Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202209183)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209183

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

18 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:

Damp, mould and draughty windows;
Overcrowding;
A bed bug infestation;
Drug use within the building;
The communal lift not working.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives as an assured tenant in a one bedroom property with his family. His tenancy began in October 2015.
The resident has stated that his child has a ‘skin condition and breathing issues’.

Legal and Policy Framework

As per Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair outside walls, windows, internal walls, floors and ceilings. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. Section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies an obligation into the tenancy agreement that the landlord must ensure the property is ‘fit for human habitation‘ in relation to, by virtue of Section 10 of the same act, ventilation.
The landlord’s Maintenance Policy lists two repair priorities, Priority one refers to emergency repairs, which are attended to and made safe within four hours and rectified within 24 hours. Priority two refers to non-emergency repairs, which the landlord aims to complete within 15 working days. The policy states that some repairs will need more than one appointment to resolve and its “contractor will arrange the next appointment date if this is required”. In addition, the landlord’s Lift Policy states that it will deal with any reported repair requirements in accordance with the Repairs Policy. “All works will be undertaken by people competent to do so”.
The landlord’s Damp and Mould policy’s key points include undertaking effective investigations and implementing all reasonable remedial repair solutions and improvements to eradicate damp, including managing and controlling condensation and ensuring that residents have access to and/or are provided with comprehensive advice and guidance on managing and controlling damp and condensation. The policy also states that, to manage risk, it will undertake effective inspection and diagnosis and use appropriate equipment to both investigate and remedy the problem. Although the policy was published after the landlord issued its stage two complaint response, it consolidates some of the good practice that would be expected of the landlord for such issues.
The tenancy agreement states that the resident, “must not allow the property to become statutorily overcrowded”. It goes on to say that, “the property will be overcrowded if the number of people living in it means that a male and female over twelve years old (unless they are living together as partners) will have to share the same bedroom”.
The landlord’s Housing Allocations Policy states that, “a management transfer can be considered if a tenant or member of their household is at risk of significant harm from someone not living in their household. This can be due to serious domestic abuse, gang violence, or being a victim of cuckooing or hate crime”. The policy also says that there are circumstances where the landlord will consider a management transfer following receipt of an official medical report from an occupational therapist or qualified medical practitioner.

Summary of events

The resident called the landlord on 28 November 2018 to raise concerns about drug use in his building. The landlord wrote to him on the same day to reassure him that there was a security guard working in the building 25 hours a week. It added that it had recently installed a new fence to restrict access and added key fob access to the laundry room to prevent misuse of the facilities. The landlord stated that it also planned to introduce key fob access to the lobby. It had visited the building the previous week with the police and sniffer dogs, which it planned to repeat. It encouraged the resident to report any concerns about criminal activity to the police.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 August 2019 to ask when the lift would be fixed. The landlord stated that its contractor was waiting for the manufacturer to deliver a part. Once the part arrived, it would fix the lift as a priority. It is not clear from the records when the repair was completed.
The resident, through his Tenancy Support Coordinator, reported mould in his property on 7 January 2021 and, on 21 January 2021, the landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection. The surveyor reported mould in the bathroom, a working extractor fan, no humidistat, the panel heater switched off and a defective trickle vent. The inspection added that the window was working. The surveyor recommended several actions that included an upgrade of the kitchen fan, a mould wash, overhauling of the defective front door and stain blocking of the window reveals. As the resident’s partner was asleep at the time, the surveyor was unable to access the bedroom.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 February 2021 because he had not heard from it since the inspection and said he was ‘very concerned for his two month old baby’s health. He called again on 4 March 2021 to chase some of repairs and the landlord told him its contractor would be in contact to arrange an appointment.
On 16 April 2021, the resident called the landlord to advise that the operative was at the property and that, although he was there to address the issues in the bathroom, lounge and around the front door, the works order did not include addressing the mould in the bedroom. On 19 April 2021, the landlord asked the resident to send it images of the mould in his bedroom.
The resident called the landlord on 22 April 2022 to report that he had heard there was a snake loose in the building. The landlord advised him that it was ‘a little harmless pet snake on the 6th floor and does not travel around’. It added that the snake was not toxic. It assured the resident it had contacted the RSPCA and had also arranged for a contractor to deal with the matter. The landlord recorded that the resident was ‘ok with this’.
On 17 and 18 October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report that the lift was out of service and it advised him that the repair had been raised as an emergency, and the contractor would be there shortly.
On 29 May 2022, the resident raised a stage one complaint, where he stated the following:

