Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202229230)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229230

Paragon Asra Housing 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of damp and mould in her property.
2. reports of a draught in her living room.
This Service has also considered the associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1 bedroom flat. The resident has advised the landlord and this Service that she has metastatic cancer and has been receiving treatment for several years.
On 22 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and told them about numerous repairs required in her property, which included damp and mould in the living room and bedroom, and a draught in the living room.
The resident raised a complaint, which the landlord issued its stage one response to on 10 October 2022. It advised that repairs had been raised for all the required work and operatives would attend on 17 October 2022.
Due to the resident being unwell, repairs were rescheduled. However, operatives did report that the lounge wall needed damp proofing. On 7 November 2022, the landlord attended and carried out a mould wash. It also removed mouldy wallpaper and sealed around the living room window.
On 25 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and advised that the damp and mould problem was ongoing. The landlord noted that remedial work was required to 5 walls in the property.
On 17 February 2023, the resident escalated her complaint due to the damp and mould issue being ongoing, as well as the draught remaining unresolved. According to the resident, an inspection had been scheduled for the same day however no one had attended. The resident stated that the unresolved issues were having a significant impact on her existing poor health and despite the heating being on full, the property was extremely cold due to the draught.
The landlord attended on 22 May 2023 and completed a mould wash on the affected areas in the property. However, the operatives raised that there was a damp issue externally and various repairs were required. The resident also confirmed that despite mould washes being done on previous occasions, they did not resolve the problem.
On 5 June 2023, the landlord issued its stage two response. It apologised for the impact that the issues were having on the resident and agreed that the matter had taken too long to resolve. It confirmed that a survey was scheduled for 21 June 2023 to determine the root cause of the problem. The landlord offered the resident £350 compensation, comprised of;
1. £250 for distress and inconvenience caused by delays.
2. £100 for its delay in responding to her complaint.
The resident remains dissatisfied because the damp, mould and draught issues in her home remain unresolved. The resident expressed that the ongoing issue had caused her great discomfort and distress. Her ability to have chemotherapy has been jeopardised in the past due to respiratory infections, which the damp and mould has contributed to. The resident said that the issues in her home have added to an already traumatic time in her life, and the landlord has failed to acknowledge it in a meaningful way. She also raised that she found its compensation offer in its stage 2 response insulting.
This Service is aware that an inspection was carried out on 21 June 2023, where it was established that a damp survey was required from an external contractor. The contractor confirmed that it did not receive the original survey request in June but actioned the request in November 2023.
On 12 January 2024, the landlord confirmed with this Service that contractors were due to commence work in the coming weeks, and the resident was required to be decanted due to the extensive work required. It provided a final compensation offer of £1000 to the resident.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Landlords must ensure that the accommodation they provide is free from serious hazards, including damp and mould, and that homes are fit for habitation. They must treat cases of damp and mould with the utmost seriousness. Furthermore, the landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth pose a health risk to residents and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a health hazard that may require prompt remedy.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should “adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould”. The report also highlights that landlords should consider at an early stage whether moving the resident out of the property (otherwise known as ‘decanting’) to suitable accommodation is necessary, either on a temporary or permanent basis. This will ensure that residents are not left living in unsatisfactory conditions for months before a decant is considered. This is particularly important with respect to vulnerable residents where major works are required.
The resident reported the damp and mould issue on 22 August 2022 through email correspondence with the landlord. The resident has advised this Service that it followed a period of 1 month trying and failing to reach the landlord via telephone. The email correspondence reviewed from August 2022 supports the resident’s claim, and clearly evidences prolonged frustration experienced by the resident due to difficulties in reaching the landlord. Although the landlord has suggested in its correspondence with the resident that it first became aware of the damp and mould on 26 September 2022, this is incorrect.
The landlord’s maintenance policy explains that it has two types of prioritisations for repairs; emergency and non-emergency. Emergency repairs are attended to within 24 hours, whereas non-emergency repairs are to be carried out within 15 working days. It also outlines that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, and for repairing the structure of the property to eradicate penetrating damp.
