Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202304553)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304553

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

7 May 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:
1. A leak in the resident’s home, and the resulting damp and mould.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a ground floor 2-bedroom flat, where she lives with her 3 children.
On 20 November 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that there was damp and mould throughout her property. As the landlord had not responded to her, she asked it for an update on 5 and 29 December 2021. The landlord responded on 18 January 2022 asking her for more information about the damp and mould, which she provided. The landlord said it would arrange a damp and mould inspection.
The landlord’s contractor inspected the property on 28 February 2023. On 3 March 2022, the resident asked the landlord to tell her the outcome of the inspection. The landlord responded, saying the inspection found that the ventilation in her home was inadequate, and there was a leak coming into the property. The landlord carried out further inspections of the property on 15 March 2022, 7 June 2022, and on 6 October 2022. On 7 June 2022, the landlord found:
1. The likely cause of the leak was the rainwater pipe in the corner of the building, which may have been defective from when the property was built.
2. The survey recommended removing the floor and skirting board in the resident’s living room and bedroom and removing the plasterboard to a height of 1.2 meters.
3. It would need to dry the property using injection drying before carrying out a mould treatment.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 22 December 2022. She said:
1. The landlord was not taking the reports of severe mould in her home seriously.
2. The mould was affecting the family’s health.
3. She had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates. This was unfair.
4. The landlord had left a large hole in her home and failed to repair this.
The resident had further correspondence with the landlord throughout February and March 2023. The landlord arranged another damp and mould inspection for 13 March 2023, but its contractor did not attend the appointment.
On 29 March 2023, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage one of its complaints process. It upheld the complaint, saying:
1. It apologised for failing to act after its contractor visited her home on 7 June 2022.
2. It had arranged an appointment for an inspection, and damp and mould treatment, for 13 March 2023.
3. However, it failed to attend the appointment, as its surveyor had fallen suddenly ill. They were unable to report their sickness, so nobody told the resident the appointment needed to be rearranged.
4. The landlord had arranged a new inspection appointment for 5 April 2023.
5. It offered her £530 in compensation, comprising:
  1. £50 for each month it had delayed in repairing her property since inspecting it in June 2022.
  2. £20 for the missed appointment.
  3. £50 for the impact the landlord’s lack of action had on the family.
The landlord carried out a further damp and mould inspection on 31 March 2023. The inspection found that water was entering the property under the floor. It said a further survey would be required.
On 1 April 2023, the resident contacted the landlord. She said that another inspection had been carried out ‘a couple of days ago’, by staff wearing the landlord’s uniform, without notice. She asked the landlord if the appointment on 5 April 2023 was still going ahead, and the landlord said that it was. It said it did not come to her property and did not know who had.
After the inspection on 5 April 2023, the resident contacted the landlord 6 times requesting the outcome. On 26 June 2023, she asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process, as she was unhappy with its communication about the repairs.
On 20 July 2023, the landlord went to the property to fix the hole it had left in the floor, the plasterboard, and the skirting. The resident said she was not informed of the appointment. She queried whether the repairs were appropriate, as the leak had not been resolved.
There are conflicting accounts of the landlord’s visit to the property on 16 August 2023:
1. The landlord recorded that it attempted to visit on 16 August 2023, but the resident was not home.
2. The resident said an appointment on 16 August 2023 went ahead. She said the landlord told her that the repair it had been asked to do was outside the scope of its abilities.
3. The landlord said the building’s management agent carried out extensive testing of the rainwater pipe but was unable to identify a leak.
The landlord did a CCTV investigation to identify the cause of the leak. On 30 August 2023 it recorded that it had identified a piece of timber stuck in the PVC stack that may be responsible for the leak. It said it would remove the obstruction and carry out a further survey.
The landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 of its complaints process on 11 September 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint, and explained:
1. The outcome of its survey from 7 June 2022.
2. That the testing done by the management agent on 16 August 2023 did not identify a leak on the rainwater pipe.
3. That the management agent accepted it caused the resident confusion by sending multiple contractors to her home.
4. That the landlord visited on 7 September 2023, but the resident was not at home, so it had rearranged the appointment for 18 September 2023. On this date, it would remove the floorboards and skirting to trace the leak and take photos.
