Regenda Limited (202342306)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342306

Regenda Limited

25 October 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 of:
1. a leak within the hallway of his property.
2. damp in his bedroom.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a 2-bedroom property.
On 2 May 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that there was an uncontainable leak in the hallway of his property. He advised the landlord that his carpet in the hallway had become saturated with water. On the same day, the landlord instructed a plumber to attend the resident’s property. The plumber confirmed that the resident’s carpet in the hallway was wet, but they could not find the source of the leak.
The resident called the landlord on 17 May 2023, to ask when it would carry out a further inspection of the leak in his hallway. During the call, a family member expressed to the landlord that they were concerned for the resident’s wellbeing and mental health. The landlord raised an internal safeguarding alert and allocated a member of staff to support the resident with the future handling of his concerns. Subsequently, on 19 May 2023, the landlord’s asset surveyor inspected the resident’s property and raised a job for the floor in the hallway to be lifted, to identify the source of the leak and assess for any damp issues.
On 21 June 2023, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord, expressing frustration over the frequent inspections of his property without any subsequent repair work. He stated that he had repeatedly contacted the landlord for updates regarding repairs to fix the leak in his hallway. Additionally, the resident complained that 2 years prior, he had experienced a wet floor within his property, and he felt the remedial work done at the time was inadequate.
On 26 June 2023, the landlord’s asset surveyor carried out a further inspection of the resident’s property, noting that the leak seemed to have stopped. The surveyor also tested the resident’s floor using a damp meter. The resident emailed the landlord on the same day, to add some additional points to his complaint. He stated that the landlord’s operatives had visited his property without prior notice. He explained that under the asset surveyor’s instructions, the operatives lifted the hallway carpet to inspect a leak but did not reinstate it, which created a trip hazard. The resident also complained that the landlord had not offered compensation for the inconvenience of the unresolved leak or for the damage to his carpet.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 29 June 2023. It apologised for the poor service the resident had received and explained that the resident’s comments relating to its asset surveyor had been passed to management for an internal review. It advised the resident that the outcome of the internal review would remain confidential. The landlord stated that it would create an action plan which included organising a drainage survey of the resident’s property. It also said that it would improve its overall communication with the resident. Finally, the landlord confirmed that 2 dehumidifiers would be delivered to his property later that day and offered £140 compensation to cover extra electricity costs for their use.
The landlord scheduled a drainage survey at the resident’s property for 5 July 2023, but it was rescheduled to 7 July 2023, after the surveyor missed the original appointment. The inspection found no drainage issues linked to the resident’s property. Subsequently, on 8 August 2023, the landlord raised a job to excavate the hallway floor and an area near the kitchen entrance, within the resident’s property. However, on 20 September 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. He stated that he had been waiting for the landlord’s contractor to attend his property to confirm the scope of works, but no one had attended.
On 6 October 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. In this it acknowledged the missed appointments that had occurred, and it apologised for the delay to arrange the scope of works visit. It also advised that its failings had been discussed in an operational meeting. The landlord confirmed that it would offer the resident a £500 decant allowance to cover his expenses while he stayed with a friend throughout the duration of works being carried out to his property. It agreed to replace the resident’s carpet in the hallway once all works were completed. It also offered the resident £750 compensation for its delay to address his reports relating to the leak in a timely manner.
On 12 October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that he could no longer stay with a friend during the repair works. As a result, the landlord made a reservation for the resident to stay in a hotel for 6 nights from 5 November 2023. Due to the hotel’s availability, the resident agreed to stay with a friend for 1 night on 11 November 2023, and then agreed to return for an additional 4 nights from 12 November 2023.
During the resident’s temporary move, the landlord inspected the main water line to the resident’s property and confirmed there were no leaks in the main or internal pipework. However, it found water ingress under the kitchen floor and conducted further investigations. The landlord identified a door as the likely entry point for the leak in the hallway and for the water ingress in the kitchen. So, it arranged for a larger door seal to be installed. It also extended the resident’s hotel stay by an additional 8 nights, and offered the resident a £210 decant allowance for food during the entire duration of his temporary move. Additionally, it provided a £30 decant allowance to cover the expenses for the night he stayed with a friend. Most of the repairs to the resident’s property were completed by 24 November 2023, allowing him to move back in.
The resident contacted this service on 9 September 2024, to ask for his complaint to be investigated. He told us that he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the leak in his hallway and that he wanted a letter of apology from the landlord. He also stated that in October 2023, he contacted the landlord to raise concerns of damp in his bedroom, but the landlord failed to carry out works to resolve the issue.
On 30 September 2024, the landlord told this service that in addition to the compensation it offered the resident at stage 2 of its complaints process, it also offered:
1. £595 to go towards the resident’s choice of carpet in the hallway.
2. £75 for the purchase of a mobile phone and credit during his temporary move.
3. £40 to reimburse the resident for the purchase of a runner and entrance mat while he waited for his new carpet to be fitted.

