Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202305331)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305331

Paradigm Housing Group Limited

9 June 2025

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:
1. checks to the condition of the property when let as part of a mutual exchange
2. the resident’s reports of repairs
3. concerns about asbestos
4. the resident’s request to remove the back garden shed
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house with her children. She is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association.
On 5 August 2022 the resident accepted a mutual exchange and moved into the property in September 2022. The resident raised several repairs with the landlord including concerns about asbestos shortly after she moved in. On 7 October 2022 she raised a formal complaint with the landlord about the condition of the property and handling of the repairs.
The landlord responded on 7 November 2022 at stage 1 of its complaint process. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint due to the time and trouble taken by the resident to raise and chase up repairs. It said:
1. following a survey all repairs had either been completed or booked
2. it would contact the resident in “the new year”, to see if there was anything outstanding
3. it had taken learning from the resident’s feedback regarding the property inspection prior to the mutual exchange – it would look at how it managed expectations and check outgoing tenants had raised and completed any repairs before a mutual exchange is approved
The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its process after receiving communication from our Service in July 2023. It contacted the resident by phone to discuss the escalation on 28 July 2023 and issued its stage 2 complaint response on 17 August 2023. The landlord said:
1. it was satisfied it had followed its mutual exchange policy and acted accordingly during the inspection
2. the holistic approach to repairs after the stage 1 complaint response was good and it was happy all repairs had been completed
3. the issue with asbestos in a store cupboard was safe, but the resident should monitor this and report any changes straight away
4. it partially upheld the resident’s complaint as there was a delay in fixing the flooring which caused inconvenience
5. learning had been taken from the resident’s complaint about ‘scoping’ appointments and training would be given to its Customer Service Advisors to ensure a consistent approach
6. it would offer £100 compensation for the upheld element of the resident’s complaint
Following the stage 2 complaint response and after further communication with the resident the landlord increased the compensation to £350, broken down as:
1. £150 as a goodwill gesture to enable the resident to remove the back garden shed
2. £100 for the inconvenience caused from the delay with the flooring
3. £100 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused as it could have picked up some further repairs from the initial mutual exchange inspection prior to the resident moving in
The resident did not accept the compensation figure and confirmed her complaint was to be investigated by the Service. She has said that to resolve the complaint she would want:
1. a formal apology
2. a higher level of compensation
3. an audit of the landlord’s policies around mutual exchange and asbestos
4. confirmation that all hazards from the inspection report had been repairs to relevant regulations.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident has told us that there are repairs she keeps discovering at her property some of which remain outstanding. She also is concerned that the communication with the landlord about planned repairs to renew elements of her property has been poor. While we understand the resident’s frustration, this investigation has focussed on the issues she raised in her formal complaint that was responded to in August 2023. In the interest of fairness if the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s actions since this date, she can raise a new formal complaint with the landlord. This is so the landlord has a fair opportunity to assess its own actions and put things right.

