Regenda Limited (202422719)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422719

Regenda Limited

29 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Reports of window repairs.
3. Formal complaints.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has occupied the property, a 3-bedroom house, since 2009. The resident resides at the property with her adult son. She has vulnerabilities that are known to the landlord.
Between September 2023 and August 2024, the resident was subject to 3 separate incidents of ASB. Correspondence between the landlord and the police indicate that she was the victim of a mistaken identity, and her home was falsely targeted by unknown perpetrators. The reported incidents included vandalism of the windows in the property and damage to the resident’s car.

First complaint

The resident contacted the landlord on 2 September 2024 to make a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 September 2024. It said:
1. In response to the resident’s most recent reports of ASB, it had offered her temporary and permanent decants to alternative properties. It acknowledged that she had declined the offers because she felt the properties were not suitable for her needs.
2. During a call with the resident on 2 September 2024, she had confirmed that she no longer wanted to move properties. However, she asked it to install a “plastic cover” to the window, to prevent any potential damage in the future. As such, it said it would arrange an appointment to establish if her request was feasible.
On 8 October 2024, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said this was because she:
1. Wanted the landlord to also investigate its handling of her initial reports of ASB in 2023.
2. Was unhappy with the landlord’s “unsuitable” offer of a property.
3. Felt that the landlord had failed to acknowledge or listen to her concerns.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 October 2024. It provided the resident with a timeline of events between September 2023 and September 2024. It determined that it could not find any service failures in its handling of her reports of ASB. However, it confirmed that as a “goodwill gesture”, it had ordered her a smart alarm system and video doorbell.

Second complaint

During a telephone call with the landlord on 11 September 2024, the resident raised an additional formal complaint. She said she was unhappy that following the ASB incidents, the landlord had not repaired the damaged living room window. She further stated that she had been living in darkness for months (because the window had been boarded up), which was affecting her mental health.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 September 2024. It provided the resident with a summary of events between 7 August 2024 and 16 September 2024. It apologised to her for the delays in resolving the window repair and as such, offered her £200 compensation. It said £100 of its offer was for the lack of communication, and £100 was in recognition of the distress and inconvenience it had caused her.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 27 September 2024. She said this was because the window repair was still outstanding and she was unhappy with the landlord’s offer of compensation. During a call with the landlord on 1 October 2024, the resident also said that the window had been boarded up since June 2024 (not August 2024, as the landlord had stated in its stage 1 response).
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 October 2024. It provided a timeline of events dated from June 2024 and said:
1. It apologised to the resident for the service she had received in relation to the window repair.
2. The window had been boarded up since 7 August 2024, after the third ASB incident.
3. It had learnt “numerous lessons” from the complaint investigation and, as a result, aimed to implement several improvements within its repair service.
4. It had arranged an appointment to complete the window repair on 28 October 2024.
5. It was sorry for opening an additional (third) complaint, also in relation to the window repairs. It accepted that the issue should have been addressed within the same complaint response.
6. It offered the resident £2,600 compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £2,350 for its handling of the window repair. It said this was in recognition of raising the repair incorrectly, poor communication, and the distress and inconvenience caused.
  2. £250 for its complaint handling.
The window repair was completed on 5 March 2025.
In July 2025, the landlord informed us that since August 2024, the resident had not reported any further incidents of ASB. As such, it had closed the ASB case on 8 May 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident informed us that she raised a further complaint in March 2025. This was regarding the landlord’s handling of her request for it to pay for the security equipment (offered at stage 1) subscription costs. In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, any new issues that the resident has raised will not be considered as part of this investigation. However, she may refer the complaint to this Service for separate investigation if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.
The resident has described how she feels the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues has negatively impacted on her mental health. While this Service does not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns, it is outside our remit to determine the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints concerning matters where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. This matter is best suited for investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

Handling of ASB

The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported by the resident happened. Instead, this Service’s role is to establish if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation, if it responded to the resident’s reports in line with its legal and policy obligations, and if its response was fair in all the circumstances.

