Regenda Limited (202513252)

Decision
Case ID	202513252
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Regenda Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 January 2026

Background

1. The property is a flat in a sheltered housing scheme that has an onsite scheme manager. The resident, who is below 55 years of age, lived in the property from December 2023 until October 2025. During this time, she complained about several issues including her neighbour leaving rubbish in the communal hallway outside her door, reports of ASB, and concerns regarding the scheme manager. The resident has autism and learning difficulties and is non-verbal. The resident’s father (the representative) made the complaint on her behalf. For ease of reference, in this report both the resident and her representative will be referred to as ‘the resident’.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about rubbish in the communal hallway and the associated fire risk.
   2. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   3. Concerns about staff conduct.
   4. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about rubbish in the communal hallway and the associated fire risk.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
   3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
   4. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Rubbish in the communal hallway

4. The landlord’s initial response was reasonable, but it missed opportunities to escalate the recurring issue sooner. It also failed to consider whether enforcement action was appropriate.

Reports of ASB

5. The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s report but then failed to assess or record its decision not to open an ASB case. It also did not offer alternative advice, or offer support, resulting in missed opportunities for early intervention.

Staff conduct

6. The landlord did not adequately assess the appropriateness of the scheme manager’s communication, resulting in a response that did not fully address the concerns raised by the resident.

Complaint handling

7. The stage 1 response and stage 2 acknowledgement were issued outside the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy. The landlord did not identify service failings in its handling of the complaint issues, despite available evidence. Certain parts of its responses also lacked clarity and sufficient detail. 

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 provided by a senior member of staff. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 27 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500, made up as follows: £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of her concerns about rubbish in the communal hallway and the associated fire risk. £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of her reports of ASB. £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of her concerns about staff conduct. £100 for the complaint handling failures identified. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 27 February 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord write to the resident with a clear explanation of its decision not to offer over‑55 accommodation, outlining its decision‑making process and referencing her current housing situation, as well as its relevant policies and procedures.
We recommend that the landlord provides refresher ASB training to its staff, particularly those responsible for managing schemes, if this has not been delivered recently.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
April 2024 to April 2025	The resident reported concerns to the landlord about her neighbour leaving rubbish in the communal hallway.
24 April 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She explained that she had been reporting rubbish in the communal hallway since 2023, but no effective action had been taken. She also raised additional concerns about reports of ASB and the conduct of the scheme manager.
8 May 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It did not uphold the complaint, stating that it was satisfied it had followed its relevant policies and procedures. It advised that fire safety regulations were being complied with and that incidents reported had been investigated in line with its ASB policy. It said it had control measures in place for dealing with the rubbish and would remove it when there were “contributing factors”. The landlord added that it was sorry the resident did not feel supported by the scheme manager and offered to discuss her concerns further. It also offered to award the resident Band B priority on her housing application but attached conditions to this offer.
12 May 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response, as she felt it was one-sided and did not adequately explain why no action had been taken regarding the rubbish. She was also unhappy with the conditions it had set for her to move.
5 June 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It did not uphold the complaint, stating that it was satisfied the stage 1 response had been correct. It explained that the conditions for the resident to move were based on her being too young for properties designated for over‑55s. However, it acknowledged further reports of rubbish and advised that it was arranging for CCTV to be installed at the scheme. It also offered mediation as a potential resolution.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s conditions for her to move, and with its plan to position CCTV only near her property. She also advised that the issues with rubbish remained unresolved.
22 January 2026	During her contact with us, the resident confirmed she had moved out of the property in October 2025. As an outcome, she said she would like the landlord to acknowledge its failures and issue an apology. She also asked us to consider awarding compensation for the landlord’s handling of her 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	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about rubbish in the communal hallway and the associated fire risk
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

8. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident reported that she had been raising concerns about rubbish in the communal hallway since 2023. She raised a formal complaint in April 2025. However, there is no evidence she raised a complaint promptly and in any event within 12 months of when she became aware of the issue. We have not seen evidence she was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. In the interests of fairness, and considering the availability of evidence, this investigation will focus on events from April 2024 onwards, covering the 12-month period prior to the complaint being raised. This approach is in line with the landlord’s complaints policy and the available evidence.

