Incommunities Limited (202507491)

Decision
Case ID	202507491
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Incommunities Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	11 March 2026

Background

The resident lives in a 1-bedroom bungalow owned by the landlord. His complaint is about the landlord’s response to staff conduct. The landlord did not uphold the complaint. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint to us.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to staff conduct.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to staff conduct.
We have found no maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord investigated the staff conduct issues appropriately and proportionately.
The landlord complied with the overall complaint handling principles.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
November 2024	The resident submitted a complaint on 4 November 2024 about staff conduct relating to its handling of allegations of antisocial behaviour made against him. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 25 November 2024, explaining that in May and July 2022 the resident had admitted to shouting at a neighbour, which led to a formal tenancy warning. It concluded that the housing officer had acted appropriately. The resident remained unhappy and, on 27 November 2024, escalated his complaint regarding an incident involving an interaction with the housing officer.
January 2025 to February 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 February 2025. It explained that it had spoken with the housing officer, who described the incident as follows: she had stopped at a food hub and, on seeing the resident, attempted to say hello. The resident responded that he did not wish to speak with her because he felt she had previously accused him of looking into people’s cars. The housing officer said she clarified that she had not made such an accusation and asked whether he wished to discuss the matter, but he declined. The landlord attempted again to address any, misunderstanding and the resident again declined. The housing officer apologised for any distress caused and reassured the resident that her intention was to resolve the issue and rebuild a positive working relationship.
Referral to the Ombudsman August 2025	The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to us. He said that staff had “lied to him and blamed him for being antisocial.”

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	Staff conduct
Finding	No maladministration

In early November 2024, the resident made a complaint about a housing officer’s conduct, alleging the officer had said he was involved in antisocial behaviour (ASB). The landlord issued a stage 1 response later that month, explaining that a tenancy warning had been given to the resident for an incident he had admitted to. It stated that it was satisfied the housing officer had acted appropriately.
In late November 2024, the resident had another interaction with the same housing officer, which led him to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The landlord issued its stage 2 response in early February 2025. It explained that it had spoken with the housing officer and provided her account of the interaction. The landlord said the officer had assured it that she was trying to resolve the situation and improve relations. She also apologised for any distress caused to the resident.
Overall, we consider the landlord’s response to be reasonable in the circumstances. We have therefore found no maladministration with the landlord’s response to staff conduct.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

The resident raised a complaint on 4 November 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 11 November 2024 and responded at stage 1 on 25 November 2024.
The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states complaints must be acknowledged, defined, and logged at stage 1 of the complaints procedure within 5 working days of the complaint being received. Landlords must issue a full response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being received.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days; however, it delayed slightly in its response by 5 working days which was inappropriate. However, we have seen no evidence that this slight delay had an adverse effect on the resident or its overall complaint handling.
The resident escalated his complaint on 27 November 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 December 2024. It sent an extension letter on 3 January 2025 and responded on 4 February 2025.
The Code states requests for stage 2 must be acknowledged, defined, and logged at stage 2 of the complaints procedure within 5 working days of the escalation request being received. Landlords must issue a final response to the stage 2 within 20 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. The stage 2 response was sent 2 months later and outside of the Code’s timeframe. However, the landlord kept connected with the resident and sent an extension letter and therefore we are satisfied it complied with the overall complaint handling principles. For these reasons, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

The landlord’s overall investigation and complaint handling was positive. When the landlord cannot meet complaint targets, it should ensure effective monitoring and communications with the resident in alignment with the Code.