Regenda Limited (202342661)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342661

Regenda Limited

24 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould, and its handling of associated repairs.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. The resident lives at the property with her 2 children. The property is a house.
The resident raised dissatisfaction during the complaint process, with the landlord’s handling of the reports about damp and mould, and its handling of associated repairs.
The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 11 January 2024. The landlord accepted there had been failings in its handling of repairs. The landlord offered £1,200 compensation to try to resolve the complaint. This compensation was broken down as follows:
1. £700 compensation for delays caused when an order for works was incorrectly cancelled in April 2023.
2. £300 compensation for delays replacing the front door.
3. £200 compensation for delays replacing the windows.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 15 January 2024. The resident said the compensation offered at stage 1 was inadequate and did not reflect the damage caused within the property by mould, and the level of stress caused.
The landlord provided the stage 2 response on 25 January 2024. The landlord:
1. Set out the action it had taken in response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould, identified where failings had arisen, and set out the remedial action it would take to resolve the outstanding matters.
2. Apologised for its failure to address the issue with the damp and mould within a timely manner. It accepted that it had missed several opportunities to ensure that the correct processes and procedures were followed
3. Offered a further £1,000 compensation to try to resolve the complaint. This compensation was broken down as follows:
  1. An additional £600 for its failure to deal with the damp and mould issue.
  2. £400 towards the cost of furniture and clothing damaged by black mould.
The resident provided the landlord with additional evidence after issue of the stage 2 response. She asked the landlord to review its offer of compensation as she considered her losses to be greater than £400. The landlord concluded its review on 7 February 2024, when it increased its offer of compensation by another £800. The landlord said this brought the total amount of compensation offered during the complaint process to £3,000. The resident accepted the landlord’s final offer of compensation on the same day.
The resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman on 24 February 2024 because she felt that the landlord’s offer of compensation was inadequate. She said the damp and mould had affected her health and the health of her young children. She believed that the landlord had lied on several occasions about not being able to gain access to the property to complete works. She said the landlord had completed mould washes and had painted over the mould, however, the landlord was doing nothing to solve the actual problem.
The resident told the Ombudsman on 10 September 2024, that the landlord should complete outstanding repairs, resolve the damp and mould, and pay compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident has referenced how the landlord’s handling of the substantive matter of complaint impacted her health and the health of her family. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. However, this investigation may consider the general distress and inconvenience that the situation was likely to have caused the resident.
The resident told the Ombudsman that she was dissatisfied with the level of compensation awarded by the landlord for damaged furniture, clothing, and toys. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine liability for the resident’s damaged items. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. However, the Ombudsman may investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
In accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Scheme, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions between 4 January 2023 and 7 February 2024. This being 12 months prior to the original stage 1 complaint being made, through to when the landlord made its final offer of compensation. The investigation report may reference events outside of this timeframe, where relevant to the resolution of the substantive complaint.

The landlord’s obligations, policies, and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
The landlord also had an obligation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to keep the property free of hazards, which are so serious that the dwelling would not be suitable for occupation in that condition. In accordance with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, damp and mould growth are considered to be potential hazards. A property that is fit for human habitation would be free of damp and mould that could cause significant harm.
The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a copy of its damp and mould self-assessment from October 2023, which clarified its approach towards damp and mould. The assessment states that it will support its residents to provide access to carry out identified works. However, where the landlord’s support and interventions fail, it will take legal enforcement action.
The landlord had a repairs and maintenance policy, which set out the landlord’s approach to repairs. In accordance with this policy, the landlord:
1. Aimed to complete emergency repairs within 4 hours and non-emergency repairs within 60 days. The landlord may extend the timescale for completing non-emergency repairs by a further 60 days, where further works are required of an extensive nature, or where components need to be replaced (like doors and windows). The landlord may complete repairs under planned programmes, within 120 days, where repairs are significant or extensive investigation is required. Where repairs are significant, this timescale may be further extended.
2. Aimed to attend to all repairs appointments within times slots provided to a resident.
3. Will cancel any works order raised for non-essential works, where a resident does not provide the landlord with access. The landlord will leave the resident a calling card, asking them to contact the landlord to rearrange the appointment.
4. Will follow its no access and tenant refusal policy, where a resident does not provide the landlord with access to complete essential works. The landlord describes essential works as those repairs that are required to the fabric of the building, which could cause detriment to the property or a resident (for example, leaks).
The landlord did not provide the Ombudsman with a copy of its no access and tenant refusal policy. A copy of this policy was not available on the landlord’s website.
The landlord’s compensation policy set out the landlord’s approach to compensation. Under the policy, the landlord may pay compensation where there has been a quantifiable loss due to the landlord failing to meet its obligations, where a resident is impacted by a failure in the landlord’s services, and for missed repairs appointments.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould, and its handling of associated repairs.

