Regenda Limited (202005985)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005985

Regenda Limited

17 December 2021

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:
1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of debris in the garden.
2. the landlord’s handling of the staff conduct complaint and report of contractors not observing social distancing guidance whilst carrying out work within the property.
3. the level of compensation offered by the landlord for a damaged coat.
4. the landlord imposing a contact restriction on the resident.
5. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The landlord has a Managing Unreasonable and Resource Intensive Customer Behaviour policy (Unreasonable Behaviour policy). The types of behaviour the landlord considers to be unreasonable include unreasonable demands such as taking up excessive amounts of staff time to the detriment of other customers, unreasonable persistence such as refusing to accept a decision following a reasonable investigation, and aggressive or abusive behaviour.
The policy outlines the various ways the landlord may manage what it considers to be unreasonable or resource intensive customer behaviour. This includes re-directing emails to a central folder which will be accessed at a specified frequency. The policy also states it will always in the first instance allow the resident an opportunity to modify their behaviour – a warning letter will sent.
The landlord’s complaint policy requires complaints to be responded to at first time resolution within three working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage one. Stage one responses should be issued within 10 working days. Complaints can only be escalated to stage two if the resident has additional evidence that has not previously been considered. If there is no new evidence, the complaint process is complete following the stage one response and the resident can approach the Ombudsman.
The resident has an Assured Tenancy which started on 28 August 2020; however, he has been a resident of the landlord for longer. The resident indicated on his housing application in 2019 that he is disabled. The resident moved to his current property after being decanted to temporary accommodation for a short time.
On choosing the current property as his permanent accommodation, the resident was informed that the property needed significant works, but the landlord agreed to bring the works forward so the resident and his daughter could move into the property before the new school year started.
The resident was informed on 13 July 2020 that if his behaviour continued the landlord would implement its Management of Unreasonable and Resource Intensive Behaviour policy, which could include restricting the resident’s methods of communication with the landlord. The landlord provided examples of the types of behaviour the resident had previously exhibited that it considered to be unreasonable.
On 28 August 2020, the resident visited the property with his daughter for the tenancy sign up. Due to delays in completing some works, some of the landlord’s contractors were still at the property completing some painting. The resident contacted the landlord the same day to make a complaint. He stated that he had asked the contractors to vacate the property as they were not following social distancing guidance and that the contractors had been confrontational in response and shouted at him. He said the incident had upset his daughter. The resident also said he and his daughter had got wet paint on their coats.
On the same day, one of the landlord’s contractors submitted a statement to his line manager. He stated the tenancy handover had been normal until the landlord’s housing officer had come out of the property “visibly upset”. He stated the resident had been confrontational resulting in his line manager trying to defuse the situation. He stated the resident’s behaviour had been “alarming”.
A different contractor sent a statement to the landlord on 30 August 2020. In his email to the landlord, he stated he had left the property and was discussing another property on the same street with his staff. He heard the landlord’s housing officer come out of the property “crying and upset” and went to check that she was okay. He said the housing officer rang the landlord to report the incident whilst he tried to speak with the resident. He noted that the resident had some paint on his hands, so gave him a wipe to clean his hands but the resident continued to touch things, including his coat, and then blaming the landlord and the contractors for getting paint on his belongings. The contractor stated the resident was aggressive and intimidating to the extent that he ordered his staff to leave the area entirely, leaving the other property they were working on unfinished. The contractor raised concerns about the safety of staff members working with the resident.
At some point between 28 August and 8 September 2020, the resident raised additional complaints about the length of time it would take for his washing machine to be connected and that there was no gas point for his cooker.
On 3 September 2020, the landlord’s contractor attended the property to re-connect the cooker. In an email to the landlord the same day, the contractor reported that the resident demanded the contractor put credit on the meter which the contractor advised he could not do. The resident then slammed the door in the contractor’s face and refused entry. The contractor informed the landlord it had not been able to complete the re-connection.
On 10 September 2020, the landlord’s contractor was at the property to break up and then relay the garden path. The contractor reported that on returning from a tip run, the resident had dug holes in the garden and had demanded that the contractor explain what was going on. The contractor stated when he explained what work they had done, the resident was abusive and demanded the contractors left the property. The resident raised a complaint about debris in the rear garden of the property later that day when he said contaminated items had been buried in the garden.
The landlord issued its first time resolution response to the resident on 14 September 2020. The landlord apologised for contractors being in the property on 28 August but stated they had followed social distancing guidelines whilst in the property. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint about its staff being confrontational, stating its investigations indicated it was the resident that had been confrontational and aggressive.
