Stonewater Limited (202306632)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306632

Stonewater Limited

2 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:
1. Decision to lock a communal lounge.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about dogs in the block.
3. Handling of hot water repairs.
4. Communication regarding a contractor appointment on 13 April 2023.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 2015. The property is a 1-bedroom flat in a block, which is retirement living accommodation. The landlord has staff onsite at the block part–time during the week and there are shared communal lounge areas for residents to use. The resident’s hot water is supplied via a communal hot water system. She does not have access to a phone or the internet.
On 1 April 2022 the resident reported the hot water was too hot. The landlord attended the same day, but as the water was supplied via a communal system, a commercial engineer needed to attend. A commercial engineer attended on 3 occasions in April and May 2022, and noted the resident did not give access at each visit. On the third visit, on 23 May 2022, it noted it checked the communal water heaters and the water temperature in a communal toilet and both were satisfactory.
In October and December 2022 the resident reported she had no hot water. The landlord attended the same or next day on both occasions and noted the resident did not give access.
The resident made her first complaint to the landlord on 31 March 2023, which said:
1. A communal lounge had recently been locked and only a few residents knew the code to get access.
2. When she moved in she was told pets were not allowed. This rule had changed last year but the landlord had not told her. It had been put on the internet but she did not have access to this. She felt dogs should be kept on a lead in communal areas.
The landlord visited the resident on 13 April 2023 to carry out an electrical check. She was not home so it left a letter asking her to make contact to rearrange this.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response to the first complaint on 18 April 2023. It agreed the communal lounge should not be kept locked and should be available for all residents to use, as it was a communal area. It confirmed dogs should not be off leads in communal areas. It believed it knew the resident she was referring to and confirmed it would speak to them about this (which it said it did 6 days later).
On 20 April 2023 the resident reported the hot water was too hot and there were banging noises coming from the pipes. She said the landlord attended the following day but she was not home and left a card with another appointment for 9 May 2023. The landlord noted it attended on this date, but no access was given.
The resident made a second complaint to the landlord on 21 April 2023. She said she had not been told in advance about the appointment for the electrical check and was unhappy with the contents of the letter it had left. She advised that since new boilers were installed in 2021, there had been problems with the hot water. She said sometimes it was scalding hot and other times there was no hot water.
The resident replied to the landlord’s first stage 1 response on 24 April 2023. She said the hot water issue had got worse and she was angry it had visited her about this, despite knowing it was a communal issue. She reported there was another neighbour with big dogs who allowed them to run around outside the block on their own. This was subsequently considered a request to escalate the first complaint to stage 2.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response to the second complaint on 11 May 2023. It apologised its contractor had visited her without warning. It said this was because it did not have her contact number, which made it difficult to make appointments. It explained the electrical check was mandatory and residents were required to give access under the terms of their tenancy agreements. It apologised she was insulted by the letter.
In May 2023 the resident reported an incident with another resident and their dogs not being on leads in communal areas. On 24 May 2023 the landlord confirmed it had spoken to the neighbour and reminded them the dogs needed to be on leads in communal areas. It also confirmed the communal lounge was no longer locked.
On 29 May 2023 the resident reported her hot water was too hot again. The landlord noted it attended 4 days later, but no access was given.
The resident asked to escalate both of her complaints, via us, on 13 October 2023. She confirmed this was about the communal lounge being locked, concerns about changes to the landlord’s pet policy and dogs in the block, problems with the water temperature, contractor visits being conducted without prior notice and threatening letters being left when she was not home.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the first complaint on 14 November 2023, which said:
1. It was looking into whether it could put up signs in communal areas that said dogs needed to be kept on leads. It acknowledged there had been a communication failure in its consultation regarding changes to the pet policy the previous year. It apologised for this and offered £75 compensation.
2. It confirmed the lock had been removed from the communal lounge so all residents could access this. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered £75 compensation.
3. The hot water system was monitored remotely following the installation of temperature sensors on the hot water cylinders and the distribution pipework. There had not been any excessive temperatures recorded over recent months. It acknowledged the risk of scalding varied due to residents individual vulnerabilities and needs. It suggested installing a thermostatic mixing valve on her taps to offer extra protection going forward.
On 17 November 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 response to the second complaint. It apologised for the lack of communication when arranging appointments for contractors to attend the property and for the no access cards left. It acknowledged she had no phone or internet access and said it did not have any record of how she wanted to be contacted to book appointments. It confirmed it had agreed a process for onsite staff to inform her about any appointments, or put a note through her door if she was not home. It suggested meeting with her to discuss the best way to book appointments.
The following month the resident asked us to investigate her complaints as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses.
In July 2024, following notification of our investigation, the landlord reviewed the resident’s complaint. It offered her increased compensation of £300 for the identified failures in its decision to lock a communal lounge and its response to her concerns about dogs in the block, plus an additional amount for complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

