Regenda Limited (202339912)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339912

Regenda Limited

20 August 2024


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 the landlord’s response to:
    1. The resident’s requests for updates regarding repairs.
    2. Reports of a leak into the bedroom and associated damp and mould.
    3. Reports of repairs to the front door and external fixtures.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant and has lived in the 2-bed bungalow since April 1993. The landlord has confirmed the resident has health concerns.
  2. The resident reported rotten soffits around the property on 25 May 2023. An inspection on 20 June 2023 confirmed the fascias were split around the box ends in a few places. At the same time, she reported wet patches on the carpet near the front door.
  3. The resident submitted a complaint on 7 December 2023 regarding the landlord’s failure to update her on the ongoing damp and water ingress. The resident said she made several calls to the landlord, but none were returned.
  4. The landlord responded to the complaint on 8 December 2023. It apologised and acknowledged its failure to communicate with the resident and offered £75 compensation. It confirmed an inspection to assess the water ingress would be completed on 21 December 2023.
  5. The complaint was escalated on 8 January 2024 as the repairs were still outstanding and she was unhappy with the progress and updates.
  6. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 29 January 2024. It confirmed all the visits that had taken place to inspect the concerns raised, and a timeline of repairs for the front door. The landlord said a new door had been approved and advised of an 8-10 week install date. In response to the damp and mould concerns, the landlord included a timeline of the visits and actions from 16 May 2023 to 31 January 2024. These included inspections of windows, fascias, soffits, the loft, and the bedroom. It confirmed the fascias would be replaced and offered £250 compensation for the delay in replacing these and the box ends.

Post completion of the complaint process

  1. On 14 February 2024, the contractor confirmed the appointment dates for the repairs with the resident. However, on 19 February 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident. It said an inspection on 31 January 2024 had determined the fascias did not need replacing as they were not causing damp or mould. The evidence provided confirmed the replacement of the box ends and the fascia treatment was refused by the resident as she wanted a full replacement of the fascias. The completion of work in the bedroom was delayed also as the resident had wanted to speak to her solicitor. The landlord confirmed the repairs remained outstanding and a live disrepair claim was ongoing following a claim in mid-March 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referred to the impact the property condition has had on her health, plus she referred to a personal injury. Although we can consider the impact of the repairs on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot determine liability or issue a binding decision on health or personal injury claims or award damages. These are legal aspects better suited to an insurance claim or court. If the resident wishes to proceed with these aspects of her complaint she should seek legal advice. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused.
  2. The Ombudsman has received historical repair evidence connected to the property. In accordance with paragraph 42c of the Scheme (in place at the time of the complaint), the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. For clarity, this investigation will focus on events from May 2023 (6 months before the complaint was made in December 2023) up to the final complaint response date of 29 January 2024. 

Communication

  1. In the resident’s complaint, she referred to calls she had made which were not returned by the landlord. The landlord’s contact logs confirmed the calls were received from the resident. However, there is no evidence of any call backs being made until 6 December 2023. This is likely to have increased the resident’s frustration as she had to invest time and effort into making repeated and avoidable calls. The lack of communication was a direct reason for her submitting her complaint which the Ombudsman finds unreasonable.
  2. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged its failure for not returning the calls within the required 5 working day timescale. It apologised and confirmed it had added the resident’s experience to the development plan as a learning outcome – it said changes had been made to prevent it happening again. This was a reasonable response from the landlord; however, it would have been appropriate to include detail on some of the changes it referred to. Although not a service failure, this would have shown completeness and demonstrated the landlord’s honest and transparent approach to learning from feedback, while showing it had taken the complaint seriously.
  3. In summary, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for updates about repairs. It applied the Dispute Resolution Principles of this Service: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. It demonstrated a thorough investigation, apologised for the service failure, and took learning from the resident’s experience. It used its discretionary compensation policy when offering £75 for the minor impact of its failings. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, this is what we would expect for a finding of service failure where the impact was minimal and over a short duration.

