Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202115255)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115255

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

16 April 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a 2 bedroom terraced house. Her tenancy began in February 2002.
The landlord advised this Service that it had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. The resident has reported that her mother, who lives in the property, is vulnerable due to a long term health condition.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 14 July 2021 to raise concerns about damp and mould in her property. The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 4 August 2021, and produced an inspection report that said works were “required” (the report did not detail what works were proposed).
The resident’s local councillor contacted the landlord on 13 December 2021, and said the resident had raised a concern that she was living in “sub standard” conditions due outstanding repairs, damp, and mould. The landlord responded on the same day and said it had passed on the concerns to its surveying team to inspect, and ensure all of the issues were resolved. It does not appear the landlord raised a further inspection at the time.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 March 2022 to make a complaint, and said:
1. She was living in a damp and mouldy environment.
2. Her mother had cancer and she was concerned about the impact the living conditions were having on her mother’s health.
3. The mould was “spreading” around the property and was covering her possessions.
4. Water came under the back door when it rained, which had caused the flooring to “rot” on the ground floor.
5. She asked it to provide temporary accommodation for her household while it carried out works to resolve the issues.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 1 April 2022, and said:
1. It had not addressed the damp and mould in an “acceptable timescale”.
2. It understood that the windows it fitted in 2021 that were “not fitted correctly”.
3. It had not followed up on its post inspection visit that identified another visit was needed to see if the windows were installed correctly.
4. It became aware of the damp and mould in “late 2021”. Due to an “administrative error” no works were raised after it inspected.
5. It had arranged a surveyor to visit on 4 April 2022 to address the damp and mould issue
6. It had considered the vulnerability of the resident’s mother and decided to offer £300 in compensation for the “inconvenience and distress” caused.
7. It advised the resident would need to claim for damage to her possessions through her contents insurance.
The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 4 April 2022 and produced a report that said it was to “re attend on previous job and overhaul all windows”. Following the inspection the landlord raised the following repairs:
1. Overhaul all windows.
2. Stain block and patch repaint all rooms that were “covered with mould”.
3. Renew the fan in the toilet.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 May 2022 and asked her complaint to be taken to stage 2, and said:
1. Reinstalling the windows alone would not resolve the damp and mould issues.
2. She asked it to “clarify” what works it planned to carry out, as its report only mentioned the windows.
3. The compensation it offered was “insufficient”.
The landlord’s repair log indicates it completed the repairs, outlined above, on 17 May 2022. The notes reflect the resident did not allow the landlord to inspect all the windows, but “assured” it the windows it was not able to inspect were in working order. The notes also state the fan was tested “several times” and was in working order.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 28 June 2022, and said:
1. It had completed “most” of the work to address the damp and mould, but the resident had refused access on 17 May 2022 to complete all the works.
2. It had emailed her on 16 June 2022 to ask if it could progress the works, but had no response.
3. It was “sorry to hear” about her and her mother’s health condition, but its compensation policy did not cover compensation for impact on health. It provided details of its insurance team for the resident to raise claim if she wanted to pursue the issue.
4. It increased its compensation offer to £500, as the offer at stage 1 was not “sufficient” in relation to the inconvenience caused.