Decision to lock a communal lounge

As part of the landlord’s response to the complaint, it told her it had decided to lock the communal lounge because some games had been donated by a contractor and there were concerns they may go missing. While reasonable, there is no evidence the landlord told the resident this in advance of locking the lounge. Similarly, it did not give her any information about how she could access the lounge. This was a failure and meant the resident was unable to access the communal lounge for several weeks.
When the resident raised this as a complaint, the landlord reviewed its decision, and agreed the room should not be locked. It confirmed a few weeks later that it had removed the lock. This was sensible and showed it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously. The landlord also acknowledged failure in its handling of this issue, apologised, and offered £75 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
Considering the full circumstances of this matter, and in consultation with our remedies guidance, the £75 compensation offered is reasonable. This is because it is reflective of a service failure where there was minimal impact on the resident, for a short duration.
Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its decision to lock a communal lounge. We recommend the landlord pay the resident the £75 compensation offered, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.

Response to the resident’s concerns about dogs in the block

The landlord’s guidance on keeping pets says residents should ensure dogs are always kept on leads when travelling through internal communal areas and when in busy external communal areas. Therefore, it was appropriate the landlord took action regarding the resident’s concerns that dogs were not being kept on leads in communal areas.
When the resident reported concerns in March and May 2023, the landlord spoke with the neighbours involved to remind them about keeping their dogs on leads. This was sensible and showed it took the resident’s concerns seriously. On both occasions, it gave feedback to the resident confirming the action it had taken, which provided reassurance that it had dealt with her concerns.
In the stage 2 response the landlord said it was looking into whether it could put signs up in communal areas. The resident has told us this has never happened and we have seen no evidence that the landlord told her why it was unable to do this. This was a failure and has left the resident disappointed that the landlord did not follow through with its proposed action. We have made an order for the landlord to write to the resident confirming if it will put up the signs. If so, it must confirm a timescale for this to be done and if not, the reason for this.
In response to the resident’s concern that she did not know about changes to the pet policy, the landlord confirmed consultation had been done, but mostly online. While the landlord is not required to let individual residents know about proposed changes to its policies, it must ensure any communication of this nature is widely available in different formats. This is so that as many residents as possible can access and respond to any consultation.
As the resident does not have online access, she was excluded from being able to contribute to this consultation and was not aware of the changes made to the pet policy. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged its failure in the handling of this. It apologised and said, going forward, it would ensure any digital communication would also be available in letters, newsletters and discussed at resident meetings. This is positive and should avoid a similar failure happening again in the future. It is also in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair; put things right; and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acknowledged failure in its communication, apologised, and offered £75 compensation, which again evidenced that it sought to ‘put things right’. While it is positive that the landlord offered redress, it was not quite proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
The landlord did offer increased compensation in July 2024, but this was only done in response to our contact notifying it of our investigation. To make a finding of reasonable redress, the landlord must identify and acknowledge its failings prior to our formal investigation and, on its own initiative, take steps and/or make an offer of compensation that puts things right. The landlord did not do that in this case and only offered increased compensation after our intervention. Therefore a finding of reasonable redress cannot be made.
Balancing the landlord’s failures and the detriment caused to the resident, with the steps it took to put things right prior to our involvement; a finding of service failure is appropriate. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation (inclusive of the £75 already offered) if not done so already.

