Stonewater Limited (202323135)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323135

Stonewater Limited

25 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 handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of its ground maintenance service.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, and lives with his wife in a 3-bedroom house.
On 6 June 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord about the mess left by the Ground Maintenance team. He said that the standard of work conducted by the contractor was poor. He asked for the communal area to be tidied, grass cut short, foliage debris removed and all hedges to be trimmed.
The resident chased for a response on 14 June, and the complaint was acknowledged on 22 June 2023. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaint process on 7 July 2023 (letter dated 6 July) and said:
1. it had spoken to its contractor and the last attendance was on 27 June 2023
2. photos taken of the work completed match the standard it expected for the work
3. the next visit was on 11 July 2023 and if there are any further issues to contact it and provide photos
The resident replied the same day to escalate his complaint. He attached photos from the June 2023 visit. He said that a landlord operative who visited the site on 6 July 2023 had taken photos as the work was of a poor standard.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 17 July 2023 and provided a stage 2 complaint response on 31 July 2023. It said:
1. it was fully committed to ensuring standards were maintained and all contractual obligations were met
2. upon review of all photos from 27 June and 11 July 2023 it was clear the standard of works was not as expected
3. it had taken this up with the contractor to remind them of the expectations
4. the contactor had said the reason for the poor service was due to resourcing and was not limited to the residents area – however, this had now been resolved, and normal services should resume
5. it was sorry for the frustration caused and offered compensation of £132.20, broken down as:
  1. £100 for the delay in stage 2 escalation
  2. £25 for the time and inconvenience
  3. £7.20 for the equivalent of 2-months service charge for the service that was not provided in April and May 2023
6. If the resident was unhappy with the response he could ask for the case to be referred to its Customer Complaint Panel.
On 8 August 2023 the resident asked for the complaint to be passed to the Customer Complaint Panel and an acknowledgement was sent on 14 August 2023. On 15 September 2023 the Customer Complaint Panel provided its response, they said:
1. there was a service delivery failure regarding the missed site visits and poor standard of work completed
2. the landlord had been clear and fair in its responses throughout the complaint process, but could do more to provide assurance regarding monitoring
3. the landlord had offered a further £75 for the time and effort took by the resident and £50 for the late Customer Complaint Panel response, therefore the total compensation offered was £257.20
The Customer Complaint Panel went on to make 5 recommendations, which were:
1. the surveyor for the area attends to review the next contractor visit before and after the work is completed – the surveyor was to contact the resident and tell them an appointment time to talk through the services provided
2. the landlord was to share the inspection report with the resident and for all outstanding ground maintenance tasks to be completed within 28 days
3. the landlord to visit to check the standard of work regularly to help monitor and maintain expectations
4. any work yet to be completed is conducted to the expected standard, and for the landlord to be clear on what jobs were to be carried out by contractors
5. they acknowledged the residents query about the contractors skills, but wanted to reassure the resident that all contractors were fully trained – the landlord was to address this point with the contractor
The resident referred his complaint to us in October 2023 after receiving the Customer Complaint Panel letter. At the time the resident wanted the landlord to conduct a site visit, and ensure the contractor conducted work to a better standard. He asked that the landlord monitor the work regularly in person, and to check the qualifications of the contractors sent.

Post Complaint Procedure actions

The resident contacted the landlord again on 22 November 2023 asking for a further complaint to be raised as the ground maintenance issues had not been resolved. In addition, he said that the recommendation for a surveyor visit had not been carried out and nobody had contacted him since the Customer Complaint Panel letter in September 2023.
The landlord responded and said that as the resident had exhausted its complaint procedure, it would like to meet with the resident on 5 December 2023 to discuss any outstanding concerns.
Between December 2023 and May 2024 the landlord and resident discussed the outstanding concerns to try and resolve the issue. On 1 May 2024 the landlord visited the resident with the contractor and agreed an ‘improvement plan’.

Assessment and findings

Scope of complaint

The Ombudsman has decided that it is fair to consider the actions of the landlord after it had exhausted its complaint procedure, up to the agreement of the ‘improvement plan’ on 1 May 2024. This is because after the resident raised the same complaint again in November 2023, the landlord decided not to review this as a ‘new’ complaint. While the landlord did not offer a further written stage 2 complaint response, it did have the opportunity to do so. Therefore, it has had a fair opportunity to consider its actions and put things right.
We understand that some issues regarding the ground maintenance may have continued or are still outstanding as of the date of this report. In our view, it would not be fair to look at the landlords actions after 1 May 2024. This is because the landlord implemented an ‘improvement plan’. If following this the standard of work did not improve, this would be a new issue that deals with a more recent failing. Should the resident remain unhappy with the standard of ground maintenance work he should raise a new complaint in line with the landlord’s formal complaint procedure.
We appreciate that the resident and landlord have sent in lots of pictures showing the ground maintenance work. However, it is not our role to assess the level of ground maintenance work and decide if it is satisfactory or not. Instead our role is to assess how the landlord dealt with the issue and the actions and steps it put in place to ensure similar situations did not happen again.

