Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202305663)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305663

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

30 April 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould; and repair of floorboards and windows.
    2. The resident’s rehousing request.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s recording keeping.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord living in a 2-bed first floor flat with her partner and 3 children. Her tenancy began on 4 November 2013. The resident states her eldest child has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) and sleep issues, so he is unable to share a room. The resident states she receives therapy and medical treatment for anxiety. The landlord has informed this Service it has no record of disabilities for the resident’s household. The evidence shows the resident has informed it of vulnerabilities since 2021.
  2. The resident states that she has reported issues with damp and mould issues to her landlord along with repairs to her floorboards and windows for a number of years before her formal complaint. For example she says she had been reporting the damp issues for at least 4 years and the windows for 3 years.
  3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord as follows:
    1. During a telephone call with it on 27 January 2023, she raised concerns about damp and mould in her property saying a surveyor told her it was caused by overcrowding.
    2. She emailed a formal complaint to her landlord on 29 January 2023 stating:
      1. The damp and mould issues meant her property was “not fit to live in”.
      2. Her children’s long term health was at risk as all her children had been ill with “coughs and chest issues” and her youngest child had experienced “respiratory illnesses”.
      3. She was financially impacted by buying cleaning products.
      4. She wished to move to a property that was “safe and suitable”.
      5. Defective floorboards and the standard of repair of a replacement floorboard by the landlord was a trip hazard in her property.
      6. She had reported gaps in her windows over a 3 year period.
    3. During a call on 30 January 2023, she asked it for compensation for a child’s mattress.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 13 February 2023 as follows:
    1. The surveyor should not have said the damp and mould was due to overcrowding and this had been escalated to management to address.
    2. A specialist referral for the installation of a ventilation unit had been made and she would be contacted directly.
    3. A 3-part mould treatment has been raised for 8 walls and 2 ceilings in the property and booked for 15 February 2023.
    4. Its home moves manager would contact her to discuss housing options.
    5. It upheld her complaint and offered £100 compensation to contribute to the replacement of a child’s mattress and for inconvenience caused.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 20 February 2023 as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response, housing team had not contacted her, and the mould had returned. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint outcome to the resident on 15 June 2023 as follows:
    1. At a meeting on 22 May 2023 with her, it assessed her property and the repair issues.
    2. It explained incorrect appointments had been issued to its contractor and residents due to a system error and this was being resolved. It apologised for inconvenience to the resident.
    3. It confirmed the scheduled repairs as follows:
      1. Floorboard repairs on 21 June 2023; mould treatment in the kitchen and bedroom on 19 June 2023; and a contractor’s quote was awaited for the window repair before booking an appointment.
      2. Three days was required for the ventilation, mould sterilisation and paint barrier treatment works. The resident had expressed concerns with the disruption and inability to move furniture for the works to be done, which had led to a booking on 30 May 2023 being rescheduled to 25 July 2023. It said it would work with the resident to find a solution to her concerns.
      3. After a mould treatment at her property on 15 February 2023, the mould had returned and a further investigation by its contractors was due to look at the causes and make recommendations.
    4. It confirmed the repair reporting history and apologised for the time the resident spent contacting it for resolutions and updates. It said its systems were being restructured to improve communication and the repairs process.
    5. It said it would not close her complaint until the repairs had been resolved.
    6. Following banding by an external company, the resident was on housing band B for medical. It recommended she update her home swapper advert using available guides or contacting the relevant team. It also arranged a housing team call on 19 June 2023 to discuss rehousing options and overcrowding issues.
    7. It apologised for the stage 2 response delay and offered compensation of £130 for the delay. It offered compensation of £500 for outstanding repairs, associated delays and, for the lack of support she had felt from it.
    8. It apologised for and confirmed her complaint was upheld due to delays in resolving repairs and the support issues around her rehousing options.
  6. The resident’s refused the offer of £630 and therefore, on 27 November 2023, the landlord issued a revised compensation offer of £1180 for “many repairs, lack of communication and time and effort”, which she also rejected. Thereafter, it offered £2490.30 on 6 February 2024 which it said included a 5% rent refund for the 3 years prior to her formal complaint. The resident accepted the offer.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman seeking a resolution of the repair issues and delays in her complaint handling on 17 May 2023. The resident had informed this Service more recently that she wishes to be moved to another property and to be compensated.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. A complaint of antisocial behaviour issue was raised by the resident at stage 2 of the complaints process. The Ombudsman is unable to assess this complaint as the landlord has not had the opportunity to address it through its internal complaints and in this case, at both stages. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints, which “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”.
  2. Paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme states the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are better suited to consideration by “the courts, other tribunal or procedure.” It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to establish cause, liability, or negligence, and award damages in the way an insurance procedure or court might. Therefore, for claims of damage to personal possessions the resident may wish to seek legal advice.
  3. In addition, the Ombudsman is unable to establish liability, if a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health or, award damages. The resident states the disrepair issues have negatively impacted her mental health and the health of her children. The Ombudsman is unable to consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint. These matters are again better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
  4. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which were not formally complained about “within a reasonable period” and “within six months of the matters arising.” The scope of this investigation has therefore been limited to matters raised from 28 July 2022 onwards. The investigation covers matters until 7 February 2024, which is when the landlord closed the complaint to allow for it to review the completion of its stage 2 actions and its compensation offer. Separate issues, and events that pre and post date the complaints procedure, have not been investigated here and are referenced for contextual purposes only.