Handling of hot water repairs

The landlord is responsible for hot water repairs in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement. This says it will repair and keep in reasonable working order things which supply hot water to the property, including water heaters and pipework.
During the period of our investigation the resident reported she had no hot water on 2 occasions, in October and December 2022. On both occasions, the landlord raised emergency works orders, which was appropriate and in line with its target timescales on its website. This says, where residents have been left without hot water, it will treat this as a high priority and commits to complete these repairs within 24 hours. On both occasions, the landlord attended within the committed timescale.
The landlord noted no access was given on both occasions. For emergency repairs, it is reasonable that the landlord cannot give notice of exactly when it will attend due to the urgency of the appointment, only that it will be within 24 hours. Therefore, it was reasonable that no notice was given to the resident prior to these 2 visits; and these not going ahead was not as a result of any failure by the landlord.
On 3 occasions during the period of our investigation, the resident reported the water temperature being too hot. In her complaint, she told the landlord that, at times, the water was scalding. However, there is no record she raised this when the repairs were reported on 1 April 2022, 20 April 2023 or 29 May 2023, only that the water was “too hot”.
Where the landlord receives a report of scalding water, it should treat this as an emergency repair, due to the possible serious harm it could cause. However, for reports of water being too hot, it is reasonable that these are dealt with as routine repairs, which its repairs policy says it will complete within 28 days.
For each of the 3 repairs raised in April 2022, April 2023 and May 2023, the landlord attended within 4 days. This was within the committed response time for routine repairs, set out in its repairs policy.
On the first occasion, on 1 April 2022, the landlord noted a commercial engineer was needed as the water was supplied via a communal system. It is a concern the landlord sent the incorrect engineer as it knew the hot water system was communal and should have ensured the correct engineer was sent for the job. This error amounts to maladministration and meant the resident was unnecessarily inconvenienced by having to give access for an appointment which was of little or no value.
We have seen this same error happened again in July 2024 and February 2025, which is a concern. Therefore, we have made an order for the landlord to deliver training to front line staff who raise works orders on how to check if heating and hot water systems are communal and provide guidance on the type of contractor/ engineer needed for these.
After the landlord attended on 1 April 2022, it arranged for a commercial engineer to attend. It noted they did so on 3 occasions on 6 April 2022, 5 and 23 May 2022; and recorded no access for each visit. We have seen no evidence the resident was given prior notice of these appointments. It is unreasonable for landlords to expect residents to give access when they do not know about booked appointments.
While the resident does not have a phone number or email address, the landlord could have written to her via post to tell her about the appointments, as there was sufficient time between each appointment for this to be done. The landlord’s failure to do so amounts to maladministration and contributed to the delay in this matter being investigated.
Further, while the landlord could not access the property during these 3 visits, it could access the communal water tank and pipework. Despite this, it was not until the third visit, on 23 May 2022, that it checked this. It is unclear why it did not check this at the first visit more than 6 weeks earlier, on 6 April 2022. This delay amounts to maladministration.
The landlord has said the resident did not give access for a visit in early June 2023. On this occasion, the landlord attended 4 days after the resident reported the concern. While positive that it attended so quickly to address this issue, as it had raised this as a routine repair, it had 28 days in which to complete this. Therefore, it had time to notify the resident in writing of an appointment. This would have been a sensible way to manage the matter as telling the resident about the appointment was more likely to result in it going ahead and action being taken; than attending quickly with no notice being given and the issue remaining unresolved.
The resident said she was unhappy the landlord kept sending engineers to her property when the hot water supply was part of a communal system, and felt this was a waste of her time. The landlord has told us there were aspects of the communal system that needed testing in conjunction with the system in the property, and this was why it needed access. This is understandable. However, we have seen no evidence the landlord explained this to the resident. Had it done so, this would have reassured her that the appointments were not a waste of her time and may have led to a quicker resolution.
As part of its investigation of the complaint, the landlord checked the water temperatures recorded over previous months. This was a sensible action to take and the landlord confirmed the outcome within the stage 2 response. While positive that it did this, it should also have persevered with gaining access to the property to fully investigate the matter, which it did not do. Instead, it assumed this was an isolated issue to the resident because of her individual circumstances and suggested installing a thermostatic mixing valve on her taps to resolve this.
We have seen that following investigation of another complaint made by the resident in June 2024, the landlord identified a site-wide issue with the hot water supply. During the period of our investigation the resident told the landlord she was not the only resident affected and so it should have done more to investigate her reports of the water being too hot. Had it done so, it may have identified and been able to resolve the issues sooner. This amounts to maladministration and means the resident was left for an extended time with an unpredictable hot water supply which was, at times, scalding hot and a health and safety risk and, at others, providing no hot water at all.
While the landlord identified failure as a result of its investigation of the first complaint and offered compensation, this was not in relation to this issue, but other issues assessed above. As the landlord did not acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right, a finding of maladministration is appropriate. In line with our remedies guidance, we have made orders for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £300 compensation. This is reflective of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble she experienced.
We are aware the resident has reported ongoing problems with the hot water supply between November 2024 and May 2025, which the landlord said it has attended for but been unable to gain access. As this has happened after the landlord’s review of the complaint, completed in July 2024, it has not assessed its more recent handling of the hot water repairs via its internal complaints process. Therefore, the landlord’s more recent handling of this issue falls outside the scope of this investigation.
However, as the resident reports the hot water issues are ongoing, it is important the landlord takes action to investigate and address this. Therefore, we have made an order for the landlord to send a commercial engineer to investigate this issue. The landlord must confirm the appointment date and time to the resident in advance via a letter; as well as confirm the outcome in writing with a timescale for any follow on actions to be completed.

