Stonewater Limited (202327120)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327120

Stonewater Limited

11 July 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:
1. Handling of repairs at the property, and within communal areas, including:
  1. the standard of repairs to door frames.
  2. the standard of the painting on the walls.
  3. the installation of broadband cables.
  4. external lighting repairs.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident was a shared owner of a 2-bedroom flat on the first floor in a purpose-built block. He moved into the property in 2019 and moved out towards the end of 2024.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 12 May 2023. He said he was concerned about the quality of workmanship in relation to several communal repairs. This included the painting of the hallways, and door frames which he said had not been varnished. The resident said it was causing him a large amount of stress to chase the landlord for this. He said he was still waiting for the landlord to provide him with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) risk assessment paperwork for the paint used in the building.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 1 June 2023. It said it carried out repairs in the hallway on 17 November 2023, where the operative filled holes and painted. It acknowledged that some of the issues in the complaint were ongoing and that it planned to arrange an inspection.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 26 June 2023, as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. He felt it did not reflect the outstanding issues with the building. He said he had called many times, but it had not noted down the issues. The resident added that he felt the landlord was not following its procedure and questioned its decision making in relation to replacing doors and door frames after painting and leaving walls unfinished. He was also unhappy with the surveyor’s assessments.
On 27 July 2023, the resident reported an additional repair which related to broken external lights at the rear of the property.
The resident spoke with the landlord on 21 August 2023 about all the outstanding repairs. It was agreed that the complaint was to also include the resident’s concerns about the broadband installation and the external lights. The outstanding issues were recorded by the landlord as:
1. the door frames had been replaced without notifying the resident. They had also not been painted correctly and in keeping with the rest of the building.
2. the walls had not been “made good” before painting as there were obvious bumps, dents, and excess plaster.
3. the broadband cables had been stapled to the walls rather than the cavities provided.
4. the outside lights were still not working as they should.
Following contact from the resident, we wrote to the landlord on 15 September 2023 and asked it to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 and provide a response by 29 September 2023. He said the landlord had closed his complaint after the stage 1, despite him escalating the complaint to stage 2.
On 20 September 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. its contractors would not contact residents when it carried out repairs to the communal doors.
2. it apologised that the walls were not prepared before it painted them. It explained it would normally complete an inspection of a portion of the planned works once done. It acknowledged that it did not do this.
3. it stated that in its stage 1 complaint response it had agreed to organise an inspection by a surveyor. It said it carried out this inspection on 19 September 2023. The surveyor would ensure the contractor would return if it deemed the workmanship of the repairs to be of poor quality.
4. it apologised that it did not complete the broadband installation to the expected standard. It was completed by the utilities authorities which proposed “set installation parameters” when it installed the broadband. It said it intended to do “trucking and ducting” for this installation. It stated the surveyor assessed this on 19 September 2023. In addition, it would escalate this to the service manager who oversaw the installation to raise this with the contractor used by the utility.
5. it raised the work order for the external lights on 27 July 2023 and completed this on 15 August 2023. It said it replaced two outside LED sensor lights on a previous visit. It said the surveyor inspected this on 19 September 2023 and it raised a new works order to address the light issues as some were not repaired.
6. it would offer the resident compensation of £175. This comprised of £100 for the delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2 and £75 for the inconvenience caused.
The resident escalated his complaint to us as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. He felt the work relating to the walls was not completed and the landlord had not provided the COSHH assessments he had asked for. He was unhappy that the landlord closed his complaint at stage 1 and with the landlord’s lack of improvement of its service. He felt that the issues relating to lighting were still not resolved. The complaint became one we could investigate on 5 June 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is important to be clear regarding the parameters of this investigation. As well as clarifying what aspects the current investigation will consider, this will also help to set boundaries for any future investigations. We understand that there have been historical reports of flashing and brightness with the external lights. A complaint in relation to this was previously determined by us in October 2023. It covered events from March 2021 to November 2021. Therefore, this investigation covers events relating to the external lights that occurred between March 2022 and September 2023. These dates reflect the initial report about the external lights (after the period that was covered by our previous investigation) up until the stage 2 complaint response for this complaint.
The resident has raised additional concerns to us, including matters concerning General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). As these did not from part of his formal complaint to the landlord, we are unable to investigate them as part of this complaint. This is because, in the interest of fairness, the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to any concerns. As such, the resident may wish to contact the landlord about these concerns now. Should the resident remain unhappy after exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure in respect of any new complaints, he can refer the matter to us. If the resident is concerned about the landlord’s handling of his data, he should contact the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) as this would be the most appropriate body to deal with such matters.

