Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Regenda Limited (202211479)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211479

Regenda Limited

8 July 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:
    1. Response to the resident’s concerns about outstanding repairs and decoration following damp and mould work at the property.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The tenancy started in June 2018. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord states it was aware the resident had health vulnerabilities at the time of the complaint.
  2. In December 2021 the landlord completed a damp survey at the resident’s property. The report identified condensation on two walls and recorded the flat “requires heating and ventilation.” Between January to April 2022 the landlord inspected the property, obtained damp proof quotes, and arranged to temporarily decant the resident to a hotel. Work was completed in May 2022.
  3. On or around 11 July 2022 the resident raised a stage 1 formal complaint to the landlord. He expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of repairs. He said he had raised concerns to members of the landlord’s staff between May to June 2022 without a response. He said painting had been left incomplete, ventilation had not been fitted, personal possessions had been damaged by mould, and his burglar alarm had been covered in plaster.
  4. On the 23 August 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It apologised for the inconvenience caused, summarised actions it would take to put things right, and offered compensation of £870. The landlord also offered to assist with decoration costs. These offers were in addition to £1,402.98 the landlord had paid prior to the resident’s complaint to replace the resident’s personal items including, but not limited to, his mattress, bedframe, and wardrobe.
  5. Between September 2022 and January 2023 the resident informed the landlord that decoration remained outstanding. He supplied it with a quote for £1,000 obtained from a private decorator. During this time, he sought help from the Ombudsman to progress matters. On 10 January 2023 the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process (ICP).
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 final response on 9 February 2023. It acknowledged it had failed to complete the decoration work as promised following the repair. It arranged for work to be completed between 20 to 22 February 2023 and issued £300 compensation for the resident to “have a day out” each day while it completed the work.
  7. In March 2023 the resident approached his MP and the Ombudsman. He considered the landlord’s repair workmanship poor. He said he had been caused stress by its handling of his repair and decoration. Because of the landlord’s failures, he considered additional compensation was due. His complaint became one we could formally consider on 19 April 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes within the resident’s correspondence he said the landlord’s handling of his damp and mould repairs and decoration of his property had caused him stress and affected his finances. We do not doubt the resident’s comments.
  2. While we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to establish legal liability on whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health or finances. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. Such decisions require an assessment of liability and are decided by a court or insurer. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue a claim for damages for any adverse effect on his health or finances.
  3. We note that within the resident correspondence and timeline of events, pest control was required to assist with the removal of mice at the property. However, this complaint point was not raised with us as outstanding. The resident requested our investigation focus on the landlord’s response to outstanding repairs and decoration. Therefore, any reference to pest control is made for context purposes only and will not form part of this investigation.
  4. 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 the complaint by reference to what is, in our findings, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where the Ombudsman identifies a failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Response to the resident’s concerns about outstanding repairs and decoration following damp and mould work at the property

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states, non-emergency repairs will be made with the resident, based on the resident’s availability and convenience within 60 days.
  2. On 27 September 2021 the landlord raised a job to complete a mould wash at the resident’s property. It is unclear from the evidence supplied how this need was identified. However, it was reasonable the landlord considered further investigation required and arranged for a specialist damp survey on 15 November 2021. The survey was completed within 17 working days, on 8 December 2021. This was appropriate and within the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy.
  3. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This obligation is acknowledged by the landlord in its repairs and maintenance policy. It was therefore appropriate that it investigated and identified repairs to minimise the effect of damp in the resident’s property.
  4. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states “following a pre inspection and diagnosis of a repair, customers will be informed within 10 working days whether works will be undertaken in line with policy and or an appointment will be made to complete the work.”
  5. The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 17 January 2022. The landlord states it agreed to decant the resident for 2-weeks while it completed damp proofing work. However, it is unclear from the evidence if the resident received an explanation of the proposed works or timescales within 10 working days following the landlord’s pre inspection. Therefore, this did not demonstrate the landlord adhering to the service standards outlined in its repairs and maintenance policy or that it was communicating with the resident effectively.