5. The landlord said its repairs manager would post-inspect the repairs. The landlord would complete the mould treatment when the leak was resolved.
6. The landlord offered the resident a further £700 in compensation for the delays in the repairs, and its delayed complaint response.
The landlord visited the property on 18 September 2023. It did not identify any issues with the water pipe. It recorded that it believed the source of the leak was below ground level. It could not carry out the works as it needed a specialist contractor who could drill through the concrete.
On 21 September 2023, the resident contacted the landlord as a hole left in her living room floor had filled up with water due to bad weather, and water had spilled across the living room.
The landlord told the resident it had appointed a new contractor to remove the timber from the PVC stack on 23 October 2023. The repair was completed a week later, on 30 October 2023. The landlord installed monitoring CCTV cameras.
On 30 November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to ask for an update on the repairs. She said that due to the hole in her flooring, her property was very cold. On 6 December 2023, the landlord went to the property to replace the flooring, but the resident explained that this was not possible while leak was still unresolved.
The landlord attempted a “temporary fix” of the leak, by creating a temporary overflow pipe. The date of this repair is unclear from the landlord’s records. On 11 December 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to say that the temporary repair was unsuccessful. Water was still accumulating in her home, and she felt the hole in the floor was a health hazard. The landlord arranged to go back to the property to repair the leak.
The landlord arranged a further inspection of the property on 24 January 2024. It found:
1. There was mould and high condensation readings in the property. There was a high relative room humidity. There were no extraction or ventilation systems in the property. The walls, skirting and flooring had been damaged by leaks. The resident said that when it rained, the rainwater pipe leaked.
2. It recommended that the management agent repaired the rainwater pipe and did a CCTV survey of the drainage run under the floor.
3. Once the leak was resolved, the landlord should:
  1. lift and inspect the paving slabs outside the property.
  2. Install a dehumidifier.
  3. Renew the skirting.
  4. Remove and replace the defective plaster.
  5. Treat the mould and redecorate to match the current colour.
  6. Carry out a ventilation survey of the property and install ventilation systems.
The landlord carried out a ventilation survey of the property on 29 February 2023. It found the ventilation in the property to be inadequate and recommended the landlord:
1. Treat the mould, which it said was in both bedrooms of the property, and the bathroom.
2. Install a de-centralised mechanical extract ventilation (dMEV) system.
On 3 March 2024, the landlord contacted the resident. It said its surveyor and the managing agent’s surveyor did not agree on the cause of the leak. It had arranged an independent surveyor, who would inspect the property on 18 March 2024.
The landlord carried out the recommended ventilation work on 18 March 2024, and treated the mould in the property on 3 April 2024. No evidence has been provided to this investigation that the water ingress into the property has been repaired.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said the condition of her home impacted her family’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s testimony. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health. The Ombudsman can consider the general impact of damp and mould, but it is outside our remit to establish if there was a direct link between the action or inaction of the landlord and the health conditions of the resident and her family. We will consider any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced because of errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about hers and her family’s health.

The landlord’s handling of the damp and mould

The landlord has resident guidance on damp and mould available on its website. This gives indicative timescales for it to resolve reports of damp and mould. The guidance was published in October 2022, a year after the resident first reported damp and mould, but the guidance gives an overview of the landlord’s approach. It says:
1. The landlord will attend to identify the cause of a leak or penetrative damp in 24 hours, make safe, and identify repairs needed.
2. Where it cannot identify the source of the leak on the first visit, a surveyor will attend in 24 hours.
3. Where the surveyor cannot identify the source of the leak, the landlord will employ a specialist damp contractor in 5 working days.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, available on our website, sets out our expectations for landlords’ handling of reports of damp and mould. The report says that landlords should:
1. Take a proactive, timely, zero tolerance approach to damp and mould.
2. Have robust record keeping practices, enabling accurate information to be shared across teams and with residents, improving the landlord response.
3. Avoid inferring blame on residents for damp and mould.
In this case, the landlord took too long to resolve the issues, its record keeping was inadequate, and its response to the resident’s report was lacking in cohesion. This resulted in the resident and her family experiencing considerable inconvenience and worry for over 2 years.