First ASB incident (September 2023)

On 13 September 2023, the landlord opened an ASB case on its internal systems. The evidence suggests that it did so in response to a social media post, published by the police. The post was in relation to an arson attack on a car, which was located within the vicinity of the resident’s address. On 14 September 2023, the landlord received intelligence reports from other residents in the area, and it subsequently liaised with the police in relation to the matter. The evidence suggests that the victim of the arson attack was affiliated with the resident’s next-door neighbour.
On 18 September 2023, the resident contacted the landlord. She said that following the arson attack, she was fearful that her property would be mistakenly damaged (due to the neighbour’s affiliation). The landlord’s ASB policy stipulates that when it receives a report of ASB, it will respond to the resident within 2 working days. In this instance, the landlord visited the resident the same day to discuss her concerns. This was appropriate and showed that it was taking her concerns seriously.
During the visit, the resident told the landlord that her living room window had been “put through” 2 weeks ago. She said that following the arson incident, she was worried that it was not a random attack on her property, but a case of mistaken identity for the neighbour’s property. She also said that she had concerns about leaving her car directly outside of her home in case it also got “torched”. She confirmed that the local fire service had attended that day to install 2 smoke detectors and a letterbox guard. In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord appropriately:
1. Reassured her that it was liaising with the police about the arson incident, and her address had not been highlighted as a property at risk.
2. Said that it could not share any further information about the arson incident but confirmed that there was an ongoing police investigation and the police had increased patrols in the area.
3. Asked her if she had CCTV. The resident confirmed that she had CCTV installed at the front of the property.
4. Advised her to park her car away from her property if she was worried about it getting damaged.
5. Confirmed it would liaise with the police about her home and would also check that an appointment was scheduled to repair the window.
6. Added the resident as a “complainant” onto the open ASB case on its internal system.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that when investigating a report of ASB it will “produce a clear action plan with agreed actions, timescales, and desired outcomes”. We have seen no documentary evidence to show that the landlord completed an action plan with the resident in this instance (like it did in case 202339792). This was inappropriate and at odds with its ASB policy. In mitigation, we are satisfied that the landlord’s failure to complete an action plan did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident. This is because the landlord’s internal record keeping was detailed and comprehensive and showed that it had offered the resident the relevant support.
The landlord contacted the police 3 working days later (on 21 September 2023) and asked it to confirm if the resident’s property was at risk. We acknowledge that the resident had informed the landlord that she had already reported the window incident to the police. However, we find that it would have been appropriate for the landlord to highlight the incident to the police, to ensure that it had all the facts about the case. Additionally, although not considered an excessive delay, it is our opinion that the landlord appeared to lack urgency in contacting the police about the resident’s concerns.
The police responded to the landlord the same day. It said that it was undertaking reassurance patrols in the area, that the local risk was “reducing”, and that there was no apparent risk on the resident’s street. It further stated that the local fire service’s reassurance measures were precautionary and not in response to any intelligence. The landlord provided the resident with an update on this (and the window repair) on 21 September 2023 via telephone. This was timely and appropriate.
The evidence suggests that during the telephone call (on 21 September 2023), the resident asked the landlord to provide information about the ongoing police investigation. The landlord appropriately advised the resident that it was unable to disclose information about the criminal investigation and signposted her to the police.
Between 25 September 2023 and 19 October 2023, the landlord regularly liaised with the police regarding the incident. The police confirmed on numerous occasions that the local risk was reducing. This was appropriate action from the landlord and showed that it was taking a multi-agency approach in its handling of the matter.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will inform a victim of ASB when it is closing their case. The landlord closed the resident’s ASB case on 8 November 2023. Its closure notes stated that no further ASB had been reported since the incident on 13 September 2023 and “no closure letters were issued, as the case was opened on intelligence from police”. While we accept that the case affected multiple residents, we find that it would have been appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident of its intentions to close the case.

