Regenda Limited (202410072)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410072

Regenda Limited

20 December 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 handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. A leak from the toilet.
2. Damp and mould.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant who moved into the property, a 3-bedroom house, in January 2020. The landlord is aware of vulnerabilities for the resident as well as health concerns she has raised for her children.
The resident spoke to the landlord on 1 November 2023 to make a complaint. She said that she had been in communication with it for a lengthy period about a number of issues including damp, a leaking toilet, and a number of other repairs. She added that the leaking toilet, which had initially been raised in 2021, had affected her mental health, and the damp had led to health concerns for her children as well as causing damage to a bed and mattress. While the landlord had previously said that it would make arrangements for a surveyor to attend, the resident explained there had already been several inspections carried out by the landlord and yet the issues had not been resolved. She said she did not have any faith in the landlord’s operative to carry out the necessary work.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 8 November 2023. It said:
1. Its surveyor would be attending that day and would take photos of the toilet and the damaged bedframe and mattress, although it could see she had sent it photos of these. It agreed to replace the bedframe and mattress and wanted to speak to the resident to order these directly for her.
2. Its surveyor would also discuss the resident’s other concerns, which included:
  1. Mould on the skirting boards.
  2. Whether ongoing roof works would resolve the damp and mould.
  3. Issues with the kitchen quality.
  4. Sewage within the floorboards, from previous leaks.
  5. That the toilet had not been refitted correctly.
3. It had reviewed the repairs history of the toilet. It accepted that there was a history of drainage and blockages concerns that had taken time to be resolved, for which it apologised. It noted that a repair on 18 October 2023 involving rerouting the pipe had resolved the issue. However, it accepted that an effective solution should have been identified sooner.
4. It offered £1,500 for the stress and inconvenience the matter had caused the resident.
The resident escalated the complaint on 17 November 2023. She explained:
1. The landlord had carried out multiple visits to the property to deal with the leaking toilet and mould to the bedrooms. However, this had not proved to be successful.
2. The landlord’s operatives had not carried out the works required, nor was the standard of works acceptable.
3. There had been a lack of communication with her over follow-up work.
4. The impact of the condition of the property had impacted her and her children’s physical and mental health. Despite providing a doctor’s note for her daughter, the landlord had not responded on the issue of the effect of the mould on her daughter’s health.
5. The garden was frequently waterlogged and required drainage works to allow the children to use the grassed area.
6. In addition to the landlord completing the works to the kitchen and bathroom, and resolution of the longstanding issue of mould, she wanted compensation of £8,000.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 December 2023. It stated:
1. Having reviewed the repairs history, it accepted the resident had “repeatedly raised issues regarding a leak coming from the toilet in the upstairs bathroom”. It acknowledged it should have reviewed previous works before raising any further works. Instead, it had not followed its process for follow-on works.
2. It had not kept the resident up to date with progress on the outstanding works, and its delivered service had fallen short of the standards expected.
3. Operatives had attended on 30 November 2023 to carry out work to the kitchen. Bathroom works including replacing the plyboard and vinyl in the bathroom had been scheduled for 14 December 2023.
4. Works to the roof had taken place to remove tiles and insulate the roof space, and a works order to install an enhanced ventilation system had been raised.
5. It would confirm the appointment for all outstanding works by 15 December 2023 and arrange for a follow-up inspection on completion of the outstanding works.
6. It had agreed to replace the mattress and bed frame at a cost to it of £1,345. In addition, it offered an amount of £5,000, which included £3,000 for the impact its failures had on the resident’s physical and mental health and £2,000 for the repeated visits and failure to follow its process.
In referring the matter to this Service in August 2024, the resident explained she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. This was because it had taken it over 6 months for the toilet blockage to be removed, and while the landlord had carried out some work to resolve the damp in the bedroom and repainted the kitchen ceiling, the damp walls had not been addressed.

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaints process

The landlord carried out a home visit to the property on 19 September 2024. This followed on from the resident raising a number of outstanding issues, some of which were works not previously raised. The resident explained in terms of the works the landlord had previously carried out:
1. She had been advised by a third party that adding insulation to the roofline would not resolve the issue of the mould in the property. Instead, the landlord needed to hack off and renew the plaster, which it did not do.
2. Mould had reappeared in 1 of the bedrooms at the front of the property.
3. The floor had not been sealed correctly and grout had started to come out of the tiles.
4. The compensation offered by the landlord did not cover the items which she had thrown away.
The landlord issued a revised final response on 26 September 2024. This letter offered the resident a further £200, which comprised £100 for its failure not to respond to an email about the replacement mattress and bed frame and £100 for failing to carry out a post inspection of works. The landlord confirmed the details of the further works which it would carry out, which were scheduled for 8 October 2024. It stated the works were cosmetic finishes as well as a small section of mould treatment to storage space. The mould treatment related to a new area of mould under her stairs, of which the resident had made it aware.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has explained that, despite the landlord stating in its formal response that her complaint was only raised in November 2023, the history of it goes back considerably before this time. The landlord has provided this Service with the history of repairs raised by the resident since she moved to the property in 2020. It is clear from this repairs log that the issues of the leak from the toilet was first reported by the resident in 2021 and damp and mould in 2022. The Ombudsman has provided details of these earlier instances in the context of providing a chronology of events.
The resident has continued to liaise with the landlord regarding ongoing repairs and to request a management move. These repairs, with the exception of mould in one of the bedrooms, relate to issues which were not part of the resident’s original complaint. Therefore, as they have not been considered as part of the landlord’s internal complaints process, these events do not form part of this investigation. The Ombudsman has, however, made a recommendation at the end of this report in relation to the resident’s ongoing concerns.
The resident has mentioned that her daughter’s health condition has been impacted by the mould in the property. To support this, she has provided a letter from her doctor. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding the health of her daughter, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.

