Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202211070)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211070

Paradigm Housing Group Limited

31 January 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. leaks in the property;
2. reports of damp and mould around the bedroom window.

Scope of investigation

The resident has a second complaint with this Service, case 202216190, that has been accepted for investigation in relation to the landlord’s handling of her service charge account. For clarity, the resident’s complaint in relation to her service charges account has not been included in the investigation of this case.
In the resident’s complaint to the landlord and this Service, she has made reference to leaks having been ongoing since 2019. There has been no evidence provided to this Service of any reports made to the landlord by the resident prior to her complaint in March 2022. Under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme it is the responsibility of this Service to decide on how to consider and investigate complaints subject to the Scheme, taking account of the evidence presented. Older complaints can be difficult to investigate due to the availability and quality of the evidence provided after a time delay.
The evidence that has been provided to this Service begins with an inspection report that was produced by the landlord dated 27 January 2022. The investigation of the resident’s complaint by this Service has considered all evidence provided from that date up until the landlord having issued its stage 2 complaint response on 10 May 2022.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been a leaseholder of the property since 13 December 2016. The property a one–bedroom fourth–floor flat. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
The lease agreement states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining all structural parts of the building and the “service media.” This includes the roof, external walls, drainage, and water apparatus or equipment.
The landlord’s temporary decant process considers 2 scenarios. These are:
1. “An emergency decant usually following an emergency like a fire or flood where a household has to be rehoused immediately;”
2. A “temporary decant usually following major works being identified where the works have to proceed and the household cannot remain in situ.”
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that the policy does not apply to leaseholders or shared owners, except for where it has repair responsibilities for communal areas. The landlord’s website states that it is responsible for repairs in “the shared areas” and its new homes have a 10-year warranty for major structural faults.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that its complaints process consists of a 2-stage process. It will provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. Should it not be able to provide its responses within this timeframe, it would provide the resident with an explanation and extend the date by no longer than a further 10 working days.
The landlord’s remedies and compensation policy states that it will consider offering compensation for its service delivery failures, including for distress and inconvenience. Its policy lists 3 levels of how it considers the amounts it offers to its “customers.” These are:
1. Level 1 – Service failure with low impact to the resident which has been ongoing for a short duration, that has not significantly affected the overall outcome. This includes failure to meet service standards and failure in providing incorrect information which has caused offence or upset. Amount offered between £25 – £250.
2. Level 2 – Where there has been considerable service failure but no permanent impact on the customer. This includes when a customer has had to repeatedly chase for updates and responses. Amount offered between £250 – £500.
3. Level 3 – In recognition of severe failing where there has been significant long-term effect on the resident. This includes when a customer has had to stay in long term accommodation due to mishandling of repairs. Amount offered between £500 – £700.

