From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Magenta Living (202426472)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202426472

Magenta Living

18 August 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. Response to the resident’s concerns about a panel review which it arranged to investigate his previous complaints.
    2. Handling of his subsequent complaint.

Background

  1. The resident and his wife are joint tenants. They have an assured tenancy with the landlord. It began in October 2021.The property is a 3-bedroom, semi-detached house. The resident has a disability and related mobility issues.
  2. In August 2023, the landlord offered to arrange an independent review of the resident’s previous complaints. The resident agreed to this suggestion. It shared the review’s findings with him in October 2023. The resident complained soon afterwards. He was unhappy with the review process and findings. The landlord logged a corresponding complaint for the resident in November 2023.
  3. Subsequently, the landlord asked the resident if it could pause its complaints process. This was so it could explore an alternative solution. Soon afterwards, it offered to pay him £1,300 as a goodwill gesture. It wanted the resident to agree to close 2 of his complaints with the landlord. The resident declined the goodwill payment. He chased the landlord for its complaint response soon afterwards.
  4. In December 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It defended the review process. It did not identify any failures. When the resident confirmed he was still unhappy, the landlord escalated his complaint. It issued a stage 2 response in January 2024. It acknowledged a procedural issue with the review. It awarded the resident £50 in compensation and partly upheld his complaint.
  5. Subsequently, the landlord told the resident it had withdrawn its previous offer of a goodwill payment. Later, we contacted the resident in August 2025. He told us the landlord had moved his family to another 1 of its properties. He felt its goodwill offer was based the cost of a replacement bed. He reiterated his concerns about the review process and the landlord’s related goodwill offer.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has brought several complaints to the Ombudsman. We have investigated some of these and issued decisions. Other complaints are awaiting investigation. His current complaint (the subject of this report) relates to a previous case (our reference 202312183). That case reflected events between April 2022 and April 2023. We issued a final decision in April 2025. Our findings are summarised in the next section below. In line with our remit, any matters that we have previously determined are out of scope for this investigation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a panel review

  1. On 28 April 2023 the landlord issued the resident a final response letter. In summary, it addressed a complaint that he had previously raised about damp and mould in the property, damage to his personal belongings, and asbestos. In its stage 2 response, the landlord awarded him £100 in compensation for related distress and inconvenience. It also awarded £200 for damaged items. The resident brought his relevant complaint to the Ombudsman in June 2023.
  2. On 24 August 2023 the landlord’s Chief Executive emailed the resident. They said they had recently heard about his case. They acknowledged that he was unhappy. They suggested that the landlord could complete “an independent review of the issues [he] had raised”. They said the review would be conducted by a small group of its tenants. In addition, the group would provide feedback about the landlord’s handling and any lessons that it could draw from the case. There is no indication the landlord was aware of the Ombudsman’s involvement at this point. Subsequent events show the resident agreed to its suggestion.
  3. The landlord’s relevant complaints policy was effective from August 2020. It says the landlord has “a simple two stage [complaints] process”. It confirms that stage 2 comprises a review by 1 of the landlord’s senior managers. If a resident is still unhappy at the end of stage 2, the landlord should signpost them to the Ombudsman. The evidence shows that, by suggesting a further review, the landlord departed from the approach in its policy. This is concerning.
  4. The applicable version of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) was effective from April 2022. Section 5.18 says that complaints should only go to a third stage if a resident has actively requested this. In this case, it was the landlord that suggested a further review by a panel of other residents. The above shows its approach was contrary to the Code. Subsequent events show the review caused problems for both parties in the dispute.
  5. The Ombudsman has seen a copy of the review’s findings. The corresponding report is titled “customer panel complaint investigation”. It shows the panel had reinvestigated each of the resident’s complaints since his tenancy began. It also shows the panel had considered events up to 22 August 2023. The review largely addressed the same points as the landlord’s previous stage 2 response. However, the panel identified some additional handling problems. It felt that a small goodwill payment would put things right for the resident. In summary, the report also shows that:
    1. The review was conducted by 1 person (rather than a group of people).
    2. This individual was a chairperson on 1 of the landlord’s committees.
    3. They had shared their findings with the landlord on 27 September 2023.
    4. They felt that the resident and some of the landlord’s contractors had made “mistakes” during the period which they had investigated.
  6. The report highlights several problems with the review process. Significantly, the review was not conducted by a group of the landlord’s residents. As a result, it was not consistent with the landlord’s suggestion in August 2023. Subsequent events show the resident recognised this disparity and other issues with the review. They also show that he was distressed by these. Since the landlord was not obliged to arrange the review, it could have avoided this.
