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

Stonewater Limited (202318353)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318353

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:
    1. The resident’s concerns about the provision and standard of the grounds maintenance service.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner of the landlord.
  2. In July, September and November 2022, the resident raised dissatisfaction with infrequency of the grounds maintenance. In November 2022, the landlord’s contractor then attended. After this, the landlord said it was satisfied with standard of maintenance seen in photos.
  3. On 13 May 2023, the resident complained. She raised dissatisfaction with a lack of maintenance since November. She sought a refund for the service charges she had paid. She noted the landlord had sent her a schedule saying maintenance would be fortnightly. She queried when this would begin.
  4. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 31 May 2023. It apologised for missed attendances and said it had asked its contractor to provide a report. It said it had hired a new contractor in April and asked them to confirm past and future attendance. It said it would update the resident on 9 June 2023.
  5. In July 2023, the contractor attended and cut the grass. However, the resident escalated her complaint. She was unhappy that the landlord had not updated her as it promised. She was unhappy the contractor had only attended once and had not kept to the fortnightly schedule. She was unhappy she had not been refunded for when the maintenance had not been done.
  6. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 14 September 2023. It acknowledged that the resident had not received the ground maintenance service she had paid for or expected. It said that its service charge team would issue a refund for periods from November 2022 to March 2023 and April to June 2023. It apologised for service and communication issues and the distress and inconvenience caused. It explained that there had been resourcing issues and it detailed steps it was taking to try to improve future service. It awarded £200 for poor complaint handling and inconvenience.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord in October and November 2023 and January 2024 to report the grass had not been cut since June 2023. In December 2023, the landlord processed a service charge refund for June 2023 to November 2023. The landlord arranged an inspection with its contractor and the resident in late March 2024, after which she chased the outcome to this in late April 2024. The resident confirms she started to regularly receive the ground maintenance service in May 2024. The same month the landlord processed a service charge refund for November 2022 to May 2023.
  8. The landlord sent further correspondence to the resident in May 2024. It said it had reviewed the case after contact from us. It acknowledged that the resident went to more time and trouble chasing it for updates than she should have. It awarded a further £250.
  9. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She says that she experienced issues with the ground maintenance service from 2020 and feels that she should be provided a refund from then. She also raises dissatisfaction that she has not been refunded for the period between July 2023 and May 2024 when ground maintenance such as the grass was not done.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident complains that she experienced issues with the grounds maintenance since 2020 and feels she should be refunded from then.
  2. We normally expect complaints to be made within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the issues complained about. This is in line with our Scheme which sets out how we investigate complaints. This means our investigation focus on events from May 2022, 12 months before the resident complained in May 2023.
  3. We also do not have the authority or expertise to decide on matters such as service charges. The First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber – Residential Property) has the jurisdiction to consider complaints about the level of the service charge. The Tribunal can determine the appropriate level and amount of service charges recoverable by a landlord; decide if the charges were reasonably incurred; by whom they are payable; and when.
  4. We can assess whether the landlord followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably to the concerns the resident raised in the timeframe of his complaint – which this investigation goes on to do.

The resident’s concerns about the provision and standard of the grounds maintenance service

  1. The resident raised concerns about the infrequency of the grounds maintenance service between July and November 2022, after which the contractor attended and the landlord said it was satisfied with the service. The resident then complained in May 2023 about a lack of grounds maintenance since November 2022 and the 6 months of service charges she had paid in the meantime.
  2. The landlord’s May 2023 stage 1 response confirmed it was taking appropriate action to investigate the issue. However, the landlord did not address the service charges the resident had paid, and it failed to keep its commitment to follow up with her about the issue. This meant the resident had to go to time and trouble to chase the issue, which is not satisfactory.
  3. The landlord’s September 2023 stage 2 response was positive to acknowledge issues with the service, confirm it would provide a refund from November 2022 to June 2023 and award £200. However, aspects of its response was not satisfactory.
  4. The landlord confirmed it would provide a refund from November 2022 until June 2023. The landlord’s refund of the grounds maintenance from November 2022 met the resident’s desired outcome, but it would have been helpful for it to address this aspect up until September 2023, given this was when it responded. The landlord did later refund up until November 2023 but its communication could have been clearer.
  5. The landlord committed to improve the grounds maintenance, but it is not evident it took effective steps to until March 2024, when it arranged to visit the resident. This followed further chasing by her in October 2023 and January 2024. The resident confirms the grounds maintenance subsequently improved from May 2024. This meant it took a further 8 months after the landlord’s stage 2 response for it to take meaningful action to resolve the situation.
  6. The landlord later reviewed the case, acknowledged that the resident went to further time and trouble, and awarded a further £250. This was positive, but it should have acted to effectively resolve matters in the timeframe of the complaint, which it is not evident it did. This leads the Ombudsman to find a service failure in the landlord’s response about the provision and standard of the grounds maintenance.
  7. The £450 that the landlord awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and seems reasonable compensation for the service issues evident. However, we do order the landlord to consider if any further refund is applicable from November 2023 to May 2024. This is the period from when the resident was refunded to when she confirms the grounds maintenance service resumed in front of her property.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s stage 1 response was provided in a reasonable timeframe. However, after the resident raised dissatisfaction with the response on 20 June 2023, the landlord’s stage 2 response was delayed by almost 2 months. This is not satisfactory, and therefore the landlord was appropriate to acknowledge issues and award compensation. The landlord was also positive to later review the case, acknowledge that the resident went to further time and trouble, and award a further £250.
  2. The £450 that the landlord awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and seems reasonable for the complaint handling issues evident. This leads the Ombudsman to find reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the provision and standard of the grounds maintenance service.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered, within 4 weeks, to:
    1. pay the resident £450 compensation it offered, if this has not already been paid.
    2. Review the grounds maintenance service provision between November 2023 and May 2024, consider if any further refund to the resident is applicable, and set out its position to the resident on this.
  2. The landlord is recommended to review the grounds maintenance service provision between May 2022 and November 2022, consider if any further refund to the resident is applicable, and set out its position to the resident on this.
  3. The landlord is recommended to write to the resident and confirm the areas in front of her home which receive the ground maintenance service.
  4. The landlord is recommended to review its complaint handling to ensure its responses are accompanied by effective action.