Stonewater Limited — case 202424351

Decision Case ID 202424351 Decision type Investigation Landlord Stonewater Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Shared Ownership Date 9 February 2026 Background During repairs to the communal lift in the building, the resident raised various concerns regarding the conduct and practices of the contractors, as well as the landlord’s communication. What the complaint is about The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the communal lift installations.

We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling. Our decision (determination) We have found that there was: Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about communal lift installations. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The resident’s concerns about communal lift installations The landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns about the contractors were reasonable and timely.

It acknowledged its poor communication regarding the lift and stairlift, and its failure to provide updates. However, its apology failed to reflect the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Complaint handling Whilst there were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling, it addressed these in its responses and offered redress to put things right in line with our remedies guidance. Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right.

We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance No later than 09 March 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about communal lift installations.

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any of the £25 compensation it has already paid as offered in its complaint responses. No later than 09 March 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations Our finding of reasonable redress is based on the £65 compensation being reoffered.

The landlord should pay this within 28 days of this report or provide evidence if already paid. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 22 June 2023 to 21 February 2024 The resident reported that the communal lift was not working. Following further reports and various repairs, the landlord decided to replace the lift. It wrote to the resident detailing the planned works. 17 April 2024 The resident contacted the landlord questioning why it had installed a stairlift in the building without notifying him.

10 May 2024 The resident raised various concerns regarding works to replace the lift. He said the landlord failed to: communicate its chosen contractors for the new lift monitor the conduct of its contractors, including failures to comply with health and safety regulations, display appropriate signage, leaving the site early, leaving lights on overnight and using the emergency lighting system to power the stairlift 28 May 2024 The resident raised a complaint to the landlord.

He said he was unhappy with its handling of the concerns he had raised, and added it had failed to: provide notice or complete risk assessments for the stairlift installation follow the correct process for choosing a contractor for the lift installation, including giving details of timescales and projected costs 5 July 2024 The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said: due to the lift breaking down, a stairlift was essential for those unable to manage without a lift it did not provide details of the contractor because the planned works for the lift replacement turned into emergency works it acknowledged a mistake in using the emergency lighting system and rectified the issue as soon as it was notified the stairlift met safety requirements and did not block the staircase it completed risk assessments but could not provide copies it had raised all concerns with the contractor and addressed each issue a health and safety site audit did not report any significant concerns it would provide an update on the works and the next steps it apologised and offered £25 compensation for the late response 5 July 2024 The resident escalated his complaint.

He reiterated the points made in his complaint and added that he was unhappy with the late response, which he felt contained errors. He also noted ongoing external lighting issues. 4 September 2024 The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said it: apologised for the late stage 2 response and for not notifying the resident about the stairlift installation was not legally obliged to provide copies of risk assessments confirmed appropriate regulations were adhered to on the work site would normally update residents via a consultation, however, it suspended the consultation and actioned emergency repairs acknowledged it did not give an update on the works or next steps apologised it did not complete lighting repairs within target timescales provided a report addressing his concerns, with weekly updates confirmed the lift replacement was complete and the stairlift removed offered £65 compensation, made up of £40 for the late stage 2 response and £25 for the delay in completing lighting repairs Referral to the Ombudsman The resident told us he felt the landlord’s complaint responses showed a lack of care about the issues raised.

As an outcome, he said he wanted the landlord to be honest, act responsibly and show learning from previous complaints, to ensure the same issues did not reoccur. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint The resident’s concerns about communal lift installations Finding Service failure On 20 February 2024 the landlord decided to replace the communal lift following numerous repairs and a contractor’s recommendation. The next day, it informed the resident that once it confirmed the work required, it would send a Notice of Intention (NOI) in line with its obligation to consult leaseholders of works under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. On 17 April 2024 the resident raised concerns about the installation of a stairlift without prior notification.

He said he felt it was hazardous and blocked the staircase. On 8 May 2024 the landlord provided him with a report to monitor and address his concerns. It said it wrote to him on 2 May 2024 about the stairlift and lift, and again on 18 May 2024. We have not seen copies of the information sent. We are therefore unable to assess if the landlord’s response was reasonable. This is a record keeping failure. The records indicate that works to replace the lift had started by 10 May 2024, although it is unclear exactly when.

The resident reported that the landlord was failing to ensure the contractors were displaying appropriate signage around the worksite. The landlord raised the issue with the contractor on the same day, asking it to ensure appropriate signage was in place which was reasonable. The resident reported further concerns. The landlord responded to most of them on the same day. It acknowledged that its communication about the stairlift could have been better, and said it addressed the use of the emergency lighting systemas soon as it was notified of the issue.