Ground maintenance

The resident’s tenancy agreement shows that he pays a service charge for services which include grounds maintenance. At the time of the complaint the landlord’s Neighbourhood Management Policy said that it would ensure that there were effective contracts in place to deal with grounds maintenance. It would also conduct inspections to assess the standards of grounds maintenance provided and any issues would be fed back to the contractor.
The landlord issued a new contract in April 2023. This set out that its contractor would, among other things:
1. cut and maintain grassed areas
2. collect litter and leaves from communal areas
3. conduct weed control
4. maintain shrub, hedge and roses
On 6 June 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint about the standard of grounds maintenance by the contractor. He sent photos to the landlord on 23 and 30 June 2023 to evidence the standard of work was not at the required level. However, in its stage 1 complaint response the landlord explained that it had reviewed the photos it had received from the contractor and considered the work conducted to be at a satisfactory level. It said the next scheduled visit was on 11 July 2023 and it would continue to monitor the situation.
On the same date the complaint response was sent the landlord attended the communal grounds for an inspection. This was separate to the resident’s complaint. At this inspection the landlord graded the grounds maintenance as “D – very poor”. In its contract a grade of D is defined as something that is “totally unacceptable and a service failure”.
Therefore, the investigation undertaken and response provided by the landlord after it received the resident’s concerns was not in line with its Neighbourhood Management policy. This policy says, “Where customers contact us about estate services issues, we will triage the report to establish service failure, we may ask for photos to help us do this”. The evidence clearly shows that had the landlord completed an investigation in line with its policy then it would have established a service failure, as shown by the inspection it conducted. This was unreasonable and caused the resident some distress and inconvenience. It also meant the resident had to spend further time and trouble escalating his complaint.
Following the escalation of his complaint the landlord established that the contractor had not met the expected standard at its 27 June 2023 and 11 July 2023 visits. The landlord recognised these failings and provided a clear explanation from the contractor for the reasons why this had happened. It also said that “normal service” would be resumed. The investigation into the resident’s issues at stage 2 were reasonable and in line with its Neighbourhood Management policy.
In addition, the landlord offered compensation for the failings which included a refund of the charge paid for the grounds maintenance service. This was a reasonable consideration that was in line with its Compensation policy which says, “where customers pay for a service to a communal area, and it is evidence it had failed deliver to a reasonable standard it will make a payment to the value of the charge”
The resident remained unhappy with the grounds maintenance service and asked for the complaint to be passed to the landlord’s Customer Complaints Panel. As set out above, this panel made 5 recommendations which included among other things a surveyor visit and recommendations around transparency and communication.
Despite these recommendations the resident had to chase the landlord for a response 3 times. This failure in communication was unreasonable and repeated a failing that had been highlighted by the Customer Complaints Panel. This added to the distress and frustration the resident felt.
As part of his email chasing the landlord on 22 November 2023, the resident also raised that the contractor was still failing to fulfil its contractual obligations. In response the landlord arranged for a site visit to the resident’s block with its Homes Team and contractor.
The resident and landlord agree that a site visit took place on 5 December 2023. However, we have not been provided with any evidence to show what was discussed or agreed during this site visit. This lack of record keeping has made it difficult for the landlord to show that it dealt with the resident’s issues in a fair and robust manner.
Following the meeting the resident contacted the landlord again on 23 December 2023 to report further issues with the service provided. This meant that of the 13 visits recorded on the landlord’s maintenance log between June and December 2023, the resident had raised concerns about poor service on at least 5 occasions. While the landlord dealt with the issue well during its stage 2 complaint investigation, it failed to implement the recommendations from the Customer Complaints Panel.
There is little evidence that between June and December 2023 the landlord was working alongside the contractor due to persistent issues as set out in its contract specification. The lack of a clear plan to monitor and improve the service over this period was unreasonable and did contribute to the inconvenience felt by the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 January 2024 as he had received no follow up to the 5 December 2023 meeting. This is further evidence of the landlord’s failure to proactively communicate and manage the issues faced by the resident, causing further distress and inconvenience.
The landlord did communicate with the resident between 12 and 24 January 2024 about outstanding work and the need to complete a chemical spray to deal with weeds and moss. However, the resident had to chase the landlord again on 6 March 2024 for an update on this issue. This continued lack of proactive communication and management was unreasonable.
During the period between March and May 2024, the resident raised further service issues about the grounds maintenance. He also requested the landlord conduct an inspection as agreed in the recommendations of the Customer Complaint Panel. The landlord did attend the resident’s block on 1 May 2024 alongside the contractor. At this site visit the landlord and contractor agreed an ‘improvement plan’ to resolve the resident’s issues.
This was almost a year after the resident had raised his formal complaint. It was positive that the landlord showed between March and May 2024 that it was working alongside the contractor due to persistent issues. However, the time taken to reach a stage where an improvement plan was agreed was unreasonable.
While it is agreed an improvement plan was implemented, the landlord does not have any evidence of what the improvement plan comprised of. We asked the landlord for evidence of this, and it said the plan was, “more of a verbal agreement” – and that the manager responsible for ensuring records were updated no longer worked for it. The landlord acted unreasonably by failing to ensure clear and accurate records were kept of this meeting. This has meant it has been unable to evidence the good action it took when creating this plan.
In summary, the landlord failed to follow its own Neighbourhood Management policy when investigating the resident’s original concerns. It then failed to implement the recommendations of its Customer Complaint Panel promptly. There was also a theme of poor communication and a lack or proactive management of the issue. This led to the resident repeatedly raising issues with the grounds maintenance service, causing him time and trouble taking photos and reporting his concerns. This amounts to maladministration.
As part of its final complaint response the landlord offered the resident a total of £107.20 broken down as:
1. £75 for the time and effort
2. £25 for the inconvenience
3. £7.20 for the equivalent of 2-months service charge for April and May 2023
The landlord’s compensation policy does not provide specific figures discretionary compensation. It does set out that it would pay compensation equivalent a charge for a service that has not been provided or had not been completed to the standard expected.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the compensation offered by the landlord is not proportionate to the service failings identified. The resident had consistently complained about the level of service received for grounds maintenance from June 2023 to April 2024. Taking the landlord’s own calculations, the resident was paying roughly £3.60 per month for this service, we have rounded this up to £4. Therefore, in total for this period the resident would have paid around £40.
Considering the resident continued to receive a poor level of service throughout this period, it is fair for the landlord to pay £40 compensation in addition to the £7.20 already offered, which is roughly the equivalent to the service charge paid.
In addition, our remedies guidance says that for issues that have caused an adverse effect to the resident but have not had a permanent impact a payment of between £100 to £600 would be appropriate. The poor service occurred in the communal area so the impact to the resident is mitigated. However, there is no doubt that the resident spent a lot of time and trouble collating photos and reporting issues to the landlord. This coupled with the lack or proactive case management and poor communication did have a detrimental impact to the resident over a prolonged period of time (almost 12 months). Therefore, a fair figure would be £200 inclusive of the £100 the landlord already offered.
The Ombudsman would like to mention that the landlord has provided us with a copy of a new Estate Services Photobook. This is a clear and effective document that provides information on how it judges the standards for cleaning and grounds maintenance of estates. This is a positive sign of improvement and does show it is learning from the feedback it has received about its service.

