Regenda Limited (202126185)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126185

Regenda Limited

1 February 2023

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the roof repairs to the property including the resident’s report of damp and mould within the property.
The related complaint

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which commenced on 2 April 2012. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association.
The property is described as a three-bedroom town house which was built in 2012.
The resident’s son is autistic.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the premises including the roof.
The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy states that the landlord will agree an appointment with its residents and that residents must provide access to the contractor on the date and time of the appointment. Major repairs should be completed within 60 days unless significant works are to be carried out to the property. It will inform its insurers of a related claim and it will not consider liability until its insurers have considered the claim.
The landlord’s guidance note dealing with customer feedback advises that all complaints are dealt with at its first-time resolution stage. Complaints escalated to stage one of the complaints procedure are to be answered within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied and there is further evidence to be reviewed, the complaint will be progressed to the final stage. In cases, where the landlord determines there is no resolution to its resident’s concerns, a closed panel will consider the case, consisting of a tenant representative.
The landlord’s discretionary compensation policy sets out that where it identifies a service failure, it will apologise, provide an explanation of the service failure and demonstrate the learning as part of the resolution. It provides guidance on the amounts of compensation that can be awarded.

Summary of events

Following reports of water penetration from the resident in December 2020, the landlord arranged for the roof to be inspected and requested an inspection report. The roofing company attended on 12 January 2021.
Following the visit by the roofing company, the resident informed the landlord on 14 January 2021 that due to the water penetration she had mould and dampness in the property. This was affecting her family and she was going to contact the Environmental Health Officer (EHO) if the landlord did not act.
The landlord’s records show that an order was raised on 18 January 2021 for a mould wash to be carried out in two bedrooms and the living room. This was completed on 4 February 2021.
The resident communicated further with the landlord on five occasions on 18 January 2021, 20 January 2021, 28 January and 29 January 2021 regarding the water penetration to the property. She advised that her children could not occupy their bedrooms due to the mould and that the mould had affected the children’s clothes. Furthermore, she requested a temporary move to alternative accommodation until the repairs were carried out.
In response, the surveyor agreed to visit to ascertain the condition of the property on 9 February 2021.
The landlord’s records show that on 7 April 2021 it reviewed the inspection report received from the roofing company. The inspection report found that the under tiling felt to the roof was poorly fitted and lacked the appropriate drape in the roof void. It recommended a full replacement of the roof as a high priority. The landlord reviewed the report and considered whether it should arrange another survey of the roof and discussed that the report findings were dissimilar to previous reports that it had received regarding the condition of the roof.
The resident chased the landlord for an update regarding the roof leak and the mould on 9 June 2021. On the same day, the landlord’s records show that it considered obtaining a second quote to remedy the water penetration into the resident’s property as it was unhappy with the original quote it received regarding the condition of the roof.
The resident complained to the landlord on 15 June 2021 about the time taken to repair the roof as she has been informed six months previously that repairs were required to the roof. The resident explained that she could not remain in the property while the repairs were carried out due to her son’s medical condition and requested a move to an alternative property. She advised that her family had been impacted by the lack of action as two of her children are asthmatic and her son is autistic. In addition, the children were sleeping on mattresses in her room as only one bedroom was useable. The mould was affecting the walls, flooring and windows. Consequently, the resident had to replace the curtains, blinds and bedding and had not received a response regarding the transfer to a new property.
The landlord’s records show that a works order was raised on 17 June 2021 to carry out a mould wash to the property.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 22 June 2021 regarding the complaint. The resident expressed that she had complained about the property condition since March 2021 and that the landlord had not agreed to a decant. The landlord informed the resident that the property had not been assessed as being uninhabitable and that it could not agree to a management move.
The landlord’s internal records on 22 June 2021 noted that the resident son was autistic and had been assessed as high on the spectrum. Also, whilst she qualified for a four-bedroom house, she was willing to accept a large three-bedroom property with a dining room which she could use as a sensory room. It noted that it had limited housing stock and it did not have an empty three- or four-bedroom property or a property that was due to become available for letting to move the family to.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 25 June 2021 to advise that her housing application had been assessed and she was placed in Band E. It had checked with three other housing associations regarding the availability of four-bedroom properties, unfortunately none were available. It advised the resident to provide medical evidence to support her housing application as that may improve the band awarded to her application. In addition, it intended to install scaffolding to the property on 12 July 2021.
The landlord’s internal records show that on 28 June 2021, the resident informed the landlord that as she needed to move urgently, she did not want to register for a mutual exchange neither did she did not want to move to a hotel. On 30 June 2021, the resident informed the landlord that she did not have access to support services or to social services.
The landlord’s surveyor visited on 2 July 2021. He noted that the mould wash had been carried out to two bedrooms the previous Monday (28 June 2021) so the bedrooms could be used. He recommended that the bedrooms be plastered.
The landlord’s records noted that scaffolding was installed to the property on 14 July 2021 and that the resident had been advised that she needed to actively bid for a property if she wanted to move permanently. It was noted that the resident had requested that its contractor give advance notice before appointments are made to carry out the mould wash.
The roofing company provided their inspection report on 27 July 2021 and recommended a full roof replacement as the insulation below the single ply membrane had failed, there was no provision for ventilation and there were tears in the felt underlay to the roof.
