Regenda Limited (202410650)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410650

Regenda Limited

4 April 2025

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 handling of:
   1. repairs to kitchen cupboard hinges at the property.
   2. the resident’s enquiry about gutter clearance.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property. The landlord has confirmed the resident is partially sighted.
4. During a call with us on 13 June 2024, the resident said that the landlord was refusing to log new repairs requests. The landlord said this was because the resident had instructed a solicitor to advise on outstanding repairs to the property. These issues were the subject of a separate complaint to us, which was determined on 20 August 2024.
5. The resident complained that the landlord had refused to raise new repairs to renew the hinges of her kitchen cupboard. It also said it was her responsibility to clear the gutters at the property. On 14 June 2024, we wrote to the landlord to raise a complaint on the resident’s behalf. We explained that as legal proceedings had not been issued, we expected the landlord to log new repairs issues and provide a response.
6. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response to the complaint on 25 June 2024. The complaint was not upheld. The landlord said:
   1. Following an inspection on 19 June 2024, the surveyor confirmed that the hinges did not require repair or replacement, as they were functional and fit for purpose.
   2. Advice given to the resident on 29 April 2024 that only emergency repairs could be raised due to the ongoing disrepair case was correct.
   3. Gutter clearance was the responsibility of the resident, as stated on the landlord’s website.
7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and on 28 June 2024 she escalated her complaint. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request in a telephone call to the resident on 4 July 2024. The resident confirmed that her gutters did not currently need clearing but she did not agree that it was her responsibility to clear them.
8. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 15 July 2024. It did not uphold the complaint. The landlord said it was responsible for the repair and maintenance of the gutters but not for gutter clearance, as this was not a repairs issue. It said this was the resident’s responsibility. The landlord also said that it would not replace the hinges as rust was a cosmetic issue and the hinges were working. The landlord confirmed its previous advice that only emergency repairs would be raised, in line with its policy on legal disrepair claims.

Post-completion of the landlord’s complaints process

9. The resident wrote to the landlord on 26 July 2025. She disagreed that she was responsible for clearing the gutters. She said she did not accept that elderly, disabled residents were expected to clear gutters at their properties.
10. On 18 September 2024, the landlord replaced 2 hinges in the resident’s kitchen cupboard. On 9 October 2024, the landlord cleared the gutters at the property and unblocked the downpipes.
11. The landlord told us that it identified learnings from this complaint. It has:
    1. Reviewed the information it sends to customers when there was a live disrepair claim about its processes and protocol.
    2. Reviewed the information available on its website about tenant repair responsibilities.

Assessment and findings

12. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord must keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises, including “internal walls, plasterwork, skirting boards, doors and door frames, hinges, locks”.
13. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy defines responsive repairs as repairs to “part of the building fabric or fittings that is already present but needs repairing or replacing”. The policy also states that it may make exceptions to its general approach if a resident is vulnerable or disabled.
14. The landlord confirmed that it received a letter before claim from the resident’s solicitors in mid-March 2024. The issues that are the subject of this complaint are not connected to the resident’s ongoing disrepair claim, which is about the replacement of fascias at the property and repairs to the resident’s wardrobe.

Renewal of kitchen cupboard hinges

15. The resident asked the landlord to fix the kitchen cupboard hinges on 29 April 2025. The landlord said it could only raise emergency or gas repairs due to the disrepair claim. The resident said her solicitor had advised that the landlord should still complete any standard repairs not mentioned in the disrepair claim. The landlord’s records show it agreed with this advice, but it would not replace the hinges as they were in working order.
16. The landlord gave the resident incorrect advice about the effect of a disrepair claim on repairs. It said she could only raise emergency repairs when she first reported the issue and again in the landlord’s complaint responses. The landlord should not have refused the resident’s repairs request because of unrelated legal proceedings. The landlord acknowledged this in its internal discussions but did not accurately communicate this to the resident.
17. The landlord inspected the kitchen cupboard hinges at the disrepair inspection on 19 June 2024. It again refused to renew the hinges, as it concluded that the rust was cosmetic and did not stop them working. Although the presence of rust was unpleasant for the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to decide, based on its surveyor’s advice, that the hinges did not require replacement. This is because the advice was given by a qualified staff member.
18. The landlord has since replaced the hinges as a gesture of goodwill. The landlord treated the resident fairly and showed its commitment to putting things right by replacing the hinges, even though it was not required to do so.
19. There was service failure in the landlord’s communication with the resident about this issue. Wherever possible, landlords should make use of their complaints process to resolve repairs issues as a means of alternative dispute resolution. It was unreasonable and inappropriate for the landlord to apply a blanket policy that it would not log new routine repairs issues until the disrepair inspection had taken place.
20. This matter has caused evident frustration and inconvenience to the resident. It is appropriate that the landlord pay the resident £75 compensation to recognise the effect its communication failings had on the resident. This amount is in line with the recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which says such sums are appropriate where there was a minor service failure by the landlord that was of a short duration.

