Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202105824)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105824

Paradigm Housing Group Limited

10 November 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

The complaint concerns:
1. The condition of the property at the start of the resident’s tenancy.
2. How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of repairs required to the walls and a boundary fence.
3. The landlord’s decision not to reimburse the resident for work to replaster the walls and replace the doors of the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a house. The resident took on the tenancy of the property on 8 December 2020
The landlord’s void standard document describes the condition that its properties are expected to meet before they are considered ready for new tenants. This, in part, states that the landlord will ensure that:
1. Rear garden boundaries have a minimum of 900mm chain link to mark the boundary.
2. Internal doors are fully operational.
3. Walls are free of any major defects. No decoration will be carried out, but the incoming tenant may be offered a decorating pack. Internal decoration, including wallpaper, is the tenant’s responsibility.
The landlord’s records show it sent a voucher to the resident to claim a decorating pack on 10 December 2020. The void standard document also states that “as not to delay a letting, it should be noted that some non-urgent repairs may be carried out after the start of the new tenancy.”
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy categorises its repairs as; emergency (attend within 24 hours) and routine (attend within 15 working days, 60 working days, or as part of a planned programme of work). The landlord describes an emergency repair as a repair “needed to avoid an immediate danger to personal health or safety or serious damage to the property.”
The landlord’s repairs standard document describes the timescales for different types of routine repairs. For plastering inside the home, the landlord notes that the resident would be responsible for filling in small cracks or holes, or to repair damage caused by them or their guests, and that the landlord would attend to replastering work that was its responsibility within 60 working days.
For internal and external door repairs, the landlord’s standard is to attend within 15 working days. The landlord notes that a resident would be responsible for repairing fair wear and tear to doors, to install additional security and to make adjustments to doors to allow space for floor coverings.
For fences and walls, the landlord’s standard is to attend within 60 working days. The landlord also notes that if a total replacement of a fence or wall is required, it does not replace like-for-like.
During the Covid-19 pandemic, the landlord operated a reduced service. During the national lockdowns it only attended emergency repairs. During the time period of this complaint the landlord had advised its residents via its website that there was a significant backlog of repairs and delays were likely in booking appointments.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process. When a complaint is received by the landlord, it will be acknowledged within five working days and a complaint response provided within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, they can request an escalation of the complaint. The landlord aims to acknowledge the escalation request within five working days, undertake a review of the complaint and then provide a response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.

