Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202205137)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205137

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

8 December 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 the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to the resident’s kitchen following a leak from the property located above and from the external brickwork and carrying out an asbestos survey.
   2. The conduct of the landlord’s surveyor and contractors.
   3. The associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

2. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint which is made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
4. The resident stated as part of his complaint that he was unhappy with the conduct of the landlord’s surveyor and contractors. The evidence provided to the Ombudsman shows that the resident submitted a complaint in relation to this point to the landlord on 15 June 2022. However, the landlord did not provide the resident with a response to this aspect of the complaint. Therefore, this part of the complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord in October and November 2023 requesting it to issue a stage one complaint response for the resident’s complaint about the conduct of its surveyor and contractors or alternatively provide us with consent and the relevant documents to investigate this part of the complaint. The landlord confirmed with the Service on 15 November 2023 that it would be issuing the resident with a stage one complaint response within 10 working days. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to also consider its delay in responding to the resident’s complaint as part of its stage one response.
5. The resident may be able to refer the complaint about the conduct of the landlord’s surveyor and contractors to the Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.

Background

6. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident has stated that he has mental health vulnerabilities.
7. The resident emailed the landlord on 14 September 2021 expressing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the repairs to his property. He explained that he had been assured that the work to the walls such as plastering and rendering would be carried out after the leak had been repaired. The resident also explained that he had asked on several occasions for the black and red tiles at his property to be tested for asbestos and stated that the landlord had failed to carry out the asbestos test.
8. On 7 February 2022, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. He stated that there had been delays of 8 months in the landlord repairing the kitchen. He stated that he had been trying to prepare food in a kitchen which was partially destroyed.
9. On 16 February 2022, the landlord emailed the resident and explained that it would be issuing a stage 2 complaint response instead of a stage one complaint response because the resident had previously raised a similar complaint issue.
10. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 8 March 2022. It explained that the landlord’s surveyor contacted the resident on 15 September 2021 to confirm that works would be scheduled to repair the kitchen. The landlord also explained that an asbestos survey was also raised on 15 September 2021. However, the works identified following the survey were put on hold due to the leak from the property above. The landlord stated it was confirmed on 11 January 2022 that the leak from the boiler upstairs was fixed, but it was identified that there was water coming from the outside brickwork of the property. It explained that it had booked an appointment for 2 February 2022 to repoint the external brick work and an appointment for 7 February to inspect the additional works for the wall. However, the landlord stated that these appointments were then cancelled as the contractor was unwell, and they were rebooked for 18 February 2022. It acknowledged that there had been delays in the repairs being completed and apologised for the delay and inconvenience.
11. On 15 June 2022, the resident submitted an additional complaint to the landlord about the conduct of the landlord’s contractor and surveyor. The resident explained that the contractor commented that his call was an inconvenience, and that the resident was “moaning” on the call. In addition, the resident also raised that some of the contractors attended his property on 13 June 2022 and one of the contractors spent around 2-3 hours on a personal phone call.
12. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted his complaint to the Ombudsman. He stated that his desired outcome was for the landlord to complete the outstanding repairs, and he would like to receive compensation for the delays and inconvenience caused.
13. The resident confirmed with the Ombudsman in October 2023 that the replacement of the kitchen cupboards was still outstanding. He also stated that there was damp and mould on the kitchen walls and behind one of the cupboards.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen following a leak from the property located above and from the external brick work and carrying out an asbestos survey at the property.

Scope of Investigation

14. The resident raised concerns that the landlord’s contractor removed some of the asbestos from floor tiles in the property while he and his family were present in the same room. Whilst we acknowledge that this situation would have been distressing for the resident, the Ombudsman is not able to consider this incident in this investigation as it did not form part of the original complaint brought to the landlord. The resident is encouraged to raise a complaint about this incident directly with the landlord should he wish to pursue this matter. He may be able to refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied once he has received the landlord’s final response to his concerns about the asbestos removal incident.

15. The resident has mentioned as part of the complaint that the delay in the landlord repairing the damaged kitchen and resolving the damp and mould in the kitchen has impacted his physical health and mental health. The Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about his injuries. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether there is a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and any specific impact on the resident and his health. It would be more appropriately suited for a court or liability insurer to investigate a personal injury claim. Courts can award damages in a different way to the Ombudsman and review medical evidence. However, it is generally accepted that damp and mould can pose a significant risk to health. The Service can consider the general risk as well as any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord and the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his injuries.