Landlord’s handling of damp and mould, and repair of floorboards and windows

  1. It is recognised that the damp and mould has been distressing for the resident. It can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as damp and mould due to difficulties identifying the causes and different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. The landlord was entitled to seek and rely upon the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what work to undertake.
  2. The tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s responsibility to keep its homes in good condition including the property structure (eg walls, floors, ceiling, window frames) and to undertake repairs within a reasonable timescale. This reflects its statutory duty under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (section 11).
  3. The landlord’s maintenance policy sets out 2 priorities for repairs as emergency repairs to be resolved within 24 hours and non-emergency repairs within 15 working days. It states its repair services will be “flexible to the needs of vulnerable tenants” (eg disability or children under 3 years) and states it keeps records of residents with a vulnerability or disability, so repair services are “effectively delivered to meet their needs on an on-going basis”.
  4. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards, which are a health and safety risk to residents. The landlord is responsible for keeping properties free from category 1 hazards such as damp and mould, the possible health effects of which include breathing difficulties caused by mould, depression, and anxiety.
  5. The evidence provided shows the resident emailed a report of damp and mould to her landlord on 1 December 2022. She said on 19 December 2022 her 4 month old child had been taken to hospital 3 times since birth due to “respiratory illnesses”, which she stated was due to their living conditions. The evidence shows on 12 January 2023, she informed the landlord her child had been born with a collapsed lung and breathing difficulties. The evidence shows that the resident informed it she had been reporting the matter for 4 years and started emailing her reports to keep a record as the landlords system did not reflect the reports made by her.

Damp and mould

  1. After the resident’s reported damp and mould by email on 1 December 2023, the evidence shows the landlord arranged 2 inspections on 12 and 27 January 2023 which recommended mould treatment and consideration of a ventilator, respectively. The inspections were 6 weeks and 8 weeks respectively after the resident’s report. This was outside its responsive repairs timeframe of 15 working days, which therefore meant the follow on works were also not compliant with its timeframe. For example, the mould treatment on 15 February 2023 took place 10 weeks after the issue was reported and 5 weeks after it was recommended. This was unsatisfactory.
  2. While the 27 January 2023 inspection recommended consideration of a ventilation system, the works order was only raised 9 weeks afterwards on 4 April 2024 with the ventilation survey taking place a further 3 weeks later on 25 April 2023. This delay was not in line with its policy to conduct repairs within a reasonable time. This was unreasonable.
  3. The evidence shows the resident reported the return of the mould within 1 week of the mould treatment in mid-February 2023 and emailed photos of the mould on 23 March 2023. The evidence shows the landlord first considered a post-inspection in emails sent on 5 April 2023 when it flagged the resident’s “7 month old on antibiotics due to a chest infection as a result of the mould”. However, it did not return to the premises to re-inspect until the 9 May 2023. Given the resident’s initial report of the mould regrowth and household vulnerabilities, this delay of over 2 months was unacceptable. An earlier inspection when the resident reported the regrowth would have shown her concerns were taken seriously and it was committed to resolving the issue.
  4. After the 9 May 2023 inspection, a works order for mould treatment was raised on 16 May 2023. The evidence shows 3 failed attempts to carry out the treatment on 19 June (contractors attended when they had been told the resident was unavailable), 18 July (the resident’s furniture had not been moved by her for a clear work area) and 18 August 2023 (the resident was unaware of the appointment). While it is noted the resident did contribute to the treatment being delayed by not clearing the work area in July 2023, the landlord’s actions show it was not proactive given the mould regrowth was reported in February 2023 and the initial appointment on 19 June 2023 was scheduled 4 months later. This showed a lack of oversight around the agreed works. This was unreasonable and not in line with its 15 day repairs commitment.
  5. Following the ventilation survey on 25 April 2023, a venting system, sterilisation, and paint barrier treatment was recommended. The resident declined appointments for the works on 30 May (due to children’s school holiday) and 25 July 2023 (due to child’s birthday). The resident said she had concerns about household disruption as her property was overcrowded so she would find it difficult to move furniture for the works. These concerns were understandable with the works scheduled for 3 days and, the household including 3 young children, one of whom had ADHD and ODD. While she first raised her concerns about disruption in March 2023, the evidence shows the landlord initially said it would explore potential options in an email on 26 April 2023. It is acknowledged the landlord appropriately proposed alternative options (eg decant, paid “days out”, storing belongings, mediation) to address the concerns, which it confirmed in an email on 24 July 2023. The evidence does not show if the options were put to the resident before its email. While the resident’s reasons for postponing the works on 25 July were not related to disruption, the landlord’s proposals, although reasonable, were delayed and show an absence of a proactive approach. This was unsatisfactory.
  6. The evidence provided does not confirm if and when the mould treatment eventually took place. It is noted a 25 January 2024 inspection recommended a further mould treatment. While the resident agreed to the venting works to be carried out on 30 August 2023, the evidence does not show if it took place. It is noted the 7 February 2024 inspection noted that despite the venting works, the mould had returned and recommended an investigation of the cavity insulation and the roof gutter angle. The absence of this important evidence is concerning as this means this Service is unable to confirm if the landlord took appropriate remedial action when the works were undertaken and whether it was in line with its policy commitments.