Scope of investigation

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident has told us that in October 2023, he reported concerns of damp in his bedroom to the landlord, and it has failed to carry out repairs to resolve this issue.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp in his bedroom, is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate. While the Ombudsman has been provided with some case notes relating to this matter, we have seen no evidence to indicate that it has completed the landlord’s formal complaints process.
Therefore, in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this service. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his reports of damp in his bedroom, he can raise a complaint to the landlord about this, if he has not done so already. The resident may be able to refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied once he has received the landlord’s final response to his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s repairs responsibilities. It states that the landlord will keep in good repair, the structure and exterior of the property, including internal walls, floors, ceilings and skirting boards.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy explains that repairs fall within 2 main categories:
1. Emergencies – deemed to present a risk to the health of a customer or the integrity of the property. These are attended to, within 4 hours.
2. Non-emergency – all other repairs. An appointment is made within 60 days and it will aim to resolve the issue the first time.
Additionally, where a repair requires extensive further works or the replacement of components, such as doors or windows, it may take the landlord a further 60 days or longer to complete.
The policy goes on to state that in some instances a pre-inspection is required before a repair appointment can be arranged. Following a pre-inspection and diagnosis of a repair, the landlord will inform the resident within 10 working days whether works will be undertaken, and an appointment will be made to complete the work.
The landlord’s decant policy states that it will arrange to move a resident where:
1. major works are required to a property that may pose a health and safety risk to the resident.
2. the works cannot be carried out while the resident is in situ.
In the case of temporary moves, these will only last as long as it takes to complete works. The landlord will secure hotel stays with breakfast included, for short term temporary moves, which are usually less than 2 weeks. The landlord will also provide residents with an allowance of £10 per day for additional food costs. Alternatively, residents can choose to make their own arrangements, and the landlord will provide a one-off payment of £500 if they do.
The landlord has a discretionary compensation policy. It sets out that it may offer compensation when residents are impacted by a service failure. It may make awards of £600 to £1000 for failures that have caused significant impact to the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak in the hallway of his property.