Furthermore, the landlord’s guide to condensation, mould, and damp states it will arrange for a surveyor to respond to a report of mould or damp within 5 days and complete any works within 4 weeks.
The landlord made an appointment to complete the required repairs on 17 October 2022; 40 working days after the resident reported the damp and mould issue. This is outside the timescales outlined within the landlord’s maintenance policy, and significantly outside the timescale published within its damp and mould guidance.
While repairs were not undertaken on 17 October 2022, due to the resident being unwell, the required work was reported back to the landlord. The operative made it explicitly clear that the external wall required damp proofing as water was penetrating and causing damp internally. The landlord has stated that it failed to follow up on this due to an admin error. Given the seriousness of the problem, the landlord’s explanation was unacceptable.
The landlord returned on 7 November 2022 and completed a mould wash. It also removed mouldy wallpaper. While these actions would have temporarily treated the visible affected areas, it failed to address the root cause of the issue. This Service would have expected that remedial work would have gone hand in hand with a survey to investigate the cause of the damp and mould. However, the landlord failed to conduct a survey which was inappropriate.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 25 January 2023 and reported that the damp and mould issue was ongoing. Information from the resident and the landlord suggests that a survey had been arranged for 17 February 2023; 18 working days after the resident reported the ongoing damp and mould issue. As above, this was outside the expected timescales.
Still, nonetheless, the survey did not take place, with no explanation provided to the resident as to why. This was unreasonable and inevitably caused the resident greater frustration given the length of time the issue had been ongoing.
A mould wash was completed on affected areas on 22 May 2023; 81 working days after the resident reported the ongoing damp and mould problem. This was despite the landlord being aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities associated with her health. The time it took for the landlord to undertake any remedial work was completely unreasonable and showed no consideration for the potential impact on the resident’s wellbeing.
Following the remedial work, operatives informed the landlord again that the property had an external damp problem and various repairs were required. A survey had been scheduled for 23 May 2023, but the landlord failed to notify the resident of this appointment, therefore access was not provided by the resident. This Service expects landlords to make residents aware of prearranged appointments so they can arrange for access to be given. It would have been courteous to have at least confirmed that the resident was available.
A survey was subsequently carried out on 21 June 2023 which established that a specialist survey was required by an external contractor. While positive that the survey had been undertaken, the fact that there was still no clarity on the root cause of the issue given the length of time that had passed was unreasonable and prolonged the distress, discomfort and inconvenience for the resident.
The Ombudsman notes that operatives attended on 28 July 2023 to complete repairs to the flooring. However, the operative again reported back to the landlord that a survey was required to as the front external wall and bay window was causing mould in the property. There is no evidence that this recommendation triggered the landlord to chase up a survey or contact the external contractor to try and expedite a survey.
The external contractor confirmed with the landlord that it did not receive its initial request for a specialist damp survey, nor has this Service seen any evidence that demonstrates the landlord requested a survey in June 2023. As such, it appears that the request was only actioned in November 2023. It is a concern that this Service has seen no evidence of the landlord chasing up a survey request until November 2023, if the request was originally sent in June 2023. This was a further significant delay that prolonged the resident living in unacceptable conditions, and considerable discomfort.
Extensive works are due to commence in the resident’s property to address the damp and mould on 29 January 2024. The landlord estimates that the work will take 1 week to complete, and the resident will be required to leave the property during this time. It is positive that the required works are now being actioned, but this does not detract from the significant delay the resident has experienced in reaching this point.
As discussed earlier in this report, the resident has metastatic cancer and receives ongoing treatment, including chemotherapy. She is also asthmatic. With knowledge of the risks that damp and mould can pose to an individual’s health, and the greater impact this can have on the vulnerable, the landlord’s failure to approach this issue with the seriousness it deserved is concerning. The resident’s ongoing chemotherapy should have prompted the landlord to act quickly and consider the Ombudsman’s recommendation within the Spotlight report to assess the individual circumstances of the household and whether it is appropriate to move resident(s) out of their home at an early stage. Its failure to do so was a significant failing of the landlord.
