Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202100150)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100150

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

22 February 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the kitchen and bathroom upgrades;
2. The condition of the property when the resident moved in; and
3. The landlord’s actions in response to reports of mould in the property.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident has complained about the condition of the property when he moved in and is unhappy that the landlord cannot evidence what checks took place at that time (in 2016). However, his concerns about this were not raised with the landlord until December 2020. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred.
As the substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. The landlord does not hold the evidence of the checks carried out, given the length of time that has passed. This Service will therefore not consider the resident’s concerns about this.
This is in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and has an assured tenancy.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that where there has been a serious or prolonged service failure, or loss of facilities resulting in severe stress, disruption, inconvenience or loss of income, it will pay compensation between £100 and £500.
The landlord’s compensation policy also says that residents should take out home contents insurance to insure their personal possessions against accidental damage. Though if a resident’s possessions are damaged through building failure which is not covered by their own insurance, then compensation for the damaged possessions will be paid if it can be shown that the landlord was at fault.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out repair priorities, and the timescales involved in completing those repairs. However, it says that some repairs are carried out as part of a planned programme, as this helps it achieve better value for money. It says if a repair falls into this category, it will advise when the repair is planned for. Finally, it says that planned repairs are outside the responsive repairs priorities.

Summary of events

In 2019, the resident complained to the landlord about the condition of his kitchen. The landlord arranged for a surveyor to carry out an inspection in May 2019. The surveyor said there was a lack of wall cupboards, defective wall fan, painted worktops, the resident had fitted their own door fronts, and the kitchen was very old and required updating. The surveyor took photos of the kitchen and bathroom.
The surveyor contacted the landlord to see if the kitchen could be replaced in 2019/2020. The landlord confirmed the bathroom was on its 2019 programme to be updated, and the kitchen was on its 2020 programme.
On 10 December 2020, the landlord arranged for a surveyor to carry out another inspection of the resident’s kitchen and bathroom. The surveyor recommended both rooms be replaced in 2021.
On 18 December 2020, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. He made the following main points:
1. For a number of years, he said he had been requesting some sort of handover document to confirm the property was inspected before he moved in, to evidence that it was fit to be lived in.
2. He was unhappy about the state of the property when he moved in, and that it had taken six months for him to receive a decorating voucher.
3. He was unhappy with the state of the kitchen and bathroom but was told at the time he moved in that these would be replaced. However, he was still waiting for this.
4. The landlord’s contractor had attended and replaced the kitchen taps which had been leaking but could not replace the units as the landlord needed to give approval for this.
5. He had had to purchase new kitchen flooring due to its poor condition.
6. The landlord had sent out two surveyors to look at the property. The first surveyor advised him an upgrade would take place. When the second surveyor attended, they told him it would take six months to a year to do the works.
7. When he reported problems with the bathroom, the landlord’s contractor did not attend for the first appointment, and the second appointment was rescheduled but he was not informed of this. On the third appointment he was told they could not do anything as the bathroom needed to be upgraded.
8. A number of other properties on the same estate had had their kitchens and bathrooms upgraded recently, and he questioned why his property was not done.
9. He was seeking 50% of all rent paid to the landlord to be returned to him.
10. He questioned why his neighbour’s flooring was included as part of their kitchen upgrade, but he had been advised that the flooring was his responsibility.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 22 December 2020. This said:
1. The property had been reviewed by the team responsible, but it did not retain handover documents so could not provide him with this.
2. It was the resident’s responsibility to decorate the property, though it does offer decoration vouchers as a gesture of goodwill. It apologised for the delay in providing him with his vouchers.
3. It had reviewed the condition of the resident’s kitchen and bathroom with the surveyor that attended on 10 December 2020. The surveyor had confirmed that the kitchen and bathroom should be replaced in 2021, though during the visit, the surveyor did not identify any hazards in the kitchen or bathroom that would require emergency or urgent attention.
4. It had rescheduled the replacement kitchen and bathroom for its 2021 programme, which would see the replacements completed as soon as possible. It thought they would be in the resident’s area between April to June 2021.
5. It confirmed the kitchen flooring would be replaced when he received his new kitchen.
6. It acknowledged that the resident wanted 50% of his rent for his time in the property. It said it would instead offer him £300 compensation. This was made up of £100 for the delayed decoration voucher, £100 for its contractor’s missed appointments, and £100 for the stress the process had caused him and the effort he had gone to in order to progress the issue.
In January 2021, the resident accepted £400 compensation from the landlord. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that the additional £100 compensation was agreed in a phone call between it and the resident, and this related to the level of disruption the resident had experienced.
