Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202218861)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218861

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

1 February 2024

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 a leak into the property.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

Scope of investigation

The resident first reported to the landlord that water was leaking into the property through the ceiling on 4 May 2020.
Although it is noted that there is a long history of concerns around the landlord’s handling of repairs reported by the resident, this investigation primarily focuses on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from May 2020 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
Within the timescales considered in this report, the resident made a separate complaint to the landlord regarding its responses to further leaks into the property, a boiler repair and window repairs. These matters are not considered in this report, as they have been addressed in a separate complaint through the landlord’s complaints process and are being considered through the Ombudsman’s processes.
The resident also raised concerns about the impact on his health and damage to his contents. Often the cause of health conditions is a difficult matter for the Ombudsman to determine. The issue is often better suited to the court where there are medico-legal reports to assist the decision-makers on how the injury was caused, the diagnosis and the prognosis. Without that specialist medical evidence, this service would be unable to conclude how an injury or poor health was caused.
The resident is a leaseholder of the property which is a 2-bedroom, fourth-floor flat within a block. It is noted that there is a flat roof above the resident’s property. The resident has lived at the property since December 2008 and lives here with his wife and 2 children. The landlord is a housing association.
The landlord has advised the Ombudsman that it has no records on its systems which detail any known vulnerabilities for the resident or his family. The resident has advised that his wife suffers from depression and anxiety.