Floors

  1. While it falls outside the timeframe of our investigation, the evidence shows the resident reported flooring issues from December 2020 and works took place in October 2022. In her formal complaint of 29 January 2023, she said a bolt had been left under her carpet from previous works and it presented a tripping hazard. The resident raised concerns about the bolt 5 more times up until 28 June 2023. It is noted the landlord’s contractors did visit the resident on 20 February 2023, but at a time when she had previously stated she would be unavailable. While the flooring issues, including the bolt had been identified in the 9 May 2023 report, the first actual visit to resolve the issue took place on 21 June 2023 but the works were not completed as it was deemed “too big for time scheduled”. While it was noted a no access visit took place on 26 June 2023, to repair the floor, this was still 5 months after the resident’s formal complaint and therefore, outside its responsive repairs timeframe. This was unreasonable.
  2. Following the 21 June 2023 visit, the landlord tried to arrange a quote for wider flooring works. The resident initially declined an appointment on 3 July 2023 as she said she was frustrated, and it had been surveyed on previous occasions. A short time later, she did agree, but the contractor failed to attend the rescheduled visit on 14 July 2023, which was unsatisfactory.
  3. The landlord has not presented evidence of the flooring issues being resolved and of concern, it acknowledged in an email on 22 June 2023 to the resident that her child had hit their head on the bolt. This is unsatisfactory.

Windows

  1. The resident’s stage 1 complaint states she reported her windows over a 3 year period. It is noted the recent 7 February 2024 report found the window frame seals had signs of deterioration, so the issue has not been fully resolved. Following the complaint in January 2023, the evidence shows a works order was raised for the windows on 3 occasions from April to October 2023 and the works were conducted on 6 and 9 November 2023. There were missed opportunities to resolve the issue as the 9 May 2023 inspection did not consider her windows at all and the stage 2 outcome failed to monitor and follow up on the issue. The resident very clearly raised her frustration with the delays with the issue being resolved as part of her stage 1 complaint and the delays and missed chances show a lack of meaningful resolve to remedy the issue. The windows were repaired 10 months after the resident raised the issue in her stage 1 complaint, which was a breach of its statutory duty and policy commitment to resolve non-emergency repairs within 15 working days. This was unacceptable.