The resident reported a roof leak to the landlord on 20 January 2023. The landlord acted promptly by raising an inspection. The landlord’s roofer attended on 15 February 2023 and replaced some roof tiles. This was within expected timescales under the landlord’s repairs policy.
The landlord’s roofer recommended that the landlord complete a damp inspection, after noting some damp in the kitchen and in the living room. However, this recommendation was not passed onto the landlord’s assets team. This delayed resolution of the issue for the resident. The landlord recognised this was a failing in the stage 2 response.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 11 April 2023, to report damp in the property and black mould on her furniture and clothes. The landlord responded promptly by arranging a mould wash for 19 April 2023, and a damp and mould inspection for 9 May 2023. The landlord’s approach was in line with best practice.
The landlord completed the mould wash on 19 April 2023, as agreed. This would have reduced the immediate risk to the resident and her family from mould spores, pending further investigation. But it was unhelpful that the resident did not provide access for the damp and mould inspection on 9 May 2023. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord’s contractor left a calling card at the property, asking the resident to rearrange the appointment. However, the landlord should not have closed the works order because any subsequent repairs identified, were likely to have been considered to be essential works. It is positive that the landlord recognised that it had not followed its own processes and offered the resident an apology. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s actions unreasonably delayed resolution of the matter for the resident. But it would have been helpful for the resident to have responded to the landlord’s calling card when she was asked to.
The resident reported damp and mould in multiple areas of the property on 2 October 2023. This suggests that the condition of the property had deteriorated since the damp was first reported, which was troubling. The landlord’s own website states that “prolonged exposure to excessive mould within the home can lead to respiratory-related health issues”. Therefore, it was encouraging that the landlord made prompt arrangements to complete another mould wash, pending further investigation. The landlord also booked appointments to overhaul and reseal the windows on 30 October 2023 and for its contractor to carry out a damp inspection on 2 November 2023. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s proposed approach was both reasonable and appropriate.
It is noted that the resident asked the landlord’s contractor to delay the mould wash until after the damp inspection. It is appreciated that the resident wanted the landlord’s surveyors to witness the full extent of her living conditions before the mould was removed, so the severity of the situation could be fully assessed. However, in the Ombudsman’s view, it would have been better for the landlord’s contractor to have completed the mould wash as planned. This would have removed any immediate risk from mould spores to the resident and her family. It is understood that the mould wash was rebooked for 6 November 2023.
The resident reported a new roof leak on 23 October 2023. It has not been possible to determine the severity of the leak from the evidence seen. However, the landlord made arrangements to inspect the roof on 7 November 2023, which suggests that the landlord was not treating the leak as an emergency repair.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 30 October 2023 to reseal the windows, as agreed. However, the resident asked the landlord’s contractor not to reseal the windows until the damp inspection had been completed. This was because the resident wanted the landlord’s surveyor to consider renewing the windows, rather than repairing them. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s contractor ought to have resealed the windows as planned, since the landlord was under no obligation to replace the windows if they could be repaired.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 2 November 2023 to carry out the damp inspection, as agreed. It has not been possible to determine the severity of the damp and mould from the evidence seen. It is reasonable to assume that the landlord’s contractor would have flagged the property to the landlord if it believed the property was unfit for habitation. The landlord’s contractor recommended that the landlord should:
1. Replace the front door. The landlord’s contractor said the door had been due for replacement in 2020, there was mould on the internal side of the door, the door frame was rotten in places, and there was a draft through the frame.
2. Replace the windows. The landlord’s contractor said the windows were visibly old and were showing signs of “significant mould and condensation”.
3. Repoint the external brickwork around several windows.
4. Arrange for its own surveyor to review the damp within the property.
The landlord acted promptly the following day by raising a works order for pointing works. This job was booked for 11 January 2024. The landlord also emailed the resident, confirming that it had raised a works order to replace the door. To manage expectations, the landlord explained that there was an 8–10-week lead time to manufacture the door. However, this could take slightly longer due to the festive break. The landlord said it had added the property onto its window replacement tracker. It suggested that the windows could be replaced as early as April 2024, if the property were included on the next programme. It explained that the resident could still raise repairs in the interim, which was encouraging. The Ombudsman has been unable to determine from the evidence seen, whether the landlord ought to have carried out any interim repairs to the door and windows.
The resident did not provide access to complete the mould wash on 6 November 2023, as had been agreed. The resident apologised to the landlord for missing this appointment, stating that she had to attend a meeting. The landlord responded by rescheduling the mould wash for 16 November 2023. At the resident’s request, this appointment was changed to 18 November 2023.