Summary of events

On 4 May 2020 the resident contacted the landlord and reported that water was leaking into a bedroom through the ceiling. The resident advised that water was not dripping through the roof but a large mark on the ceiling was getting worse by the day. The resident also raised concerns with the landlord that its contractors had in the past experienced issues with obtaining a key for an access door onto the roof.
The landlord’s records show that its contractors attended the property that same day but could not access the roof to carry out an inspection. The landlord told the resident that its repairs team manager had been contacted and they would respond to him within the next couple of days. The landlord advised him to contact its emergency repairs service if required. The resident advised the landlord that the contractors could not access the roof due to not having keys.
The landlord raised a new work order for its contractors on 6 May 2020 to attend the property and repair a leak on the roof. The work order outlined where the keys for the access door were located but it advised the contractors to break the lock and replace it if necessary. Its contractors attended that same to inspect the roof. The landlord’s records state that the contractor found no issues with the roof after breaking the lock to gain entry on to the roof.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 25 December 2020 advising that water was leaking into the property. He advised that water was leaking through a light fitting on the ceiling. The resident advised that he had contacted the landlord’s emergency repairs service but was advised that they could not assist as he was a leaseholder of the property.
On 14 January 2021 the resident contacted the landlord’s chief executive via email. He advised that he had not received any response from other staff regarding the leak and that a neighbour had also experienced water leaking into their property from the roof.
Having not received a further response from the landlord, the resident contacted it again on 27 January 2021 and asked for an update. He reported that there was a new water leak above the front entrance door.
The landlord raised a work order for its contractors on 4 February 2021. It requested that an inspection be carried out and booked a repair for 18 February 2021. The work order advised the contractors where to find the keys to be able to access the roof.
On 3 March 2021 the landlord contacted the resident via email and said:
1. It had gone back to its contractors to request a full report on the work that had been completed.
2. It confirmed that its contractors had completed a repair in a different area of the roof which did not resolve the leak he was experiencing.
3. It apologised for the time it had taken to complete the repairs.
4. It confirmed that the roof was now repaired as the contractors had applied flashing tape underneath a step which would stop water running underneath it.
On 11 March 2021 a further work order was raised by the landlord as a high priority with its contractor due to the roof still leaking. The work order advised the contractors where to find the keys for the roof access door. The landlord’s records state that the repairs were completed on 31 March 2021.
On 31 March 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and asked if the roof repairs were completed as new water marks were showing on the ceiling.
The landlord’s records show that its contractors attended on 6 April 2021, however, were unable to access the roof as the operative who had the keys was on holiday. The contractors attended again on 12 April 2021.
On 8 April 2021, having not received contact, the resident voiced his frustrations that he had not received any update from the landlord. The landlord responded to the resident on 13 April 2021 and the staff member apologised as they had been on leave. It was confirmed that its contractors had attended the property the previous day to reapply sealant on the roof but could not complete this due to poor weather.
On 21 April 2021 the landlord advised the resident that its contractors would attend the property on 25 April 2021 to complete the roofing works. It also advised that its decorating contractors would contact him to arrange an appointment to address the affected areas inside the property.
On 26 April 2021 the landlord confirmed with the resident that all roof repairs were now complete. It advised that the roof had been cleaned and a waterproof coating and sealants had been applied across a 10sqm area. It offered its sincere apologies for the length of time it had taken to resolve the issues.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 June 2021 and reported that water was leaking into the property again. Photos of the affected area were provided. Having not received a response, the resident contacted the landlord again on 2 July 2021 and asked for it to advise how it would resolve the situation.
An emergency repair was logged by the landlord on 7 August 2021 due to leaking water causing damage on the 5th floor of the block. Its records state that a repair was completed that same day.
A further work order was logged by the landlord on 12 September 2021 which detailed that following a recent power cut, a ceiling vent had been stuck open for 2 days and was allowing water into a communal area. It noted this was dangerous and was affecting walls near the lifts. Its records state that this work order was cancelled however it is unclear why.
On 30 June 2022, the landlord logged a stage 1 complaint on its systems due to the resident sending several emails outlining his dissatisfaction. This followed the resident having received a complaint response to other matters which are not covered within the scope of this report.
On 13 July 2022 the landlord provided the resident with a stage one complaint response which stated:
1. It is understood that water was leaking into the property via a crack in the ceiling. This was a previous issue that was occurring again.
2. It outlined that its operatives attended the property on 14 June 2022 and applied waterproof paint and mastic to the affected area.
3. It confirmed that there was an area which could not be reached so a further appointment was scheduled for 12 July 2022 It hoped that this would stop the leak.
4. It had reviewed its systems and confirmed that the resident had raised his concerns previously.
5. It stated that it should have acted sooner to address the leaks and communicated with him more clearly.
6. It was very sorry for this and stated that its repairs team manager was aware of his case and how it had performed.
7. It thanked the resident for taking the time to contact it with his concerns and stated that this was an opportunity for it to improve its services.
8. It did not offer any compensation. It explained how the resident could escalate his complaint should he wish to.
The resident replied to the landlord that same day (13 July 2022) and stated the following:
1. Its staff had not attended the property on 12 July 2022 as stated in its stage 1 complaint response.
2. He had needed to take half a day off work to allow its staff into the property, but no one attended.
3. He stated that he had missed 7 days of work due to its staff not attending.
4. He felt that it was ignoring his emails and did not update him on the required repairs.
The landlord’s records show that in an internal email dated 14 July 2022, the landlord admitted that it had sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response without realising its contractors had not attended on 12 July 2022. A request was made for its contractors to attend as a priority.
On 18 July 2022 the landlord sent an email to the resident in which it stated:
1. Its contractors had stated they could not access the property during a visit on 12 July 2022.
2. It had tried to contact this resident via telephone without success.
3. It further stated that it did not believe that the resident’s telephone number was on the work order and therefore he would not have been contacted on the day of the scheduled repair.
4. It confirmed that the works had been rebooked for 2 August 2022 and its staff would contact him on the day to check on progress.
5. The resident responded that same day (18 July 2022) and advised that every time its contractors attend, they cannot access the roof due to not having keys for the access door.
6. He also advised that the leak was still happening following rainfall and provided photos of the affected area.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 August 2022 and advised that he did not receive a call from it the previous day as promised. The landlord responded and asked the resident to confirm his telephone number. The resident provided his correct number.
Also on 3 August 2022 the landlord’s contractor contacted the resident and stated that they did call him on 2 August 2022 but were unable to get through or to leave a voicemail. The contractor stated its staff did attend the property as scheduled on 2 August 2022 but could not access the roof. The contractor confirmed on 4 August 2022 that they contacted the landlord to arrange access to the roof and hoped to have the keys by the end of the following week.
On 16 August 2022 the resident chased the landlord for an update, stating that he had not received any contact for 2 weeks. He stated that he was worried the roof would leak again should there be further rain. He advised that he would hold the landlord responsible for any damage to his possessions. The resident outlined his frustrations.
The landlord’s contractor contacted the resident via email on 17 August 2022. It confirmed that it had arranged access to the roof with the landlord and would attend on 22 August 2022 to carry out repairs. It asked the resident if he would be available to allow operatives into his property to inspect the affected area, or for him to provide photos.
Following further contact from the resident about his complaint, the landlord confirmed with the resident on 19 August 2022 that it had escalated his complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. It understood that the roof leak was not addressed as it had stated in its stage 1 complaint response. It confirmed that it would provide its stage 2 complaint response within 15 working days.
On 22 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and raised the following:
1. He confirmed that the roofing contractor had attended as arranged but could not access the roof due to not having the keys.
2. He outlined his frustration that he had taken a further day off work and had lost pay due to this.
The landlord’s internal emails that same day confirm that a member of its staff was due to attend with the keys to allow its contractors access to the roof, however the staff member was sick that day. It confirmed that its contractors could not access the roof and the repairs would need to be rebooked.
Having not received a response, the resident chased the landlord for an update on 26 August 2022. He outlined that the landlord had taken over 5 months to look at the roof. In internal emails between the landlord’s staff also on 26 August 2022, it was confirmed that the keys to the roof access door had been lost. It confirmed that the locks would be changed so that its contractors could access the roof.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 complaint response on 12 September 2022 in which it stated:
1. It apologised that it was not able to reach a satisfactory outcome to his case at stage 1 of its complaints process.
2. It had reviewed his complaint and found that despite it stating in its stage 1 response that the roof would be repaired, it remained an issue.
3. It confirmed that the keys to the roof access door were “not available” but its repairs manager had arranged to visit with its contractors. This staff member was then off sick on the day of the arranged visit. The visit was then rescheduled.
4. It stated that its staff were aware of the location on the roof of the problem area.
5. It further stated that its had changed the locks to the roof access door and its contractor had attended and completed repairs to the roof.
6. It apologised for the delays caused and the inconvenience he had experienced.
7. It did not offer any compensation to the resident.

