Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202205060)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205060

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

14 March 2023

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:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ventilation, skirting, and window repairs.
   2. The landlord’s complaint’s handling.

Background

2. The resident is an assured shorthold joint tenant along with his wife. The property is a first floor flat which the resident occupies with his wife andthree children.
3. The resident reported trouble with his extractor fan in October 2020. On 20 January 2021 the landlord raised this issue with its contractors and this was inspected on 23 March 2021. At this time, the contractor identified mould growth in multiple rooms and that the extractor fans were not working. It subsequently agreed that it would re-attend to fit passive vents in two bedrooms and the lounge, and address the mould.
4. On 20 April 2021 the landlord’s contractor undertook a further inspection and again the landlord agreed with the resident that it would address the mould, skirting, and window reveals in the resident’s bedrooms, bathroom, and lounge. It would also improve the household ventilation.
5. On 21 July 2021 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. He explained that there had been a failure to maintain regular contact and that he had been messed around by the contractor. The resident highlighted that the works were still outstanding despite nine months passing since first being reported. In further correspondence on the same day, he set out that £4,000 was due to replace his damaged items but that he could not seek reimbursement via his own contents insurance.
6. On 22 July 2021 the landlord responded, setting out that as it understood, only snagging works remained outstanding. It offered the resident £150 compensation and advised the resident that it had passed his request to its insurance section who advised that it would not deal with a tenant’s claim for damage to personal belongings. It additionally noted the resident’s dissatisfaction with its contractors assertion that there was no access on 16 July 2022. It confirmed it would take this up with its contractor.
7. In correspondence on the same day, on 15 August 2021, and 26 October 2021, the resident set out that he had been ignored and that the landlord’s contractors had refused to undertake works during an unprompted visit. The landlord therefore offered a response on 9 November 2021. It noted that whilst moisture could have been alleviated by natural ventilation until the resident’s fans were repaired, it had taken longer than it should have. The landlord awarded £500 compensation in recognition of its failure “to meet its own service targets” and to act “reasonably in resolving your [the resident’s] concerns in a timely manner”. It reiterated this in a formal, final response on the following day.
8. The resident has advised this Service that he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of matters. He seeks for the landlord to replace or reimburse him for damage to his personal belongings and to carry out the repairs agreed. The resident reports that he and his wife have been experiencing anxiety and depression and his daughter, asthma attacks.

Assessment and findings

Scope

9. The resident has explained to this Service that due to the landlord’s handling of matters, his family’s health suffered. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to reasonably determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or inaction) and any deterioration in the resident’s family’s health. As such, if the resident wishes to pursue this matter, he will need to do so via the courts. This matter will not be commented on within this report.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ventilation, skirting, and window repairs.

10. There was no dispute that the landlord was responsible for addressing the issues with the resident’s windows, skirting boards, and ventilation system once it became aware of it. The landlord appropriately accepted this responsibility and advised the resident of the steps it would take to put things right. The landlord also identified mould growth in several areas of the resident’s property. On review of the evidence provided by both the resident and landlord, however, this Service can see that there were clear failures in the steps the landlord took.
11. The resident first reported trouble with the extractor fan as early as October 2020. Records suggest that it took the landlord approximately 11 weeks to respond to that first report and then another eight weeks to inspect the property, after being prompted by the resident’s MP.
12. Despite several months passing by this time, however, no progress was made to rectify the issues. The Ombudsman can see that instead, four-weeks later, the landlord arranged yet another inspection to take place on 20 April 2021, following which, it again agreed works. This was unnecessary and only further delayed the landlord in performing its repair responsibilities. Notwithstanding this, a further three weeks passed before a repair order was raised to renew the skirting and it was not until mid-May 2021 that an order was raised in relation to the ventilation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord (and its contractor) subsequently failed to demonstrate that it was taking the resident’s situation seriously or to act with any urgency given the delays he had already experienced.
13. The landlord’s maintenance policy indicates that for non-emergency repairs, works will be carried out within 15 working days. Moreover, under the Right to Repair Scheme, mechanical extractor fans in the internal kitchen or bathroom, and rotten timber floor or stair tread should be addressed within five calendar days. The Ombudsman would also expect mould to be treated at the earliest opportunity, given that the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 places a responsibility on the landlord to ensure that properties are free of damp and mould.
14. In light of this, it would have been reasonable for the resident to have expected works to have been completed soon after he brought the matters to the landlord’s attention in October 2020, or at the latest, in March 2021 upon the landlord identifying the full scale of works for itself. This was not the case, however.
15. While the Ombudsman has been unable to identify the specific date that the works were completed, the landlord’s repair record show that it raised an invoice for the installation of the vent system and mould treatment on 16 August 2021. This was ten months after the resident raised his concerns with the ventilation in the property, and several months after the mould was identified. The Ombudsman notes that the works to address the skirting still remained incomplete at this time.
16. It appears that some work was undertaken to renew the skirtingbut that this work remained incomplete even after the landlord’s complaint response in November 2021. This is confirmed by the landlord’s repair record which demonstrates that the landlord raised a work order in December 2021 to renew the skirting boards in several of the resident’s rooms. This far exceeded the timeframe for repair set out in the landlord’s maintenance policy, even though the resident reported that the woodwork was rotting.
17. In the landlord’s final response, it accepted that the repair of the fans took longer than they should have. It acknowledged that it failed to meet its own service targets and to resolve the resident’s concerns in a timely manner. While it was not specific about the issues it should have dealt with quicker, this was appropriate. It subsequently made an offer of £500 to recognise its failings, which was the maximum amount of discretionary compensation under its policy.
18. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, the landlord’s offer of redress was not sufficient in putting things right. Given that works still remained outstanding, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have set out how and when it intended to complete the works once and for all. The landlord’s failure to do this meant that the resident remained dissatisfied about the outstanding works to his skirting boards, which had been agreed several months earlier. While clause 18 of the landlord’s maintenance policy indicates that the service standard is to keep the resident’s home in good repair, it did not honour this.
19. This Service has been unable to establish what steps were taken to address the window reveals at the resident’s property, although it does appear that these were completed as the resident did not note this as an outstanding matter.
20. With regards to the landlord’s interaction with the resident, the resident did also complain about poor communication, a poor service, and unprompted visits to his property. While the landlord’s maintenance policy suggests that it will keep a resident informed and that its contractors will confirm appointments prior to attendance, records do not demonstrate that it did.
21. What’s more, where the resident raised his dissatisfaction that the landlord’s contractor had refused to undertake works to repair the skirting board, the landlord advised that it would take this forward with its contractor. This Service cannot see that the landlord did this, however, or that it further communicated with the resident on this matter.
22. Finally, the Ombudsman is aware that the resident remained dissatisfied as the landlord declined to accept his reimbursement request for alleged damaged items.
23. The landlord’s complaints policy explains that it will not deal with insurance claims within its complaints process. Its maintenance policy also sets out that it will not be “liable for any damage to personal belongings, except in certain circumstances, for example where negligence on [its] part is proved. [It] will not insure residents’ personal belongings including furniture, and residents are responsible for this”. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord advised the resident that if he wished to seek reimbursement for damage to his personal belongings, he needed to do this via his own contents insurance (if he held this). The resident also would have been required to raise his claim within 28 days of the incident and to have offered the landlord the opportunity to inspect the items before they were replaced or disposed of, as per its compensation policy.
24. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, given that the landlord accepted that its failure to replace the fans contributed to the difficulty in dealing with the moisture in the property, it might have also been reasonable for the landlord to have shared the details of its insurer to allow the resident to put a claim in. The Ombudsman has subsequently made a recommendation below for the landlord to share these details.

