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

Stonewater Limited (202310570)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310570

Stonewater Limited

31 March 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 an extension to the resident’s starter tenancy.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. At the time of this complaint, the resident was an assured shorthold tenant under a starter tenancy agreement. His tenancy began on 25 July 2022. The landlord has since converted the tenancy to an assured tenancy. The property is a 1 bedroom flat in a retirement living scheme. The resident has multiple health issues including a hearing impairment and mobility issues.
  2. The landlord only allows each resident to store 2 mobility scooters at the scheme. As the resident had more than 2 mobility scooters, he arranged to put some of them into storage before moving into his home. However, shortly after his tenancy began, the storage arrangements fell through. The landlord spoke to the resident on 12 August 2022. It gave him until the end of the month to find somewhere else to store the scooters. However, the resident was not able to make alternative arrangements by the end of August 2022 and so the scooters remained at the scheme.
  3. The landlord emailed the resident on 12 April 2023 following a complaint made about his scooters. It said it had allowed him time to arrange to sell them and, as he had not done so, he must make plans to store them somewhere else.
  4. The landlord sent the resident a notice to extend his starter tenancy for a further 6 months on 19 May 2023 due to his “tenancy conduct”. In response, the resident requested a review of the decision to extend his tenancy on 23 May 2023.
  5. The landlord sent the resident a letter in June 2023 to explain why it had extended his starter tenancy and to confirm that its decision was final. The resident raised a formal complaint on 30 June 2023.
  6. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 25 July 2023. It said the reason for the extension of his starter tenancy was because of complaints about his scooters. Therefore, it had taken the decision to extend the tenancy while the issue was ongoing. It said it would review the extension in 6 months’ time. It said if there were no further issues, it would convert the tenancy into an assured tenancy.
  7. Following escalation to stage 2, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 18 August 2023. It confirmed its decision. It said it had clearly explained the reasons for this. It said the resident’s tenancy would convert to an assured tenancy once he had removed the last scooter. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for complaint handling failures.
  8. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

