Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202216637)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216637

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

15 November 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of planned works to refurbish the resident’s bathroom and the resident’s reports of damage.
2. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom semi-detached house. It is important to note that the resident has two children who have medical vulnerabilities.
The resident reported leaks in her bathroom multiple times in the years prior to her formal complaint. The landlord’s contractor attended the property to repair the leaks on various occasions from September 2019 to July 2021.
The landlord had planned works to refurbish the bathroom as part of its Decent Homes installation programme. This was started in July 2021 and, from the landlord’s records, appeared to have been scheduled to be completed by 28 November 2021. Further leaks were identified after the bathroom works were completed.
The resident made a previous complaint to her landlord on 27 October 2021. In this complaint, she said that the works remained ongoing and this had an impact on her two children as they had been unable to enjoy their summer holidays and half term breaks because they had to stay in during the lengthy works. She also complained that her property had been damaged by its contractors and listed these items as damage to the carpet, a bedroom wall, the walls on the hallway and stairs and her fridge door.
In its response, on 11 November 2021, the landlord confirmed different contractors would attend to ensure the same contractors did not return to her property. It confirmed with regards to damage of the carpet, it would carry out a deep clean of the carpets, and also consider any compensation when the bathroom work was completed. It expected the bathroom refurbishment to be completed on 28 November 2021.
The formal complaint was submitted on 9 December 2021 when the resident reported a leak on this date from the bathroom which went through to the kitchen. She expressed concerns about the leaks present in a ‘brand new bathroom’ and about the contractors’ standard of works. The stage 1 complaint response, on 17 December 2021, outlined that a temporary repair was made on the date of the leak (and complaint) with a follow-up appointment arranged to make good the following day and that this was in line with its policy regarding emergency repairs.
The resident escalated her complaint on 14 January 2022. She detailed concerns about the bathroom works taking six months to complete and the impact this had on her two vulnerable children who had to spend their school holidays inside of the house due to the works. The resident’s previous complaint regarding the damages caused by the works was raised again during this escalation. Additionally, it is unclear, due to a lack of evidence, when an offer of compensation was made but the resident noted her dissatisfaction with an offer of £200 for her inconvenience. This compensation was not offered during the complaints procedure.
The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 26 January 2022. It acknowledged an issue with the quality of work and that it would be rectified when the bathroom was replaced again in April 2022. It also acknowledged the damage caused by its contractors but stated that the damage to the carpets had been rectified after the previous stage 1 complaint response from 11 November 2021. It added that due to not being allowed access on 10 December 2021, it could not make good on the emergency repairs from the previous day. It acknowledged it had caused trouble, upset and inconvenience which is why it offered her £200 compensation in line with its compensation policy.
The landlord agreed to refurbish the kitchen at the same time as replacing the bathroom in April 2022.
The resident was unhappy with this response and referred the matter to this Service on 29 October 2022. The resident advised she wanted the landlord to complete outstanding repairs and offer realistic compensation.
After the landlord was notified of this Service investigating the complaint, it contacted the resident on 20 April 2023 and offered an increased compensation award of £1200. It also asked what decorative works were outstanding so it could raise works to rectify this. The resident refused the offer and requested to proceed with this investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident disclosed that the landlord had not completed an inspection of the bathroom and kitchen after their refurbishment, which was completed in May 2022. The resident is requesting that we investigate this matter and for the completion of outstanding repairs in relation to this, including snagging works, replacing the external door from the kitchen and addressing a hole left in the brickwork when it removed the bathroom extractor fan.
There has been no evidence provided to this Service which shows the matter of outstanding works being included in this complaint brought to the Ombudsman. In accordance with paragraph 42a of the Scheme, we cannot investigate this matter as the landlord has not had opportunity to consider it through its complaints process. The resident may wish to raise this as a separate complaint to allow the landlord to investigate the complaint and have opportunity to put things right in line with its internal complaints procedure. The Ombudsman can offer support with making a new complaint.