What we have investigated

9. The landlord’s estate management policy states it operates a “clear communal areas” approach. It explains that any rubbish left outside designated disposal areas will be treated as fly‑tipping and managed under its ASB policy, and that enforcement action may be considered for residents who persistently breach this requirement.
10. Between May and October 2024, the resident made 3 reports to the landlord about her neighbour leaving rubbish in the communal hallway. During this period, the landlord took appropriate initial steps by discussing this with the neighbour and advised them not to leave rubbish in the hallway. This was appropriate advice and in line with its “clear communal areas” approach.
11. On 16 November 2024, the resident made a further report to the landlord about rubbish bags left in the communal hallway and expressed concerns for her safety, explaining that such obstructions could prevent her from evacuating in an emergency. The landlord visited her on 18 November 2024 to discuss the issue and subsequently opened an ASB case. This was appropriate given the resident’s concerns and was in line with the approach set out in its estate management policy. However, considering the recurring nature of the reports made between May and October 2024, the landlord missed opportunities to escalate the matter earlier.
12. After opening the ASB case, the landlord gave the resident an action plan and kept in regular contact with her to monitor the situation. It also spoke to the neighbour involved. On 4 December 2024, the landlord closed the case as no further incidents had been reported. These steps were proportionate and in line with its ASB policy.
13. On 22 April 2025, the resident reported that her neighbour was still leaving rubbish in the communal hallway. She said the rubbish was causing a smell and raised concerns about fire safety regulations. The landlord responded on 6 May 2025, saying it had addressed the issue with the neighbour and was satisfied that the matter was being managed in line with its tenancy management policy. This policy states it will take an approach of supporting its customers to successfully sustain their tenancies. The landlord had taken reasonable steps up to this date, including regular visits to the neighbour, verbal advice, and signposting to support services. Based on the information available, there is nothing to suggest that the landlord’s assessment at this stage was unreasonable.
14. The landlord repeated its position in its stage 1 response on 8 May 2025, explaining that it was satisfied the scheme manager was complying with fire safety requirements, noting that weekly fire safety checks and monthly building inspections were being carried out. It said that, during visits to the neighbour’s property, staff had not reported any bad smells in the hallway or inside the property. The landlord also advised that control measures were in place to manage the rubbish, and that cases such as this can take time to resolve and are monitored over the long term. This was understandably frustrating for the resident. However, it was appropriate for the landlord to set out its position. The landlord also asked the resident to report any future incidents of rubbish, and to provide photos where possible, showing a willingness to investigate any further issues.
15. On 12 May 2025, the resident escalated her complaint and provided a photo dated 3 May 2025, which appeared to show a bin bag in the communal hallway. Further reports about rubbish were also made by the resident on 19 May and 22 May 2025, but it is unclear if photos were provided to the landlord at this time. During our investigation, the resident provided us with photos of the rubbish. However, it is not clear where these were taken or when, or if they were shared with the landlord. This has made it difficult to determine what information the landlord had available when responding to the resident’s reports.
16. In response to the resident’s further reports, the landlord again spoke to the neighbour on 14 and 22 May 2025, repeating its previous advice not to leave rubbish in the communal hallway. On 21 May 2025, the resident’s father also told the landlord that, because the situation was “dragging on”, he had spoken to the neighbour himself about the rubbish. By this stage, it was clear that repeated verbal reminders were not resolving the issue, leaving the resident’s family feeling they needed to intervene directly.
17. This should have prompted the landlord to consider whether a new ASB case should be opened, in line with its estate management policy, given that the issue had been recurring for at least 12 months. There is no evidence that the landlord escalated the matter beyond repeated verbal warnings or considered whether any form of enforcement action was appropriate. This was inconsistent with the expectations of its policy and meant the resident continued to experience avoidable distress and frustration.
18. In its final response on 5 June 2025, the landlord said it believed the issue with the rubbish had been resolved following a conversation between the resident’s father and her neighbour. It also offered mediation and proposed installing CCTV in the communal area to help it investigate and address any further incidents. These were positive and proactive steps.
19. We recognise that this was a challenging case for the landlord to manage, particularly given the neighbour’s personal circumstances. However, the ongoing presence of rubbish continued to cause the resident significant distress. She told us that the situation had affected her mental health and that she had become non‑verbal because of the ongoing issues. We are not medical specialists and cannot assess the impact on her health, but we can consider the distress and inconvenience caused by any failings in the landlord’s response.
20. The landlord did not identify any failings in its complaint investigation and, as a result, did not offer any compensation as part of its complaint responses. We consider this to be maladministration and an apology and a payment of £200 to be appropriate. This has been calculated in line with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there have been failures that adversely affected the resident, that the landlord has not acknowledged or put right.
21. After the complaints process ended on 5 June 2025, the resident gave notice to end her tenancy on 1 July 2025, giving the ongoing issues with the rubbish as her reason for doing so. This demonstrates the level of distress and inconvenience the situation had caused her. The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 July 2025 advising that staff would carry out regular checks of the communal areas for rubbish and smells, and that she only needed to report issues that posed an immediate danger. The resident later withdrew her termination notice but made further reports about rubbish on 11 August 2025 and 5 September 2025, showing that the issue remained unresolved. During contact with us in January 2026, the resident said she felt she had no choice but to leave the property due to the ongoing issues and had moved out in October 2025.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB
Finding	Service failure