Complaint handling

At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord had a 3-stage complaint process. This was comprised of:
1. Stage 1 – acknowledge in 2 working days and respond within 10 working days
2. Stage 2 –respond within 10 working days
3. Optional stage 3 Customer Complaint Panel – a panel will be assembled as quickly as possible and will make recommendations within 5 working days of meeting (the landlord will then provide a response to recommendations within 5 working days)
The landlord’s complaint handling was unreasonable this is because it did not:
1. acknowledge the stage 1 complaint within its policy timescale
2. respond to the stage 1 or 2 complaint within its policy timescale
3. communicate with the resident to explain the reason for any delays and agree a new timescale
4. provide the Customer Complaint Panel recommendations within its policy timescales
The failings identified above amount to service failure. The landlord in total offered £150 compensation for the late responses it provided at stage 2 and 3 of its process. However, it did not offer any compensation or acknowledge its stage 1 complaint process was also late. Therefore, the landlord should pay an additional £25 on top of the compensation it already offered for the time taken to respond at stage 1 of its complaint process. This is in line with our remedies guidance which we have already set out above.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of its ground maintenance service.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. write an apology to the resident for the service failures identified in this report
2. pay compensation totalling £422.20 broken down as follows:
  1. £200 (inclusive of the £100 already offered) for the time, inconvenience and distress caused due to its handling of the grounds maintenance issue
  2. £175 (inclusive of the £150 already offered) for the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling
  3. £47.20 (inclusive of the £7.20 already offered) for the equivalent of the service charge paid for the poor grounds maintenance service

Recommendations

It is recommended the landlord:
1. contact the resident to discuss any outstanding concerns about the grounds maintenance service
2. consider if refresher training is needed for all operatives on the importance of record keeping