Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202015699)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015699

Paradigm Housing Group Limited

22 December 2021

 

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 resident complained about the level of compensation the landlord offered, in relation to its handling of a leak.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property. The tenancy started in November 2000.
  2. The resident has confirmed that they are a carer for their mother, who lives 100 miles away from the property and as a result, they are frequently away from the property.
  3. The landlord’s repairs standard is to attend within 24 hours if a reported leak cannot be contained and is a risk to the resident or the property. In the event there has been damage to the ceiling, the landlord aims to carry out these repairs within 60 days. The resident is responsible for internal decoration.
  4. The resident is expected to arrange their own contents insurance and claim any cost for the replacement of personal possessions through this insurance. If the customer does not have insurance and their belongings are damaged as a result of a property failure, the landlord may consider reimbursing the customer. In such circumstance, the customer is expected to provide evidence of purchase and of the damage.
  5. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the resident is to give the landlord access to the property for the purposes of inspections and for carrying out repairs.

Summary of events

  1. On the 13 February 2021, a leak occurred from the flat above, into the resident’s bathroom and part of the hallway. The resident called the landlord’s out of hours service but was unable to get through to make the report. The resident texted the housing officer about the leak and their attempts to contact the out of hours service. The housing officer called the resident on 14 February 2021 and advised them to try the out of hours service again and if unsuccessful, to call the emergency services. The resident notified the officer that the leak had stopped but agreed to try and contact the out of hours service again. The resident reported that they called the out of hours service again that day but hung up before the call was answered.
  2. The resident called the landlord on 16 February 2021 and reported the difficulty they had trying to reach the out of hours service on 13 February 2021. The resident was no longer in the property, so the landlord advised them to call the next time they was at the property.
  3. On 18 February 2021, the landlord sent a letter to the leaseholder of the flat above, notifying them of the leak. It asked the leaseholder to ensure that they were taking the necessary precautions to ensure that further leaks were prevented.  It subsequently spoke with the leaseholder, who confirmed the cause of the leak was due to a frozen pipe and this had since been repaired.
  4. The resident returned to the property on 22 February 2021 and called back the landlord as advised. They reported that their personal possessions and carpet had been ruined by the leak and confirmed that they did not have contents insurance. The landlord advised the resident to put a request for compensation in writing. On the same day, the landlord arranged for an asbestos specialist to make safe the bathroom ceiling, which was affected by the leak, so that remedial works could go ahead.
  5. On 23 February 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed appointment dates for the remedial repairs, for 11, 12 and 19 March 2021. The works were to isolate the bathroom light, renew the bathroom ceiling and scope for any damage to the hallway following the leak. Once these works were completed, the bathroom light was to be reinstated. The appointment on 12 March was later rescheduled to 29 March, as the works scheduled required authorisation.
  6. The landlord contacted the resident on 26 February 2021, to discuss their request for compensation for their belongings. It reiterated that the resident would be expected to claim through their own contents insurance. It said that if the resident did not have insurance, they could make a claim to the landlord. It provided the resident the form to do so.
  7. On 27 February 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and informed that they had returned to the property but was not able to stay, as it was damp and had a smell. The landlord called the resident on 1 March to arrange an inspection, but they were no longer in the property, so an inspection was arranged for 8 March 2021. The surveyor who attended the inspection confirmed that a decant was not necessary. They confirmed that the property had not been ventilated and the carpets were wet, causing the smell. They made the following suggestions to assist with the smell and the drying out of the property:
    1. Removal of the carpet;
    2. Use of a dehumidifier.

The surveyor reported that the resident informed that they did not have time to remove the carpets, as they would be returning back to their mums that same day. The surveyor noted that as the resident would not be in the property, the dehumidifier would not be an option.