What we have not investigated

22. The resident has raised complaint issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. The resident reported further issues of ASB in August 2025, which was after the landlord’s final complaint response. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. Due to this, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the landlord’s internal complaints process. We will therefore consider events up to 5 June 2025, but the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any new issues that occurred after this time. The resident can address any new issues directly with the landlord. She can progress this as a new formal complaint if required, which she may escalate to us for separate investigation if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.

What we have investigated

23. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out examples of behaviour it would treat as ASB, as well as behaviour it would not. It defines intimidation and harassment as forms of ASB. The policy states that once a “valid” ASB case has been identified, the landlord will contact the reporter and agree an action plan. However, it also explains that, if the reported behaviour does not meet its criteria, a case will not be opened, and the landlord will instead offer alternative guidance.
24. On 22 April 2025, the resident reported hearing derogatory comments directed at her by her neighbour’s visitor. She said she felt upset, frightened, and intimidated by what she had heard. The scheme manager responded promptly by speaking directly with the visitor about the reported incident on the same day. This was an appropriate and timely action in the circumstances.
25. On 25 April 2025, the scheme manager informed the resident – via an informal note – that they had spoken to the visitor. No ASB case was opened, and no further action was taken. While following up with the visitor was appropriate, the landlord did not show that it had considered the resident’s feelings of intimidation, assessed whether the behaviour met the ASB threshold, or recorded its decision. Having chosen not to open an ASB case, it also failed to provide alternative advice in line with its ASB policy, missing opportunities for early intervention and support. This was unreasonable, given the resident’s vulnerabilities.
26. The landlord did not identify any failings in its complaint investigation and, as a result, did not offer any compensation as part of its complaint responses. We consider this to be service failure and an apology and a payment of £100 to be appropriate. This has been calculated in line with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there was a failure by the landlord in the service it provided, which it did not appropriately acknowledge or fully put right. We recommend that the landlord provides refresher ASB training to its staff, particularly those responsible for managing schemes, if this has not been delivered recently.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct
Finding	Service failure