Post complaints process

During October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to advise that the roof was still leaking. The resident also advised the landlord that he was unhappy with its complaint responses and that he felt ignored. He stated that he would be withholding rent payments due to this and other matters. The landlord raised the resident’s concerns about the roof leak with its contractors who on 21 October 2022 advised the landlord:
1. They attended the property on 31 August 2022 and applied a waterproofing treatment to the roof and sealed the joint to the copings.
2. They had asked the resident to monitor the situation.
3. They would need to attend the property again and apply further treatments if the roof was still leaking.
4. On 24 October 2022 the landlord contacted the resident and provided further copies of its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses.
From the evidence reviewed by the Ombudsman, the resident contacted his local MP about his concerns. The MP was in frequent contact with the landlord about this and the evidence confirms that the roof leak was finally resolved on 5 April 2023.
It is noted that on 28 April 2023, the landlord contacted the resident, after it had received contact from the Ombudsman. It acknowledged the impact of the ongoing repair issues on his wife and offered to make a referral to its tenancy solutions team for support. It stated that it was very sorry to read about the upset and inconvenience experienced.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord’s repairs policy outlines that it uses a range of contractors to carry out repairs on its behalf. Its policy also states:
1. Priority 1 repairs are classed as an emergency will be attended to and made safe within 24 hours. This includes any severe roof leak.
2. Priority 2 (non-emergency) repairs are to be completed within 15 working days. This includes roof leaks.
3. Its policy also confirms that where a resident is a leaseholder, it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of parts of the structure of the property.
The landlord’s complaints policy (September 2022) outlines that it will respond to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days, and within 20 working days at stage 2. It also states that it “will take various measures to put things right following a complaint and we will apologise if we are at fault”.
Its compensation policy states that it will consider paying compensation for several reasons including where it has:
1. Failed to meet its own service targets.
2. Not acted reasonably.

