Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202224968)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224968

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

21 January 2025

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 concerns about the communal cleaning at the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 10 February 1997. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 1 bedroom flat. The resident has no recorded vulnerabilities.
Following earlier complaints about issues with the communal cleaning at the resident property, the resident reported the issue again on 13 December 2022 saying that she was frustrated as she had chased the landlord regularly about the issue, but the landlord had taken no action.
The resident raised a formal complaint about the lack of cleaning in the communal areas of the property on 9 January 2023. She said she was “appalled” at the level of neglect with regards to cleaning services and that the landlord had assured her the housing officer would contact her to discuss the ongoing issue but had not.
On 12 January 2023, the landlord visited the property and as the cleaning had not been up to standard, it issued a rectification notice to its contractor.
An inspection report from the 18 January 2023, shows that the cleaning standard had improved but that it would continue to monitor the site on a weekly basis until it was satisfied the standard of cleanliness was good.
The resident raised a further complaint on 26 January 2023 in which she said the cleaners had failed to attend the previous week. She asked the landlord to refund her service charge for the lack of cleaning services over the previous years, which she thought amounted to 20 failed cleans.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 9 February 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. It confirmed the resident had raised 5 complaints about the communal cleaning since June 2022 which highlighted that the issue was bigger than thought.
2. It therefore wished to hold a meeting with the resident and the cleaning contractor manager to discuss the ongoing concerns.
3. If the resident did not wish to have such a meeting, it would instead monitor the cleaners and request all visit reports to ensure the pictures, provided as part of the reports, covered the areas cleaned.
4. If the resident did not wish for a meeting or monitoring, it asked her to confirm an alternative solution.
The resident requested escalation to the next stage of the complaints process on the same date. She said the response given by the landlord did not address the failed cleans or the loss of service charge. She said it was sad the landlord thought a meeting was a suitable resolution for the issue. She did agree to have a meeting with the landlord via zoom.
The landlord confirmed to the resident on 14 February 2023 that its estate officer would carry out weekly inspections to monitor the cleaning.
Notes from a site inspection on 15 February 2023 show that the cleaning was up to standard, and the cleaners had attended weekly as scheduled.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 28 February 2023 as she had not heard from the estate manager as advised in the landlord’s email.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 29 March 2023. It apologised for the delayed response. The key points in relation to the substantive issue were as follows:
1. It had discussed the resident’s concerns with the estate manager and apologised for the lack of cleaning service.
2. It acknowledged it had missed the cleaning of the property multiple times due to poor performance by the contractor who had on occasions not attended as contracted. It confirmed it was rectifying the issue and had arranged a meeting with the contractor.
3. It confirmed it would refund all missed cleans through the service charge within 6 weeks.
4. It offered £25 compensation for the delayed stage 2 response and apologised for the lack of communication and poor service.
The landlord provided a further response on 25 April 2023 in which it said it had investigated the missed cleaning for October 2022 and offered a £23 refund of the resident’s service charge for the month. The landlord worked that out based on 1 total month of the yearly service charge for cleaning which was £276.06.
In referring the complaint to this Service, the resident said she wanted the landlord to refund the cleaning element of her service charge for past 3 years of “failed cleans.”

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Prior to making this complaint, the resident had raised 5 complaints with the landlord in relation to this issue. The last response to those complaints was in November 2022. Furthermore, the Ombudsman is aware that this issue is still ongoing for the resident. The Ombudsman can only consider complaints which were brought to the attention of this Service within 12 months of it exhausting the landlord’s complaint procedure and issues which have exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. Therefore, this investigation will only consider the events which occurred after November 2022 which concluded the landlord’s internal complaints procedure in April 2023. Any mention of events outside of this time are for context only.
Part of the resident’s complaint involves dissatisfaction with the service charges from the landlord for communal cleaning, and she has requested a refund of some of these charges. Nevertheless, under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not consider complaints that concern the level or increase of service charges. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay service charges are instead within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), as the resident was advised by the landlord. The resident has the choice to seek legal advice about the above if she wishes.