Overall, the landlord has failed to resolve the resident’s damp and mould issues appropriately or promptly, resulting in the resident experiencing ongoing distress, inconvenience and significant frustration. The landlord additionally failed to identify the root cause of the issue within a reasonable period of time, and as such, it was unable to put in place a lasting and effective fix, as per its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities and the significant impact that the issues have had on her has led the Ombudsman to conclude that there was severe maladministration, for which the landlord will be ordered to offer an appropriate remedy for.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it would pay discretionary compensation if it failed to meet its own service targets. The amount of compensation is linked to the impact to the resident which ranges from £20 for low impact up to £500 for high impact.
The latest compensation offer of £1,000 was received by the resident in January 2024; 7 months after the landlord issued its stage two response. Therefore, the landlord failed to effectively put things right and it missed the opportunity to learn lessons from the outcome at the time of its original investigation. As such, the landlord did not act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles (to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes). Furthermore, this is not proportionate compensation for the considerable impact that the unresolved issues had and continue to have on the resident.
The Ombudsman has ordered compensation which considers all the circumstances of the case and this Service’s remedies guidance. The Ombudsman also recognises that some of our resident’s circumstances mean that they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others. This might be due to their circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability. Consideration of any aggravating factors (such as a resident’s poor physical health) could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident. It is evident that great distress and inconvenience has been caused to the resident in this case.
Additional compensation of £1,000 has therefore been awarded to appropriately compensate the resident for the distress and inconvenience endured. The level of compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance where severe maladministration has been identified, which has resulted in a severe long-term effect on the complainant.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a draught in the living room.

The resident reported a draught coming from her living room window on 22 August 2022, that caused the room to be very cold in winter. The resident also raised that there was a potential that the draught was coming from the floor.
The HHSRS offers landlords a risk-based tool to enable them to consider potential hazards. This is useful as landlords have a responsibility to keep properties free from category one hazards, which includes excess cold. Guidance for the HHSRS sets out that a healthy indoor temperature is approximately 21°C and that temperatures below 16°C, may pose serious health risks, particularly for elderly or more vulnerable residents.
With this in mind, and noting the resident’s concerns about cold, the landlord was responsible for confirming that the property was able to be heated to a reasonable temperature and that there was not a significant loss of heating caused by the reported draughts. This was especially important given the resident’s pre-existing health conditions.
As with the damp and mould repairs, the landlord’s operatives attended on 7 November 2022 and sealed around the living room bay window to try and prevent the draught. While positive that some work was undertaken, there is no evidence that operatives inspected the floor following the resident’s concerns that the draught may have originated from there.
The fact that the property was suffering from damp, excess cold would have exacerbated the risk of further damp and mould developing in the property. Therefore, while sealing the window would hopefully have temporarily resolved the draught problem, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to undertake a more robust investigation regarding the root cause of the draught, as well as potentially considering the resident’s ability to efficiently heat the property. It did not do this.
On 17 February 2023, the resident raised that the draught problem was ongoing. There is no evidence of the landlord acknowledging the continued draught problem, nor did it attempt to do any remedial work in a timely manner. It appears that the landlord focussed on the resident’s damp and mould issues, rather than addressing all the outstanding repair issues. This was inappropriate and a significant failing of the landlord, particularly as it was aware of the resident’s health issues and ongoing treatment.
A survey was conducted on 21 June 2023, where it was recommended that loose floorboards were refixed near the bay window, as it was a potential cause of the draught. The survey was conducted 85 working days after the resident raised that the draught was an ongoing problem. Throughout this time, the resident was living in cold conditions, causing her distress and discomfort.
On 28 July 2023, the landlord stated that it completed flooring repairs, but also recommended that a survey was conducted to address the damp and draught problem. As discussed above, there is no evidence that the landlord acted on this recommendation, or chased up a survey that should already have been requested. This was unreasonable and further prolonged an already lengthy and highly distressing experience for the resident.
Cold temperatures in a property are known to exacerbate respiratory conditions such as asthma; even more so if the property also has damp and mould. As with the damp and mould issue, the landlord failed to consider the impact that a draught and subsequent cold temperature in the property was having on its vulnerable resident.
