Stonewater Limited (202316469)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316469

Stonewater Limited

6 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 response to the resident concerns about:
1. The quality of cleaning and maintenance services provided.
2. Its fire safety checks.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a flat in a block.
The resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint on 1 June 2023. He said he was unhappy because the landlord was not providing services he was paying for as part of his service charge. This included cleaning and fire safety services. He asked the landlord to deduct the costs of those services from his rent account.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 28 June 2023. It said:
1. Its contractor had provided evidence that it tested the fire detection equipment weekly and did servicing every quarter.
2. It tested fire detection equipment within the resident’s property as part of its electrical safety testing (electrical installation condition report – EICR).
3. It apologised for the issues with the grounds maintenance and cleaning issues. It had recently changed contractor and there were “initial issues” with the new contractor. It was now “in hand” and it hoped the cleaning and maintenance would resume soon.
4. It would completed a one off deep clean at the block. It would refund the resident’s service charge for grounds maintenance for 2 months. It would refund 3 months cleaning service charge.
5. It apologised for the late complaint response, and offered £100 in compensation for the “inconvenience whilst waiting”.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and asked it to open a stage 2 complaint on 8 August 2023. He said it had not provided any proof the fire safety testing was going ahead. He said he was aware the company the landlord used closed down a “very long time ago”. He expressed a concern any evidence it would provide would be “fake”. He said he wanted the “full value of services” he had not received refunded.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 14 September 2023. It said:
1. It confirmed the fire safety testing had been going ahead. The company doing the fir safety checks had changed its name.
2. As part of its investigation, it had requested all the records from its contractor. It confirmed the testing was done on a “consistent basis in line with fire servicing regulations”.
3. It gave a list of the equipment that was tested and the frequency of the tests.

Events after the complaints process

The resident contacted us on 20 September 2023 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said the landlord had not provided evidence of the tests. He raised a concern the landlord did have evidence of the tests it would be “fake”. He also said he was unhappy the landlord’s final complaint response did not address his concerns about the communal cleaning. He said he wanted a refund of the charges he paid for those services.
The landlord contacted the resident in July 2024. It offered him £250 for the distress and inconvenienced the resident experienced in “pursuing a resolution” to the cleaning issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

During his complaint, and when in contact with us, the resident requested a refund of service charges. Determining the reasonableness of service charges, and the liability for service charges, requires a binding decision from a court or other tribunal service such as the First Tier Tribunal Service (FTT). Furthermore, it is not our role to assess the standard of cleaning work, or the amount charged for such works. Instead, this Service reviews whether the landlord has followed a fair process in considering the resident’s concerns.
We have considered what enquiries the landlord made, and whether it responded appropriately to the resident, given all the circumstances of the case. The resident may wish to contact the FTT if he wishes to pursue refund, or challenge the reasonableness, of the service charges he incurred.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the quality of cleaning and maintenance services provided

The landlord’s estate management document states communal cleaning services includes:
1. Cleaning communal areas of blocks and making sure they a free of litter
2. Window cleaning of external windows.
3. Other site based tasks such as changing lightbulbs and “ancillary” cleaning.
The estate management document says it will inspect services provided and give a score from A to D, A being “very good”, D being “unacceptable”.
The landlord sent the resident its final complaint response in September 2023. The resident raised concerns with us about the quality of the cleaning services provided on 7 occasions throughout 2024 and 2025. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns about the quality of the services the landlord provided. However, we are unable to assess the landlord’s handling of matters it has not had the opportunity to respond to as a complaint.
Considering the above, our investigation has focused on the events up until the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure in September 2023. The resident is evidently dissatisfied with the cleaning and maintenance services it is providing. We therefore recommend the landlord opens a new complaint investigation. We could then investigate if the resident remains unhappy after exhausting the landlord’s complaints process.
The evidence we have seen for this investigation shows at 2 of its inspections of the cleaning (January 2023, and July 2023) it scored the cleaning as “poor”. The landlord’s own assessment supports the resident’s claim the cleaning was not being, or was to a poor standard. We acknowledge it made extensive notes about why the cleaning failed to pass the inspection. However, the landlord has not provided evidence of how it held its contactor to account, or followed up.
The landlord accepted its response to the cleaning and maintenance was poor. It also accepted the services were not provided to the resident. It appropriately apologised in its stage 1 complaint response, and refunded the resident for the period its investigation identified he was without services. This was appropriate in the circumstances. However, the resident was inconvenienced by the need to raise a complaint in order for the landlord to address his concerns. It was unreasonable it did not offer him compensation for the inconvenience he experienced.
It was also appropriate to raised a one off deep clean of the building as part of its stage 1 complaint response. However, the landlord has provided no evidence to show this went ahead. This was a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident was inconvenienced by it failing to do something it had agreed to.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was silent on the resident’s concerns about cleaning and maintenance. This was unreasonable. We acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 complaint did not specifically mention the cleaning. However, he continued to express concerns about the lack of services provided. Given his initial complaint was about a failure to provide cleaning services it was unreasonable to not address this concern at stage 2. The resident was inconvenienced by its failure to appropriately address his concerns.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was silent on the resident’s concerns about cleaning and maintenance. This was inappropriate. We acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 complaint focused on his concerns about fire safety checks. However, he also raised general concerns about services provided. Given the content of his stage 1 complaint, the lack of detail in its stage 1 response, it would have been appropriate to address his concerns in its stage 2 response. It was a failing it did not do so. The resident was inconvenienced by its lack of thoroughness in its complaint investigation.
We welcome the fact the landlord sought to address its failure to respond to the issue at stage 2 by making an offer of compensation in July 2024. The fact the offer was made 10 months after its final complaint response impacts on the degree to which it put right the errors in it handling of the matter. In light of the errors identified above, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its quality of cleaning and maintenance services provided.
Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. It is not our role to punish or fine landlords and we do not award set amounts of compensation for each error a landlord makes. Rather, it is our approach to assess what a reasonable amount of compensation would be in total. Considering the amount of compensation the landlord offered, we have not made orders for additional compensation to what was already offered. It must pay the £250 it offered for errors in its handling of this matter now.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its fire safety checks

