Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202212270)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212270

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

15 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:
1. The concerns raised about the condition of the property when it was let to the resident and whether rent should have been charged.
2. The landlord’s response regarding provision of a letterbox key and access to mail.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint and record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, which is a 1-bedroom flat. The resident was to move into the property on 17 August 2022 following a discretionary succession in which she agreed to downsize. The resident has a representative and for the purposes of the report both the resident and representative will be referred to as ‘the resident’.
On 30 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and stated that at the time of signing the tenancy agreement she noticed the space designated for the fridge was too narrow. She said a contractor was sent who confirmed the space for both the fridge and washing machine was too narrow. She said she was told someone would contact her to arrange the repair and she was still waiting to hear from them. The resident said that the property was not “move-in ready” and had created a lot of difficulties for her. The resident requested that she should not pay rent from the time she signed for the tenancy until she was able to move in. She also raised that she had not been provided with keys to the letterbox and was still waiting for them.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 2 September 2022. She said that an engineer inspected the property the previous day in relation to the washing machine and said there was no connection for the water pipes and wastewater. She said another engineer attended to fit the wireless temperature regulator and said it was not possible due to there being no wiring to connect it to. She said he noticed that the box covering the boiler pipes had a roughly cut hole over the electrical fuse socket and was pressing over a visible cable which went into the boiler. The resident highlighted that in her previous property, no wiring was visible, and she felt safe.
On 5 September 2022 the resident reported further concerns to the landlord regarding an unsealed and heavily soiled toilet waste pipe which was surrounded by gaps from the untiled wall, and an unsecured sink pedestal. She attached photos and said they were health and safety concerns. The resident sent further emails on 8 and 9 September 2022 regarding the lack of response from the landlord, she queried the amount of rent, and the start date of the tenancy. She said she had still not received the letterbox key despite several requests.
The resident submitted her formal complaint on 13 September 2022 and stated the following:
1. She had not received any response to her emails and concerns dated 30 August 2022 and 2, 8, 9 September 2022.
2. She had submitted requests for the letterbox key and that she was prevented from receiving correspondence.
3. She had not received any clarification regarding the monthly rent amount.
4. The landlord should provide a written explanation of why she was not informed that the property was not ready to move in and required modifications.
5. The landlord should provide immediate written responses to her complaints and a list of all the planned works for the property to be brought to a lettable standard.
6. The landlord should provide an immediate refund of the 1 month’s rent she paid in advance, as the property was not in a lettable condition.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 4 October 2022. It apologised for the delay in responding. It said it had looked at pictures from the voids handover and the property looked in good condition and was lettable. It said the decorating and flooring was the responsibility of the resident. The landlord stated it had completed all adjustments to the kitchen. It said it would not be reimbursing the resident with a month’s rent.
The landlord contacted the resident on 11 October 2022 and said the following repairs had been raised with the voids department:
1. The thermostat, gas cooker fixtures, radiator, electric socket, and toilet waste pipe.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 19 October 2022. She said it took 42 days for the work to be completed regarding the kitchen modification. This included resetting the spaces for the fridge and washing machine, removing and adding cupboards, changing the flooring, and plumbing access to the water supply and wastewater disposal. She said she had not received a response from the landlord after reporting the additional health and safety issues in September 2022. She said she was provided a decorating voucher by the landlord and when she went to use it, it was invalid, which was embarrassing for her. The resident said her physical and mental health had been affected.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 25 January 2023 which stated the following:
1. A new kitchen was fitted but the contractor did not correctly space it for appliances to be fitted to standard allowances. It said this was not picked up and there were delays and difficulties in getting it completed.
2. The waste pipe and wash basin pedestal had been checked and it was found that there were no issues.
3. Its contractors were doing a full check of the heating system to address any issues and it was awaiting an appointment for when it would be fully addressed.
4. The void manager confirmed that while there were issues, the property could be lived in during that time and the property was of a lettable standard.
5. The letterbox key was present in pictures taken for the home and it did not accept that it was not provided. Another key had been ordered and the resident should have received it.
6. It apologised for the vouchers not being valid and stated that it was unable to establish why. It said the resident was sent replacement decorating vouchers, however, she stated she no longer required them.
7. It said it was outside the given timescales for responding to the resident and it did not provide her with regular updates. It apologised for that, and the inconvenience caused.
8. It concluded that while the property did require additional work once it had been let, the property was habitable. It partially upheld the complaint and offered £260 in compensation.
The resident remained dissatisfied and referred the complaint to the Ombudsman. She said the stage 2 response was not satisfactory for the following reasons:
1. She said she had been repeatedly asking for the letterbox key and the photo the landlord relied on was not evidence that she received it. She did not receive the key until 2 February 2023, which had caused her distress and inconvenience as she did not know if she was missing important correspondence.
2. There remained a significant issue of disrepair in the property in that the gas pipe was located too close to the electrical socket for installation of a gas cooker. She said it was dangerous and a private gas surveyor had said that in its present state a cooker could not be installed in the property.
3. It was not fair that she had to pay rent when she had been unable to move in.
4. She would like an acknowledgement of fault from the landlord for its failure to carry out vital works before she signed the tenancy and became liable for rent. She would like a formal apology.
5. She would like £2,000 in compensation and confirmation that the outstanding repairs would be completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has stated that the ongoing issues have impacted both her physical and mental health. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced.