On 6 April 2021, the resident advised the landlord that he had had a heart attack. He said that he was holding the landlord liable for the stress he had experienced since moving into the property. The resident also sent the landlord information which said that heart damage could occur from exposure to mould. He said he was taking legal advice and wanted the landlord to compensate him due to its “negligence”.
The landlord emailed the resident later that day and advised that an estimate had been given to replace his kitchen and bathroom between April and June 2021. The resident responded to say that a time span of four years should have been enough time for the repairs, as his neighbours had had the work done. He explained he had tape hanging off the wall in the bathroom to stop water going behind the tiles, and his kitchen cabinets had mould all over the place. The resident said that, whilst he was grateful for the goodwill payment, he did not think it was good enough.
The landlord confirmed to the resident on 6 April 2021 that it had escalated his complaint to stage two of its complaint process. The resident responded and said all other residents had had their upgrades done. He repeated that he thought the mould in the property had caused his illness. He said that because the property was not suitable for living conditions, he had involved a solicitor and wanted 75% of all rent he had paid returned to him. He said he would not be making any further payments of rent until the issue was resolved. There is no evidence that the resident has progressed this issue down a formal legal route however.
On 7 April 2021, the landlord confirmed the kitchen and bathroom repairs were planned works, but said the pandemic had slowed it down. The resident responded the same day and said his neighbour had work done during the pandemic. He also questioned when the last upgrade to the property took place, and whether any safety checks were completed before he moved in. The resident said he had spent his money on repairs that the landlord could not be bothered to do. He then said he wanted a full refund of all rent paid.
On 20 April 2021 the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. This said:
1. The resident thought his kitchen and bathroom ought to have been replaced as his neighbours had been, and he was unhappy with outstanding repairs.
2. It wanted to replace his kitchen and bathroom, and it was estimated this would take place between April and June 2021.
3. It apologised for not having the work arranged earlier, and explained it was trying to get all planned work back on track for its residents, and hoped the compensation offered under its stage one complaint response would help.
4. It said it was following its programmed works, though if there was any emergency work required, the resident should contact its repairs team and a contractor would visit him.
5. In its stage one response, it had broken down each point where compensation had been offered.
6. It had contacted its repairs team and they had confirmed a date of 6 May 2021 for the repairs to take place.
7. The repairs for the damp and mould had been booked in as soon as possible.
The resident advised the landlord that he remained unhappy with its response. The landlord responded on 26 May 2021, and said the following:
1. As it had previously advised, it does not retain handover documents, but the correct process was followed to ensure the property was inspected before the resident received the tenancy. It had provided the resident with decorating vouchers as a gesture of goodwill, even though internal decoration to the property was his responsibility, as outlined in the tenancy agreement.
2. Its surveyor had attended his property on 10 December 2020 and confirmed that the resident’s kitchen and bathroom (including the flooring) would be replaced on the 2021 programme. At the time there were no signs of any hazards requiring urgent attention.
3. It did provide the resident with a compensation payment of £400 for the damage to the cooker and microwave.
4. On 6 May 2021, its surveyor had attended the property for a full inspection. They said the kitchen and bathroom had no repair requirements, and the resident was satisfied that improvement works were finally happening.
The resident asked this Service to look into his complaint. He said he wanted compensation for the landlord’s delay in replacing his kitchen and bathroom. He said he thought the stress over the previous four years had caused his heart attack, and he wanted 100% of all rent paid back to him. He said the landlord had only provided him with four photos which did not prove that any checks had taken place to the property before he moved in. The resident thought the compensation of £400 was for his cooker and microwave being broken due to shelving falling on it. Finally, the resident said the kitchen and bathroom had been in such a poor state they had not been fit for use since he had moved in.
The resident sent this Service some photos. One showed some sealant had come away from tiles, one appears to show part of a wall with a thin line of mould along the bottom, and one showed the inside of a cupboard which had several holes drilled in it.
The landlord provided this Service with documents confirming that kitchen and bathroom measurements, paint choices, tiles choices, and flooring choices were selected by the resident on 11 May 2021. Then on 29 June 2021, a progress visit was made to assess the repairs, which were partway through. On 12 July 2021, the kitchen and bathroom upgrade had been signed off as complete.
This Service asked the landlord for more information relating to the resident’s reports of mould and damp, and clarification around compensation offered to the resident. The landlord said that the resident had not raised concerns about damp and mould in the kitchen or bathroom previously, and pointed out that when the surveyor inspected the property in May 2019, there had been no evidence of mould. The landlord also clarified that it had not paid compensation for damage to the resident’s cooker or microwave.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has made comments about his medical conditions, but it is outside this Service’s remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the landlord’s complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident in this assessment.

