Stonewater Limited — case 202408732

Decision Case ID 202408732 Decision type Investigation Landlord Stonewater Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 8 June 2026 Background The resident told the landlord there was rat activity in her property in March 2023. On 2 November 2023, she complained about the rat infestation and said the landlord had not considered her mental health. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s: Reports of a pest infestation.

Complaint. Our decision (determination) We have found: Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint. Summary of reasons The landlord’s response to reports of a pest infestation The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of rats. It acknowledged it had failed to communicate with her and had not considered her mental health. It offered compensation to put things right and for garden repairs.

The compensation was sufficient to address the impact on the resident. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint The landlord did not comply with its complaints policy. It acknowledged this failing and offered compensation. The compensation was sufficient to address the impact on the resident. Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the total £1,675 compensation offered in its final response.

Our finding of reasonable redress for the failures in the landlord’s response to the resident’s pest infestation and its complaint handling is made based on this compensation being paid. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 3 November 2023 The resident complained to the landlord and said there was rat activity in her property. She said there was outstanding repairs to replace the kitchen and check for entry points for the rats. The resident said she thought the landlord was not taking in to account her mental health.

15 December 2023 The landlord replied at stage 1. It said it completed proofing works at the resident’s property and had installed a new kitchen. It said it had resolved the pest infestation in the property and although it was not responsible for her garden it would bait the area to stop the rats. The landlord offered £100 compensation broken down as: £50 for its poor communication £50 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident 7 March 2024 The resident escalated her complaint.

She said the landlord had not met its stage 1 commitments and she was unhappy. 2 April 2024 The landlord replied at stage 2 and upheld the resident’s complaint. It said its communication with her could have been better and it apologised for not making reasonable adjustments for her mental health. The landlord offered the resident £1,275 broken down as: £1,000 for the impact on the resident taking in account her mental health difficulties £250 for service failures £25 for failing to respond within complaint handling timescales 25 June 2024 The landlord sent a stage 2 review letter to the resident.

It said it found the offer of compensation at stage 2 to be within its policy. It said it had offered her a further £400 compensation towards her garden expenses. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident said she would like the landlord to do repair works to her garden for her to be able to use it. 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation Finding Reasonable redress In March 2023, the resident reported a pest infestation to the landlord, and it attended to bait the property. It said the infestation had originated from the decking area in the garden. Its pest policy states it will arrange the treatment of rats in its properties, but this does not extend to individual gardens.

The resident’s tenancy agreement says she is responsible for her garden. In April 2023, the landlord inspected the drains at the resident’s property. In June 2023, it removed the timber decking from the resident’s garden. It proofed holes behind the drainpipes on 3 July 2023 and replaced 13 air vents on 7 September 2023. On 6 December 2023, it attended and proofed entry points in the kitchen. In December 2023, the resident said there was no rats in her property. On 15 December 2023, the landlord replied at stage 1 of its process to the resident’s complaint.

It apologised and said its communication with her could have been better. It said proofing works and a new kitchen had been completed at her property. Although it was not responsible for pest control in her garden, it said it would arrange to bait and inspect the area. It offered £100 compensation to try and put things right for the resident. The landlord’s policy says it can compensate for service delays. The resident escalated her complaint and, on 2 April 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response.

It said it was unable to complete further works to the garden as it was her tenant responsibility to maintain. It apologised for its poor communication and not taking her mental health into account. It increased the offer of compensation to £1,250. On 25 June 2024, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 review of the complaint. It offered her a further £400 compensation towards the cost of garden expenses. It said this was a discretionary offer as the terms in the tenancy agreement say the resident is responsible for the garden.

Where the landlord acknowledged failings, our role is to consider whether the redress it offered put things right for the resident. In summary, the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of rats and attended the property over a 9-month period to address the infestation. It recognised failings at both complaint stages and offered a total of £1,650 compensation. This is in line with our compensation guidance for severe maladministration involving a serious failing and a severe long-term impact on the resident.

As such a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate. Complaint The landlord’s complaint handling Finding Reasonable redress The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2022). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code. The landlord delayed acknowledging the resident’s complaint by around 5 working days. It requested an extension to reply at stage 1, and this was delayed by 1 working day.

It did not acknowledge these delays to the resident. The landlord delayed acknowledging the resident’s complaint escalation by around 5 working days. It also delayed its stage 2 reply by around 6 working days. The landlord acknowledged these delays in its stage 2 reply and offered £25 compensation to put things right for her. It sent a stage 2 review to the resident; however, this was not in line with its complaints policy. In summary, the landlord did not comply with its complaints policy, however, at stage 2 it recognised the delays and offered compensation to try and put things right.

This offer was in line with our compensation guidance for failures that caused distress and inconvenience. As such, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling. Learning The landlord should ensure it responds to complaints within its policy times Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord kept repair records for the resident’s property. In May 2023, we published a spotlight report on knowledge and information management. We expect landlords to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs.

Clear, accurate and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and help landlords identify and respond to problems when they arise. Communication The landlord in this case did not communicate with the resident as well as it could have when it was dealing with the pest infestation. There was no evidence to show it kept her updated about its actions. As outlined in our spotlight report on repairs complaints, we expect landlords to complete repairs within a reasonable time.

What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, we expect landlords to be proactive in communicating with residents and identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents. The landlord’s complaint responses were detailed and sympathetic.