Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202315453)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315453

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

21 August 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord and lives in a 1-bedroom flat.
On 18 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report that there was damp and mould throughout her property. She advised that the issue of mould was exacerbating her breathing condition. The landlord treated this contact as a complaint, as the report was submitted via its online complaint form.
The landlord replied on 24 October 2022 and arranged with the resident for a specialist damp and mould surveyor to attend the property on 7 November 2022.
On 31 October 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. The response apologised that the resident was finding it difficult to enjoy her home. It also advised that after the surveyor had attended on 7 November 2022 it would schedule any work that was required.
The resident chased the landlord on 21 November 2022 and advised that the surveyor had failed to attend. She repeated that black mould was appearing and that her walls and doors were damp. The landlord responded the same day and advised that this issue would be escalated to stage 2 of its complaint process.
The landlord called, then visited the resident on 30 November 2022. It apologised for failing to tell her that the surveyor could not attend on 7 November 2022. The landlord explained that it had addressed staffing issues and that it needed to make some enquiries related to the resident’s windows and doors that had recently been installed.
On 15 December 2022 the landlord carried out an inspection. A plan of action following the inspection confirmed that there was work required to:
1. Remove all architraves around the window frames and door frame to identify void areas not filled in correctly. Also, to identify any opening that may cause water ingress and repair.
2. Renew the slates above the living room window.
3. Renew and replace the window trim to the bedroom back window.
4. Make good a crack in the brickwork to the bedroom bay window.
5. Remove the bedroom flooring and break the concrete flooring to identify the source of any leak, then repair any broken pipework.
On 4 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and advised that she thought the plans in place would not address the damp and mould issue. She explained that a builder who had visited the property with the surveyor had mentioned there were issues with her flat walls where water could be seeping in from the outside. The resident also said that the surveyor had advised after 2 minutes of looking round that the issue was due to condensation.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 18 January 2023 to advise that after 2 days of rain her living room wall was damp and cold. She said that her trickle vents were constantly open, and that condensation should be ruled out. She advised the landlord that nothing had been done to fix the issue of damp and mould.
The landlord responded on 20 January 2023. It explained that the first visit in December 2022 had been to establish whether an issue of excess moisture was due to her new windows causing water ingress into her flat. It advised that the contractor had attended “this week” and forwarded some photos which eliminated the windows as a cause for the damp. It agreed that the resident’s walls in her bedroom and living room were cold to touch, but that it had a difference of opinion with the resident on the damp being caused by condensation.
The landlord also advised that cracks to the wall were assessed but deemed in good condition. It advised that a senior surveyor or manager would be requested to identify the cause of the excess moisture and that its repairs team was in the process of raising the other planned repair works.
On 23 January 2023 the landlord asked the resident to confirm some dates and times she was available for a surveyor to attend and assess any works that were still outstanding. It also advised that the resident’s stage 2 complaint was still under investigation and that it was waiting for the next steps of her case to be finalised. The landlord asked the resident if its stage 2 response could be extended to 5 days after the next surveyor’s visit. No reply to this is evident, and the landlord assumed the resident had agreed.
There is internal landlord communication between 31 January 2023 and 13 March 2023 which shows its complaint team liaised with its repairs team about the outstanding appointments.
On 15 March 2023 the landlord spoke with the resident to ask what work was still outstanding. Following this, on 21 March 2023 its contractor advised the landlord that all pointing work had been completed and it had arranged for dehumidifiers to be taken to the resident’s property. The contractor also advised that works related to the downpipe were with its planners and that a mould wash and decorating works would be arranged once works to the windows had been completed.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 23 March 2023. The landlord advised that:
1. The original surveyor’s appointment for 7 November 2022 did not go ahead as planned due to the surveyor being on leave. However, the appointment was not re-booked, and the resident was not advised about this.
2. On 30 November 2022 a surveyor attended to assess the repair issues. A specialist contractor was initially instructed to address the mould, but this was put on hold as a leak required investigation.
3. The surveyor noted new windows and doors had been installed and that was where damp was present. A referral was made to a relevant contractor to inspect the works. This was done but no signs issues of water ingress were found.
4. Repointing work was completed on 15 February 2023 by its contractor and work related to the downpipe was in the process of being arranged.
5. Further work would be arranged to fill cracks in the external walls, check the porch roof for leaks, upgrade the property’s extractor fans and establish if there were any drain issues.
6. A mould wash and decorating work would be arranged once the contractor had inspected the windows again and completed any snagging repairs.
7. It apologised for the delays in getting the repairs resolved and the failed surveyor’s visit. It was recruiting new surveyors to manage demand and it was implementing a dedicated damp and mould team.
8. It offered compensation of £310, broken down as:
  1. £20 for the missed surveyor appointment.
  2. £30 for poor communication relating to the repair service.
  3. £100 for the delays in repairs being assessed and raised.
  4. £160 for the delayed complaint response.