Checks to the condition of the property when let as part of a mutual exchange

The landlord has not provided a specific policy for how it handles the process of a mutual exchange . It has supplied its Tenancy Management policy, but this does not set out the steps the landlord will take to assess a property prior to allowing a mutual exchange. However, it does have a mutual exchange ‘factsheet’ which says:
1. it is the resident’s responsibility to inspect the property thoroughly before the exchange happens
2. although the landlord will conduct a property inspection, not all issues can be found and residents that are exchanging are “ultimately responsible for being satisfied with the condition of the property that they are moving to”
3. once the exchange has taken place the resident takes responsibility for the condition of the property except for repair issues that fall under the landlord’s responsibility as detailed in the tenancy agreement
This factsheet sets out the 2 steps prior to a mutual exchange taking place that deals with the condition of the property. This is that the landlord will conduct an inspection of the property, but that the ultimate responsibility is on the resident to be satisfied of the condition of the property prior to moving in.
While the resident was not sent this factsheet, she was told that she should satisfy herself of the condition of the property before she agreed to the exchange. This was set out in letters on 26 July, 5 August and 5 September 2022. On 5 August she signed a property acceptance form.
This followed an inspection completed by the landlord that found several items that were ‘non-standard’ or alterations that would become the resident’s responsibility. The resident has told us that the inspection undertaken by the landlord was inadequate and a closer inspection would have revealed significant outstanding repair issues. She says that had she known the extent of the repairs then she would likely have refused to exchange.
However, an inspection before a mutual exchange is usually a visual or limited inspection and not a detailed survey. This is because the property usually contains the belongings of the previous tenant which makes it difficult for the landlord to find all outstanding repairs. Although we understand that the situation would have been frustrating for the resident, the landlord acted in line with the steps outlined in its factsheet.
Even though the landlord followed the relevant steps in its process, its communication with the resident following the stage 2 complaint response acknowledged some issues could have been “picked up” during the mutual exchange inspection. The Ombudsman agrees with this view, while it was reasonable to conduct a limited inspection, there were a lot of issues discovered once the resident moved in which were the landlord’s responsibility to repair. Had a surveyor or technical officer completed a more thorough inspection it may have saved the resident some time and trouble in reporting some of the repair issues. It could also have been more efficient for the landlord and ensured the landlord / tenant relationship started on a more positive note.
Based on this evidence the Ombudsman considers this would amount to a service failure. The landlord did not offer any compensation for this in its stage 2 complaint response. However, in its communication following the stage 2 complaint response it offered the resident £100 for the inconvenience of booking repairs that may have been found during its inspection.
As the compensation was offered immediately following the stage 2 complaint response, we are satisfied that this was offer was made as a genuine attempt to resolve the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that where there has been a service failure such as a failure to meet an appropriate service standard a payment of between £25 and £250 should be considered. This broadly follows our remedies guidance which says if there has been a failure which caused inconvenience or a loss of confidence a payment of between £50 to £100 is fair. Therefore, we consider that the offer of compensation aligns with these figures and was proportionate.
In addition to the compensation the landlord set out its learning and committed to managing better the expectations of incoming tenants during a mutual exchange . It also said that it would check that outgoing tenants had raised and completed repairs before a mutual exchange is approved.
When taking all the circumstances into account, the Ombudsman considers that this was reasonable redress. This is because the compensation was proportionate, and relevant learning was taken from the complaint.