The landlord accepted that there was wet paint at the property when the resident visited but explained that works had been pushed through at the resident’s request so he could measure for carpets that day. The landlord also explained that its contractors had given the resident wipes to clean up the paint transfer. However, the landlord did offer the resident £50 in compensation in recognition of this.
The landlord also explained its position in relation to the resident’s concerns raised about the connection of his washing machine and the gas point for his cooker.
In the letter, the landlord referenced the ongoing works to the garden path that the resident was preventing the landlord from completing. The landlord stated the works were necessary for the health and safety of the resident and his daughter. The landlord informed the resident the contractor could attend on 17 and 18 September and that the resident must not speak with the contractors whilst they were in attendance.
The landlord also informed the resident that it was implementing its Unreasonable Behaviour policy due to his recent behaviour including:
1. His behaviour towards staff on 28 August 2020;
2. The number of emails and the content of those emails being sent;
3. The number of text messages and the content of these being sent and;
4. The number of different people that he was contacting.
It referenced its earlier warning given to him about his behaviour on 13 July. The landlord required the resident to send all emails to a specific email address and to limit emails to once per week unless reporting an emergency repair. The landlord also confirmed that staff and contractors would now visit the resident in pairs due to his behaviour. The landlord informed the resident how he could appeal the decision about these restrictions.
The resident remained dissatisfied, and the landlord confirmed on 15 September that it had escalated his complaint. The landlord also confirmed it had arranged for contractors to attend on 17 and 18 September to relay the path in the garden and reiterated that the resident must not engage with the contractors. The landlord confirmed that once the path had been re-laid it would arrange for the garden to be inspected in relation to the debris the resident had reported.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 September 2020 in relation to the works that had been due to start that morning. The landlord stated that on arriving at the property that morning, the resident had padlocked the gate and had informed the contractor that they would not be granted access. The landlord explained it had rearranged for the contractors to attend on 24 September 2020 and that if the resident refused access again it would consider starting legal proceedings to allow the work to be completed and reminded the resident it would be a breach of his tenancy agreement.
At 11:22pm on 17 September 2020, the resident emailed the landlord advising he and his daughter were self-isolating and asked the landlord to rearrange the works for after the 14 days isolation period.
The landlord responded on 21 September 2020, advising it would not be able to attend to complete the works to the garden path until the resident’s Covid-19 test result were confirmed as negative. The landlord asked the resident to confirm when he had received a negative test result so it could rearrange the works. The landlord reminded the resident he had a responsibility to let the contractors in to complete the works and that he should not engage with them. The works to the garden path were completed on 29 September 2020.
Following a conversation with the resident on 5 October, the landlord confirmed by email that it proposed visiting the resident to inspect the garden on 8 October around lunchtime, with the exact time to be confirmed as the appointment needed to be fitted in around other appointments. The landlord advised the resident at 1:15pm on 8 October that the contractors were approximately half an hour away.
On 12 October the landlord emailed the resident stating “it is unfortunate you were not able to allow access on Thursday … you were told on Monday it would be around lunchtime on Thursday therefore making it 4 days notice rather than 30 minutes.” The landlord advised it would try to arrange another appointment.
On 22 December 2020, the resident sent the first time resolution response to the Ombudsman. Following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord confirmed it would issue its stage one response by 13 January 2021.
On 13 January 2021, the landlord issued its stage one (final) response. It outlined that the resident’s outstanding concerns were the debris in the garden, whether social distancing guidelines had been followed on 28 August 2020, the level of compensation offered in relation to the paint transfer, the contact restrictions and the landlord’s failure to follow its complaint procedure. It acknowledged that the issue of whether debris had been buried in the garden remained outstanding but explained that the resident had prevented it from actioning this work by refusing access. It confirmed a new contractor had been identified to inspect the garden and asked the resident to allow them access once a date for the inspection had been agreed.
It also acknowledged that it had failed to follow its complaints policy, apologised for this failure, and offered £50 in compensation. The landlord reiterated that its contractors had followed social distancing guidelines on 28 August 2020 however set out measures it said its operatives and staff would take whenever entering the property going forward including the wearing of facemasks and the possibility of contractors asking the resident to stay in a different room to maintain social distancing whilst work was carried out. It said it would also call the resident before visits to ensure no one was self-isolating.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for a higher sum for the paint transfer but said that the previous offer of £50 in compensation was reasonable. The landlord also explained how the resident could appeal the contact restrictions.
The landlord’s subcontractor completed an inspection and took soil samples on 21 January 2021. The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that the delay between the last attempted inspection (8 October) and the inspection on 21 January 2021 was due to needing to source a specialist sub-contractor and the impact of sub-contractor availability due to Covid-19. The landlord stated the resident “interfered” with this survey and a further survey on 4 May 2021. At the time the landlord responded to the Ombudsman’s information request in June 2021, it explained it was awaiting the results of the specialist soil survey. Further, it told the Ombudsman that investigations into the resident’s reports about the conduct of workmen on site were done verbally.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of debris in the garden

