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

Stonewater Limited (202310853)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310853

Stonewater Limited

11 April 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. This complaint is about:
    1. The level of service charges and the resident’s liability to pay them.
    2. The landlord’s communication with the resident concerning the service charges.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the quality of works.
    4. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a flat in a block owned by a housing association.
  2. In January 2022, the landlord issued notices to the resident under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, setting out works with estimated costs of £1,654.17 and £11,618.96 per property. It issued a breakdown in February 2022.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 3 February 2023, stating works relating to the Section 20 notice started before the end of January 2022, giving him insufficient time to make observations. Further, he said the landlord was charging for works that were incomplete or sub-standard and its communication dissatisfied him.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 27 February 2023. It confirmed groundwork preparation and scaffolding erection started during the consultation period and it failed to communicate with residents about this or seek dispensation. As such, it removed the cost of these works. It acknowledged delays with the programme of works and agreed that sometimes the quality of works dipped below its standards. It said all snagging would be completed by 24 February 2023. It offered the resident £1,350 compensation and removed the charge for the groundwork preparation and scaffolding, £520.83.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 13 March 2023. He made several observations about the works and said the snagging remained outstanding. He asked the landlord to provide more information about some of the works they had charged him for and expressed concerns over the fire doors.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 April 2023. It arranged a site visit to review the snagging/quality of works on 20 April 2023 and an inspection of the fire doors on 25 April 2023. Following these inspections, it said it would further address the complaint by 5 May 2023. It responded to the resident’s concerns about its communication and his queries about the breakdown of service charges. It removed a charge of £535.85 for the weather proofing of the box gutter and renewal of flashing as it did not include these within the Section 20 notice.
  7. On 4 May 2023, the landlord further responded at stage 2 addressing the resident’s concerns about outstanding works and snagging. It said it had inspected the paintwork and signed it off as complete and in line with the specification of the block. It confirmed the contractor had signed off the fire doors, however the landlord’s risk assessment supervisor had asked for the governing body to audit them. It said its initial compensation offer of £1,350 remained available to the resident.
  8. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response and referred the complaint to this Service. He expressed further concerns about the safety of the fire doors and disagreed the snagging works were complete. To resolve the complaint, the resident wants the landlord to remove the service charges in question, ensure the fire doors are fitted correctly and to improve its future communication with residents.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. When a resident refers a complaint to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why we will not investigate.
  2. Paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. Accordingly, the Housing Ombudsman Service will not consider the complaint about the amount of service charges and the resident’s liability to pay them.
  3. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). It is open for the resident to seek free and independent advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service for more information.

Communication

  1. Under the lease, the resident is required to pay service charges. The charge broadly covers the landlord’s costs associated with managing and maintaining the estate/block and delivering its services.
  2. The landlord’s service charges policy states it will follow the guidelines in Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and serve statutory consultation notices for planned works and service contracts which exceed the statutory trigger figures for consultation, where there is a legal requirement to do so.
  3. Neither party disputes that the landlord started groundwork preparation and erected scaffolding before the consultation period ended. The resident also informed us that during this time, contractors were onsite doing a magnitude of work. It is not for this Service to decide whether this limited the landlord’s ability to recover costs from the resident. We recognise it removed the costs of the groundwork preparation and scaffolding that it started early. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds this was reasonable.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 February 2022 with enquiries about the service charges. It responded the following day with more information, to which he requested a breakdown of the costs. The landlord provided an estimate on 18 February 2022 and informed the resident, “the costs are an estimate and represent the highest amount you are likely to pay”. However, when he received the final costings, the sum was greater than the estimate. While this is not unusual in terms of major works, we find the landlord failed to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations here.
  5. The Ombudsman finds the landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident throughout this case. He spent an unreasonable amount of time trying to get a response from the landlord and there were delays responding to emails. For instance, on 6 September 2022, he asked the landlord for more information regarding the door entry, gates, and barriers it referred to within the Section 20 notice. He chased for a response on 26 September 2022. He raised further enquiries about the cost of various works on 22 November 2022 and 16 December 2022, before making a formal complaint. He also spent time contacting his MP for support in resolving matters.
  6. The landlord recognised its communication shortcomings within its initial complaint response, apologised, and offered compensation of £600. It described this as £250 for poor communication from its service charge teams and £350 for poor communication about the Section 20 process. This was reasonable in the circumstances and in line with our remedies guidance for failings that adversely affected a resident.