Events after the complaints procedure

The resident contacted the landlord on 29 October 2022 to raise repairs in relation to damp and mould in the bedroom and living room. The local authority social services team contacted the landlord on 31 October 2022 and said it had booked the resident a hotel, due to concerns about damp and mould and asked the landlord to address the issue.
The resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint on 7 November 2022 to make a further complaint and said:
1. She was unhappy that she had been told she had to move back in to the property and would not be decanted by the landlord.
2. She was concerned about the impact on her mother’s health of living in the property while mould was present.
3. She wanted to be “assured” the mould issues would be resolved before she moved back in to the property.
It is unclear when the resident moved back in to the property, having been temporarily accommodated by the local authority. The evidence indicates she moved back in around 9 November 2022. The landlord raised a repair to complete a mould wash, and the notes indicate it attended on 9 and 15 November 2022 to complete a mould wash.
The landlord completed an inspection of the resident’s property on 15 November 2022 and produced a report that said:
1. The ground floor level was lower than the damp proof course.
2. The vents on the external rear wall were blocked
3. It recommended inspecting the loft area to check for leaks, it was unable to check the loft at the time of inspection.
4. There was evidence of “cold spots” on the wall in the living room.
5. There was a defective seal on the kitchen window.
6. It recommended installing an “aco drain” to the external wall to allow water to drain away.
7. The mould wash in the living room had not been completed fully and it recommended the contractor to reattend to complete it.
8. It recommended installing an air brick to the living room wall.
9. It was “unable” to take internal humidity readings at the time of the inspection.
The landlord’s repair notes indicate it attended to install the “airbrick” on 27 November 2022 and that the resident “refused access” as she wanted to be decanted before works took place.
The landlord emailed the resident on 11 January 2023, and said it had put the works on hold as it would decant her, while the works went ahead. It was discussing the works with its contractor to enable it to establish the timeframe for the works to arrange the decant.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response on 26 January 2023, and said:
1. It had completed “some work” to rectify the damp and mould issues in the property.
2. “Most of the work” was on hold due to the need to decant her while the works went ahead, because of her mother’s health condition.
3. It would be in touch when it had a proposed date for the works, and the associated decant.
4. It apologised for the “lack of contact” about the issues raised in the complaint.
5. It upheld the complaint and said it would make an offer of compensation once the decant, and works, were completed.
The landlord sent internal emails on 22 and 23 February 2023 to chase the progress of the decant and repairs. It is unclear if the emails were responded to.
The resident contacted us on the 2 August 2023, and asked this Service to investigate her complaint. She said the landlord had “failed to rectify” the damp and mould in her property. She also explained that it had not yet offered her a decant from her property to undertake the works.
On 9 November 2023, a solicitor acting on behalf of the resident sent the landlord a ‘pre action protocol’ letter stating the resident was seeking to make a disrepair claim against the landlord.
The resident told this Service on 3 April 2024 that the as part of her disrepair case, an independent surveyor had inspected her property. She said the landlord had agreed to undertake the recommended works. The resident advised that a claim had not yet been filed at court, as the landlord had agreed to complete the works.

Assessment and findings

Relevant obligations, policies, and procedures.

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
The landlord’s damp and mould procedure states that it will “ensure all appropriate diagnosis is taken to exclude all possible” causes of damp and mould before raising appropriate works.
The landlord’s maintenance policy sets out 2 categories of repairs:
1. Priority 1 (emergency) which it will attend within 4 hours to make safe, and rectify the repair within 24 hours.
2. Priority 2 (non emergency) which it will be completed within 15 working days.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaint procedure. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It says that if there are delays in responding to the complaint the resident will be kept informed and regularly updated about its progress.

