Regenda Limited (202303967)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303967

Regenda Limited

9 June 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

1. The complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s noise reports.
2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a first-floor flat. From July 2022 to late 2022 the resident repeatedly reported noise nuisance by his neighbours. At some point in late 2022 the landlord advised him that it found his level of contact to be unreasonable. It asked him to provide evidence to support his allegations and explained that, if he did not, it would not respond to future emails.
4. Following this the resident continued to send emails repeating the same allegations over the next several months. In early July 2023 he complained about the landlord’s handling of his reports and asked it to soundproof the property. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 11 July 2023. It committed to a meeting with the resident to discuss his reports and review any evidence, but explained it would not consider soundproofing.
5. The landlord met with the resident on 25 July 2023 and discussed his noise reports. Following this he continued to send frequent emails reporting the same types of noise. On 18 September 2023 he asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 and expressed concern about the degree of sound insulation in the property. He then continued to frequently email the landlord over the next 2 months.
6. On 17 November 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and advised it would continue to restrict its communication with him as per its late 2022 decision. On 23 November 2023 the resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. On 8 December 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 response, apologised for the delay and offered the resident £25 compensation. It also explained it had not identified any service failure with its handling of the noise reports.
7. However, the landlord changed its position shortly after this and issued a new stage 2 response on 12 December 2023. In this response it identified a substantial delay in complaint handling and offered the resident £400 compensation. It also found it failed to contact the local authority (LA) to ask it to consider the resident’s noise reports as per its agreement to do so. As redress for any distress this caused, it offered him a further £100 compensation. However, it explained again that it would not offer soundproofing.
8. The resident was unhappy with this and continued to frequently email the landlord repeating his allegations about his neighbours. In early 2024 the resident appealed the contact restrictions in place. On 2 February 2024 the landlord confirmed the restrictions would remain due to the volume of contact, repeated warnings, and his failure to provide any evidence to support his allegations as requested.
9. On 29 April 2024 the resident met with the landlord and discussed his most recent allegations. The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his complaint. To resolve things, he would like the landlord to provide further compensation and soundproof his property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The resident has asked the Ombudsman to order the landlord to soundproof his property. We would not order a landlord to soundproof a property given it would only have to do this in very rare instances. In the resident’s case, sound proofing would be classed as an improvement, and so we could not reasonably order the landlord to do so even if we identified maladministration in its handling of his noise reports. Therefore, this outcome is excluded from any considerations of redress in this investigation.

How the landlord handled the resident’s noise reports.