The Ombudsman’s role

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

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 requires landlords to ensure their properties are fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are potential hazards, and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The tenancy agreement states the resident is responsible for keeping the interior of the property in a proper state of decoration. The landlord is responsible for the exterior, as well as keeping in repair and working order the installations for sanitation including basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems and waste pipes.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that its response time is 4 hours for emergency repairs which present a risk to the health of the resident, and 60 working days for routine repairs. The policy clarifies that if it “requires extensive further works and or a replacement of components such as doors windows etc” it may take a further 60 days or longer to complete routine repairs on top of the initial 60 days.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will pay compensation in the event that a resident has suffered a service failure. The policy states that the level of compensation offered by the landlord is linked to the degree of impact caused to the resident, and that its approach adheres to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The policy sets out that issues which cause a moderate degree of impact to the resident result in awards of between £100 and £600. Incidents resulting in severe impact to the resident, which have caused more than a significant degree of inconvenience, will result in an award in excess of £1,000.

The resident’s reports of a leak from the toilet

The landlord’s repair logs show that it originally attended the property on 30 July 2021 in relation to the toilet, on the same day the issue was raised by the resident. This was a prompt response in line with its target timescale for an emergency repair. The operative noted that the horizontal soil pipe connecting to the toilet pan had dropped, and this was causing the toilet to become blocked as well as leaking. The operative placed a wooden support under the soil pipe to keep it horizontal. The landlord then attended again following a further incident of the toilet becoming blocked in November 2021. In clearing the blockage there was flooding to the bathroom and to the floor below. The landlord made arrangements to arrange specialist cleaning to the walls and carpet in the floor below, which it then agreed to replace. It also arranged to change the soil pipe behind the toilet, and this was carried out by it in January 2022. These were appropriate actions for the landlord to take. By changing the soil pipe this would reduce the chances of the blockage issue occurring again. The specialist clean dealt with the issue of the sewage leak from the toilet.
The next instance related to the toilet was on 26 May 2022. The landlord’s repair logs noted that the toilet was blocked and that the landlord unblocked it the same day. This was again an appropriate response to an emergency repair. There were no further instances noted in the landlord’s repair logs for the toilet until almost a year later, on 17 May 2023, when the landlord’s notes showed that the toilet had again become blocked. The landlord’s repair log noted that there had been 2 prior incidents of floods from the toilet. These related to the incidents in 2021. It was good practice for the landlord to note and document the history of the issue, which may have shaped its response.
The original appointment scheduled by the landlord was rearranged as the resident stated she would not be available. The repairs log shows the rescheduled appointment was on 16 June 2023, and that following an inspection by the landlord’s operative, a further appointment was required to carry out the planned works. The operative stated this would involve cutting a section of the soil pipe away and extending the flexi connector which needed to be secured to the wall by a bracket. However, the landlord’s notes show that the operative subsequently discussed the matter and revised the work as the waste pipe needed to be rerouted externally. The landlord’s repair records do not show that this was communicated to the resident at the time. This was a failing by the landlord in not keeping the resident updated with the progress and nature of the planned works, which were subsequently completed on 11 July 2023.
The landlord treated the repair to the toilet as a non-emergency, and scheduled and completed the works within 60 days. While this was in keeping with its repair policy, given the nature of the blockage which had occurred previously and as the resident had 3 young children, it could have attempted to carry out the work more promptly. The work initially proposed by the landlord – cutting the soil pipe and extending the flexi connector – was what it had previously carried out in January 2022. As this had not resolved the blockage issue, it would have been reasonable for it to consider alternatives. While the landlord did eventually do this, it could have acted more promptly, causing less of a delay and reduced inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord’s repair logs show that the resident raised an issue with the plumbing from her washing machine in July 2023. When the landlord’s operative attended in September 2023, they inspected the pipework and noted the upstairs toilet should be inspected again as there was “not enough fall on waste pipe to stack”. The work to direct the soil pipe from the toilet through the wall and into the external soil pipe was completed in October 2023, and at the same time the landlord laid new vinyl flooring in the bathroom. The landlord acted reasonably in only fitting the vinyl flooring once the issues with the toilet (which were known to it at the time) had been resolved by it.
The blocked and leaking toilet took the landlord a number of appointments and repairs over 2 years to resolve. However, during this period there were large gaps where it appeared no issues related to the toilet were raised by the resident. As a result, the landlord would not have been fully aware whether the problem with the blocked toilet was intermittent or continuously ongoing. In its stage 1 and 2 responses, the landlord accepted that there were delays and that the issue should have been identified and resolved sooner. It stated that a reason for the delay was that it had logged each repair as a new repair, and had not dealt with them as follow-up repairs. It added that it had now made changes to how it logged repairs for ongoing issues. This was a reasonable and solution-focused approach.
The landlord made an award of £1,500 compensation at stage 1 relating to the stress and inconvenience the matter caused. While the landlord increased this award at stage 2, this increased amount also covered other issues including damp and mould. The landlord’s award of compensation for the matter was in line with this Service’s recommended range for severe maladministration which resulted in a significant impact on the resident. As a result, the Ombudsman considers that reasonable redress was offered by the landlord for its failings, and that no further compensation is due.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould

The landlord completed a self-assessment in October 2023 against the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s 2021 spotlight report on damp and mould. The assessment confirmed that it had a dedicated repairs policy which set out its approach to damp and mould, and that it had provided several updates to its board on its approach to damp and mould. It added that it had provided extensive specialist training for its surveyors who conducted damp inspections.
The resident initially reported the damp and mould to the landlord on 27 January 2022. The landlord attended the property and arranged for a damp inspection to be carried out. This was a reasonable approach for it to take after being alerted to the damp by the resident. The landlord undertook the damp inspection on 16 March 2022. The inspection identified that there was a cold bridge to the corner of the ceiling in the front bedroom, which the landlord determined was linked to the insulation in the roof not being pushed sufficiently into the corners. The landlord carried out a mould wash in April 2022 to both the bedroom and the bathroom, where it had also observed mould. This was a reasonable approach, and it was in keeping with the timescales for a non-emergency repair.
The landlord’s repairs log noted that the resident raised a further issue concerning the damp in May 2023. This was to the ceiling of the upstairs area of the property as well as the bathroom. The landlord raised a work order to fix a leak to the roof, and looked into installing an electric extractor into the bathroom in an effort to treat the mould in it. In addition to treating the damp and mould, the landlord also made arrangements to fit a new skirting board. The landlord’s actions were again appropriate and in keeping with the timescales in its repairs policy for a routine repair. The work orders it raised were within 60 days of the issue having been raised by the resident.
The landlord’s records show a further damp inspection was arranged by it for 6 July 2023. This was a reasonable approach, especially given the length of time since the previous damp inspection which it had carried out some 18 months earlier. The landlord’s records show that the resident raised a number of issues at that time, and that following the inspection it raised further work orders to re-grout tiles, add air bricks to the bedrooms as well as checking in the loft insulation and fitting new roof vent tiles to improve the loft ventilation. A mould wash was also scheduled by the landlord.
While the landlord appropriately raised work orders following the damp inspection, its repairs log shows that there were delays in some of the jobs being carried out. The landlord has not provided any explanation as to why this occurred, and it was only after the resident had been back in touch with it in September 2023 that it re-booked the outstanding works. This was a failing by the landlord.
As part of its stage 1 response, the landlord agreed to meet the cost of replacing a mattress and bed frame which had been damaged by damp and mould. It asked to speak to the resident about ordering a replacement frame/mattress for her. This was a reasonable approach by the landlord to accept responsibility directly, as opposed to directing the resident to make a claim via her contents insurer or making a claim with its own insurer.
Following the landlord carrying out work to the loft insulation and the roof tiles at the front of the property on 10 November 2023, it stated that this had resolved the issues with the mould in the front bedroom. This was based on a home visit by it on 7 December 2023 where it stated no mould was identified. It added it would then be raising a further works order to strip out the tiles and insulate the roof for the area above the hallway and the back bedroom to address any mould issues there. This approach by the landlord was not reasonable, as instead of carrying out work to the roof in one go, minimising any disruption to the resident, it did it in a piecemeal way. This meant that the resident had to endure further visits by the landlord’s operative carrying out work, which caused her avoidable disruption.
In summary, the landlord caused unnecessary delays in addressing the damp and mould. This was despite the resident explaining how she believed the damp had impacted on her daughter’s health. The landlord did acknowledge some of the delays in its stage 2 response, and rightly apologised to the resident as well as offering £500 compensation for the damp and mould. This amount was based on the additional compensation which it offered to the resident at stage 2 compared to its stage 1 response, not taking into account the amount offered for the resident’s physical and mental health. This award was in keeping with the landlord’s compensation guidance for an issue which had caused the resident a moderate impact (for example, where there had been evidence of a failure over a considerable period to address repairs). The award is also in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a failing of maladministration. As a result, the Ombudsman considers that reasonable redress has been offered for the failing by the landlord, and that no further compensation is due.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. A leak from the toilet.
2. Damp and mould.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident the £5,000 it offered at stage 2, if it has not already done so. This is in addition to the £200 offered by the landlord in its correspondence of September 2024.
The landlord should contact the resident to determine if she has any further concerns following the end of its internal complaints procedure in December 2023. If she did raise any such concerns, it should respond to these in accordance with its policies and procedures.