An extension to the resident’s starter tenancy

  1. It is unclear from the evidence provided how the landlord manages the starter tenancy process and how it makes decisions such as extending starter tenancies. When we asked the landlord whether it had a specific starter tenancy policy and/or procedure in place at the time of the resident’s complaint, it said it had nothing more to add to the case. Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that the landlord does not have a starter tenancy policy or process in place.
  2. The resident moved into his home on 9 August 2022. As he was unable to store his collection of scooters and electric bikes at the scheme, he had arranged for most of them to go into storage. However, the storage arrangements fell through and the scooters were delivered to the resident’s home instead.
  3. The landlord met with the resident on 12 August 2022 to discuss his scooters and electric bikes. This was a reasonable step to take because he had exceeded the number of mobility scooters he was allowed to have. The resident told the landlord that he was trying to arrange for another storage facility to pick up his scooters and bikes. The landlord gave the resident until the end of the month to make alternative arrangements.
  4. At some point in August 2022 the landlord told the resident to put his scooters in the outside bin room. This was to stop other residents from complaining about the number of scooters he had. The evidence shows that there were no further complaints from other residents until March 2023. It also shows that the landlord did not raise any further concerns about the scooters with the resident between September 2022 and March 2023.
  5. In April 2023 the landlord told the resident it did not have the facilities to store his scooters. It said it had allowed him plenty of time to sell his scooters. However, it said if he had no intention of selling them, he must make plans to store them somewhere else. That was a reasonable step to take by the landlord.
  6. The resident responded by email on the same day. He said he had moved 1 scooter into the scooter store area and he had 1 scooter and an electric bike in the outside bin room. He said all the other scooters were in his flat. He said he could not sell most of the scooters as they were either rented or on finance. He said he would return the scooter in the storage area to the hiring company in September 2023. He also explained that he was unable to keep the scooters in storage due to the cost.
  7. The landlord spoke to the resident on 17 April 2023. During the conversation it told the resident it needed to discuss the storage arrangements for the scooters otherwise “it might extend his starter tenancy”. The resident said he felt he had explained why he could not get rid of his scooters and he asked the landlord to put everything in writing going forward.
  8. The landlord spoke to the resident again on 20 April 2023. It told him it could “not convert his tenancy into an assured tenancy until it had a solution to his scooter storage”. It was reasonable of the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations. However, the resident had asked for confirmation in writing. There is no evidence to suggest that landlord had sent him any written correspondence relating to the tenancy extension. This was unreasonable in the circumstances. The landlord missed an opportunity to clarify its concerns and explain the reasoning behind its decision.
  9. The resident met with the landlord on 10 May 2023. He explained that the cost of storing his scooters was too expensive. He said he was looking to donate 3 of the scooters to charity. He said he could use the break clause to get rid of another of the scooters in August 2023. He said he would have 2 bikes in his flat and a scooter in the storage area. He asked the landlord to confirm in writing if the arrangements were acceptable. However, there is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s request. It would have been reasonable for it to have responded to his suggested arrangement in writing. There is also no evidence to suggest that the landlord was unhappy with the proposed arrangements.
  10. The resident spoke to the landlord again on 12 May 2023. He said the earliest the charity could come for the scooters was the beginning of June 2023. The landlord said there was nothing it could do so it would “see how it goes”. It is not clear from the evidence provided what this meant. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have set out clearly at that stage what steps the resident had to take before it would convert the tenancy.
  11. The landlord served a notice to extend the resident’s starter tenancy for 6 months on 19 May 2023. The notice said it was unable to convert the resident’s tenancy due to his “tenancy conduct”. This was based on storing too many mobility scooters. This decision was one that the landlord was entitled to make. The resident sent the landlord a letter on 23 May 2023. He requested a review of the decision to extend his starter tenancy.
  12. The landlord sent the resident a letter on either 15 June 2023 (date of landlord’s copy) or 21 June 2023 (date of resident’s copy). The letter explained why it had extended his starter tenancy. It said it understood the resident had a mobility scooter in the storage area and 4 parked outside. It said he also had an electric–bike and 2 smaller mobility scooters stored in his flat. It said it did not allow residents to store mobility aids needing a charge in their homes for health and safety reasons. It said this was because batteries could self-heat and produce enough heat to ignite nearby materials or cause an explosion. It said it had asked the resident to remove the scooters in August 2022 and it had made several requests for him to remove them since then. It said it would review the decision in 6 months. It said its decision was final and there was no room for negotiation.
  13. It is a standard industry practice for tenants of registered providers on starter tenancies to be given the opportunity to request a review of the landlord’s decision to extend a starter tenancy. By way of example, the Tenancy Standard (Homes and Communities Agency 31 March 2015) in place at the time of this complaint says “where registered providers use probationary tenancies, these shall be for a maximum of 12 months, or a maximum of 18 months where reasons for extending the probationary period have been given and where the tenant has had the opportunity to request a review”. Whilst it is for the Regulator to determine breaches of the standard, the existence of this expectation indicates that it is best practice for landlords to have appeals processes.
  14. It was therefore unreasonable and unfair of the landlord not to allow the resident’s request for a review of its decision. This would have given the resident the opportunity to present his case to an independent person with no prior involvement in his case. There is no evidence, however, the outcome would have been different. Nevertheless, he should have had the opportunity.
