Regenda Limited (202402148)

Decision
Case ID	202402148
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Regenda Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	25 February 2026

Background

1. The resident and her husband have a joint tenancy with the landlord. The complaint relates to their previous home. They lived there from September 2020 until July 2024. During this period, they made numerous reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) to the landlord and police. The resident has vulnerabilities relating to her physical and mental health. These include osteoarthritis, depression, and anxiety. Her husband has autism spectrum disorder (ASD). For readability, this report refers to the resident and her husband as ‘the resident’ throughout.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s reports and concerns about ASB.
   2. Response to her related concerns about a lack of support.
3. We will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports and concerns about ASB.
   2. No maladministration in its response to her related concerns about a lack of support.
   3. Reasonable redress in its complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports and concerns about ASB

5. The landlord identified its key failures and awarded the resident a significant amount of compensation to address these. The evidence suggests its calculation was reasonable.

Related concerns about a lack of support

6. We have not seen evidence to show that the landlord’s staff acted in an unprofessional manner towards the resident. The landlord took reasonable steps to support her during the move.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord recognised its complaint handling had adversely impacted the resident. It awarded her a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord contacts the resident about her vulnerabilities. This is to ensure that its records are up to date. We have seen information that indicates it may not be aware of her physical health conditions.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
23 January 2024	The resident complained to the landlord in a letter. She said she had experienced ASB from neighbours since 2020. She also said that ongoing ASB was having an adverse impact on her health and wellbeing. In summary, the resident’s other key points were: The landlord had not resolved the ASB issues. It had dismissed her concerns as ‘children playing’. The situation had escalated. She was receiving care from an NHS Crisis Team. She wanted the landlord to help her move home.
5 February 2024	The landlord issued a brief stage 1 response. By this point, it was aware that the resident had recently attempted to end her life. The landlord said that, having liaised with the police and local council, it had approved an urgent move for her. It also said it would update her medical information on its systems. The landlord’s other key points were: It would speak to neighbours about goal posts “positioned in the middle of [a] driveway”. The resident could contact a body that supervised local housing allocations (to improve her chances of moving to a preferred area). The resident could tell the landlord about her preferred locations.
Around 20 March 2024	The resident sent an escalation request to the landlord in the post. She said it had not taken any action. She also said that, due to ongoing ASB, she felt “like a prisoner in her own home”. She highlighted her mental health conditions. In summary, the resident’s other key points were: Her situation was urgent. She was too unwell to keep contacting the landlord. It should provide her with an action plan. It should also provide a named point of contact. It should respond to her communications promptly.
3 September 2024	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It addressed its ASB handling and more recent concerns about a lack of financial support. It accepted that it was responsible for various failures. In total, it awarded the resident £1350 in compensation. The landlord’s other key points were It would not treat children playing football as ASB. It had (recently) moved the resident for health/wellbeing reasons. Its urgent move process did not include financial support. It had provided the resident with a decoration allowance. Other bodies may be able to provide her with financial support.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In September 2024 the resident told us that the landlord’s compensation was insufficient for various reasons. For example, she said it had given her conflicting information and belittled her concerns. She also said she could not afford carpets for her new home. During a phone call in February 2026, she broadly reiterated her previous concerns.

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 reports and concerns about ASB
Finding	Reasonable redress

8. Many of the resident’s ASB reports involved children playing football at the front of the property. For example, in January 2024 the resident told the landlord that “[the] nuisance noise of the football” triggered her mental health. We have seen several images of children in the property’s parking space and around a car (presumably the resident’s).
9. Other reports involved alleged damage and parking issues. For example, in March 2024 the resident reported that a neighbour had parked in a way that was obstructing her vehicle. We have also seen images relating to some of the reported parking issues. We have not seen any images that appear to show damage to personal belongings.
10. The resident says that the landlord’s failure to tackle ASB adversely impacted her health and enjoyment of the property. In summary, the landlord has disputed her assertion that it should have taken robust action against neighbours under its ASB policy. From the information seen, the landlord’s position was reasonable and consistent with its policy.
11. The landlord’s ASB policy and information leaflet include examples of issues which the landlord does not consider to be ASB. These include day to day living noise, children playing in the street, parking issues on a public highway, and general parking issues. Overall, it is not clear that the landlord could have reasonably taken enforcement action.
12. The landlord’s ASB policy does say that the landlord aims to encourage neighbourly behaviour and will try to avoid disputes escalating. It also says that the landlord will work in partnership with other agencies. In this case, the landlord’s records and correspondence suggest that it took the following actions during the period in question:
    1. Completed joint visits with the police to various properties in the area.
    2. Completed a survey and established that numerous children lived nearby.
    3. Wrote to neighbours asking them to “keep a close eye on their children” while they were playing in the street.
    4. Asked neighbours to be more considerate when parking their cars.
13. These actions were consistent with the landlord’s policy aims and objectives. They were also reasonable in the circumstances. We have not seen any evidence to show that the landlord missed any clear opportunities to escalate its approach towards the neighbours. Overall, we cannot fairly say that the landlord failed to address ASB in line with its policy.
14. During its complaints process, the landlord identified some procedural failures relating to its ASB case handling. For example, it said it had exceeded a relevant timescale and did not provide a copy of its ASB leaflet to the resident. It was appropriate for the landlord to consider the procedural aspects of its ASB case handling during its investigation.
15. The wording of its final response indicates that the landlord awarded the resident £1050 in ASB related compensation. This is based on £850 for specific failures, + £200 for the “stress and inconvenience” of pursuing her complaint (the landlord awarded £400 for unspecified distress and inconvenience, we split this figure between its ASB and complaint handling). Ultimately, the landlord’s compensation award was significant.
16. Under our remedies guidance, awards over £800 are likely to be proportionate in cases where serious failings by a landlord resulted in a severe long-term impact to a resident. This level of award is often seen in cases where we have found severe maladministration by a landlord. In this case, the landlord’s calculation shows it was suitably mindful of the level of distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced.
17. The landlord’s records suggest there were periods where it did not update the resident about her case. Its internal notes also suggest it was not satisfied with its own case handling at times. For example, in May 2023 the landlord said a relevant officer had not responded to several internal requests for updates. We note that the landlord did not reference these matters in its final response to the resident.
18. However, its final response shows the landlord did consider its level of communication with the resident. Its compensation calculation included £500 relating to its ASB leaflet. Ultimately, the landlord recognised that the resident experienced avoidable distress and inconvenience because it failed to set her expectations around next steps.
19. Given the above, we find that the landlord took reasonable and proportionate steps to address the problems with its communication. There is a lack of evidence to show that it gave the resident conflicting information.
20. Overall, the landlord identified its key failures and awarded the resident a significant amount of compensation to address these. The evidence suggests its calculation was reasonable. Having taken a holistic view, we are satisfied that it did enough to put things right for her. We cannot fairly say that it failed to address ASB in line with its policy.