  7. From late September 2023 onwards, the resident began to raise concerns about the review process. This was before he had received the review’s findings. The landlord shared a copy of the report with him on 10 October 2023. This was around 2 weeks after it had received a copy from the reviewer. The resident replied on the following day. He said that the report was an “insult to his intelligence”. He disputed various aspects of the findings and requested additional compensation from the landlord. He said that the review had ignored evidence and attempted to blame him for certain issues. He raised several concerns around procedural fairness. For example, the resident said:
    1. The landlord’s review was not independent as stated.
    2. The person who had carried out the review often worked for the landlord and featured in its marketing materials.
    3. The landlord had received the review’s findings before he had.
  8. The resident raised similar concerns subsequently. On 16 October 2023 the landlord acknowledged that he intended to pursue matters through the Ombudsman. On 20 October 2023, it told him that the independent review represented “the final stage of [its] internal complaints process”. As mentioned, the review was not consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord had told him that it would be independent. Given his concerns about impartiality, the landlord’s comment may have added to the resident’s distress.
  9. The parties had further interactions the following month. On 2 November 2023 the resident said the review process was unfair and lacked transparency. He asked several questions about the review’s remit. He also asked if the landlord had raised a formal complaint about it. The landlord replied several days later. It said that it wanted to “propose a new offer to resolve both of [his] complaints”.  Subsequently, it asked the resident if it could pause its complaints process for a period. He agreed to this suggestion. The evidence indicates that, by this point, the landlord may have been aware of the Ombudsman’s involvement.
  10. On 24 November 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said it had considered his “feedback” about the review. It also said that it wanted to “bring matters to a close” and it had taken a “holistic approach”. It offered to pay the resident £1,300 as a goodwill gesture “in full and final settlement” of his complaints. It gave him 7 days to accept this offer. It is noted that this was a short timeframe. The resident rejected the landlord’s goodwill offer on 29 November 2023. He said it had attempted to pressure him into accepting the payment on a number of occasions. He felt it wanted to restrict his ability to complain through the Ombudsman. Some of his comments were understandable.
  11. The landlord’s relevant compensation policy was effective from August 2020. It says the landlord can pay a discretionary amount of compensation to address service failures which are shown to have caused an adverse impact to a resident. It also says that, if it has failed to meet its normal standard of service, the landlord can consider making a discretionary payment as a “goodwill gesture”. This suggests it requires less evidence to offer a goodwill gesture. The policy does not include any guidance about proportionate award levels. It is also noted that the policy does not include any timescales relating to payments. In other words, it does not say how long an award/offer should remain valid.
  12. At this stage, the landlord had paused its complaints process and offered the resident a significant goodwill payment. This is evidence of informal complaint handling. In general, informal complaint handling can be perceived as contrary to procedural fairness. In this case, the resident was suspicious of the landlord’s approach. If he felt that he was being pressured, it is likely this was distressing for him. Ultimately, the evidence shows that the landlord’s informal approach caused further damage to the landlord and tenant relationship.
  13. On 7 December 2023 the resident chased the landlord for its complaint response. Records show this prompted it to open a new complaint for him. The resident emailed the landlord around 1 week later. He noted that it had issued him a new complaint reference number. He also raised similar concerns about the review. He said that it had lacked thoroughness, focused on the wrong issues, and blamed him without including any supporting evidence. He felt the landlord had handled it badly and was trying to “cover up its mistakes”. Again, some of the resident’s comments were understandable in the circumstances.
  14. In a subsequent reply, the landlord told the resident that its response would not cover the contents of his recent email. It said that he had sent the email late in its complaints process and it had already completed its investigation. This is concerning. We have considered this issue in the next section of our report.
  15. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 19 December 2023. It addressed the points the resident had raised in his previous email from 2 November 2023. In summary, the landlord defended the review process and the reviewer’s impartiality. It said it had attempted “a new and novel approach” to address the resident’s complaint after its existing complaints process had been exhausted. In addition, it said it had wanted to assure him that it had considered his concerns to the “greatest possible extent”. The landlord’s other key points were:
    1. The resident had received an amended copy of the review’s findings.
    2. Before it was issued, the report had been formatted to ensure it was consistent with the landlord’s communication style (presumably by the landlord).
    3. It recognised the review process did not reflect the resident’s expectations.
    4. Panel reviews would not form part of its complaints process in the future.
  16. The landlord did not acknowledge that it had set the resident’s expectations about the review. If it had, it may have recognised that its actions had caused avoidable distress and inconvenience for him. The landlord’s approach at this point was unreasonable. It is noted that there was a significant disparity between the landlord’s decision (not upheld) and its previous offer of a significant goodwill payment. This may have caused confusion for the resident.
  17. On 20 December 2023 the resident told the landlord that he was still unhappy. He felt it should have considered the contents of his last email. The landlord escalated his complaint on the same date. Subsequently, the resident gave it a lengthy list of questions that he wanted it to address at stage 2. In summary, the list reflected his previous concerns about the review. It is likely that creating a long list was both time consuming and inconvenient for the resident.