Works that were required to the garden including pavement works were completed on 29 September 2020. In response to the resident’s concern initially raised on 10 September 2020 about contaminated items having been buried in the garden during these works, the landlord arranged for its repair team to inspect the garden on 8 October 2020. The Ombudsman expects landlords to carry out a post inspection of works, particularly where concerns have been raised about the standard of works carried out, therefore, the landlord’s proposed action was reasonable.
The landlord was unable to complete the inspection on 8 October 2020 as the resident refused the landlord access to the garden. It subsequently agreed to arrange for an independent specialist to complete a ground investigation of the garden as sought by the resident. The landlord confirmed this to the resident in its final response whilst urging him to allow the contractor access to the garden when the appointment was confirmed. By agreeing to provide an independent specialist inspection, it is clear the landlord took reasonable steps in order to allay the resident’s concerns about debris and contaminated items buried in the garden.
Whilst the scope of this investigation is restricted to the events and complaints that were raised by the resident during the landlord’s complaints process prior to the landlord’s final response on 7 January 2021, the landlord has provided the report of the ground inspection which was carried out on 28 January 2021. This did not find any contamination however recommended that an additional check was needed in one small area. The landlord then arranged for an additional survey on 4 May 2021. In June 2021, the landlord told the Ombudsman that whilst this could not be fully completed as the resident had “interfered” with this survey, a sufficient soil sample was obtained to check and give a result however it was still awaiting for the report on this.
The steps taken by the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns were reasonable and demonstrate the landlord was committed to working with the resident in order to resolve his concerns raised about garden debris. As the Ombudsman has not had sight of the report from the 4 May 2021, a recommendation has been included below for it to advise the resident of the results of this soil sample taken during the May 2021 independent survey and act on any recommendations made, if it has not already done so.

The landlord’s handling of the staff conduct complaint and contractors not observing social distancing guidance whilst carrying out the work within the property.