The resident did not provide access to the landlord’s contractor on 7 November 2023 as agreed, to inspect the roof and identify the cause of the leak. As this was essential work, the landlord rebooked the job for 4 January 2024. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord ought to have arranged a timelier inspection given the nature of the repair.
The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have made attempts to arrange its own damp inspection in a timely manner, following the earlier recommendations made by its contractor. However, the landlord did not contact the resident until 14 November 2023. The landlord booked the damp inspection for 30 November 2023, which it suggested was the earliest date available.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 18 November 2023, to complete the mould wash. But the resident told the landlord’s contractor that she was not willing for the mould wash to be completed until the roof leak had been fixed. The Ombudsman has been unable to verify what efforts were made by the landlord or its contractor to explain the importance of completing the mould wash, if any. It is troubling that the mould was again left untreated.
The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 30 November 2023 as arranged, to complete the damp inspection. Again, the resident did not provide access. The landlord has provided evidence that it left a calling card, asking the resident to rearrange the appointment. This was in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. There is no evidence that the resident responded to the landlord in a timely manner, which was unhelpful. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have proactively contacted the resident, when she did not make contact, to rearrange the inspection. There is no evidence that this happened. This contributed to overall delays in the landlord completing essential investigations, diagnosing the cause of the damp and mould, and agreeing a course of action to put the matter right.
The landlord’s contractor attended the property again on 18 December 2023, to complete the mould wash. According to the landlord’s records, the resident asked the landlord’s contractor not to complete the mould wash. In later correspondence between the parties, the resident claimed that the landlord’s contractor had decided not to complete these works. It has not been possible to verify from the evidence seen, which account is correct.
During its attendance, the landlord’s contractor noted that the bedroom ceiling was badly cracked. It told the landlord that this would need to be repaired once the leak in the loft had been resolved. It reported damp on the gable end and near to the back door. It recommended that the landlord inspect the walls in the front bedroom for damp.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 December 2023, asking to be decanted. The landlord decided that no decant was necessary, after reviewing some pictures taken of the property. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have offered greater reassurance to the resident, had the landlord inspected the property itself before forming a view on this.
The landlord told the resident on the same day, that it had arranged another mould wash for 22 December 2023. It brought forward the appointment to fix the roof leak to 4 January 2024. It noted that pointing works were already scheduled for 11 January 2024. It explained how important it was for the resident to allow access for identified works. This was encouraging.
The resident promptly emailed the landlord to explain that she could not be available on 22 December 2023, due to the short notice. It is unclear why the landlord did not cancel the mould wash and arrange a more convenient appointment. The resident was distressed to find a calling card left by the landlord’s contractor on 22 December 2023, stating that she had failed to provide access for the mould wash. The resident’s dissatisfaction about this was understandable, given that she had clearly stated she could not provide access on this day.
The landlord emailed the resident on 2 January 2024, to secure an appointment for the mould wash and the damp inspection. The resident responded on the same day, stating that she was living with extreme mould and was “fed up with mould washes”. She suggested that the landlord was not fixing the underlying problem. The landlord responded the following day. It explained that while mould washes would not resolve the issue, they would keep the mould at bay while it was investigating. The landlord reminded the resident that its surveyor had endeavoured to carry out a damp inspection on 30 November 2023, but she had not provided access. It said it was willing to rearrange the damp inspection and another mould wash, however it impressed upon the resident that she must provide access.
The landlord’s roofing contractor attended on 4 January 2024, as agreed. It identified an issue with the pipework in the loft. The landlord arranged follow on works for 7 January 2024, but again the resident did not provide access.
The resident agreed that the landlord should attend on 9 January 2024, to carry out the mould wash. The evidence shows that the mould wash was completed on this day. The landlord applied a stain blocking paint over the affected area as an interim solution, which was in line with best practice. The landlord completed the pointing works as planned on 11 January 2024.
The appointment to fix the pipework in the loft was rearranged for 22 January 2024. However, the landlord’s notes indicate that the resident did not provide access. The resident maintains that the landlord’s plumber did not attend on this day. The Ombudsman has been unable to verify from the evidence seen, which account was correct.
The landlord emailed the resident on 2 February 2024, to rearrange the appointment to fix the pipework in the loft. It offered to attend the same day if this was convenient. After receiving no response, the landlord told the resident that its plumber would attend on 6 February 2024, to fix the leak in the loft. It said that its surveyor would attend to inspect the property for damp on 8 February 2024. The resident did not provide access on either occasion. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with photographs of the calling cards that were left at the property.