Damp, mould, and the associated repairs

Throughout her complaint, the resident raised a concern that the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould had impacted on her, and her mother’s health. She also raised a concern about the impact of the situation on her mental health. The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury.
Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
The resident also raised a concern that the damp and mould in the property had damaged her personal possessions. Again, we do not seek to dispute the resident’s claim. However, it is not the role of this Service to determine liability for the resident’s damaged items. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts.
The evidence indicates that the damp, mould, and associated repairs remains an outstanding issue, and the resident has instructed a solicitor as part of a disrepair claim. We have determined that, as the resident has not yet filed a claim at court, the landlord’s handling of the damp, mould, and associated repairs is an issue that is within our jurisdiction to investigate.
We have also decided that the landlord’s handling of recent events are not within the scope of this investigation. The latest complaint response the landlord has issued was in January 2023. As such, we have determined it is fair and reasonable to assess events up to that date, as the landlord has had the opportunity to respond, as part of a formal complaint response. The landlord’s handling of events after the above date have not ben considered.
It was reasonable for the landlord to carry out an inspection and produce a report, in August 2021. However, the inspection report lacked the appropriate level of detail, considering what the resident had reported. The report cited that works were needed, but did not specify what, and there is no evidence to indicate that it raised works at that time. This was a failing in its record keeping, and the substantive issue. The lack of detail in its report can reasonably be concluded to have contributed to its failure to raise appropriate repairs at that time. The resident was evidently distressed by the conditions she reported, and its failure to raise the repairs increased the detriment suffered.
Following the landlord failing to take action after its inspection of August 2021, the resident reported the same issue through her local councillor. That she was required to raise the matter again caused an inconvenience. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord acted on the concerns raised by the councillor, in December 2021. This was despite saying it would raise a further inspection to resolve the issue. That it did not was a further failing in its handling of the matter. Its lack of action increased distress the resident experienced, and caused a disappointment of it not doing something it explicitly said it would.
The landlord’s stage 1 response, of March 2022, accepted failings in its handling of the repairs, citing a “system error”. However, the response lacked a meaningful assessment of its actions, and what learning it had done to prevent similar failings happening again. Its comment that it was on notice about damp and mould in “late 2021” was inappropriate. The evidence indicates it was on notice about damp and mould from July 2021. This inaccuracy in its complaint response suggests a lack of thorough investigation into its handling of the issue, and was unreasonable.
The stage 1 response also cited that it did not offer compensation for damaged possessions as part of a complaint response, and signposted the resident to her own contents insurer. This was inappropriate. The resident complained that her possessions were damaged as a result of a repair the landlord was responsible for. As such, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have referred the resident to its own insurer, so that a decision relating to liability could be made. It failed to provide the opportunity for the resident to put her case forward, that it was responsible for the damaged possessions, and have the claim considered by the insurer. Considering this, an order is made below.
As part of her complaint the resident specifically asked it to provide temporary accommodation, due to concerns about the impact of the damp and mould on her mother’s health. That the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was silent on that request was inappropriate and a failing in its handling of the matter. It silence on this request was inappropriate given the situation’s potential health implications, and the described vulnerability of the resident’s mother. This indicates it did not have due regard for its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010. The landlord failed to consider the resident’s unique circumstances, her request for temporary accommodation, and the potential impact of damp on her mother’s health.
The landlord’s inspection of April 2022 lacked the appropriate thoroughness given the conditions that were described by the resident. The landlord failed to adopt the approach recommended in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould which states landlords must ensure “investigations are thorough and that appropriate tools are used”. There is no evidence to indicate the landlord conducted a thorough investigation or used the appropriate tools to investigate the levels of damp within the property. That it raised works to wash the mould and redecorate without further investigation of the causes was unreasonable.
In its stage 2 response, of June 2022, the landlord made an increased offer of compensation for its handling of the matter, but failed to reflect on why it was doing so. Its response, as at stage 1, lacked the appropriate level of learning about its handling of the matter and what it would do to prevent similar failings happening again. This was inappropriate, and caused the resident an inconvenience of not having her concerns thoroughly addressed in the complaint response.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was silent on its handling of the window issue, and was unreasonable. It is noted that the response referenced the resident’s dissatisfaction with its proposed action on the windows. However, it did not outline its position on the windows or offer any explicit response to the concerns raised. This was unreasonable and a further failing in its handling of the issue. The resident was inconvenienced by its failure to respond to these specific concerns. It is noted that its repair notes cite the resident was satisfied the windows were working. However, its silence on this issue in the complaint response was unreasonable.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response also cited issues with the resident giving access as impacting on its ability to address the repairs. In her communications with this Service the resident has disputed this, and said she did not refuse access. Based on the evidence we have available it is not possible to determine if the resident did refuse access, and we do not seek to dispute either the landlord’s, or resident’s, claims. The disputed facts appear to have contributed to a breakdown in the relationship between the resident and landlord, which can reasonably be concluded to have contributed to the delays in completing works.. It is noted that in early 2024 the resident and landlord agreed a scope of proposed works, as part of the disrepair claim.
When the resident raised further concerns about damp and mould in late 2022, the landlord completed a further inspection. The evidence indicates that its later inspection was more thorough, and sought to investigate the causes of the damp and mould issues in the property. While this approach was appropriate, it is concerning that an investigation of the causes was not done when it was first put on notice in July 2021. The resident’s distress was increased due to waiting over a year for an appropriate investigation into the causes of the issue. That the local authority was required to intervene and temporarily house the resident, due to the conditions, is concerning. Despite this, it took another 17 days to raise an inspection, which was unreasonable.