The landlord provided its first-time resolution complaint response on 29 July 2021. It apologised for the delay in responding. The key findings were:
1. Advised that it had been informed by the contractor of delays in obtaining access to the property to carry out the mould wash to the bedroom.
2. Informed that it needed to carry out a full inspection and consider the report recommendations before works to the roof could be authorised.
3. Understood her frustration and was aware of the impact on her family.
4. Awarded compensation of £150 for the ruined blinds in the bedroom.
5. Aware that she wanted to move and it was liaising with the neighbourhood team about this. However, it was of the view that the works required to the property could be undertaken with her in situ.
6. Authorised the start date of the roof works and let her know the start date.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 2 August 2021. The resident remained dissatisfied with the lack of resolution to the roof leak. In addition, she requested that the landlord find her alternative accommodation.
The landlord’s internal records on 4 August 2021 noted that 19 homes were affected by the defect to the roof. It agreed to carry out a damp wash of the walls in both bedrooms on a monthly basis in the resident’s property until the roof works were completed.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 4 August 2021. The key findings were:
1. The damp in the property was a result of the defect to the roof.
2. The defective roof was also affecting 19 other properties and it had sourced specialist contractors to undertake the work to the properties.
3. Arranged for mould washes to be carried out every four to six weeks until the roof works were complete.
4. The surveyor’s inspection had found that the property was habitable and a decant was not required.
5. Apologised for the frustration experienced by the resident.
6. Commencement of the date of the works had not been agreed.
7. Communication between it and the resident could have been better. The Housing Officer would be the point of contact going forward.
On 1 October 2021, the resident informed the landlord that the roof was still leaking, her son had a perforated ear drum due to the mould and the upper floor of the property was damp. Furthermore, the mould washes had not been carried out and the seals to the windows had failed.
On 4 October 2021, the landlord raised a works order for a mould wash to take place every 20 days. The landlord informed the EHO on 4 October 2021 of the works to be undertaken to remedy the defects to the roof and the mould washes that had been carried to the property.
The landlord’s insurance company contacted the landlord on 21 October 2021 to request that its surveyor attend a joint inspection of the property on 26 October 2021 to assess the condition of the roof. The landlord responded that it had experienced sickness in the surveyors team due to Covid 19, so at that time, it could not agree a convenient date.
On 22 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord following a visit by the insurance company. She advised that they had used the crane to check the roof and advised that the beams in the property were in poor condition. On the same day, the landlord’s records show that it did not have a suitable property available for the resident to move to and that the resident did not meet the criteria for a decant.
The landlord’s insurers noted on 7 April 2022 that it had received the surveyors report. On 6 May 2022, the landlord’s insurers confirmed that they were handling the insurance claim regarding the defect to the roof.
The resident made a legal disrepair claim to the landlord on 24 May 2022.
The landlord’s records on 27 June 2022 that the mould wash contractor provided the timeline of mould washes carried out at the resident’s property:
1. Completed mould wash to the bedroom on 24 June 2021.
2. Cancelled appointment for 4 October 2021 as it was unable to contact the resident and the number for contact was incorrect.
3. Access to the property declined on 11 October 2021 with the resident advising she was going to inform the landlord that she did not want the mould wash undertaken.
4. Unable to contact the resident on 19 November 2021 and the landlord was notified.
5. Unable to make contact with the resident regarding the mould wash to take place in February 2022.
6. Advised by the resident that it had not agreed an appointment for the mould wash to take place on 8 March 2022.
7. Completed a mould wash on 17 March 2022.
8. Completed a mould wash on 26 May 2022.
Once this Service confirmed that the complaint fell within the Ombudsman remit for investigation, the landlord reviewed its complaint responses to the resident. It provided its final complaint response on 27 June 2022. It acknowledged its visit to the resident the previous week and its telephone conversation regarding the complaint. The key findings were:
1. Recognised that there had been delays completing the roof repairs as the repairs formed part of a wider building defect that it had to resolve.
2. Confirmed that the defects to the roof are covered by the building insurance policy. Following the second roofing inspection, it had received a report to enable it to make an insurance claim to remedy the defect to the roof.
3. Recognised that it had been a long process as it involved the inspection of other properties.
4. Acknowledged that its communication with the resident could be improved and that it should have acted to ensure that actions agreed in its complaint response were carried out.
5. Going forward, it would ensure that when there are outstanding or temporary repairs, it would maintain contact with the resident at least once a month, though the complaint had been closed. In addition, it would review complaints at its weekly management team meetings and carry out training with the team on its compensation policy.
6. Apologised that its communication with the resident fell below its service standards.
7. Agreed to attend by the end of July 2022 to assess the bedrooms on the upper floor regarding the replastering of the external wall and any other area affected by the water penetration in the bedrooms. It agreed to decorate the bedrooms and replace the silicone around the window edges in the bedrooms. The works would be completed within eight weeks of completion of the insurance works.
8. Confirmed that the roofing works could be carried out with the resident in situ. However, it had regard to the health needs of her family and agreed to move her on a temporary basis to a hotel, arrange transport for the children to get to school and for the dogs to be placed in kennels whilst the work was carried out.
9. Awarded compensation of £910 broken down as: £25 for an appointment that was made by mistake for an unnecessary visit, £410 to reimburse the resident for the chemicals purchased to remove the mould for the previous 82 weeks, £250 for the delay in progressing the complaint to the final stage of the complaint procedure and £250 for the poor communication experienced. In addition, it agreed to purchase 2 adult and 4 children tickets to Alton Towers and to pay the train fare in recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
10. Agreed to provide weekly updates on the progress of the work and to agree a specific date and time that the mould treatment would take place each month.

