Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202013337)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013337

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

09 June 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A pest infestation at the resident’s property.
   2. Repairs to the resident’s property.
   3. Its response to the resident’s concerns about paying council tax on two properties and reimbursement of costs.
   4. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour from the neighbour.
   5. The resident’s complaint in line with its policy.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a flat. The current tenancy commenced on 6 February 2020.  
3. In 2019 the resident was informed that he would need to be relocated. He was offered this property in February 2020, which he viewed and accepted. He states that he felt rushed to accept it as he was threatened with eviction from the old flat if he did not accept this new one.  However, as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, the move did not commence until 27 August 2020. The resident states when he moved into the property only some of the repairs required and promised had been completed. He also stated he was unhappy that he was having to pay bills on both properties for a while and had not yet been fully refunded. He further informed the landlord there was a pest infestation.
4. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 25 January 2021 about the additional costs, repairs and pests. The landlord proceeded to issue its stage one response on 11 February 2021. It explained it had arranged for an inspection to assess the issues raised by the resident. It also informed the resident that upon checking its repair database his property had been selected to have repairs conducted as part of its planned maintenance.
5. The resident was unhappy with this response as he felt it did not address all of his concerns. He explained it did not address his issues regarding support getting bill issues solved and other pending financial issues finalised. He also explained that he was experiencing anti-social behaviour with the neighbour.
6. On 12 March 2021 the resident discussed the current issues with the landlord. Following this the landlord emailed the resident outlining the issues and what it would be doing to resolve these. In the landlord’s opinion it issued a stage two response to the resident on 12 April 2021, however it did not provide information about the resident’s referral rights to the Housing Ombudsman. Information about his referral rights were then provided on 2 June 2021 with an explanation to the resident that the email previously sent was its stage two response.
7. In the landlord’s stage two response it stated that it would reimburse the resident costs associated with transferring homes, however, it would require receipts as evidence. It also informed the resident that all repairs had been logged and appointments would be made to rectify the issues.
8. The resident raised concerns about the fence being repaired. In response the landlord explained that its surveyor had visited the property to assess the repairs. It found that the fence was previously repaired, but this was removed by the neighbour. Therefore, no further work was required.
9. Regarding the pooling of water outside the property, after inspection the landlord stated it did not seem to be affecting the property and seemed to be a large puddle after heavy rain, therefore no further action was required.
10. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and complained to this service. The resident informed this service that he would like compensation and for the outstanding repairs to be completed. The resident stated the issues with his neighbour had been resolved, however he would like to have a key to access the rear of the property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation at the property

11. It is understood that the resident had an issue concerning pests in the property and had complained to the landlord about this. The resident has stated that the stench of a dead rat impacted his and his family’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the remit of this service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the pest infestation and the residents’ health. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any distress and inconvenience which the resident and his family experienced.
12. The resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for repair to the structure and exterior of the property.
13. It is the Ombudsman’s view that, in general, residents are responsible for pest control within their own properties, unless the pests are found to be entering through defects in the structure of the property (holes in the wall etc). In that case, it would be the landlord’s responsibility to arrange pest control. If there are pests reported in multiple properties or communal areas, then the landlord would be responsible for pest control for the building area. In this instance, the landlord arranged for pest control to visit the resident’s property on multiple occasions.
14. The pest control treatment report shows that on 5 January 2021 the landlord visited the property in response to reports of a rat infestation. It noted there was light rat activity found beneath the kitchen units and proceeded to have baits and traps placed to assist control and informed the resident it would monitor according until the infestation was clear. It attended the property again on 21 January 2021, however there was no recent evidence of rat activity during inspection or reports of any issues from the resident. The landlord decided to leave the measures in place for another couple of weeks to ensure no further issues arose.
15. Further reports show that the landlord visited the property on 8 April 2021, in response to reports of rat activity in the external areas. It removed the traps and baits that were previously left under the kitchen units as no activity had been reported. It noted there was a large hole in the wall from under the kick boards which would need blocking to prevent rodents from entering the property. This was completed during a separate visit. The landlord baited a burrow in the rear garden as a means of trying to resolve the issue.
16. The landlord arranged for the property to be visited again on 22 April 2021 due to the resident’s concerns of a bad smell. This was investigated however pest control found no evidence. It was noted that under the sink would need to be proofed and this was arranged for the following Monday.  
17. It is clear there was an issue in the property concerning rats, however it is also evident that the landlord responded to reports of rat infestation in the property and made reasonable attempts to resolve the issue. This service understands the resident’s distress regarding the smell and how frustrating this would have been. However, when reported the landlord did send pest control to further investigate this.
18. Whilst this service acknowledges the resident’s frustration with the number of visits it has taken the landlord to resolve the issue and the stress this would have caused, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord took reasonable steps to resolve the issue and acted in accordance with its policy, therefore the landlord acted fairly in relation to the issue.
19. During a conversation with this service on 24 May 2022, the resident stated that he believes the pest infestation was ongoing as he had seen rats approximately three months ago. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord should contact the resident to confirm if there have been any recent sightings or any other indications that there is an ongoing issue.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property

