Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202309735)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309735

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

29 October 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:
1. Handling of window replacements to the resident’s property.
2. Handling of damp and mould.
3. Handling of the replacement to the resident’s shower tray.
4. Handling of pest control in the resident’s garden.
5. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant in a 3-bedroom house. Her tenancy started in October 2012, and she lives in the property with her children.
The resident received a letter in May 2021 telling her that the landlord would replace her windows, however, this did not occur.
The resident raised her complaint with the landlord on 28 February 2023. She explained her concerns with the delay in the window replacements since May 2021. She also said that the windows caused significant heat loss, and this led to an increase in her utility bills. She raised concerns about damp and mould and said she had been dealing with the issue since she moved to the property in 2012. She told it that mould surrounded the windows, and she wanted them replaced.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 13 March 2023. It explained the delay in the window replacements and said it was due to carry out the works. Its surveyor had said that various other factors in the property caused the condensation to the windows. It said that repairs to the windows would not reduce the problem. It upheld the resident’s complaint as it should have told her the window replacement was not going ahead.
The resident spoke to the Ombudsman on 14 July 2023 and explained her concerns about the windows and damp and mould. She explained the impact on her family’s health and the financial costs involved. She said she wanted the landlord to complete the works its surveyor identified. It had sent the works to its contractor, but they had cancelled the works order without explanation or contacting her.
Following advice from the Ombudsman, the resident asked to escalate her complaint on 14 August 2023. She also chased her stage 2 response on 21 August 2023 and the landlord acknowledged her escalation on this day.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 December 2023 and reiterated her concerns around the costs in heating her property. She also reiterated her concerns about the damp and mould in the property. The resident raised concerns about a rat infestation in her garden. She also raised concerns about a broken shower tray which caused a leak into her kitchen. An operative had attended and told her, the shower tray needed replacing. She told it about the effects on her health and that she had not received a stage 2 response.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 16 January 2024. It acknowledged it had set false expectations with her. It said it had also raised a mould treatment around the windows and its contractor would contact her directly to arrange an appointment. It also addressed the shower tray and apologised for the errors in its approach and delays in addressing the issue. It confirmed it had raised replacement works and its contractor would contact her to arrange an appointment. In relation to the pests, it said as she lived in a house this was her responsibility. It acknowledged the delay in its complaint handling and lack of communication. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered her compensation of £350. It broke this down as:
1. £250 for setting false expectations and delays with the repair to the window.
2. £100 for its poor communication throughout the repairs and complaints process.

Post Internal Complaints procedure

The resident confirmed on 30 January 2024 that the landlord would be measuring her property for the new windows that morning. She also told it she would be willing to accept £700 in compensation to conclude the matter. She said she believed this was in line with the inconvenience caused to herself and her family. The landlord agreed to the amount on the same day. The resident broke the amount down as:
1. £300 for the false expectations as the issue had been ongoing since 2021. She said this was 3 years of phone calls, emails, and time off work, due to appointments with surveyors.
2. £250 for its complaint handling.
3. £150 as a reimbursement for dealing with the rodents.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns in relation to the effects of the situation on hers and her family’s health. However, the Ombudsman is unable to consider this. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impact on health. The courts must decide on personal injury claims as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, the Ombudsman will consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident as well as the landlord’s response to any reported impact on hers and her family’s health.
The resident also raised concerns around loft insulation and kitchen drainage. She informed the Ombudsman on 13 October 2024 that the landlord’s contractor had installed the windows. She stated that there were however issues with the installation and she had raised these as a new repair. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident raised the insulation and kitchen drainage issues with the landlord as part of the initial complaint or escalation. Although the landlord mentioned the insulation in the stage 1 response, this was in relation to a list of identified works. The landlord and resident have not provided the Ombudsman with any evidence that the issues with the repair have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.
Paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not acted within a reasonable timescale. As there is no evidence that these issues have exhausted the landlord’s internal procedure, we are unable to consider them. Should the matters remain outstanding, the resident can bring a complaint to the landlord. The Ombudsman encourages the landlord to provide any necessary responses should the resident raise a complaint about these issues.
The resident said that she had been dealing with concerns of damp and mould since November 2012. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with no records in relation to this. The length of time which has passed would make it difficult to obtain accurate records to carry out an investigation about the issue going back to November 2012. As such this investigation will primarily focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports around damp and mould from 2023 onwards.