Standard of repairs to door frames

The landlord’s obligations under the terms of the lease were to “keep the building other than the flat in such repair as is reasonable having regard to the class and age of the building.”
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that:
1. emergency repairs will be completed within 24 hours.
2. non–emergency repairs will be completed within 28 days.
3. major repairs will be completed within 42 days where there is significant work beyond the original repair.
The landlord has mentioned the term “CRM” – which we have referred to throughout the report. This stands for customer relationship management. This is a case management system which allows housing providers to store and manage data.
The resident informed us that the issue with the door frames related to the doors leading to the communal rooms in the building. These included doors for the electrical cupboard and the water meter cupboard. He said a contractor previously damaged the door and frame when gaining access to the room. He said that while only one door frame was damaged the landlord replaced 3 others. He said during the installation of the doors and frames some of the plasterwork was damaged and that while the landlord installed door frames that were primed, it did not finish them with a topcoat of paint.
In relation to the damaged plasterwork, the landlord’s recalled the contractors to “make good” around the fire doors. It completed this on 15 June 2023. Given the fire doors for the water meter and electrical cupboard were installed on 12 June 2023, it completed the repair in a timely manner.
On 26 June 2023, within his escalation request, the resident expressed his frustration that the landlord painted the communal area before it replaced the door frames. He felt this was not a logical order to complete work. The landlord did not provide a formal response to this. However, these were communal works on a large scale, involving different contractors such as fire door specialists and painting specialists. Coordinating multiple contractors can be challenging. While the resident’s concerns were understandable, the landlord’s approach was reasonable.
It is not clear when the resident first reported that the door frames had not been fully painted. However, he raised this in his complaint of 12 May 2023 and again on 8 June 2023.
The landlord circulated its worklist on 13 July 2023, which stated it had checked the door frames and there were “no concerns”. However, the resident raised the issue again on 21 August 2023 and expressed concern that they had not been painted correctly. In its stage 2 response, the landlord failed to address this, which was not appropriate.
Prior to issuing its stage 2 response the landlord conducted an inspection of the block on 19 September 2023. It noted that the frames had been completed to undercoat level but looked neat and tidy. It raised a work order for the frames to be glossed and completed this on 1 November 2022. While this was not a responsive repair, it is unclear why it took the landlord 5 months to complete this action. The evidence does not suggest that there was an unavoidable delay that contributed to the time taken.
Therefore, given the identified failings, we have found service failure. It is understandable that the resident spent time and trouble in pursuing this matter, as such we order the landlord to provide a written apology. After considering all the circumstances, we have decided that a financial award is not appropriate in this case. This considers the overall detriment of the failing on the resident which was minimal.

Standard of the painting on the walls

The landlord’s repair log confirmed it had scheduled planned works for internal painting and decorating of the communal areas.
The resident expressed concern about the standard of painting on 13 February 2023. In internal communication on 16 February 2023 that landlord stated that after a discussion with the resident, the issues were:
1. uneven painting with patches missed.
2. vinyl matt used on the windowsill.
3. a failure to use masking task.
4. paint over silicone.
There is a lack of evidence to show what the landlord did after the resident reported this matter, so it is not possible to assess whether its actions were reasonable. This is not appropriate. However, the resident reported this again on 17 February 2023 suggesting that no steps had been taken to remedy the concerns he had raised. The landlord responded on 28 February 2023 to inform the resident that it had no updates “about the painting inspection”. This suggests that it either arranged an inspection or that one was carried out. However, the landlord should reasonably have been clearer in its communication with the resident and advised what steps it would be taking next. As the landlord did not, the resident chased the landlord for a response on 4 further occasions in March 2023. This was not appropriate and understandably added to the resident’s frustrations, distress and inconvenience every time he had to chase the landlord. This could reasonably have been avoided if the landlord had been proactive in its handling of the matter.
Internal communication suggests that the landlord carried out an inspection of the building on or around 27 April 2023. It has not provided us with a copy of that inspection report, however the surveyor did not find “any issues wrong with the block or that would warrant works raising.” It further suggested that if the resident disagreed, then a joint meeting with the surveyor may need to be arranged.
While the landlord was entitled to rely on the conclusions of its surveyor, the inspection was not carried out in a timely manner. It took 52 days to investigate the resident’s concerns which was a disproportionate length of time to respond under the circumstances.
The landlord circulated its worklist document internally on 13 July 2023. It stated it identified a corner of a wall near the water meter cupboard which it would fill and paint over. This indicates that, despite the conclusion of the inspection in April 2023, there was some minor repair work that it should have completed. That it did not do so in a timely manner was a failing and as a result we have found service failure.
In its stage 1 complaint response of 1 June 2023, the landlord stated it carried out the hallway repair on 1 November 2023 where the operative filled the holes and then painted the wall. This date cannot be correct, given the date of the correspondence. As such, it is unclear what conclusion the landlord had reached in respect of this. However, the landlord missed an opportunity to show it had properly investigated the resident’s complaint and appropriately assessed its response to the reports. It would have been reasonable for it to explain that it had inspected the building in April 2023 and found no issues that needed rectifying.
The landlord offered £75 for the overall inconvenience caused by the outstanding repairs. However, it did not give details of how this amount was apportioned to each issue. Therefore, given the failings we have identified, and with consideration to our guidance on remedies, the landlord should pay the resident £50 compensation. As stated above, it failed to consider the matter fairly and did not acknowledge failings in its handling and as such it failed to put things right. Therefore, this replaces the landlord’s offer. It compensates for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified.