Second ASB incident (June 2024)

On 24 June 2024, the resident informed the landlord that a “paint bomb” had been thrown against the living room window of her property. She said that she suspected that she had been targeted by mistake again. She told the landlord that she had mental health conditions, was worried about her safety, and wanted an urgent move.
Following the telephone call, the landlord appropriately raised an internal safeguarding referral. This was in accordance with its safeguarding policy. It was also appropriate and in line with the landlord’s ASB policy that it visited the resident at her home on the same day. During the visit, the landlord took appropriate action to support the resident. This included:
1. Assisting her with an application for emergency accommodation via the local council. It explained that it would be the council’s decision to provide her with emergency accommodation.
2. Setting up an account for her on the local choice-based lettings website. It informed her that it would assist her in obtaining supporting evidence from the police to get a higher priority banding.
3. Informing her that it could not install bars on her windows (as per her request), as they were fire escape routes. It confirmed that she still had the fire safety measures in place from September 2023.
4. Recommending that she speak with her GP about her mental health. The resident confirmed that she had an appointment booked for that day.
5. Advising her to phone 999 if she was ever concerned about her imminent safety.
While the above was all positive action from the landlord, as referenced earlier, we find that it would have been appropriate and in line with its ASB policy for the landlord to complete an action plan with the resident. This would have helped to set realistic expectations regarding what actions would be completed, by whom, and when. It is also good practice to provide written confirmation of decisions made and/or advice given.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will work with other agencies where appropriate and adopt a multi-agency approach. It was therefore appropriate that following the meeting with the resident on 24 June 2023, the landlord contacted the local police the same day. It provided the police with the background of the case (including the incident in September 2023) and asked the police to confirm if it believed the resident and her property were at risk.
Between 25 June and 26 June 2023, the police informed the landlord that it had no evidence to indicate that the resident was an intended target, but believed it was a case of mistaken identity. The police said that it therefore had some concerns about her safety, and it had provided her with a video doorbell but would not install a panic alarm as there had been “only 2 incidents” in the previous 12 months. It confirmed that it had exhausted all lines of enquiry and would be closing the criminal investigation.
The resident was offered emergency accommodation from the local council on 25 June 2024. However, the evidence suggests that she turned down the offer.
Using the supporting information from the police, the landlord awarded the resident a “Band B” (second highest priority banding) on her choice-based lettings housing application. On 25 June 2024, the landlord informed the resident that she could start to apply for suitable properties. We consider this timely action from the landlord.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will keep in regular contact with victims of ASB. We find that the landlord therefore acted reasonably when it contacted the resident on 5 occasions between 26 June 2024 and 16 July 2024. During its contact with the resident, the landlord appropriately:
1. Asked her if there had been any further ASB incidents.
2. Discussed her concerns about the neighbour and set her expectations that it “could not persuade them to leave”.
3. Discussed her housing application and property requirements. It also explained the bidding process for applying to move properties.
4. Set up a mutual exchange housing application for her, to increase the chances of prompt move.
5. Discussed her mental health concerns and signposted her to her GP.
On 17 July 2024, the resident informed the landlord that her car tyre had been “slashed” 2 days previously. The landlord encouraged the resident to report this to the police. As this was a criminal matter, this was reasonable advice from the landlord. Although not obligated to do so, given the context of the case and the fact the landlord was still in contact with the police, we find that it would have been reasonable for it to seek permission from the resident to contact the police about the incident on her behalf.
On 19 July 2024, the landlord asked the resident again if she would like a referral to the emergency housing department at the local council. This showed that the landlord was taking the resident’s concerns about her safety seriously. It is noted that the resident turned down this offer.
During a later telephone conversation (about a repair) with the landlord on 19 July 2024, the resident said that she had attempted to take her own life. In line with its safeguarding policy, the landlord raised a safeguarding referral, appropriately confirmed that she was at no immediate risk of harm and provided her with the relevant details of other support agencies.
The landlord’s internal records show that it attempted to call the resident on 22 July 2024, but it was unable to leave a voicemail. Its attempt demonstrated that it was trying to keep in regular contact, in line with its policy.
On 6 August 2024, the resident informed the landlord that she was experiencing parking issues with neighbours in her street. The landlord responded appropriately the same day by hand-delivering reminder letters to 9 properties in the local vicinity about the issues reported by the resident.

