Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202216612)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216612

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

18 September 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs and subsequent remedies to put it right.

Background

2. The resident holds a secure tenancy on a two-bedroom flat on the top floor of a residential block. The landlord is a housing association.
3. In September 2022, the resident complained to the landlord about wet patches on the property’s ceiling, affecting both bedrooms and the lounge. The resident said that since 2013, there have been many attempts by the landlord to repair the roof. While the wet patches in the lounge and the bedroom were rectified, the one in the resident’s bedroom returned seasonally in line with rainy times of year. The resident said the distress caused by the leak was ‘amplified’ by chasing the landlord; its failure to respond to letters and phone calls; failure of its contractors to show up as planned; failure to form and communicate a plan of action, for example, it erected scaffolding, which stayed up for 6 months, was taken down and then put back up again within weeks.
4. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 26 September 2022. It stated that tracing the source of a leak had proven complex and required multiple inspections. However, it recognised that it failed to address the issue ‘within an acceptable time frame’. The landlord apologised and said it aimed to quickly complete all the required repairs. It offered the resident £500 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
5. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He said the issue had been ongoing since 2013. Therefore, the level of compensation offered by the landlord equated to less than 15 pence per day. The resident stated he expected a minimum of a year’s rent, which would be 100 times the sum offered by the landlord. The resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2.
6. The landlord issued its final response letter on 1 February 2023. It said it previously advised the resident that it would repair by a process of elimination as it could not locate the source of the leak. It said that over the years, it instructed several contractors, supervisors, surveyors, and specialists to try and trace the leak and repair accordingly, which, although not rectified, has helped to manage the situation. It said that in line with its complaint policy, it usually limits its complaint investigation to 6 months before a complaint is raised. However, on this occasion, it would “take into consideration the full length of time the issue was ongoing for the resident, including the time spent by the resident raising the repairs and waiting at home for contractors that, at times, did not attend as planned”. It awarded the resident £1,000 in compensation.
7. The resident explained to the Ombudsman that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He said the compensation was inadequate and did not take into account the full adverse effect on his life. The resident also noted that the landlord did not explain adequately what measures it has taken to ensure these failures do not reoccur. To resolve the complaint, the resident would like the landlord to explain what went wrong, how things will be improved, and to consider the entire period of disrepair in its compensation offer.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

8. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s assertion that the landlord’s handling of this case has negatively impacted his health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of this service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on the resident’s health.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs and subsequent remedies to put it right

9. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.
10. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code discusses the circumstances in which a complaint may not be considered. It gives an example of an issue that occurred over six months before the complaint was raised with the landlord. As issues become historic, it becomes increasingly difficult to unpick the events that took place and how matters were handled. Evidence becomes difficult to obtain and authenticate, and accounts become less reliable. As such, it is common for a landlord’s complaints policy to set out a timescale within which it expects a resident to complain about an issue they are experiencing.
11. In this case, the resident asked the landlord to consider the circumstances and how the landlord had handled the repair since 2013. The landlord said that although its complaint policy has a 6-month time limit, it would “fully take into consideration the full length of time this has been an issue.” The landlord accepted the resident’s evidence in the form of notes that the resident had taken over the years. This was appropriate for the landlord to do, as it shows that the landlord treated the resident fairly, giving the resident’s word the same weight as the reports from its contractors.
12. The landlord’s repairs policy reflects the landlord’s obligations under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord is responsible to “keep in repair” the structure and exterior of the property, including its chimney, chimney stacks and roof. According to the landlord’s policy, these are classified as priority 2, ‘non-emergency’ repairs. The target repair time is within 15 working days, with the caveat that some repairs may need more than one appointment to resolve.
13. The landlord was obliged to repair the roof and prevent the wet patches inside the resident’s property from reoccurring. The Ombudsman would look to see that the landlord made lasting and effective repairs at the earliest opportunity and that it maintained clear and timely communications with the resident throughout.
14. According to the evidence available to this service, the timeline indicates that the issue has been ongoing for the resident since 2013, although there are gaps in the evidence. The service recognises that the issue occurs seasonally, affecting the property in winter. That may explain some of the gaps in evidence, as the resident would have nothing to report during the summer; equally, as the repair was done by process of elimination, the landlord would find it a lot harder to identify the defect in summer and verify that repairs had been effective and long-lasting during the following winter.
15. According to the resident, the landlord’s surveyor had visited the property in June 2013. It is unclear what the outcome of that visit was. The surveyor also attended in June 2014, August 2014, February 2016, March 2016, and June 2017. There is a significant gap in the evidence between visits and no records to piece together the events that occurred. In the absence of records, this service is unable to consider what was said at the time and how the landlord responded. The Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to keep records more than is necessary; in most cases, the industry standard is 6 years.
16. Within the last 6 years, however, the lack of records is concerning. The Ombudsman’s March 2019 Spotlight Report on repairs sets out the expectations the Ombudsman has for landlords where repairs are concerned. The report says landlords should keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records of residents’ reports of disrepair and the landlord’s responses, including details of appointments, any inspections, any work carried out, and completion dates. Landlords should also monitor the progress of any reported repairs and comply with the repair timescales set out in its policies as far as possible. When it is not possible to comply with the timescales set out in its policies, a landlord should communicate the reason for the delay with its resident.
17. The landlord informed this service that it upgraded its system in 2019, and as a result, it only archived the basic information on each repair before 2019. However, according to the evidence, there appears to be a gap in record keeping after 2019, with the landlord unable to provide supporting evidence for its actions and the reasons behind them. For example, between 2019 and 2020, scaffolding around the resident’s building was erected and taken down twice, but there are no supporting notes for these works.
18. Overall, there were at least 12 surveyor’s visits at the resident’s property. Some were contracted to a third party, and some were joint visits by the landlord, surveyor, and contractors. It is unclear why so many visits were required and whether the landlord has followed the specialist’s recommendations each time. The landlord’s actions may have been reasonable, but its inability to provide evidence of those actions undermined its efforts to repair the roof and prevent the wet patches from reoccurring.
19. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repair service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord understands the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property, enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents.
20. Records should be kept allowing them to be stored and retrieved when required. Staff should be able to access the information they require quickly. This is essential for evidence-based practice and informed decision-making.
21. However, the landlord did carry out work over the years. According to the resident’s records alone, the landlord sent 12 surveyors; it has overhauled the chimneys, replaced some of the roof tiles, erected scaffolding several times, and sent a team of abseilers to install air vents. Most recently, it decorated the resident’s property and returned to verify that the issue had been resolved. The landlord has acknowledged that despite its efforts, it has failed to repair the roof within a reasonable time.
22. Putting things right, the landlord acknowledged within its complaint responses that there were some failings in handling the repair, particularly the long delay in completing the works. As such, the landlord was obliged to act to ‘put things right’ for the resident in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
23. Overall, leaks in a home can sometimes be challenging to identify and fix. However, there is no disputing how frustrating and inconvenient the ongoing problems evidently were for the resident. The landlord offered a financial remedy of £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused. This amount is at the top end of the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance in circumstances where maladministration by a landlord has adversely affected and caused a significant detriment to the resident and where the redress needed to put things right was substantial. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance can be viewed on this service’s website.
24. Learning from outcomes: where something has gone wrong, a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken or intends to take to learn from the outcome and avoid the issue reoccurring. Landlords should look beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint and consider whether a process or system needs to be changed to benefit all residents. In its final response letter, the landlord said, “There are clearly lessons to be learnt in how longstanding, reoccurring cases are managed so our residents are not left having to continuously chase up”. However, while the landlord said there were lessons to be learned, it provided no details. It is not clear what actions it would take to prevent similar issues from reoccurring. As referenced in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, examples of learning include changes to policies and procedures and acknowledging where things have gone wrong. An order has been made below to address this.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs and subsequent remedies to put it right.

Orders

26. The landlord must conduct a full senior management review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices. The outcome of the above review must be shared with this service within 6 weeks from the date of this report. It must include a review of its repair procedures to ensure an effective mechanism is in place to keep and store records, check the quality of the works, identify, and respond to repeat repairs, and determine whether the repair has solved the issue. It must also include a review of the landlord’s record keeping.
27. Within 6 weeks of this report’s date, a senior management team member must write to the resident with an apology and set out the findings of its senior management review. A copy of the letter must be shared with this service.
28. If it has not done so already, the landlord must pay the resident £1,000 for distress and inconvenience within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should provide this service with evidence of the above payment within four weeks of the date of this report. Payment should also be made directly to the resident’s bank account and should not be offset against any arrears the resident may have accrued.
29. The landlord must contact the resident within 24 weeks from the date of this report to verify that the wet patches have not reappeared, and that no further remedial work is necessary.