Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202122275)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122275

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

9 May 2024

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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a:
1. Boiler repair.
2. Window repair.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder, under the shared ownership scheme, of the landlord which is a housing association. The landlord has advised this Service that it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, information provided for this investigation confirms the resident was in the early stages of cancer at the time of the complaint. The resident also informed the landlord that his wife suffered from anxiety and depression.
The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the fourth floor.
During January 2021 the landlord replaced the windows at the property. On 13 January the resident contacted the landlord to report that the lounge window was letting in a draught. He called again on 28 January to report that it would not close properly. It was repaired by the landlord but on 5 February 2022 the resident reported that the work was not satisfactory because there was a gap which was causing a draught. Further works were carried out but this did not resolve the issue.
The radiators in the property were removed as part of remedial works following a roof leak. On 1 November 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to report that ever since, the boiler had been faulty. This eventually resulted in a loss of heating and hot water. On 2 March 2022 the landlord agreed to replace the boiler.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 February 2022 following a cancelled appointment to repair the boiler. He requested compensation for time off work to attend failed appointments and said the issue with the boiler was getting worse.
On 7 February 2022 the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. It acknowledged that the resident had intermittent hot water and heating since November 2021 and that “numerous” visits to fix the issue had not been successful. It apologised for the service provided and for its communication which “should have been better.” It said it had provided feedback to the gas manager. It acknowledged the inconvenience caused through the issues with heating and hot water and having to chase its response. It offered £100 compensation.
The resident responded to the landlord on 7 February 2022 to decline the offer of compensation. He said the issue with the boiler was ongoing and that the window remained faulty.
On 25 April 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, as follows:
1. The boiler was replaced in March.
2. It acknowledged there were some outstanding works in terms of boxing in the wires which was booked for 13 May.
3. It said it had taken a “long time to get to this point” and apologised for the amount of chasing by the resident to reach a resolution.
4. It apologised if the windows had not been installed correctly which had caused a draught. It said it had installed a draught excluder which should resolve the problem.
5. It said it had reviewed the case and accepted it should have addressed the issues “more efficiently” and communicated in a more “timely fashion”.
6. It said senior management were aware of the case and it would learn from the complaint to be able to do things differently.
7. It offered £250 compensation to reflect that the issue with the boiler continued into March 2022 and its communication had not been “acceptable.”

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations policies and procedures

The landlord’s maintenance policy says that:
1. Residents will be kept informed of progress with repairs, even when subsequent appointments are awaited.
2. It will ensure its maintenance services are flexible to the needs of vulnerable tenants, including those who are chronically sick and persons with a disability.
3. It maintains a record to identify residents with a particular vulnerability or disability to ensure maintenance services are effectively delivered to meet their needs on an on-going basis.
4. Emergency repairs, including no hot water and total loss of heating (October-March) are to be rectified within 24 hours.
5. Non-emergency repairs, including repairs to windows, are to be completed within 15 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will consider paying compensation including where it has failed to meet its service targets, or has not acted reasonably. It will pay:
1. Up to £20 for low inconvenience.
2. £20-£100 for medium inconvenience.
3. A maximum of £500 for high inconvenience.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It says that at stage 2 a different complaints specialist will take on the case as well as the investigation being reviewed by someone more senior.

