Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202346667)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346667

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

29 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Void checks and the resident’s reports of heating repairs following the start of the tenancy.
    2. The associated complaint.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord of a flat. The resident’s tenancy began in November 2023. The resident’s daughter made the complaint on her behalf and will be referred to as ‘the representative’ throughout this report.
  2. The representative reported that the storage heaters in the resident’s property were not working shortly after the resident’s tenancy began in November 2023.
  3. The representative raised a complaint on behalf of the resident on 11 December 2023 about the landlord’s handling of the heating repairs. She questioned why the heating was not tested prior to the start of the tenancy and said that no one was taking responsibility for the repairs. The representative said that the resident was elderly, vulnerable and that her mental and physical health had deteriorated due to the situation. The representative contacted the landlord on 5 January 2024 to raise a new complaint on behalf of the resident.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 7 February 2024. The landlord upheld the complaint and apologised that the heating issue had not been identified prior to the resident’s tenancy starting. It said that a specialist meter was required to accommodate the electric storage heaters and that it had fed back to the voids team to assist with their processes for identifying faults in a timely manner. The landlord acknowledged there were missed appointments by the energy supplier and offered the resident a total of £680 compensation, made up as follows:
    1. £600 for the delay in completing the meter installation and the impact this had on the resident,
    2. £20 for the missed appointment,
    3. £60 for the 6-week delay in responding to the complaint.
  5. The representative escalated the complaint on 12 February 2024 and stated that the compensation offered was insufficient to remedy the distress and anxiety caused to the resident who had been diagnosed with cancer and had endured cold nights without adequate heating for 3 months. She also raised concerns about poor communication from the landlord, missed appointments and the delay in responding to the complaint.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 13 March 2024. The landlord upheld the complaint and apologised for the delay in responding to the stage 1 complaint. The landlord identified that it had not provided much reassurance to the resident and that the ongoing missed appointments would have led her to lose faith in the service provided. The landlord said that it had taken the following learning from the complaint:
    1. Feedback provided to staff regarding poor communication,
    2. Heating should be checked thoroughly for all void properties,
    3. All vulnerabilities should be taken into consideration when dealing with service requests.
  7. The landlord offered an additional £180 compensation, comprised of £80 for 4 missed appointments by the energy supplier and £100 for continued delays in reaching a resolution. As such, the total amount of compensation offered was £840.
  8. The representative wrote to the landlord on 17 March 2024 and stated that the compensation was unreasonable as it did not take into account the constant telephone conversations, delays and rescheduled appointments that she had been required to take leave for, as well as the stress caused to the resident. She stated that all of the outstanding repairs should be completed within a reasonable timeframe before compensation is accepted.
  9. The representative referred the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman on 24 March 2024. She stated that the heating and hot water should have been checked during the voids process and that it was unacceptable that the resident had been living in the property without heating. She said that the compensation was unreasonable, particularly for the missed appointments and that it had not taken into account the emotional and physical distress caused. She also raised that the landlord had failed to adhere to timescales for complaint responses.
  10. In August 2024 the representative informed the Ombudsman that the radiator in the living room had still not been repaired and the landlord had not paid the resident’s energy bill, despite agreeing to do so. In order to resolve the complaint, she said that compensation should be paid to remedy the distress and inconvenience caused and that all outstanding repairs should be completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The representative informed the Ombudsman that there were various repairs issues in the property that ought to have been dealt with during the voids process. This included installing kitchen units, repairs to a window and a leak which had resulted in increased water bills. These issues were not raised in the resident’s 30 November 2023 or 5 January 2024 complaints and were therefore not considered as part of the stage 1 complaint response. It is noted that within the resident’s escalation request, the representative listed other repairs issues including a shower leak, issues with water flow and a window. However, the landlord’s stage 2 response only referred to the heating repairs.
