Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202012224)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012224

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

15 June 2022

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 repairs to fix low hot water pressure at the resident’s property.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 13 October 2020, due to an unresolved issue he had at his home with low water pressure, which affected his hot water supply. The resident said that the issue had occurred since he had moved into his home in March 2020.
4. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 3 November 2021, in which it clarified that it understood the resident’s issue to be that hot water trickled from his taps, and he was therefore unable to receive a constant flow of hot water. The landlord said that the earliest report of the issue it could find was in August that year. It advised the resident that repair work to change the heating system in order to rectify the water pressure issue, was completed on 19 October. It offered £50 compensation for its delay to complete the repair.
5. The resident disputed the date that the landlord said the issue was first reported, and asked the landlord to check its records as he said he reported the issue alongside a leak. In response, the landlord offered the resident an additional £20 voucher as it confirmed it had received report of the issue alongside a leak, and said it had overlooked this during its previous investigations. However, the landlord did not clarify if it believed the resident reported the issue any earlier than the date which it had it identified in its stage one response, and thus was not apparent why it offered the £20 voucher.
6. The resident escalated his complaint on 3 November 2021 as he felt the amount of compensation offered by the landlord did not compensate him for the days he had to take off work to progress the repair, and also referred to leaks he had suffered in his bathroom and kitchen. After intervention from this Service, the landlord issued its final response on 20 May 2021. The landlord apologised for the delayed response and informed the resident that the issue did not become apparent to it from tests carried out as part of its voids process. Further to its investigations, it said it found that the resident originally reported the issue on 23 July 2020. It said its policy did not compensate for loss of earnings, but increased its offer of compensation to £130 due to its delay in issuing its final complaint response and for the inconvenience this caused the resident.
7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord, and asked this Service to investigate his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. In correspondence with this Service, the resident referred to leaks and damage to his flooring which he felt the landlord should replace. In his stage two complaint, the resident drew attention to leaks in his home as he said he initially thought they had caused the water pressure issue, but he did not complain about the landlord’s handling of the leaks nor mention any damage they caused until the time the landlord issued its final complaint response. This Service is only able to consider matters that have first been considered by a landlord under its complaints procedure. As the evidence does not show that leak issues were raised as part of the resident’s initial complaint or that the landlord addressed these matters under its complaints procedure, the resident should consider raising a new complaint with the landlord if he still wants to pursue this. However, keep in mind that due to the elapsed time between the leaks and any formal complaint, the Ombudsman may decide that any such complaint is too old to be considered.

Policies

9. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining water heating equipment at his property, and for keeping the property in good repair. It states that the landlord will carry out repair work within reasonable timescales.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to fix low hot water pressure

10. It is sometimes the case that a landlord is not able to keep to defined timeframes, as the circumstances surrounding each repair can differ, and further works may be identified after initial investigation. In such cases, basic good practice is for a landlord to liaise regularly with the resident to explain the reason for any delays and take meaningful steps to resolve any outstanding repairs as quickly as possible.
11. In this case, the landlord did not keep the resident informed, and it accepted that it did not resolve the issue within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord acknowledged its mistakes as it upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for the inconvenience caused. It accepted that it was unable to explain why its surveyor failed to attend the resident’s home as had been arranged on 21 August 2020. It also acknowledged there was a delay to progress the repair when the resident chased this up in in October 2020, due the matter having to be referred to its gas team (as the issue required this team’s expertise). It said that the information on which it based this referral was not initially available to its call handlers when the resident chased the repair. As a result, it said it would put a system in place to ensure its records provided the relevant information to its staff going forward. This was appropriate as it shows that the landlord committed to learning from some of its mistakes in order to prevent such instances occurring in future.
12. However, the repair records show that the water pressure issue was reported to the landlord (on the resident’s behalf) on 9 June 2020, which was over six weeks prior to the date given by the landlord in its final response. The evidence also shows the resident continued to report the issue in July, August and October 2020. Considering this, the landlord’s failure to fully consider its records and the inconsistent information it gave the resident about when the issue was reported in its complaint response meant that its explanation and acknowledgement of its delay to rectify the issue was insufficient. It was also clear that during this period, the resident would not have been able to use hot water at his home in a practical or sufficient manner, due to the low pressure, and this would understandably have caused considerable inconvenience.
13. It was reasonable that the landlord advised the resident in its final response that its policy did not compensate for time off work, as a resident’s occupancy agreement requires them to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed, and it is for the resident to decide how best to allow that. However, it was appropriate that the landlord offered the resident compensation in recognition of the overall inconvenience caused by the considerable delay to resolve the water pressure issue.
14. The landlord appropriately apologised for the considerable delay in issuing its stage two complaint response, and in light of this it revised its initial offer of £70 compensation to £130. That suitably remedied the poor complaint handling, but the compensation offered for the repair failings (£70) was disproportionately low when the length of the repair delay is considered, along with the landlord’s poor communication and the impact of not being able to practicably access hot water. While the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and accepted that its service had been poor, its failure to fully establish the facts in its investigation of the complaint (especially in regard to the timing of when the problem was first reported) left its failings unremedied.

Determination

15. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

16. Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £225 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the service failures identified in this investigation. This in addition to the £130 offered in its stage two response, which it should now pay if it has not already done so.
17. It is recommended that the landlord updates its records about the Housing Ombudsman as the physical address it provided in its final complaint response was incorrect.