20. Section 3.1 of the resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord will keep in good repair and maintain in proper working order:

1. 3.1.1. The structure and exterior of your home and building of which it forms a part, including roofs, walls (excluding minor internal plasterwork repairs), floors, ceiling, window frames, external doors, drains, gutters and outside walls and paths;
2. 3.1.2. Kitchen and bathroom fixtures – basins, sinks, toilets, baths and showers; 3.1.3. Electrical wiring and gas and water pipes;
3. 3.1.4. Heating equipment and water heating equipment.
4. 3.1.5. Any other repair responsibility will be governed by current legislation.

21. The resident stated that prior to moving into the property, there had been requests for several repairs.
22. The evidence shows there was a failed attempt to inspect the property, however access was later gained on 26 July 2021. The report showed that after inspection the surveyor raised further jobs to carry out repairs. These were for the following:

1. Slight mould spots in the corner of room.
2. Job raised to repair gutter.
3. Bedroom window – decorate top sash.
4. Toilet and shower drain.
5. Pest control – find out if any follow-on works required.
6. Level front and rear foot path.
7. Kitchen window replacement.
8. Garden – Hole in rear metal stair.
9. Garden fence pane l- ASB issue to be resolved by housing.

23. This service understands jobs were raised for the above works to be done and the evidence shows the repairs on the above had been completed within a reasonable period given the circumstances. The resident has also confirmed most of the issues are no longer outstanding. However, the resident informed this service on 24 May 2022, that the outstanding repairs to the property were:

1. Water pooling on the concrete
2. Windows have not been replaced.

24. Regarding the pooling, the landlord stated that it is not affecting the property and seems to be a large puddle after heavy rain, so no further action was required.
25. The evidence shows the area being complained about is external to the property. Reviewing the landlord’s policies, this service has seen no reference to suggest that the landlord is responsible or obliged to fix the matter being complained about as this does not affect the structure of the property or constitutes as a responsive repair. In addition, this service has seen no evidence to suggest that the water pooling causes a health and safety risk. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response to the resident is in line with its guidelines, as it has carried out a first-hand inspection of the issue and set out its position.
26. Regarding the windows, the resident explained despite several appointments and conversations, the windows have still not been replaced. The resident would like the windows of the kitchen and the bedroom to be changed as the windows are rotten, let in wind and are a security risk.
27. The evidence shows in the landlord’s stage one response dated 11 February 2021, it acknowledged the resident’s complaint about defective kitchen and bathroom windows and arranged for an inspection It also noted on its repairs database that the resident’s property had been scheduled for repairs.  A further response dated 12 April 2021 by the landlord said repairs has been logged and appointments would be made to rectify the issues.
28. The evidence shows that the rear bedroom window was renewed on 17 May 2021 but follow up work is required. Regarding the kitchen window this work remains outstanding. The landlord has explained that it is due to be replaced as part if its planned programme for 22-23, however due to planning approval this is due to be completed between January – March 2023.
29. In the resident’s complaint he stated that he was seeking compensation. Reviewing the information provided, this service has not seen any evidence to suggest the resident has been compensated for the issues which occurred, delays and service failure.
30. This service acknowledges the landlord’s apology to the resident. However, this service also recognises the resident’s distress regarding the repairs and how it has impacted him. Taking the above into consideration, it is the Ombudsman’s view, that the resident be compensated for the service failing by the landlord.
31. Section 3.4 of the tenancy agreement states the landlord will do repairs in reasonable timescales.
32. The landlord’s policy states that timeframes for repairs. A non-emergency repair would be 15 workings days. However, the maintenance policy states, ‘variable priority repairs which are those which require multiple visits, often using multi trade skills or a number of special order parts. Major works usually require a tender process and a number of visits over an extended period of time. Variable timescale repairs typically cost over £1,000. In some cases, where we require consultancy advice such as a structural engineer or we are processing an insurance claim, we will use a variable priority. Planned or variable repairs are often raised following a visit from one of our technical team. If we need to carry out extensive repairs, we will talk through what we intend to do, agree timescales and project manage the work through to completion. In the vast majority of cases, we will also carry out a post work inspection to check the quality of repairs’. In this instance, it understood that the repair would be considered a variable repair and therefore have an extended timeframe to rectify the issue. 
33. Whilst this service understands the window has required multiple visits, it is the Ombudsman’s view that, in the circumstances of repeat visits, the length of time it has taken, and the fact that the windows remain an issue, there has been service failure by the landlord.
34. Following the complaint being referred to the Ombudsman for investigation, the landlord recently made this service aware that it had reviewed the resident’s complaint and would be making an apology and offer of compensation for the delays with repairs. The landlord has made an offer of £750 which is to reflect the lack of follow–up on this case, delays for repairs and the impact this has had on the resident.
35. The landlord should have given further consideration to its position and the matter of compensation, whilst the complaint was in its complaint procedure, and before it was referred to the Ombudsman. However, whilst the landlord could have reviewed its position sooner, overall, this service considers the amount of compensation to be reasonable redress in the circumstances and in line with the landlord’s guidelines.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about paying council tax on two properties and reimbursement of costs.

36. In the resident’s initial complaint, he had asked to be reimbursed for costs associated with the move. This entailed decant costs for:

1. B&Q card.
2. Curtains.
3. Electricity – on the stipulation the resident provide the bills.

37. This service has seen evidence of the landlord reimbursing the resident, within a reasonable period and therefore it has responded reasonably to this aspect.
38. The resident also raised concerns about having to pay council tax for his previous property and current property simultaneously. This was as a result of a delay in him moving to the new property due to the covid pandemic.
39. Whilst it is not within this service’s remit to make a decision on the application of council tax, this service has considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request. Looking at the information, this service has seen evidence that the landlord has paid the resident’s council tax bill. The resident has also confirmed this. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord acted in a positive manner to put things right for the resident. Whilst this was frustrating at the time for the resident, this service has seen no evidence to show it caused a longer-term detriment to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour from the neighbour

40. The resident reported issues with his neighbour to the landlord regarding the neighbour restricting his access to the back garden.
41. Section 9.2 of the complaints policy states, “a complaint about neighbour nuisance and anti-social behaviour is not a complaint about our service. It will be dealt with under our neighbour dispute or antisocial behaviour policy”.
42. Section 5.4 states, “you are also responsible for dealing with anti-social behaviour. We expect you to try and resolve disputes with your neighbours directly and to be tolerant of different lifestyles. You are encouraged to make use of mediation services where these are available. You should also consider whether it may be more appropriate to report issues that you cannot resolve to other agencies such as the local authority environmental health department or the Police”.
43. During a conversation with the landlord and resident on 12 March 2021, the resident confirmed that he would do mediation with his neighbour to try and resolve the issues.
44. The landlord has provided little evidence to show if it contributed to resolving the conflict. However, it is noted in an email to the resident on 12 April 2021, that there had been no further reports of anti-social behaviour and was pleased there was improvement without the need for mediation.
45. The resident has been in communication with the neighbour and has since informed this service that the situation with the neighbour has improved. However, he said in order to have access to the rear it requires him to contact his neighbour who at times is unavailable which can be inconvenient.
46. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this service has seen no evidence to suggest that the landlord has acted unfairly in regard to the resident’s initial reports of anti-social behaviour from his neighbour. In accordance with the complaints policy, this service acknowledges that the resident has been proactive in dealing with this matter.
47. However further intervention from the landlord may be required so the resident has full access to the rear. This service has seen no evidence in his agreement pertaining to the shared access and what the requirements are for this. In this case it is recommended that the landlord provides the resident with a spare key to also have access, should his tenancy agreement permit that. Or explain why he cannot have access if this is not possible.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint in line with its policy