Summary of events that occurred after the landlord’s complaint process.

The landlord provided an update to this Service on 20 January 2023. It advised that:
1. it had installed additional ventilation in the roof space and intended to install a further ventilation unit into the loft space.
2. it confirmed that mould washes had been carried out on a regular basis and have maintained contact with the resident.
3. It had provided dehumidifiers to aid with the drying out of the property since November 2022 and had provided payments of £990 to assist with their running costs.
4. It had visited the resident on 20 January 2021 to agree the scope of the remedial works required to the property as agreed in the final complaint response.
5. It had already paid compensation of £1490 to the resident broken down as: £500 for the mould wash and £990 for the cost of the running of the dehumidifiers.
6. It had reviewed the resident’s circumstances in line with its compensation policy and agreed that once all the works had been completed, it would be making a further award of compensation award of £1800. This was for the delay in the work to rectify the roof being undertaken distress caused to the resident and her family and the communication failures.
The disrepair claim was received on 24 May 2022 and closed on 18 October 2022.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The Ombudsman Dispute Resolution Principles are: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman’s will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord, put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with these principles.

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the roof repairs to the property including the resident’s report of damp and mould within the property.

The landlord has a responsibility to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the building which includes the roof. Following the resident’s report to the landlord that she was experiencing water penetration into the property, it acted in accordance with its repairing obligations to arrange for the roof to be inspected to establish the cause of the water penetration. This was a reasonable course of action to diagnose the cause of the water penetration and to identify any defects to the roof which could cause damp or mould.
Looking at the available evidence, the landlord appropriately arranged for its surveyor to visit the property in February 2021 to assess the condition of the property. The available records show that the surveyor assessed that the property was habitable and recommended a mould wash until the permanent solution was found to the defect to the roof. The landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its surveyors regarding the condition of the property and subsequent inspections by its surveyors came to the same conclusion.
The landlord commissioned an inspection of the roof in January 2021 and this was not received until April 2021. From the available evidence, there is no evidence that the landlord chased the progress of the report during this period. There was a further delay between April 2021 to June 2021 before the landlord reviewed and discussed the report from the roofing company. The landlord decided to obtain a second opinion and this decision was reasonable considering that the report recommended the full replacement of the roof and the costs of the works to do this. It is noted that it agreed to carry out mould washes to the property to mitigate the impact to the resident and her family.
The second report from the roofing company also recommended that a full replacement of the roof was required to remedy the water penetration into the property. The landlord then established that the roof defect to the resident’s property resulted from the roof line and affected 19 other properties, therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to refer the defect to its building insurers for a decision on its liability.
The resident informed the landlord that she wished to move on a permanent basis due to the repairs required to the property and the impact on her son of the remedial works. The landlord has demonstrated that it considered the resident’s request to move to permanent accommodation as its communication with the resident, managed her expectation. It explained that there is a shortage of family sized accommodation and though it had checked with three other housing organisations, it did not have an available property to move her to. Furthermore, it provided advice of the housing options such as a mutual exchange and the Choice Based Lettings system. In addition, the landlord considered the advice of its surveyor that the property was habitable and that regular mould washes could be undertaken.
The landlord’s repair policy states that it will agree appointment times with residents. From the available information, the landlord’s contractor made direct appointments with the resident regarding the timing of the mould washes and it informed the landlord when it experienced difficulty contacting the resident to agree a convenient appointment time. The landlord in its complaint responses accepted that there were difficulties regarding the arranging of convenient appointment times with the resident and agreed to organise a fixed date and time for the mould washes to be carried out.
The landlord has acknowledged that the resident experienced a significant delay in getting the roof repaired from December 2020 until the works were completed on 14 November 2022 by the building insurance company who were liable for the repair. The landlord assessed that the property was habitable and organised for regular mould washes to take place until the repairs could be completed. However, it is noted that there were difficulties with the mould washes occurring on a regular basis. The responsibility for organising the mould wash was the responsibility of the contractor who informed the landlord that on some occasions, it could not make contact with the resident. The resident has also expressed that some appointments were not convenient as they were not arranged in advance and the contractors attendance impacted on her ability to leave the property for work.
