Together Housing Association Limited (202400435)

Decision
Case ID	202400435
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Together Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 January 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bed detached bungalow. The resident has previously raised complaints about the landlord’s response to reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB), the conduct of her housing officer and related communications. This complaint relates to the conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff during a call with the resident discussing alleged ASB from a neighbour, due to the position of their video doorbell.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a member of its staff during a phone call.
3. We will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a member of its staff during a phone call.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Staff conduct

5. The landlord investigated the resident’s complaint about staff conduct, acknowledged unprofessional language, issued apologies, offered compensation, and arranged alternative support, which was sufficient to put thing right before our investigation.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord’s complaint responses were delayed beyond policy timescales at both stages, partly due to inaccurate records and missing documentation.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date and is in addition to the £50 compensation it has previously offered for poor staff conduct. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 23 February 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should re-offer the £50 compensation from its complaint responses, related to poor staff conduct.
The landlord should continue to progress any new ASB concerns from the resident in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord should provide its written position on the appointment of a new point of contact for the resident and provide the necessary contact information, if appropriate.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
23 February 2024	The resident complained that a member of the landlord’s staff had used inappropriate language during a recent phone call with her and she requested an investigation into this.
26 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and said that it had found no evidence of its staff member swearing, but agreed that the staff member’s “professionalism lapsed” during a part of the call. It said that the staff member had contacted the resident by phone to apologise, but that she had requested the apology in writing. The landlord apologised in writing in its response and said that the staff member had been spoken to regarding their conduct.
5 April 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, seeking additional training for the landlord’s staff member and the appointment of a new point of contact moving forward.
11 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response and said it apologised for its staff member’s “unprofessional language”. It said it recognised that the call had fallen short of its standards, that the member of staff had been spoken to and offered £50 compensation in respect of this. During a call to discuss the complaint, the resident also raised several new issues, which the landlord committed to contacting her about and providing an action plan.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident escalated her complaint to us on 17 January 2025 seeking to be treated respectfully by the landlord and be appointed a new contact person.

 

 

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 response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a member of its staff during a phone call
Finding	Reasonable redress

7. The resident reported that her neighbourhood officer had become frustrated with her during a phone call and used inappropriate language. The call related to ongoing concerns from the resident about neighbourhood ASB, due to the positioning of the neighbour’s video doorbell cameras overlooking her property.
8. In response to the resident’s concerns the evidence shows that the landlord took the following appropriate action:
   1. Reviewed the call recording and found no evidence of its staff member swearing at the resident. The landlord has also supplied a copy of the call recording to us. It did acknowledge that they had used “unprofessional language” when they told the resident “if you don’t like it, it’s tough” and that he was “unsure of what more [the resident wanted] him to do”.
   2. Met with the member of staff concerned and discussed their conduct of the call.
   3. Arranged for the member of staff to apologise by phone to the resident.
   4. Apologised in writing twice in its complaint responses for the conduct of its member of staff, as the resident had requested the apology in writing.
   5. Offered £50 compensation for falling short of its usual standards during the phone call.
   6. Arranged for a different member of staff to contact and meet with the resident to discuss several new issues she raised during the complaint process, around ASB, dog fouling and condition of the communal grounds.
9. The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s complaint, and demonstrated it took them seriously. It provided an apology and other redress, and made arrangements for training and an alternative contact. On this basis, the landlord took appropriate action, prior to our investigation, which it was able to evidence. The level of compensation was sufficient to put things right and in line with our Remedies Guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

10. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s policy in line with the Code sets out a 2-stage complaint process. It says the resident should have their complaint or escalation acknowledged within 5 working days and then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.
11. The records show that both of the acknowledgements were issued over the timescales in the landlord’s policy and it provided its formal responses in the following timescales:
    1. 22 working days at stage 1.
    2. 24 working days at stage 2.
12. The landlord said that it had received the resident’s complaint on 1 March 2024, however its records and case management system show that it was received on 23 February 2024. This incorrect information delayed its complaint response being sent to the resident. Additionally, the landlord said that it had agreed an extension with the resident at stage 1, however it was not able to locate the extension letter it sent to evidence this.
13. This means that the landlord’s responses were slightly delayed at both stages. The Code expects landlords to issue timely complaint responses, to avoid the resident being delayed in escalating their complaints.
14. Similarly, we expect landlords to keep full and accurate records of their complaint process. This expectation is set out in the Code and includes a requirement to keep all correspondence with the resident and other parties. When the landlord supplied its evidence to us, it told us that it could not locate the complaint timescale extension letter that it issued to the resident during her stage 1 complaint. This was a record-keeping failure.
15. It was positive to note that the landlord contacted the resident by phone or in person at both stages of the complaint to discuss it in more detail. The evidence also shows that it correctly progressed new issues that the resident raised alongside her stage 2 complaint and took follow-up action to seek more information and put plans in place to address her concerns.
16. Overall, the complaint responses and communication were positive, but the responses were delayed, and this was impacted by poor record-keeping. The landlord apologised for the delays at stage 1 but did not acknowledge the delay at stage 2 or outline any redress or learning for this.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. The landlord’s records incorrectly noted the date of the resident’s initial complaint, which contributed to a delay in issuing a complaint response. Additionally, the landlord was unable to find or provide us with the extension letter it sent during its complaint process, which should have formed part of its evidence submission to us.

Communication

18. This complaint centres around poor communication during a phone call, however it was positive to note that other contact with the resident during the complaint appeared to be timely, proactive and often in-person or by phone.