The landlord’s handling of the kitchen and bathroom upgrades

It was accepted by the landlord that the resident’s bathroom and kitchen needed upgrading. It was confirmed by the landlord in May 2019 that both rooms were already on its planned programme of works.
However, the landlord was impacted by the pandemic so the planned works were delayed. That is a reasonable explanation for the delays, given that there were periods of lockdown enforced by the UK government, where only emergency repairs would have been able to take place.
This meant that the planned upgrades did not begin until April 2021. It is recognised that the delays caused the resident frustration, however, the landlord was not required to complete the upgrades within a set timeframe. This is supported by the landlord’s repairs policy, which explains that planned repairs are outside the responsive repairs priorities – that would also include the timescales given for responsive repairs.
The landlord explained that when its surveyor had carried out an inspection in December 2020, the surveyor did not identify any hazards that needed urgent attention in the two rooms. Nonetheless, the landlord advised the resident that if any emergency work was required, he should raise this with its repairs team and a contractor would visit him. That was reasonable, given the upgrades had already been booked in by that time.
The landlord paid the resident £400 compensation, and has confirmed that £200 of that related to the stress and disruption caused to the resident by the delays. The amount was fair in the circumstances, given there was no evidence of a service failure by the landlord.
There was some confusion between the resident and landlord over compensation for a broken cooker and microwave. The resident appeared to believe the £400 offered to him related to this (and this was supported by the landlord’s correspondence to the resident of 26 May 2021). However, the landlord has confirmed to this Service that it has not paid compensation for a broken cooker or microwave.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that a resident should make a claim under their home contents insurance if there is accidental damage to their possessions. If the resident has not been able to make a successful insurance claim, and believes that the landlord is at fault for the shelving damaging the cooker and microwave, he should make a separate claim for this to the landlord. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
The resident has said that he spent his own money on repairs that the landlord “could not be bothered to do”. It is not clear what those repairs are, and so if the resident thinks the landlord was responsible for repairs that he then arranged himself, he may wish to contact the landlord’s repairs team about this, in the first instance.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mould and damp

The surveyor’s report completed in May 2019 provides a number of photos of both the kitchen and bathroom. None of those photos appear to show any mould. The surveyor also did not comment on there being any mould in their detailed report.
Another surveyor visited the property in December 2020. There was not a detailed report provided, though the landlord checked with that surveyor to establish whether any urgent repairs were needed. The surveyor confirmed to the landlord that there were not.
The resident only advised the landlord after it had issued its stage one complaint response that there was mould in the property. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that this had not been raised by the resident previously.
The landlord acted appropriately by confirming in its stage two complaint response that it had booked in repairs for the damp and mould. Though it is understood that the upgrade to the kitchen and bathroom has resolved any issues with this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress which, in the ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily in respect of the landlord’s handling of the kitchen and bathroom upgrades.
In accordance with paragraph 39 (e) of the Scheme, the complaint about the condition of the property when the resident moved in is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s actions in response to reports of damp and mould in the property.

Reasons

The landlord had planned repairs arranged in respect of the kitchen and bathroom upgrades. It had initially intended to upgrade the bathroom in 2019, and the kitchen in 2020. However, the upgrades were delayed, in part due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The landlord carried out inspections of the kitchen and bathroom in 2019 and 2020; whilst its surveyors accepted the rooms needed to be upgraded, there were no immediate repairs identified that needed to be resolved. Although the resident was disappointed with the delays, the landlord did not have a set timeframe in which to carry out the repairs. Nonetheless, it offered him £200 compensation to recognise the inconvenience this had caused him. This amount was fair in the circumstances.
The landlord does not have a record of the resident raising concerns about damp and mould before April 2021. The landlord confirmed in its stage two response that it had booked in a repair for this, which was a reasonable response.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident the compensation previously offered during the complaints process.