Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Stonewater Limited (202318417)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318417

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports about the standard and frequency of grounds maintenance.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, which began on 5 September 2018. The landlord is a housing association. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house. The resident has mental health issues, which the landlord is aware of.
  2. On 30 March 2023, the landlord said it had credited the resident’s rent account grounds maintenance service charges totalling £407.68 for the 12-month period up to 2 April 2023. This was due to contractors failing to attend throughout this time.
  3. On 4 April 2023, the landlord said it would charge £8.72 per week for grounds maintenance for the next 12 months.
  4. On 22 May 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about a lack of grounds maintenance, the key points were as follows:
    1. She was paying for failed delivery of grounds maintenance, which should take place every 2 weeks.
    2. A contractor had ‘supposedly’ visited on 24 April 2023 but did nothing and no one had visited since. She said she sent photographs that showed weeds and mess.
    3. She wanted the landlord to refund grounds maintenance service charges for failing to adhere to the contract and remove these charges moving forward.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 June 2023 and issued a stage 1 complaint response on 16 June 2023, the key points were as follows:
    1. It apologised for its grounds maintenance falling below expected standards.
    2. It would credit £23.98, which was 25% of the grounds maintenance service charges for the period from 4 April 2023 to 18 June 2023.
    3. Grounds maintenance contractors attended on 10 and 24 April 2023, 10 and 22 May 2023, and 5 June 2023. The contractor needed to pay greater attention to hard surface areas, which the landlord would address.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 22 June 2023, the key points were as follows:
    1. She wanted a refund of the service charges from April 2023 to June 2023.
    2. She wanted grounds maintenance to take place every 2 weeks.
  7. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 30 June 2023 and issued a stage 2 response on 14 July 2023, the key points were as follows:
    1. A new contractor was becoming familiar with its requirements. The landlord was disappointed that there had been a dip in service and was working with the contractor to rectify this.
    2. It would credit the rent account with £23.98 for grounds maintenance service charges.
    3. It apologised and offered £100 for the delay in escalating the complaint, which was due to an increase in escalation requests.
    4. The resident could request a review by a customer complaints panel or contact us if she remained unhappy.
  8. The resident referred her complaint to us on 25 July 2023. The complaint became one that we could consider on 10 June 2024.

Events Post Internal Complaints Process

  1. On 31 August 2023, the landlord said it had completed a further investigation and identified that its contractor had failed to provide grounds maintenance in accordance with its service standards from 19 June 2023 to 31 August 2023. The landlord apologised for this and said it would credit £23.05 to cover 25% of the grounds maintenance service charges for this period.
  2. The resident continued to complain about a lack of grounds maintenance. On 3 September 2023, she said the landlord should refund more than 25% of the grounds maintenance service charges due to the contractor only attending 3 times since April 2023.
  3. On 27 June 2024, upon reviewing the complaint when preparing evidence for this investigation, the landlord offered a further £250 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble as well as any distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, we are unable to consider complaints about matters that have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. This assessment has focussed on the period from 25 April 2023, which is when the resident first reported grounds maintenance issues relating to the complaint raised on 22 May 2023, up to the landlord’s stage 2 response dated 14 July 2023. Reference to historical and more recent events is to provide context only. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s response to more recent reports, she can raise these as a new complaint to the landlord. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her new complaint, she may be able to refer the matter to us to investigate as a separate complaint.
  2. As part of her referral to us, the resident asked not to pay any grounds maintenance service charges. Paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme says we may not consider matters that concern the level of service charge. The resident may wish to consider legal action or seek advice from the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) regarding this issue.
  3. The resident says this complaint has impacted the mental health of her and her family. We cannot conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction, but consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

Landlord’s handling of reports about the standard and frequency of grounds maintenance