The landlord received notice of an uncontainable leak in the hallway of the resident’s property on 2 May 2023, and in line with its obligations under the tenancy agreement, promptly instructed a plumber to attend the resident’s property the same day. The landlord’s records do not indicate the exact time of the reported leak, or the plumber’s arrival, making it unclear if its response adhered to its emergency repair timescales. However, in accordance with industry best practices recommending a 24-hour response time for emergency repairs, the landlord’s initial reaction to the resident’s report of a hallway leak, was appropriate.
Between 9 May 2023 and 17 May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord 4 times to ask when further investigations into the leak would take place. In his complaint he expressed frustration at having to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates. The landlord’s records demonstrate that it flagged the resident’s case as a priority and informed the resident of a follow-up inspection 11 working days after its plumber’s initial visit. According to its repairs and maintenance policy, the landlord should have contacted the resident within 10 working days to schedule the next appointment. Therefore, the landlord’s communication with the resident, was reasonable. Although it contacted the resident 1 day beyond its agreed timescales, this minor delay did not significantly impact the landlord’s overall management of the resident’s concerns at this stage. That said, the Ombudsman acknowledges that living with an unresolved leak for any length of time, would have been distressing for the resident.
Although the resident reported the leak in his hallway as uncontainable, the evidence shows that the plumber’s investigations revealed no leaking pipes in the resident’s property. The landlord’s records describe the leak to have caused a wet patch in the resident’s hallway. Therefore, in accordance with the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, it was appropriate for the landlord to consider further investigation of the leak as a “Non-emergency” repair.
However, upon reviewing the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, we have found that the timescale for “Non-emergency” repairs is unreasonable and does not meet expectations. Industry best practice recommends a timescale of 28 days to respond to a routine repair, however, the landlord’s policy refers to 60 days. We find this to be an excessive amount of time for a resident to be made to wait for a routine repair (and in some cases only an inspection).
To further explain, the landlord conducted a second visit of the resident’s property on 19 May 2023. This was 17 days after the plumber’s initial inspection, and within a reasonable timescale according to industry best practice. However, as the outcome of this inspection indicated the need for a third visit to lift the floor, the resident waited an additional 39 days until the next inspection took place. This timeframe was inappropriate as it exceeded industry best practice, and understandably, the resident expressed that he felt the landlord was slow in addressing his reported issue. The landlord’s records show that it took a further 11 days to complete a drainage survey, and 26 days later it carried out a second damp inspection. Overall, the landlord took 98 days to diagnose the works required to address the leak in the resident’s hallway, far exceeding both its own policy timescales and industry best practice.
While we acknowledge that the landlord appropriately instructed multiple tradespeople to locate and trace the source of the leak, demonstrating its commitment to a thorough investigation, there is no apparent explanation why these inspections were not completed in line with industry best practice timescales. With stricter timescales in place, landlords are prompted to manage repairs efficiently, to ensure tenant satisfaction and prevent further property damage. Therefore, we will make a recommendation for the landlord to review its repairs and maintenance policy timescales to align with industry best practice. This could include creating a “routine” category for inspections and simpler repairs to be completed within 28 days. For more complex repairs, a “non-routine/major works” category could be introduced, allowing for completion times beyond 28 days when necessary, due to the materials needed or the extent of the work.
The evidence indicates that an additional 92 days passed before any work on the resident’s property began, which was on 2 November 2023. Furthermore, the resident invested time and effort chasing the landlord for a start date due to its lack of pro-active communication, which should not have been his responsibility. While we understand that some works may take longer to organise and complete due to the nature, complexity or extent of the work needed, we expect to see evidence of any difficulties the landlord faced that were beyond its control. The landlord’s records do not provide an explanation for the delay. Therefore, we cannot conclude with reasonable certainty that the landlord went far enough to fulfil its repair obligations adequately or in a timely manner. This prolonged uncertainty likely disrupted the resident’s comfort and quality of life and may have made him feel that his concerns were not being taken seriously by the landlord.
There is no entry in the landlord’s records documenting its initial discussion with the resident about his temporary move. However, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, mentions that the resident chose to stay with a neighbour, and in accordance with its decant policy, the landlord appropriately offered the resident £500 to cover his expenses. A week later the resident changed his decision and asked the landlord to book him into a hotel. There is evidence of the resident repeatedly asking the landlord for clarification on the decant process, and we acknowledge that on 31 October 2023, the resident expressed feeling in turmoil, uncertain about the plan so close to the decant date.
As the landlord’s records do not show evidence of its response to the resident’s concerns, we cannot determine if it adequately addressed his enquiries or provided sufficient support in the lead up to the temporary move. The Ombudsman finds this a concern in terms of record–keeping, as the landlord is expected to maintain robust records of contact with its residents, to ensure transparency, accountability, and proper handling of issues. Poor record-keeping hinders a landlord’s ability to demonstrate that it has fulfilled its responsibilities effectively.
That said, the evidence shows that throughout the duration of the resident’s temporary move, the landlord considered the resident’s needs, offering him a stay in the hotel of his choice. It also provided him with a food allowance which was in line with its decant policy. While we note that the resident’s hotel stays slightly exceeded 2 weeks, falling outside the landlord’s decant policy timescales for temporary moves, the landlord promptly explained to the resident why the extension was necessary and how long it would last. As such, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances, despite being faced with factors beyond its control.
The landlord appropriately initiated an internal safeguarding alert after being informed of the resident’s mental state and wellbeing. Its records show that it assigned a staff member to check in with the resident weekly through calls and home visits until the works to his property were completed. Additionally, it completed a safeguarding review on 4 December 2023, to ensure that there were no further safeguarding concerns. This demonstrated the landlord’s commitment to the resident’s safety and it took proactive steps to address potential risks, ensuring that necessary support was provided to the resident.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that during its complaints process, the landlord apologised for the failings it had identified, including poor communication and missed appointments. Additionally, it offered the resident £750 in compensation for delays in addressing the leak, provided 2 dehumidifiers, and gave the resident £140 to cover the extra electricity costs for their use. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord 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 the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly by offering compensation that fell within its award scale for failures with a detrimental impact on the resident, demonstrating its effort to address the effect of its shortcomings. It also offered an additional £595 compensation towards the replacement of the resident’s carpet in the hallway, £75 compensation for a mobile phone and £40 for temporary rugs, after the conclusion of its complaints process. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is published on our website, sets out our service’s approach to compensation. The guidance suggests a payment of £600 to £1000 in cases where there was a failure by the landlord which had a significant impact on the resident.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s overall offer of redress was a reasonable resolution to the issues highlighted throughout this report. As such, we are satisfied that the compensation offered by the landlord has put things right for the resident. Its offer of compensation was in line with what the Ombudsman would have ordered the landlord to pay if it had not made an offer. Finally, in identifying its own service failures, the landlord also acknowledged the areas it needed to work on to stop these from occurring again.
In view of the above points, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak in his hallway to be reasonably resolved.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer prior to this service’s involvement, which satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its response to the resident’s reports of a leak in his hallway.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp in his bedroom, is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.

Recommendations

If it has not done so already, the landlord should respond to the resident’s reports of damp in his bedroom at stage 1 of its complaints process.
The landlord should review its repairs and maintenance policy timescales to align with industry best practice. This could include creating a “routine” category for inspections and simpler repairs to be completed within 28 days. For more complex repairs, a “non-routine/major works” category could be introduced, allowing for completion times beyond 28 days when necessary, due to the materials needed or the extent of the work.
If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident:
1. £750 compensation, offered in its stage 2 complaint response.
2. £595 towards the replacement of his carpet.
3. £75 towards the purchase of a phone.
4. £40 towards the purchase of a rug.
5. £140 to cover the extra electricity costs of the dehumidifiers.
The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress determination is on the basis that these payments have been made.