Connexus Homes Limited (202400834)

Decision
Case ID	202400834
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Connexus Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	15 April 2026

Background

The resident’s flat is within an independent living scheme. His complaint was about the timings of community meetings, staff conduct, and information he requested about planned works.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Concerns about the timing of tenant meetings.
2. Concerns about staff conduct and provision of information.
3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns about the timing of tenant meetings.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns about staff conduct and the provision of information.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

There is no evidence to show that the landlord deliberately excluded the resident from community meetings. It acted reasonably by asking for information so that it could try to accommodate him in future.
The landlord acted reasonably by apologising that it did not provide a clear timescale for providing information following the meeting but nonetheless provided this within a reasonable time.
The landlord responded to the complaint in line with policy timescales but did not address all aspects of the resident’s complaint at the time.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It should have due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 13 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £25 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to address all aspects of his complaint. The landlord must provide documentary evidence that it has made this payment to the resident by the due date.	No later than 13 May 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Apology order

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It should have due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than

13 May 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £25 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to address all aspects of his complaint.

The landlord must provide documentary evidence that it has made this payment to the resident by the due date.

No later than

13 May 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
7 February 2024	The resident contacted the landlord saying that a staff member arranged meetings at times he could not attend due to work. He also raised concerns that it invited some residents to a Christmas meal while others were not. He said a staff member told him they would email him following a meeting the previous day but did not. He believed that it excluded him deliberately.
13 to 23 February 2024	The landlord delivered a question-and-answer leaflet providing more information about the work to residents on 13 February 2024. Between 15 and 23 February 2024, the resident sent several emails maintaining his position. He felt the landlord’s staff purposefully victimised and excluded him from meetings and events. He was also unhappy that the other staff member had not emailed him as promised.
28 February 2024	The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold his complaint. It apologised if he felt marginalised or excluded and said this was not its intention. It said it provided feedback to those who could not attend, and alternated meetings between morning and afternoon. During the meeting on 6 February, the staff member did not want to delay the start of the meeting and said they would provide information. It delivered this to all tenants on 13 February 2024. It said he could share his shift pattern, and it could try to accommodate him.
28 February 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. He maintained that the staff member had said they would send an email “later” during the meeting. He also challenged the landlord’s position that it scheduled community meetings for mornings and afternoons. He added that the meeting had not yet started on 6 February 2024, so the staff member could have provided the information.
26 March 2024	The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response. It found that the most recent meeting on 27 February 2024 took place at 10am, and that quarterly meetings alternated between morning and afternoon. It would continue this approach. It explained that its assets team arranged the meeting on 6 February 2024 based on staff and contractor availability and apologised that this was not convenient for the resident. It confirmed it would try to accommodate him in future if he shared his schedule. It reviewed reports concerning the meeting on 6 February 2024 and found that the meeting had begun when the resident entered. It confirmed that it shared information with all residents after the meeting but could have been clearer about the timescales.
Events following the complaint	The resident pursued his concerns. He also said he was unhappy that the landlord had not responded to his concern about staff excluding him from a Christmas meal. The landlord apologised that this did not form part of its complaint responses. On 25 April 2024, it explained that he previously requested that it not invite him to events due to his work commitments. It recognised that his circumstances may have changed and apologised if there was any misinterpretation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us to investigate because he was unhappy with the quality of the landlord’s investigation. As a resolution, he wanted the landlord to recognise that it did not investigate properly, and for it to change a staff member’s position.

