Together Housing Association Limited (202336435)

Decision
Case ID	202336435
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Together Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	11 February 2026

Background

The resident complained to the landlord about the conduct of contractors who were working near his home.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of contractors.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of contractors.
2. No maladministration in respect of its complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of contractors

The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s complaint, and it was appropriate for it to rely on the evidence gathered during its investigation when reaching its decision.

Complaint handling

Although there was a minor delay in the landlord issuing its complaint response, there is no evidence that this had an impact on the resident.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 October 2023	The resident complained about the conduct of contractors who visited his home. He said one staff member told him he could plant rhubarb in a fenced‑off area, but another later told him he should not have done so. He also said a contractor accused him of being aggressive, which he disputed.
7 November 2023	In its complaint response, the landlord said it understood the resident’s frustration with the works, noting that his pet was buried in the affected area. It said the contractors had been sensitive to this and had cordoned off the area once they became aware. The landlord also said the contractors reported that the resident had sworn at them and been abusive, and it advised him that this behaviour was not acceptable. It confirmed the contractors had accepted responsibility for damaging the resident’s CCTV camera during the works and would repair it. The landlord advised the resident to raise any future concerns through his liaison officer and reminded him of the expected standards of conduct towards staff.
19 December 2023	The resident escalated his complaint as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and disputed the allegations made about his behaviour.
11 January 2024	In its complaint response, the landlord explained that it could not withdraw the contractor’s claims about the resident’s behaviour. It said a replacement CCTV camera was being arranged and that the site team would contact the resident directly. It also repeated the advice it had previously given about how future communication with contractors should be managed.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought his complaint to us as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. He said the landlord should have contacted him and third‑party witnesses during its investigation. He wanted the landlord to retract the allegations made by the contractors about his behaviour.

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	Response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of contractors
Finding	No maladministration

The resident’s complaints of October and December 2023 centred on the conduct of contractors working near his property since September 2023. He said the contractors had accused him of being aggressive and that he was being portrayed as dishonest. He also believed his CCTV camera had been damaged by contractors when scaffolding was erected. He wanted the landlord to retract the allegations made about his behaviour towards the contractors and other staff members.
In response to the complaints, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s frustration about the works taking place near his property. It said the contractor had accepted responsibility for repairing the damaged CCTV camera and that the site team would contact the resident to arrange this. The landlord also referred to the contractor’s account of the resident’s behaviour and advised him that this was unacceptable. In its final response of January 2024, the landlord said it could not withdraw the contractor’s allegations. It advised the resident to raise any further concerns about the contractors with his liaison officer, who would act as a mediator, and confirmed that the CCTV camera replacement was being arranged.
The evidence shows the landlord took reasonable steps which aligned with its complaints policy to investigate the resident’s concerns. It gathered accounts from contractors and staff that described their interactions with the resident from 14 September 2023, when the works began near the property. These accounts consistently described how the resident had spoken to them. It was reasonable for the landlord to address this in its complaint responses and to offer advice on how communication between all parties could be managed in future. This approach aligned with the landlord’s policy on managing unacceptable behaviour and communication from customers.
The landlord said it attempted to contact the resident during the investigation to clarify his complaint and to arrange the replacement of the CCTV camera. It said the resident ended a telephone call with the complaint handler and did not respond to the messages it later sent.
Although the resident disputed the accounts provided and said the landlord should have contacted other potential witnesses, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the evidence it gathered during its investigation. The accounts consistently described the interactions that several staff members and contractors had with the resident while the works were taking place. There is no evidence that the resident provided the landlord with information or material at the time that might have supported his version of events, despite the landlord attempting to discuss the complaint with him.
The landlord evidenced that it investigated the resident’s concerns in line with its relevant policies. It was entitled to conclude that the account provided by the contractors was accurate. It proposed steps to improve communication between all parties to prevent further disputes and arranged for the contractor to replace the damaged CCTV camera, which the resident has confirmed is now resolved.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It says a resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgement unless an extension is required. The landlord’s policy complies with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord acknowledged both complaints within 2 working days of receiving them. It issued its stage 1 response 2 days outside its policy timescale but provided its stage 2 response within the required timeframe.
Although the landlord should have acknowledged that its stage 1 response was issued later than required, the delay was minor and there is no evidence that it had a clear impact on the resident.
The landlord’s records show that the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the contractors in September 2023. In his original complaint, he also said the landlord attended his property in pairs when discussing matters with him. The landlord did not address this point in its complaint responses.
The landlord could have treated the earlier reports as formal complaints and addressed them in line with the Code. It could also have provided clearer responses to the specific concerns the resident raised. Learning has been suggested below in relation to this.

Learning

Communication and record keeping

The landlord’s overall communication with the resident was reasonable. It made attempts to clarify the complaint and suggested ways to improve communication between the resident and the contractors going forward.
The landlord’s records do not show when the resident first raised concerns about the damage to his CCTV camera during the complaint process. The landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management report for further guidance on the importance of maintaining accurate and complete records.