He was struggling with overcrowding, pests, damp and mould, windows letting in cold air and a strong smell of cannabis, which was making it very difficult to breathe and sleep.
Although the Lettings Team had sent a letter telling him he had to move out of his flat because it was no longer suitable, it had not provided him with any help to find alternative accommodation.
He stated that the building was full of drug users and was not a place to bring up a baby. An environmental health officer, doctor and health visitor had all visited and said the property was not suitable for a family.
He said he had pests in his home, ‘from snakes to fleas and bed bugs’ and stated how stressful it was to have a snake on the loose with a young child in the property.
There was a lot of damp and mould. The windows needed repairing as they were letting in cold air, and it was more expensive than ever to heat up the property.
The lift was always breaking down and he wanted a refund on his service charge, and to be compensated for the stress this was putting on him and his family.
The resident asked the landlord to re-house him through a management move or, if that was not possible, to serve him with a letter of notice, which would allow him to start the rehousing process with the local council.

The landlord sent him a stage one response on 21 June 2022, which stated the following:

It was sorry to hear about the condition of the resident’s property and the damp and mould. The landlord stated that it had arranged for a surveyor to visit the property on 1 July 2022 to assess the reported damp, mould and drafty windows.
The landlord appreciated that the lift was old and said it was “trying to keep it going and replacing key components” while it looked at replacing it. It confirmed it was waiting for quotes from the lift maintenance contractor and the decision would lie with the senior management team as to whether it proceeded with either a ‘piece meal upgrade’ or full replacement.
It was aware that there was an issue with pests in the block and its pest control contractors had been working through the building, and the work was ongoing. It said that difficulties in accessing some properties could reduce the effectiveness of the treatment. It reassured the resident that it would continue to work with the residents in the building to eradicate the problem.
It said that, due to the nature of the scheme and, because the resident and his partner had a baby, the accommodation was no longer suitable for them. However, as the resident was not eligible for a management move, the landlord would not be taking any action to force him out of his current accommodation. It apologised for the confusing communication it had sent.
It understood the resident wanted to move to a different property and provided in its letter the contact details of its Home Moves team, who would be able to support him to explore the available options.

The resident called the landlord on 22 June 2022 to say the following:

He wanted a rebate on his service charge due to the lift not working since January 2022, and was unhappy that the complaint response did not mention any compensation for this. The landlord informed the resident that its contractor was waiting for some parts and would attend the following week to carry out the repairs.
The resident added that the operative he had spoken to previously had refused to let him speak to the Home Moves team, which was contrary to the letter of response. This had told him to contact them so they could help him. The landlord told him that he could register with the mutual exchange service and the council’s housing register.
The resident said he was not happy with the windows in his property, and the damp and mould. The landlord told him that it had booked for a surveyor to visit on 1 July 2022.

The landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection on 1 July 2022 and recommended a mould wash of the kitchen ceiling, to overhaul the bathroom door, fit a new bathroom light and refit the bath panel. The surveyor reported that the windows were not defective and that the mould was ‘due to lack of cleaning by the occupants’. The surveyor advised the resident on the cause of the mould and recommended cleaning products he could use.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 July 2022, asking to escalate his complaint, and stated the following:

For years, he had been struggling with overcrowding, pests, damp, mould and drafty windows.
The resident stated that the property was a ‘hotspot’ for drug users.
He said that he pays a service charge and yet the lift had been out of service for five weeks, and that he should be refunded for this.
The Lettings team had failed to look into these issues but, because he and his partner had become parents, they had instead sent him a letter telling him to look for alternative accommodation.
Whilst the resident was aware he was living in an adults only property, the landlord had failed to provide any support to help him find new accommodation.
He said that the surveyor had visited on 1 July 2022 and, instead of providing the necessary support, he indicated that there was no point in fixing the damp issue because the mould would just reappear after 18 days. He suggested the resident keep the windows open all the time, which was an unacceptable response.
The situation was causing him and his partner a great deal of anxiety and distress, and fear for the health of his child.