The concerns raised about the condition of the property when it was let to the resident and whether rent should have been charged

The landlord’s maintenance policy sets out how it categorises responsive repairs. Priority 1 repairs are emergency work which are to be attended to and made safe within 4 hours and rectified within 24 hours. Priority 2 repairs are non-emergency repairs which should be completed within 15 working days.
The maintenance policy states that prior to moving in it will check the new home to make sure it is safe, secure, clean and in a good state of repair. It outlines checks which will be taken prior to moving in, this includes the gas and electrics, cooker points (clean and capped off with bayonet fittings, ready for cooker to be put in), and kitchen units being useable. It states that the toilet pan and wash hand basin will be secure and clean, and the tiling will be clean, intact, and not loose or cracked.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) guidance highlights that a landlord has a responsibility to look after the inside facilities which are part of a dwelling and:
1. In relation to gas and electricity it states that “these items must have whatever is needed for their proper use. All equipment necessary to supply these utilities must be full, safely and correctly installed. Any removable equipment or appliances which use gas and electricity are not counted as “installations” unless these are provided by the landlords”.
2. Sanitation and drainage cover lavatories, WC basins, drains, waste pipes, rainwater goods, inlet gullies and inspection chambers.
The HHSRS also states that a dwelling should not contain any deficiencies that might give rise to a hazard which interferes with, or puts at risk, the health or safety, or even lives, of the occupants. It states that an assessment is required to test whether a deficiency is connected to 1 or more hazards.
The Decent Homes Standard 2006 sets out standards for social landlords which includes the definition of a decent home and how it should be assessed. One of the standards is that the property should have reasonable modern facilities and services, the criteria for this includes a kitchen with adequate space and layout. It should be noted that a home lacking 2 or less of the criteria will still be classed as decent.
In view of the multiple issues presenting at an early stage of the tenancy, it is understandable that the resident raised concerns about the condition of the property when let. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the property was in lettable condition at the start of the tenancy. However, the Ombudsman expects to see actions taken by the landlord to satisfy itself that the property was let to the required standards.
The landlord completed a void inspection form on 9 May 2022 which outlined required works to the property and completed a void handover which stated that the work was completed in line with specification. It also confirmed that all health and safety certification was provided. The landlord’s actions prior to letting the property were appropriate.
Although reasonable action was taken while the property was in void, it is not disputed that sufficient space in the kitchen was not provided for white goods and additional appliances. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged this and the delays in completing the associated works. It stated that the property was still of a lettable standard at the time. Given the other issues which were raised by the resident, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to outline how it assessed the property to ensure it was of a lettable standard.

Kitchen modification

The landlord’s records do not specify when it attended the property in relation to the resident’s reports or what was raised. The remedial work was carried out but there is no record of when the kitchen was completed or what led to the delays stated in the landlord’s stage 2 response. The landlord did not dispute the resident’s account that it took a total of 42 days for it to complete the works. While multiple repairs can take longer than a specified timeframe, there is no evidence that the landlord outlined a timescale for the repairs to the kitchen. The resident informed the landlord that she had not moved into the property, and it is not appropriate that there are no records or evidence of communication to the resident in relation to this.
Overall, the concerns around the kitchen modification were responded to and actioned by the landlord in a reasonable timeframe. However, it is disappointing that the landlord has not provided evidence of its actions or communication with the resident. The landlord maintained that the property was still lettable, however, it should have done more to reassure the resident of this at the time.