  1. The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of this matter. Where the landlord admits failings, our role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, we assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. On 25 April 2023, the resident asked the landlord to refund grounds maintenance service charges due to no one attending that month. On 9 May 2023, the landlord said a contractor would visit every 2 weeks and had provided evidence of attendance and works undertaken during the disputed period, which it deemed satisfactory. It also said the contractor had visited 15 days’ prior and would attend that week. The landlord has not provided evidence of works completed, so we are unable to make a determination on this point. It is also unclear why the contractor did not attend for more than 2 weeks. We would have expected the landlord to acknowledge this, explain why the contractor had not visited and respond to the resident’s refund request. That it did not do so are shortcomings, which likely caused the resident frustration.
  3. The resident provided the landlord with photographs to dispute the quality of grounds maintenance due to leaves building up. On 10 May 2023, the landlord said it would contact her about the photographs. We would have expected the landlord to respond within a reasonable timeframe, but it did not. The resident raised a formal complaint 8 working days later.
  4. When considering the complaint, the landlord asked the contractor for evidence of attendance and the work completed. The contractor said it visited 6 times and provided photographs of work completed. A landlord is entitled to rely on information provided by its contractors. In this case, the landlord reviewed the quality of work and identified that this fell below the standard expected up to 18 June 2023. Therefore, it reimbursed a proportion of the grounds maintenance service charges to reflect this. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  5. Following this, we would have expected the landlord to review grounds maintenance for the period up to when it completed its complaints process on 14 July 2023. It should also have considered awarding compensation for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the matter. That it did not do so are failings, which likely caused the resident distress.
  6. The landlord says it has since appointed an estates service manager and committed to completing inspections to improve grounds maintenance. Its standards of service require a contractor to provide monthly work schedules regarding when it will attend and what tasks it will complete, including removing leaves and litter. The landlord has introduced an estate services photobook that explains how it judges the standard of work completed. It has also introduced an online portal for residents to report any concerns alongside publicising contractors’ schedules. In carrying out these improvements to its grounds maintenance service, the landlord has demonstrated learning from the resident’s complaint.
  7. After concluding its complaints process, the landlord completed a further investigation and identified that the contractor had failed to provide an acceptable grounds maintenance service up to 31 August 2023. Therefore, it credited 25% of the grounds maintenance service charges for this period.
  8. The landlord again reassessed the complaint on 27 June 2024 in response to our request for information and offered £250 compensation. While the additional compensation awarded is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, that it was made after the completion of the complaints process has not prevented a finding of service failure.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord on 22 May 2023.
  2. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint within 2 working days and provided a stage 1 response within a further 10 working days.
  3. The resident chased a response to her complaint on 2 June 2023. The landlord then acknowledged the complaint on 5 June 2023, which was 7 working days outside the timeframe specified in its complaints policy. This is a failing, which likely caused the resident inconvenience. The landlord then issued a stage 1 response on 16 June 2023, which was within the timeframe set out in its policy. However, this incorrectly said it would credit some grounds maintenance service charges despite having already credited the charges 2 days’ prior, which likely caused the resident confusion. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to check whether it had applied the credit before issuing its response.
  4. The resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 22 June 2023.
  5. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have issued a stage 2 response within 10 working days.
  6. Although the landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 30 June 2023, it did not issue a stage 2 response until 14 July 2023. This was 6 working days outside the timeframe specified in its complaints policy, which likely caused the resident additional inconvenience. The landlord offered £100 compensation for the delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2, which was reasonable in the circumstances. However, it again incorrectly said it would credit a proportion of grounds maintenance service charges despite previously doing this. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to notice its previous error and tell the resident that it had already issued the credit. That it did not so likely caused the resident further confusion.
  7. At the time of this complaint, the landlord had a 2-stage complaints process with the option for a 3-stage process. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) from April 2022 set out what we expected from a landlord that had a 3-stage process. The landlord’s complaints process fell in line with this. When the Code became statutory from April 2024, it required landlords to have a 2-stage process. The landlord reviewed its complaint process to ensure that its new process complied with the Code.
  8. The landlord’s stage 2 response offered the resident the option to either escalate her complaint for review by a customer complaints panel or contact us if she remained unhappy. This was appropriately in line with its complaints policy at the time.
  9. Although the landlord awarded £100 for the delay in escalating the complaint, the resident also experienced a delay in it acknowledging her complaint at stage 1. The landlord’s complaint responses also incorrectly said it would apply a credit that it had already issued. Its failings represent service failure, and an order has been made for remedy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of reports about the standard and frequency of grounds maintenance.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology for the failings identified.
    2. Pay compensation totalling £400, comprised as follows:
      1. The £250 offered on 27 June 2024 for the time and trouble caused by its failures regarding its handling of reports about the standard and frequency of grounds maintenance, if it has not already done so.
      2. The £100 offered for the delay in responding at stage 2 of its complaints process, if it has not already done so.
      3. A further £50 for the distress caused by its complaint handling failures.
  2. The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders within the timeframe set out above.