48. The landlord’s complaints policy states its process for resolving complaints has two stages. At stage one of the complaint the landlord is required to respond to the resident in 10 working days. Should the resident remain unhappy then for stage two it is required to provide a further response within 15 working days.
49. In this instance the resident complained to the landlord on 25 January 2021, to which it provided its stage one response on 11 February 2021. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the response and it is clear that there were several conversations after this regarding the outstanding issues.  The landlord proceeded to provide a response on 12 April 2021, but failed to provide information on the resident’s referral rights to the Housing Ombudsman, which resulted in this service having to contact the landlord to request it provide the resident with confirmation of his referral rights. The landlord informed the resident that its previous response was the end of its process and provided referral rights on 2 June 2021.
50. It is clear for stage one and two responses, the landlord failed to respond to the resident in line with its policy. Furthermore, whilst this service understands the landlord intended for its response of 12 April 2021 to be a stage two response, it is important that landlords follow the correct procedures when responding to complaints and adhere to the requirements set out by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and Complaint Handling Code. It is in the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord did not act in accordance with the procedures when responding to the resident in the expected timeframe. 
51. The landlord has since been in touch with this service to say it had conducted a further review of this complaint. It would be writing to the resident with an apology and will be offering him £750 in compensation for the lack of follow up on this case, the delays in repairs and the impact this would have had on him from the start of his tenancy.
52. Considering all the circumstances of the case, the landlord has acknowledged its failings and attempted to put things right for the resident. Whilst there was a missed opportunity for the landlord to do this whilst the complaint was being considered under its formal complaints procedure, before it was referred to this service, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the level of compensation offered for the distress and inconvenience caused is fair and in line with guidelines.

Determination (decision)

53. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints about-
    1. Its handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
    2. The resident’s concerns about paying council tax on two properties and reimbursement of costs.
    3. Its handling of reports of anti-social behaviour from the neighbour.
54. In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there is reasonable redress offered by the landlord in respect of the complaint about-
    1. Its handling of the repairs to the resident’s property.
    2. Its complaint handling in line with its policy.

Reasons

55. It is unclear if the pest infestation remains at present. However, the landlord was proactive in attempting to resolve the matter and acted in line with its guidelines when the resident reported the issue.
56. The landlord has been fair to the resident by reimbursing him the cost associated with having to move homes. This was done in a reasonable period given the circumstances.
57. The resident was able to resolve the issues with the neighbour amicably without the need for mediation from the landlord.
58. The landlord has acknowledged its failings in respect of its repairs handling and awarded the resident compensation that is within its guidelines and considered reasonable.
59. The landlord was delayed in responding to the resident’s complaint in line with its guidelines. However, it did apologise and made a reasonable offer of redress.

Orders and Recommendations

Recommendation

60. The landlord should contact the resident to confirm if there have been any recent sightings or any other indications that there is an ongoing issue.
61. The landlord should ensure the resident is kept up to date with progress in regard to the window repairs. 
62. The landlord should review the resident’s access to the back property, and if possible, to provide the resident with a key or explain its position if it is not able to do this.
63. As the Ombudsman has found that the landlord’s total offer of compensation is reasonable redress in this case, the landlord should now ensure that payment is made to the resident (if this has not been previously paid).