On 7 May 2023 the resident raised a second complaint. The complaint was about further delays to the repairs for damp and mould. She advised that a new surveyor had attended her property in March 2023, but since then no updates or information had been provided on follow up works. The resident said she was spending a lot of money on dehumidifiers and heating. She also advised that the issues were causing her underlying medical conditions to worsen.
The landlord acknowledged this complaint on 15 May 2023 and advised a response would be provided by 30 May 2023. However, it did not respond by this date.
Between 22 May 2023 and 24 July 2023, there was internal communication between the landlord’s complaint team and its repairs team. This was to organise a specialist damp and mould contractor to carry out a survey and to provide detail on the recommended repairs.
The resident raised a third complaint on 25 August 2023. The issues raised in this complaint were that nobody had contacted her in relation to the damp and mould issues since the previous survey was completed. She also advised that the landlord had failed to respond to her emails about this and that her wetroom floor which had been replaced was now starting to become “bubbly”.
As the resident’s third complaint raised new issues relating to the wetroom floor, the landlord separated this from the second complaint under a new reference number.
A new contractor conducted a survey in September 2023. The landlord approved the new contractors recommended works and these were completed on 10 January 2024.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 17 January 2024 to advise that there was still some work outstanding in her living room and despite a promised call, nobody had got in touch with her. The landlord added this issue to the resident’s third complaint.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the second complaint on 17 January 2024. It advised that the first complaint response dealt with issues up to 23 March 2023 and a new survey was arranged for 30 March 2023. However, due to issues with its contractors there were unacceptable delays in completing this work. The landlord offered £500 in compensation, broken down as:
1. £300 for the delay in the work being completed.
2. £200 for the delay in its complaint handling.
The resident accepted this resolution to the second complaint on 22 January 2024. However, she reminded the landlord that her third complaint relating to her wetroom floor had not been responded to.
On 31 January 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to add some further points to her third complaint. This included, among other things, that she had to replace some of her belongings due to the damp and mould, and that when the damp and mould work was completed the contractors did not use dust sheets which meant the flat became very messy. She also advised that the landlord had failed to return her emails and calls about the outstanding work.
The third complaint was responded to on 22 March 2024 and a resolution offered. The resident escalated this complaint, and the landlord is currently investigating the case at stage 2 of its complaint procedure.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Although it is noted that the resident has raised 3 separate complaints to the landlord, this investigation will be limited to the first complaint made and the period between 18 October 2022 and 23 March 2023. This is because under paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to exhausting the landlord’s complaint procedure.
The resident’s second and third complaints have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. The second complaint was resolved at stage 1 of its procedure and there is no evidence it was escalated. The resident’s third complaint is currently being dealt with under stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure after escalation by the resident. The resident can bring any further complaint issues to this Service once the landlord has issued its stage 2 response if the complaint has not been resolved.

Damp and mould reports

The landlord’s damp and mould procedure from November 2022 states that when a resident reports an issue, an inspection with a surveyor will be arranged. The surveyor will then attend using its damp and mould pre-inspection form. It will ensure that all appropriate diagnosis is undertaken before reaching a conclusion. It will also raise appropriate works to resolve the source of the problem and the impact.
The damp and mould policy says that the surveyor will proactively keep the resident updated throughout the ongoing repairs by giving weekly updates. Upon completion of the work, a surveyor will attend to check the works are completed to the expected standard. After the repair is completed, the landlord will contact the resident after 6 weeks and after 6 months to check the repairs have been effective.
The landlord’s initial action after damp and mould were reported by the resident was reasonable. It arranged a surveyor to attend the property within 15 working days. This was in line with its repairs and maintenance policy at the time. However, when the surveyor could not attend on 7 November 2022 it failed to notify the resident or re-book the appointment. This was unreasonable and caused the resident some frustration and inconvenience.
The landlord attended the resident’s property to conduct an initial survey on 30 November 2022, but this was only after the resident had chased the landlord on 21 November for an update. This shows that the landlord was not proactive in dealing with the resident’s report of damp and mould and indicates a lack of effective repairs tracking.
The landlord completed a further inspection on 15 December 2022 and created a plan of action for the repair work. However, there is no evidence that the resident was told when these works would be undertaken or how long they would take. This was unreasonable and not in keeping with the landlord’s policy on communication relating to damp and mould.
Despite the landlord’s policy stating that the resident would be contacted weekly with an update on the damp and mould works, there is no evidence to show that this happened. By failing to follow its policy on proactive communication the landlord caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
The landlord did respond reactively to the resident’s communications of 4 and 18 January 2023. It advised that the contractor had attended the week commencing 16 January 2023 and it was now able to eliminate the windows as being the cause for damp. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report published in October 2021 says that landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. In this case the landlord took around 60 working days from the point of the damp and mould being reported before it eliminated one aspect as being the cause. This is not in keeping with the recommendations of the report and highlights a lack of urgency in dealing with the resident’s case.