Installation of broadband cables

The evidence suggests that the resident made the first report relating to the installation of the broadband on 7 June 2022 where he sent in photographs highlighting the issues. The landlord responded to him on 9 June 2022 to advise that the programme manager would be attending the building in the afternoon. It said that it expected the work to be completed by the utility company that day. This was a reasonable response from the landlord. However, there is no evidence showing the outcome of that visit. This was not appropriate, because we cannot evaluate what the landlord planned to do and whether it acted reasonably. There is also no evidence to show that the landlord updated the resident. In the circumstances it would have been reasonable, and good practice, to confirm what action had been taken.
The landlord called the resident on 10 June 2022 and noted the resident’s concerns about the installation of the broadband. The evidence suggests that the resident was not happy the installation had gone ahead, that he was not given further information on how it was going to be installed and how it would be connected to the existing port. On 16 June 2022 the landlord explained it had asked its risk assessment surveyor to look into the resident’s concerns. This was a reasonable response and demonstrated to him that it was taking his concerns seriously.
The landlord emailed the resident on 11 August 2022 in relation to a building visit that had taken place the previous week. It stated that the surveyor felt the finishing of the broadband installation was satisfactory and the wires were neatly installed. While it is understandable that the conclusions reached were disappointing for the resident, we are satisfied that the landlord had fairly considered the concerns that had been raised. It was also reasonable for the landlord to rely on the surveyor’s conclusions. However, it is unclear why it took the landlord 47 days to respond to the concerns that had been raised, and this was not reasonable. The landlord’s handling of the matter was not timely and as such we have made a finding of service failure.
Given the failings we have identified, and with consideration to our guidance on remedies, the landlord should pay the resident £50. It compensates for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified and is appropriate for minor failings that the landlord failed to appropriately acknowledge.

External lighting repairs

The resident reported that there were historical issues with the external lighting. It is noted that the resident reported concerns about the external lights as early as 2020. These reports and responses were considered as part of our previous determination. The resident had reported that the lights were on at full intensity at night. The landlord unsuccessfully attempted to repair this in October and November 2021. In December 2021, it agreed to commission a third-party contractor to audit all the existing fittings. It further stated that it had checked the position of the external lights “with an independent electrician.” This “confirmed that the location is legal and that the illumination provided is within normal parameters.”
In April 2022, the landlord disconnected 2 external lights. It noted that by turning any further lights off it would “be in danger of making the area unsafe.” It informed the resident of its reasoning which was appropriate. The landlord further stated it had taken on board the resident’s reasons and request to turn them off. It reserved the right to turn them back on in the future and assured the resident it would only do so with his agreement. This was an appropriate response and showed it had considered the resident’s views on the matter.
On or around 28 April 2022, the landlord scheduled a survey of lights. The resident asked for this report on at least 3 occasions, however it did not provide him with a copy. The landlord has not provided us with a copy as it no longer works with the same contractor. The landlord should have responded to the resident’s request to receive a copy of the report at the time. If it was unable to share this information with the resident, if should have explained so accordingly. As we have not seen a copy, we are also unable to verify its findings and assess whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable, which is a failing.
The resident made a further report in relation to the external lights in the car park on 19 May 2022. He reported that the lights were on all the time. The landlord advised it would contact the resident the following day to discuss this, but there is no evidence to show this was done.
It raised a further works order on 20 September 2022 as the outside lights were “bright white” and shining through the bedroom windows. The resident chased the landlord twice before it responded on 29 September 2022. It acknowledged that repairs were outstanding, but it said it aimed to complete them once the new car park layout and upgrades were completed. It provided this update in a stage 1 response to a different complaint. Given the length of time that had passed since the resident raised his reports in May 2022, this response was not timely.
The landlord ordered 3 emergency lights on 1 February 2023, and a worklist for the repairs was created on 13 July 2023. It stated that the work required was to replace the emergency fittings outside of the property and have “light and motion sensitive” fittings to reduce the time the lights would be on. It said this would be completed on 29 July 2023. It is not clear whether this was done.
The resident raised further reports relating to the external lights on 27 July 2023. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it completed this on 15 August 2023 where it replaced 2 sensor lights. However, given it ordered the lights in February 2023, the landlord has not explained why it did not fit these lights much sooner. This was not appropriate as the repair was further delayed, and it was not in accordance with its repairs policy.
Given the length of time this repair was taking, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer an explanation to the resident for the lengthy delays involved. The resident had on numerous occasions expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s lack of communication with him. That it did not do so, was a failing.
Though the landlord had taken some action to address the issues with the external lighting, it is unclear why it was unable to do so sooner. The landlord missed the opportunity to explain in its stage 2 response, the actions it took and whether any of the delay was unavoidable. It did not do so, and we have not seen any evidence to suggest it was reasonably prevented from completing the repairs sooner. As a result, we have made a finding of maladministration.
Given the failings we have identified, and with consideration to our guidance on remedies, the landlord should pay the resident £200. This replaces the landlord’s offer. It compensates for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified and is appropriate for failings which adversely affected the resident. It also takes into account the lengthy delay involved in carrying out the relevant investigations and assessments to complete the repair.

Associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy states:
1. Stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to in 10 working days.
2. Stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 2 working days and responded to in 10 working days.
3. Extensions must be for good reasons and the resident must be notified. If it will take more than 10 working days, it will agree the extension with the resident.
This is broadly in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, it is noted that the landlord updated its policy in May 2024, and it is now more in keeping with the Code.
The resident made his complaint on 12 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged it on 16 May 2023 and said it would provide a response by 30 May 2023. This was in line with its policy and was reasonable.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 1 June 2023. Although this was outside of its target, the delay was not excessive and there is no evidence of detriment to the resident as a result. The resident contacted the landlord to express his general dissatisfaction on at least 3 occasions in June 2023. He emailed the landlord on 26 June 2023 to explain why he was not happy with the stage 1 response. He felt the response ignored the outstanding issues. The landlord’s CRM notes confirmed it passed this for stage 2 escalation. However, it did not acknowledge the escalation until 30 August 2023, which was 47 days after the resident said he was unhappy with the stage 1 complaint response. This was inappropriate. There is no evidence it sent any holding replies or contacted him to apologise and explain the reasons for the delays. There is no indication the landlord made any attempts to agree any new timescales or keep the resident updated on the progress of its investigation. This was a further failing.
The resident chased the landlord several times for his stage 2 response in July and August 2023. On 18 August he contacted the Ombudsman for assistance with this. This understandably caused the resident time and trouble in chasing for a response.
The landlord also failed to address the residents request for COSHH information. He asked the landlord to include it in his complaint. However, it did not include this in its acknowledgements or in either complaint responses. The landlord offered no explanation for why it did not include this and as such it is unclear if it unintentionally missed this or if it included this in a separate complaint response.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it failed to adequately address the residents concerns about the standard of the painting on the wall. Its stage 2 response also failed to address what its view on the door frame repair was despite being aware the resident was unhappy that it did not paint the frames correctly. It should have offered a reasoned explanation about its handling of all the repairs. As stated in our Code the “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.” It was not appropriate that it did not address this fully in its responses.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of its complaint was not appropriate. However, it explained to us that in June 2023 it:
1. began a restructure of its complaints team.
2. reviewed its complaints and compensation policy.
3. introduced new quality assurance methods.
4. is continuing to provide regular training about expected standards and quality.
This update from the landlord demonstrates that it has recognised the need to improve the customer service it provides to residents in relation to the handling of their complaints. This is reasonable action and should help to avoid the issues highlighted with the complaint handling in this case from reoccurring.
The landlord also recognised its delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2 and offered the resident £100 compensation. While it was appropriate for it to recognise this failing, the amount does not cover the further failings identified. As a result, we order the landlord to pay £150. This is in line with our remedy guidance for the failings that it failed to acknowledge and put right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the standard of repairs to door frames.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the standard of the painting on the walls.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the installation of broadband cables.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the external lighting repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for all the failings identified by this investigation, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on making apologies.
2. Provide a written response to the resident in relation to his complaint about COSHH information. It should provide us with a copy of the same.
3. Pay the resident £450 compensation comprising of:
  1. £50 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the standard of the painting on the walls.
  2. £50 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the installation of the broadband cables.
  3. £200 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the external lighting repairs.
  4. £150 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to us within the timescale set out above.