There were avoidable delays throughout the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. For example, although she first reported damp and mould on 20 November 2021, the landlord did not inspect the property until 28 February 2022. This was a routine inspection, and the landlord has not explained why it took over 3.5 months for it to inspect the property, so the Ombudsman finds that this was inappropriate.
After the inspection, as it believed that a leak was the cause of the damp, the landlord arranged a surveyor inspection. This was in line with its usual process. The survey took place 2 weeks later, on 14 March 2022. While this does not align with the landlord’s current process for damp and mould, the delay was not excessive, and was within its repairs policy timescale for routine works, so this was reasonable.
The surveyor found that the property required “urgent” action from a specialist contractor. According to the landlord’s damp and mould guidance, when it identified that a specialist contractor was needed, the landlord should have instructed one within 5 working days. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord said that the contractor went to the property on 7 June 2022. This was almost 3 months after the landlord’s surveyor had said the property needed ‘urgent’ action. The landlord has not explained the delay, so the Ombudsman considers it to be inappropriate. The landlord’s failure to act promptly did not demonstrate that had considered it’s earlier assessment that the situation was urgent.
Although the contractor said that further investigation was needed, the landlord accepts it took no further action until the resident made a complaint in December 2022, 6 months later. Even after the resident complained, it took a further 3 months for the landlord to arrange an inspection. The landlord has acknowledged that these delays were unacceptable.
Given that the landlord had acknowledged unacceptable delays in its response to the issues, that the leak was ongoing, and that its survey had found that works were needed urgently, we would expect the landlord to have prioritised repairs going forward, but this is not reflected in the landlord’s actions. For example:
1. It did not tell the resident the outcome of its inspection on 5 April 2023, and its records do not show any action was taken as a result of the inspection.
2. No further investigation was carried out until 4 months later, in August 2023.
3. Having identified a possible cause of the leak in August 2023, it took a further 2.5 months for its contractor to attempt to repair it.
4. When the resident told the landlord on 6 December 2023 that the leak in her home was ongoing and she worried the hole in the floor was a health hazard, the landlord did not inspect the property for 7 weeks.
There is no evidence the landlord attempted to repair the leak until 2 years after the resident first reported the damp and mould in her home. The resident has said that attempts to repair the leak have, so far, been unsuccessful. Had there been fewer avoidable delays in the landlord’s investigation into the cause of the leak, it may have been able to resolve the issue for the resident sooner. Its failure to do so caused her inconvenience and worry.
For example, the resident said that the landlord made a hole approximately one meter in length in her living room floor during early investigations into the leak. She believes the hole is making her property cold, that it is unsightly, and it is a health hazard. It was not reasonable for the landlord to leave the resident with a hole of this size in her living room for an extended period of time. When the resident contacted it about the hole in December 2022, the landlord was not able to repair it, because the leak was unresolved. To reduce the impact of the hole in the resident the landlord should consider if it can repair, or cover, the hole temporarily until the cause of the leak is identified.
The landlord’s response to the reports of damp and mould lacked cohesion. For example, the resident said she was told by the landlord’s operatives more than once that repairs needed were bigger than the operative had been told so they could not be completed during the appointment. This was not reasonable, as the surveys carried out by the landlord and its contractors should have clearly detailed the extent of the problem, and this information should have been used when arranging repairs. This would have enabled the landlord to use its resources effectively and send suitably qualified and resourced operatives to the property.
Over a 2-year period, the evidence seen as part of this investigation suggests that the landlord inspected the property on around 10 occasions. The landlord has not provided this investigation, or the resident, with the outcome of all of the inspections, or evidence that the landlord gained new information from each visit. This was very frustrating for the resident, as it was not clear to her that all of the visits were required.
There was a further lack of cohesion when the landlord went to the property to repair the damage done while investigating the cause of the leak before it had fixed the leak. This was not reasonable, as the landlord should have considered that if it did the repairs, it would later need to cause further damage in the same area. The resident said she found this disheartening.
Similarly, although it was aware that its previous inspection on 7 June 2022 had found that it needed to resolve the leak and “injection dry” the walls in the property before arranging the mould treatment, the landlord said in its stage one complaint response that it had arranged a mould treatment for 13 March 2023. As it had not resolved the leak, this did not align with its earlier advice. This may have further undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord.