  2. In accordance with the paragraph 42(a) the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. This is so that landlords have the opportunity to respond to complaints and resolve issues before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. As these matters were not dealt with in the stage 2 response, they will not be considered as part of this investigation. It is noted that the representative sent an email to the landlord on 1 August 2024 regarding the outstanding issues, and a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to deal with these. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, she can complain to the landlord about the other repairs issues. She may be able to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
  3. The Ombudsman is unable to consider the representative’s request to be compensated for taking time off work for appointments which were then missed. This is because a representative of a resident who does not hold a landlord/tenant relationship with the landlord themselves is not entitled to complain except as a representative of the person in the landlord/tenant relationship. However, the Ombudsman has considered the request for the resident to be compensated for distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s handling of void checks and heating repairs.

  1. The landlord’s lettable standard states that if a property does not have central heating, it will ensure that there is an alternative form of heating such as electric storage heaters. The Decent Home standards requires that heating systems provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort. The landlord’s ‘Better Homes’ standard states that all heating systems are assessed as part of the void inspection.
  2. The landlord’s maintenance policy states it is the landlord’s responsibility to repair heating systems and that responsive repairs are classed according to their priority. The policy says it will complete emergency repairs, including a total loss of heating during winter months, within 24 hours, and that non-emergency repairs, including heating faults or breakdowns, will be completed within 15 working days. The policy also states that the landlord will ensure its maintenance services are flexible to the needs of vulnerable tenants, and that it will take into account the severity of the situation and vary the standard offered.
  3. The landlord provided evidence of the repairs identified during the voids checks. owever, However, it has not provided a list of the checks that were completed as part of the voids process or any details of the checks that it routinely undertakes to storage heating systems. Evidence has been provided to reflect that the electrical wiring was inspected on 11 October 2023 and the report indicates that the heaters were checked but that the inspection did not test the heating controls.
  4. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that the electric storage heaters ought to have been checked by its contractors during the voids process, and that the contractors initially advised that the heaters were working. It stated that, when recalled, the contractors advised that the heating was on continuously and that the issue would not have been brought to light until the heating had been running for some time.
  5. As per the landlord’s better homes standard, the landlord should have assessed the heating and ensured that it was in working order. It is unclear what checks of the heating were completed and whether the issue could have easily been identified during the void process. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that it had fed back to the Voids Team to assist them with their processes in identifying faults in a timely manner. However, it is unclear what changes have been implemented to ensure such faults are identified.
  6. The evidence indicates that the representative initially reported that the storage heaters were not working properly on 30 November 2023. The landlord raised works orders on 30 November 2023 and 8 December 2023 regarding the heating. However, the landlord’s records are limited and it is unclear when repairs appointments took place after the works orders were raised. The landlord is expected to keep a robust and accurate record of repairs appointments so that an audit trail is maintained. The absence of these indicates a record keeping failure. It is unclear in this case whether the landlord failed to maintain comprehensive records, or whether these were maintained and not provided to the Ombudsman.
  7. The representative raised a complaint on behalf of the resident on 11 December 2023 and stated that the landlord had advised it was the energy supplier’s responsibility to fix, while the energy supplier had stated it was the landlord’s responsibility. No records have been provided to reflect the landlord’s communication with the representative about this issue.
  8. On 15 December 2023 the representative contacted the landlord and said that its engineer had attended that morning prior to the agreed time, and she had been notified that the appointment had been rescheduled to 19 December 2023 due to no access. She stated that the landlord was not taking into account the urgency of the issue or that the resident was elderly. No notes have been provided regarding the 19 December 2023 visit.
  9. On 22 December 2023 the representative contacted the landlord to state that despite calling and emailing almost every other day, the resident had still been left without heating. The available evidence indicates that the fault was identified as being related to the economy 7 meter, and the landlord confirmed that a new meter was required to be compatible with the storage heaters. The landlord said that the energy supplier had placed this as a priority job.
  10. The representative raised a further complaint on behalf of the resident on 5 January 2024. She stated that the last communication from the landlord was on 22 December 2022 and that landlord’s contractors had attended on 2 January 2024 without notice. The representative said she explained to the contractors that, as well as the meter, a storage heater also needed replacing. However, the contractor advised her that it could not do the works unless the landlord had advised them to, and as such, no repairs were carried out and the purpose of this attendance is unclear. She stated that contractors had attended on at least 4 occasions and had not been able to fix the issue. Again, no records have been provided of these repairs appointments, which indicates poor record keeping by the landlord. The evidence indicates that the landlord did not properly communicate with the resident when scheduling appointments, and significant frustration will have been caused as the issue was not resolved during these visits.