Quality of works –snagging and fire doors

  1. Once on notice of a repair, the landlord must conduct the works it is responsible for within a reasonable period, in accordance with its obligations under the lease and in housing law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is – this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
  2. In August 2022, the landlord’s records demonstrate it attended the property and compiled a list of snagging following major works in the block. The following month, the resident reported several issues including dirty handrails, paint drips over the new floor, carpet and door, and poorly fitting flooring on the stairs. The landlord informed him that it had not accepted the works, and its surveyor was working with the contractor to resolve the issues. While the landlord acknowledged the issues and provided a brief response, in our view it would have been more effective for it to provide a more detailed response for the resident, including an action plan to manage his expectations or a date he could expect a future update, if applicable.
  3. In November 2022, the resident contacted his MP regarding the issues. He said a lot of the works were substandard or not completed and he had reported it to his landlord, but it had not done anything. In January 2023, he contacted the landlord again and reported that the marks were still on the flooring and nothing had improved since his reports in September 2022. He asked the landlord if the surveyor had attended. The landlord has not evidenced that it responded appropriately to the resident or took action to address his concerns between September 2022 and the time in which he made a formal complaint.
  4. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord committed to complete all snagging by 24 February 2023. However, within the resident’s complaint escalation he disputed that the works were complete. In view of this, we find it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange a site visit with the resident. This took place on 20 April 2023. However, the landlord provided no documentary evidence of what it reviewed or discussed, apart from the comments in the stage 2 follow up response. The resident’s strongly disputes the landlord’s position concerning the quality of the works.
  5. While a landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors, this Service has not seen contemporaneous records from the site visit. It is vital for landlords to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision making at the time. If this Service investigates a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies.
  6. Due to the lack of detailed evidence provided by the landlord concerning its consideration of the alleged outstanding snagging works, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that it acted fully in line with its repairing obligations or completed the works within a reasonable period. This was a shortcoming in the landlord’s repairs service.
  7. Landlords are responsible under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 for ensuring the safety of their tenants and making sure that their properties are fire safe.
  8. The resident reported gaps around the fire doors to the landlord on 6 February 2023. With the stage 1 letter dated 27 February 2023, it said, “all fire door threshold works have started and appointments to gain access are either confirmed, or in the process of being confirmed”. At this stage, it was resonable for the landlord to provide an update to the resident.
  9. On 6 March 2023, the sub-contractor responded to enquiries from the contractor concerning the fire doors. They provided a copy of the fitting instructions and a global assessment of the doors. They said the drop seals were acceptable where the required 3mm threshold gap beneath the door leaf is not achievable due to varying floor levels and referenced the relevant section in the global assessment. It agreed to meet onsite with the auditor should the landlord arrange an audit. This evidence demonstrates the landlord contacted its contractors to investigate the issues reported, which is what we would expect in the event of a dispute over works.
  10. Following an appointment with the fire door fitter, the resident expressed further concerns to the landlord on 13 March 2023. He said his door had gaps exceeding 4mm around the perimeter and the drop seal did not work. He said he checked 3 communal doors in the block and 2 doors for other residents and in his opinion, they all had faults. The landlord responded appropriately by arranging an inspection of the fire doors with its partnership manager, risk assessment surveyor and contractor. This inspection took place on 25 April 2023.
  11. The landlord provided the surveyor’s comments from the inspection. It outlined that where it gained access, many of the doors did not fit in the frames. The landlord sought advice from its director of building safety, which was rational in the circumstances. It explained it needed to raise the issue with the contractor. If they did not remedy the issues, it could employ a fire door inspector to compile an expert report then take further action as required. The landlord has not provided copies of all its communications with the contractor following its inspection, so we are unable to comment on this. However, it is evident some discussions were had between the parties. The landlord told this Service in its submission that the contractor completed works in December 2023. However, copies of emails indicate contractors were onsite in early 2024 concerning fire doors. It is not clear from the evidence available what works, if any, remained outstanding at this time.
  12. While we appreciate it can take time to investigate disputed works and agree on a suitable remedy, particularly where several parties are involved, it is a concern to the Ombudsman that matters remained unresolved for months following the landlord’s final complaint response. Further, it has not evidenced that it kept the resident sufficiently updated throughout. Considering the nature of the works, this was understandably a grave concern for the resident.
  13. The audit of the fire doors by a governing body, referenced by the landlord at stage 2, did not take place. The landlord told us that members of its staff were competent and qualified to conduct fire safety inspections. It has not demonstrated that it informed the resident of its decision not to proceed with an audit from a governing body. This was a failing. To date, the resident alleges that works to all the fire doors in the block is not complete.
  14. When there are failings identified by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the resolution offered put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In assessing this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  15. Within its complaint response, the landlord apologised to the resident and offered £250 compensation for delays in repairs and £250 for the distress and inconvenience he experienced. The Ombudsman notes the fire door works remained unresolved for a significant period after the resident initially reported them. Additionally, he disputes it resolved the snagging issues satisfactorily or completed all the repairs listed in the section 20 notice.
  16. We acknowledge the landlord accepted its shortcomings and attempted to put things right with its compensation offer. Our remedies guidance suggests an award in the range of £100 to £600 for failings which adversely affected a resident. After considering the impact on the resident and the period involved, the Ombudsman finds that the amount offered in compensation is significant but the clarification about the situation of the works and if any further works are required remains outstanding. Thus, the required resolution at this stage is not more financial compensation. We, therefore, have not ordered further compensation but have ordered specific action.