It notified the contractor about other concerns such as keeping the area clean and storage of potentiallyhazardous substances. The landlord’s response was timely and reasonable. The resident reported his concerns to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). As a result, an independent health and safety audit was carried out on the worksite on 10 May 2024. The audit found no hazardous substances stored on site and no major concerns, making recommendations only for minor improvements.

On 10 May 2024 the resident said he was unhappy that the landlord did not communicate the chosen contractor for the lift replacement and said he wanted copies of the risk assessments carried out for the works. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to these concerns at the time, which likely caused the resident distress. Between 15 May and 25 June 2024, the resident raised further concerns. Each time, the landlord responded in a timely manner and contacted the contractor, who provided responses to each issue.

These included apologising for using the emergency lighting system, confirming first aid kits and fire extinguishers were present, safety barriers were in place and that the signage satisfied work site regulations. It also noted that the resident provided no evidence to support many of the allegations. A further site audit took place on 4 June 2024, identifying minor issues that the contractor resolved immediately. In its stage 1 response, the landlord explained its reasons for installing the stairlift.

It reassured the resident that the contractors were following appropriate procedures. It explained it had been unable to continue with the consultation due to the lift repair becoming an emergency repair and would provide an update on the works and the next steps. There is no evidence that it provided any updates. This was a communication failure that likely caused the resident distress. The resident’s escalation raised further concerns about the landlord’s lack of communication and failure to provide copies of risk assessments.

In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged its poor communication and apologised. It said it had previously told the resident it could not provide the risk assessments. It is unclear when the landlord told the resident this, which is a failure in its record keeping. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for its lack of communication and acknowledged its failure to provide updates. Whilst the apology was a step towards putting things right, it was not proportionate to the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

We have therefore made an order to pay compensation to reflect the impact on the resident, in line with our remedies guidance. The landlord also confirmed it had addressed all issues with the contractors. Itacknowledged its delays in repairs to the external lighting and offered compensationin line with its compensation policy for delays in undertaking a repair. The landlord explained its reasons for discontinuing the consultation process for replacing the passenger lift. Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 allows landlords to skip a consultation to make urgent repairs but states the landlord must apply for dispensation if it intends to recover over £250 from leaseholders.

Whilst it is unclear if the landlord applied for a dispensation, there is no evidence to show it intended to recover more than £250 from the resident. In summary, the landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns about the contractors were reasonable. It acknowledged its poor communication regarding the lift and stairlift, and its failure to provide updates. However, its apology failed to reflect the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. We have therefore made an order to pay additional compensation to more appropriately reflect the impact on the resident, in line with our remedies guidance for failures that have no permanent impact.

We have also made an order to apologise to the resident, in line with our dispute resolution principles of be fair and put things right. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Reasonable redress Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. In this case, the relevant code is the 2024 edition. The landlord’s complaint policy aligns with the Code. The resident reported concerns about the contractor’s conduct. The Code defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents.

Whilst the landlord responded promptly, it missed an opportunity to raise a complaint on the resident’s behalf. However, this likely had little impact, as the landlord addressed his concerns. When the resident raised his complaint, the landlord acknowledged it within 5 working days. This was in line with the Code’s response timescales. On 17 June 2024 the landlord said it required an extension in providing its stage 1 complaint response. It said it would issue the response by 1 July 2024.

The Code states that landlords must decide whether an extension is needed, then inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10 working days without good reason, and the reasons must be clearly explained to the resident. The landlord provided the response on 5 July 2024. This was not in line with what it promised, and there is no evidence to show it requested a further extension. This likely caused the resident distress. However, in its response, the landlord apologised for the delay and offered compensation in line with its compensation policy.

On 22 July 2024 the resident chased a response to his escalation request. The landlord acknowledged it the next day, 12 working days after the request. This was outside the Code’s timescales and likely caused the resident inconvenience. On 20 August 2024 the landlord advised the resident it required an extension in providing the stage 2 complaint response. It said it would issue the response by 4 September 2024, which it did. In its response, the landlord apologised for its late acknowledgement and offered compensation for the delay, in line with its compensation policy.

In summary, whilst there were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling, it addressed these in its complaint responses and offered compensation to put things right. Our determination of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the compensation of £65 is reoffered to the resident if this has not already been paid. Learning The landlord missed an opportunity to identify learning points to address in its complaint responses. It would have been in line with our dispute resolution principles of putting things right and learning from outcomes for the landlord to set out areas of learning to the resident within its internal complaint procedure.

Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord has not provided evidence of all correspondence sent to the resident. At times, this has impacted our ability to assess its actions. Communication The communication from the landlord to the resident was poor. Our spotlight report ‘A new lease of life’ highlights the importance of landlords ensuring timely and accurate communication with all residents on complaints about communal areas, stating how it can cause inconvenience and dissatisfaction for many residents.