The landlord’s handling of a leak into the property

From the evidence reviewed by the Ombudsman, it is clear that the repairs carried out on its behalf by its contractors did not fully resolve the leak. Ultimately, a landlord is responsible for the services provided by its contractors. It took the landlord, via its contractors, close to 3 years to complete an effective and lasting repair to the leaking roof. This was an excessive period and well beyond its policy position of resolving non-emergency repairs within 15 working days. the Ombudsman therefore finds that this was a significant failing in the landlord’s approaches.
It is evident that the long delays experienced by the resident were due to the landlord’s contractors not having keys required in order to access the roof. This happened numerous times during the scope of this case. A landlord of this size should have sufficient processes in place to ensure that contractors acting on its behalf are able to access the required areas to complete repairs. This is a further significant failing and the Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s processes in this regard were poor and contributed largely to the unacceptable delays experienced by the resident.
The landlord did however take a positive step in offering a commitment to the resident for the affected areas inside the property to be redecorated, however this was despite the leaking roof not being fully repaired.
The resident and his family experienced significant time, trouble and inconvenience by having to regularly chase the landlord for updates and for it to resolve the leaking roof. It is clear that the resident was extremely frustrated by the landlord’s delays in this case which resulted in him feeling that the only ways in which to get the landlord to address his concerns was to involve his local MP and to stop paying rent. The landlord did not give sufficient consideration to the detriment that its delays in effectively resolving the leak were having on the resident and his family.
It is also noted that the resident has stated that his wife suffers with anxiety and depression. It is clear from the evidence reviewed that he advised the landlord of this many times and the impact its delays were having on his wife. However, it did not log this on its systems or appear to factor this in to its approaches during the scope of this case. It was only until April 2023, following contact from the Ombudsman that the landlord contacted the resident to offer support to his wife. This is a further significant failing from the landlord.

Complaint handling

It is clear from the evidence reviewed by the Ombudsman that the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s approaches in resolving the roof leak at any early stage within the scope of this case. The landlord should have considered this much earlier and taken steps to open a formal complaint on the resident’s behalf. Had the landlord done this, it may have reassured the resident that it was taking his concerns seriously and that it would learn from its mistakes.
The landlord incorrectly advised the resident in its stage 1 complaint response that its contractors had attended and completed repairs the day before its response. This shows that the landlord’s staff did not obtain all the facts before compiling and sending its response, nor did it contact the resident to check that the visit had gone ahead. This approach undoubtedly caused further frustration to the resident who was already of the opinion that the landlord was not listening to him and taking his situation seriously.
The landlord stated in its stage 1 complaint response that it would use his complaint to improve its services. It is evident that it did not do this as the resident experienced further significant delays from the landlord’s failure to address the leaking roof. It is noted that the roof leak was eventually resolved 9 months after its stage 1 complaint response.
Whilst the landlord has a published compensation policy, there is no evidence within its complaints responses to show that it considered applying this. Whilst the landlord was apologetic, there is no evidence to show that it made any offer of compensation to the resident to reflect the distress, time, trouble and inconvenience he and his family experienced in chasing it for it to complete the roof repairs to a decent standard. As the Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s approaches did not meet its own service standards nor did it act reasonably, and did not consider this in its complaint responses, this is reflected in the determination below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak into the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures outlined in this report.
2. If it has not done so already, update its systems with details of any health concerns and/or vulnerability for members of the resident’s family.
3. Pay the resident a total of £1500 compensation which is comprised of:
  1. £1000 in relation to its poor handling of repairs and upgrades at the property.
  2. £500 in relation to its poor handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
4. Provide this service with evidence confirming compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

The landlord is to consider the findings of the Ombudsman’s spotlight on knowledge and information management (housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf – The landlord is to share the findings with relevant staff, including training where appropriate and to incorporate the findings of this report in its management of such cases in future.