Third ASB incident (August 2024)

On 7 August 2024, the resident informed the landlord that a further ASB incident had taken place at approximately 1am that morning. This resulted in the living room window being smashed and her car being damaged. Upon receipt of the reports, a senior member of the landlord’s housing team contacted the resident promptly the same morning, which was appropriate.
The resident told the landlord that she wanted to move properties. The landlord advised her that it would aim to offer her a management move as soon as a suitable property became available. The resident agreed to a temporary decant in the meantime. The same day (7 August 2024), the landlord arranged for the resident and her son to move into local short-term rental accommodation for 2 weeks, which would also allow her to take her pets. Given the risk and concerns from the resident, this was prompt and appropriate action from the landlord. However, text messages between the parties show that the resident contacted the landlord to turn down the offer. She said this was because she was worried that her pets would not settle, and her son would not agree to move. The landlord explained that if she did not accept its offer of emergency accommodation it would not be able to offer her anything further until a suitable and permanent property was available. While we appreciate the resident’s concerns about moving, we find this was a reasonable response from the landlord.
Between 7 August 2024 and 27 August 2024, we find that the landlord consistently aimed to support and find a resolution for the resident. This is because it:
1. Liaised with the local police about the recent incident.
2. Sought the appropriate evidence to award the resident a priority “Band A” on her housing application.
3. Spoke with the resident about her requirements for a direct let. She confirmed (on 7 August 2024) that she required a 2-bedroom house. On 13 August 2024, she stated that she would need a 3-bedroom house for when her son returned home from university. The landlord informed the resident that she would need to add her son to her application form, and she confirmed that she would do so that day.
4. Contacted 6 other housing associations (which also had housing stock in the local area) to ask if they had any available properties for a direct let.
Between 27 August 2024 and 30 August 2024, the landlord was in regular communication with the resident and informed her that it was able to offer her a management move to a 2-bedroom bungalow. The parties arranged a viewing for 2 September 2024, with the aim of moving into the property within 1 week. The resident informed the landlord on the day of the viewing that she did not want to view the property and subsequently refused the offer. Later internal correspondence (on 11 September 2024) stated that the resident had refused the property because it was too small. As mentioned earlier, the landlord had previously informed the resident that she would need to add her son to her housing application if she required a 3-bedroom house. As we have seen no documentary evidence that shows the resident updated her application, we cannot find that the landlord acted unreasonably in this instance.
On 2 September 2024, the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB. While we find that the landlord attempted to provide transparent complaint responses, it missed the failings identified within this report and as such did not offer the resident an apology. It would have also been appropriate for the landlord to explain how it had responded to the resident’s reports of ASB in line with its legal and policy obligations.
Between 9 October 2024 and 16 October 2024, the landlord and resident spoke on numerous occasions about a new build property she had been offered from another local housing association. The resident said that she had concerns about the bedroom sizes and the landlord encouraged her to view the property before she made any decisions. This showed that the landlord was aiming to support the resident.
The landlord contacted the resident on 10 December 2024 to get an update on the move, and the resident confirmed that she had accepted the property and was awaiting a move-in date. However, on 13 December 2024 the resident confirmed that she had since turned down the property, as it was too small.
We find the landlord’s rationale for closing the ASB case on 8 May 2025 reasonable. This is because it had offered the resident relevant support, and she had not reported any further ASB incidents since August 2024. However, we have seen no evidence that it informed the resident it was closing her case. This was inappropriate and at odds with its ASB policy.

Summary and conclusions

Overall, we have made a finding of service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. This is because:
1. Its communication with the police on 21 September 2023 lacked urgency and excluded relevant information.
2. While we find that its overall approach in supporting the resident was appropriate, we have seen no evidence that it completed any action plans with her. This was inconsistent with its ASB policy.
3. While we accept that its reasoning for closing the ASB cases (on 8 November 2023 and 8 May 2025) was acceptable, it failed to inform the resident of its intentions. This was at odds with its ASB policy.
4. It did not appropriately acknowledge or apologise to the resident in its final complaint response for the failings identified in this report. However, there is no evidence that these failures adversely affected the resident.
As such, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident compensation. This is reflective of the failings identified in this report and has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

