Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202120242)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120242

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

7 August 2023

 

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:
    1. The compensation offered by the landlord for its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. From November 2006 until March 2021 the resident had an assured tenancy of a two bedroom flat where she lived with her husband. The resident is elderly and cares for her husband who has significant health issues.
  2. The resident’s complaints about damp and mould at the property are the subject of this investigation. In March 2021 the resident moved to another flat owned by the same landlord and following problems with the maintenance of this flat made a second complaint. The resident and the landlord refer to both complaints in correspondence. The resident has not requested that the Ombudsman consider matters raised in the second complaint and for this reason the second complaint has not been considered in this report.
  3. From at least 2015, until repairs were completed in the summer of 2020, the resident experienced leaks, damp, water damage and mould in the property. She reported these problems to the landlord several times over this five year period. The landlord arranged for surveyors inspections and repair works but failed to resolve the damp and mould issues. From October 2019 the resident was represented by an advocacy charity in making complaints. In this report all actions taken by the representatives on her behalf will be referred to as if they were the actions of the resident.
  4. In February 2020 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the disrepair and in March 2020 requested compensation. The landlord’s formal response to the complaint in July 2020 did not acknowledge service failure but offered compensation for damp and mould and for a leaking boiler, reported in May 2020. On 29 July 2020 the resident asked for a review of her complaint.
  5. In its stage two response, issued on 26 August 2020, the landlord reviewed its repair history for the property and acknowledged there were “numerous issues for which we apologise that these have taken so long to resolve”. It offered £1750 ‘further compensation’ to “resolve the situation and recompense the prolonged delays in getting to the bottom of the damp and mould issues”. Seven months later the resident accepted the offer and received payment on 30 April 2021.
  6. The resident then asked for the compensation to be increased to recognise the stress and anxiety experienced over the years when the damp was unresolved. The landlord responded on 14 June 2021 refusing to increase the compensation offer. The resident complained to the Ombudsman about the level of compensation.