  18. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 25 January 2024. It included answers to each of the resident’s questions. The landlord accepted the review had not been conducted in line with its initial suggestion. However, it said it believed that there was no evidence to suggest the process was unfair. In contrast, it awarded the resident £50 in compensation. This was on the basis that he had not been invited to give his version of events (presumably during the review period). The landlord did not identify any additional failures or mention the goodwill payment it had previously offered. It partly upheld the complaint.
  19. There were similar problems with the landlord’s response. Ultimately, the landlord did not recognise the full extent of its failures or the resulting distress and inconvenience to the resident. Its compensation award was not sufficient to put things right for him. Its approach at this point was unreasonable. Some of his concerns about the review were warranted. As a result, the landlord’s stance can be perceived as dismissive. It may have added to the resident’s distress.
  20. Following the landlord’s response, there were further interactions between the parties. On 31 January 2024 the resident asked the landlord to confirm whether it had withdrawn its previous offer of a £1,300 goodwill payment. He said that it would be unfair to withdraw the offer, and he would complain about this. This suggests that he found the landlord’s approach confusing. On 1 February 2024, the landlord confirmed it had withdrawn the offer. It said the Ombudsman would consider the matter. For clarity, there is no indication that the landlord was obliged to make this offer. Similarly, there is no indication that it breached any policies or procedures by withdrawing it. However, the resident’s comments about fairness show that the landlord’s approach added to his overall distress.
  21. In April 2025 we issued a final decision on the resident’s previous case with the Ombudsman (our reference 202312183). In summary, we found that the landlord’s response to that complaint was fair. Specifically, our findings were ‘no maladministration’ and ‘reasonable redress’. Our investigation did not include any events which occurred after April 2023. In contrast, the panel review considered events until August 2023. It is noted there is a dispute between the parties about some of the review’s findings relating to the interim period (around asbestos for example). The panel review was not part of the landlord’s complaints process or an appropriate replacement for this.
  22. The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call in August 2025. He said the landlord had moved his family in June 2024 through its internal transfer process. He also said there were problems with his new home. He was concerned about the goodwill offer. He referred to this as “bribery”. He felt that the landlord may have based its offer on the cost of a new bed. He said it had disposed of his previous bed which was adjusted for his disability. He said that he was sleeping on a sofa because he still lacked a bed. It is noted that insurance matters were mentioned during the Ombudsman’s decision in April 2025.
  23. In summary, the landlord may have been motivated by good intentions when it offered a further review. However, it departed from its complaints process and its approach was contrary to the Code. After setting the resident’s expectations, it arranged a review which did not match these. Its actions prompted a dispute which involved protracted correspondence between the parties. This caused avoidable distress and inconvenience for the resident. On several occasions, the landlord’s actions undermined the parties’ relations. It did not recognise the full extent of its failures or do enough to address the resulting adverse impact to the resident. In the circumstances, we find there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.
  24. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of additional compensation to put things right. Our calculation reflects the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s compensation policy, and the Ombudsman’s own guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s complaint handling 

  1. From 11 October 2023 onwards, the resident expressed clear dissatisfaction with the panel review. The landlord’s relevant complaints policy was effective from October 2023. It defines complaints as, “An expression of dissatisfaction, however made” about the landlord or parties acting on its behalf. The resident’s email on the above date was consistent with this definition. If it was unsure how to proceed, the landlord could have asked him if he wanted to raise a formal complaint at this point. This would have been a proactive and reasonable measure. The landlord did not do this. Its approach was therefore inadequate.
  2. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 19 December 2023. This was 49 working days after the resident’s email on 11 October 2023. The landlord’s complaints policy confirms it should log and acknowledge complaints within 15 working days at stage 1. Based on the period between 1 November and 19 December 2023, the evidence points to a delay which lasted up to 7 weeks. It is noted that the parties agreed to a pause and the landlord kept the resident updated during the interim period. However, its update assured him that it would respond “no later than 6 December 2023”. The landlord did not adhere to this deadline and the resident chased it on the following day. It is reasonable to conclude that chasing the landlord was avoidable and inconvenient for him.
  3. The resident highlighted the delay to the landlord before it issued its stage 1 response. On 13 December 2023, he said that he felt it had issued him a new complaint reference number “to disguise” a delay. His email included some additional complaint points. The landlord replied 4 working days later. It said it would “not be practical” to cover his recent email in its response. This was on the basis it had already finished its complaint investigation. In addition, the landlord also said that it “would not be responding” to any of his additional points. In making these comments, it displayed a concerning attitude. Arguably, its approach can be seen as dismissive. It is noted the landlord made these comments on the same day that it issued its stage 1 response.