After the landlord’s internal complaint process was completed

The evidence suggests that the landlord continued to experience difficulties with access after the landlord’s internal complaint process was exhausted.
The landlord arranged for its plumber to attend again on 28 February 2024, to fix the leak in the loft. As the resident did not provide access, the landlord scheduled another appointment for the following day. Again, no access was provided.
The landlord arranged a new appointment for 18 March 2024, between 9:30am and 2:20pm, to complete the damp inspection, address the leak in the loft, complete the mould wash, and measure up for the replacement windows. According to the resident, the landlord had suggested that it would take her to court if she did not provide access.
The resident was not at the property at the time the landlord and its contractors attended on 18 March 2024. The resident argued that this was not her fault, because she had told the landlord’s surveyor that she would not arrive home until after 12:10pm. The Ombudsman has not been able to verify the resident’s account from the evidence seen.
The landlord emailed the resident on 12 April 2024, explaining that it had rescheduled the damp inspection, mould wash, and a plumber to fix the leak for 18 April 2024. It said it was “crucial” that it gained access on this date. It reminded the resident that she was obliged under the terms of her tenancy agreement, to allow access for inspections and to complete works. It explained the landlord would consider taking legal action in the event that access was not provided. The landlord’s response was reasonable given the previous difficulties gaining access.
It is understood that the resident provided access on 18 April 2024. The landlord was able to resolve the leak in the loft and complete the damp inspection. Upon inspection, the landlord’s surveyor identified:
1. The humidity in the property was good.
2. Penetrating damp on the bathroom ceiling from the leak in the loft.
3. Cracks in the front bedroom ceiling and a small amount of mould in the corner of the room.
4. Mould around the ceiling joints, the window reveal, and on the window in the rear bedroom.
5. Possible rising damp in the kitchen at the bottom of the stairs.
6. Possible rising damp in the living room along the gable end wall.
The following day, the landlord raised a works order to complete follow on works to address the damp and mould. It is understood that the landlord’s contractor made several attempts between May 2024 and July 2024, to carry out these works. It is understood that some of the identified works were completed in August 2024.
The resident told the Ombudsman on 12 September 2024, that the landlord still needed to make good the ceiling following the leak. She said the ceiling looked like it was about to collapse. The landlord knew about this but she had not been informed when the matter would be resolved. She confirmed that the landlord had replaced the door but it was yet to replace the windows. The resident said the issue with damp and mould had not been resolved and there was subsequent damage to her furniture and personal belongings.