The Ombudsman will consider whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to this complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff conduct complaints, landlords are expected to carry out an investigation. For example, the landlord would generally conduct interviews and gather evidence from all parties, making an informed decision based on its findings.
When the resident visited the property with his daughter on 28 August 2020 to complete the tenancy sign up with the landlord, its operatives were still completing internal decoration work at the property. The resident complained to the landlord that operatives were not following government guidance on social distancing. He also said its operative had been confrontational with him when he had asked them to leave the property and shouted at him.
In its first time resolution response the landlord apologised to the resident about its operatives being present at the time of his tenancy sign up and explained this was due to unexpected delays in completing the work earlier in the day. This was understandable particularly bearing in mind that the landlord had agreed to bring the works forward so the resident and his daughter could move into the property before the new school year started. In relation to the resident’s concern raised about operatives not following social distancing guidance, the landlord said it had investigated whether government guidelines were being followed by operatives and that it was satisfied that the appropriate policies and risk assessments were in place to ensure contractors followed government guidance. It reiterated this position in its final response when it also set out measures it said its staff would take whenever entering the property going forward.
The landlord told the Ombudsman that its investigations into this issue were done verbally indicating it spoke to staff present at the property on 28 August 2020 whether social distancing guidance was being followed. However, it has not provided any notes detailing these discussions nor any evidence of policies in place at the time to show that it understood government guidelines on social distancing and that its operatives were complying with these, where relevant. Furthermore, the landlord did not explain in its complaint responses to the resident how it reached the conclusion that government guidelines on social distancing were being followed on 28 August 2020. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to determine if the landlord sufficiently investigated this aspect of the complaint or if its conclusion advised to the resident was appropriate.
It is noted however that the resident confirmed in his complaint to the landlord that on finding multiple operatives at the property on 28 August 2020, he then waited outside of the property until they left the property. This was appropriate and would have reduced any health and safety risk posed to himself and daughter in the event the landlord’s contractors were not following government guidance on social distancing.
The measures set out in the final response that the landlord said its operatives would take when entering the property going forward, were reasonable and indicate that the landlord was taking the resident’s concerns seriously. However, due to insufficient evidence provided by the landlord to show that its operatives were following government guidance on social distancing and because it did not fully explain how it reached this conclusion in its complaint responses, this constitutes evidence of the landlord failing in the service it provided, albeit this was a minor failure.
In response to the resident’s complaint that a member of staff shouted at him which made him feel uncomfortable during his visit on 28 August 2020, the landlord’s internal communications show it obtained at least two accounts from operatives and staff members who were present and witnessed the interactions. As these described the resident’s behaviour during this visit as “confrontational”. “alarming” and “aggressive and intimidating” to the extent that the contractor ordered their staff to leave the area entirely, this was a reasonable basis for the landlord to refuse to uphold the resident’s complaint about the conduct of its staff.

The level of compensation offered by the landlord for a damaged coat.

The resident and his daughter got wet paint on their coats when they attended the tenancy sign up as there were patches of wet paint at the property due to the landlord’s operatives still completing decoration work. In its first time response the landlord apologised for the presence of wet paint but pointed out that the works were being “pushed through” to ensure the resident could access the property on that date to avoid further delay to measuring carpets. In its response, the landlord also said its operatives had provided him with wet wipes to remove the paint from his daughter’s coat and his hands yet that the paint from his hands was transferred to other areas.
The landlord’s account of the incident reflects what operatives said in their written statements provided to the landlord at the time. Whilst it is understandable that the resident was upset about paint transfer damaging possessions, the evidence indicates the landlord’s contractors responded reasonably at the time by offering wet wipes to the resident to remove the paint. It also offered the resident £50 in compensation in recognition of this issue.
The landlord reiterated this offer in its final response and explained that it was unwilling to meet the resident’s request for a higher sum as it said the action taken at the time was sufficient to have dealt with the paint on his hands and his daughter’s coat and that further spread could have been avoided. Based on the evidence, the landlord’s response and explanation for refusing his request for a higher amount of compensation, was reasonable.

The landlord’s imposing of a contact restriction on the resident.