Boiler

The resident emailed the landlord on 1 November 2021 to report the faults that had arisen since the landlord had removed the radiators during remedial works. The landlord replied on 16 November to signpost the resident to the correct team to report no heating and no hot water. It took the landlord 15 days to reply to the resident’s report which was inappropriate, particularly given its response to no heating / hot water where it has a responsibility is 24 hours. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Furthermore, the resident was caused inconvenience, time and trouble when he chased the landlord’s response on 23 November 2021. It replied on the same day to apologise for any inconvenience caused. It said it had contacted “multiple teams and people to look into this.” The resident chased again the next day, 24 November, and advised he had been without hot water or heating for 3 weeks. The ongoing delay was unreasonable.
An engineer inspected the boiler on 30 November 2021. This was 29 days after the resident first reported the fault, which was well outside the landlord’s 24 hour response time. The engineer recommended that the boiler be replaced due to its age.
The resident was caused inconvenience, time and trouble when he chased the landlord again on 3 December 2021 to seek an update following the engineers visit. He was still without heating or hot water and was using the shower at the local gym. He said this was particularly difficult because he had 3 children. The landlord replied that same day to apologise and said it was waiting for a quote to replace the boiler which it expected to receive by the end of the day.
The landlord did not respond, causing further inconvenience, distress, time and trouble to the resident when he had to chase again on 6 December 2021. The landlord replied the same day to apologise for the “difficult situation.” It said it was hoping to fit parts to repair the boiler in a matter of days.
Once again, the resident was caused disappointment, inconvenience, time and trouble when he had to chase the landlord on 6 January 2023. He chased again on 10, 18, and 20 January. Following a conversation with the resident on 20 January the landlord raised a stage 1 complaint.
An engineer attended on 24 January 2022 and reported to the landlord that “all seemed fine.” However, on 25 January the resident emailed the landlord to report that the pressure was still dropping. He emailed again on 27 January to chase a response. The landlord replied on that same day to say an engineer would attend and would contact him within 48 hours. The resident did not hear anything so was caused further disappointment, inconvenience, time and trouble when he had to chase the landlord on 1 and 2 February.
The landlord replied to the resident on 2 February to say its contractor intended to attend the following day and apologised that it had not booked this in with the resident. On the day itself, 3 February, the contractor called to say they were behind schedule and re arranged the appointment for Monday 7 February. This compounded the distress and disappointment already caused to the resident. The resident was concerned that the boiler was getting worse so he had decided to stop using it. He said he was using electric heaters and would continue to shower at the gym.
On 7 February 2023 the contractor called the resident to cancel the appointment. The resident requested compensation because this was the second failed appointment. The landlord replied to say the contractor was struggling with the impact of COVID-19 on staffing levels. It appropriately apologised and offered a new appointment for 9 February.
On 9 February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say that the engineer had failed to attend. He was frustrated that he had taken 3 days off work for failed appointments. The landlord replied on the same day to say the engineer had attended but was unable to gain access. However, it acknowledged there was no evidence that the contractor had tried to call the resident.
The landlord’s records show the engineer attended on 11 February 2022. The work sheet says the boiler was at risk and the switch isolated due to it being unsafe. It recommended further works to the existing boiler or replacement due to it being 22 years old.
Also on 11 February 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to say it would cover the cost of parts and repair on this occasion but that the resident would be liable for replacing the boiler. The resident requested that the landlord proceed with the repair. Given the resident’s responsibilities under the terms of his lease the landlord’s proposal was reasonable.
On 28 February 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to advise it had learnt that the parts required to fix the boiler were in fact obsolete. On 2 March it confirmed that because it could not repair the existing boiler it would replace it. Given that the damage to the boiler was caused by its contractor this was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 March 2022 to confirm the boiler had been replaced but that part of it had been “left open.” In its stage 2 complaint response of 25 April the landlord confirmed that there were outstanding works to box in the wires which had been booked for 13 May. However, in an email to the landlord on 13 May the resident said that the contractor could not carry out the works because there was no casing for the bottom of the boiler which left wires and pipes exposed. The landlord replied on the same day and appropriately advised it had escalated this with the contractor. However, there is no record of the contractor’s response.
The resident was caused distress, inconvenience, time and trouble when he chased the landlord on 1, 7 and 9 June 2022. The landlord replied on 9 June to advise it was waiting for the contractor to take stock of the part. However, on 23 June 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to say it had been misinformed and that make of boiler did not have a cover to fit on the underside. Therefore, there was no part to fit.
This is not consistent with its email to the resident of 24 June 2022 which said the boiler had been fitted to manufacturer instructions and that the bottom cover was fitted purely for aesthetic purposes. The absence of the cover did not affect the working of the boiler itself. It said the manufacturer did not supply the cover as a part only but it would investigate to see if it could resolve the matter.
At this point it would have been appropriate to go back to the contractor to follow up on why the cover was not fitted as part of the boiler installation. Particularly, because the resident said it had informed him it could not be fitted because it had been damaged. That it did not do so was a failure.
The landlord provided no further updates so the resident chased on 21 and 24 October 2022. On 1 November 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to say it had referred the matter onto the boiler manufacturer. In a telephone call with this Service on 25 April 2024 the resident confirmed the appropriate cover had not been provided and the wires remained exposed.
The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident throughout, meaning he had to send chaser emails on at least 15 occasions. It also failed to have regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010 and did not comply with its maintenance policy.
The resident was in the early stages of cancer and his wife was diagnosed with depression and anxiety. The resident suffered a loss of heating and hot water and was caused additional distress and inconvenience by having to use the local gym for showers. There is no evidence that the landlord complied with its policy by being flexible to the needs of vulnerable residents. Furthermore, it did not maintain its records to identify the residents as vulnerable because it told this Service it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. This is also a record keeping failure.
Given that it had committed to replace the boiler the landlord should have done more to liaise with the contractor to establish why the bottom cover was not available for fitting at the time of the boiler installation. Had it followed up directly with the contractor at the time it may have been able to provide a timely resolution for the resident. Aesthetics or not, the cover should have been fitted. It was not appropriate for the landlord to say that because it did not affect the boiler’s function it was not obliged to ensure it was fitted.
The landlord offered £100 compensation at stage 1 for the inconvenience caused by having “intermittent heating and hot water for such a long period of time” and for having to chase the landlord. It offered a further £250 for the ongoing issues in repairing the boiler which went onto March 2022 and the fact there were ongoing works. The landlord has not provided an explanation of how it arrived at that amount of compensation.
In assessing financial redress the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This investigation has considered that the:
1. Resident was without adequate hot water and/or heating during the winter months of November 2021 to March 2022, a period of 5 months.
2. Evidence shows there was a record keeping failure.
3. Landlord did not have regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
4. Landlord missed 3 appointments.
5. Resident used electric heaters to heat the property.
6. Resident and his family made use of the local gym for showers.
7. Landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident.
8. Landlord did not do enough to resolve the issue of the missing cover for the boiler.
9. Landlord did not acknowledge all its failings and did not set out its learning from the complaint and what it would do differently.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration. Taking the above and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance into account the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £800. This is in line where there has been a significant impact on the resident. The landlord may deduct the £350 it has offered if this has already been paid.