Although the landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response that its repairs manager would follow up after the inspection, and post inspect the work, there is no evidence that they did so, or of any direct correspondence between this member of staff and the resident. Cumulatively, these incidents demonstrate that there was a lack of clear oversight of the resident’s case.
To improve its response to complex cases of damp and mould, the landlord should consider putting processes in place to ensure it is managing the case end-to-end. It could consider providing a single point of contact, with overall responsibility for each case. This could enable it to deliver a more cohesive response and instil confidence in residents that their repairs are in hand. The landlord is ordered to do a case review of the case to identify learning it can take from its handling of case that will help it to deliver a more cohesive response to complex cases of damp and mould in future.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould says that accurate, robust record keeping enables accurate information to be shared across teams, and with residents, and improves the landlord’s response to damp and mould. However, in this case the landlord’s records did not tell the full story of what had happened, when, and why. For example, not all of the repairs and inspections the landlord carried out were on the repairs records the landlord provided to this investigation. In addition, some of its listed repairs have no, or minimal, notes. For example, the landlord’s records indicated it visited the property on 6 October 2022 for ‘further investigation’, but there are no notes indicating what investigations were done, or their outcome.
On one occasion the resident contacted the landlord as repairs operatives wearing the landlord’s uniform arrived her home without an appointment. The landlord could not confirm who had attended. It concluded that the operatives may have been representatives from the property’s management agent. However, the landlord’s records indicate that it did attend the property on 31 March 2023. This may suggest that either the landlord’s records were not up-to-date, or that the member of staff who responded to the resident could not access the relevant information.
These examples of poor record keeping will have caused the resident confusion and frustration and may have affected the efficacy of the landlord’s response to the damp and mould in her home.
The landlord’s communication with the resident was inadequate, and it failed to keep her updated on its next steps. There were many examples of the resident needing to chase the landlord for updates. For example, she chased the landlord for the outcome of the inspection it carried out on 5 April 2023 6 times before asking the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. The landlord’s poor communication with the resident undermined her confidence in it. Managing the case proactively and giving the resident regular, or scheduled, updates would have been in line with the best practice outlined in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould. It would also have saved the resident time and trouble.
The landlord had arranged a survey on 13 March 2022, but the surveyor did not attend. The landlord initially gave the resident incorrect information, saying that the surveyor had left the business, but later explained they had fallen unwell and been unable to call their line manager so the resident could be notified. While the surveyor’s absence was out of the landlord’s control, the conflicting information it gave the resident will have caused her confusion and may have undermined her confidence in it. In future, the landlord should ensure information it gives to residents about missed appointments is accurate. The landlord offered the resident £20 in compensation for the missed appointment. This was appropriate as it was in line with its compensation policy.
The resident said to the landlord several times that the damp and mould in the property was affecting her family’s health. The landlord should have asked the resident more about this, so that it could assess the family’s individual circumstances and respond in a person-centred way. There is no evidence that it did so. This may have led the resident to feel that the landlord was not considering the wellbeing of her family. The landlord should ensure that its staff are adequately trained to identify potential indicators of welfare concerns or resident vulnerability in correspondence from residents and follow these up appropriately.
Overall, the landlord recognised that the resident had received “sub-standard service”, and it was appropriate that it apologised for this, and made her an offer of compensation, which is discussed below. However, although the landlord apologised for its failings, the service the resident received did not improve, and as of the date of this report, the Ombudsman has not received any evidence that demonstrates that the leak has been repaired, 2.5 years after the resident first reported damp and mould in her home.
In this case, the landlord’s service failures have accumulated over a period of time, and the landlord has failed to learn from outcomes. As such, the Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak in the resident’s home and the resulting damp and mould.
The landlord offered the resident a total of £1230 in compensation for failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and its failings in complaints handling. As it did not provide an explanation of how it allocated the compensation, we consider that the landlord offered compensation to the resident as follows:
1. £980 for failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. £250 for its complaints handling failures.