Handling of window replacements to the resident’s property.

The landlord appropriately acknowledged there had been failings in its handling of the resident’s window replacements in its stage 2 response. It offered the resident compensation of £250 to address these failings. However, she provided a counteroffer of £350 which the landlord accepted. As such the Ombudsman’s role in this instance is not to discuss and redetermine the failings already found, but to determine whether the redress adequately reflected the detriment faced by the resident.
Both compensation offers took consideration of the fact the landlord had set a false expectation with the resident. The landlord’s initial offer also considered delays with the repair to the window. However, the landlord has not demonstrated that it considered the delays in it completing the replacements. It had told the resident it would replace the windows on 21 May 2021, but did not do so until 18 April 2024. This represents a 37-month delay. Following the stage 2 response in January 2024, as the replacements remained outstanding for a further 3 months, it should have reevaluated its position and considered if it needed to provide further redress. It has not demonstrated that it did, and this was unreasonable.
The landlord also found that there were issues with its communication across the repairs and complaint handling process. It offered £100 compensation for this, however, it is unclear how much of this it attributed to its communication around the window replacements. The landlord’s maintenance policy says that it will carry out some repairs as part of a planned programme. If repairs fell into this category, it would advise when it planned to complete the repair and what would happen next. The landlord did not show that it did this in a timely manner. It was not until the resident raised the concern that it provided her with the necessary information and reasons around the delay in replacing the windows. This was unreasonable, and not in keeping with its policy.
There were also further issues which the landlord did not consider which it may have needed to compensate the resident for. For example, the resident raised concerns about the impact of the situation on her family’s health. The landlord has not demonstrated that it offered her any support. It also has not shown that it signposted her to any organisations who could offer her the support she may have required, and this was unreasonable. This demonstrates a lack of customer focus and an unempathetic approach to her concerns.
The landlord’s compensation policy says residents should inform it about any claims for effects to their health. If the resident wished to seek financial compensation as they believed their health had been affected, it would inform its insurer, and the claim would be investigated. As the resident had raised this as a concern, it would have been reasonable for it to consider whether it needed to refer her comments to its insurance provider. This would have allowed for proper consideration of her reported concerns around the overall situation on her family’s health and if any redress was due. It has not demonstrated that it did, this was inappropriate, and not in keeping with its policy.
In summary, the parties agreed a compensation amount of £300 as the landlord had found there were failings in its handling of the window replacements. However, the Ombudsman believes there was a failure to adequately consider the delays in completing the window replacements. The landlord also did not act in line with its policy around the resident’s reports of an effect on hers and her family’s health. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure. Despite identifying further failings in the landlord’s approach, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the compensation amount of £300 was suitable redress based on all of the failings identified. This is also in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for service failure. As such the Ombudsman has not ordered any further compensation.