Leak and associated damp and mould

  1. The landlord attended the property on 16 May 2023 following a report of draughty living room and bedroom windows which were thought to be contributing to damp and mould. The landlord confirmed there was no damp or mould in the property, but new window frames were fitted on 18 September 2023 (the delay was due to the time taken for the windows to be delivered). There were no further problems reported in regard to the windows so it must be assumed that the fault was rectified.
  2. On 25 September 2023, the resident reported mould on her bathroom ceiling. The landlord attended the same day which was reasonable and within its repair response timescales. While at the property, the landlord inspected the loft area. This was an appropriate step to take as it showed the landlord attempted to locate any underlying causes of the mould. The landlord did not find any evidence of leaks or any other issues that could be contributing to mould. It was found that the mould was above the shower and could have been condensation. No further issues were reported for the bathroom so it must be assumed the mould in the bathroom was resolved following the resulting treatment that was applied.
  3. The resident reported mould in the wardrobe of her bedroom on 30 October 2023, and the landlord completed a mould wash on 21 November 2023. This was a reasonable response and in line with its damp process. The resident was concerned the problem may have been from the damp issues in a neighbouring property, however upon inspection the landlord confirmed there was no link.
  4. A supervisor visited the property on 21 December 2023 to assess the repairs in the bedroom caused by the mould in the wardrobe. The supervisor asked for a contactor to assess this further and to complete a roof and damp inspection. It was reasonable of the landlord to obtain a second opinion before progressing the repairs further. This was requested on 8 January 2024 when the landlord asked for an urgent damp inspection. A contractor attended on 17 January 2024 but in the final complaint response (29 January 2024), the landlord said it was still waiting for the report which would determine the action to be taken.
  5. On 31 January 2024, the landlord’s repairs management and asset surveyor completed a joint inspection of the property to discuss the damp and mould concerns. During the visit, elevated damp readings were highlighted within the wardrobe in the bedroom. The landlord said the damp was caused by moisture condensing on the cold floor which caused black spots in the base of the wardrobe (there was no carpet in the base of the wardrobe). The Ombudsman finds it reasonable for the landlord to use the knowledge of the staff present to conclude the findings and scope of work needed. The landlord confirmed there was no further sign of water ingress in the property.
  6. A schedule of work was devised to address the mould and dates were confirmed with the resident. The work was arranged for 21 to 26 February 2024, and the contractor attended as agreed. As the work commenced, the landlord said the contractor found the plaster was too thick to apply the originally requested damp proof membrane. To enable the completion of the repairs, an alternative dry sealant was sourced. While it is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to decide if the dry sealant was sufficient, it is concluded that the landlord (and/or contractor) acted reasonably and used its knowledge in finding an alternative material that would resolve the issue. The landlord’s evidence confirmed the resident was not happy with the materials used and as such did not allow the remaining work to be completed (refix skirting board, refix shelf, and decorative works). The resident told the landlord she wanted to discuss the situation with her solicitor as she was certain there was a wider damp issue. In July 2024, the landlord confirmed the work remained outstanding due to the disrepair claim.
  7. In summary, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s response to a leak and associated damp and mould. It demonstrated appropriate actions were taken within a reasonable timeframe when damp and mould concerns were reported. It could not find a link with the damp issues in a neighbouring property, and when damp was identified in the bedroom, it put together an appropriate scope of work to rectify the problem. The work was passed to the contractor and the appointments were made in a timely manner.