Summary of events

The landlord carried out an inspection of the building on 27 January 2022, following “a significant number of leaks reported by the tenants.” This included the resident’s balcony, the balcony above her property, and the roof of the building. There has been no evidence seen by this Service to indicate that the landlord took any actions following this report. The report said:
1. There was damp staining to areas of the resident’s balcony. It also identified the likely cause to be RWP boxing (the landlord has not advised this Service what its abbreviation meant, and so the Ombudsman has taken RWP to mean rainwater pipes).
2. The roof balcony above the resident’s flat showed areas of “penetration detailed through the roof,” issues with the render, and several gaps and cracks were found. The report states that patch repairs to a roof like this were normal and could be seen to have been done previously. It also advised “much more defects could remain.”
3. Pipe works from the water meters showed leaks and it had been reported by the contractor that the meters suffered continuous leaks from the connections. This had left the walls saturated and they needed to be dried using a pump and dehumidifier once further checks on pipes and lagging had been completed.
4. Rainwater manhole pipes showed “obstruction” and these should be jetted and cleaned.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 5 and 8 March 2022 about the leaks to her property, including the balcony and a window that was causing “severe damp and mould.” She said that the leak to her balcony had been ongoing for many years without a resolution. Although no evidence has been provided, the resident advised that the landlord had previously accepted responsibility and it had committed to repairing the leak and redecorating her property. The resident told the landlord of her dissatisfaction regarding the recent advice to “claim on her insurance.” The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 9 March 2022, and said that it would provide its response to her complaint by 21 March 2022.
On 21 March 2022, the landlord advised the resident that it needed to extend the target date for its response to 4 April 2022, as it “needed more time to clarify a few concerns that have been raised.” It did not provide any details of the concerns that it was referring to in its communication with the resident.
On 22 March 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it had instructed a contractor to carry out investigatory works to establish the cause of the ongoing leaks to a number of properties. It had also arranged for a contractor to carry out works to “the effected riser cupboard.” It said that once it had any further updates it would write to the residents again.
This Service has been provided with 2 emails sent by the landlord to its internal colleagues dated 28 March 2022 and 1 April 2022. Both emails began “Dear Resident” and confirmed that leak detection specialists would be visiting the building on 4 April 2022. The email on 1 April 2022 advised of the need to reschedule the appointment and rearranged this to 12 April 2022. However, there has been no evidence seen by this Service to confirm that either of these updates were sent by the landlord to the residents.
On 4 April 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident and it confirmed that it had fully upheld her complaint. Its response included the following:
1. It acknowledged it had been too quick to pass responsibility of the repairs to the resident in its previous communications, without carrying out an initial investigation. It said that it should not have also assumed the leaks were in relation to fire safety works being carried out at that time.
2. It acknowledged it had failed to contact the resident on several occasions within a reasonable timescale.
3. It advised it had previously failed to identify the cause of the leaks and its service delivery had fallen short of what the resident should expect. Each leak that had been reported had been considered individually rather than looking to make any links or connections to other leaks when reported.
4. It acknowledged that it was not acceptable that the resident had had to suffer with water ingress for the length of time that she had, although it did not clarify the length of time the resident had suffered with water ingress, it said that it “considered the action we took and advice you were given when you reported these issues over the last 12 months.” It apologised for this as well as its overall failings, and for the distress and frustration that it had caused to the resident.
5. It advised it was investigating the source of the leak under a specific project and this was being led by a manager and the original developer of the building. It advised that it had carried out a site visit on 22 March 2022 to a number of properties within the building. Should the cause be as a result of a building defect, it would address this with the developer.
6. It further advised it would be having weekly meetings with the developer and keep the residents regularly updated. It had also appointed a leak detection company to carry out investigations, and any appointments with them would be made with the resident.
7. It was reviewing its use of data to identify similar issues that could indicate if there bigger underlying problems rather than dealing with individual leaks in future. It would also be reviewing the advice that it provided to its leaseholders in relation to leaks as well as its written guidance regarding repairs and insurance claims.
It has not been clear from the investigation carried out by this Service when the landlord began carrying out fire safety related works to the building or the individual resident’s properties. However, on 6 April 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that 98% of the internal fire safety related works had been completed and it would be completing the remaining works by May 2022.
In the landlord’s communication to the resident on 6 April 2022 it advised that it needed access to her property to ensure her home was compliant. It provided the dates it would be available and asked the resident to confirm her availability. It acknowledged that the resident had raised concerns about having the fire related works completed while the source of the leak had not been identified, and confirmed it was working with the developer to locate the source. The resident subsequently escalated the complaint to stage 2 and requested for “the fire safety works and leak repairs to be carried out urgently and in coordination.”
The landlord advised the resident on 21 April 2022, that it had agreed with the developer to carry out works to resolve the leak and complete the fire safety related works at the same time. The works would begin the week commencing 25 April 2022 and it would be decanting the resident for the week while it carried out the works. Its investigations had identified a number of causes for the leaks and the responsibility to rectify this “sits with various parties.” It also said that “given the length of time it has taken to reach this point and in order to reach a quick resolution we will undertake works within your home at our cost, but this does not imply we are accepting liability for all leaks or their sources.” The landlord provided a selection of temporary accommodation options and asked the resident to confirm which would be most suitable.