  1. The work to isolate the bathroom light was completed on 11 March 2021, a temporary light was installed the same day. The plasterer attended the property on 29 March, to carry out the ceiling repair and scope the damage in the hallway, however, the resident was not at the property to allow access. The resident then requested the works be delayed until June 2021, as they were busy caring for their mother. The appointment was rescheduled for the ceiling repair for 21 and 22 June 2021. A separate appointment to scope the damage in the hallway, was scheduled and took place on 17 May.
  2. On 9 April 2021, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord about the out of hours service, its response to their request for compensation for their damaged belongings, and its response to their request for it to carry out decorative works to the bathroom and hallway following the leak.
  3. The landlord received the resident’s completed claim form for the reimbursement of their belongings, on 19 April 2021. It responded to this on 26 April 2021 and offered the resident £452.50 for the items claimed for.
  4. The landlord provided its stage one response to the resident on 23 April 2021. It upheld the complaint concerning its out of hours service and offered the resident £250. It offered the resident an additional £20 as reimbursement for cleaning materials they purchased. It did not uphold the complaint relating to its response to the resident’s compensation claim, as it did not consider itself liable for the losses claimed and considered a claim through its reimbursement scheme. It did not uphold the complaint about its response to the request for it to complete decorative works, as it considered the resident responsible for this. Although it did not uphold the complaint, it agreed to complete the decorative works in recognition of the service failure it identified in the handling of the initial report of the leak.
  5. The resident was not happy with the level of compensation the landlord offered. The landlord revised its offer for the service failure, to £500. In addition, it confirmed the compensation amount offered following the reimbursement claim. The resident remained unhappy with the revised offer, the complaint was therefore escalated to stage two. The landlord subsequently discussed the complaint with the resident, who explained that generally, they were not happy living in the property and was seeking a move. The resident asked that the landlord increase its offer of compensation to £4000 to assist them with a move.
  6. The inspection to assess the scope of works in the hallway, took place on 17 May 2021. The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 May 2021, confirming that additional damp, mould, and decorative works would be carried out following the completion of bathroom ceiling works. It booked appointments for works to take place in early July 2021 and asked the resident to confirm their availability for the dates. The resident later called the landlord and cancelled the appointments.
  7. The stage two response was issued on 9 June 2021, the landlord reiterated its points from the stage one response. It confirmed that it could not offer the £4000 the resident requested to help them move but agreed that it could assist them with a move via mutual exchange. It confirmed that it had cancelled, at the resident’s request, the repair appointments scheduled for early July 2021. It offered alternative dates for late July and late August and asked the resident to confirm their availability. It agreed to increase its offer of compensation to £527.50, so that the total compensation offered, including the offer from the reimbursement claim, was £1000. It said that if the resident was able to provide receipts or proof of purchase for any additional items that may have been damaged, it would reassess the claim.
  8. The resident contacted the landlord the following day and confirmed they could not accept the appointments the landlord had suggested in July and August 2021 due to their caring responsibilities. The landlord advised the resident that as a result of the cancelled appointments, it may be a significant period of time before the works could be rescheduled. It confirmed that the orders for the works would remain open pending further contact from the resident.
  9. The resident referred their complaint to this Service on 21 September 2021, as they remained unhappy with the level of compensation the landlord offered in respect of the complaint.
  10. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that the works to reinstate the bathroom ceiling, were completed on 22 June 2021. However, the damp, mould and decorative works as remain outstanding. The landlord has suggested that a key safe be installed so that its contractors could attend the property and carry our works without the resident having to provide access however, the resident was not willing to have this.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident has stated that they have had a number of leaks from the flat above, prior to that which occurred in February 2021.The records the landlord has provided this Service, show that leaks were reported in the property in 2016 and 2017. Residents are expected to raise complaints to a landlord within six months of the event occurring. In this case, the leaks from 2016 and 2017 are beyond this six-month timeframe and therefore, cannot be considered as part of this assessment.  This investigation will only consider how the landlord responded to the report about the leak that occurred on 13 February 2021.
  2. This Service has not been provided evidence of the resident’s attempts to contact the landlord on 13 February 2021. Nevertheless, the parties accept that the resident was not able to get through to report the leak on this date.  The landlord’s repair standard states that it will attend within 24 hours of the report however, it failed to do so as a result of the call not being picked up by its out of hours service. This was a service failure.
  3. The housing officer called the resident back on the 14 February 2021 and provided the resident with advice to call emergency services if they were unable to get through to the landlord’s out of hours service. The 14 February 2021 was not a working day therefore, the advice to call the emergency service in this instance was an appropriate response. Furthermore, the housing officer’s contact with the resident on a non-working day, went beyond what would be expected in the delivery of service.
  4. The resident confirmed to the housing officer when they spoke on 14 February 2021, that the leak had stopped. When they called the landlord on 16 February 2021 to report the repair, they was no longer present in the property. The landlord’s advice that they call again when they were back in the property was therefore appropriate. When the resident did call back on 22 February 2021, the landlord attended within the same day to make safe the asbestos in the bathroom ceiling. This was appropriate as it was within its emergency timeframe. Its promptness in doing so, also enabled the remedial works to take place efficiently.
  5. Furthermore, within 24 hours of the resident’s contact on 22 February 2021, the landlord raised and scheduled appointment dates for remedial works to be carried out by the area affected by the leak. It also arranged for an inspection to be carried out to ensure that the entire scope of works was identified.