Handling of window repairs

The landlord’s repairs policy states:
1. Its response time is 4 hours for emergency repairs (which present a risk to the health of the resident or integrity of the property), and 60 working days for non-emergency repairs.
2. If a repair “requires extensive further works and/or a replacement of components such as doors and windows”, it may take a further 60 working days or longer to complete routine repairs.
3. It may make exceptions to its general approach if a resident is vulnerable or disabled.
4. Its tenants are responsible for repairs where damage has been caused by vandalism or intentionally. It also considers the repair of a damaged pane of glass to be the responsibility of the tenant, except where a crime reference number can be provided to substantiate the fault of a third party.
Following the resident’s report of ASB (on 24 June 2024), the landlord raised a repair to remove the paint from the windows and scheduled an appointment for its specialist contractor to attend on 1 July 2024. This was within 5 working days and therefore in line with the timescales outlined in the landlord’s repairs policy. However, within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it said that given the context of the reports, it should have raised the repair on an “urgent priority code”. As the landlord’s repairs policy does not reference an urgent repair category, it is not clear to this Service what the landlord meant in this instance. However, it is reasonable to conclude that it was acknowledging that it should have taken the resident’s personal circumstances into account and aimed to attend to remove the paint sooner.
The landlord’s specialist cleaning contractor attended the property on 1 July 2024. However, the evidence suggests that it was unable to remove the paint. The landlord’s repairs policy states that where it is unable to get a repair “right first time”, it will ensure it updates the customer of any follow up appointments. It was therefore inappropriate that the resident had to contact the landlord on 12 July 2024 for an update on the repair.
The specialist cleaning contractor reattended the property on 19 July 2024. It confirmed that the paint could not be removed without causing significant damage to the window unit. However, this had already been established during the previous appointment on 1 July 2024. This record keeping failure resulted in avoidable duplication of work and inconvenience to the resident.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it stated that it raised a repair to replace the glass and frame on 27 July 2024. However, the evidence provided shows that it raised the repair on 24 July 2024. Although this error is likely to have had minimal impact on the resident, the landlord should ensure accurate records are maintained.
While not referenced within the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord told the resident that any follow-on repairs should be raised within 48 hours. Given that the resident had informed the landlord that the damaged window was affecting her mental health, we find the landlord’s lack of urgency (3 working days) to raise the required works (after the appointment on 19 July 2024) unreasonable. The repair records show that an appointment was then scheduled for 10 September 2023.
On 1 August 2024, the resident contacted the landlord for an update on the repair. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to her, which was inappropriate, and the importance of effective communication is highlighted.
Following the further incident of ASB on 7 August 2024 (when the same window was “smashed”), the landlord raised an emergency repair and attended to board up the window within 4 hours. This was appropriate and in accordance with its repair timescales.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it said that on 19 August 2024 it raised a follow-on repair to replace the glass and scheduled an appointment for 23 September 2024 (which was later brought forward to 16 September 2024). We have seen no evidence of the repair being raised, which is a record keeping failure. We also find the landlord’s 8-working-day delay to raise the repair unreasonable.
Furthermore, it is our opinion that landlord should have recognised at this point that it had raised a duplicate repair for the window (as it had already raised a repair to replace the glass and frame following the incident in June 2024). Had the landlord recognised this error earlier, it may have prevented some of the issues that subsequently occurred.
On 19 August 2024, the resident requested the landlord to install “some form of protection” for the windows. We note that during this period, the landlord was in the process of offering the resident an alternative property. However, we find it inappropriate that it did not respond to her request about the windows.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it said that it attended the property on 10 September 2024 to measure up for the glass replacement. It said that it then reattended the following day (11 September 2024) to fit the glass, but 1 of the panes had been broken by the manufacturer. As before, the landlord has not provided repair records to corroborate its claims, which is a further record keeping failure. However, it is likely that this was a true representation of the events that had occurred as the resident mentioned this within her later correspondence. It is acknowledged that the broken glass was beyond the landlord’s control, but this does not diminish the inconvenience caused to the resident.
