Regenda Limited (202300456)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300456

Regenda Limited

12 March 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the installation of an additional handrail/banister on a communal staircase.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. He has resided in the property, described as a 2-bedroom, upper-floor flat, since 2011.
The landlord advised that, during the complaint process, the resident raised concerns about his mental health. However, it had no details regarding any vulnerabilities formally recorded.
On 7 June 2022, records show the resident contacted the landlord to raise a complaint. Neither party has provided us with a copy of the original complaint.
The landlord provided a response at its First Time Resolution stage on 13 June 2022. It understood the complaint to be about the installation of a handrail in the communal hallway of the resident’s block. As a result, the resident had to pay £70 in storage costs after a new sofa he had ordered could not be delivered. It went to say the following:
1. It was sorry for the impact the situation had had on the resident.
2. To resolve the complaint, it would visit the block to “assess the width of the communal hallway”. It said this would happen on 15 June 2022.
3. It could arrange for the additional banister rail to be temporarily removed to “allow additional space to have (the) sofa delivered”.
4. It had reviewed its “approach to raising a minor adaptation in communal areas”. In future, it would (where possible) let residents know in advance when adaptations will be taking place.
On 7 July 2022, the landlord emailed the resident. It referred to a phone call it had had with him. It apologised for the “inconvenience, distress and disruption” caused by the lack of communication around the installation of the banister rail. It said it wanted to resolve the complaint. It reiterated its apology and went on to make further offers and commitments:
1. It reiterated its apology.
2. £250 compensation towards his storage costs and the disruption caused.
3. It would change its processes “so that all future adaptations to shared areas, which affect the movement of items”, would be communicated to any affected residents in advance.
4. A member of its technical team would visit the block within the next 14 days. They would “review the suitability of the adaptation” in the stairwell.
5. It was willing to “coordinate and pay for” delivery arrangements for his sofa, from the storage facility to his home.
The resident responded on 11 July 2022. He said he was happy with the resolutions offered but did not need help with the sofa delivery. The landlord emailed back the same day and confirmed that the £250 compensation would be progressed. It said it would contact him again to confirm the technical team’s visit and that the offer to help with delivery of his sofa remained open. It said it considered his complaint resolved.
An inspection of the banister/hallway took place on 25 July 2022. The attending operative thought an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment was needed.
Records show the resident contacted the landlord on 2 August 2022. Details of the exchange are limited, but the landlord noted the resident remained unhappy. The complaint was reopened and the landlord followed this up with the resident the following day via email.
An OT assessment was carried out on 8 August 2022. A report was provided to the landlord the following day.
On 9 August 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident regarding the complaint. It said that “as (the) complaint has been fully upheld”, it was writing to give an update on the actions that had been agreed. It said:
1. A cheque for £250 had been posted to him on 12 July 2022.
2. The resident had said he had since had to pay further storage costs. It asked for further details so “these can be similarly paid”.
3. The process for “communicating the installation of all adaptations to shared areas has (now) been changed”.
4. It would update him on the OT’s findings following their visit.
5. A joiner had attended the block on 25 July 2022. They confirmed the banister could be “comfortably removed and replaced” when the resident needed to move his sofa. It asked him when he wanted to move the sofa so the removal/replacement could be arranged.
6. It would pay a further £50 compensation to reflect that he was not told when the joiner appointment and OT assessment would take place (£25 for each).
7. Its offer to “coordinate, undertake and pay for all delivery arrangements” regarding delivery of the sofa from storage remained open. It asked him to make contact so this could be arranged.
On 19 August 2022, the landlord issued a “final response” to the complaint. It had “reviewed (the) complaint at Stage 1” of its procedure. It noted the resident said it did not provide feedback from the technical visits out when it had promised it would. He had also incurred further storage costs as the handrail remained in place and the sofa could not be delivered. It made the following comments and findings:
1. It accepted there had been no communication with him before the handrail was installed. Although it said its actions had not contradicted existing policies for installing minor adaptations, it accepted it “ought” to have contacted him. As a result, it had since changed its procedures.
2. It had earlier paid the resident £250 to “reflect both the storage costs…(and) the distress and inconvenience” caused by the lack of communication. It considered this was a “proportionate offer”, in line with its compensation policy. It said its response was a “fair” attempt to resolve the complaint.
3. Addressing further concerns raised by the resident (on 11 July and 3 August 2022) that the handrail remained in place, and he had incurred further costs for storage, it said the rail had been fitted to a good standard. It had been installed due to the needs of another resident. It reiterated that the handrail had been inspected by a joiner and an OT, both of whom found it had been installed correctly. It could be removed temporarily when required. It did not uphold the complaint but repeated its offer to “coordinate and pay for” the sofa to be moved from storage to his home.
4. It also said its offer to pay for any “reasonable” additional storage costs “up to this point” remained open.
5. It accepted the “timescales for keeping (the resident) informed” about the visits from the joiner and OT had not been met. It noted additional compensation of £50 had been paid (£25 for each visit). It upheld the complaint, but said its previous offer had also been “proportionate” and in line with its compensation policy.
6. It acknowledged it had not met its target timescales when responding to the resident’s complaint. It was late acknowledging both the original complaint and first escalation request. It had also closed the complaint in error in July 2022. While it was later reopened, it accepted this had caused a delay. It apologised and offered £200 compensation to reflect the failings (£25 for each delayed acknowledgement; £150 for wrongly closing the complaint). It would also include the case within a learning briefing to relevant staff.
On 19 August 2022, the resident responded to the landlord. He said:
1. He did not want to take the complaint further.
2. He had organised alternative storage. Up that point, he had paid a further £140 for 2 weeks’ storage.
3. He asked who to contact to arrange for the handrail to be removed ahead of a redelivery. He said he did not expect the landlord to pay for any redelivery.
The landlord responded the same day. It advised who the resident needed to contact to arrange a temporary removal of the handrail. It also said it would add £140 to the compensation amount to reflect his additional storage costs. It advised it had now closed the complaint.