Overall assessment findings regarding damp and mould, floor, and windows

  1. The landlord’s failed to comply with its maintenance policy as its repair service was not “flexible to the needs of vulnerable tenants” or “delivered to meet their needs”. The wider correspondence shows the resident informed it and provided medical evidence, of the household vulnerabilities (her mental health issues, her young children experiencing breathing difficulties and one child with ADHD and ODD). The landlord should have proactively considered prioritising the repairs, which the evidence does not show it did. This was unacceptable.
  2. The landlord informed this Service on 1 December 2023 that all works were completed in November 2023. However, it is noted the 2 inspections at the beginning of 2024 made recommendation for further works and while it is outside the timeframe of this investigation, the evidence provided shows work orders were raised on 14 March 2024 for mould treatment and floorboards.
  3. The resident has said the damp and mould has caused illness for her and her children; damaged furniture and belongings; required the replacement of 2 child mattresses, and clothing and shoes due to mould growth. She has informed this Service, the repairs have resulted in “a toll on our mental well-being” and added to the family’s frustration and stress. She says her 2 youngest children have experienced “respiratory illnesses” along with the “worsening mental health” of her eldest child. She says the children’s vulnerabilities have been “consistently ignored”.
  4. In its stage 1 and 2 responses the landlord apologised and upheld her complaint. On 7 February 2024, the resident accepted the landlord’s offer of £2490.30 to reflect repair, communication, and inconvenience issues along with a rent refund for 3 years before her formal complaint. The evidence shows it also offered vouchers for £50 for 2 missed appointments (19 June and 14 July 2023). The landlord has acknowledged failings and apologised for its service failure, and time and trouble, but it has failed to properly address or offer a remedy proportionate to the significant impact to the resident, and the apology offered was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. For example, the evidence shows all the issues continue a year after they were formally complained about. The landlord has not acted reasonably in relation to its section 11 statutory duty to keep the property structure in good repair. When all factors are considered, there was severe maladministration by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s rehousing request

  1. The landlord’s housing allocations policy states it aims to support its existing residents who are in housing need in line with governance, but its ability to rehouse is limited by available vacant stock. It prioritises housing applications according to a “banding” scheme. There are 4 bands with the highest priority bands being emergency housing need (band A) and urgent housing need (band B). Examples of applicants eligible for band A include those with “high medical or mobility needs where life might be endangered by current accommodation” or statutory homelessness. For band B, eligible applicants include households overcrowded by 2 or more bedrooms or for medical reasons.
  2. The resident has been assessed as band B priority since 2021 due to her eldest son’s needs. The resident has described her living arrangements as overcrowded in her 2 bed flat. Following medical recommendations, her eldest son has his own bedroom. Therefore, the resident shares a room with her 2 youngest children. Her partner is currently sleeping in the living room.
  3. The stage 1 response of 13 February 2023 stated the housing team would contact the resident to discuss housing options. While this was an appropriate suggestion, the resident was called 5 weeks later on 22 March 2023 when a discussion about housing options took place. This delay was unsatisfactory.
  4. As part of the stage 2 outcome, the landlord confirmed the resident’s banding at band B, set out housing options and confirmed a call with a housing team was arranged for 19 June 2023. This was reasonable.
  5. While there is no record of a call on 19 June, a call took place on 21 June 2023 when the landlord agreed to submit the resident’s case to its rehousing team to reconsider. The evidence provided does not set out whether such an assessment did take place. It would be entirely appropriate for the resident’s banding to be re-assessed to consider any new circumstances given it was originally assessed in 2021.
  6. The resident had informed this Service she wishes to be moved as the “housing situation on my family’s mental and physical health cannot be overstated”. At the same time, we also accept that the landlord has limited stock and therefore any transfer should be in accordance with its published policy. There was a delay in contacting the resident after the stage 1 outcome and the evidence does not confirm if an assessment has taken place as suggested it would on 21 June 2023. For these reasons, there was a service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it operates a two-stage complaint process with responses being issued within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
  2. At stage 1, the resident’s complaint was appropriately acknowledged within 1 working day of the complaint and responded to within 10 working days of the acknowledgment. However, the landlord failed to consider the resident’s complaints about her floor and windows. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time stated a landlord must address all points raised in a complaint. By only addressing the damp and mould issue, the landlord breached the Code. This was unsatisfactory.
  3. Again following the resident’s escalation of her complaint, the landlord appropriately acknowledged it within 1 working day and informed her she would receive the stage 2 response within 20 working days. It was issued after the intervention of this Service on 8 June 2023 requiring it to provide a stage 2 outcome. During the period from March to May 2023, the evidence shows the resident chased the landlord for an outcome at least 6 times. Its stage 2 response was issued approximately 80 working days after escalation. The response time breached its policy commitments. This was unacceptable.
  4. The delays at stage 2 resulted in added delays preventing the resident being able to exhaust the landlord’s complaints process and to bring her matter to this Service for investigation. While it did apologise to her for the delays during the process, this was reactive to the resident requesting updates. The evidence provided does not show it provided her with proactive and timely updates or reasons for the delay. The stage 2 delay and the failure to address all her complaints at stage 1 was unreasonable and unfair to the resident. While it apologised at stage 2 for the delays and offered compensation of £130 for the delay, this is not proportionate to its complaint handling failure or the detriment to the resident, who would have felt inconvenienced and frustrated. Therefore, this Service finds maladministration by the landlord.