Assessment and findings

The compensation offer

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will consider paying compensation if it has: failed to meet its own service targets, not acted reasonably, damaged personal possessions or the resident has been unable to use a room in their home. In its stage two response the landlord apologised for its historic failure to investigate damp and mould issues and for the “prolonged delays” in resolving the disrepair which had resulted in the loss of use of a bedroom at the property. The landlord offered “further compensation” in addition to the £550 offered in its stage one response.
  2.  Under the policy the amount of compensation to be offered must be “reasonable, justifiable, and proportionate and based on personal impact. It will reflect the level of inconvenience, disturbance, stress or annoyance suffered and the extent to which it has been directly responsible. It will also take account of the time taken to resolve the problem and any costs incurred.”
  3. In its stage two response of 26 August 2020, the landlord explained how the offer of £1750 “to resolve the situation and recompense the long delays” had been calculated. The sum offered was based on loss of use of one bedroom at the property, affected by damp and mould, for “a number of years ”and took into account the current rent of £83.75 per week. The landlord’s review of the repair history of the property since May 2015established that the resident had repeatedly reported damp and mould related disrepair for the past five years. Although this is not mentioned in the response, the landlord was aware of the vulnerability of the household. The damp and mould in the property and the time and effort spent in attempting to have the landlord resolve the issue over a protracted period, would no doubt have had a substantial personal impact on the resident.
  4. The stage two response from the landlord also notes that the resident had asked to be compensated for excessive heating costs to mitigate damp, for redecoration of a bedroom, replacement of a bed and bedding and damage caused to curtains and music cassettes. The landlord may have directed the resident to make a claim to her insurers for damage to personal property but this investigation has not seen evidence to confirm this. The landlord’s compensation policy encourages residents to take out home contents insurance for their furniture, decorations and personal possessions. But the policy also states that “Where a resident’s possessions are damaged through building failure which is not covered by their own insurance, compensation will be paid if it can be shown that” the landlord was at fault. The landlord’s stage two response does not address the resident’s request for compensation for damage to personal property, however it should be noted that the policy makes clear this will only be applicable if a resident’s own insurance does not cover the loss. In this case, had the resident had insurance, it is likely that the damaged claimed would have been covered. But in any event, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord reasonably considered the resident’s request for compensation.
  5. The landlord’s stage two response also noted if the resident was happy with the offer of compensation to sign and return the letter within 28 days (by 23 September 2020). On 7 April 2021, the resident signed the landlord’s proforma confirming acceptance of  £1750 in compensation, the pro forma also noted that by signing “Upon receipt of this payment, I will consider the case closed and will not make any further claims in relation to this incident”.
  6. Following payment of the compensation on 30 April 2021, the resident requested additional compensation of £3250 to recognise the stress and anxiety experienced during the period the property was in disrepair. The landlord’s compensation policy states that “If the customer asks for the compensation to be reviewed, this will be dealt with under stage two of the complaints policy.  We will not normally review at stage two the level of compensation paid under stage one of the policy.” This investigation has not seen a copy of the resident’s request for further compensation or any stage one response that may have been issued by the landlord.  The landlord’s rejection of the request was contained in a letter headed ‘stage two response’ which principally dealt with the second complaint by the resident relating to her new tenancy, which, as aforementioned, has not been considered by this Service. The reasons given by the landlord for rejecting the request for additional compensation were that the amount offered was based on an assessment by its legal advisors and the resident had signed a statement confirming acceptance of the offer, also accepting that the case was now closed and no further claims relating to the incident would be made. The landlord also noted that the resident had been reimbursed £790.35 for storage costs.
  7. It is reasonable for the landlord to seek finality when offering compensation to resolve complaints, however the Ombudsman does not deem it reasonable for a landlord to include wording such as ‘full and final settlement’. This is as settlement agreements are only legally binding if a specific set of actions are taken, one being that advice on the terms and effect of the proposed agreement and its effect on the individual to pursue that complaint, have been received from a relevant independent adviser. This was not the case here.
  8. The landlord’s compensation policy provides for reviews of compensation payments where residents request this. The landlord’s response to the resident’s review request in this case relied substantially on the signed agreement from the resident also noting that the offer was based on an assessment by its legal advisors. A copy of that advice has been considered by the Ombudsman and it shows that banding for the settlement was £3800-£5700, which is much higher than the actual amount offered. As such, the Ombudsman does not accept that the landlord could not consider the resident’s request further as the offer of £1750 was noted in the advice as the starting point. Additionally, the landlord’s response did not demonstrate that the personal circumstances of the resident were considered when taking its decision to reject the request without any further assessment.
  9. The resident experienced significant inconvenience, disturbance and stress as a result of the landlord’s accepted failures to resolve damp and mould in her property over a five year period. The impact on the resident was severe because of her vulnerability and should have been reflected explicitly in the compensation payment and taken into account in the landlord’s response to her request for increased compensation. The landlord had reasonable legal advice and could have further considered this in line with the resident’s request for increased compensation, but it failed to do so. Given the landlord had made an offer of compensation to address its failings, it is only for this reason why the Ombudsman deems there was service failure as opposed to maladministration, by the landlord. In order to remedy this, an additional payment of compensation should be made to the resident.
  10. In calculating the offer of compensation the Ombudsman has considered the calculations made by the landlord’s legal advisors. Based on £83.75 (being the weekly rent) multiplied by 208 (the number of weeks the resident suffered with damp and mould), provides a total of £17,420.00. With this in mind, it would be reasonable to compensate the resident 25% of this total which amounts to £4355. This is to address the distress and inconvenience caused, alongside the time and trouble the resident incurred pursuing matters.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a two stage complaints process. It aims to “agree a solution within 10 working days”. Complex complaints may take longer but where this is the case the resident will be kept informed and regularly updated on the reasons. Residents have the right to request a review of decisions taken at stage one and the landlord’s complaints policy says “A definitive response will be provided within 15 working days following a thorough investigation of the points raised”. Where investigation or resolution requires more time to resolve, the resident will be kept informed.
  2. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the condition of her property on 10 February 2020 and there is evidence of earlier email exchanges about the damp problem, from at least December 2019, which could have been treated as a complaint. This investigation has not been provided with evidence of any formal acknowledgement of the complaint, progress update or response until 29 July 2020, 118 working days after the complaint was made. This response dealt principally with a more recent complaint about the resident’s boiler but also referred to a breached damp proof course and offered £550 compensation. The response did not inform the resident of her right to request a stage two review.
  3. The landlord also failed to respond to the resident’s claim for damage to her personal property and incorrectly advised the resident “The other alternative is to go via the Ombudsman”. It was only after an exchange of emails on 29 July 2020, that the resident was asked whether she wished to escalate the complaint to stage two, to which she confirmed she did. This request was formally acknowledged on 31 July 2020 and a full stage two response, which demonstrated a thorough investigation of the history of the case and apologised for service failures, was issued on 26 August 2020, 18 working days after the request for a review was made.
  4. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the resident’s original request for a review of the compensation offered or any stage one response which may have been provided. Therefore it cannot be concluded whether the response times were met for this element of the complaint. It is important that landlord’s provide full responses to all matters raised.
  5. The landlord’s initial handling of the resident’s complaint about damp and mould suggests that not all staff with whom the resident came contacted, were familiar with the requirements of the landlord’s complaints policy. As well as the failure to meet timescales set out in its policy, responses to the substantive complaint, and to the request for a review of the amount of compensation, was merged with a different complaint, which confused matters and meant the resident’s complaint was not fully addressed. This amounted to service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the compensation offered by the landlord for its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
    1. £4355 compensation for its accepted failures in the handling of mould and damp in the property. This is inclusive of all other offers of compensation awarded, namely the £550 at stage one and £1750 at stage two. These sums can be deducted if the landlord has already paid, of which evidence will be required.
    2. £100 compensation for failures in its complaints handling.
  2. The landlord to review staff training and systems for complaints handling.
  3. The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders within four weeks of the date of this report.