  11. The evidence reflects that an appointment was scheduled for 28 January 2024 for the energy supplier to install the meter however, this was cancelled on the day as the meter had not arrived. On 6 February 2024 the landlord noted that it had informed the representative that it would pay the resident’s electricity bills due to additional costs incurred until the heating was fixed. The energy supplier appointment was rescheduled for 16 February 2024 however, this was also cancelled due to the engineer attending an emergency job. The meter was installed on 13 March 2024. The landlord identified that there were 4 missed appointments from the energy supplier and offered the resident £20 compensation for each of these.
  12. While the landlord was not responsible for the missed appointments by the energy supplier, given that the heating fault was not identified during the voids process, it was appropriate for the landlord to compensate the resident for inconvenience caused as a result of this. It is noted that the resident felt that £20 compensation for each cancelled appointment was unreasonable for the inconvenience caused. The landlord’s compensation policy does not state how much compensation it will award for missed appointments. However, while the Ombudsman recognises the inconvenience caused, the amount offered is in line with amounts usually offered within the sector for missed appointments. The landlord also offered an additional sum for the overall distress and inconvenience caused, which was appropriate. The amount of compensation offered has been further addressed below.
  13. On 17 March 2024 the representative contacted the landlord and listed various repairs that remained outstanding in the property, and that the heating was still not working properly despite the new meter being fitted. The representative referred the complaint to the Ombudsman on 24 March 2024 and said that the landlord’s surveyor had attended but he did not know how the heating worked and the resident was still waiting to hear whether there was a heating fault. The representative said that an appointment had been scheduled for the contractor to attend on 11 April 2024 but it had not confirmed what the appointment was for. No records have been provided to the Ombudsman to reflect this appointment and it is unclear whether it went ahead.
  14. The evidence indicates that a works order was raised on 15 April 2024 to service the storage heaters and leave them in working order. Approximately a month had elapsed since the representative had reported that the heating was still not working, and this therefore indicates an unreasonable delay in a works order being raised. Given the delays already experienced and the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord ought to have acted promptly to fully repair the heating system.
  15. The landlord’s repairs notes reflect that it spoke to the representative on 1 May 2024 and she confirmed that the living room and bedroom heaters needed to be replaced. An appointment was scheduled for 9 May 2024 however, no record has been provided to indicate that this appointment took place. This indicates a further failure by the landlord to act within a reasonable timeframe and to maintain accurate records of appointments.
  16. The repairs notes state that the heaters were inspected on 3 June 2024, which would suggest that the 9 May 2024 appointment did not go ahead. The landlord documented that the living room and bedroom heaters needed to be replaced. The repairs records show that this work was carried out on 27 June 2024, which was more than 3 months after the new meter was installed. This was a significant further delay which was outside of the timeframes set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. This therefore represents a failing by the landlord to fix the heating within a reasonable timeframe.
  17. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on complaints about heating, hot water and energy highlights that a lack of heating can be a risk to health and wellbeing. It said that landlords must act promptly, particularly where issues are having a significant impact on residents and that landlords should be particularly aware of the needs of vulnerable residents and respond accordingly. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and it ought to have responded quickly, given the potential impact on her of being left without adequate heating.
  18. On 21 August 2024 the representative informed the Ombudsman that the storage heater in the living room was still not working, and it is evident that this has been reported to the landlord. As such, it appears the issue remains ongoing, and the heating system has therefore not been restored to full working order approximately 9 months after the issue was first reported.
  19. Overall, the evidence indicates that landlord’s communication with the resident was poor, and there were record keeping failures which meant that we have been unable to fully consider all of the scheduled repairs appointments. The continued delays in repairing the heating following the stage 2 response were a failing. Further, while it was appropriate for the landlord to offer to pay the resident’s electricity bill due to the extra costs incurred, the representative has advised that the bill has still not been paid, despite her providing this to the landlord in February 2024. The failings identified in this report amount to maladministration.