Reports of repairs

The landlord’s repairs policy says that its target times for repairs are:
1. 24 hours for emergencies that are needed to be made safe to avoid immediate danger
2. 15 working days for urgent appointments
3. 60 working days for non-urgent appointments
Following the resident’s move into the property she raised several repairs between 13 and 21 September 2022. This included repairs for the:
1. toilet consistently filling the cistern
2. hot water outlet in the kitchen not working
3. manhole cover (found prior to resident moving in)
4. paint on lino flooring coming off
5. front living room door glass pane
The landlord attended the toilet repair within its 15 working day timescale for urgent repairs which was reasonable.
It attended the repair for the hot water outlet within its 15 working day timescale. The landlord attempted a repair, but it was discovered that the resident required a different feed to fit both a dishwasher and washing machine. The landlord confirmed to the resident on 6 October 2022 that this was not something that fell under its responsibility to repair. This aligns with the responsibilities set out in the property acceptance form signed by the resident on 5 August 2022. This says that the resident is responsible for providing washing machine and dishwasher connections.
The manhole cover was booked in for 28 September 2022 which was in line with its repair policy timescales. This was rebooked for 10 November 2022 as the landlord could not access the property on the initial appointment. The evidence shows that the resident was not provided with notification of the first appointment. This was unreasonable and caused some inconvenience as the repair needed to be rearranged.
The landlord confirmed to the resident that it was not responsible for the flooring in the kitchen. This was highlighted in the property acceptance form as ‘non-standard’ flooring and the resident agreed that this was her responsibility. This was a fair decision by the landlord. As the resident had accepted the condition of the flooring within the property acceptance form.
Similarly, the landlord told the resident that she would be responsible for the front living room door as this was ‘non-standard’ and had been highlighted in the property acceptance form. Again, this was a fair decision by the landlord based on the resident’s signed acceptance of this.
Several other repairs were reported by the resident which the landlord either requested further information for or arranged an appointment. However, due to a lack of faith in the landlord’s actions the resident raised a complaint and as a resolution requested a more holistic approach. In response to the resident’s complaint the landlord completed a joint inspection to address the repair concerns of the resident. The decision to conduct an inspection was reasonable and recognised the inconvenience and worry the resident had felt by having to report repairs individually whenever they were discovered.
This took place on 26 October 2022. The inspection report listed repairs that were the resident’s responsibility, these were.
1. loose light fitting in the living room
2. living room door
3. lino flooring
4. hallway understairs door
5. large garden tree
6. installation of a rear outside light
7. loose wallpaper behind the front and rear bedroom radiator
Each of these issues had been highlighted in the property acceptance form or were decorative issues that were the resident’s responsibility. Therefore, it was fair for the landlord to refuse repairs for the issues above.
The inspection report by the landlord also highlighted several repairs that were its responsibility. The landlord either completed the repairs or arranged an appointment for them to be completed. Any outstanding appointments were arranged for 14 December 2022 which was within 60 working days as per the landlord’s repairs policy. This was reasonable.
Following the inspection the landlord and resident continued to communicate about outstanding issues. The resident raised several issues that had not been covered within the inspection report and questioned whether she was responsible for the condition of the kitchen flooring. In response to this the landlord arranged for a Repairs Manager to visit the property on 12 December 2022. This was to establish if there was anything further it could agree to do for the resident. This further inspection from a Repairs Manager was discretionary from the landlord. It was a reasonable step to take and showed the landlord was working with the resident to try and resolve the repair issues that she faced.
Following the inspection on 12 December 2022 further jobs were raised to replace some doors within the property, to move some kitchen cupboards, to fix the kitchen and landing ceilings, and fix the chimney breast. These appointments were arranged for the resident within 60 working days of this inspection. This was reasonable and within the landlord’s repair timescales.
On 20 December 2022 the resident contacted the landlord as she was unhappy with the appointments that happened on 14 December 2022. She told the landlord that she was expecting all the relevant repairs to be completed on this date. However, while some repairs were completed many larger jobs were not. Instead, the landlord had sent someone to ‘scope’ the works and that the job would not be completed until February or March 2023. This is confirmed by the landlord’s repair records.
This was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy which says that work for non-urgent repairs would be completed within 60 working days. The communication around the repairs on 14 December 2022 was also unreasonable. The resident was set an expectation by the landlord that it would complete all repairs on this date. By failing to properly explain the work it would conduct at these appointments, the resident suffered some unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
Various jobs were booked and completed between 16 January and 14 March 2023. These included completed repairs to the:
1. back gate on 16 January 2023
2. internal doors on 21 January 2023
3. chimney breast on 10 February 2023
4. landing flooring and balustrade on 16 February 2023
5. decking on 23 February 2023
6. front main bedroom door on 5 March 2023
7. guttering on 6 March 2023
8. kitchen units and tiles on 14 Mach 2023
Each of these jobs were completed outside of the landlord’s repair policy timescales which caused the resident some frustration and inconvenience. This frustration was increased as some of the repairs were rearranged due to operatives’ sickness. While it is understandable some appointments may need to be rearranged due to resourcing, this added to the delays and increased the resident’s distress.
The resident also highlighted on 6 March 2023 how hard it had been for her with a 4-year-old child to live in a property while these repairs were being conducted. She explained she had lost enjoyment of the home after she was excited to move in.
On 31 March 2023 the landlord explained that the outstanding repairs would be completed on:
1. 13 April 2023 for the loft hatch
2. 3 to 4 May 2023 for the flooring works
3. 5 June 2023 to repair the soffits
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 April 2023 as she was unhappy with the operative who attended the property. She told the landlord that the operative had gone to her back door and did not knock on the front door. This meant she had missed the appointment and had been told a further appointment could not be booked until May. This failed appointment caused some added inconvenience to the resident, but the landlord recognised this and arranged for an operative to attend the following day.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 April 2023 to express her worry that the flooring works would be disruptive and that it would not be safe for her to live in the property with her child while the works took place. This was considered by the landlord who arranged a temporary move between 2 and 4 May 2023. This was in line with its repairs policy. The policy says that a decision would be made based on the risk to the people living in a property. Given the young child living in the property and the works being conducted in the kitchen, it was a reasonable decision to take.
The landlord completed the flooring work on 4 May 2023. This was outside of its 60 working day timescale for repairs. While some delay was understandable due to the discovery of asbestos, the flooring work had been identified in December 2022. Therefore, the time taken to complete the work was unreasonable and caused the resident some distress and inconvenience.
Following the completion of the flooring works the resident moved back to her property and found that her kitchen appliances had not been refixed. This caused her further inconvenience and was unreasonable as the landlord had committed to removing and refixing the appliances as part of the repair work.
Once the appliances were refixed the resident contacted the landlord on 8 May 2023 to advise that when she had used her dishwasher there had been a large leak. She asked the landlord to return and fix this for her. The landlord attended to this on 9 May, within 24 hours, which is in line with its repairs policy for ‘emergency’ repairs. This was reasonable.
The landlord considered the issue fixed, but the resident called the same day to say the issue remained outstanding. She explained that on further investigation she believed there may be damage to her dishwasher rather than any connections. She recorded a video and sent this to the landlord on 10 May 2023. Following an inspection of the dishwasher on 12 May 2023, the landlord told the resident that it considered the issue was not its responsibility and that the leak was due to a pin sized hole in the wastepipe.
Between 12 May and 1 June 2023 the landlord and resident remained in discussion about this issue. On 1 June 2023 the landlord agreed to cover the cost of fixing the issue for the resident as a goodwill gesture.
While we cannot decide if the landlord was or was not responsible for the leak, we have considered the actions it did take in this period. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord took reasonable steps to try and resolve the matter for the resident. It attended as an emergency in the first instance, it then inspected the issue, and finally it agreed to cover the cost of any repair. While this did cause some inconvenience to the resident, the actions of the landlord were reasonable.
The landlord completed repairs to the soffits on 6 June 2023. Again, while some delay was understandable due to the discovery of asbestos, the work had been found in October 2022. Therefore, the time taken to complete the work was unreasonable and caused the resident some distress and inconvenience.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord did acknowledge that there had been some delay in the repairs and offered the resident £100 to acknowledge the impact this caused. This was in line with its own compensation policy for service failures. However, we do not consider that this compensation figure was proportionate to the failures we have identified.
The time taken to complete some of the repairs that were found in October and December 2022 was unreasonable. The landlord’s repairs policy has a standard of 60 working days to complete repairs. To fall outside of this policy timescale was unfair on the resident. The repair to the soffit and flooring were not completed for a prolonged period and this significantly impacted the resident. Taking all the circumstances into account the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s actions.
Our remedies guidance says that where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident but has since been resolved a payment of between £100 to £600 is appropriate. Therefore, a more proportionate level of compensation for the failings identified is £400 (inclusive of the £100 already offered). This considers the positive steps the landlord took alongside the significant impact the failings had on the resident.