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 12 July 2022 and sent its stage two response on 22 July 2022, which stated the following:

It stated that the landlord did not operate a transfer list in the area and was therefore unable to add the resident to a waiting list or make a direct offer of alternative accommodation. It advised the resident to speak to the council with regard to joining its housing register or seek a mutual exchange via the Home Swapper service.
The landlord assured the resident that its Lettings team would not send a letter to anyone asking them to leave a property.
It was aware of the issues regarding drug use at the housing scheme and, as it was located in the city centre, it did attract certain issues. It said there had recently been some police raids at some of its properties, which had helped make things better. It stated that it had also worked closely with its security provider and the police to further improve the situation.
It stated that, with regard to the pest issue, it had sent the resident a letter requesting access so it could investigate. It was yet to hear back and gave the resident an email address to request a date that the Pest Control team could attend the property.

On 22 July 2022, the landlord completed the works as recommended following the inspection of 1 July 2022, which included a mould wash of the kitchen ceiling, repair of the bathroom door and light, and refitting of the bath panel.
On 19 December 2022, the landlord’s Tenancy Solutions team sent the resident a letter that stated the following:

It had become aware that the resident had recently become a parent.
It stated that the scheme was part of a local lettings policy with the council that was suitable as ‘strictly adult accommodation only’.
The landlord stated that, in light of the resident’s circumstances, it was no longer appropriate for him to continue living in the property and requested that he sought alternative accommodation.
It asked the resident to contact it at his earliest convenience to discuss how it could support him through the process.

The landlord carried out a further damp and mould inspection on 10 February 2023. It reported that two of the three windows in the bedroom were locked, there was heavy condensation on the window frames, glazing, plaster reveals and window board and the trickle vents were closed. The surveyor recommended a three stage mould eradication to the bedroom wall and that a ‘forced ventilation’ system was installed in the flat, in accordance with current building regulations. The inspection found no damp or mould in the bathroom.
On 14 and 31 March 2023, the landlord replaced the extractor fan in the kitchen, repaired the living room window and carried out a mould wash of the kitchen, bathroom and living room.

Assessment and findings

Damp, mould and draughty windows

The landlord acted appropriately in carrying out damp and mould inspections in response to the resident’s reports. The evidence shows it completed three inspections. One took place on 21 January 2021 in response to a report made on 7 January 2021, one on 1 July 2022 in response to the resident’s stage one complaint of 21 June 2022 and one on 10 February 2023 following a call from the resident on 17 January 2023. It is positive to note that the landlord was prompt in arranging and carrying out all three inspections and that comprehensive reports were recorded for all the surveys.
Although, following the inspections of 1 July 2022 and 10 February 2023, the landlord completed the recommended works within a reasonable amount of time, there was a delay of around two months to complete works following the initial inspection. Although the delay was not overly excessive, the landlord could have communicated better with the resident following completion of the survey. Instead, the resident was left to chase for an update after he had not heard from the landlord since the recommendations were made. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident, apologise for any delay and provide an update as to when the works would likely take place. This would have put the resident’s mind at rest and reduced any uncertainly he may have had about the works going ahead.
It is noted that all three damp and mould surveys identified condensation and poor ventilation as the main cause for the damp and mould problems. The landlord acted appropriately in taking prompt action to address the ventilation issues, which included providing the resident with advice on managing condensation, replacing extractor fans, and carrying out mould washes in order to clear the mould that was present. However, the resident mentioned that keeping windows open would present affordability issues. The landlord could have been more customer-focused and checked whether there was any affordability advice and support available, that would help the resident to follow its advice on managing condensation.
The evidence shows that the surveyor was unable to gain access to the bedroom during the initial inspection, which explains why the landlord did not include that room as part of the repairs carried out on 16 April 2021. Although the landlord was not at fault, it could have contacted the resident shortly after the inspection and arranged a time that the surveyor could return to look at the bedroom so it was included in the overall works programme. This would have demonstrated a more customer-focused approach, and given the landlord an opportunity to tackle the damp and mould issue in the property as a whole.
There is no evidence the landlord carried out a risk assessment in order to explore the potential impact the damp and mould could have had on the resident and his family, or the risk to the property. Although not a specific requirement of its policy, this would have been good practice given the potential risk the mould could have posed on the resident and a small child. However, it is positive to note that the landlord took a proactive approach in addressing the damp and mould in the property.
Shortly after the resident alerted the landlord to the possible risks, and his concerns for his baby’s health, it acted appropriately in arranging a damp and mould inspection on 10 February 2023. The landlord acted within its Damp and Mould Policy by using appropriate equipment such as damp meters. It raised further works, including a three stage mould wash, extractor fan repair and window repair. It is also positive to note that, in order to further resolve the ventilation issues, the inspection recommended the installation of a mechanical ventilation system.
It is noted that, although the inspections found no faults with the windows, the evidence shows that the landlord did complete repairs to some of the windows in the property. It is also noted that, following the works to the bathroom, following the initial inspection, the subsequent inspections found no further damp and mould problems in that room. This is supported by photographs that show there were no signs of mould in the bathroom at the time of the survey. This indicates that the works the landlord had carried out were sufficient to resolve the problem.
The evidence shows that the landlord took reasonable steps to address the damp and mould in the resident’s property. Although there were some delays and the landlord’s communication could have been better after the first inspection, the delays were not excessive and the landlord took a proactive approach in dealing with the resident’s concerns. It was prompt in arranging inspections and repairs and the evidence shows it had maintained an effective and competent working relationship with its repairs contractors.