  6. Furthermore, given the inspection date of 17 January 2022, it is unclear why the landlord did not complete the repair within its 60 day timescale. It was reasonable for the resident to have expected work to have been completed by 18 March 2022. However, work was not completed until 6 June 2022. This was not appropriate and 80 days beyond the landlord’s repairs and maintenance timescales.
  7. The landlord decanted the resident to a hotel on 6 May 2022. It said this would be for a period of 2-weeks. It would cover his accommodation and breakfast costs and also provide him with a £10 per day allowance. While the landlord’s policies are silent on its decant process, the resident does not dispute this agreed arrangement, nor that he received payment.
  8. However, the resident states the landlord initially made errors with its reimbursement process. This led to a delay in him receiving payments. He described the need to drive, with his carer, to the landlord’s office to resolve matters. He states his bank account became overdrawn at this stage. However, there is no evidence of any incurred banking costs or charges for us to consider as a result of the landlord’s delayed payments.
  9. While the resident does not dispute the landlord corrected this error, he described experiencing time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience to resolve matters. Furthermore, the work over ran and he was required to remain away from home for a further 12 days.
  10. The resident felt unable to remain at the hotel as he had no cooking facilities and moved to stay with a friend. There is no evidence to demonstrate how the landlord considered the suitability of the temporary accommodation, nor that it checked this arrangement with him. This did not demonstrate a landlord giving due regard to the needs of a vulnerable resident.
  11. Ordinarily, the detriment of the reimbursement error and extended decant may be considered short term and minimal. However, the resident had declared health vulnerabilities and, at the time of the complaint, he was supported by a carer. The landlord has failed to demonstrate how it gave due regard to his conditions or whether the decant to a hotel was suitable. No evidence has been supplied to demonstrate the landlord considered the length of time he would be away from the property or any attempts to consider alternatives that would have been more appropriate.
  12. The landlord’s inspection of the resident’s property on 23 May 2022 identified some repairs had not been completed as planned. This included ventilation issues. Furthermore, its internal correspondence evidenced uncertainty whether decoration had been agreed. This demonstrated poor communication and a record keeping failure. These failures affected the resident as they continued to remain outstanding when he returned home.
  13. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on or around 11 July 2022. However, there is evidence he had already raised concerns to the landlord about outstanding repairs, incomplete ventilation, outstanding decoration, and damage to his burglar alarm and possessions in May and June 2022. It is therefore unclear why these matters were not addressed by the landlord sooner. Having agreed works and decanted the vulnerable resident, it was reasonable for him to have expected the landlord to complete what it had promised.
  14. On 25 May 2022 there is evidence the landlord advised the resident that painting and decoration would need to wait until plaster work was fully dry. We also acknowledge that further delays were experienced in June 2022 as the landlord’s pest controller completed work to remove mice from the property. These are reasonable explanations.
  15. However, the resident continued to chase the landlord for updates in June and raised a formal complaint due to the lack of communication from the landlord in July 2022. Given the resident had previously raised an issue with the landlord’s communication, setting out a communication and action plan with him would have been reasonable. This would have managed his expectations and set clear timescales for updates.
  16. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states in some cases, when further work is required, it may need to complete an additional inspection. In these cases the landlord will contact the resident within 5 working days to arrange a visit or works. The landlord’s policy refers to this as a ‘promise’ to its residents. However, there is no evidence the landlord followed this process. This is a failure to adhere to its policy.
  17. Furthermore, there is no evidence of effective communication or updates from the landlord while the resident chased for a response. This would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience as he tried to progress matters with the landlord.
  18. On 23 August 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. Its internal records said there had been poor communication throughout the decant process and many jobs had caused the complaint. It recorded that items had been damaged during the decant when emptying the property, or as a result of damp and mould. It further recognised the lack of communication internally with messages not being passed to the relevant teams. This self-assessment by the landlord highlighted significant failures that had caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  19. There is evidence within the landlord’s complaint handling records that it agreed to pay to decorate the resident’s property. Furthermore, it agreed to pay to replace the resident’s damaged burglar alarm (£570), clothing/bedding (£100), and recognised its poor complaint handling (£200). However, it made no offer of compensation to put right the distress and inconvenience its communication and repair delay failures had caused.