Asbestos

The landlord was first notified about the potential issues of asbestos following an electrical appointment on 15 September 2022. The resident asked the landlord to investigate the issue urgently due to her child having asthma. The landlord responded to this report on 16 September 2022 and confirmed that it had been passed to the relevant team for a site inspection. The job was raised by the landlord on 21 September 2022 to conduct a thorough inspection of the entire property the following day.
This aligned with the landlord’s policy on asbestos where it says it will look into any problems and confirm details in writing to the resident. Following the asbestos inspection on 22 September 2022 samples were sent for analysis and the resident was told an update would be provided the following week.
On 26 September 2022 the landlord received the asbestos report which made 2 recommendations. These were to deal with damage in the airing cupboard as a medium risk. This meant repairs were required to make the cupboard safe. And to fix the external soffit panels on the roof, however as this was a low risk the recommendation was to ‘manage’ the issue and replace within 2 years.
The landlord did not update the resident on the results of the report until 6 October 2022, and this was only after the resident had chased for an update. This was unreasonable, the resident had made clear her worry about the asbestos issue due to her child’s medical condition. The failure to update the resident as promised caused her some unnecessary distress.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 13 October 2022 to deal with the airing cupboard. It could not complete the job at this time and recommended further work which was booked in and completed on 26 October 2022. The initial appointment was completed within the landlord’s 15 working day timescale for urgent repairs. The follow-on job was also completed within 15 working days of the original appointment. The landlord’s actions were reasonable as they aligned with its repair policy timescales.
On 6 March 2023 when a contractor attended to complete some work to the soffits, it told the landlord that it was unable to complete this work due to the presence of asbestos. Asbestos for the soffits had already been highlighted by the earlier asbestos report. Therefore, it was unreasonable for the landlord to arrange an appointment to repair this issue without first dealing with the asbestos.
This meant that the time taken to repair the soffits was delayed until the asbestos was removed in June 2023. The time taken to remove the asbestos was unreasonable and caused the resident some distress and inconvenience.
Works to the kitchen floor which were originally scheduled for January 2023 also had to be delayed due to the discovery of asbestos in the layers of the flooring. While this discovery was ‘new’ and not related to the earlier inspection, the time taken to complete the removal of the asbestos so the kitchen work could begin was unreasonable. It took the landlord longer than the 15 working day timescale for urgent repairs and the 60 working day timescale for non-urgent repairs for this to be completed. This increased the distress and inconvenience felt by the resident.
The resident has said that she was unhappy that some of the issues around asbestos were not picked up in the mutual exchange inspection. While we appreciate the resident’s frustration with this, as previously explained this inspection is limited in the types of issues it can find. It would not be expected that asbestos would be found in a mutual exchange inspection, especially as this had not been reported by the previous tenant.
What is clear from the evidence is that once the asbestos was discovered the landlord could have acted quicker to resolve the issue around the soffits and kitchen flooring. The delay in removing the asbestos did cause the resident some additional worry, especially as she had a child with a vulnerability.
The landlord did not recognise the time taken to complete the asbestos removal was unreasonable in its stage 2 complaint response. As there were failings that lasted of a prolonged period and it did not follow its repair policy timescales we consider this to be maladministration.
As previously explained, our remedies guidance says that where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident but has since been resolved a payment of between £100 to £600 is appropriate. Given the asbestos removal took longer than necessary a payment of £250 is appropriate. This recognises the impact of the landlord’s failings that lasted several months.