Summary of events

On 22 March 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord to inform it of her dissatisfaction with the condition of the property. She provided photographs of the property’s walls, guttering, fences, kitchen cupboards and doors. The resident also noted that she had problems with the locks on the door.
The landlord replied on 23 March 2021. It informed the resident that her photographs had been passed on to its repairs team, who would look into the issues she had raised further then contact her.
The landlord call records state that it attempted to call the resident on 24 March 2021 and again on 30 March 2021 to discuss the matter but was not able to speak with her.
On 6 April 2021 the resident called the landlord to discuss the condition of the property and the length of time the landlord was taking to respond to her repair reports. The landlord’s notes of the call state that it was informed by the resident that when she removed wallpaper, she found the walls to be very crumbly and the plaster had blown in several rooms. The notes also state that the resident informed it that the rear fence of the property had become overgrown, was broken and that it did not form a secure boundary.
Following the call, the landlord arranged appointments to inspect the plasterwork on 13 April 2021 and to inspect the fence on 14 April 2021.
An internal landlord note added on 13 April 2021 stated that the plasterer had completed their inspection and informed it that the resident had completed the work herself, but she was in the process of stripping the wallpaper from the lounge walls and would inform the landlord if further work was required.
The landlord’s records for 14 April 2021 stated that the operative who inspected the fence had recommended that it was replaced. The landlord then called the resident and informed her that due to the volume of the work involved (approximately 65 metres of fencing) that the matter would first have to be escalated internally for approval.
On 19 April 2021 the resident called the landlord to enquire as to when the plastering work would start. The landlord’s notes of the call state that as it had been advised that as she had already carried out the work that there was nothing left for it to do. The notes then state that the resident requested compensation to reimburse her for the work and that said she would take legal action if her request was refused. The landlord informed her that it would open a formal complaint into the matter.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 April 2021 to confirm that it had opened a complaint and it would provide a written response within 10 working days. The landlord called the resident on 4 May 2021 to discuss the elements of the complaint and it sent a stage one complaint response on 7 May 2021.
The landlord first summarised the 4 May 2021 telephone call and noted that it was informed by the resident that:
1. She was offered the property as a management move and was not concerned with its condition on moving in as it was expected to be a short-term move prior to a mutual exchange to a more suitable property.
2. She then made the decision to stay at the property and began to redecorate. She discovered the condition of the plasterwork when removing wallpaper from one of the bedrooms and the stairway.
3. She called the landlord on 2 March 2021 to report the problem and provided photographs on 22 March 2021. As there was no follow-up call from the landlord, the resident arranged to have the plastering repaired at her own cost.
4. She had also replaced all the doorknobs and locks of the doors in the property but had not previously reported issues with the doorknobs to the landlord.
5. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident wanted to be compensated for the costs of the plastering works and the replacement doorknobs.
The landlord then informed the resident that:
1. It had reviewed its call recordings and confirmed that the resident had called it on 2 March 2021. The recording of the call showed that the resident informed the landlord that she had decorated two bedrooms without any issues, but had discovered blown plaster in the third bedroom and stairway and had yet to start work in the lounge. The resident requested the landlord undertake repairs.
2. Following a second telephone call on 6 April 2021, it was established that no work had been raised and an appointment was arranged for 13 April 2021 to inspect the walls.
3. Its records show the that the resident did not complete a home improvements application form in order to replace the doorknobs.
4. It had partially upheld the complaint on the grounds that the landlord had not raised any works following the 2 March 2021 telephone call from the resident. The landlord apologised to her for this delay.
5. However, it had not upheld the resident’s request for compensation as she had not informed it of any further work being required following the inspection held on 13 April 2021. It had therefore not been given the opportunity to inspect the walls prior to this work being completed.
6. It was also satisfied that the property met its published void standard when the resident signed the tenancy agreement. The landlord noted that as well as its own inspections, the resident had visited property prior to accepting the tenancy.
The landlord concluded the response by offering the resident £25 compensation for not scheduling an inspection following the 2 March 2021 telephone call. It also informed the resident that it would be in contact to arrange a date for the fence to be replaced as this had now been approved. It further advised the resident that she would need to submit home improvement forms for the changes she had made to the fixtures and fittings and she would now be responsible for the upkeep of these items.
The resident called the landlord on 11 May 2021 and requested an escalation of the complaint. The landlord notes of the call describe the grounds of the escalation as:
1. There was a four-week delay from when the resident first reported the issue with the plasterwork to when she was informed that an inspection appointment had yet to be arranged. This resulted in her undertaking the work herself.
2. Therefore, the resident should not be liable for the costs and these should be reimbursed by the landlord. The resident informed the landlord that she had paid £8,000 for the replastering work and a further £200 for replacement doors and door furniture.
3. The work to replace the fence remained outstanding, which meant her son was unable to be in the garden unsupervised.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 May 2021 to confirm that the complaint had been escalated and that it aimed to provide a response by 9 June 2021. The stage two complaint response was then sent to the resident on 8 June 2021. The landlord informed her that:
1. It records show that the resident informed it during the 2 March 2021 telephone call that the replastering work had already been completed in the bedrooms and it that then subsequently agreed that the resident would contact the landlord if further replastering was required. The resident did not inform the landlord that further replastering work was required.
2. Moreover, the landlord could find to record of the resident informing it that the internal doors in the property needed to be replaced.
3. Therefore, it did not consider it appropriate to reimburse the resident the £8,200 she requested.
4. It accepted that the poor condition of the fence should have been identified and rectified as part of the void works. The landlord apologised to the resident and offered £150 compensation in recognition that the boundary of the property had not be fully secure since she had moved in.

Assessment and findings

The condition of the property at the start of the tenancy

While the property was void (empty), it was inspected on 29 September 2020 and the following work was recommended:
1. Remove cooker, replace kitchen floor tiles, adjust all kitchen unit doors and drawers, refit kitchen base unit, paint kitchen walls and ceilings, and reseal all worktops.
2. Replace internal doors, remove boxing from meters and rebuild gas and electric meter cupboard, replace thermostatic radiator valve and strip wallpaper to woodgrain.
3. Repairs cracks to hallway walls and ceiling, replace cylinder barrel in hallway unit, apply stain block to walls and ceilings throughout the dwelling, de-nail and fill holes throughout the dwelling, and renew light fitting in lounge.
4. Remove stair lift, remove fireplace and hearth, replace skirting and latex floor, remove heater from landing, and replace existing cills with UPVC.
5. Remove conservatory and shed including their contents. Cut back bushes and shrubs to the boundary.
6. Once garden had been cleared, check boundary fence. This check would be done during the next tenancy.
The keys to be property were then handed to the landlord’s contractor to undertake the recommended work. The landlord undertook an inspection when the work was completed. The resident also visited the property prior to signing the tenancy agreement on 8 December 2020.
Therefore, there is no evidence that the landlord knowingly offered the property to the resident in an unsatisfactory condition. The landlord followed its voids process by identifying and undertaking work before deeming it to be in a lettable condition. If an incoming tenant disputes the condition of any item, the landlord has an obligation to investigate; but this does not mean the item should have been repaired during the void period if it has already been flagged to the landlord as not needing repair or replacement.