Assessment

16. The landlord’s maintenance and repair policy explains that the landlord will respond to an emergency repair within 4 hours and make the impacted area safe. It also states that it will complete the repair within 24 hours. The policy also explains that it will respond to non-emergency repairs within 15 working days.
17. The landlord’s maintenance and repair policy also states that it considers leaking roofs, minor plumbing repairs, plasterwork, and external repairs as a non-emergency repair.
18. The landlord’s asbestos policy explains when asbestos containing materials are identified. The landlord will assess the risk and take the necessary steps to manage, remove or treat asbestos in order to eliminate or minimise the risk of exposure to asbestos airborne fibres.
19. The landlord’s surveyor visited the resident’s property on 10 August 2021 and carried out an inspection of the property. The surveyor recommended that the landlord contact the leaseholder located in the property above the resident’s to arrange for the leak to be repaired. They also recommended that the kitchen wall may potentially require knocking down and part of the wall may need to be rebuilt. However, the surveyor explained that further investigation was required by the contractor.
20. The resident emailed the landlord on 14 September 2021 and explained that he was assured that finishing work would take place once repairs were completed. He explained that the finishing work referenced was pointing, rendering, and plastering. However, it stated that the works were still yet to be completed. He also explained that he had requested on several occasions for the black and red tiles that run through the property to be tested for asbestos, but no action had been taken by the landlord. In addition, the resident sent a further email to the landlord explaining that there had been almost 8 months of delays from the landlord in repairing his kitchen. He also explained that there was a financial cost of running an industrial-sized dehumidifier.
21. From the information provided by the landlord and resident, it is unclear when the resident first requested the tiles in the property to be assessed for asbestos. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot determine whether there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord responding to this initial report. However, shortly after the resident contacted the landlord on 14 September 2021 and expressed dissatisfaction, the landlord arranged for an asbestos survey to be carried out. The landlord’s specialist asbestos contractor carried out an asbestos management survey at the resident’s property on 27 September 2021. Therefore, the landlord responded appropriately and arranged the survey promptly after the resident raised concerns about its delay.
22. The asbestos survey results showed that there were traces of asbestos contained in the floor in the bedrooms, lounge, electric cupboard, and hallway. In addition, there was also asbestos identified in the ceiling in the lounge. The surveyor recommended that the asbestos contained in the floor tiles in the first bedroom and electric cupboard should be removed, and then the remaining asbestos contained in the other rooms should be monitored and managed. From the evidence provided by the landlord it is unclear which date the asbestos was removed as the asbestos survey report does not include this information. However, the resident did confirm with the Ombudsman in October 2023 that the landlord’s contractor had removed some of the asbestos from the floor. Therefore, the landlord acted reasonably in this instance as it removed the asbestos from the required flooring which contained asbestos as referenced in the asbestos survey report. In addition, it was reasonable for the landlord to monitor and manage the remaining asbestos at the property, as a landlord is not obliged to remove asbestos from a domestic property if it is in a sound condition and can be left undisturbed. The landlord was entitled to rely on its surveyor’s advice that the asbestos could be safely left undisturbed within the property.
23. A leak from the property located above the resident’s property entered the resident’s kitchen and caused damage to the kitchen. The resident located in the property above was a leaseholder, so the landlord had to communicate with the leaseholder for them to repair the leak to the boiler before it could complete repairs to resolve the damage in the resident’s kitchen. The Ombudsman recognises that the delays related to the leak repair would have been outside the landlord’s control as it was the leaseholder’s responsibility to resolve the leak and the kitchen could not be repaired until the leak was resolved. The landlord confirmed with the leaseholder on 23 November 2023 that the leak was resolved.
24. Although the leak from the leaseholder property located above was resolved. It was identified on 11 January 2022 that there was water coming in from the external brickwork of the property which was leaking into the resident’s kitchen. The landlord booked an appointment for its contractor to repoint the bricks on 2 February 2022 and inspect additional works for the wall. However, there were delays with the appointment going ahead due to one of the contractors being unwell and due to a severe weather warning in the area. Therefore, an appointment was rebooked for 16 March 2022. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord needed to resolve the leak coming from the external brickwork prior to carrying out repairs to the damaged kitchen and the delays to this appointment were also beyond the landlord’s control.
25. There was a delay in the landlord completing works to resolve the damaged kitchen after both leaks had been resolved. The landlord’s contractor carried out works to the kitchen in July and August 2022, which involved plastering and painting the kitchen, filling the ceiling, and covering the exposed cables. The resident contacted the landlord at the end of August 2022, explaining that the plastering completed by the contractors was not completed to an acceptable standard. The landlord’s contractor carried out additional plastering in September and October 2022 and also completed further decoration.
26. The landlord’s repairs log references that there were major mould issues in the kitchen and also stated that the kitchen cupboards required replacing due to water damage. The resident has confirmed with the Ombudsman that the replacement of the kitchen cupboards and works to resolve the damp and mould are still outstanding. The landlord explained that the reason the repairs were still outstanding was because several key staff left, and it changed contractor. The landlord informed the Ombudsman on 15 November 2023 that it had booked an appointment for 27 November 2023 to replace the kitchen cupboards. The resident has confirmed with the Ombudsman that the kitchen cupboards were replaced on the agreed date of 27 November 2023. Overall, the delay in the landlord completing all the necessary repairs to resolve the damage in the resident’s kitchen was unreasonable, and the Ombudsman recognises it must have been difficult for the resident and his family living with a damaged kitchen containing damp and mould for such a long period of time, particularly as the resident had mental health vulnerabilities and his child living with him at the property.
27. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response sent to the resident in March 2022 that there were delays in it carrying out works to resolve the leak and the kitchen damage. However, it failed to offer the resident compensation to recognise the delays and inconvenience. In addition, it is evident that there were further delays in it carrying out works to repair the resident’s kitchen after the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. Therefore, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen following a leak from the property located above and from the external brickwork and carrying out an asbestos survey at the property.
28. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £600 to recognise the considerable delay and inconvenience the resident has experienced due to the landlord’s failure to completely repair the resident’s damaged kitchen. The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident but there was no permanent impact. In this case, although the delayed repairs would have caused distress and inconvenience, there may be no permanent impact on the resident from this as some of the repairs to the kitchen were completed.
29. The resident stated as part of his complaint that the landlord provided him with an industrial-sized dehumidifier to run in his property, which was causing him a financial cost. Considering there was significant delay in the landlord completing works to repair the damaged kitchen and there is still damp and mould present in the resident’s kitchen, the Ombudsman believes it would be reasonable for the landlord to reimburse the resident for his increased electricity usage from using the dehumidifier. Therefore, it is recommended that the landlord reviews the resident’s electricity bills for the period he has used the dehumidifier and the same period the year before for comparison and pays the resident compensation for any increased electricity usage he experienced due to using the dehumidifier.
30. In addition, a significant amount of time has passed since the landlord surveyed the kitchen and there are still repairs outstanding. The Ombudsman believes it would be appropriate for the landlord to arrange for the resident’s kitchen to be inspected to identify any outstanding works and the landlord should draw up a schedule of the required works including works to resolve the damp and mould in the kitchen. The schedule of works should include approximate timescales of when the works will be carried out.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

31. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The code states that a stage one response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also explains that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy includes the same timescale as the Code for stage one responses. However, it references a 15 working day timescale for providing stage 2 complaint responses.
32. The Code also states that a landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. In addition, it explains when a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage one of the landlord’s complaint procedure within 5 days of receipt.
33. The landlord’s complaints policy explains that it has a 2-stage process for complaints to ensure its customers have the opportunity to challenge its decisions and for these to be reviewed. The code also states that a landlord must only escalate a complaint to stage 2 once it has competed stage one and this must be at the request of the resident.
34. The Code defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or actions on its behalf affecting a resident or group of residents. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same complaint definition as the Code.
35. The resident emailed the landlord on 14 September 2021, expressing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the repairs to his property. He explained that he had been assured that the work on the walls such as plastering and rendering would be carried out after the leak had been repaired. The resident also explained that he had asked on several occasions for the black and red tiles at his property to be tested for asbestos and stated that the landlord had failed to carry out the asbestos test.
36. The landlord failed to log the resident’s email as a complaint. The Ombudsman believes this was unreasonable. The resident expressed dissatisfaction and provided valid complaint points for his email to be considered as a complaint. Therefore, we would have expected the landlord to consider the resident’s email dated 14 September 2021 as a complaint and issue a stage one complaint response in this instance. The landlord did not comply with its own complaints policy and the Code when it failed to log the resident’s email as a complaint and delayed the resident from bringing his complaint to the Ombudsman.
37. The landlord acknowledged and logged the resident’s correspondence dated 7 February 2022 as a complaint. However, instead of following the stage 2 complaint process, it issued the resident with a stage 2 complaint response instead of a stage one response. The landlord explained to the resident that he had previously raised similar repair issues, so believed it would be more appropriate to issue a stage 2 response. The stage 2 response was provided to the resident on 8 March 2022.
38. The Ombudsman recognises that the resident previously expressed dissatisfaction about the repair issues in his email from September 2021. However, there is no evidence that a stage one complaint response had been issued to the resident for the specific repair issues raised in his complaint emails. Therefore, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to issue a stage one complaint response prior to issuing a stage 2 complaint. Its failure to do this has resulted in the landlord not complying with its own complaints policy or the Code. It also resulted in the resident not having the opportunity to challenge the landlord’s complaints decision and request a review.
39. Considering the landlord’s multiple complaint handling errors. There has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This amount is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance as referenced above.

Determination (decision)

40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen following a leak from the property located above and from the external brickwork and carrying out an asbestos survey at the property.
41. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint relating to the landlord’s handling of the conduct of the surveyor and contractors is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
42. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

43. The landlord is to inspect the resident’s kitchen and draw up a schedule of the required works to resolve the damp and mould issues in the resident’s kitchen and any other outstanding damage in the kitchen. The schedule is to include timescales of when the works will be completed. The timescales should be in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. A copy of the schedule should be sent to the resident and to the Service.
44. The landlord to pay the resident £600 compensation for its repairs to the resident’s kitchen following a leak from the property located above and from the external brickwork and carrying out an asbestos survey at the property.
45. The landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation for its complaint handling errors.
46. The above orders should be complied with, within 5 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

47. It is recommended that the landlord reimburse the resident for his increased electricity usage for the period he used the dehumidifier upon receiving a copy of the resident’s electric bills. The resident should provide the landlord with a copy of his electric bills covering the period he used the dehumidifier and for the same period for the previous year before the resident started using the dehumidifier. This will enable the landlord to identify any increased usage during the period when the repairs were ongoing.