Had the landlord resolved the issues for the resident when the compensation offer was made, the Ombudsman would have found that its offer of compensation was reasonable, as it is in line with what the Ombudsman would have ordered if the landlord had not made an offer. However, its failure to resolve the issues for a further 7 months has caused the resident further inconvenience and worry. As such, the landlord is ordered to directly pay the resident £450, in addition to the compensation it has already offered. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website sets out our approach to compensation. It says that awards in this range are appropriate where a landlord’s failures have accumulated over a significant period of time and caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident.

Complaint handling

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. It defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”. The landlord’s complaints policy uses this definition.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond at stage one of its process within 10 working days, and at stage 2 of its process within 15 working days. These timescales are appropriate as they align with, or are shorter than, the timescales set out in the Code.
The landlord did not meet its policy deadline at either stage of its complaints process, which was inappropriate. Its stage one complaint response was sent over 3 months after it received the resident’s complaint. Its stage 2 complaint response was sent 2.5 months after the resident asked it to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. This will have damaged the landlord-tenant relationship.
The landlord did ask the resident to agree to an extension for its stage one complaint response, but not until 6 March 2023, when the response was long overdue. It would have been reasonable for it do this as soon as it knew there would be a delay. This would have meant the resident did not need to chase it for updates.
Overall, the quality of the landlord’s complaint responses was good. The landlord clearly said that it was upholding the resident’s complaint, gave clear explanations of its failures, accepted responsibility for these, and outlined the steps it would take to resolve the issues. This was in line with the requirements of the Code.
However, the resident had complained at stage one of the complaints process that the landlord had made a large hole in her home, which it had failed to repair. The landlord did not address this in its stage one complaint response. This was inappropriate, as the Code says that landlords must address all elements of the complaint. The landlord’s failure to do so may have led the resident to feel that she was not being listened to. In future, the landlord could consider contacting complainants before issuing complaint responses to ensure there is a shared understanding of the complaint.
The landlord apologised for the delays in its complaint responses, which was appropriate, and said that it had considered the delay in its offer of compensation to the resident. However, it would have been clearer for the resident if it had explained in its stage 2 response whether its offer of compensation was in place of, or in addition to, its offer of compensation at stage one of the complaints process.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord did not provide a breakdown of its compensation award and explain how much it was offering the resident for complaint handling failures, and how much it was offering for failures in its handling of her reports of damp and mould. Breaking down the compensation would have been clearer for the Ombudsman and the resident. As it failed to do this, it is difficult to assess whether the amount of compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable.
Given the failures identified in this report, we would consider it reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident £250 in compensation for its complaint handling failures. With the compensation apportioned in this way, as explained above, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord made an offer of redress to the complainant prior to the investigation which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak into the resident’s home, and the resulting damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be the landlord’s CEO.
2. Directly pay the resident £450 in compensation, in addition to the £1230 it has already offered in its complaints process.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Carry out a case review of this case at director level. The report should consider the following, and outline steps it will take to improve its response to similar cases in future:
  1. The failings identified in this case.
  2. How it can manage cases of complex damp and mould in a cohesive manner in future. This could include providing residents with a single point of contact if possible, producing a timeline of work, and/or updating resident at set intervals, particularly where a case has not progressed for a period of time.
  3. How it can ensure its practice aligns with best practice identified in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould.
2. The landlord is ordered to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, available on our website.
3. If it has not already done so, the landlord is ordered to:
  1. Arrange a full structural survey of the building to identify the cause of the leak.
  2. Assign the resident a named contact to have ownership of the case and ensure she has regular updates until the repairs are completed.
  3. Produce a schedule of works detailing the outstanding repairs in relation to the damp and mould and timescales to complete these repairs. The landlord should share this with the resident and the Ombudsman.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence it has complied with each of these orders within the timescale given.

Recommendations

Once the landlord has inspected the property and produced a schedule of works, it should complete the repairs within its published timescales.
The landlord should consider strengthening its damp and mould policy to ensure it that its damp and mould management processes are specific, measurable, have set timescales.
The landlord should consider how long the repairs still needed at the property are likely to take, and how much disruption this is likely to cause the family. Depending on the estimated duration and complexity of the repairs, the landlord should consider whether offering to decant (temporarily move) the resident and her family would be appropriate.