Overcrowding

The landlord’s Housing Allocations Policy states that, “far more people, both on Local Authority housing registers and our existing customers, are in housing need than there will be properties available. Therefore, it will not be possible to help all applicants. Only existing customers with an identified housing need will be able to apply to transfer, all others will need to look to mutual exchange in order to move”.
The Ombudsman wishes to acknowledge that the resident and his family have experienced discomfort over a period of time, while living in cramped conditions. The Ombudsman recognises how upsetting it must be to experience this problem, especially when looking after a very young child. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding overcrowding; however, it should be noted that, although not an ideal situation, the resident and his family were not subject to statutory overcrowding under the Housing Act 1985. The landlord would therefore not have an obligation to provide an urgent move to alternative accommodation.
Although the resident’s flat was situated within a scheme that was designated for adults only, the resident and his partner became parents, and therefore the property was no longer suitable for them. The landlord acted appropriately in exercising its discretion and allowing the resident to remain in the property until he found alternative accommodation that suited his family’s needs. The landlord was however at fault in its communication regarding whether or not the resident could continue to occupy his current property.
The landlord assured the resident in its stage one response of 21 June 2022 that it would, “not be taking any enforcement action” to force the resident out of his current accommodation and apologised for any ‘confusing communication’. However, it sent a letter on 19 December 2022, stating, “in light of your circumstances, it is no longer appropriate for you to continue living” in the current property, “so we are sorry but we must request that you now seek alternative accommodation”. This demonstrates a lack of coordination between different teams, which resulted in the resident receiving mixed and confusing messages about whether or not he would be able to stay in his property. This would have caused a degree of distress and uncertainly, and exacerbated his sense of urgency to find new accommodation.
It should also be noted that, although the stage one complaint response signposted the resident to its Home Moves team, which would help support him look for another property, the evidence suggests that he had difficulty accessing the service and that the resident was being blocked by staff from accessing that team. Again, this demonstrates a lack of coordination and information sharing between different teams, which meant the resident’s ability to access support was made unnecessarily difficult. This shows the lack of a customer-focussed approach and would only have served to exacerbate an already stressful situation.
There was no evidence to show that the landlord was at fault in the way it applied its management move policy in this case, and the landlord acted appropriately in managing the resident’s expectations and informing him at an early stage that he would not be eligible for a management move. As the landlord does not operate a transfer list in the resident’s area, the landlord acted correctly in advising the resident of his re-housing options, which would be to either apply to join the council’s housing register and/or apply to join the mutual exchange scheme. Due to the lack of available properties, it may be helpful to the resident to widen his areas of choice as this may enable him to source alternative housing within a shorter timescale.

Bed bug infestation

In response to the resident’s reports of a bed bug infestation, the evidence shows that the landlord attempted to gain access to the resident’s property several times between November 2021 and February 2022 without success. The landlord was also in the process of completing a pest control programme within the block. Although it had been working through the individual flats in the building when the resident raised his complaint, the records indicate that the landlord was having difficulty treating all of the properties because some tenants were refusing access.
There is also evidence the landlord had sent a letter to the resident with regard to gaining access in order to investigate the pest issues. At the time it issued its stage two response, it was, “yet to hear anything regarding the access”. The landlord acted appropriately in giving the resident a contact email address to arrange a suitable date to give access to the landlord’s pest control team. In light of its actions, the evidence shows that the landlord took all reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns about bed bugs in his property.