Delays to the refurbishment

It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for plumbing repairs and bathroom maintenance. It responded to multiple reports of leaks in the bathroom. It provided this investigation with a record of its contractor’s notes which detailed 5 leaks between September 2019 to July 2021. However, it provided no evidence of contemporaneous notes regarding when the resident notified it of the leaks. The poor record keeping is a significant theme within this investigation. It is therefore difficult to conclude whether it responded appropriately to these leaks.
The planned work to the bathroom is understood to have started in July 2021. It is unclear, due to a lack of evidence provided, when the refurbishment was completed but the landlord advised in its previous stage 1 complaint that it expected to complete the works by 28 November 2021. The resident had expressed concern about the length of time taken by the landlord to complete its refurbishment works.
There has been no evidence provided to show why the delays occurred. The works commenced in the summer of 2021 and were not completed until May 2022. This was a significant period of time during which the resident will have experienced inevitable inconvenience. The landlord knew at the time of its stage 2 complaint response that the bathroom refurbishment was required again in April 2022. The second refurbishment ended in May 2022, which meant works were ongoing for a period of 10 months which is unacceptable.
It is understood that the resident had personal reasons that resulted in some delays but these did not account for the extensive length of time taken overall for the works to be completed. The landlord referenced in the previous stage 1 complaint response that the delays were caused by the resident’s personal reasons but this is not a reasonable response given it provided no contemporaneous notes to show its attempts to complete the works nor the reasons for its own delays.
For this reason, it is difficult to say whether the delays to the refurbishment were reasonable or not. The maintenance policy states that planned works are delivered outside of its responsive repairs timeframes and does not provide any expected timeframes. The landlord should review its record keeping and ensure that its provisions for recording works and communications are addressed immediately.
The resident also raised concerns about the quality of the works. Shortly after the refurbishment was believed to be completed, there was a leak which prompted the stage 1 complaint on 9 December 2021. The resident was concerned about the quality of works because the leak had occurred in a newly refurbished bathroom and had gone through to the kitchen below. The landlord acted appropriately by responding to the leak on the same day. This is in line with its maintenance policy which states it should respond to emergency repairs, such as leaks, within 24 hours.
The concerns from the resident about the standard of work issue is understandable given this was a new bathroom. However, there was not necessarily a failing by the landlord given it can be difficult to identify and prevent all possible leaks and there is no evidence to show that this specific leak was due to poor quality works.
The resident refused access for a follow up appointment to make good on the emergency repair on 10 December 2021. She disclosed that she had been advised that the bathroom needed to be taken out and refurbished again due to the quality of work completed and therefore felt it a waste of her time to allow access. In line with the tenancy agreement, the resident is required to allow access for repairs.
It is unclear, due to a lack of evidence, when the landlord contacted the resident to advise of the bathroom needing to be refurbished for a second time. It is therefore also unclear as to the reasons given to her why this was necessary.
In the landlord’s internal communications provided to this Service, it disclosed that the bathroom renewal completed in 2021 had been ‘botched up’ and a series of repairs had to be completed to put things right. It then agreed to take it out and refurbish it again, as well as completing a refurbishment of the kitchen. It detailed issues with the initial refurbishment such as the wrong sized bath being installed, the additional piping caused by moving the electric shower, the contractors hiding the poor repairs causing numerous leaks and the touch ups caused by this being visible. These failings are therefore not disputed.
The landlord attempted to put things right by refurbishing the bathroom for a second time because of issues with the quality of the completed bathroom and it was appropriate to include a refurbishment of the kitchen because of the leaks that impacted this room. However, it is unclear to what extent the kitchen was damaged by the leak from the bathroom. It is therefore not possible to appropriately conclude whether this was an action to put things right or whether it was the landlord’s legal responsibility due to the level of damage.
It appears that a handover inspection was not completed. A letter was posted to the resident on 4 October 2022 which asked for her to call the contractor to confirm an appointment for the same date for an inspection. It is unreasonable for it to expect a resident to call on the same date as when the letter was posted.
The landlord’s internal communications, on 21 March 2023, state that there were access issues causing a lack of post inspection. However, this was unfair for it to note because the resident could not have reasonably responded in time to the October 2022 request. There is no evidence of further requests made on the part of the landlord to complete a post inspection which is unreasonable given the poor quality initial bathroom works.

Damage to the property and belongings

The resident reported concerns of damage to the carpets in the hallway, stairs and both bedrooms. She advised that the contractors did not lay any protective coverings over the carpets nor did they wear any protective shoe coverings. She added that the contractors laid the old toilet on her bedroom carpet which caused the water to leak on to her carpets.
In the landlord’s maintenance policy, it has an appendix for its contractors’ code of conduct. This requires contractors to “take care not to damage your property” and “protect your carpets and furniture if there is a possibility of dust or damage”. There has been no evidence provided by the landlord to show whether the carpets were protected.
From the resident’s account of events, the contractors did not protect the carpets and leaned equipment against the hallway wall and the children’s bedroom wall which created marks. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have investigated this with its contractors. Ultimately, it is responsible for the actions of its contractors and therefore should have thoroughly considered the allegations to satisfy itself whether there had been a breach of the code of conduct or not. Its failure to do so was inappropriate.
The landlord caused further inconvenience when it advised the resident in November 2021 to contact the contractor to report the damage to the fridge. The resident does not have a contractual relationship with the contractor and therefore this advice was unhelpful. It should have instead responded to these reports and liaised with the contractors itself on her behalf.
It seemed that the landlord was unclear over its obligations on whether the contractors or itself were responsible for the damages. Its internal communications show confusion and repeated messages between the contractors and itself regarding who needed to investigate the damages.