  20. Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether suitable remedies have been offered that are in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  21. The resident was without fully operational heating since the beginning of the tenancy, over the winter months, which has caused significant distress and inconvenience and impacted her enjoyment of her home. The resident is elderly and was undergoing cancer treatment shortly after moving into the property. The representative also explained that the issue had an emotional impact on the resident. The landlord’s handling of the repairs indicates that the resident’s vulnerabilities were not fully take into account.
  22. The landlord appropriately identified that there had been failings regarding its handling of the heating repairs and made efforts to “put things right” by offering a total of £840 compensation. However, the compensation offered does not take into account the additional delays from March 2024 onwards. An order has been made below for additional compensation to be paid to the resident, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which states amounts over £1,000 should be paid when there have been serious failings by the landlord which have had a detrimental impact on the resident. An order has also been made for the landlord to pay outstanding electricity bills as agreed and repair the living room storage heater.
  23. The landlord also indicated that it had learnt from the complaint. In addition to the additional checks of the heating during the void process, the landlord stated it had provided feedback to staff regarding the lack of communication and that vulnerabilities should be taken into consideration when dealing with service requests. Although these steps were appropriate, there continued to be delays following the stage 2 response, which suggests that the learning was not successful and the resident’s vulnerabilities continued not to be fully considered. A further order has therefore been made below for the landlord to learn from the complaint outcome.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The policy states that if the case is particularly complex, it may need longer to resolve and that it will keep the resident regularly updated on the reasons for this.
  2. The representative raised a complaint on behalf of the resident on 11 December 2023. On 5 January 2024, she stated that she wished to raise a further complaint about the landlord’s handling of the heating repairs.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 7 February 2024 which indicates a delay of 48 days in excess of the 10-day timeframe stipulated in its complaints policy. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord communicated with the resident about when the complaint outcome would be provided. This indicates a complaint handling failing by the landlord.
  4. The landlord explained that the second complaint would not be addressed separately as it was related to the same case. While the Ombudsman recognises the frustration caused due to the delay in the landlord responding at stage 1, it was appropriate for the landlord not to log a new complaint given that the issues in both complaints were about the same matters.
  5. The complaint was escalated on 12 February 2024 and the landlord issued the stage 2 response on 13 March 2024, which was a minor delay of 10 days in excess of the 20-working day timescale set out in the policy.
  6. The landlord offered the resident £60 for the delay in responding to the complaint, which was calculated at £10 per week for 6 weeks. This was reasonable redress for the failing identified. As such a finding of reasonable redress is made.
  7. It is noted that while the two week delay at stage 2 was minor, the landlord did not offer the resident compensation at £10 per week as with the stage 1 delay. A recommendation has been made below for an additional £20 to be paid, which is in line with the £10 per week calculation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of void checks and the resident’s reports of heating repairs upon moving into the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord regarding its complaint handling.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must:
    1.  Pay the resident a total of £1,340 made up as follows:
      1. £840 already offered at stage 2.
      2. £500 for the impact that the failings in the handling of the heating repairs had on the resident.
  2. Pay the resident’s electricity bills which it had previously agreed to pay. The landlord should provide confirmation to both the resident and the Ombudsman when this has been paid.
  3. Inspect the resident’s heating and conduct any required repairs so that the storage heaters are in full working order. The landlord should provide confirmation to the Ombudsman when the repairs have been completed.
  4. Confirm what action the voids team took in relation to the feedback provided to assist them with their processes in identifying faults, what additional checks of the heating during the void process have been implemented, and what changes have been implemented following the feedback to staff regarding the lack of communication and that vulnerabilities should be taken into consideration when dealing with service requests.
  5. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the orders within the timeframes stipulated.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider a payment of £20 to recognise the stage 2 response delay.
  2. The landlord should address the resident’s 1 August 2024 email regarding the outstanding issues if it has not already.