Window

During a phone call with this Service on 25 April 2024 the resident confirmed that while he has concerns about the quality of all the windows his primary concern is the main window in the lounge which remains outstanding.
On 13 January 2021 the resident phoned the landlord to report that the new window in the lounge was causing a draught. The repairs log say this was to be escalated to the installer. On 28 January the resident contacted the landlord to report that his window would not close properly. The landlord replied on 30 January to say the window may still be under warranty and that it would check with its planned maintenance team. This was an appropriate and timely response.
There is no record of the response from the planned maintenance team to say if the window could be repaired under warranty. However, the resident emailed the landlord on 5 February 2022 to report that following a repair there was a gap which was causing a draught. The noise from the draught was causing a nuisance. The landlord replied on 7 February said it would pass the feedback to the planned maintenance team.
The landlord responded appropriately by arranging for a further inspection to take place. On 10 February 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say that the contractor who attended said the windows had not been installed correctly. It said it would try to resolve the issue but if it could not, the landlord should follow up with the installer. The landlord emailed an acknowledgement to the resident on the same day.
The landlord raised a repair on 17 February 2022 that the resident was worried the window may fall out because the frame had suddenly become loose and the window was moving. The repairs log shows the order was cancelled “due to duplication.”
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 April 2022 to say that its contractor had tried to improve the seal around the window frame. However, due to the weather that day it was clear there was still a draught because the curtains were moving. The landlord responded 7 April to say a supervisor would attend to inspect the windows.
On 21 April 2022 a works order was raised to overhaul “any type of PVCU window.” The resident emailed the landlord on 12 May 2022 to say that following the original temporary repair the resident had not received any further updates which was inappropriate. The lack of communication caused disappointment, inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 25 April 2022 apologised if the windows were not installed correctly, causing a draught. It said a draught excluder had been applied and inspected by a supervisor which “should address the issue.”

