Regenda Limited (202508752)

Decision
Case ID	202508752
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Regenda Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	13 February 2026 (re-issued)

Background

1. The resident is deaf and has health issues. The resident complained about multiple issues. The landlord inspected but did not complete repairs.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s personal data.
   2. Leaks and roof repairs.
   3. Concerns about asbestos, the property condition and repairs.
   4. Parking issues.
   5. Concerns about trees.
   6. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
   7. The resident’s complaint.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s personal data is outside our jurisdiction.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Concerns about asbestos, the property condition and repairs.
   2. Parking issues.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Leaks and roof repairs.
   2. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
   3. Concerns about trees.
   4. Complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

 

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s personal data

6. We have not investigated this complaint because it falls under the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).

The landlord’s handling of leaks and roof repairs

7. The landlord has not provided complete repair or customer contact records. It did not confirm if it would consult residents about cleaning the gutters more frequently.

The landlord’s handling of concerns about asbestos, the property condition and repairs

8. The landlord ordered repairs but did not do them. It knew its repairs communications were inaccessible but did not fix this.

The landlord’s handling of parking issues

9. The landlord did not consider the resident’s concerns that he needed a parking space because he was disabled. It did not write to other residents about parking issues.

The landlord’s handling of concerns about trees

10. The landlord did not record the condition of the trees or their impact on the property.

The landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB)

11. The landlord did not record the resident’s report or do a risk assessment.

The resident’s complaint

12. The landlord did not address all issues the resident raised in its stage 2 response.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 17 February 2026

 

2

Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 made up as follows: £150 for any time, trouble and inconvenience caused the landlord’s handling of parking issues £50 for any time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) £50 for any time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of concerns about trees £50 for any time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident by its complaint handling This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than 17 February 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should consider providing an update on the roof replacement and tree pruning.

Our recommendations Our recommendations Our recommendations Our recommendations Our recommendations Our recommendations Our recommendations Our recommendations Our recommendations Our recommendations

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 November 2024	The resident complained about leaks, outstanding repairs, asbestos and parking issues. He said trees blocked light entering the property. The resident said he had been subject to physical attacks. He said the landlord had mishandled his personal data.
19 November 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It listed repairs it said the resident had not previously reported. The landlord said it would inspect. It said it would speak with the resident about his concerns. It did not uphold the complaint.
19 November 2024	The resident escalated his complaint.
10 December 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said it surveyed the property in November 2024 and listed the repairs it would do. The landlord said it had offered appointments for an electrical safety check. It said the trees would be cut back in April 2025.
2 June 2025	The resident referred his complaint to us. He said the landlord had not fixed leaks and asbestos. The resident said he wanted repairs fixed and compensation.
18 June 2025	The resident complained the landlord had breached the Equality Act 2010. It apologised and said it recognised the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident over the past 14 years. It ordered multiple surveys and said it would do the recommendations. The landlord awarded £6,000 compensation.
December 2025	The resident told us the landlord had not fixed the roofing and guttering. He said the trees were still blocking light from entering the property. The resident said there had been more leaks and ASB. He said he wanted the landlord to make sure it made reasonable adjustments.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s data
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

13. The resident complained the landlord mishandled his personal data. He said the landlord gave his personal information to a utilities company.
14. We do not investigate complaints that fall under the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body. The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of his data is better dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). This is because the ICO can investigate data breaches and decide whether an organisation handled data correctly. For this reason we have decided not to investigate the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s data.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of leaks and roof repairs
Finding	Service failure

What we have not considered

15. The resident told us there were more leaks in October 2025. These leaks were after the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. This investigation has not looked at the landlord’s handling of these leaks.

What we have considered

16. There were historical issues with repairs, asbestos and the property condition. We usually consider the 12-month period before a complaint is made. This investigation has looked at the period from November 2023 until the landlord’s stage 2 response on 10 December 2024. We also refer to an apology and compensation award made by the landlord in June 2025.
17. The resident asked us to investigate if the landlord was in breach of the Equality Act 2010. We cannot assess if the landlord breached the Equality Act, but we can consider whether it has considered its duties under it, for example, in the application of its repairs policy.
18. The resident complained about constant roof leaks. He said the landlord had not maintained the roof or gutters.
19. In its stage 1 response the landlord listed repairs it had done over the previous 12 months. The landlord has not sent us repair records. We are therefore unable confirm it followed its repairs policy.
20. The landlord said it would visit on 26 November 2024 and do a stock condition report. It said it would look at the roof during the visit. The landlord has not sent us a copy of the report. The landlord told us it inspected the roof on 29 November 2024 and there were no issues with the gutters.
21. In its stage 2 response the landlord said the resident had asked for a new roof and for twice-yearly gutter cleans. It said it could not do more gutter cleans without consulting residents. It did not say if it would do this consultation.
22. In June 2025 the landlord acknowledged there had been multiple leaks. It said the most recent was in 2020 and there were no active leaks. It acknowledged failings, apologised and awarded £250 compensation. It said the roof replacement had been agreed in principle. In December 2025 the landlord told us the roof replacement process would begin in January 2026.
23. Where the landlord admitted failings, we consider whether the redress it offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
24. The landlord has not sent us full repair or customer contact records. When the resident complained it inspected and confirmed there was no active leak. It did not confirm if it would consult on the frequency of gutter cleans. After the resident made a further complaint, it did a survey and awarded compensation. This resolution happened after it sent its stage 2 response. We have therefore found service failure. The compensation awarded by the landlord falls within the range in our remedies guidance for failings that had a negative effect on the resident. We have therefore not made a further award.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of concerns about asbestos, the property condition and repairs
Finding	Maladministration