The resident told the landlord in her response, on the same day, that she had informed the landlord what it needed to put in writing before it proceeded with any works, during a telephone conversation on 11 April 2022. The resident also said that she had sent the landlord an email on 13 April 2022 to acknowledge their discussion, and that she had provided her reasons to it for wanting the leak remedial works and the fire safety works to be carried out at the same time. This Service has not seen evidence of these communications but the resident’s comments were not disputed by the landlord. The resident went on to say that she would not be available for the appointment on 25 April 2022, due to it being short notice. However, she confirmed that she would be available from 2 May 2022 and asked the landlord to provide written confirmation of the works that needed to be carried out.
On 22 April 2022, the landlord proposed a new date of the week commencing 9 May 2022 for works to begin, due to the previous week being a bank holiday. It also advised that upon the resident’s agreement of the date, it would provide a works schedule for both the fire safety works and the works in relation to the damp and mould. The resident agreed with the date suggested and advised she would confirm her choice of temporary accommodation by 26 April 2022. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s confirmation, and it was also agreed for the landlord to visit the property on 6 May 2022 to carry out an inspection before works commenced.
On 25 April 2022, the landlord’s internal communications show that it would be carrying out water tests from samples taken from the leaks within the building. It said that it would collect water samples from the building the following day and it expected the results to be available from the week commencing 23 May 2022. Additionally, its leak detection specialist would need access to the building to carry out water testing to the terraces on the fifth floor on 5 May 2022, and further samples would be taken and tested “periodically.”
On 26 April 2022, the resident reported a new leak that had been discovered that morning. She also asked the landlord a number of questions about the decant property and raised some concerns about the options the landlord had provided. The resident suggested that she be allowed to find her own accommodation within the price range of the landlord’s suggestions, to which the landlord agreed.
On 28 May 2022, the landlord answered the resident’s questions and provided details of all works to be carried out in relation to both the fire safety and the remedial works for the leaks. The remedial works were to make good and redecorate the affected rooms and areas of the resident’s property. This included the bathroom, kitchen, living room, bedroom area, and balcony. The resident replied with further questions and asked the landlord to clarify if the works would also include “eliminating the source of the damp and mould.” The landlord, in its response on 29 May 2022, confirmed that it had “trades lined up to carry out the works,” and it asked the resident to confirm details of the paints needed for it to redecorate.
From 1 May 2022 to 4 May 2022, there were multiple communications between the landlord and the resident in relation to the decorative materials needed and the removal and dismantling of furniture that may be required before works could be carried out. On 5 May 2022, the landlord visited the resident’s property and provided a list of works that it would be carrying out on the same day. The resident confirmed she was “fine” with the works it would be carrying out and she was decanted from her property on the agreed date.
On 10 May 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response, which included the following:
1. It noted that the resident felt that by escalating her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process “may speed up resolution of the water leak issues.” However, the nature of the leaks had been difficult to establish and it was doing all it could to identify the source of the leaks. It advised it had so far been unable to do this as it was “an extremely complex issue.” It had carried out significant investigations and it continued to do so, including the leak reported in the communal area. It also said that “the liability and rectification may lie elsewhere.” It upheld this part of the resident’s complaint.
2. The puddles of water reported as forming on the resident’s bedroom windowsill were likely to be condensation rather than a leak. It was arranging for filters for the resident’s ventilation and heat recovery unit to be sent to the resident to help keep condensation “at bay.”
3. It had agreed to “make good” the holes made when carrying out investigation works for the leaks in the resident’s balcony.
4. It had not seen signs of dampness or historical dampness in the resident’s bedroom. However, there were signs of a leak on a wall corresponding to the balcony, and the cause had not been identified. It confirmed it would be redecorating the area as part of the works being carried out.
5. It had agreed to coordinate the leak remedial works and fire safety works at the same time. It advised its position that the remedial works would be unlikely to be its responsibility, but it was doing them as a gesture of “goodwill.” It also noted that the resident had refused to allow the landlord to conduct the fire safety and leak remediation works separately, which had added to the delays in completing either.
6. The water sample tests confirmed that there was no faeces or urine present in the water from the leaks but did contain detergent traces possibly from a washing machine.
7. It was unable at that time to consider financial compensation due to it having not sourced where the leaks were coming from and who’s responsibility it was to resolve. It said it would review this once the liabilities had been established.
8. It had engaged with consultants and specialists to investigate the sources of the leaks. While it had identified some minor leaks, it was unlikely to account for the extent of the water ingress entering the property. Water analysis tests were being carried out to understand the source of the internal leaks, and the external water leak tests were being processed and the results should be available within 10 working days. Once identified, it would look to resolve the leaks without delay.
9. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to carryout robust investigations to source the leaks, and it was doing its best to bring the matter to the soonest conclusion.
Following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, there has been no evidence provided to show the landlord made an offer of financial compensation to the resident. The Ombudsman is aware that the resident’s complaint about leaks to her property had not been resolved at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. The Ombudsman is also aware that there was further communication and investigations carried out after the stage 2 complaint response. The resident has expressed her ongoing dissatisfaction with the further delays.

