We find the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a potential health and safety issue reasonable. It also gave the reassurance the resident said she was seeking.
A week before the stage 2 response was issued in late July 2023, the resident forwarded an email she had received from the original contractor. This said:
1. the panels may be covered under the manufacturer’s warranty.
2. the possible name of the manufacturer.
3. the landlord had not employed them to maintain the panels and the warranty therefore would have been passed onto whomever maintained them.

The resident escalated her complaint to the final review panel stage in August 2023. She said this was because she believed the email from the original contractor showed the landlord “had made it impossible for her to claim” on the warranty. She indicated it had invalidated the warranty by not appointing the original contractor to maintain the solar panels.

The landlord’s response that it was no longer responsible for maintaining the terms of the warranty was factual. This is because the responsibility for repairing and maintaining the solar panels transferred to the previous owner when they purchased the property. This responsibility then passed to the resident when she agreed to the terms of the lease when she bought the property from the seller.
On 30 August 2023, the resident added to her complaint that she had obtained a quote from a solar panel company. She reported that they advised her the panels had not been in operation for several years and that it would cost around £1000 to get them in working order. As explained, the landlord was not responsible for maintaining the solar panels once the property was sold. We therefore find the landlord’s decision, that this was not evidence that changed its position, was reasonable.

Support and advice

Throughout May 2023, the resident made enquiries with the landlord about the solar panels on her house. She asked for:
1. advice about how to register her solar panels to benefit from reduced energy costs.
2. a copy of the certificate showing the panels and installation met an approved standard of quality and efficiency.
3. the process of claiming for a possible fault with them under the 10-year warranty they came with.
The landlord responded to the resident’s queries by:
1. signposting her to the Government’s current renewable energy scheme.
2. sending a copy of the certificate.
3. advising her to contact the company who provided the warranty.
Based on the available evidence, we are satisfied that the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s initial queries. It gave her the information she specifically asked for. It also responded within 24 hours of her queries. We find that it, therefore, gave an appropriate amount of information in response to the questions the resident asked.
In her complaint, the resident asked for support or guidance because she said she had received no response from the original contractor. She also said that she was aware that her neighbour, a tenant of the landlord, was experiencing the same issue. It would have been reasonable, in the circumstances, for the landlord to consider if there was more information or signposting it could give her. The stage 1 response was therefore a missed opportunity to provide earlier assistance that it gave in its later responses.
The available internal contact records show that, after the resident escalated her complaint, the landlord was looking at ways it could support her. It contacted the original contractor in mid-July 2023, who advised that the defect period ended and the warranty was a manufacturer one. It was also considering if there was evidence that the solar panels could be considered a “latent defect”, which would mean the resident may be able to claim under the New Homes Building Council (NHBC) warranty.
While the landlord was gathering information, it did not share all of this with the resident in the stage 2 response. Again, this was a missed opportunity and may have reduced some of the distress and inconvenience the resident was experiencing at the time. It did though, as mentioned earlier, share its solar panel contractor’s findings and recommendations, which was reasonable.
In its third and final response the landlord appropriately shared the information it had found about the solar panels not being covered under the NHBC warranty. She had already by this point found out that the warranty was a manufacturer warranty. It was reasonable, therefore, that the landlord recognised there were failings in its communication about the warranty. It also explained what information the resident would likely need to claim against it, which we see was a further attempt to provide the resident some guidance.
The landlord awarded £300 for its communication failings and the distress it caused. It also awarded a further £100 as a gesture of goodwill. According to the landlord’s compensation policy, in place at the time, it awarded payments with consideration to the levels recommended in the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. The amount was, in our view, sufficient to put right the impact of the poor communication about the warranty. It is above the amount we would have ordered it to pay. Further, the landlord also took learning from the resident’s experience. It said it would provide training to staff about defect periods and had improved working practices across relevant teams. We are therefore satisfied the actions the landlord has already taken were sufficient to put right the impact of its failings in this case.