11. The landlord’s policy on handling ASB reports sets out that it cannot investigate general domestic or living noises, or noises transmitted due to poor sound insulation. In investigating noise nuisance reports, it will:
    1. Communicate effectively with complainants by producing a clear action plan with agreed actions, timescales, and desired outcomes.
    2. Keep in regular contact with complainants by an agreed method and at a frequency agreed with residents.
    3. Work with other agencies where appropriate and adopt a multi-agency approach.
    4. Consider using informal and formal mediation.
    5. Where there is insufficient evidence to act, it will make it this clear to residents and advise on what is needed for it to proceed to action.
12. It also sets out that it expects residents to:
    1. Report incidents of noise i.e., music, shouting, etc to the relevant Local Authority environmental department first, so that any noise monitoring equipment can be used to collect evidence.
    2. Report incidents of anti-social behaviour and support it in the collection of evidence including the use of incident diaries when requested to do so.
13. The landlord’s policy on managing unreasonable customer behaviour explains that it will consider restricting communication with residents when it considers they are engaged in this type of behaviour.
14. The types of behaviour the landlord considers 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 also states it will always in the first instance allow the resident an opportunity to modify their behaviour by sending a warning letter.
15. We can see the resident sent the landlord a high volume of emails from July 2022 to April 2024. These emails were often daily, and within them he mostly reported experiencing an excessive degree of household noise from his neighbours such as general banging, dragging, and moving of furniture. We note that the types of noise the resident described in these emails are typically categorized by landlords as household noise.
16. On 11 July 2022 we can see the asked the resident to supply supporting evidence and explained that it would not discuss the reports further without this. On 5 August 2022 the resident supplied a video recording to the landlord of alleged noise nuisance. The landlord considered this and found it documented “singing and humming” noise, and declined to take any action on the basis that this was typical household noise. We consider this decision was reasonable and in line with its policy.
17. Following this the resident continued to repeat the allegations over the next 2 years but did not provide any further evidence. In late 2022 the landlord decided to restrict the residents contact due to the volume of his communication. We can see that it warned him it would do so on 18 October 2022 if he failed to supply evidence to support his allegations.
18. We note that under the landlord’s ASB policy the resident was expected to supply evidence in support of his claims. We can see no evidence that the resident did so at any stage following this warning, and therefore the landlord acted in accordance with its policy on managing unreasonable behaviour by restricting his contact. We also note that the landlord acted positively by meeting with the resident in person on 25 July 2023 to discuss his reports in more detail.
19. It is also important to note that the noise the resident described in his emails from July 2022 onwards appears to be the kinds of noise typically referred to as household noise. Despite this, we consider the landlord should have done more to consider whether the noise the resident reported qualified as ASB. For instance, there is no indication the landlord invited the resident to use incident diaries, or that it attempted a multi-agency approach in tandem with the LA.
20. These measures feature in the investigative methodology set out in its ASB policy and so it should have explored these as a possible way of gathering evidence and reaching a decision about the nature of the noise. Furthermore, the landlord explicitly committed to liaising with the LA in its 12 December 2023 stage 2 response but failed to do so. It also failed to communicate the outcome of the 25 July 2023 meeting with the resident in writing to explain what, if any, action it had decided to take.
21. Therefore, we consider the landlord has missed opportunities to make a robust decision on the nature of the noise, and to communicate this decision with the resident. For this reason we will order the landlord to honour its commitment to liaise with the LA and ask it to consider the resident’s latest report.
22. We also consider the landlord’s omissions here likely caused the resident some distress, and therefore we will order it pays some compensation to put this right. 
23. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will award sums from £100 to £600 when a resident has experienced a moderate degree of inconvenience or financial loss due to its failing. It cites a failure over a considerable period to act in accordance with its policy as an example of this type of failing.
24. In determining the correct sum of compensation we have considered that the landlord failed to write to the resident about the outcome of the 25 July 2023 meeting. We have considered that the landlord has already offered the resident £100 for this, and for its failure to liaise with the LA. We have considered that the landlord then failed to contact the LA following this acknowledgement at stage 2. However, we have balanced this against the positive action the landlord took in meeting with the resident to explore his concerns on 25 July 2023, and with its repeated attempts to invite the resident to supply evidence to support his allegations. Having done so, we will order the landlord to pay the resident a further £100 compensation as redress for its omissions.

Complaint handling

25. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days and address them within 5 working days. It also obliges the landlord to acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 2 working days and address them within 15 working days. The resident complained in early July 2023 and the landlord issued a stage 1 response on 11 July 2023.
26. Given the resident was sending daily emails during this period reporting noise nuisance, it is difficult for us to determine which of these emails the landlord acknowledged as a formal complaint. For this reason, we consider it fair to take the view that the landlord issued its stage 1 response within its timescales.
27. The landlord’s first stage 2 response of 8 December 2023 was 44 working days beyond its timescales. It then revised its decision and issued a new stage 2 response on 12 December 2023. It is unclear what prompted its doing so. However, we consider it acted positively by revising its decision and acknowledging some of the failings identified in this report.
28. Though its stage 2 response was substantially delayed, the landlord has offered the resident £400 as compensation for this. This figure sits at the higher end of its compensation scale, and as such we consider it is sufficient to put right any distress the delay likely caused the resident. We also recognize that the volume of the resident’s often daily communication made an omission like this more likely. On this basis, we consider the landlord has made a suitable offer of redress for its complaint handling failure.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s noise reports.
30. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

31. The landlord is to pay the resident £100 for its omissions in its handling of his noise reports.
32. The landlord is to pay the resident the £100 it offered at stage 2 for its omissions in its handling his reports. If it has already done so, it is to evidence this.
33. The landlord is to liaise with the LA and ask it to consider the resident’s latest noise reports.

Recommendations

34. The landlord should reoffer the resident the £400 for its complaint handling delays if it has not already paid this.