Additional issues raised

The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 4 October 2022. It did not acknowledge the additional issues raised by the resident and no explanation was provided for its lack of response to her repeated concerns. The landlord’s internal emails and email to the resident on 11 October 2022 show that repairs for the outstanding issues were raised. On 11 November 2022 the landlord contacted the resident asking her to send pictures of the “particular repairs”, which was not appropriate. If the landlord was unclear regarding which repairs were outstanding it should have carried out an inspection and ensured its records were up to date. In addition to this, despite the resident sending the pictures, there is no further communication provided to the resident regarding the repairs until the stage 2 response. The lack of communication by the landlord and delays in carrying out the repairs were not acceptable or in line with its policy.
In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that it was awaiting an appointment for a full check of the heating system, but it did not explain why there was such a delay in doing so. The landlord’s internal emails show that the request for an appointment was made on the same day of the stage 2 response. Its response was vague and does not show what consideration or action had been made in relation to the resident’s concerns regarding the wiring for the wireless thermostat, unsafe sockets, pipes serving the boiler, and missing temperature regulators on radiators. It was not appropriate that almost 5 months following the resident’s initial reports, the landlord could not satisfy itself that it assessed the health and safety risk of the issues and resolved them within its repair timescales.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had checked the loose toilet waste pipe and the wash hand basin pedestal while undertaking work to the kitchen. It said that no issues were identified. It is a failing that the landlord did not provide this response to the resident at the time. The landlord did not sufficiently outline how it had considered the resident’s concerns in line with its maintenance policy which stated that the toilet pan, and wash hand basin will be secure and clean, and the tiling will be clean, intact, and not loose or cracked. There is no reference made to the tiles, “heavily soiled pipe”, or that the landlord considered its obligations under the HHSRS.
In line with the HHSRS the cooker is not considered an installation which the landlord has a responsibility for. However, the landlord has a duty to ensure that the cooker points and fittings are of a condition to allow the cooker to be installed, in line with its maintenance policy. The resident raised concerns about the safety of the connections for the cooker and the landlord stated it had raised repairs on 11 October 2022 in relation to this. No evidence has been provided to suggest the landlord assessed the issues prior to its stage 2 response, which is not acceptable.

Rent

By the time of the stage 2 response, almost 5 months had passed since the resident raised all the issues in the property and that she did not feel the property was habitable. This led to the resident residing elsewhere and paying 2 lots of rent to the landlord. Upon receiving the reports of the multiple issues and the impact on the resident, the landlord should have inspected the property and provided an action plan for any repairs it was responsible for. It should have also carried out a risk assessment to determine if the property was safe and fit for habitation. It is not appropriate that it did not do so.
In her formal complaint on 13 September 2022, the resident raised that she had not received any clarification regarding the monthly rent amount and that she should be reimbursed 1 month’s rent as the property was not in lettable condition. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not clarify the monthly rent and it stated that it would not be reimbursing 1 month’s rent as the adjustments to the kitchen were completed. The landlord failed to consider the other issues raised by the resident and therefore did not thoroughly investigate whether the resident’s request was reasonable in all the circumstances. Its stage 2 response stated that the property could have been lived in but as already highlighted, it failed to evidence this in line with its policy and the HHSRS. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered the impact to the resident in paying 2 lots of rents and whether rent should have been charged for the property.
The landlord maintained that the property was in a lettable condition. However, it did not do enough to reassure the resident or the Ombudsman of this. It is not reasonable that the resident had to raise several issues upon commencement of the tenancy. The issues could not be attributed to the resident, as she felt unable to move in. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns in a timely manner, and it is not appropriate that it failed to take sufficient action to ensure the property was habitable. This caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience to the point that she felt unable to reside in the property. As such, the Ombudsman has found maladministration.

Post internal complaints procedure

Following its stage 2 response, the landlord has informed the resident that it intends to “backdate” the charges incurred from the previous property once she moves into the current property. The Ombudsman has understood this to mean any charges, including rent, from the commencement of the tenancy on 17 August 2022. This action is appropriate and in line with the resident’s loss of use and enjoyment of the current property. An order has been made to ensure that the landlord commits to this.