  6. In addition to this, the landlord took appropriate steps to quickly inform the leaseholder of the flat above, about the leak. It has provided this Service with evidence that it had communications with the leaseholder and sought to establish the cause of the leak. The leaseholder confirmed that the leak was repaired by an independent plumber. The landlord’s steps were appropriate as it raised the repair with the leaseholder, who had the responsibility for completing the repair, and ensured that the leaseholder addressed it.
  7. The landlord’s repairs policy sates that there is a 60 working day timeframe for the completion of the repair to the ceilings. The landlord initially arranged to complete the repairs to reinstate the bathroom ceiling, within 19 working days of the report on 22 February 2021. This was appropriate.
  8. The repair was not completed until 22 June 2021, which is outside of the landlord’s repair standard as it is more than 80 working days. This delay in the completion of the works, however, was not due to any service failure by the landlord. The appointment originally for 12 March 2021, was rescheduled 29 March 2021 by the landlord however, the resident was not present to provide access to the landlord on this date. The landlord has provided evidence that it made attempts to contact the resident on the day, which were unsuccessful. During a call with the landlord on 9 April 2021, the resident requested that the ceiling repairs be delayed until June 2021, as they had care commitments and the landlord agreed to this. The landlord acted reasonably and accommodated the resident’s availability by scheduling the appointment in June 2021, as they requested.
  9. While it is understood that the resident has personal commitments, they are bound by the terms of the tenancy, to provide the landlord access to carry out repairs. Despite the resident cancelling several appointments, the landlord has been considerate of their commitments in arranging the works.
  10. When the resident reported that believed that they were unable to stay in the property due to its condition, on 27 February 2021, the landlord responded the next working day and arranged an inspection. Its response was appropriate and in line with its repair standard. By carrying out the inspection the landlord was able to take into consideration the resident’s concerns and its decision that a decant was not necessary, was confirmed. In addition, the surveyor identified factors that were contributing to the problem and made suggestions on how the resident could alleviate the dampness and smell in the property. This was appropriate. Where leaks in a property take place, the onus is on the resident to ensure that they ventilate the property to allow the property to dry out as soon as possible to minimise the risk of damp and mould growth.
  11. When the landlord became aware of the resident’s request for compensation for their damaged belongings, the landlord explained the expectation for the residents to make claims of such nature to their own contents insurance. This was in accordance with the tenancy agreement. The landlord also provided the resident with the alternative option to make a claim through its reimbursement scheme and it provided the resident the relevant means to do so. This was appropriate. It informed the resident of the relevant channels by which they could submit their claim.
  12. The landlord’s compensation policy states in cases where it considers reimbursing the resident, the resident is expected to provide documented evidence of their purchase and the damage caused, when they submit their claim. In the resident’s claim form, they claimed in excess of £1000 for belongings that were allegedly damaged by the leak. There is no evidence that the resident submitted any of the documentary evidence required by the landlord, when they submitted their claim. In the absence of this information, the landlord exercised its discretion and considered the claim against its policy and made a reasonable offer of £452.50.
  13. Following the submission of the resident’s complaint, the landlord investigated the issues raised about the out of hours service and confirmed that there was an unforeseen system failure on the evening the resident tried to report the leak. It upheld the complaint on this basis and offered the resident £527.50 in recognition of this. It also offered the resident an additional £20 for the costs of cleaning materials they purchased following the leak. The landlord’s response was appropriate. Its offer of compensation was very generous for the extent of the service failure identified. The leak itself was not due to any shortcoming on the landlord’s part. The resident’s inability to reach the out of hours service was the failure but, they were given appropriate advice by the housing officer within 24 hours and by that time, the leak had stopped.  In addition to compensation, the landlord also agreed to carry out decorative works. Its offer to do so was reasonable, as it goes towards restoring the property to its condition before the leak took place.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55b, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord identified the service failure from when the resident attempted to report the repair on 13 February 2021, and it offered a generous amount of compensation in recognition of this. In addition, it followed its compensation policy fairly, applied its discretion and considered a claim for the resident’s damaged belongings.
  2. In respect of the outstanding repairs following the leak, the landlord took reasonable steps to reach a resolution with the resident. It contacted the leaseholder above and ensured they addressed the leak before it completed any remedial works. It attended the property promptly to undertake the remedial repairs, on 22 February 2021. And it and took reasonable steps to ensure the property was habitable when the resident raised concerns about the condition of the property.
  3. In addition, the landlord has clearly communicated its intentions regarding what repairs it would be completing and when it intended to do so. Whilst the repairs were ongoing, the resident has missed an appointment, asked that works be delayed and cancelled several provisional appointments the landlord had scheduled. The landlord has made reasonable efforts to accommodate the resident and has been proactive in scheduling appointments well in advance, to enable the resident to plan their time. The landlord has therefore, acted fairly and reasonably.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord re-offer the resident, the £1000 it offered within the complaints procedure, comprising of:
    1. £527.50 in recognition of the service failure in its handling of the report about the leak.
    2. £20 for the cleaning materials the resident purchased.
    3. £452.50 for the resident’s claim under its reimbursement scheme.
  2. If the repairs associated with the complaint remain outstanding, it is recommended that the parties continue to engage with each other, so that the landlord can complete the repairs agreed.
  3. If the resident has not provided their availability for the landlord to attend and complete the works, it is recommended that they do so within 4 weeks of the date of this report.