  4. The applicable version of the Code includes relevant information about stage 1 complaint handling. Section 5.6 says, “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint”. Section 5.7 confirms that additional complaint points which are raised during an investigation should be incorporated into a stage 1 response if they are relevant and the response has not been issued. If including the additional points would cause an unreasonable delay, the landlord should log a new complaint to address these. In this case, the landlord did not include the resident’s additional points or log a new complaint. This was contrary to the Code. The evidence shows the resident was adversely impacted.
  5. This is because the landlord was unlikely to resolve the resident’s complaint satisfactorily by issuing an incomplete and potentially inaccurate response. It could have informed him about a further delay, apologised, and assured him that it would investigate his concerns thoroughly. It could also have assured him that it would award proportionate compensation to address the delay. Ultimately, the landlord showed an inappropriate lack of customer focus. Its approach prompted further correspondence from the resident and may have been distressing for him. It is reasonable to conclude this was avoidable.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint on 20 December 2023. He referenced the landlord’s decision not to address the contents of his previous email. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 25 January 2024. This was around 23 working days later. Its complaints policy says the landlord should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at stage 2. It should then issue a response within 20 working days afterwards. It is noted that the landlord apologised to the resident on 3 January 2024. This was because its stage 2 acknowledgement was delayed. It is also noted that it kept the resident updated subsequently. The landlord’s apology was sufficient to address the short delay at this point.
  7. There were problems with the landlord’s stage 2 response. For example, the landlord did not acknowledge that a significant delay had occurred at stage 1. As a result, it did not attempt to redress the resident for this. This was inadequate. To avoid similar issues going forwards, the landlord should routinely consider its own complaint handling at each complaint stage. This includes considering the resident’s full complaint journey at stage 2. This approach will allow it to address any procedural delays or failures accordingly.
  8. In its response, the landlord addressed its approach to the resident’s additional concerns on 19 December 2023. However, it said a “degree of interpretation” was required “when considering and applying the Code”. It apologised for a perceived failure on the resident’s part. For example, it said, “I apologise … that you do not consider the Code has been appropriately followed to your satisfaction”. In contrast, the relevant sections of the Code are clear. Arguably, the landlord’s apology came across as insincere and its tone can be perceived as condescending. Its approach was unreasonable and may have added to the resident’s distress.
  9. The stage 2 response was signed by the person who had emailed the resident on 19 December 2023. This suggests that they were involved in creating a response that included concerns about their conduct. Section 5.12 of the Code says “the person considering the complaint at stage 2 must not be the same person that considered the complaint at stage 1”. In this case, the evidence suggests that the person in question at least contributed to both responses. This is not consistent with the Code or procedural fairness. The landlord’s approach was unreasonable. It may have caused some distress for the resident.
  10. In summary, the evidence shows the landlord was responsible for significant failures throughout the resident’s complaint journey. It was also unable to use its complaints process as an effective tool to resolve his complaint. The landlord should be capable of resolving complaints fairly through its own internal complaints procedure. At times, it departed from its complaints policy and various provisions in the Code. It also showed an inappropriate lack of customer focus. Although its complaint handling caused avoidable distress and inconvenience for the resident, the landlord did not acknowledge the full extent of its failures or make a reasonable attempt to put things right for him. Overall, we find there was maladministration in respect of its complaint handling.
  11. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right for him. Again, our calculation reflects the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s compensation policy, and the Ombudsman’s own guidance on remedies.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s concerns about a panel review which it arranged to investigate his previous complaints.
    2. Handling of his subsequent complaint.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for a relevant member of its executive team to apologise to the resident in writing. The apology must reflect the key failures that are highlighted in this report. It must also reflect the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance, which is available on our website. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman a copy of its apology within 4 weeks.
  2. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £850 in compensation within 4 weeks. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It comprises:
    1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to his concerns about the panel review. If it has already paid this amount to the resident, the landlord should deduct the £50 which it awarded the resident at stage 2 (in January 2024).
    2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience he was caused by the landlord’s handling of his related complaint.
  3. If the resident requests this and it has not done so already, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to log a new complaint. This will respond to any issues that occurred after 28 April 2023 (the end point for our previous investigation). This is because the panel review’s report referred to subsequent events and the resident disputed the findings. The landlord can refer to the panel review’s report in any new complaint investigation. However, it must not rely solely on this. The landlord must evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
  4. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for a relevant member of its executive team to review this report’s key findings within 6 weeks. They should check to ensure that the key failures could not recur under the landlord’s current approach to complaints (it has updated some of its policies since the resident complained and the Ombudsman has introduced a new statutory Code). This is to ensure that the landlord embeds any critical learning that has not been addressed by previous updates to its policies and procedures. Any identified improvements should be shared with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. The landlord must share a summary of its findings with the Ombudsman within the 6 weeks.