In its stage one response the landlord confirmed that it was putting a contact restriction in place going forward to protect its staff and manage enquiries from the resident. The landlord referenced an earlier warning letter it had sent to the resident on 13 July 2020 as a result of previous instances of unacceptable behaviour from him. It then gave examples of behaviour it deemed to be unreasonable including his language and attitude to staff, the most recent example being when he visited the property on 28 August 2020. It also cited the number and content of emails and texts sent to different people at the landlord.
The contact restriction the landlord advised it was applying to manage the resident’s behaviour was in line with its Unreasonable Behaviour policy which allows the landlord to put in place mechanisms which help it to manage aggressive or abusive behaviour and also to address resource intensive behaviour to the detriment of other customers.
Based on the reports from the landlord’s staff about the resident’s behaviour on 28 August 2020 as well as evidence of the resident’s communications to the landlord that the Ombudsman has had sight of, it was reasonable for the landlord invoke its Unreasonable Behaviour policy and require the resident to limit his communications to one email per week unless to report emergency repairs. This is because landlords do not have infinite resources and are responsible for high numbers of tenancies. It has a duty to balance the needs of one resident against those of another which may limit the time it can spend on one particular complaint. The measure taken did not prevent the resident accessing the landlord’s services however meant the landlord was able to maintain normal business and service to others. The landlord sufficiently explained its reasoning for this action to the resident in its stage one response.
It was also reasonable for the landlord to put in place the measure of staff and contractors only visiting the resident’s home in pairs due to the previous instances of aggressive behaviour from the resident. This was to protect its staff and this measure was proportionate.
The landlord had previously issued a warning to the resident about his behaviour showing that the landlord had given the resident an opportunity to modify his behaviour before deciding to implement his policy due to continued unacceptable behaviour from the resident. This was in accordance with its Unreasonable Behaviour policy.
Furthermore, in its first stage resolution response, the landlord advised the resident of how to appeal its decision. Again, this was in line with its Unreasonable Behaviour policy.
Therefore, the landlord has demonstrated that the circumstances justified its decision to put in place measures to restrict and manage the resident’s behaviour. It is also clear that the landlord followed its policy when applying these. Therefore, the landlord acted appropriately.

Complaint handling

Following his receipt of its first resolution response, the resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage one of its complaints process on 15 September 2020. The landlord acknowledged this request on the same day and advised it would escalate his complaint to stage one, which was reasonable.
However, the landlord failed to issue a stage one (final) response within the 10 day timescale stated in its complaints process. The landlord provided this response nearly four months later on 13 January 2021 and this was only after contact from the Ombudsman. This is evidence of the landlord failing to follow its complaints process.
In its stage one final response the landlord apologised to the resident for this failure and offered to pay him £50 in compensation. As the landlord acknowledged its service failure and offered a measure of compensation in recognition of this, it reasonably addressed this aspect of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord when handling the resident’s reports of debris in the garden.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling the resident’s staff conduct complaint and report of contractors not observing social distancing guidance whilst carrying out the work within the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in the level of compensation for the damaged coat.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord when imposing a contact restriction on the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord when handling the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

In response to the complaint about debris and contamination of his rear garden, the landlord scheduled an appointment for the relevant team to inspect the area. It then arranged for assessments of the resident’s rear garden to be carried out by independent third party specialists after the resident refused it access to inspect his garden. Therefore, the landlord took reasonable and sufficient steps to investigate the resident’s concerns about debris and contamination in his rear garden.
Based on accounts from its staff about the resident’s behaviour during the tenancy sign up, the landlord’s advice in its complaint responses that it was not upholding the resident’s complaint about its operative’s conduct at this time, was reasonable. However, regarding the resident’s concern about its staff not following social distancing guidance, the landlord failed to sufficiently explain to the resident or evidence its conclusion that staff were following social distancing rules.
The landlord’s staff acted appropriately at the time by providing wet wipes to the resident to remove paint which had got on their coats and hands as a result of wet patches of paint at the property. Together with the landlord’s offer of £50 in compensation due to this incident, the landlord acted reasonably in its response to this issue.
The landlord was entitled under its Unreasonable Behaviour policy to restrict contact from the resident after finding this took up a disproportionate amount of time and resources. It was also reasonable for it to put place measures to protect its staff against the resident’s unacceptable behaviour. It followed the steps in its Unreasonable Behaviour policy when applying these measures and fully explained its reasoning to the resident as well as the process to appeal its decision.
The landlord failed to follow the timescales in its complaint policy when handling the resident’s request to escalate his complaint to the next stage. As it apologised for this in its final response and offered the resident a measure of compensation for this, it reasonably addressed this aspect of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
1. pay the resident £50 in compensation for the insufficient explanation provided to support its conclusion that its staff had followed social distancing guidance.
2. pay the resident £100 offered in its complaints process if it has not already done so.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord to advise the resident of the results of 4 May 2021 soil sample taken and act on any recommendations made, if it has not already done so.