Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202106606)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106606

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

10 October 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. The resident’s reports of a leaking toilet.
   2. The resident’s request to be re-housed.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of a ground floor two-bedroom flat.
3. In February 2021 the resident reported that her toilet was overflowing. The landlord made an emergency visit to clear the blockage. It was recommended that a CCTV survey be carried out, which was done on 1 April 2021. This showed no obvious defects but it was recommended that descaling should be carried out by high pressure jetting, which was completed on 22 April 2021.
4. In June 2021 the resident contacted the landlord saying that she had been trying to sort out a move for a few months. Her daughter had ADHD and it had been advised by an Occupational Therapist (OT) that she needed a garden for her development coordination disorder and sensory delay. The resident herself had a medical condition requiring quick access to toilet facilities. She said she would never have taken her current property if she had known about problems with not being able to park close by. The resident was having no luck trying to find a home exchange and so was asking the landlord for help to get on the transfer list.
5. Later in June 2021 the resident complained that a recommended move by the OT had not been carried out and that there were leaks in the property, all of which was creating stress.
6. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint was that the medical information provided had not resulted in a banding and therefore the resident did not meet the eligibility criteria for a transfer. With regard to leaks, the landlord said that there had been no reports of leaks and that the repair had been closed after the successful descale jetting of the toilet in April 2021, with no further contact from the resident thereafter. The landlord also stated that parking at the scheme was currently under review.
7. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and would like help with being rehoused to a property with a private garden.

Assessment and findings

Leaks

8. The landlord responded to the report of the blocked toilet as a priority 1 repair and attended as an emergency appointment, in accordance with its maintenance policy. It also carried out some further exploratory work to see if there was an underlying reason for the blockage, after which the system was successfully pressure washed.
9. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident contacted the landlord to report ongoing leaks following the pressure washing of the toilet in April 2021. Although the resident’s complaint mentions leaks, she has not been specific or provided any detail about the location or severity of any leaks. She has said that the leaks were ongoing. However, when she spoke to the landlord’s Repairs Manager in October 2021, it was recorded that the resident reported that the bath, wash basin and WC were still slow to drain, rather than there being a leak.
10. As the initial CCTV survey was not the type that was recorded, in its stage 1 response the landlord offered to repeat the survey so that it could show the resident that there were no blockages. This was a reasonable response to the resident’s complaint. If the resident is having any new or repeated problems, then she should report these to the landlord’s repairs service so that it can investigate, if she has not already done so.
11. Based on the available evidence, the Ombudsman cannot find any fault on the part of the landlord with regard to its handling of the resident’s reports of a leaking toilet.

Transfer request

12. This Service asked the landlord to provide copies of the resident’s transfer application and supporting medical information, its review of the application and a review of the medical information by an independent adviser. To date the landlord has failed to respond to this request, which is disappointing. However, the Ombudsman has seen copies of internal communications by the landlord in which the contents of these documents are discussed in the context of reaching a decision about the resident’s transfer request.
13. The resident’s current ground floor property has access to a communal outside area that her daughter could make use of. When outside with her daughter, the proximity of the outside space would also afford the resident quick access back to her flat if she needed to use the toilet. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident wishes to act in her daughter’s best interests by obtaining a private garden so that her daughter can run around freely without the potential to bump into other people. However, the medical evidence provided as part of the resident’s transfer application (relating to the daughter’s ADHD) did not result in any banding being awarded and was therefore not sufficient to support this request. The medical review concluded that a private garden was not medically essential. The outcome was that the resident was already adequately housed as she has a ground floor property with the right number of bedrooms for her household. On balance, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord acted correctly by re-assessing the resident’s circumstance, and while it did not result in the outcome she desired, cannot see that it acted unfairly.
14. In response to correspondence from the resident’s MP, the Ombudsman has seen internal emails by the landlord giving consideration to the resident’s parking problems, such as whether she would be eligible for disabled parking. This shows that the landlord was taking the resident’s complaint seriously. At the time of the landlord’s stage 2 response in August 2021, it was said that the parking was currently under review and the resident was told that she could also contact the Neighbourhood Coordinator directly to discuss her parking issues. This was a reasonable response by the landlord at that time. The Ombudsman has no knowledge of whether the resident took up the offer or the outcome of any review.
15. The landlord has tried to support the resident’s desire to move in other ways. It has provided advice about alternative housing options such as mutual exchange, private renting and other providers. The evidence shows that, since registering for mutual exchange, the resident had not been making the most of the Homeswapper site. For example, she had not attached any photographs of her property and the description of the property was not in the main body of the advert. The landlord therefore offered for someone in its Home Moves Team to contact the resident to provide hints and tips on making best use of the resource to make her property more attractive to potential swappers. Again, the Ombudsman sees this as a reasonable and proportionate response on the part of the landlord.

Determination

16. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to:

a)     The resident’s reports of a leaking toilet.

b)     The resident’s request to be re-housed.