Drug use within the building

Although the Ombudsman recognises how distressing it must be to live in a building where there is drug use taking place, the records show that the landlord acted appropriately in its response to the resident’s reports and that it took all reasonable steps to address the issue. There is evidence that the resident had been reporting drug use in his building from 2018. In 28 November 2018, the landlord outlined steps it had taken to tackle this problem, which included employing a security guard to patrol the building at different times of the day and night, installing a fence to make it more difficult for potential drug users to enter and installing key fob entry in the building to ensure only residents could gain access.
The evidence also shows that the landlord was working with the police on an ongoing basis, that police had visited the building with sniffer dogs and that several police raids had taken place resulting in an improved situation. As the landlord demonstrated a proactive approach in dealing with drug use in the resident’s building, it was not at fault in the way it dealt with his reports regarding this matter.

Communal lift not working

The landlord provided the communal lift maintenance records, which show that the lift was serviced on a monthly basis. Although the evidence shows there were nine breakdowns logged between October 2021 and May 2022, the records indicate that seven of these were fixed within a day of the fault being reported, five of which were repaired within five hours. Although the resident reported that, on one occasion, the lift had been out of service for five weeks, the evidence confirms that there was an intermittent fault for a period of around a month, while the contractor waited for appropriate parts, and that the lift was working for most of the time during this period. The records also indicate that the faults were all due to different issues rather than the same reoccurring issue, which included lift ‘misuse’. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord had taken reasonable to steps to maintain the lift and ensure it remained operational.
Although the Ombudsman understands how frustrating and inconvenient it can be when faced with lift breakdowns, particularly when the resident lives on an upper floor and has a young child, the landlord cannot be criticised for having to work within its existing budgets when considering the cost of a complete lift replacement. The landlord acted appropriately when it managed the resident’s expectations and explained that, although it recognised the lift was old and should ideally be replaced, its forthcoming works programme may not have involved the installation of a new lift. The evidence shows that there was no fault in the way the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the communal lift.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and draughty windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of overcrowding.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a bed bug infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of drug use within the building.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the communal lift not working.

Reasons

Although there were some delays in carrying out works and the landlord’s communication could have been better after the first inspection, the delays were not excessive and the landlord took a proactive approach in dealing with the resident’s concerns.
The landlord was not at fault in the way it applied its management move policy and provided correct advice on the resident’s home search options. The landlord also acted appropriately when it allowed the resident to live in his property while he looked for alternative accommodation. However, the landlord’s lack of information sharing between teams meant the resident received confused messaging about whether he could remain in his property and whether or not he was able to access the landlord’s Home Moves service.
The landlord attempted to access the resident’s property several times in order to investigate the bed bug issue, without success, and provided an email contact so the resident could make contact to arrange a suitable time for the pest control team to attend.
The landlord took a number of steps to tackle the drug use in the building and worked with the police on an ongoing basis in order to arrange searches and raids. The evidence shows that, following the actions by the landlord and police, the situation had improved.
The landlord provided evidence that the communal lift was serviced on a monthly basis and that the majority of repairs were carried out within 24 hours. Although some repairs took more time because the contractor had to wait for parts to be delivered, the contractor ensured the lift remained operational wherever possible and that repairs were carried out as soon as possible.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident, within four weeks of receiving this determination, £200 for its poor communication as a result of poor information sharing and coordination between teams.
The landlord to clarify, following its letter of 19 December 2022, its position to the resident with regard to him remaining in the property while he looks for alternative accommodation, and to send the Ombudsman a copy of its letter within four weeks of receiving this determination.
The landlord to check with the resident what support he requires to make a housing application to the local authority and whether he needs any additional signposting to help with a move. The landlord to confirm it has done this within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord to update its records to ensure all staff working in different teams have access to the most up to date information about a resident’s circumstances in order to avoid providing conflicting information.
The landlord to check if other similarly affected flats in the building would benefit from the forced ventilation system it had agreed to install in the resident’s property, to look at the feasibility and cost implications of installing the system in all the flats in the building and to confirm its position to the Ombudsman within eight weeks of receiving this determination.