The landlord’s record keeping

  1. The landlord’s record keeping indicates considerable issues. We asked it to provide evidence in the form of, for example, the resident’s reports, all correspondence and contact notes, repair logs, visit records and inspection reports. The evidence provided contains omissions including but not exclusively:
    1. The resident’s historic reports, which she said she made by telephone before her formal complaint in January 2023.
    2. The contemporaneous visit records for its external contractors (eg 15 February and 21 June 2023), including the call records between the resident and its contractors.
    3. Evidence of confirmed appointments (eg 26 June and 18 August 2023).
    4. The surveyor’s visit report for 27 January 2023.
    5. Record of meeting of 22 May 2023 between the CEO, Director, head of risk and resident along with the confirmed action agreed.
    6. Consideration of the resident’s housing priority for banding reasons.
  2. This Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information states records should be clear and timely, accurately recording decisions and the reasons for them. This investigation has used information provided by the resident and references to events within the landlord’s wider correspondence to identify calls, visits, and events. The omissions in the evidence indicate poor record keeping by the landlord as it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked.
  3. Clear record keeping is a core function of repair, and wider landlord services. It allows evidence to be provided to the Ombudsman when requested. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place, or the landlord followed its policies and procedures. For example, the landlord has been unable to provide the visit record for the 22 May 2023 meeting. This is unacceptable as any actions agreed or concerns raised by the resident are difficult to monitor or address by the landlord without a record or additionally, be considered by this Service. Clear record keeping is essential to monitor outstanding works, contractor performance, and provide effective services to residents.
  4. In response to our request for vulnerabilities, the landlord said it had “no disabilities recorded”. The evidence shows the resident had communicated her children’s vulnerabilities and provided medical evidence. She has also informed it of her own mental health issues. It is vitally important a landlord keeps accurate information about vulnerabilities. This means they are taken into consideration when conducting repairs. The omission of the resident’s vulnerabilities in its records is unacceptable.
  5. The Ombudsman finds maladministration for poor record keeping.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been:
  2. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould; and repair of floorboards and windows.
  3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request.
  4. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  5. Maladministration in the landlord’s poor record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
  1. Pay the resident a total of £4,150. The compensation must be paid to the resident and not offset against any debts owed to the landlord. This figure includes the landlord’s redress offer of £2490.30 if it has not made this payment already. The compensation comprises:
    1. £3,500 for its handling of reports of damp and mould; and repair of floorboards and windows. This reflects the detriment to the resident in the form of distress, time and trouble and inconvenience.
    2. £50 for its handling of the resident’s rehousing request. This reflects the detriment to the resident in the form of distress and, time and trouble.
    3. £300 for its complaint handling. This reflects the detriment to the resident in the form of distress and time and trouble.
    4. £300 for its poor record keeping.
  2. Update its records to reflect the resident’s household vulnerabilities.
  3. A senior officer, at director level or above, to meet with the resident to apologise for the failures in its service. The landlord’s apology should:
    1. Acknowledge the failings identified.
    2. Accept responsibility for it.
    3. Where appropriate, include assurances that the same failings should not occur again and set out what steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence.
  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 8 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
    1. Inspect the property to:
      1. Ensure the floor and windows have been fully repaired and complete any identified works.
      2. Undertake a damp survey and completion of any works required to address any residual damp and mould issues.
    2. Undertake a banding reassessment by an external independent company.
  2. Undertake and complete a strategic review of this case to identify and incorporate such improvements in its operations within 3 months against:
    1. This Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management in view of the missing evidence highlighted in this investigation, including its contractor’s records. The report has recommendations, which it should consider incorporating into its policies for accurate record keeping.
    2. This Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould. The report provides recommendations, which the landlord must incorporate as appropriate into its relevant policies and practices to ensure a robust and empathic framework for its approach to damp and mould from diagnosis, taking appropriate steps, and mitigation, through to aftercare.
    3. Review its complaints policy and consider any changes in line with the recently published Complaint Handling Code.