Regenda Limited (202442519)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202442519

Regenda Limited

14 July 2025

 

Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this.

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the position of his neighbour’s shed.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord. He had lived in the 1-bedroom bungalow alone since 2019. The resident, who had previously suffered a stroke, sadly passed away in February 2025, a month after referring his complaint to this Service.
  2. Prior to his death, the resident complained to the landlord on 3 December 2024. He gave written consent for his wife, who was not a tenant of the landlord, to represent him. He said he was unhappy that:
    1. the landlord had allowed his neighbour to put a shed against his bedroom wall and it was causing damp and mould in his bedroom.
    2. the position of the shed had prevented some guttering work from being completed.
    3. his neighbour had acted in ways he considered was antisocial behaviour (ASB).

The resident said the issues were affecting his health. He asked for the landlord to reconsider its position on the shed.

  1. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, from mid-December 2024, it said:
    1. a surveyor had inspected the property a few days earlier and had not found the shed was causing an obstruction or damp and mould inside the resident’s bedroom.
    2. the guttering works were not affected by the shed, but it apologised they had not been completed and confirmed they would be as soon as possible.
    3. had referred the resident’s concerns about ASB from his neighbours to be investigated by his housing officer.

The landlord concluded overall that there had been no service failings.

  1. The resident’s wife escalated the complaint on 16 December 2024. She complained about the attitude of the surveyor. She also said that, while the resident was reassured there was no damp found, he was concerned the shed was making the bedroom wall cold. She asked the landlord to review its decision on the shed.
  2. A stage 2 response was sent in mid-January 2025. In this, the landlord said it had reviewed photographs of the shed and was satisfied there were no risks from its location. It apologised the resident found the surveyor’s attitude unprofessional. The landlord said it had not identified service failings.
  3. After the complaints process ended, the resident referred his complaint to us. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s decision on the shed. The resident advised he wished for the shed to be moved as an outcome to his complaint. The resident’s wife later informed us of his death. She said she wanted to continue the complaint on his behalf. We wrote to her in April 2025 to inform her that we needed evidence of her authority to act on her late husband’s behalf in order to proceed with an investigation. We also signposted her to the Government’s website about how to apply for probate.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 25.a of the Scheme states “a person who is or has been in a landlord/tenant relationship” with a member landlord can make complaints to the Ombudsman. In cases where the tenant has died, the Scheme allows, under paragraph 25.e, for someone “with authority to make a complaint on behalf of” the deceased. If we are not satisfied the conditions to make a complaint to us are met, we cannot investigate it under paragraph 41.a of the Scheme.
  2. We recognise the resident’s wife represented the resident in his complaint to the landlord. However, she did not live at the property and therefore was not in a landlord/tenant relationship as required by paragraph 25.a. of the Scheme.
  3. We consider that in the event of a death of a tenant, the appropriate legal authority is when someone has a grant of probate, or letters of administration in the absence of a will. The resident’s wife advised that she does not have one of these authorities. As such, we are not satisfied that the requirements of paragraph 25.e. have been met. This complaint is, therefore, not one the Ombudsman can investigate.
  4. We recognise this will be a disappointing decision for the resident’s wife. The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction can be complex and often requires consideration of the facts before a decision can be made. If the resident’s wife does decide to obtain a grant of probate or letters of administration, and provides us with evidence of either, we may reconsider our position.