On 11 September 2024, the evidence suggests that the landlord identified that it had 2 repairs open on its system for the window and subsequently merged the records together. However, it apparently carried forward the work to replace the glass, but not the work to replace the frame. This was unreasonable and as such, on 16 September 2024, the repair contractor attended the property to replace the glass only.
The landlord offered the resident £200 at stage 1 (18 September 2024) for its handling of her reports of window repairs. We find that this offer was low and not proportionate to the failures it had identified. The content of the stage 1 response will be assessed within the complaint handling section of the report.
Between 19 September 2024 and 2 October 2024, the landlord’s internal records show that it was unclear as to why the window frame had not been replaced. On 3 October 2024, it subsequently raised a new repair to replace the frame. Had the landlord kept comprehensive repair records, this would have prevented further unnecessary delays for the resident.
The repair contractor attended the property on 8 October 2024 to measure the window frame. Given that the landlord had known about the required frame replacement since 1 July 2024, and had since attended the property on several occasions, it is our opinion that it should have had the measurements documented already. This is a further record keeping and/or coordination failure.
The landlord scheduled the window frame replacement for 28 October 2024. This was 90 working days from the date the resident first reported the repair. This was within the extended timescales permitted in the landlord’s repairs policy (120 working days). However, we find this timescale excessive in comparison with sector standards. Additionally, given that the resident had informed the landlord that the outstanding repair was impacting her mental health, we find its overall handling and communication about the repair to have been poor.
The window repair was completed 5 March 2025. This was approximately 4 months after the date the landlord had agreed with the resident (28 October 2024). However, based on the available evidence, we are satisfied that between October 2024 and March 2025, the landlord made appropriate attempts (in line with its policy obligations) to complete the repair.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response (18 October 2024), it accepted that its handling of the window repairs was inadequate and acknowledged the multiple failings that had occurred. Overall, we find that its response was transparent and showed that it aimed to make meaningful service improvements within its repairs service, which was appropriate.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, our role is to consider whether the redress offered has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account the circumstances of the case, and whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of “be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes”. The landlord’s discretionary compensation policy states that it uses the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for setting levels of compensation. Its calculation matrix states that it will make awards over £1,000 for cases where there has been a severe physical or emotional impact on the resident. The landlord made an increased compensation offer to the resident of £2,350. This was calculated as follows:
1. £100 for initially raising the repair to remove the paint on the incorrect priority.
2. £100 for the lack of communication from its specialist cleaning contractor following the appointment on 1 July 2024.
3. £100 for the delay in raising the repair to replace the window frame.
4. £250 for poor record keeping following the delay in raising the further works after the emergency appointment.
5. £250 for poor record keeping in relation to the repair appointment on 10 September 2024.
6. £100 for the delay in fitting the glass panel due to the manufacturer breaking the glass.
7. £250 for incorrectly cancelling the repair to replace the frame and only completing the glass replacement.
8. £250 for the miscommunication regarding the replacement window frame resulting in just the glass being fitted and a delay in the frame.
9. £100 for incorrectly advising the resident that no repairs were required to the frame following the glass being fitted.
10. £100 for needing to reattend to measure the window frame.
11. £750 for the stress and inconvenience caused.
Taking the full circumstances of the case into account, we find that the landlord’s offer of £2,350 was sufficient to resolve this complaint satisfactorily. A finding of reasonable redress has therefore been made.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states that landlords should acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. They should then respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the escalation request. The Code become statutory in April 2024.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. It acknowledges complaints within 2 working days and provides response at stage 1 within 5 working days and stage 2 within 15 working days. It may extend each stage by 5 working days with the agreement of the complainant.
The resident did not specify to this Service which formal complaint she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of. As such, the decision has been made to assess both complaints.