The landlord initially assessed that the resident did not qualify for a temporary decant.as its position was that the remedial works can be carried out with the resident in occupation. However, in its final complaint position, the landlord has shown a willingness to resolve the resident’s concern as it has agreed to the request to provide temporary housing. It has given consideration to the children’s educational and medical needs and has stated that as the temporary move will involve additional travelling for her children and to minimise the disruption it has appropriately advised that it will arrange transport for her children to get to school. It has also given consideration to the fact that the family have pets which will not be able to be accommodated in the hotel, so it has agreed to arrange for them to be accommodated in kennels.
The landlord in its complaint responses that exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure awarded compensation of £150 for the cost of the blind that was damaged by the mould and apologised for the impact on the family.
The landlord reviewed its handling of the resident’s complaints. It recognised that it had failed to communicate properly with her. It agreed additional compensation of £685 broken down as: £25 for an unnecessary appointment, £410 to reimburse the resident for products she purchased to remedy the mould and £250 for its failure to properly inform and keep her updated regarding the progress of the roof works.
The landlord has gone beyond its repairing obligations by acknowledging and recognising the length of time that the family have experienced disruption and disturbance by the water leak whilst it waited to receive a decision on liability buy its insurance company. It agreed to pay for the family to attend Alton Towers. This included paying for the travel and entrance tickets for the day.
The landlord has undertaken another review of the resident’s complaint having regard to its compensation policy and made a further compensation award totally £1490. This has been broken down as £500 for the mould washes, £990 for the expenses associated with running the dehumidifiers. The landlord has also undertaken a further visit to the resident in January 2023 and agreed to pay a further compensation award of £1800 once the repairs are concluded in recognition of the delay experienced in getting the repairs to the roof resolved, distress experienced by the resident and her family and the initial communication delay. This was appropriate as it has taken into account that the resident has experienced over a year for the repairs to be completed to the roof, the disruption that she had experienced by having to accommodate regular visits by the contractors and reimbursed the resident for the costs that she had incurred.
Looking at this particular case, the landlord has acknowledged that it could have done better in providing regular updates to the resident regarding the roof repairs. From the initial contact there were periods that it did not keep the resident updated regarding the works required to the roof and it did not provide regular updates about the progress of the insurance claims. Furthermore, it could have done more to ensure that appropriate appointments were made in regard to the mould washes. There is sufficient evidence that the landlord overall took reasonable steps to diagnose and investigate the cause of the defect to the roof. Also, it took reasonable steps to arrange mould washes to mitigate the impact on the resident.
The landlord has acted appropriately by undertaking a review of its handling of the resident’s concerns and acknowledging its shortcoming in its communication with the resident when she first reported the defect to the landlord. The landlord has apologised for this. The landlord kept to its agreement to agree a communication plan after the complaint response and addressed the resident’s concerns by communicating regularly with the resident to provide updates on the progress of the repair and the remedial schedule of works. The landlord mitigated the mould in the property by carrying out monthly mould washes since July 2022 until the roof repairs were completed in November 2022. Following the roof repairs, the landlord arranged for dehumidifiers to be placed in the property to aid the drying out of the property and has paid the additional energy costs that have arisen.
The landlord has demonstrated that it considered the resident’s express wish to move from the property while the work was being undertaken. While the landlord has not been able to move the resident on a permanent basis, it has shown willing to resolve the complaint by its recent agreement to decant the resident and her family on a temporary basis whilst it carried out the plastering and decorating works to the property.
The landlord’s has paid an overall award of compensation of £2235. It has also agreed to pay a further compensation award of £1800 once the agreed repairs are completed. The compensation award reflects the delay experienced by the resident in getting the repair diagnosed, the time taken for the insurance company to carry out the repair and the impact on the resident’s family.
The landlord has provided details to this Service of the lessons learnt from the complaint and has introduced changes to ensure that it reviews outstanding complaints at its management team meetings to find a resolution. Also, it will agree a communication plan to maintain regular contact with its residents once the complaint has been closed and there are repairs outstanding. Taking into account all the above information, the landlord’s offer is considered reasonable redress as it demonstrates that it had acted appropriately to address the resident’s concerns following the water penetration into the property from the roof leak.