The landlord’s complaint handling

25. The landlord’s complaints policy envisages customer concerns being resolved after the “first point of contact” and will treat them as “Service Requests” where there will be, for example, a manager call back, an on-the-spot apology or action to resolve the repair immediately.
26. In considering the resident’s initial contact in October 2020, however, there is no record of a call back from a manager, action to resolve the repair immediately or any apology at this stage. As such, inevitably, the resident grew frustrated and raised a complaint about the landlord’s services.
27. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a two-stage process which seeks to resolve complaints at stage one within 10 working days and at stage two, within 20 working days.
28. Additionally, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) requires landlords to confirm in writing to the resident at the completion of stage one in clear, plain language: the complaint stage, the complaint definition, the decision on the complaint, the reason for any decision made, the details of any remedy offered to put things right, details of any outstanding actions, and details of how the resident can escalate the matter to stage two if they remain dissatisfied. The Code also sets out that landlord’s must only escalate a complaint to stage two once it has completed stage one and at the request of the resident.
29. Noting this, it is clear that the landlord failed to adopt the appropriate approach upon receiving the resident’s initial complaint in July 2021. Despite the resident’s clear dissatisfaction with how his repairs had been handled, this Service can see that the landlord continued to treat the matter as just “a repair case” and “not yet a complaint/disrepair”. It subsequently did not offer the resident a formal stage one response, including the complaint stage, definition, the decision on the complaint, the outstanding actions, or how the resident could escalate the matter.
30. Moreover, despite receiving correspondence from the resident on 26 July 2021 and again on 15 August 2021, the landlord made no attempt to escalate his complaint to stage two of its complaints process. This was inappropriate. The subsequent result was that the resident’s further dissatisfaction was not addressed until November 2021, taking the resident four-months in total to exhaust the landlord’s complaints process.
31. The Ombudsman cannot see that in the landlord’s complaint response, it recognised its poor handling of the resident’s complaint or its failure to act in accordance with its policy / the Code. As such, it made no offer of redress to recognise this and to put things right. The Ombudsman has therefore concluded that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ventilation, skirting, and window repairs.
33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

34. The landlord is order to:
    1. Award the resident £200, on top of the £500 already offered (£700 in total), in recognition ofits handling of the resident’s repairs.
    2. Arrange an inspection of the resident’s property. Any further outstanding works identified at this time should be discussed with the resident and a date agreed for works to be completed. The landlord should undertake a post-works inspection which the resident should sign off.
    3. Award the resident £200 in recognition of its complaints handling.
35. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence that it has completed the above actions within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

36. The landlord should provide the resident with the appropriate forms for him to put forward a claim for his damaged items. The resident will need to keep in mind that he will still be required to provide all receipts / evidence needed to satisfy the landlord’s process.
37. The landlord should review its approach to complaint handling, and remind itself of the expectations set out within the Code, available on this Service’s website.