Request to remove the back garden shed

As part of her complaint to the landlord the resident requested the removal of her back garden shed as she considered this to be dangerous. However, in the property condition form signed by the resident on 5 August 2022 it says that the resident would be responsible for the shed as it was ‘gifted’ to her.
The landlord told the resident that the removal of the shed was her responsibility, and this was a fair decision based on the resident signing the property condition form..
Following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, and in an effort to resolve this issue for the resident it offered £150 as a goodwill gesture to contribute to the shed removal. This was a discretionary offer and was a reasonable step by the landlord to try and assist with the cost of removal of the shed.
However, as the landlord had set out clearly in its property condition form that the resident would be responsible for the shed, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this request.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint policy. It will respond at stage 1 of its process within 10 working days and stage 2 of its process within 20 working days. If an extension is needed it will tell the resident.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint within 1 working day. However, it advised that it would respond by 24 October 2022 which was outside of its policy timescales. This was then extended by the landlord as it wanted to wait for the results of the inspection that took place on 26 October 2022. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaint process on 7 November 2022.
While we would usually expect a landlord to respond to a complaint before any outstanding actions are completed, in this case it was reasonable for the landlord to extend its response time. This was because the resident had raised specific concerns about who was responsible for specific repairs. It was only after the inspection on 26 October 2022 that the landlord could answer the questions posed in the complaint. As the landlord kept the resident updated on its timeframe for a response, its actions at stage 1 were reasonable.
The resident escalated her complaint on 7 November 2022. She clearly set out in an email that she disagreed with the stage 1 complaint response and set out the areas of the response she was unhappy with. However, the landlord failed to escalate the complaint and instead responded informally to the resident. This was not fair, nor was it in line with its complaint policy which says it will not unreasonably refuse to escalate the complaint. This caused the resident some inconvenience.
Despite remaining unhappy with the landlord’s actions and repeatedly raising concerns, the landlord failed to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its process until we contacted it in July 2023. This delay in escalating the complaint was unreasonable and the time taken caused significant distress to the resident.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation within its 5 working day timescale and responded at stage 2 within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. This was reasonable. The landlord also used its discretion to continue discussing the complaint after its stage 2 response to see if it could resolve the complaint with the resident. This was also reasonable.
In all the circumstances the Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s handling of the complaint amounts to maladministration. This is because of the failure to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its process when appropriate.
The significant delay in providing the stage 2 complaint response caused the resident some distress and inconvenience. Therefore, as explained previously a payment of between £100 to £600 would be appropriate. Given the extent of the time taken and the repeated contact from the resident expressing concerns, we consider a payment of £150 to recognise the impact is fair.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the condition of the property when let as part of a mutual exchange.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of repairs
2. concerns about asbestos
3. the associated complaint
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the request to remove the back shed.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. apologise to the resident in writing
2. pay compensation of £800 (inclusive of the £100 already offered in its stage 2 complaint response) broken down as:
  1. £400 (inclusive of the £100) for the failings relating to its handling of repairs
  2. £250 related to the failings in its handling of the concerns about asbestos
  3. £150 for the complaint handling
3. provide us with evidence it has complied with the above orders
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should review its offer of training for complaint handling to frontline staff. This should highlight recognise the need to identify the difference between an escalation and a normal service request. The landlord should provide us with evidence of its review.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident £100 it offered following its stage 2 complaint response for the failings in its initial mutual exchange inspection.
The landlord should consider whether the offer of £150 regarding the shed is still open for acceptance. It is recommended that the landlord discuss this with the resident and consider whether it could use its repairs policy and the section on ‘recharges’, to aid the resident with its removal.
It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss her outstanding issues and concerns.