Events post complaints process

The evidence shows that the steps taken by the landlord did not resolve the issue. The resident continued to chase updates, including on 25 October, 3, 7, 8 and14 November 2022. The landlord replied on 17 November, 6 months after the resident raised the ongoing issue in May. It is unclear why the landlord delayed in responding to the resident therefore, it was inappropriate. This is because the lack of communication caused distress, inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 November 2022 to confirm that the installers had inspected the windows and said there was nothing wrong with them. He was told that the contractor who carried out the temporary repair needed to advise what was wrong with the fitting. He asked the landlord to follow up accordingly. Having received no response the resident was once again caused time, trouble and inconvenience when he chased the landlord on 15, 19 and 20 December.
The landlord visited the property with the window installer on 10 January 2023. While this was a positive step, it should have happened much earlier in the process so that the landlord could take its own view on what work was required. Furthermore, there are no records that the landlord provided an update to the resident following the visit. Therefore the resident was caused inconvenience, time and trouble in chasing the landlord on 11, 13 and 16 January. In his email of 16 January the resident said the draught was making the property “really cold.”
The landlord replied on 17 January 2023 to say that it was seeking further guidance on acceptable tolerances in relation to air flow and noise. There is no record of the outcome and no record that an update was provided to the resident which was inappropriate. However, the landlord’s records show that on 30 January it raised a works order to reglaze the window.
During the months that followed the resident advised the landlord that his wife suffered from anxiety and depression which was exacerbated by the situation. The landlord already knew that the resident was in the early stages of cancer.
During February and March 2023 the landlord carried out works in an attempt to remedy the problem with the main window.
In an email to the resident’s MP on 18 December 2023 the landlord concluded it was not possible to carry out further works to the current windows but that the situation was “much improved though there is still a very minor draught.” It said it could consider replacing all the windows as part of major refurbishment of the building when all windows were replaced or major works carried out to the exterior of the building requiring scaffolding. It said that because the resident was a leaseholder the cost of work would be recharged to him.
In its response to this Service on 12 July 2023 the landlord said that the unit was not replaced because the contractor who raised the order no longer worked for the landlord. It said it would arrange for a surveyor to assess the windows as a matter of urgency. It said an appointment made for 31 July was cancelled by the resident.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident, meaning he had to make a considerable effort to get a response from the landlord. It should have arranged to inspect the windows itself and followed up with the installer much earlier in the process to provide a resolution to the resident. It said it would learn from the complaint but did not set out its learning and what it would do differently. Furthermore, it did not attempt to put things right for the resident. There is no evidence that it had regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010 or that it complied with its maintenance policy to be flexible to the needs of vulnerable residents.
These failures amount to maladministration. This was because there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £500 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Complaint handling

The landlord emailed the resident on 20 January 2022 to acknowledge his stage 1 complaint, saying it would provide a response within 10 working days. It provided its response on 7 February, 12 days later. This was 2 days over its target however, the delay was short and therefore the distress caused to the resident was low.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Code (the Code) says that where a resident raises additional complaints during the investigation, and the stage 1 response has been issued, the landlord should raise a new stage 1 complaint. When the resident emailed the landlord on 7 February 2022 to escalate his complaint he added that the window was still not resolved. This was not part of the stage 1 complaint that the landlord considered.
The landlord should have raised a new stage 1 complaint rather than incorporate it into its stage 2 complaint response. Not doing so was detrimental to the resident because he did not have the opportunity to access the landlord’s whole complaints process to seek a resolution to the substantive issue. This may go some way to explaining why the landlord failed to use the complaint to resolve the ongoing issue with the window, which was a further failure.
The resident raised his stage 2 complaint on 7 February 2022. In its email to the resident of 8 February the landlord confirmed that the complaint had been escalated and that it would issue a response within 15 working days. The landlord issued its response on 25 April, 53 working days later. Its response was 33 days over target, causing disappointment to the resident. The landlord failed to acknowledge the delay in its response as way of putting things right which was inappropriate.
The Code says that where an extension beyond 10 days is required this should be agreed by both parties. The landlord did not provide an update to the resident until 4 March 2022 when it advised it hoped to issue its response by the end of the week which it failed to do. There is no evidence of any further updates between 4 March and 25 April which was inappropriate.
The Code says that the person considering the complaint at stage 2 must not be the same person that considered the complaint at stage 1. This is reflected in the landlord’s own complaints policy which adds that the investigator responding at stage 2 will be more senior. In this case the same officer responded at both stage 1 and stage 2. This was not appropriate because he was effectively reviewing his own complaint response and therefore, the resident could not be confident that an objective review had been carried out at stage 2.
This investigation has identified the following failures:
1. Complaint responses were not issued within the landlord’s timescales.
2. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident regarding the delay at stage 2.
3. A separate stage 1 complaint should have been raised in relation to the window.
4. The same member of staff issued both the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses.
These failures amount to maladministration because there was an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there is no permanent impact.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a boiler repair.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a window repair.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £1450 compensation comprised of:
  1. £800 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the failures in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a boiler repair. The landlord may deduct the £350 it has offered if this has already been paid.
  2. £500 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the failures in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a window repair.
  3. £150 for the disappointment caused by the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings in the case. A copy should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
3. Arrange for a surveyor by appointment to inspect all the windows and write to the resident to confirm what action it intends to take to remedy any defects. A copy should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should:
1. Carry out a review of the failings identified in this report and set out what it will do differently in future to avoid a recurrence. A copy should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.
2. Review its compensation policy against the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The outcome should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.