The associated complaint

The Ombudsman’s Complaint’s Handling Code 2022 (the Code) was in place at the time the resident made her complaint. This set out the standards landlords must meet when handling complaints. It included a requirement to:
1. respond to, log, and acknowledge complaints/escalations within 5 working days and to then respond at:
  1. stage 1 within 10 working-days of being logged.
  2. stage 2 within 20 working-days of being logged.
  3. stage 3 within 20 working-days of being escalated.
2. offer a remedy that reflects the extent of any service failings and the impact of them on the resident.
The landlord’s complaints policy at the time did not adhere to the timescales of the Code. It held itself to a higher standard in expecting stage 2 responses to be sent within 10 working-days. It also aimed to provide its stage 3 response within 25 working-days of it receiving written permission from the resident. This included 20 working-days for the panel to reach a decision and 5 working-days for the landlord to provide a further response.
In this case, the landlord exceeded its times at stages 1 and 2. At stage 1 it took around 9 working-days longer and at stage 2 took 10 working-days longer. We have not seen a record of when the resident returned the landlord’s form granting it permission to release her data to the panel. However, we can say that it exceeded its timescale of 5 working-days to provide a response after the panel confirmed its decision on 11 September 2023. It did so by 11 working-days. Therefore, the landlord failed to meet all the timescales set by itself and those stated in the Code.
While there were delays, the Code allowed landlords to extend the timescale. In such cases, a landlord must communicate this with the resident. We have seen that the landlord did provide updates at all 3 stages. It also met the revised timescales, apart from at stage 1 which was 1 working-day over. Therefore, the landlord did take steps to mitigate the impact of the delays in this case. It did also appropriately recognise its delays and awarded compensation at stage 2. However, it failed then to recognise in its final stage that it exceeded its published timescales. This was a missed opportunity to put right the impact of the delay.
As explained earlier, the landlord appropriately acknowledged failings in its communication with the resident and took actions that were sufficient to put things right. We have also seen that the landlord’s responses were sensitive to the impact the resident described of being a first-time buyer and feeling that the previous owner had misled her. We are satisfied that the complaint responses therefore dealt with the original issue reasonably and fairly.
The resident advised us that she did not receive a copy of the final decision letter. According to the available evidence, the resident contacted the landlord on 17 October 2023, stating that she had not received a response by the date it had given. We have seen no evidence that she received a response to this, which was a failing. She sent a further email on 24 October 2023 about the situation. The landlord responded to this on the same day with an apology and a copy of the letter. We have seen that the resident responded to this email. It was unclear if she had received the letter as she made no direct reference to the findings. However, the resident did refer to the landlord’s offer of a gesture of goodwill for a second opinion in her referral to the Ombudsman. While we cannot say this shows the resident received the landlord’s final letter, it does demonstrate she was aware of its decision. We cannot therefore say, based on the evidence seen, the landlord failed to provide its stage 3 response letter.
We have seen the landlord took some accountability for the delays in the complaint process and took some actions to put things right. However, it failed to recognise the delay in its final stage. This added more time to an already protracted complaints process. It therefore missed an opportunity to apologise and increase its compensation offer to put right the impact of the cumulative delays. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation, in line our guidance on remedies. However, we have not ordered it to show learning because the landlord has since updated its policy to meet the timescales and standards of the current Code. This also means it no longer has a third stage to its complaints process. We will though monitor its compliance with the Code through our work.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord offered redress, which in our view, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a fault with her solar panels.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must provide evidence showing it has:
1. apologised in writing to the resident for the delays in the complaints process.
2. paid £175 compensation for its complaint handling failings.

If the landlord has already paid the original compensation of £100 it awarded, it should deduct this.

Recommendations

The landlord should reoffer the compensation it awarded of £400 for its communication failings because we reached the decision that it had redressed this issue, in part, because of this offer.