Stonewater Limited (202325998)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325998

Stonewater Limited

25 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. handling of allegations of antisocial behaviour (ASB) made against the resident.
   2. complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident held a tenancy with the landlord in a 3-bedroom house. The occupants have physical and mental health vulnerabilities, which the landlord was aware of. The resident moved out of the property in October 2024 and is no longer a tenant of the landlord.
3. In February and March 2023 various complaints of ASB were made against the resident. These included allegations of shouting, swearing and loud music. On 14 March 2023 following a report of loud music in the early hours, the landlord issued a warning letter to the resident. Between March and August 2023, the resident informed the landlord that she felt her neighbour was harassing her and making false allegations. She explained that the situation was affecting her mental health and felt the neighbour was discriminating against her because she was from the traveller community.
4. On 18 August 2023 the resident formally complained to the landlord. She said she had complained about her neighbour victimising her, and it would take the landlord weeks to respond. She repeated that it was affecting the household’s health, and felt the landlord had not offered her any support. She also felt the landlord was not listening to her concerns and was taking the neighbours side.
5. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 1 September 2023. In summary, it said it had issued a warning letter based on the evidence it had received. It told her to report any allegations of harassment or discrimination to the police. It also signposted her to various support services concerning hate-related incidents. It said it had spoken to her about her mental health and had directed her to her doctor for extra support. It also offered to attend any meetings with her family support worker. It apologised for any distress and offered £200 compensation for her time and trouble pursuing this matter.
6. On 7 September 2023 the resident escalated the complaint. She said she did not receive a warning letter. And she felt the landlord had not ‘touched base’ with her to find out how she was feeling and how this matter had affected her family.
7. On 13 October 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. In summary, it said:
   1. There was an allegation of a fight at the resident’s home, and a warning was given.
   2. It felt the resident’s response to this warning was appropriate, and it closed the case, and no further action was taken.
   3. It sent an ASB warning letter on 14 March 2023.
   4. It apologised for the delayed stage 2 response and would offer a further £75 in recognition.
8. The resident asked us to investigate the complaint. She said the situation had left the household feeling traumatised. She also felt discriminated against because her partner is a traveller and felt the household was being ‘picked on’. She also felt the landlord had done nothing in response to her concerns. As an outcome, she wanted the landlord to listen and support its tenants.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. The resident said that the handling of this matter by the landlord led to a deterioration in the household’s health. We cannot conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction, but we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.
10. The resident also said that she felt discriminated against. We cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place. This is better suited to a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns and whether there is evidence that the resident was treated less favourably than others in the same situation. 

The landlord’s handling of allegations of ASB made against the resident

11. The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of this matter. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, we assess whether the landlord acted in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
12. The landlord’s ASB policy says it is committed to tackling ASB responsively and effectively. It says it will maintain a balance of support, prevention and enforcement. It will also ensure that interventions are reasonable, proportionate and evidence based and lists warnings as a tool available to it. It also says it will ensure effective communication with residents. The tenancy agreement states that the resident and people who live with them, including visitors, must not engage in conduct which is capable of causing a nuisance or annoyance to any person in the neighbourhood.
13. Following complaints of ASB, including loud music coming from the resident’s property, the landlord acted fairly by telephoning the resident on 14 March 2023 to discuss these allegations. It was unable to get hold of her and sent a warning letter the same day. This detailed the complaints and explained how these could be considered a breach of her tenancy if the situation did not improve. This was reasonable, and the contents of this letter were fair and based on evidence the landlord had received. Its approach was proportionate and in line with its policy.
14. The same day, the resident requested a call back from the landlord. It responded to this on 21 March 2023. This was within a reasonable timescale. The resident raised various concerns. She felt the neighbour kept watching her and was making malicious allegations. She also felt discriminated against because her partner was a traveller. And explained to the landlord how this situation was affecting her mental well-being. In response, the landlord told her that it had received clear evidence of loud music from the property, and it provided the resident with appropriate advice on how she could reduce the noise. However, it failed to address her concerns about her neighbour. It did not offer any support or advice, despite being aware of the effect of the situation on the household.
15. The resident raised similar concerns between May and July 2023. The landlord missed further opportunities to address these, and the evidence showed some delays in responding to her telephone calls. It did appropriately signpost the resident to the police during this period, however, its responses often demonstrated a lack of understanding about how this situation affected her. Its call notes showed that its approach solely focused on fact-finding. As such, it failed to fully recognise the resident’s concerns or provide adequate support to her. This caused distress, as she felt the landlord was not listening to her.
16. Indeed, it was not until 11 August 2023 following contact from the resident’s support worker, that the landlord fully acknowledged the effect of this situation on the household’s wellbeing. This was despite her reporting these concerns on multiple occasions. This caused further distress to the resident, who felt unsupported by the landlord.
17. In August 2023 the landlord consulted the police about an alleged assault at the resident’s home. They informed the landlord that they were taking no action regarding this incident. However, the landlord, having reviewed video footage of the incident, told the resident it would be issuing ‘both parties’ with warning letters due to unacceptable behaviour from ‘all involved’. Although we have not seen this footage, there was no evidence that the landlord treated the resident less favourably than others. In fact, having issued a warning and spoken with the resident, the landlord closed the case. This was proportionate, and its decision-making appeared balanced. Further, it appropriately considered the resident’s views on the matter.
18. Overall, the landlord’s actions in response to allegations against the resident were reasonable and based on the evidence available to it. In this case, the landlord took proportionate action to investigate reports of ASB against its tenants. In doing so, it acted appropriately by considering the conditions of the resident’s tenancy agreement. However, it should have handled the resident’s concerns with more empathy and provided support earlier. Although there was no evidence that the landlord was ‘picking on her’, we recognise why the resident felt unsupported and not listened to. And we recognise that the landlord’s communication was not as timely and effective as it should have been. This caused time and trouble to the resident, who repeated her concerns throughout the complaint.
19. Nevertheless, the landlord’s stage 1 response appropriately recognised this. It apologised, provided suitable support and advice and offered £200 compensation. This was fair and in line with our remedies guidance, which states that compensation from £100 should be considered where failures have adversely affected a resident. As such, this was satisfactory in putting things right.

Complaint handling

20. The landlord has not provided us with its complaints policy at the time of this complaint. Nevertheless, it told the resident it would respond to her stage 2 complaint by 21 September 2023. However, it failed to do so. This caused time and trouble for the resident who chased the landlord for a response on at least 3 occasions. The landlord issued its stage 2 final response on 13 October 2023, over 1 month after the resident’s 7 September 2023 escalation request. This was an unreasonable delay and contrary to its agreed timescale.
21. However, the landlord acknowledged this, identified learning and offered £75 compensation. The landlord made an offer in line with our remedies guidance, which states compensation of up to £100 should be considered where there have been delays in resolving matters. Overall, the landlord’s offer of compensation proportionately reflected the level of detriment caused by its poor complaint handling.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s handling of allegations of antisocial behaviour (ASB) made against the resident.
23. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendation

24. The landlord should pay the resident £275 compensation as offered in its formal responses if it has not already done so. This Service has found reasonable redress based on this being paid to the resident.