While the inspection of November 2022 was more thorough than its earlier inspections, its report cited it was “unable” to take humidity readings. It is unclear why this was the case, but, on the evidence available it is reasonable to conclude it did not follow the approach set out in its damp and mould procedure. The procedure states it will “ensure all appropriate diagnosis” is done to consider all possible causes of damp and mould. The comment in its report demonstrates it did not do this, and this was shortcoming in its handling of the issue.
That the landlord offered to decant the resident, due to her mother’s health conditions, in January 2023, was appropriate. This is evidence that it had considered her individual circumstances, as it had not done in its earlier approach. However, there is no evidence to indicate it followed through on its offer and decanted the resident to complete works. This caused the resident confusion, as its position lacked clarity.
Following the resident being accommodated temporarily by the local authority, the landlord’s handling of the offer of a decant was confusing for the resident. The evidence indicates it refused to offer a decant in late 2022, only for its position to change by the time it issued its later stage 1 response, in January 2023. Internal emails, seen as part of this investigation, suggest that the landlord changed its position again in February 2023, and was not prepared to decant the resident. The lack of clarity on its own position was confusing for the resident and there is no evidence it formally communicated its position on the decant after its complaint response of January 2023. This caused an inconvenience, as the resident was left not knowing its position on the matter.
The landlord was not proactive in its approach to the reported damp and mould within the property. It did not complete a thorough inspection of the possible causes for over a year after it was on notice. It accepted failings, and offered compensation in its earlier complaint responses. However, its response of January 2023 admitted further failings and delay, but did not offer compensation at the time. This was inappropriate. Its position on the decant was unclear, and its communication with the resident about the issue was poor.
The facts about access issues are disputed, and the evidence indicates the resident was unwilling for the works to go ahead without a decant. This impacted on its ability to respond, but also emphasises its poor handling of the decant issue contributed to the delays.
The landlord’s recent handling of the matter has not been considered as part of this investigation. However, the £500 it offered for its handling of the damp, mould, and associated repairs, did not fully put things right for the resident up to the point in time we have considered. The resident was distressed by the conditions in her property, and the distress was increased by the lack of proactive action on the part of the landlord. The lack of appropriate action on meant the detriment caused to the resident was significant.
That it was aware of the vulnerabilities of the resident’s household, yet continued to fail to address the issue is of particular concern. Had the landlord not attempted to address the issues in a more appropriate manner from November 2022, it would have resulted in us making a finding of severe maladministration. However, considering the failings and significant distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, it has resulted in us making a finding of maladministration and a series of orders are set out below.
It is noted the resident is of the view the repairs are still outstanding. We also note the landlord is engaging with the resident as part of the pre action protocol, and an agreement has been made on a scope of works. We have therefore decided not to make orders that relate to the outstanding repairs.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of June 2022, was sent 39 working days after the resident asked her complaint to be taken to stage 2. This was well outside of the timeframes set out in its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This was a failing in its complaint handling that caused the resident an inconvenience. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord sought to explain the delay to the resident, or reassure her when it would send its response by. This was a further failing that caused an inconvenience. The resident was left not knowing when, or if, the landlord would send a stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord’s stage 2 response failed to acknowledge the delay in sending the response, which was a further failing in its complaint handling. The lack of an apology for the delay caused a further inconvenience, as the resident received no explanation for experiencing a protracted complaints process.
The resident raised a further stage 1 complaint in November 2022, and did not receive a response until January 2023, 56 working days later. The resident experienced a further inconvenience of a proacted and hard to access complaints process. There is no evidence, as mandated by its policy, that the landlord sought to explain the delay or keep the resident updated. This was a further failing in its complaint handling that caused an inconvenience. Again, the resident was left not knowing when, or if, the landlord would send a complaint response
The 3 complaint responses seen for this investigation indicate a lack of learning in the landlord’s complaint handling. As outlined in detail above, the landlord failed to show appropriate learning in its complaint response about its handling of the substantive issue. The lack of thorough investigation can reasonably be concluded to have impacted on its ability to improve its handling of the repairs issues, as it continued to make similar mistakes.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord was not proactive in its approach to the reported damp and mould within the property. It did not complete a thorough inspection of the possible causes for over a year after it was on notice. Its complaint responses lacked the appropriate level of learning, and were silent on concerns the resident had raised (decant and windows). It failed to have due consideration for the vulnerabilities of the resident’s household, particularly in the earlier stages, which increased the detriment suffered. The £500 it offered for its handling of the damp, mould, and associated repairs, did not fully put things right for the resident up to the point in time we have considered.
There were delays at stage 2, and the later stage 1 complaint. The resident experienced a protracted complaints process without an acknowledgment or apology from the landlord. The complaint responses themselves lacked learning, and impacted on the landlord’s ability to improve its approach to the substantive issue.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,375 in compensation, made up of:
  1. The £500 it offered for its handling of the damp, mould, and associated repairs (if it has not already done so).
  2. A further £700 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the damp, mould, and associated repairs.
  3. £175 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. The landlord must provide the relevant details about how the resident can make a claim on its insurance for damage to her possessions.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Considering the failings identified in this report, complete a review into its handling of the damp and mould issue including how it can reduce the risk of similar failings happening again. The review should consider:
  1. Following up on reports of repairs, and booking repairs in a timely manner.
  2. Its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident, and her particular vulnerabilities.
  3. The Ombudsman’s spotlight reports on damp and mould; and knowledge and information management.
2. The outcome of the above review should be shared with this Service and the resident, also within 8 weeks.
3. Conduct training with its complaint handling staff to assist them in knowing when it should issue complaint responses, in line with the Code. It should also focus on the importance of a meaningful complaint investigation that seeks to learn from outcomes. The dates of the training and content should be provided to this Service.