Gutter clearance

21. The landlord said it spoke to the resident on 4 July 2024, and she confirmed she did not need her gutters cleaning. Her complaint was that the landlord had said she was responsible for clearing the gutters. The resident did not agree, as her tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for all external repairs and maintenance. The resident interpreted the word “maintain” as including inspecting and cleaning gutters to prevent blockages. She said that neither the tenants’ handbook nor her tenancy agreement state that gutter clearance is her responsibility.
22. The landlord accepted that it is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the structure and exterior of the building. It confirmed it would repair gutters if they were leaking or not working. The landlord did not consider gutter clearance a repairs issue, although it may carry out this work to prevent further damage to the structure.
23. We cannot make a binding decision on the meaning of the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement, but we can consider whether the landlord’s interpretation was reasonable. There is no evidence of the information available to the resident at the time of the complaint in the landlord’s policies or on its website. However, it was reasonable and in line with standard industry practice, for the landlord to interpret its repairs obligations in relation to the gutters in the way that it did.
24. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response said that in some cases it may carry out gutter clearance. It said it may do so to prevent further damage. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy also states that it reserves the right to adapt its general policy to suit the needs of customers with disabilities or vulnerabilities. This information was not communicated to the resident and there is no evidence that the landlord considered whether an exception was appropriate in the circumstances.
25. As the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, it should have asked the resident whether she required any reasonable adjustments. It should also have proactively considered whether it was appropriate in all the circumstances to make an exception to its general policy. In line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, a landlord should consider a resident’s personal circumstances to decide what is fair.
26. The landlord has since cleared the resident’s gutters because of a blockage. It should consider whether an exception to its policy is required because of the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord should write to the resident to confirm its decision.
27. In line with our remedies guidance as referenced above, it is also appropriate that the landlord pay the resident compensation of £75 for the frustration caused by its failure to communicate and apply its policies appropriately.

Complaints handling

28. The resident says that she tried to raise a complaint with the landlord when it refused to raise the new repairs. The resident disagreed with the landlord’s response, but we have not seen any evidence of an attempt to raise a complaint before the resident’s contact with us on 13 June 2024.
29. The landlord generally acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaints in line with the timeframes set out in its Customer Feedback Policy. There was a short delay in acknowledging the stage 2 escalation but there is no evidence that this negatively impacted the resident. There was therefore no maladministration in the landlords’ complaints handling.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s:
    1. handling of repairs to the kitchen cupboard hinges.
    2. response to the resident’s enquiry about gutter clearance.
31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

32. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Consider whether it is appropriate in the circumstances to make an exception to its general policy on gutter clearance at the property, considering the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord should write to the resident to confirm its position.
    3. Pay the resident £150 compensation for the failings identified in its communication with the resident, made up of:
       1. £75 in recognition of the impact of the incorrect advice provided to the resident about repairs to her kitchen hinges.
       2. £75 in recognition of the impact of the service failure identified in the landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiry about gutter clearance.
33. The landlord should confirm to us that it has complied with the above Orders within the timeframe.

Recommendations

34. It is recommended that the landlord review its policies and procedures relating to legal disrepair claims to ensure they reflect our “Guidance on pre-action protocol for housing conditions claims and service complaints” which can be found on our website.