Assessment and findings

Leaks

The resident’s lease agreement states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining all structural parts of the building and the “service media.” This includes the roof, external walls, drainage, and water apparatus or equipment. The landlord’s website states that it is responsible for repairs in “the shared areas” and its new homes have a 10-year warranty for major structural faults. The landlord’s redress and compensation policy states that it considers compensation for its failure to deliver a service and for the distress and inconvenience as a result of this.
Following the landlord’s inspection on 27 January 2022, it is not evident that the landlord took any action or that it updated the resident until the middle of March 2022. This update was only following the resident having made a complaint. Given the resident’s concerns, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have reviewed the report and to have contacted the resident at the earliest opportunity to discuss any next steps that it would be taking. Its failure to do this caused distress and inconvenience for the resident and led her to expend time and trouble chasing updates following the inspection.
In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it apologised and accepted responsibility for its failings in its handling of the leaks. It also acknowledged the distress and frustration caused to the resident as a result of its failings. It committed to working with the developer, including holding weekly meetings, to “stay on task,” and assigned a lead investigator to source the leaks as well as review its data and procedures identified as having needed improvement. This was positive action taken by the landlord and showed a willingness to identify and resolve the leaks within the building.
While the landlord committed to working with multiple parties to try and resolve the leaks to the property, working with multiple parties requires a high level of communication and management which can cause delay. The Ombudsman recognises that investigations into leaks can be complex, can take multiple inspections, tests and co-ordination with contractors and owners before the source is identified.
In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response it acknowledged that it had not handled the leaks as it should have and that it had failed to identify links between leaks reported by other residents. It apologised for this and the length of time the resident had suffered from the water ingress and for the distress and frustration this had caused to her. It committed to taking action to resolve the leaks and review the areas it had identified as needing improvement. This was positive action taken by the landlord and it showed an acceptance of its failures and a wiliness to resolve the leaks to the resident’s property. However, while the landlord apologised to the resident, it failed to consider making an offer of financial redress for the service failures that had been within its control. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done so.
Around the time the landlord was investigating the leaks to the resident’s property, it was also carrying out fire safety works. It arranged for the works for both issues to be carried out at the same time, at the resident’s request, to limit the disruption caused to her. It also worked with the resident to arrange the works to be at a time that would be convenient for her, as well as providing a clear list of works it would be carrying out and asking the resident to confirm the paint it needed to obtain to carry out the redecoration. The landlord’s actions were reasonable and while this contributed to the delay it was nevertheless appropriate to do so. This showed that the landlord listened and was responsive the resident’s request for coordinated works.
Following the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response it confirmed that it had identified a number of causes of the leaks. It said that although the responsibility sat with various parties to resolve, due to the time it had taken it to identify these it would undertake the works and redecoration to the resident’s home at no cost to the resident. It clarified that this “did not imply we are accepting liability for all the leaks or their sources.” It also said it had arranged for further tests to be carried out as it did not believe it had identified the main source causing the damage and water ingress that continued to be evident. The landlord showed that while it acknowledged the resident had experienced delays it also showed a wish put things right for the resident by undertaking works that may not have been its responsibility. This Service understands the complications of multi-party involvement when carrying out inspections particularly to identify leaks and the subsequent responsibilities for repairs to resident’s properties. The landlord used its discretion when agreeing to carry out the works and re-decoration to the resident’s property, and this was appropriate action to take to help reduce the impact of the leaks and delays to the resident.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord provided regular updates to the resident in relation to the actions it was taking in its investigations to identify the source of the leak. From the evidence seen by this Service following the resident’s complaint, the landlord took the appropriate steps and provided regular communications while arranging for tests, investigations, and repairs to be carried out. Although it had been unable to identify the main source of the leaks by the time it provided its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord showed it was taking various actions to locate the source and keep the resident updated. The landlord’s actions at this time were appropriate and reasonable.
The landlord arranged for the resident to be temporarily decanted from her property, initially for a week, while it carried out the fire safety works and leak repairs and redecoration. It allowed the resident to select an appropriate decant property. It then extended the resident’s stay in temporary accommodation for a further 7 days due to the leaks in the resident’s property having worsened and its ongoing investigations. The landlord acted reasonably by decanting the resident at this time. It was also proactive in extending the resident’s stay in the temporary accommodation when it had identified further issues. The landlord had also showed its compliance with its temporary decant policy and in allowing the resident to locate her preferred accommodation, it showed flexibility, understanding and consideration of the disruption to the resident.
In summary, the landlord acknowledged and accepted the service failures in relation to the delays it had initially caused to remedy the leaks, the frustration and upset this caused to the resident and in identifying links to other reports of leaks within the building, prior to the resident’s complaint. It subsequently provided her with regular updates of its investigations and the actions that it was taking. It committed to managing the leaks to the property with third parties until resolution and offered to carry out the repairs and redecoration to the resident’s property at its own cost. It also considered the inconvenience caused to the resident, while trying to minimise this when arranging for works to be carried out. This showed a positive learning from the landlord following the resident’s complaint.
The landlord said it would consider financial redress once the source of the leaks and responsibility had been identified. However, there has been no evidence provided to this Service to show financial redress has been offered. The landlord did not dispute that there had been failings by it in its handling of the leaks that had been reported. It should have considered offering financial redress for its failings in its handling of the leaks. This should have included failings in its communication with the resident, the distress and inconvenience it caused, as well as the time and trouble she took in chasing it for updates.
As a result this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leaks to the resident’s property. This Service orders the landlord to pay the resident £800 compensation for its handling of the reported leaks. This is inclusive of the delays caused by the landlord to investigate the source of the leaks, its poor communication, the time and trouble taken by the resident chasing for updates, and for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Reports of damp and mould around the bedroom window