Policies and procedures

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord will take reasonable care to keep the common entrances, halls, stairways, and any other common parts in reasonable repair and fit for use by the residents in the premises.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the communal cleaning at the property.

The resident contacted the landlord on 13 December 2022 to discuss the ongoing issue she had with the cleaning of communal areas at her property. While an internal note highlights that the issue was with the landlord’s estate team who would contact the resident, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it contacted the resident to tell her of this. Landlord’s need to ensure they have effective and consistent communication with residents to manage expectations.
The resident then reported on 4 January 2023 that the issue was still outstanding and that no one had attended to clean the communal areas since 8 December 2022. The evidence suggests that between the resident reporting the issue in December and this further report, the landlord had taken no action to investigate the issue. This is not appropriate; the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to at the least have discussed the issue with the resident, but it would also have been reasonable for it to have liaised with its cleaning contractor to discuss the issue with them. Not taking any action showed a disregard to the situation the resident found herself in and caused her to raise a further complaint.
Following the complaint, the landlord undertook a visit to the resident’s property to inspect the cleaning. Following this, it issued a rectification notice to the contractor. Given the consistent reports of poor and missed cleaning, it was appropriate of the landlord to visit the property and to issue the improvement notice to the contractor. This action highlighted the landlord’s commitment to resolve the issue for the resident.
Further to this, following an inspection by the contractor on 18 January 2023, it was decided that weekly site visits would take place until it was satisfied that the cleaning standard had improved. This action was appropriate in the circumstances and showed that issuing the rectification notice had the desired effect on the contractor.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 26 January 2023, seeking an update, as she had not received any communication about the issue. This shows that the landlord did not inform the resident about the actions taken, which is a sign of ineffective communication systems. When a resident reports an issue, the landlord should keep regular contact to update on any actions taken. Not doing so left the resident feeling that the landlord was not addressing the matter.
Internal emails from 30 January 2023, reveal that after the resident’s further complaint, the landlord acknowledged the need for a more thorough investigation due to the number of earlier similar complaints. It recognised the importance of finding a long-term solution. This was a reasonable approach and showed that the landlord was considering the bigger picture to resolve the ongoing issue.
In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 9 February 2023, it asked the resident if she wished to have a meeting with the cleaning contract manager to discuss the ongoing concerns she had with regards to the cleaning. Meeting to discuss the resident’s concerns was a reasonable suggestion to help the landlord understand the issues the resident had with the cleaning service and was a suitable response.
However, the landlord said that if the resident did not wish to have the meeting, it would go ahead with monitoring the cleaners’ performance. While it was good that the landlord wanted to meet with the resident, monitoring the cleaners’ performance should not have been presented as an either-or option. Given the ongoing concerns, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to both monitor the cleaners and meet with the resident. This approach would have allowed the landlord to satisfy itself that the contractor was performing as expected or to identify if it needed further improvements. This was particularly important since the resident was paying for a cleaning service that she claimed the contractor was not consistently providing.
While the resident accepted the offer of a meeting with the contract manager, the landlord has provided no evidence to show if this meeting went ahead. Furthermore, communication from the resident on 28 February 2023 shows that she had not heard from the contract manager. This is unsatisfactory. It would have been useful for the landlord to have arranged that meeting, as discussed, at the earliest opportunity to help resolve the issue for the resident. Not doing so showed a further disregard to the complaint raised by the resident.
A further site inspection took place on 15 February 2023 which shows the cleaning was up to standard and internal communication from 20 February 2023 showed the landlord had found no issues with the cleaning during its latest inspection. Given that the landlord was satisfied that the contractor was cleaning the building to the expected standard, it would have been reasonable for it to have set out that position to the resident and to have explained why it thought its contractors were fulfilling its obligations. Instead, it provided no response at all which left the resident chasing the landlord for updates and left her with the belief that the landlord was still rectifying the issue, not that it believed it to be resolved.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it had spoken with the estate manager and accepted weekly cleans had been missed on occasions due to poor performance by its contractor. It set out that it had arranged a meeting with its contractor to discuss the performance and rectify the issue. This acceptance would have gone some way to reassure the resident that it had taken her concerns seriously and investigated the issue properly.