27. When complaints about staff conduct arise, our role is not to determine misconduct or direct disciplinary action. Instead, our role is to assess whether the landlord conducted a proportionate investigation into the resident’s concerns and acted in a fair and reasonable manner overall.
28. In her stage 1 complaint, the resident reported that the scheme manager had verbally threatened her tenancy in relation to access for repairs, which she felt was inappropriate. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had reviewed a note the resident had received from the scheme manager on 15 November 2024 and referred to the access requirements set out in the tenancy agreement. While it was appropriate for the landlord to review the available evidence, it did not assess whether the scheme manager’s communication could reasonably have been seen as inappropriate or threatening. Instead, the landlord focused only on the resident’s access obligations and therefore missed her main concern, resulting in a response that did not fully address the issue she raised.
29. The landlord did not identify any failings in its complaint investigation regarding staff conduct and, as a result, did not offer any compensation. We consider this to be service failure and an apology and a payment of £100 to be appropriate. This has been calculated in line with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there was a failure by the landlord in the service it provided, which it did not appropriately acknowledge or fully put right.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

30. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. In this case, the relevant Code was published in April 2024.
31. The landlord’s customer feedback policy states that, at stage 1, it will acknowledge a complaint immediately upon receipt and provide a response within 5 working days. At stage 2, it states it will acknowledge an escalation within 48 hours and provide a response within 15 working days. These timescales differ from those set out in the Code, which specifies that landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
32. The landlord’s records contained no evidence of a stage 1 acknowledgement. It issued its stage 1 response on 8 May 2025, 9 working days after the complaint was raised on 24 April 2025. At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s 12 May 2025 escalation after 3 working days on 15 May 2025 and issued its response on 5 June 2025, 14 working days later. The stage 1 response and stage 2 acknowledgement were outside the timescales set out in the landlord’s own policy. However, the response times were in line with those required by the Code.
33. In its stage 1 response, the landlord offered to award the resident Band B priority on her application to move as a resolution to her complaint, but it added a condition that she would not be offered accommodation designated for those aged over 55. In her escalation request, the resident asked the landlord to explain this restriction, given that she already lived in an over‑55s scheme. Under the Code, landlords are expected to give clear reasons for their decisions and to reference relevant policies, legislation, or good practice where appropriate. In its final response, the landlord stated the restriction was due to her being under 55. This did not address the resident’s concern or explain the inconsistency with her current housing situation. As a result, the landlord did not meet the Code’s requirement for clear, meaningful communication, which likely caused the resident further uncertainty.
34. The stage 2 complaint was the landlord’s final opportunity to review its handling of the substantive issues, yet it did not identify failures in its service that had occurred. This was inconsistent with the available evidence and shows a lack of thoroughness in its investigation. As a result, the landlord missed the opportunity to remedy the substantive issue and rebuild the landlord-tenant relationship, failing to use its complaints process as an effective tool to put things right.
35. We consider this to be service failure and an apology and a payment of £100 to be appropriate compensation for the complaint handling failures. This is in line with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there was a failure by the landlord in the service it provided, which it did not appropriately acknowledge or fully put right. We recommend that the landlord write to the resident with a clear explanation of its decision not to offer over‑55 accommodation, outlining its decision‑making process and referencing her current housing situation, as well as its relevant policies and procedures.

Learning

36. The landlord should ensure it conducts thorough investigations when handling complaints and keeps clear records of its findings. Complaint responses should address all aspects of the complaint, providing clear and detailed explanations supported by relevant policies, legislation, and good practice where applicable. 

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

37. The landlord’s record keeping was generally good. It provided detailed records of its contact with the resident, ASB case notes, email correspondence, and information relating to the neighbour. This demonstrated strong information management practices, which assisted our investigation.
38. Where key decisions are made – such as the decision not to open an ASB case – the landlord should ensure it documents the reasons and provides a clear explanation of how the decision was reached.

Communication

39. Overall, the landlord’s communication was positive. It generally replied to the resident within its stated service‑level agreement, showing timely communication.
40. The landlord’s decision not to open an ASB case following the resident’s reports needed to be communicated more effectively. Giving a simple explanation of how it assessed the report and why it made that decision would help residents understand the process, reduce uncertainty, and improve communication in future.