25. The resident complained about asbestos, the property condition and outstanding repairs. He said walls and tiles were cracked. The resident said the cracked tiles contained asbestos. The resident said the landlord visited in January 2024 but had not done repairs.
26. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it removed asbestos in 2020. It said it would visit on 26 November 2024, inspect and discuss the resident’s asbestos concerns.
27. The landlord said the resident reported cracked tiles, broken pull cord and wall cracks in a previous complaint. The landlord said the resident had not told it when it could inspect. It said the resident had not reported the other repairs. The resident disputed this. He said he reported the repairs to his housing officer and the landlord had not contacted him about an inspection. The landlord has not sent us repair or customer contact records.
28. The landlord inspected on 26 November 2024. It has not sent us the inspection report.
29. In December 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to reschedule a visit. He said the landlord sent text messages (‘texts’) about repairs. The resident said the only way to respond to the texts was by phone call. He said he had told the landlord multiple times that he was deaf and could not phone it.
30. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged its repairs texts were inaccessible. It said it would investigate adding an email contact option. The landlord did not say when it would do this. It did not say how it would ensure its communication was accessible.
31. The landlord said it had reassured the resident he had not been exposed to asbestos. It said it had ordered the outstanding repairs. The landlord did not complete the repairs and the resident made another complaint in June 2025.
32. In July 2025 the landlord ordered asbestos, electrical and stock condition surveys. It apologised and awarded £1000 compensation for the property condition and £1000 for its failure to make reasonable adjustments. In August 2025 it removed asbestos from the property.
33. The landlord has not sent us repair or customer contact records. We cannot confirm if it followed its repairs policy. It knew the resident was deaf but did not make its repairs communications accessible. The resident had to make a further complaint before the landlord fixed these issues. On that basis we have found there was maladministration.
34. The landlord’s compensation award falls within the range in our remedies guidance where there have been failings that had a significant impact on the resident. We have therefore not awarded further compensation.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of parking issues
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not considered

35. The landlord told us it recently repainted parking space lines. This happened after the landlord sent its stage 2 responses. We have not considered parking issues that happened after December 2024 in this assessment. This investigation has looked at the period from November 2023 until the landlord’s stage 2 response on 10 December 2024.

What we have considered

36. The resident complained there were untaxed and uninsured vehicles in the carpark. He said he needed parking because he was disabled but the landlord had not ensured he could access a parking space.
37. In its stage 1 response the landlord said the carpark was open to non-residents. It said it did not operate parking enforcement. The landlord said it had previously asked residents to park considerately and could send another letter. The landlord did not address parking in its stage 2 response.
38. The landlord did not write to residents about the carpark. It did not consider the resident’s concerns that he needed parking as he was disabled but could not access a space. The landlord did not offer to report untaxed cars or signpost the resident to how he could do this. For these reasons, we have found maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £150 compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there was a failure that adversely affected a resident.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB)
Finding	Service failure

What we have not considered

39. The resident reported ASB in August 2025. This was after the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. This investigation has not looked at the landlord’s handling of this report.

What we have considered

40. In his complaint the resident said he had been attacked. The landlord said it did not have any open ASB reports, and it contacted the resident to arrange a home visit. The resident told the landlord it did not want the housing officer to visit. The visit went ahead. The landlord did not open an ASB case following the visit. The landlord did not record its decision making or do a risk assessment.
41. In its stage 1 response the landlord confirmed it had open ASB cases in the area, but these concerned other residents. The landlord did not address ASB in its stage 2 response.
42. We found service failure in the landlord’s response to ASB. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £50 compensation.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to concerns about trees
Finding	Service failure

43. The resident complained trees were stopping light and heat entering his property. He said this caused high energy costs and fuel poverty.
44. In its stage 1 response the landlord said the resident had not reported the issue previously. The resident said he had reported repairs to his housing officer, but they were not fixed. The landlord has not sent us customer contact or repair records.
45. The landlord inspected on 26 November 2024. The landlord did not record the condition of the trees or the effect on the resident’s property.
46. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it would cut back the trees. It said it would do the works by April 2025. This follows the timeline in the landlord’s repairs policy for ‘major works’. The landlord did not signpost the resident to agencies that could advise on fuel poverty.
47. As a result, we found service failure in the landlord’s response to concerns about trees. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £50 compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there was a minor failing in the service a landlord provided.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

48. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It says it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint when it is raised and send its response within 5 working days of the acknowledgement. At stage 2 it says it will respond within 15 working days. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords respond in 10 working days at stage 1, and in 20 working days at stage 2.
49. The resident complained on 11 November 2024. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 19 November 2024. This was 2 working days after the timeframe in its policy.
50. The resident escalated his complaint on 19 November 2024. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 10 December 2024.
51. In its stage 2 response the landlord did not address all the issues the resident raised. This is not in line with the Code.
52. We found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay £50 compensation.

 

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

53. The landlord has not provided complete customer contact or repair records. Complete and accurate records are essential to allow a landlord to fulfil its repairs obligations and evidence it has done so. The lack of records meant we could not confirm the landlord had followed its policies. The landlord should learn from this complaint and identify the action it needs to take to ensure the recordkeeping failings are not repeated.

Communication

54. The landlord failed to ensure its communication was accessible. The landlord should learn from this complaint and consider how it communicates with residents. It should consider how it can ensure its communications are accessible.