First complaint (ASB)

The resident made a complaint to the landlord via telephone on 2 September 2024. The landlord contacted the resident the same day to acknowledge and discuss her complaint. This was in accordance with its complaints policy and showed that it was taking her complaint seriously.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 September 2024. This within 5 working days, and therefore in line with the timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy.
Within the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 (on 8 October 2024), she said that she had also asked the landlord to investigate its handling of her reports of ASB from September 2023. While we do not dispute the resident’s comments, the landlord’s internal records (from the telephone calls with the resident on 2 September 2024) do not reference that she had asked it to investigate its handling of the first ASB incident. We are therefore unable make an assessment on this matter. Nevertheless, it is good practice for landlords to confirm the complaint definition in writing. Had the landlord done so, it could have set the resident’s expectations about the period it was investigating.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged and escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 the same day (8 October 2024).
The Code stipulates that records of all correspondence with the resident regarding the complaint must be kept. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it said it had discussed the resident’s outstanding concerns about the ASB complaint with her on 14 October 2024. We have seen no documentary evidence of this, which is a record keeping failure. In mitigation, there is no evidence that this had a detrimental impact on the resident, and therefore does not warrant an adverse finding.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 October 2024. This was a response time of 7 working days, which was also in accordance with the landlord’s complaint handling timescales.
While there were some failings in how the landlord investigated the resident’s reports of ASB, we will not be making any further assessment on this as it was addressed earlier in the report.

Second complaint (window repairs)

The Code defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord”. The landlord’s complaints policy also adopts this definition and confirms that the landlord follows the Code in its approach to complaints.
The resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the window repairs on 11 September 2024. The resident also contacted our Service about the issues she was experiencing. Subsequently, we contacted the landlord on the same day and asked it to open a formal complaint about the window repairs. The evidence shows that prior to this, the resident had already expressed her dissatisfaction about the landlord’s handling of the window repairs (on 2 September 2024) and, as an outcome to her first complaint (about ASB), asked it to complete the repairs. Therefore, it is our opinion that the landlord should have opened a complaint sooner about its handling of the window repairs.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 September 2024. This was within 5 working days of the acknowledgement and therefore compliant with the timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 response, it reviewed its handling of the window repair after the third ASB incident (on 7 August 2024). This was unreasonable, as the resident first reported the repair on 24 June 2024. As explained earlier in the report, it is good practice for landlords to provide a written acknowledgement to residents to confirm the scope of the complaint investigation.
During a telephone conversation with the landlord on 27 September 2024, the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord called the resident within 2 working days (on 1 October 2024) to acknowledge and discuss her complaint. This was appropriate and in accordance with the landlord’s complaint handling timescales.
On 9 October 2024, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her complaint. The evidence suggests that there was some uncertainty between both parties about what formal complaints had been opened. Following the telephone call, the landlord sent the resident an email to summarise the conversation and confirm that she had 3 complaints open. This was a positive course of action from the landlord.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 October 2024. This was 13 working days from the date of acknowledgement, and therefore in line with its complaint handling timescales.
Within the stage 2 response, the landlord provided the resident with a comprehensive timeline and assessment of events between June 2024 and October 2024. It offered the resident an apology and explained that it was in the process of implementing several service improvements. This was a positive action from the landlord and showed that it was attempting to learn from its complaints.
The landlord also reviewed its complaint handling at stage 2. It appropriately acknowledged that its initial communication with the resident had been unclear about the complaints it had opened. It offered the resident £250 compensation in recognition of this failure. We consider this a reasonable offer and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.

Summary

Overall, we have made a finding of reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaints. This is because:
1. It adhered to its complaints policy throughout its handling of the first complaint (about ASB). There is also no evidence to suggest that any of the record keeping failures we have highlighted had a detrimental effect on the resident.
2. It showed that it was attempting to learn from the second complaint (about window repairs) and provided the resident with examples of the service improvements it was going to implement as a result.
3. Although the landlord did not apologise to the resident for all the failures identified in the report (for both complaints), we still consider the landlord’s offer of £250 sufficient to resolve this complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of her:
1. Reports of window repairs.
2. Formal complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman by the same date:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the ASB handling failures identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident £100 for its handling of her reports of ASB.

Recommendations

Our findings of reasonable redress (for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of window repairs and formal complaints) are made on the basis that the resident receives the £2,600 that the landlord previously offered at stage 2. This includes the £2,350 for the window repairs and £250 for complaint handling. Therefore, if the landlord has not already done so, it should pay this directly to the resident. This is in addition to the £100 ordered above.
In July 2025, the resident told this Service that she wants to move homes. Therefore, we recommend that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss the options currently available to her regarding a move to alternative accommodation.
We recommend that the landlord familiarises itself with the Housing Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM), if it has not already done so. It should use the recommendations in the report to inform its future record keeping practices to aid service delivery.