Redress for bathroom delays and damage

The landlord’s compensation policy states that discretionary compensation can be considered for a number of reasons, including damaged personal possessions or where a tenant has been unable to use a room in their home. It would be appropriate for it to consider discretionary compensation on this basis because of the damages reported, the lack of record keeping to show how these damages occurred, that the resident had ongoing leaks prior to the refurbishment and that the initial refurbishment took a sustained period of time to complete from July 2021 to November 2021.
The compensation policy states that where there is a high level of impact to the customer, which caused severe disruption or inconvenience through a prolonged service failure or loss of facilities, it can award compensation up to a maximum of £500.
In addition, the policy states that the landlord can offer specific compensation to rectify service failures. It includes examples such as DIY vouchers for decorations damaged by its contractors and that it will replace a carpet if it has damaged it.
The landlord acknowledged responsibility of causing the damage through the bathroom installation and refurbishment and discussions were had in internal communications on 29 October 2021 regarding how they could rectify these. It is believed that the outcome of this discussion was to offer the cleaning of the carpets after the works were completed which was outlined in its November 2021 stage 1 complaint response.
It is this Service’s view that the landlord did not respond appropriately because it did not offering reasonable compensation in line with its own policy or the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. Following acknowledgement of the damage caused during the refurbishment, the landlord should have offered DIY vouchers for the damage to the walls and paid for a replacement carpet of the same standard and style. In addition, given the extent of the delay and the need for the landlord to repeat the refurbishment, it should have paid compensation at a higher level than the £200 awarded through its complaints process. The compensation it awarded is within a range that the Ombudsman would recommend for a short term service failure – it did not therefore offer sufficient redress given the circumstances of the case.
In addition, throughout the resident’s complaints of damage to her property, it was unreasonable that it did not advise her to refer the complaint to its liability insurance, nor did it offer to do this to fully investigate its responsibility regarding the damage.
The resident raised concerns in her complaint escalation to stage 2 that her carpet was not cleaned after the first refurbishment of the bathroom, as proposed in the landlord’s previous stage 1 complaint response. In its further response, it told her that this had been resolved and the resident then disputed this. She claimed a member of its repairs team had visited her property in December 2021 and they could confirm it had not been rectified. The landlord thought that the carpets had been deep cleaned but it should have checked its records and liaised with the contractors before confirming this to the resident in the stage 2 complaint response. This failing would have resulted in a lack of trust and confidence in the landlord from the resident.
In its communication to the resident on 20 April 2023, the landlord acknowledged that the damages remained outstanding but did not offer any explanation of why it failed to follow through with the actions it agreed within the complaints process.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident’s first complaint was made to the landlord on 27 October 2021. She complained that the bathroom works remained ongoing and that damage had been caused. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 11 November 2021.
The resident complained again on 9 December 2021 about the standard of works and the landlord took this as a new complaint and gave another stage 1 complaint response on 17 December 2021. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 14 January 2022 and complained again about the damages and impact of the lengthy ongoing works. The stage 2 response was issued on 26 January 2022.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged the complaint made on 9 December 2021 as an escalation to the existing complaint. By creating a new stage 1 complaint, it exacerbated the confusion and distress inevitably caused to the resident by the time taken to complete the related works.
The landlord failed to address the significant impact that the time taken and the repeat of the refurbishment would have had on the resident. This timeframe is significant and there are no records to show that it fully considered the impact of the delay and time taken on the resident and her household. The resident had notified the landlord of the impact on her vulnerable children and there is evidence of repeated contact from the resident regarding her concerns of the quality of the work.
There was an offer of £200 compensation made for distress and inconvenience but this was not an outcome of the internal complaints procedure and so it is unclear when this was offered. As this Service was not provided with this communication, it is unclear how it has been calculated. The landlord referenced this compensation offer in its stage 2 complaint response on 26 January 2022 and stated this was offered in line with its compensation policy.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have investigated these matters, with consideration of distress and inconvenience but also the overall time taken for the works to be completed and the level of disruption caused to the resident. It should have offered an explanation of how these have been considered in its calculation of compensation and put this information in the formal complaint response for it to be addressed through its internal complaints procedure.

After the internal complaints procedure

It is noted that following contact from this Service, the landlord revised its offer of compensation on 20 April 2023 and increased this to £1200. This included £500 for carpet cleaning, £300 for damage to the fridge and carpets, and an increase from £200 to £400 for distress and inconvenience. It asked the resident to detail the outstanding decorative works required so it could raise an order to rectify this. It also noted formally in this communication that it was responsible for the damage caused.
This Service accepts that the compensation offered is appropriate in recognition of its failings and represented an attempt to put things right. However, this was offered a significant time after the complaints process was exhausted. Additionally, it was prompted by this Service’s intention to investigate the complaint. This should have been an outcome and offer of redress identified at the time of the complaints process.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of planned works to refurbish the resident’s bathroom and the resident’s reports of damage.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident with regards to its failure to follow its own policy and acknowledge the damage caused by its contractors. This apology should be from a member of its senior management.
2. Arrange an inspection of the resident’s property to identify the outstanding damages and raise orders to rectify these (such as painting the walls).
3. Pay the compensation for distress and inconvenience and damage to the fridge offered in April 2023. This is a total of £700.
4. Pay for the replacement of the damaged carpets in line with its policy. This would remove the need for compensation for carpet cleaning.
5. Review its provision of records with regards to having contemporaneous records of conversations and works completed to ensure better complaint handling is possible for future complaints. This should be done by self-assessing against the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its contractor code of conduct and ensure that all contractors are trained in this and are aware of it.