Repairs to the property

Front door

  1. Following a report on 14 November 2023 of the front door letting water in, the landlord’s repair records confirmed it attended on 12 December 2023 – this was within the repair response timescale for a non-emergency repair. Although it overhauled the door, the landlord suggested a new one may be needed. To confirm this, a surveyor was requested, and an inspection took place on 21 December 2023. The request for a new door was approved on 17 January 2024 and sent to the contractor to arrange the measuring and ordering. The Ombudsman finds the approach taken by the landlord to be reasonable and within appropriate timescales.
  2. The contractor initially confirmed it would attend on 6 February 2024 to measure the door but, on that day, the resident called the landlord to ask when the contractor would be attending. The landlord’s records confirm it contacted the contractor regarding the appointment. The contractor said the appointment was changed to 9 February 2024 due to them already being in the area that day. The contractor said this had been confirmed with the resident. The landlord later used its discretion and offered the resident £50 for a missed appointment on 6 February 2024. Without the physical evidence to show this amendment had been confirmed with the customer, the Ombudsman finds the action of the landlord to offer compensation reasonable and resolution focused.
  3. As the door was being manufactured, the landlord was not able to confirm an install date to the resident. It did however set the resident’s expectations by confirming there was a lead in time of 8 to 10 weeks. There is evidence the resident was not happy that a date could not be provided but, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response, and provision of the lead in time, was reasonable. This was not something that it could fully control and was in line with the standard manufacturing time for new doors.
  4. The new door was installed on 29 April 2024. This was just outside of the timescale provided and was a reasonable turnaround. Following the replacement of the door, the resident had to call the landlord to advise it did not have a number on it. The landlord referred this back to the contractor, which was an appropriate action to take. While there is no evidence to confirm this action was completed, on its update to this Service on 18 July 2024, the landlord confirmed there was no outstanding issue with the door.

External fixtures

  1. The resident first reported the fascias and soffits as rotten on 25 May 2023. The landlord inspected the property on 20 June 2023 which was within timescale for a non-emergency repair. The fascias were noted as split in a few places around the box ends and it was suggested a surveyor should attend to advise on a replacement. The Ombudsman finds it reasonable that the landlord asked for a second opinion before a decision was made on the next course of action. The landlord acknowledged in its final complaint response that this referral was not made and, as such, no further action was taken at that time. The landlord recognised the service failure and offered £250 for the delay in these repairs – the Ombudsman finds the offer proportionate for the level of service failure given the length of the delay period.
  2. A second visit was made on 10 January 2024. While the operative recommended replacing 3 box ends, the resident asked for a surveyor’s inspection. This was arranged within a reasonable timeframe and took place on 22 January 2024. They advised the box ends should be replaced but suggested replacing all the fascias. It was confirmed in the final complaint response dated 29 January 2024 that a contractor would replace the fascias and box ends.
  3. Following the provision of the final complaint response letter, a planned visit to inspect the damp and mould issues on 31 January 2024 resulted in another inspection of the facias. On 19 February 2024, the landlord told the resident the inspection had found the fascias did not need replacing. It said there was no evidence of them causing damp or mould and only decorative work was required. The landlord said it had escalated the ‘incorrect information’ to management for it to be addressed.
  4. It is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to decide if the fascias did, or did not, need replacing, but it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the inspection which confirmed they did not require replacement. However, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord changed its position which is likely to have increased the resident’s upset and frustration after falsely setting her expectations. This was compounded further by the fact the landlord had already compensated her for the delay in completing the repair. The landlord did not offer an apology for any inconvenience caused which the Ombudsman finds unreasonable.
  5. The work was scheduled for 26 February 2024; however, the contractor advised the resident refused the work as she wanted the fascias to be replaced in full. On 28 February 2024, the landlord confirmed the resident had not refused the work but rather she wanted to suspend it until she had spoken to her solicitor. There is no evidence to suggest the work was completed prior to the landlord receiving the disrepair claim.

Summary

  1. Overall, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of repairs needed to the front door and external fixtures. This is in the main due the landlord’s change in decision regarding the fascias. The landlord did not apologise for this or recognise how long the matter had been ongoing before overturning its original plan. There was no recognition or acknowledgement of how it had raised the resident’s expectations and the inconvenience this had caused her. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable and is of the view that the resident should receive compensation for the inconvenience caused.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for updates regarding repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of a leak into the bedroom and associated damp and mould.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of repairs to the front door and external fixtures.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Write a letter of apology to the resident for the service failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident the £250 compensation as offered in the final complaint response for the delays in replacing the fascias and box ends.
    3. Pay an additional £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused by the additional service failure in its handling of the fascia repairs (the additional compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears that may be owed).
  2. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence to show that it has complied with the orders above within the timeframe given.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £75 as agreed in the stage 1 complaint response letter. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for the failures in the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for updates regarding repairs is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.
  2. The landlord should review the learning it has taken from this case to improve communications with residents to ensure that this will avoid similar failings occurring in future. This should include timescales for any actions to be implemented.