  15. The resident raised a formal complaint on 30 June 2023. He said the notice to extend his starter tenancy did not give reasons for the extension. He also said it did not offer him the option of requesting a review of the decision. Despite this, he said he requested a review of the decision on 23 May 2023. However, the landlord had refused.
  16. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 25 July 2023. It said the extension of the starter tenancy was because of complaints about his scooters. It said other residents had raised concerns and made complaints about fire risks. It said it understood the resident had removed all but 1 scooter. However, it said the extension would be reviewed after 6 months as stated in the notice letter. It said if there were no more issues with scooters, it would convert the tenancy into an assured tenancy.
  17. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 25 July 2023 as he felt the landlord had not thoroughly investigated his complaint.
  18. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 16 August 2023. It said a manager had explained why it had extended his starter tenancy. It said it had done this in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement which said, “as from the first anniversary of the tenancy start date your tenancy will convert to an assured (non-shorthold) tenancy, unless before the first anniversary of the tenancy start date, we have sent you a notice extending your probationary period for a further six months”.
  19. It said the extension was due to concerns relating to section 3:13 of his tenancy agreement which said he must “make the necessary arrangements with neighbours, to keep shared entrances, hall, stairways, passageways and any other shared areas clean and free from obstruction if these services are not provided by us.” It said it was also satisfied that the letter dated 15 June 2023 clearly explained the reasons for the extension and what was expected of him.
  20. The landlord clarified that the tenancy agreement allowed it to extend the resident’s tenancy for a further 6 months. However, it did not recognise that it had not complied with industry standards in relation to the review request. The stage 2 response also brought in another reason for the extension of the starter tenancy that the landlord had not previously mentioned. This was unreasonable.
  21. The landlord converted the resident’s tenancy to an assured tenancy on 23 October 2023. This was before the end of the 6 month extension period.
  22. In summary, while the landlord had allowed the resident fair time to remove the scooters and it was entitled to extend the starter tenancy, the landlord did not:
    1. actively address the resident’s scooter storage between September 2022 and March 2023.
    2. put matters in writing when the resident asked it to do so.
    3. set out clearly what steps the resident had to take before it would convert his tenancy, and it did not comply with industry standards when it refused to allow the resident to appeal its decision.
  23. As a result of these failings and the level of detriment caused to the resident, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy says it will respond to both stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 10 working days.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 30 June 2023.        The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 25 July 2023. This was 17 working days from the date of the complaint and outside of the timeframe set within the landlord’s complaints policy.
  3. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 25 July 2023. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 16 August 2023. This was 16 working days from the date of escalation. This was outside of the 10 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy. However, it was within the timeframe of 20 working days for stage 2 responses set within the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (April 2022) (the Code). Within the stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 delay and offered the resident £100 compensation. Although it did not specifically acknowledge the stage 1 delay.
  4. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In this case the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation and its acknowledgement of the delay represents reasonable redress for the identified failings. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has been able to evidence it made reasonable and proactive efforts to resolve the complaint and “put things right” in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
  5. In summary, although there were delays at both stage 1 and stage 2, the landlord tried to put things right through its complaints process. The redress offered by the landlord was reasonable in the circumstances, and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The landlord is therefore to pay the overall compensation of £100 if it has not already done so. The finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the compensation being paid.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of an extension to the resident’s starter tenancy.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of an extension to the resident’s starter tenancy.
    3. Provide evidence of compliance with orders 41(a) and (b) above.
  2. Within 12 weeks from the date of the report, the landlord is ordered to consider the failings identified in this report and complete a review at senior management level of its practices around the management of starter tenancies, with a view to introducing a formal process, identifying:
    1. The steps and actions it will take to monitor a starter tenancy from the start of the tenancy through to the conversion or ending of the tenancy.
    2. The process it will adopt to enable a resident to request a review of a decision to extend a starter tenancy beyond the initial 12 months.
    3. How it will communicate with residents to let them know if there are any issues that may affect the conversion of their starter tenancy.
    4. How it will communicate with residents and manage expectations when it has made a decision to extend a starter tenancy.
    5. Whether it should have a tenancy policy which sets this information out.
  3. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with orders in paragraph 42 above by providing a copy of a report setting out its findings within 12 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord should, if it has not already done so, pay the resident the £100 compensation it offered in its stage 2 response.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to advise of its intentions regarding the above recommendation.