The landlord’s response regarding provision of a letterbox key and access to mail

The Housing Act 1988 outlines the right of tenants to ‘quiet enjoyment’ of a property. This means that a landlord must allow the tenant to live in the property without undue interference. Lack of provision of a letterbox key and access to mail has been considered under this right.
Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 states that everyone has the right to respect for their private and family life, and the right to respect for their home and correspondence. The Ombudsman has no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached a resident’s rights, this can only be done by the courts. However, the Ombudsman can decide whether a landlord has paid due regard to an individual’s rights in its treatment of them, as part of our consideration of a complaint.
From the records provided the resident first raised the issue of not having a letterbox key on 30 August 2022. The resident was provided with a new key on 2 February 2023, over 5 months after the resident first reported not having access to her mail. The resident repeatedly requested a key to the letterbox and expressed the distress and inconvenience caused by not being able to receive correspondence. The landlord’s case notes show that it was aware of the resident’s reports. However, it is not clear what was done in relation to it. The lack of communication provided by the landlord in relation to the key and delay in resolving the issue was not appropriate.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that it did not accept that the key was not provided as it was present in the pictures taken for the home. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have sought clarification with the member of staff who was present at the time. It stated that the resident should have received a replacement key, however this was not correct. Its response was dismissive as it did not explain why the resident’s reports had been ignored and it did not acknowledge the delay.
Overall, the landlord failed to provide the resident with a key to the letterbox within a reasonable timeframe. It did not acknowledge its failings in responding to and resolving the issue, and its response was not empathetic to the impact on the resident. The landlord’s lack of consideration of the impact to the resident suggests that the landlord failed to consider its duties under the Housing Act 1988 and Human Rights Act 1998. As such, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s response regarding provision of a letterbox key and access to mail.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint and record keeping

The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a 2-stage complaint procedure, where it will respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will take into account the time taken to resolve the problem and any costs incurred. It suggests £20 – £100 to be awarded for medium impact and £100 – £500 for high impact. High impact is described as serious or prolonged service failure or loss of facilities resulting in severe distress, disruption, inconvenience of loss of income. It states that the offer of compensation will take into account whether the complainant has had to spend excessive time, effort or inconvenience pursuing the complaint.
The landlord’s responses to the resident were delayed at both stages, however, the stage 2 response was provided 3 months after the resident’s stage 2 escalation request, which is not acceptable. This meant that the resident had to spend considerable time chasing the landlord and obtaining legal assistance to receive a response. While the landlord apologised for the delay and offered compensation, it did not explain the reasons why it did not respond within its specified timeframe.
It is recognised that the landlord provided an apology and £260 compensation in its stage 2 response. While the landlord took some steps to remedy its failings, it did not go far enough. Its response to the letterbox keys was dismissive and lacked empathy towards the resident. There is also no evidence that it reviewed its handling of void works to ensure its mistakes were not repeated. It did not address the delays in responding to her reports of issues in the property, and it did not recognise the impact caused as a result. The landlords offer of compensation was not appropriate given the failings identified in this report and in line with its compensation policy.
Poor record keeping was a significant theme within this investigation and made it difficult to conclude whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s complaints. The Ombudsman is aware of similar findings in recent reports and understands that the landlord has recently been ordered to review its provision of records to ensure better complaint handling in future. The landlord was to do this by assessing against the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management. Therefore, the Ombudsman will not make further orders in relation to record keeping. However, the landlord should consider the findings in its self-assessment against the failings highlighted in this report.
To conclude, the landlord’s complaint responses failed to put things right. It did not sufficiently consider the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delays in carrying out the repairs and responding to her complaints. It did not provide a clear record or timeframe for when the outstanding repairs would be completed, and it is disappointing that some of the issues are still ongoing. For these reasons, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in:
1. The concerns raised about the condition of the property when it was let to the resident and whether rent should have been charged.
2. The landlord’s response regarding provision of a letterbox key and access to mail.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint and record keeping.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

A senior member of the landlord staff is to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
The landlord is to carry out an inspection of the property taking into account all the issues raised by the resident and her solicitor to date. Following this, it must provide a report outlining its position on each outstanding issue with an action plan providing the timeframe for when it intends to carry out the works. If there are any works which it considers are not its responsibility, it should outline why, referring to its policies and procedures, where possible.
The landlord has informed the resident that once she moves into the property, it will backdate the charges related to the previous property. If it has not already done so, the landlord must confirm this to the resident in writing and clarify which charges it was referring to, if not all of them.
The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £1,000 compensation. This compensation is inclusive of the previous compensation offer made by the landlord. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account, unless otherwise agreed by the resident. This is comprised of:
1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the landlord’s handling of the concerns raised about the condition of the property when let.
2. £500 for its delay in responding to and providing a letterbox key and access to mail. This also considers the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of being unable to access her mail.
3. £200 for its failures in handling the complaint and record keeping.
The landlord is to provide compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

If it has not already done so, the landlord is to review its complaint handling. This is to ensure that it addresses the substance of complaints, meets commitments, and considers compensation in line with policies.