Assessment and findings

When a landlord admits failings, our role is to assess whether the redress it offered “put things right” and resolved the complaint in the circumstances. We consider whether its offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord installed a new handrail/banister to the communal staircase in the resident’s block. It is not disputed that, after installing the new banister, the resident was unable to take delivery of a new sofa, as it did not fit up the stairs.
The landlord accepted this caused him inconvenience. While it believed the adaptation was appropriate and installed properly, in its complaint responses it agreed that it should have contacted him – and other residents – before the work was carried out. This was reasonable. It was also positive that the landlord showed it had learned from the case. It amended its procedures regarding the installation of minor adaptations in communal area. The new procedures said it would advise any affected residents in advance of adaptations being installed, to try and prevent similar situations arising in future. This was a reasonable step for it to take.
In addition to reviewing its procedure, the landlord offered the resident an apology and compensation. It initially offered him £250 to reflect the inconvenience he had been caused and cover the storage costs he had incurred following the failed delivery. This was a proportionate offer. It was also proactive in offering to arrange, and pay for, any redelivery of the sofa from storage. The offers of redress the landlord made showed it tried to “put things right”. It aimed to ensure the resident was not left worse off than he had been.
The landlord’s decision to arrange 2 technical inspections – initially from a joiner and then an OT, who carried out a full assessment – was also appropriate. It showed it took the resident’s complaint seriously and carried out a thorough investigation. It appropriately provided updates on the visits, and the findings the operatives had made, within its complaint responses. When these updates were provided outside of the timescales it had promised, it acknowledged this. It appropriately apologised for missing those targets and paid further compensation to reflect any inconvenience caused.
As the complaint progressed, the landlord reasonably kept in contact with the resident and regularly reviewed the case. It considered further concerns the resident raised and advised more than once that its offer to arrange delivery of the sofa remained open. When it closed the complaint early, it recognised this had been done in error. It apologised and made a further offer of compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused, which was proportionate in the circumstances. It reasonably paid further compensation of £140 when, at the end of the complaint process, the resident advised he had incurred further storage costs. This showed the landlord remained committed to finding an acceptable resolution to the complaint.
We note the resident has advised the installation of the handrail has impacted on the quality of his life. Other than being prevented from moving large items of furniture without first contacting the landlord (to arrange temporary removal of the handrail), we have not seen evidence that demonstrates any ongoing detriment caused by the presence of the handrail. The landlord was entitled to install a handrail to benefit another resident. After receiving the complaint, it made reasonable efforts to establish this had been done properly. There is no indication the new handrail stopped the resident from accessing or leaving his property. While the landlord recognised the impact caused by the resident’s failed delivery, it took proportionate steps to try and put things right.
From the evidence we have seen, the landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s concerns about the installation of the handrail. It took his complaint seriously and properly investigated the concerns raised. The actions it took in response – amending its policy regarding the installation of adaptation, carrying out staff training, offering apologies and compensation throughout the complaint process – were proactive and proportionate. We consider the apologies and compensation offered by the landlord, and the actions it took amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.
In correspondence with us, the resident said he is still “unable” to move furniture into his property. When the landlord submitted information to this investigation in June 2024, it advised the resident had not taken up its offer of organising and assisting with the delivery of furniture. It had not received any further contact about the issue since September 2022.
We have therefore recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss the matter. It should establish whether there are any outstanding issues regarding access to the resident’s property and/or furniture delivery and, if relevant, whether there are any steps it needs to take to help with these. It should also clarify whether its offer to organise delivery of any furniture in storage remains open.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in response to the resident’s concerns about its handling of the installation of an additional handrail/banister on a communal staircase.

Recommendation

The landlord should contact the resident to:
1. Establish whether there are any outstanding issues regarding access to the resident’s property and/or the delivery of furniture.
2. Find out, if necessary, whether there are any steps it needs to take to help with these.
3. Clarify whether its offer to organise delivery of any furniture that remains in storage is still open to the resident.