Overall

The landlord had a statutory and contractual legal obligation to keep the property in repair and free from hazards. The landlord was obliged to remedy issues with damp and mould in a timely manner upon this being brought to its attention.
The Ombudsman recognises that this was a challenging case for the landlord, due to continual difficulties gaining access. The landlord demonstrated significant patience throughout this case. The resident’s reluctance to allow the landlord to complete mould washes and to progress interim repairs in a timely manner was unhelpful. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the resident’s own actions provide some mitigation for the delays that arose in diagnosing the cause of damp and mould and completing repairs.
But the landlord missed opportunities to fully explore if there was a reason the resident was finding it difficult to keep appointments. It ought to have considered if there was any additional help that it could have offered. It might have considered whether there were any reasonable adjustments that needed to be made, to support the resident with keeping appointments. This would have been in line with the landlord’s commitments, as referenced in the landlord’s damp and mould self-assessment.
The Ombudsman also considers that the landlord could have taken robust, decisive, and timelier action to gain access to the property, when access became an issue. The landlord could have considered its options for enforcement at an earlier stage, which may have brought the matter to a timelier conclusion.
The Ombudsman was encouraged that the landlord identified itself during the complaint process, that there had been failings in its handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould, that it had not addressed the damp and mould within a timely manner, and it had not consistently followed its own policies and processes. The landlord attempted to put things right by apologising, by committing to complete repairs, and by offering compensation in line with its compensation policy. However, the landlord’s remedies cannot be considered to amount to reasonable redress, while the substantive issue of complaint remains unresolved.
Accordingly, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould, and its handling of associated repairs.
To remedy the complaint, the landlord is ordered to pay the £3,000 compensation it previously offered, if it has not already paid this. No further award of compensation is made because the landlord’s original offer of compensation was at the higher end of compensation that the Ombudsman would have awarded, based on the available evidence. However, the resident may wish to consider making a claim for any subsequent loss or damage caused to her furniture or personal belongings via the landlord’s insurers.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure, in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould, and its handling of associated repairs.

Orders

The landlord must pay compensation of £3,000 directly to the resident, if it has not already done so. This compensation has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
The landlord must endeavour to meet the resident at the property within 4 weeks of the date of this report, during which the landlord must:
1. Review the current position with damp and mould in the property and satisfy itself that the property remains habitable. In the event that the property is not fit for habitation, the landlord must consider arranging a decant, while works are completed.
2. Explore the reasons for repeated non access and agree the steps that both parties will take to avoid issues with access in the future. The landlord should consider if any reasonable adjustments ought to be made to its existing processes for scheduling and attending repairs appointments.
3. The landlord must provide the resident with an action plan for completing all identified repairs. As a minimum, the landlord must:
  1. Endeavour to complete the repairs identified on 18 April 2024, within 6 weeks of the date of this report.
  2. Set out expected timescales for completing any additional repairs that may be identified upon its inspection. The landlord should consider the merits of carrying out interim repairs to the windows, pending their full replacement.
  3. Set out expected timescales for replacing the windows.
  4. Commit to a period of proactive monitoring of the property, in relation to damp and mould.
  5. Keep the action plan under regular review, until all identified repairs and planned works are completed.
The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 6 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations:

The landlord should write to the resident confirming the contact details for its insurer.