Communication regarding a contractor appointment on 13 April 2023

The resident’s tenancy agreement says residents must give access to the landlord and its contractors subject to reasonable notice being given. This would normally be at least 24 hours’ notice, except in the event of an emergency.
The landlord attended the property on 13 April 2023 to complete an electrical check, but did not tell her about the appointment in advance. The landlord said this was because it did not have the resident’s phone number. However, it had the option of writing to her to give notice and so it should have done this, in line with requirements of the tenancy agreement. Its failure to do so amounts to maladministration.
The landlord told the resident it would not send letters for appointments because these may be delayed because of the postal service. This is not a reasonable explanation for why a letter could not be used to tell her about this appointment. The electrical check was not an emergency and so it should have booked the appointment with enough notice to allow a letter to be delivered. Failing that, as there are staff onsite at the block part time, they could have hand delivered an appointment letter. Either way, the landlord had options to make the resident aware of the appointment, which it failed to pursue.
When the resident was not home on 13 April 2023, the contractor left a letter making her aware of the missed appointment. Within this letter, the resident said the landlord threatened legal action to gain access because it had been unable to do so. She was unhappy with this as she said she did not know about the appointment and so could not be expected to give access.
We agree with the resident. It was unfair of the landlord to expect her to give access for an appointment she knew nothing about. Further, it was unreasonable for the landlord to leave a letter threatening court action because of failed access, when the resident did not know she was expected to give it. This was heavy handed and upsetting for the resident, and amounts to maladministration.
The resident has said her preferred method of contact to be told about contractor appointments is via letter. Therefore, the landlord should adhere to this. We have made an order for the landlord to record this communication preference on its systems, if not done so already, and write to the resident confirming it has done so.
Overall there was maladministration in the landlord’s communication regarding a contractor appointment on 13 April 2023. We have made orders for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £200 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance as there was failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord did not acknowledge this or put things right. The amount awarded is reflective of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its decision to lock a communal lounge.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about dogs in the block.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
  1. Hot water repairs.
  2. Communication regarding a contractor appointment on 13 April 2023.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
1. Written to the resident confirming if it will put up signs saying dogs must be kept on leads in communal areas. If so, it must confirm a timescale for this to be done and if not, the reason for this.
2. Paid the resident £650 compensation, made up of:
  1. £150 for its response to her concerns about dogs in the block (inclusive of the £75 already offered, if not done so).
  2. £300 for its handling of hot water repairs.
  3. £200 for its communication regarding a contractor appointment on 13 April 2023.
3. Apologised to the resident for its handling of hot water repairs and communication regarding a contractor appointment on 13 April 2023.
4. Sent a commercial engineer to investigate the hot water supply issue. The landlord must confirm the appointment date and time to the resident in advance via a letter; as well as confirm the outcome in writing with a timescale for any follow on actions to be completed.
5. Recorded the resident’s communication preference to be told about contractor appointments via letter on its systems, if not done so already, and write to the resident confirming it has done so.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has delivered training to front line staff who raise works orders on how to check if heating and hot water systems are communal and provide guidance on the type of contractor/ engineer needed for these.

Recommendation

The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £75 compensation already offered for its decision to lock a communal lounge, if not done so. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord. The landlord to confirm its intentions regarding this within 4 weeks.