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of repairs required to the walls and a boundary fence.

The resident called the landlord on 2 March 2021 to inform it of issues with the plasterwork and the rear garden boundary fence. The landlord informed the resident that it would raise work orders to arrange inspections. However, this did not occur and it was not until the resident called the landlord again on 6 April 2021 that the appointments were booked.
In its stage one complaint response, the landlord apologised for the delay in arranging an appointment to inspect the plasterwork and offered the resident £25 compensation. In its stage two response, the landlord accepted that it should have identified during the void period that the fence required replacing. It apologised to the resident and offered £150 compensation in view of this.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It put things right by arranging inspections, awarding compensation, and by keeping the resident updated on the progress of the work.
The compensation award the landlord made was in line with this Service’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This suggests a payment of £50 to £250 in cases of service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint. As examples for when this level of payment should be considered, the guidance suggests:
1. Failures to reply to letters or return phone calls.
2. Failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact.
In this case, while there was a delay in arranging inspections, the length of the delay was not significant and the appointments were still booked within the 60 working day window specified in the landlord’s repair standards for this type of work from the date of the initial telephone call from the resident on 2 April 2021.
Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

The landlord’s decision not to reimburse the resident for work to replaster the walls and replace the doors of the property.

The resident requested that the landlord reimburse the costs she incurred for replastering the property and replacing the internal doors. She informed the landlord that the total cost for this work was £8,200.
The landlord denied this request on the grounds that the resident had not informed it that the doors needed to be replaced and the replastering work was completed before the landlord was given the chance to inspect the condition of the walls.
Section 4.9 of the tenancy agreement relates to improvements. This, in part, states that the resident is “not to make any improvements, alterations or additions to the Property without first getting the written permission of the Landlord and all other necessary approvals. These restrictions include making any alterations to the Landlord’s installations, fixtures and fittings”.
The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence which shows that the resident sought written permission to replace the doors, as per the terms of the tenancy agreement. Nor has any evidence been provided that the resident had informed the landlord that all the internal doors in the property needed replacing, and then gave the landlord the opportunity to inspect the issue within their repairs standards (which for internal doors would be 15 working days) before looking to arrange the work herself. The landlord was therefore under no obligation to reimburse the resident for this work.
When the resident called the landlord on 2 March 2020, the notes of the call state that the resident had at that time already arranged for some replastering work at the property. Following the inspection on 13 April 2020, the landlord’s operative confirmed that the resident had arranged the replastering work herself and was about to redecorate the lounge. The operative advised the resident to contract the landlord if further replastering was required.
The resident has provided an invoice dated 26 April 2021 which charged £6,000 for “all house plaster & skimmed”. However, no evidence has been provided that the resident informed the landlord prior to this work that additional replastering work was required.
Given that the landlord had arranged an inspection within the 60 working day timescale for this time of repair and stated that it would replaster any problems raised by the resident during decoration, it was reasonable for the landlord not to consider reimbursing the resident as it had not been given the chance to inspect any further issues discovered by the resident prior to her arranging the work herself. If the landlord had carried out an inspection, it may have agreed to carry out the work itself meaning that the resident would not have had to pay for it.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. The condition of the property at the start of the tenancy
2. It’s decision not to reimburse the resident for work to replaster the walls and replace the doors of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it handled the resident’s reports of repairs required to the walls and a boundary fence, which satisfactorily resolved this aspect of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord followed its void standard document when preparing the property to be let. The void standard mentions that properties can be let while there are some repairs outstanding. This is because there is a high demand for social housing and it is reasonable for landlords to prioritise letting any vacant properties although some repairs may need to be completed after the new tenant moves in.
The landlord recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays in arranging inspections of the plasterwork and boundary fence. The landlord apologised and awarded compensation which was proportionate to the effect of these failures on the resident.

No evidence has been provided which showed that the resident sought written permission to replace the internal doors, or that she reported additional issues with the plasterwork after the 13 April 2021 inspection. The landlord was therefore under no obligation to reimburse the resident for this work as it did not have the opportunity to carry out this work itself as an alternative to the resident arranging the work.