Handling of damp and mould

The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould sets out what it expects from landlords where damp and mould are concerned. It says landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, carry out proactive intervention, and communicate effectively with residents. The landlord has not demonstrated that it took such an approach, and this is unacceptable.
The landlord provided limited information to the Ombudsman about its handling of the resident’s damp and mould concerns. This includes records of the resident’s reports, or when it attended to complete works. This raises questions with its record keeping.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will proactively take and manage the cause of damp and mould through robust procedures, analysis and service delivery. From the evidence provided, the landlord was aware of the damp and mould concerns in the resident’s property as early as February 2023. It completed a survey on 27 February 2023 which found required works to address the concerns. The surveyor said in an internal email that the mould in the property was “very minor” and contained in one room only.
The stage 1 response also said that it booked an appointment for mould treatment however it is unclear when this was, or if the treatment went ahead. It completed another survey on 5 July 2023. The landlord then informed the Ombudsman in October 2024 that it had completed the works to address the damp and mould on14 August 2023. This means that between February 2023 and August 2023, there was a delay of 6 months in it addressing the damp and mould concerns in the resident’s property. Although it had identified it as minor, the delay was unreasonable, and not in keeping with its policy. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s damp and mould concerns.

Handling of the replacement to the resident’s shower tray.

The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that there had been delays in its approach and agreed to organise works. It also agreed that although its contractor believed the damage to the shower tray was more than wear and tear, it would not recharge the resident. These were both reasonable approaches by the landlord.
The tenancy agreement says that the resident has a right to carry out repairs which are the landlord’s responsibility. This is where the resident has reported the need for the repair within 28 days, but the landlord did not complete the repair, without good reason within 28 days of the report. The resident reported the ongoing delays with the repairs to the shower tray on 28 February 2024 to the landlord. It appropriately considered allowing her to pay for the repairs and reimbursing her after she suggested this. This was a suitable consideration for the landlord to take, and in line with the tenancy agreement.
The works however remained outstanding as the landlord told the resident on 29 February 2024, to allow its contractor to identify a plan for completing the works. The works however remained outstanding until May 2024.
The landlord has not shown that it took robust action around the continuous issues between January 2024 and May 2024 with its contractors around the repairs to the shower tray. These included issues such as a failure to order the replacement shower tray, attending the resident’s property and saying there had been a lack of access despite speaking to her. This raises concerns with the landlord’s communication with its contractor. This was an opportunity for it to remind its contractors of its expectations around the level of service it expected them to provide its residents. It has not shown that it did. Doing so and showing the resident that it had addressed the standard of its contractors work and communication with them, would have gone some way to show that it was taking her concerns seriously and it recognised their failings.
The landlord’s repairs policy separates repairs into 2 categories. These are emergency repairs which it will address within 24 hours, and non-emergency repairs where it aims to complete works within 15 working days. The policy provides examples of non-emergency repairs, such as minor plumbing repairs, and dripping or leaking taps or shower units. The landlord also has a variable repairs category. Its policy explains this as repairs which require multiple visits, often using multi-trade skills or a number of special-order parts.
The landlord did not show that it explained to the resident how it categorised her repair and not doing so was inappropriate. Explaining how it categorised the repair may have allowed it to manage her expectations around when it aimed to complete the works. Based on the landlord’s policy, the Ombudsman finds it reasonable to categorise the repair to the resident’s shower tray as a routine repair.
The resident initially raised the matter in December 2023, it then remained outstanding until May 2024. This is a delay of 6 months, and this was unreasonable. The Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord raised some concerns around access to the property. However, much of the delay was attributable to the landlord’s contractor’s actions and inaction and this was unreasonable. This was also not in keeping with its repairs policy. The delays caused the resident frustration and led to her considering replacing the shower tray herself. This shows a lack of confidence in the landlord.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it will consider compensation where it did not meet its own service targets. The compensation would reflect the level of inconvenience, disturbance, stress or annoyance faced and the extent it had been directly responsible. It will also consider the time taken to resolve the concern. The landlord said in an email on 24 February 2024, it would offer the resident compensation for the delays she faced. The Ombudsman approached the landlord on 17 October 2024 in relation to the compensation payment. It said it had awarded £80. However, its records show that this was in relation to an issue with the resident’s kitchen and the costs of a private contractor to rectify this. This raises further concerns with the landlord’s record keeping and it is still unclear to the Ombudsman if it paid any further compensation to the resident in relation to the shower tray.
The evidence shows that there has been a prolonged service failure in the landlord’s handling of the shower tray replacement. This would place its inactions within the high impact category within the landlord’s compensation policy. This caused the resident repeated frustration as exampled in her email of 24 April 2024. It also caused her inconvenience as she explained she took 4 days off work without any appointment taking place.
The Ombudsman would expect a resident to allow a landlord access to complete repairs. It would not compensate for time taken off work because of the need to complete repairs. However, as no repairs took place during these times, this caused the resident avoidable inconvenience. Based on the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s guidance, the landlord has not adequately showed that it considered the level of detriment faced by the resident around the shower tray replacement.
In summary, the landlord failed to show that it addressed the constant delays with its contractor in fixing and replacing the shower tray. There was a delay of over 6 months before it completed the necessary works. It also has not demonstrated that it offered appropriate redress to the resident as it suggested. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration. The Ombudsman orders for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation.