The landlord’s fire safety policy states it will undertake regular fire safety risk assessments of communal areas. It states it will ensure fire safety installations are regularly tested and well maintained. Testing, servicing and maintenance of fire safety installations, systems and equipment will be carried out by competent and suitably qualified colleagues or contractors in accordance with relevant legislation/guidance.
The evidence provided for this investigation shows the landlord, through a contractor working on its behalf, completed regular fire safety inspections at the property. We acknowledge the resident disputes the landlord’s position on this, and believes the inspections did not take place. He also raised concerns any documentation about inspections the landlord had was “fake”. We have not been provided within any evidence that supports this claim. We have no reason to believe the documents the landlord provided are false.
Falsifying documents may be a criminal offence which would be suited to investigation by the police. If the resident has reason to believe the documents were false he may wish to report the matter to the police. We do not seek to make a determination on the resident’s claim, as that is not within our remit. Instead, this investigation has focused on the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its inspections, and whether its approach was reasonable in the circumstances.
The evidence we have seen shows each inspection was signed off by an appropriately qualified contractor. Each inspection document stated the contractor was “a BAFE SP203-1 ‘Certificated Firm’ in respect of Fire Detection & Fire Alarm Systems”. Based on the evidence available it is reasonable to conclude regular fire safety inspections were being conducted by an appropriate contractor.
When the resident raised his complaint about the frequency of the inspections in June 2023, the landlord asked its contractor for all its records. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it took the resident’s concerns seriously. It investigated thoroughly and satisfied itself the inspections were going ahead.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response lacked detail about its investigation. This was inappropriate and the resident was inconvenienced by response that lacked a thorough assessment of the matter. We acknowledge it sought to reassure the resident it was regularly inspecting the building. However, it failed to give the appropriate level of detail and set out what evidence it had considered to satisfy itself the checks were taking place. The landlord missed an opportunity to show transparency and build trust with the resident.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response also sought to reassure the resident about testing within his property, that it was done as part of the EICR. However, it was a shortcoming in its response it did not share details of the outcome of its most recent test, and when it planned to complete the next. Again, the landlord missed an opportunity to build trust and reassure the resident it took fire safety seriously.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response gave slightly more detail about the frequency of its inspections and the equipment it tested. It was a shortcoming in its response that it failed to offer to share the evidence it had about the inspections. The resident was evidently concerned the inspections were not going ahead. An offer to share the evidence it had considered as part of its investigation may have helped reassure him and build trust. We recommend it does so now.
Considering the errors identified above we have determined there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the matter. Our remedies guidance says up to £100 may be appropriate to put right errors where there was a minor failure by the landlord. This is when there were errors in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and/or fully put them right. We have therefore decided an order for £100 is appropriate to put right the errors we have identified in our investigation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states landlord must send stage 1 complaint within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response 19 working days after he complained. This was outside of the timeframe set out in its policy. The landlord appropriately apologised and offered compensation for the delay. It is worth noting any delay would have caused some level of inconvenience to the resident, overall, the delay was not excessive.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response 27 working days after he made his stage 2 complaint. Again, this was not an excessive delay. However, it failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delay. This was a failing in its complaint handling. The landlord missed an opportunity to show leaning and put things right for the resident.
We have determined there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. Our remedies guidance states that up to £100 may be appropriate to put right errors where an offer of redress does not quite reflect the detriment to the resident. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident a further £75 in compensation to put right the errors in its complaint handling. This is in addition to the £100 it offered at stage 1.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident concerns about the quality of cleaning and maintenance services provided.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident concerns about its fire safety checks.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this decision the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
2. Pay the resident £525 in compensation. Its total offer of £350 should be deducted from this total if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. The £250 it offered in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its response to the resident’s concerns about cleaning and maintenance.
  2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by errors in its response to the resident’s concerns about its fire detection equipment safety checks.
  3. £175 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by errors in its complaint handling. (this amount included the £100 it offered at stage 1).

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord:
1. Opens a complaint investigation into the cleaning and maintenance services it provides the resident. The complaint investigation should cover the 12 months leading up to this decision (in line with the approach set out in our Code).
2. Provides the resident with evidence of the fire safety checks it has completed at the property. This is to build trust and reassure him about the safety of the property.