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	Concerns about the timing of tenant meetings
Finding	No maladministration

The resident raised a concern about being victimised and discriminated against because he was not of retirement age. We cannot determine if discrimination has occurred as this is a legal matter best suited to be decided by the courts.
The landlord does not have a policy setting out the timing of community meetings. In the absence of a policy, it would be reasonable for meetings to be arranged in a way that is accessible to as many residents as possible, with information shared with those unable to attend.
The landlord acted reasonably in its response by apologising if the resident felt excluded and explained that this was not its intention. It acted reasonably by asking the resident to provide his schedule so that it could try to accommodate him in the future. This was a resolution-focused approach.
The landlord set out that it arranged meetings in October 2023 and February 2024 for 2pm and 10am respectively. It was satisfied that it alternated the timing of the meetings and said it would continue to do so moving forward. The landlord specified that it would not look back more than 6 months prior to the complaint, which was in line with its complaints process at the time. However, its records show that it scheduled 3 quarterly meetings prior to October 2023 for 1pm. It may have been helpful for the landlord to acknowledge that it had not previously alternated meeting times. However, this would not have changed the outcome of the complaint.
The landlord’s assets planned the meeting on 6 February 2024. The individual staff member informed residents of the meeting. However, there is no evidence to show that they purposefully arranged the meeting to exclude the resident.
We have found there was no maladministration by the landlord. There is no evidence to show that the landlord or its staff deliberately excluded the resident from the community meetings. It acted fairly in its response by confirming that it intended to alternate the timing of meetings and would look to accommodate him in future.

Complaint	Concerns about staff conduct and provision of information
Finding	No maladministration

The resident wants the landlord to move a staff member to a different role. We do not consider internal staffing or disciplinary matters but can assess whether the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and respond to his concerns.
Where a resident raises concerns about staff conduct, the landlord would generally be expected to take reasonable steps to investigate what happened and respond fairly. The resident said that when he attended a meeting on 6 February 2024, a staff member told him they would email him information “later.” The landlord and resident’s records differ about what was said and whether the meeting had started. We rely on documentary evidence, and it is not possible to establish what happened with certainty.
The landlord acted reasonably by seeking statements from the staff members the resident identified as witnesses. This was a proportionate response to investigate his concerns. There is no evidence to show that the landlord failed to investigate, or disregarded relevant information.
The landlord recognised that saying it would share information “after the meeting” could be interpreted as meaning immediately. It acted appropriately by acknowledging that it could have provided a clearer timescale to avoid confusion, and apologising.
The landlord provided residents with a question and answer leaflet on 13 February 2024. This was one week after the meeting and around 2 weeks before the work began. There is no evidence of a policy setting a specific timeframe for providing post-meeting information, but this was within a generally reasonable timeframe.
The resident raised concerns that there was enough time for a staff member to provide him with information quickly as the meeting had not started. The landlord and resident’s records differ as to whether the meeting had started so we are unable to comment on this. The later question and answer leaflet shows it intended to complete work to different properties in stages. It is unclear whether dates for specific properties were readily available on the day.
For these reasons, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct and the provision of information.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition. The landlord’s complaints policy complied with the Code at the time.
The landlord took 9 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 between 15 and 28 February 2024. It took 19 working days to respond to the complaint at stage 2 between 28 February 2024 and 26 March 2024. At both stages, it responded within the expected timeframes set out in the Code.
The resident said he did not receive the landlord’s stage 2 response. However, we have seen evidence to show the landlord sent this via email on 26 March 2024. Once the landlord became aware he had not received its response on 28 March 2024 it resent this on 2 April 2024, a short time later.
In line with the Code, the landlord should address each aspect of a resident’s complaint. It did not comment on his concerns about excluding him from a Christmas meal at stage 1. While he did not include this specifically in his escalation request, the landlord missed an opportunity to review its stage 1 response to determine if it had addressed all points. It responded to this aspect in April 2024, a short time later. However, its failure to address this meant that he needed to spend time and trouble pursuing his concerns following the complaint.
We have found service failure by the landlord in its handling of the complaint due to its failure to fully address the resident’s concerns at the time of the complaint. We have ordered it to pay him £25 compensation. This figure is in line with our compensation guidance for complaint handling service failures.

Learning

The landlord did not address all aspects of the resident’s complaint and would benefit from learning from this moving forward.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We found no problems with the landlord’s record keeping.

Communication

The landlord acted reasonably by recognising that it could have provided a clearer timescale for when it would provide information. Its communication with the resident was otherwise reasonable.