In the resident’s complaint she advised the landlord that it had previously been aware of concerns she had raised about faults around her bedroom window, that had caused damp and mould issues around the window area. This Service has not seen any evidence in relation to this matter prior to March 2022. However, in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it did not dispute the resident’s comments and it said that it had previously diagnosed the issue to be a result of condensation.
The landlord took steps to mitigate the issue by committing to send the resident filters for her ventilation and recovery unit, to help resolve the issue. In doing this it used its discretion to provide the resident with further assistance to try to help her address the issues she had reported around her window. This was positive action taken by the landlord and showed its willingness to want to resolve the issues raised by the resident.
While the landlord took the appropriate action in its response to the resident’s complaint about her bedroom window, it would have been good practice for the it to have followed up with the resident to check if the remedy had worked. This would have shown the landlord’s commitment to ensuring a resolution to the resident’s concerns.
In summary the landlord took the appropriate action in reviewing a previous inspection it had carried out as part of its complaint investigation. It provided the resident with filters to help elevate the conditions the resident was experiencing around the window. This Service would recommend that the landlord contacts the resident if it has not done so already to confirm issues in relation to her window have now been resolved. This Service has found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould around the bedroom window.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its handling of the leaks to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding handling of reports about damp and mould around the bedroom window.

Reasons

The landlord did not dispute there had been failings in its handling and investigations of the leaks reported by the resident within her property.
The landlord said it would consider financial redress once the source of the leaks and responsibility had been identified. However, there has been no evidence provided to this Service to show financial redress has been offered.
The landlord acknowledged and accepted that there were initial delays in it taking action to resolve the leaks to the resident’s property, as well as having not identified links between other leaks reported in the building.
The landlord committed to managing the leaks to the property with third parties until resolution and offered to carry out the repairs and redecoration to the resident’s property at its own cost.
The landlord considered the inconvenience caused to the resident, while trying to minimise this when arranging for works to be carried out by providing the resident with temporary accommodation. Showing a positive learning from the resident’s complaint.
The landlord took steps to mitigate the issue by committing to send the resident filters for her ventilation and recovery unit, to help resolve the issue and showed its willingness to want to resolve the issues raised by the resident.

Orders

The landlord must comply with the orders below and provide evidence to this Service of its compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
A senior manager for the landlord must write to the resident to apologise for its failings identified in this report. Its apology must:
1. Acknowledge all maladministration found.
2. Accept responsibility for it.
3. Explain clearly why it happened.
4. Express sincere regret.
5. Provide assurances that the same maladministration should not occur again and set out what steps have been taken to assure this.
The landlord must pay the resident directly £800 compensation for the Service failures identified in this report.
The landlord must contact the resident to confirm that all issues have now been resolved, including the concerns raised around the condensation in the bedroom.
Should the resident be dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the leaks to her property, following its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord must record a new complaint in line with its complaints process.
The landlord to carry out a review of how it records multiple leaks being reported by multiple residents within a building, to improve its ability to be able to identify early when there is a systemic repair issue.