Handling of pest control in the resident’s garden.

The landlord initially said in its stage 2 response that it was not responsible for the pests. This was because it believed pests were in her house. The resident however corrected it that the concern was in her garden. This demonstrates poor investigation into the complaint. It should have made reasonable attempts to establish where the issue was, and then made an informed decision on its approach. The failure to do so was unreasonable. The Ombudsman understands that this contributed to the delay in rectifying the issue. The landlord appropriately acknowledged its mistake, apologised, and worked with the resident to effect a solution.
After it became aware that the pests were in the garden, it appropriately allowed her to deal with the issue privately. It agreed with her compensation proposal on 30 January 2024 that it should reimburse her if she dealt with the issue. This was a reasonable approach to take as it ensured there were no further undue and unnecessary delays in rectifying the situation. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the pests in the resident’s garden.

Complaint handling.

There were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. These were mostly around the delays in its stage 2 response (4 month delay in providing a response) and its communication around these delays to the resident (failure to show that it asked for extensions, update the resident about delay, or explain she could go to the Ombudsman if she disagreed with extension). The landlord has acknowledged these failings in its complaint handling and agreed a compensation amount of £250 for these failings. The Ombudsman considers this to be adequate and in line with both the landlord’s and its own guidance. However, there was a further failing which the landlord did not identify in its complaint handling.
Within the resident’s complaint on 28 February 2023, she raised concerns about heat loss from windows and additional heating costs. The landlord did not address this aspect of the resident’s complaint in any of its responses. This was unreasonable, shows a poor understanding of her complaint and a lack of customer focus. This also raises concerns with the landlord’s investigation at both stages of the complaints process as it did not address all issues raised by the resident. This was even after she raised the issue again to it in an email on 27 December 2023, prior to its stage 2 response. The landlord has not demonstrated that it considered whether it needed to offer any support or redress around this, and this was unreasonable.
In summary, the landlord had found failings in its communication and 4 month delay in its stage 2 response. It agreed a compensation amount with the resident. However, it did not recognise that it did not properly address or show that it investigated the entirety of the resident’s complaint. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was a service failure. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord pay the resident added compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure with the landlord’s handling of the replacement of the resident’s windows.
2. Service failure with the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.
3. Maladministration with its handling of the replacement of the resident’s shower tray.
4. No maladministration in its handling of the resident’s pest concerns.
5. Service failure in its complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £950. This is inclusive of any previous compensation paid to the resident. This is broken down as:
  1. £300 for the failings identified in its handling of the window replacements to the resident’s property.
  2. £100 for the failings identified in its handling of the damp and mould.
  3. £250 for the failings identified in its handling of the replacement of the shower tray.
  4. £300 for its complaint handling.
2. Speak with the resident and identify if she wishes to pursue an insurance claim around the effects of the situation on her health as discussed in her complaint. If she wishes to do so, provide the resident with its insurance details to allow her to make a claim.
3. Speak with the resident to identify if she wishes to pursue her complaint about her additional heating costs.
4. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.