The associated complaint

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies that a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with no more than a further extension of 10 days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with a further extension of 20 days if required. A landlord should not exceed these timescales without good reason.
  2. Following the resident’s complaint on 3 February 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 February 2023, 16 working days later. He escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 14 March 2023. The landlord issued its initial response 27 working days later on 20 April 2023, with a further response on 4 May 2023. The Ombudsman recognises the second stage 2 response was issued after 2 site visits. In the circumstances, it made sense for the landlord to do this. We note it provided referral rights to this Service within its initial stage 2 response, as expected under the Code.
  3. We have reviewed correspondence between the resident and landlord throughout 2022 and 2023. It is evident he shared some of his concerns with it on multiple occasions prior to his formal complaint. The Code sets out that a resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such. Whenever a resident expresses dissatisfaction, landlords must give them the choice to make a complaint. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord accepted that it did not pass his concerns to its customer relations team to take forward as a complaint at the earliest opportunity. It was appropriate for the landlord to reflect on its complaint handling, identify and apologise for its shortcoming and offer compensation.
  4. We recognise the landlord agreed to meet with the resident and inspect the site. This demonstrated a willingness to understand his concerns and resolve matters. This was reasonable and pragmatic.
  5. Under the dispute resolution principles, it is good practice for a landlord to evidence learning from a complaint. In this case, the landlord said it will amend how it works and improve its use of systems and shared inboxes to avoid staff becoming ‘a single point of failure.’ It also confirmed the implementation of significant training programmes to all its customer-facing teams and contractors to improve communication and complaint handling refreshers for wider teams. It was correct for the landlord to reflect on its complaint handling and identity areas of improvement.
  6. The landlord offered £250 compensation for its complaint handling failures. In the Ombudsman’s view, this sum was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance to reflect the extent of its shortcomings.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme, the complaint about the level of service charges and the resident’s liability to pay them is outside of our jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the quality of works.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about:
    1. The landlord’s communication with the resident concerning the service charges.
    2. The associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, we order the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident the £500 awarded within its complaints process for repair delays and distress and inconvenience. This payment must be made directly to the resident.
    2. Contact the resident to establish what works he maintains are outstanding. It should then inspect these areas and produce a report setting out its findings. It must share a copy of this with us and the resident and include estimated completion dates for any outstanding work, if applicable.

 

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pays the resident the £250 previously offered for its handling of the complaint and the £600 previously offered for its communication failings. The reasonable redress finding is made on this basis.
  2. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should consider whether any additional compensation is due to the resident from the date of its stage 2 response onwards for any potential avoidable delays resolving the substantive issues. We recognise this is a complex case and it may decide to open another complaint instead to assess this in more detail.