  20. As requested by the landlord, the resident sent a quote for decoration work at a cost of £1,000. He obtained this in September 2022. However, the resident was required to chase the landlord for updates on 22 December 2022 and 2 January 2023 as he had received no response. This was further examples of poor communication and did not demonstrate a landlord that had learned from previous outcomes. The landlord’s failure to respond as promised caused the resident avoidable time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience pursuing matters.
  21. On 6 January 2023 the landlord responded to the resident regarding the outstanding decoration. It asked him to provide the £1,000 quotation sent in September on letterheaded paper and include a breakdown of the work required. The landlord advised the member of staff who had agreed the decoration, no longer worked for the company.
  22. The landlord has an obligation to complete repairs as well as appropriately manage its budgets and resources. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to request a breakdown of the quote. However, it is unclear why it had taken the landlord almost 4 months to respond to the resident’s initial emailed quote. Furthermore, it is unclear why the landlord’s position changed regarding its offer to pay for decoration. An authorised member of staff made its offer, yet it failed to honour its promises. This caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  23. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 9 February 2023. It apologised for its failure to complete decorating works. It also apologised for its failure to arrange the work after the resident chased for updates in August 2022. It acknowledged its failure to ask the resident to obtain his own quote and said it should have investigated this matter for him. It was therefore reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to agree to complete the decoration on the resident’s behalf. It agreed 3-days between 20 to 22 February and offered £300 compensation.
  24. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation, offer to carry out necessary works) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  25. It is not our role to determine liability for any damage caused to the resident’s possessions. This would be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. It is our role to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures. It is our finding that the landlord acted fairly when it paid £1,402.98 prior to the resident’s complaint to replace damaged possessions. This demonstrated the landlord taking responsibility for the damage caused by damp and mould and ensuring the resident was put back to the position he was in. Should the resident consider this sum insufficient, he would be advised to seek a decision via a court or insurance claim.
  26. The landlord identified poor communication throughout stage 1 of its ICP. While it was appropriate to provide additional training to staff involved with the complaint, failures repeated at stage 2. This did not demonstrate learning from outcomes and the communication with the resident remained poor.
  27. The landlord acknowledged further failures during its stage 2 final complaint response and offered £300 compensation. The landlord states this offer was made to avoid the need to decant the resident again while decoration was completed. While it was reasonable for the landlord to recognise its failures and take steps to put things right, the resident states the decoration undertaken by the landlord was left incomplete and a poor standard.
  28. It is therefore unclear why the landlord did not demonstrate resolving the outstanding issues after its unsuccessful attempt to contact the resident on 1 March 2023 to discuss his concerns. This does not demonstrate the landlord had in fact put things right. The resident was affected by further time and trouble raising his concerns with his MP for support.
  29. The term ‘vulnerabilities’ has no standard definition. Broadly, they are characteristics that a resident possesses, either permanently or temporarily, that may mean they need care or support to deal with the landlord or landlord’s processes. By not appropriately recording a resident’s vulnerabilities, wrong or poor decisions can be made when providing services. The landlord’s failure to correct its communication failures or recognise the needs of the resident has resulted in it providing a poor standard of service in this case. The landlord did not demonstrate giving due regard to the resident’s vulnerabilities and its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010.
  30. Based on the above, we find maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this matter. While the detriment of outstanding decoration would generally be minimal, the repeat failures to improve communication or resolve the resident’s repair and decoration issues caused him avoidable distress and inconvenience. This was outstanding for an unreasonable time and not completed to the resident’s satisfaction. While compensation was offered at stage 2, the offer was not proportionate to remedy the failings that had been ongoing throughout its ICP.