It is noted that the resident mentioned to the landlord that her living situation was affecting her breathing and that it was worsening her children’s medical conditions. While this Service cannot determine whether the landlord’s actions or inaction caused a worsening of the resident and her family’s medical condition, it should have responded appropriately to these concerns. The evidence provided does not demonstrate any compassion for the resident’s circumstance or that the issue was taken seriously. This would have only added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
In addition, the Ombudsman’s spotlight report says that a landlord should avoid automatically apportioning blame or using language that leaves residents feeling blamed. In this instance, the resident raised her concern that the surveyor had inferred that the issue of her damp and cold walls was caused by condensation. This was repeated in the surveyor’s response to the resident on 20 January 2023 where it said that there was a “difference of opinion” on the issue of condensation. While this may have been the surveyor’s legitimate opinion, communication on how and why this conclusion was reached was important in ensuring the resident did not feel blamed. There is a lack of evidence to show that the landlord clearly and openly explained the reasons for its conclusions and what the resident could do to prevent the issue reoccurring. This was unreasonable and caused the resident upset and frustration.
Between 31 January and 15 March 2023, the landlord’s actions continued to be unreasonable. While there is evidence that it was liaising internally to organise a new survey and carry out some repairs, there is no evidence to show that weekly updates were provided to the resident in line with its damp and mould policy. This again showed a lack of proactive communication and management of the resident’s case.
Taking all the circumstances into account, the Ombudsman considers that these failings amount to maladministration. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord did recognise some of its failings. It apologised for the original surveyor’s failure to attend the 7 November 2022 appointment and for the delays in the repairs and its communication. The landlord offered compensation for its failings and the Ombudsman has considered if the compensation offered amounts to reasonable redress.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that where there has been a serious or prolonged service failure, it may offer compensation between £100 and £500. The landlord offered £30 for communication failings, £100 for the delays to the repairs and £20 for the missed surveyor’s appointment. While the total amount falls within the parameters of the landlord’s compensation policy, it does not sufficiently recognise that there were 2 different failings which contributed to the maladministration. These were delays and poor communication.
The initial report was made on 18 October 2022 and the cause of the damp and mould had not been established by the time it issued its stage 2 complaint response 5 months later. During this period the lack of proactive management of the case and effective and proactive communication caused a significant impact to the resident. Therefore, using the landlord’s compensation policy the Ombudsman considers it should pay compensation of £800 (inclusive of the £150 already offered), broken down as:
1. £400 for the delays to the assessment and repair.
2. £400 for the failure to follow its policy and proactively communicate with the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. The policy states the landlord will acknowledge an initial complaint within 5 working days and provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days. It will acknowledge an escalation to stage 2 within 5 working days and provide a response within 20 working days. If there are instances where the timeframes are likely to be missed, the landlord will contact the resident to agree an extension.
The landlord dealt with the resident’s stage 1 complaint in a reasonable way. It responded after 9 working days, which was in line with its complaint policy. The response addressed all of the issues raised and explained the next steps that would be taken to deal with the relevant repair issue.
After the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the process on 21 November 2022, the landlord did not provide a response for 86 working days. This was significantly outside of the 20-working day timescale. This was an unreasonable delay that meant the resident was prevented from escalating her complaint to this Service for a considerable period of time.
While the landlord did contact the resident on 23 January 2023 to explain it was still investigating the complaint at stage 2, it failed to agree a new timescale for a response or provide this Service’s contact details. While the landlord asked for an extension, which is in line with its complaint policy, it failed to follow this through by confirming if the resident agreed. This failure to follow its own policy added to the inconvenience and frustration felt by the resident.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code at the time said, “A complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed.” However, when it advised the resident about the delay to its response at stage 2 the landlord said that the delay was due to it wanting to wait for the survey to be undertaken. This was unreasonable as it was at odds with the best practice actions set out in the complaint handling code.
Taking all the circumstances into account, the Ombudsman considers that this amounts to maladministration. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord did recognise that it had delayed responding to the resident’s complaint and offered compensation of £160. It is good that the landlord recognised this failing and offered compensation, however, the Ombudsman does not consider this compensation to be an adequate remedy for the failings. This is because it did not consider its poor communication during its handling of the complaint, nor the length of the delay which was far outside the timeframes set out in its complaint procedure.
Using the landlord’s compensation policy the landlord should pay the resident £300 (inclusive of the £160 already offered), to remedy the impact caused because of its failing.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. The associated complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the identified failings.
2. Pay £1,100 compensation to the resident (inclusive of the £310 already offered, but excluding any awards in connection with separate complaints), broken down as:
  1. £400 for the delays to the assessment and repair.
  2. £400 for the failure to follow its policy and proactively communicate with the resident in relation to the repair.
  3. £300 for its complaint handling failures.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord review its offer of training for staff involved in:
1. Damp and mould repairs: To consider whether it should provide refresher training on its damp and mould policy, specifically relating to communication with its residents.
2. Complaint handling: To consider whether it should provide refresher training or additional guidance on when a complaint should be responded to. Specifically in relation to the best practice actions set out in the complaint handling code.