Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202200720)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200720

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

6 November 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 repairs to the resident’s front door.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. In June 2021, the landlord replaced the resident’s front door as it was broken. The door did not fit the doorframe correctly and so the landlord replaced the door again in August 2021. On arriving to paint the new door in September 2021, the landlord’s contractors were informed by the resident that this new door also did not fit correctly. She stated that there were gaps at the top and bottom of the door, and she required another new door. The contractors concluded that the door could be repaired rather than replaced. In October 2021, the contractors returned to paint the resident’s door. The colour they used did not match the previous coats of paint, and so the resident requested that they return with the correct colour.
  3. On 10 November 2021, the resident complained to the landlord that it had not finished the repairs to her front door, stating that the gaps had not been addressed and the paintwork was not complete. Although the landlord did not supply its stage one response to this Service, the resident has stated that it responded by inspecting the door. She has also explained that in December 2021, the contractors undertook repairs to the door, but accidentally made another gap between the door and the doorframe. The resident notified the landlord of this and requested that a surveyor assess the front door, as the contractors had made several mistakes in their attempts to repair it.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 17 January 2022. She stated that the works remained unfinished, and she did not feel secure in her home, due to the gaps around the door. In its stage two response on 8 February 2022, the landlord booked a repair appointment for its contractors to finish painting the door and to fit draft excluders. The resident was dissatisfied with this response, and filmed the contractor on the visit. As the filming made the contractor uncomfortable, he left, without completing the repairs. The landlord forwarded images of the door to its surveyor team, who stated that there didn’t appear to be issues with the door, and that a small gap was necessary to allow the door to swell in poor weather. The surveyors did state that the frame near the door lock needed to be tidied and redecorated.
  5. In March 2022, the landlord’s contractors attended the property to complete the remainder of the works. The resident was unhappy, as she wanted a new door to rectify the repairs. She refused to allow the contractors to complete the works. The resident stated that she wanted a surveyor to attend the property, to ascertain if a new door was necessary.
  6. The resident contacted this Service, and in June 2022 both parties agreed to take the complaint through mediation. The resident requested that a surveyor attend the property to assess the door repairs. The landlord agreed to send a surveyor out, and to undertake any recommended repairs. However, the landlord did not book a surveyor within a reasonable time. After several failed attempts to contact it, this Service proceeded to take the complaint to investigation in August 2022.
  7. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has stated that she wants the door to be rehung or replaced, and the doorframe to be made secure. She would also like the door to be painted in the same colour as the previous undercoats. The resident would like the landlord to send out a surveyor, as promised in mediation.

Assessment

  1. According to its repair policy, it is the landlord’s responsibility to repair the structure and exterior of the resident’s home, including external doors, hinges, handles, locks and door frames. The landlord’s maintenance policy states that it will ensure that resident’s front doors are secure, open and close freely, are wind and watertight and that locks are in good working order.
  2. The same policy states that non-emergency repairs should be completed within 15 working days. Amongst the examples of non-emergency repairs given are repairs to windows and external doors. The policy also states that some repairs will need more than one appointment to resolve. The landlord’s contractor will arrange the next appointment date if this is required, following the first appointment.
  3. The landlord was obligated by its repair policy to repair or replace the resident’s door, to ensure that it was secure and draft proof. To be in-line with its own repairs policy, the landlord was required to complete the resident’s repairs within 15 working days. The landlord first attended the resident’s repairs in June 2021, while the last repairs it undertook to the door was in March 2022. The same policy states that some repairs may need several attempts to fix an issue. However, the contractors appear to have contributed to the repair issue on several occasions, by cutting the door too small in June 2021, arriving with the incorrect topcoat colour in September 2021 and removing too much wood from the doorframe in December 2021. The number of visits required to rectify this repair issues, combined with the length of time it took was unreasonable and constitutes as a failing in the circumstances.
  4. When deciding on how best to proceed with the repair, although the landlord delays were unreasonable, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. In response to the resident’s complaints, the landlord sent its contractors to assess the door. It also sent images of the door to its survey team to be evaluated. Both the contractor and the surveyor concluded that the gap in the door was not excessive, and as such could be repaired rather than replaced.
  5. Due to the delays and mistakes made by the landlord, the resident lost faith in the landlord’s ability to adequately resolve her repair issues. On the landlord’s last visit in March 2022, the resident refused the repairs, as she felt that the landlord was not undertaking effective measures to ensure lasting repairs to her doors. She stated that the landlord should send a surveyor out to assess her door and to make recommendations. According to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, a resident should not refuse reasonable access to the landlord when it is undertaking necessary repairs to her property. The resident behaved unreasonably in restricting the landlord’s access to the property, as this hampered its ability to put right its mistakes and fix the repairs.
  6. While the landlord was entitled to rely on its contractor’s opinion that the door could have been repaired rather than replaced, it may have been helpful for the landlord/resident relationship to have sent out a surveyor to the property to assess the issue. This would have assured the resident that it was taking her concerns seriously and that no more errors would occur.
  7. In its final complaint response in February 2022, the landlord stated that it would resend its contractors out once again, to assess and repair the door. Whilst putting the substantive issue right is important, the landlord neglected to acknowledge or apologise for the delay in the resident gaining an effective repair.  It also did not acknowledge that its operatives had made several mistakes, when undertaking the repairs. The Complaint’s Handling Code (the code) states that “Effective dispute resolution requires a process designed to resolve complaints. Where something has gone wrong a landlord should acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right”. The landlord failed to identify its errors or delays and did not offer any redress to the resident in recognition of these failings. This was not appropriate and is a failing in the circumstances.
  8. Both parties agreed to participate in mediation with this Service. It was agreed that to solve the resident’s repair issues the landlord would send a surveyor to assess the door and to provide a recommendation on repairs. However, the landlord did not respond within a reasonable time period to this Service’s request for an update confirming that it had done so, meaning that the complaint progressed to investigation. This seems unnecessary as the complaint could have been resolved earlier, with less stress and inconvenience to both the landlord and the resident.
  9. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the amount of £250 compensation would provide adequate redress for the failures identified and is in line with our Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website). This is recommended for failings which have no permanent impact on the resident, but where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the repairs to the resident’s front door.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1.  Pay the resident £250 compensation, in recognition of the stress and inconvenience caused by the delays to her repairs.
    2. Liaise with the resident to organise a surveyor to visit the property and advise on the repairs needed.
    3. Contact this Service to confirm compliance with the order in this report.