However, given the resident’s consistent reports that the contractor had missed many cleans, it would have been useful for the landlord to have provided further details of its investigation and set out which cleans it accepted the contractor had missed.
This would have been particularly useful as the resident had consistently asked the landlord to refund her service charge for every missed clean. While the landlord said it would do this within 6 weeks, setting out exactly which cleans it accepted the contractors had missed and when would have helped manage the resident’s expectations and set out if it disputed any of the evidence provided by the resident.
Furthermore, given that the internal communications show that the landlord was just a few weeks earlier satisfied that the cleaning was up to standard, it would have been helpful for it to have set out this position in its complaint response. This was a further missed opportunity for it to clarify its position on the current standard of the cleaning. While it accepted there had been issues previously with the clean, it could have set out to the resident whether it still believed that to be the case or if it was, as internal communications show, resolved.
Throughout the duration of the complaint, the landlord told the resident it would calculate and work out how much refund she was due through her service charge. It then provided a response on 25 April 2023 setting out that it would refund the service charge for October 2022. Given the resident’s assertion that the landlord had missed many cleans, this would have been a further opportunity for it to set out why it was only refunding the charge for October and to explain its reasoning behind not refunding any others that the resident had raised. Not doing so caused the resident to chase the landlord for a further explanation, which it never gave.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of resident’s concerns about the communal cleaning fell below the standard expected by the Ombudsman. It did not conduct a reasonable investigation into the issue in the first instance. While it did issue a rectification notice to the cleaner, it did not communicate effectively with the resident to manage her expectations. Then when it was satisfied the cleaning was up to standard, it did not communicate that to the resident and explain why it may have disagreed with her. Its overall communication and handling of the issue was poor, and the landlord should ensure it learns from the findings in this case.
Therefore, there was maladministration the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the communal cleaning at the property.
Taking into account the above findings, a compensation order has been made for £200, made up of the following:
1. £100 for the time and trouble.
2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident raised a formal complaint on 9 January 2023, which the landlord acknowledged on 26 January 2023. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) sets out that a landlord must acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. The acknowledgement was 13 working days after the resident lodged the complaint and therefore, not in line with the code and caused the resident to chase the landlord again with a further complaint.
The landlord appropriately provided its stage 1 response, in line with its policy and the Code, within 10 working days.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on the 9 February 2023, which the landlord acknowledged on 13 February 2023. This was in line with the Code and therefore reasonable.
The stage 2 response was due by the 13 March 2023; however, the landlord did not provide it until 29 March 2023; 12 working days after it was due. This was not in line with the Code or the landlord’s policy which sets out that a complaint at stage 2 the landlord must respond within 20 working days. While this delay was minimal, it still caused a delay in the resident receiving a resolution of her complaint.
Furthermore, the Code sets out that where a landlord cannot response to a complaint within the timescales, the landlord must communicate this to the resident with a date of when to expect the response. The landlord has provided no evidence to show that it communicated this to the resident. This is unreasonable and showed a disregard to the resident’s complaint.
However, the landlord appropriately offered the resident compensation of £25 to reflect the delay in its response at stage 2 and offered an apology to the resident. The
Taking into account the above, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
A compensation order has been made for £50, made up of the following:
1. £25 for the delay in acknowledging the complaint.
2. £25 previously offered for the delayed stage 2 response.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the communal cleaning at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £250, made up of the following:
1. £200 for the failings in its handling of the communal cleaning.
2. £50 for its complaint handling.
The Ombudsman is aware that the resident has ongoing issues with the communal cleaning, therefore within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must arrange to meet with the resident to discuss her concerns and set out its position in relation to the cleaning and if it is of the expected standard. If it is not, it must provide a timebound action plan setting out what it will do to rectify the issue.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the findings in this investigation.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.