Complaint handling.

The landlord operated a two-stage complaint procedure with complaints answered within 10 working days and 20 working days at its final stage.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 15 June 2021. The landlord provided its response under its first resolution process on 29 July 2021. This was outside its complaint handling time frames and the landlord did not contact the resident to agree an extension when it realised that it would not be able to respond within its published time limits.
The complaint response confirmed its position regarding the provision of alternative accommodation. However, whilst it apologised for the lateness of the response, it did not give an indication when the works to the property would start. Furthermore, the response did not consider whether an award of compensation was appropriate for the lateness of its response.
The resident escalated her complaint on 2 August 2021 and the landlord provided its final complaint response on 4 August 2021. The complaint response includes a sentence that should have been deleted by the author before it was sent to the resident. This demonstrates a lack of attention to detail and the inclusion of the sentence means that it is not clear whether the correspondence is meant to be the landlord’s final complaint response.
Following escalation to this Service, the landlord took an opportunity to review its responses to the resident’s complaint. It provided its final complaint response on 27 June 2022. Whilst this occurred a year after the resident’s first complaint to the landlord, as part of its complaint review the landlord visited the resident to obtain a further understanding of her dissatisfaction regarding the reports of damp and mould in the property. The landlord confirmed its position that the resident did not need to move out of the property whilst the works were being carried out and acknowledged that the resident had been waiting for a significant period of time for the insurance company to provide its decision on liability. The landlord acknowledged that it could have provided better updates to the resident. However, it did not provide information to the resident on the frequency of its communication with its building insurer to chase and monitor progress on the outcome of the insurance claim.
In addition, the landlord recognised that it had not managed the complaint well. It advised that it would review any outstanding complaints at its weekly management team meetings to ensure that it agreed actions were completed on a timely basis. In addition, it acknowledged that there were deficiencies in the assessment of compensation and decided to carry out training on its compensation policy with its teams.
Furthermore, it outlined that it had learnt from the complaint and going forward it would agree with its residents, convenient contact times once complaints are closed so that it maintains regular contact with residents until the agreed repairs are concluded.
This landlord made a compensation award of £250 for the complaint handling failures such as delay in responding to the complaint and for its lack of consideration whether compensation was appropriate for those delays.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the roof repairs to the property including the resident’s report of damp and mould within the property which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the related complaint which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord identified that the defect affecting the resident’s roof extended to 19 other properties. It appropriately informed its insurance company who accepted responsibility for the repair. The landlord put in place mitigation measures with regular mould washes until the roof repairs was concluded. It has acknowledged that it could have maintained better communication with the resident about the timing of the mould washes and when the roof repairs would be carried out. It has already paid compensation of £2325 agreed to make a further compensation award of £1800 on the completion of the repairs. It is consulting with the resident regarding the timescale for the outstanding repairs to be carried out. It has recognised the impact on the resident’s household by organising a move to alternative accommodation whilst the works are being carried out and agreed a day trip to Alton Towers.
The landlord carried out a review of its approach and response to the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged that the delays in its response and made an award of £250 compensation for this and arranged training on compensation for its staff.

Recommendations

The landlord to confirm when the compensation award of £1800 for the delay, distress and communication failures will be paid.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within six weeks of the date of this report.