Complaint	Related concerns about a lack of support
Finding	No maladministration

21. The resident says the landlord failed to support her in a variety of ways. For example, she says it belittled her concerns about the neighbours’ children. She also says that the landlord should have provided financial support when she moved to her current address. Ultimately, the landlord has disputed that it was responsible for any related failures.
22. We have not seen any compelling evidence of problems with the landlord’s tone. For example, we have not seen any records that show its officers made insensitive or inappropriate comments to the resident. Similarly, we did not see any comparable comments about her in the landlord’s internal records or correspondence. Overall, we cannot fairly say its approach was unreasonable.
23. In its final response, the landlord said that it was not obliged to provide financial support. From its policies and procedures, we have not seen any evidence to the contrary. The landlord did say it had supplied the resident with a ‘paint pack’ to help her decorate. It also signposted her to a potential source of funding. These were reasonable steps.
24. During several interactions with us, the resident said she felt that she had experienced discrimination. We recognise that this is a serious allegation. In this case, we have not seen evidence that she raised similar concerns in her complaint to the landlord. As a result, we cannot fairly say that it failed to address a significant complaint issue.
25. We checked the case evidence for any information to support the resident’s concerns around discrimination. There is no indication that she was adversely impacted because the landlord overlooked any protected characteristics or related legal duties. If she wants to pursue the matter, the resident can (in the first instance) raise a formal complaint with the landlord.
26. In summary, there is a lack of evidence to show that the landlord’s staff acted in an unprofessional manner towards the resident. The landlord took reasonable steps to support her during the move. Given the above, it was reasonable for the landlord to dispute the claims that she made during its internal complaints process.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

27. Our complaint handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition (effective April 2022). The landlord’s relevant complaints policy (approved December 2022) refers to the Code.
28. Records show the landlord logged the resident’s initial complaint on 30 January 2024. It then issued a stage 1 response on 5 February 2024. This was 5 working days later. The Code says landlords must respond within 10 working days after logging a complaint at stage 1. In this case, the landlord issued its response in line with its policy and the Code.
29. The resident escalated her complaint around 20 March 2024. There is evidence that she sent her letter through a recorded delivery service. She approached us about 1 month later. Our intervention prompted the landlord to issue a stage 2 response. It should not have been necessary. The evidence points to avoidable inconvenience for the resident.
30. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 3 September 2024. The Code says landlords must respond to complaints within 20 working days of an escalation request at stage 2. Based on the period between 20 March and 3 September 2024, there was an inappropriate delay of about 5 months. It is likely this was distressing for the resident.
31. This is because the resident had asked the landlord for measures to improve the parties’ communication. She had also asked it to provide an action plan for the urgent move. The resident’s requests were understandable. We have not seen any evidence to show that the landlord engaged with these during the above identified delay period.
32. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged there were problems with its complaint handling. It awarded the resident £100 in compensation for a quality issue. Ultimately, it recognised that its brief stage 1 response had not fully addressed her concerns. Having done so, it awarded her a proportionate amount of compensation. This was reasonable.
33. The landlord did not mention the above identified delay or related adverse impact to the resident. However, it did compensate her for stress and inconvenience linked to pursuing her complaint. The evidence indicates that it awarded a total of £300 for complaint handling failures. This was a reasonable figure in the circumstances. It is also consistent with our remedies guidance.
34. In summary, the landlord recognised that its complaint handling had adversely impacted the resident. It then awarded her a proportionate amount of compensation. Its award was consistent with our remedies guidance. Ultimately, the landlord took reasonable steps to put things right.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

35. There were some issues with the landlord’s records. However, there is no indication these hindered its operations in this case. The landlord could remind its staff about the importance of good record keeping.

Communication

36. The landlord did not set the resident’s expectations. Its lack of communication caused avoidable distress and/or inconvenience for the resident. It could provide related feedback to its staff about the importance of managing residents’ expectations.