While this Service does not suggest that the draught and cold temperatures rendered the living room unusable, there is no doubt that the draught issues contributed to the resident being unable to use and enjoy her home in comfort.
There were notable failings in this case demonstrated by the lack of action taken by the landlord in a timely manner. The landlord did not adhere to the expected repair timescales outlined within its maintenance policy. The identified failings and distress caused to the resident over a significant time amounts to maladministration and the landlord will be ordered to appropriately compensate the resident for its failings.

Landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC) is a guidance document that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service it provides to resident’s and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. The landlord ought to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being raised, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
The landlord acknowledged that it had received a complaint from the resident on 27 September 2022, albeit this Service has not seen evidence of the resident’s initial complaint. It is recognised that the complaint may have been taken over the phone, but the landlord may wish to review its record keeping practises concerning complaints to ensure an audit trail is readily available.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 10 October 2022; 10 working days after the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. Despite not seeing the resident’s initial complaint, the response appears reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident escalated her complaint on 17 February due to chasing for repairs, and matters being unresolved in the property. In accordance with its complaint policy, the landlord should have issued its stage two response on 16 March 2023.
The CHC states that any delays in providing a complaint response must not exceed an additional ten working days without good reason.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 5 June 2023; 73 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. This is significantly beyond the 20 working day timescale expected and was therefore inappropriate. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for the delayed response. This is not proportionate redress given the delay the resident experienced, which prevented her from being able to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman Service for an unreasonable length of time.
Although the landlord apologised to the resident and awarded compensation for its complaint-handling failures, this was not sufficient to reflect the impact the delay had on her. The landlord failed to follow its complaint process causing distress and frustration for the resident and prolonging the complaints process. Overall, there were significant failings in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint and as such, this Service has reached a finding of maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a draught in her living room.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the associated complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks, the landlord’s chief executive is ordered to issue an apology to the resident, in person (physically or virtually), if the resident agrees to that. If the resident declines the offer to meet the chief executive in person, they must an issue an apology in writing.
Within four weeks, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £2,800 in compensation. This should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of;
1. £1,000 as offered to the resident previously, if this has not already been paid.
2. £1,000 for the failures regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
3. £400 for the failures regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a draught in her living room.
4. £400 for the failures regarding the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Within two weeks, the landlord must provide the resident and this Service with a specific plan of action it intends to take to address the damp, mould and draught issue. It must also set out a date that all work will be completed. The completion date of all works must be within 8 weeks of this determination.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its approach to damp and mould repairs. The review must be carried out within 12 weeks and should be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. The review should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. An exploration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred, including:
  1. its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident, and her vulnerabilities; and
  2. why it failed to follow up and progress the required works in an efficient and timely manner.
2. Identification of all other residents who may have been affected by similar issues from August 2022 to present day, particularly residents with recorded vulnerabilities. This should include those who have not necessarily engaged with its complaints procedure;
3. Details of how the landlord intends to comply with the recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould.
Following the review, the landlord must produce a report setting out:
1. Its findings and learning from the review;
2. Any training it intends to roll out and in particular, how it intends to ensure that vulnerable residents are given the support they need;
3. The number of other residents it has identified as experiencing similar issues;
4. The steps it proposes to take to provide redress, at the earliest opportunity, to those residents who have been similarly affected by the identified failings. This should include resolution of the issues and consideration of compensation awards that are proportionate to the level of detriment each resident has experienced, if caused by a failing by the landlord.
The landlord must embed the recommendations made in the report into its practices and have them inform practice in other areas of service delivery, where relevant, with appropriate oversight.
The landlord should provide a copy of the final report to its governing body and member responsible for complaints, if appointed, for scrutiny. The governing body should agree how it will provide oversight of the implementation of any recommendations made following the review. The landlord should also provide a copy of the report to the Ombudsman within 12 weeks of this determination.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

Considering its poor complaint handling, the landlord should review this case, in order to identify how it can improve its complaint-handling services, in accordance with the CHC.