  31. The landlord is ordered to pay an additional £200 compensation. This sum is in line with the remedies guidance available to us when the landlord has made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), 1 April 2022, sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to at stage 1 and stage 2 within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
  2. It is not disputed by the landlord that the resident raised his stage 1 complaint on or around 11 July 2022. It is therefore unclear why the landlord did not log the complaint until 3 August 2022. Given the date the complaint was made, it was reasonable for the resident to expect an acknowledgement by 18 July 2022. However, there is evidence that this did not take place until 9 August 2022. This was not appropriate as this was 16 working days beyond the expectations of the Code.
  3. Given the date of the resident’s stage 1 complaint, it was reasonable for him to expect the landlord’s stage 1 response by 25 July 2022. It was therefore not appropriate for the landlord to send its response on 23 August 2022, 21 working days beyond the timescale expected by the Code.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 response, while sent late, acknowledged its complaint handling failings. It recognised there had been poor communication throughout, apologised for its delayed response, and offered £200 compensation. Its offer of compensation was in line with the remedies guidance available to us when a landlord’s failure has adversely affected a resident.
  5. Furthermore, the landlord informed us that a new member of staff had managed its stage 1 response. It identified there had been failings and said it provided additional training to prevent similar delays happening again. These actions demonstrated the landlord taking steps to learn from outcomes and put things right.
  6. The landlord informed us that a manager overseeing the resident’s initial complaint had left the business with immediate effect. It acknowledged there had been an “issue with the complaint handover” and was satisfied all current managers were “aware of the importance of clear, concise, information management.”
  7. While it is important for a landlord to acknowledge its failings, it demonstrates that its knowledge and information management (KIM) at the time of the resident’s complaint was inadequate. These failures caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and did nothing to improve the resident and landlord relationship.
  8. Without good knowledge and information management (KIM) a landlord is unable to deliver its services efficiently and effectively. It is imperative that records are accurate and maintained to keep both the property and the resident safe now and in the future. There is evidence in this case that staff were either unable or did not know how to access and monitor complaint data. This was not appropriate and delayed it progressing the resident’s concerns.
  9. The resident escalated his complaint on 10 January 2023. It was therefore reasonable for him to expect a response by 7 February 2023. However, the landlord’s response was not sent until 2 working days beyond the response timescale, 9 February 2023. While this delay would understandably be disappointing for the resident, the detriment of this delay would have been minimal.
  10. However, there is no evidence the resident was informed the stage 2 final response would be delayed. The landlord says it had provided training to prevent similar failings. It had previously acknowledged poor communication throughout stage 1 of its ICP. Furthermore, it also said it was satisfied its managers were aware of the importance of information management. However, the landlord’s failure to provide timely and effective communication at stage 2 did not demonstrate it had applied learning from previous outcomes. Therefore, we find service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling and it is ordered to pay a further £50 compensation to put right the repeated failure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about outstanding repairs and decoration following damp and mould work at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
    1. Pay the resident £1,420 compensation, comprised of:
      1. £500 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about outstanding repairs and decoration following damp and mould work at the property. The £300 offered at stage 2 can be deducted from this amount, if already paid.
      2. £250 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. £200 offered at stage 1 of the landlord’s ICP can be deducted from this sum, if already paid.
      3. £670 offered at stage 1 of the landlord’s ICP for the resident’s burglar alarm and clothing/bedding, if not already paid.
    2. Contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the property.
      1. The inspection should include an assessment of the outstanding repair and decoration work completed in February 2023.
      2. Following the inspection, the landlord should set out in writing timescales of the work required to put right any repairs that remain outstanding.
      3. The landlord should provide the resident with its full and final position regarding complaint matters that it has inspected and require no further action.
      4. The landlord should ensure its records are updated regarding the resident’s health and support needs.
      5. The landlord should update the Ombudsman of its findings and proposed remedies within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord is encouraged to pay the resident the £1,402.98 offered to replace household items affected by damp and mould.
  2. The landlord is encouraged to review the Housing Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight Report on Knowledge Information Management (KIM). It could use the recommendations in the report to inform its future record keeping practices to aid service delivery.
  3. The landlord is encouraged to review the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights (relationship of equals), published January 2024. It could use the recommendations in the report to inform its future service delivery, and the importance of considering the individual circumstances of the resident.