Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202208841)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208841

Paradigm Housing Group Limited

11 March 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. report of repairs required to the windows and front door.
2. reports of a rodent infestation, damp and mould.
3. reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance.
4. request for a management move.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a one bedroom first floor flat which he resides in with his wife and young daughter. There are no recorded vulnerabilities for the household, but both he and his wife suffer from asthma. At the time of the complaint, the resident’s wife was pregnant.
Throughout 2021, the resident raised a number of concerns about the property. This included that there was damp and mould he could not eradicate himself. He said that the “temporary” front door that had been replaced following a break–in in 2017 was not fit for purpose, and would swell with the change in seasons. In December 2021 he reported that there had been a rodent infestation in the loft which had affected the electrics.
Around the same time, the resident reported he had concerns about ASB from drug users who would congregate on the communal stairwell which led up to the entrance of the property. He also said his neighbours were noisy and could be heard screaming, banging and talking loudly. The resident reported that the flat was no longer suitable for his growing family. They had limited storage space, the stairs were causing difficulty with the buggy and he had concerns about the safety of the building. He made a complaint to the landlord on 10 June 2022 as he felt that the issues were not getting resolved.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its process on 24 June 2022 and partially upheld his complaint. It acknowledged that there were some repairs outstanding and it had not kept him updated. It offered him £100 in compensation and said it had taken learning and would book in follow up appointments to improve its communication. It advised that the use of drugs was a police matter and said he had been given appropriate advice in terms of a move.
The resident requested an escalation to his complaint in August 2022. He said he was unhappy with how long it had taken to resolve electrical works, and said the level of compensation he had been offered was not reflective of his experience. He requested that the landlord considered moving him via a management transfer.
The landlord issued its final response on 28 September 2022. It acknowledged the additional delay in resolving problems with the electrics and increased his compensation by a further £150. It agreed to take his request to move to its management move panel.
The move panel heard the resident’s case and declined his request on appeal. In escalating his concerns to the Ombudsman, the resident said that the landlord had not taken into consideration the full detriment caused to the family. As a resolution, he wanted consideration of a greater amount of compensation and a move away from the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact of his living conditions on the health of his family. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. It is accepted that the resident and his wife have been diagnosed with asthma, but unlike a court however the Ombudsman cannot establish what caused the health issue, or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. However consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of repairs required to the window and front door.

In 2017 the resident’s property was broken into, and the landlord attended to fit a new door. The resident believes that the door that was fitted was intended to be “temporary” until a permanent solution was found, and reports he feels that it is not fire safe. It is not for this Service to establish the quality of the door currently in situ, however no evidence was found within the landlord’s records which suggested the ‘new’ door was temporary or did not meet safety requirements.
There was little further contact recorded between both parties about the door, apart from one request for a lock repair in 2018. On the three occasions between July 2021 and April 2022 that the resident raised issues with the front door, the landlord attended within the expected timeframe for a routine repair in accordance with its policy. However, it failed to recognise that it was having to attend to the same repeated issue of the door swelling, causing related problems with the lock and keep. It was not until the resident made a complaint that the landlord arranged for the door to be weatherproofed in July 2022. It should not have taken a complaint from the resident for the landlord to have considered a longer term solution.
Repairs to the windows were noted in the property report on 11 January 2021 following the resident’s first report of damp and mould. The windows were adjusted 50 working days later, but still within the landlord’s expected timescale for a routine repair. No further issues with the windows were reported until approximately one year later. Given the amount of time that had passed with no further reports from the resident, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have concluded that its intervention had worked.
Once the landlord became aware following the surveyor’s visit in February 2022 that further adjustments needed to be made, records show that it arranged for further remedial works to take place within a reasonable timeframe. However its ability to repair the windows was hindered after it was unable to gain access to the property on two occasions in March and May 2022.
Records show that once the repairs were completed, the resident did not report further issues with either the door or the windows. He also did not raise either matter again within his request for an escalation to his complaint. It is therefore reasonable to conclude at the time the landlord issued its final complaint response, its interventions had worked and there were no further actions required.
Overall, whilst the landlord largely handled repairs the resident had reported about the door and windows within the expected timeframes, it failed to identify what learning it had taken for repeat repairs. It also failed to respond to the resident’s specific concerns that he believed the door was temporary, resulting in a finding of service failure. In recent contact with this Service, the resident has advised that the door is in poor condition, with insufficient sealing and poor workmanship around the architraves. An order has been made for the landlord to revisit the property to inspect the door and confirm in writing its assessment of its condition to alleviate the resident’s concerns.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation, damp and mould.

The first report of damp and mould made by the resident was on 5 January 2021. The landlord did not have a specific damp and mould policy at the time, but attended within 5 working days which was appropriate. The visit identified a number of repairs which were contributing to poor ventilation in the property. Although the repairs were raised promptly, they were not all completed within a reasonable timeframe. For example, the bathroom extractor fan was not replaced for 35 working days and the positive input ventilation unit (PIV) was not installed for 83 working days. The delays were unreasonable and the resident had to chase the landlord on a number of occasions.
There were no further reports of damp and mould from the resident after repairs were completed for approximately 7 months. It was only following the resident’s reports of rodents in the loft in December 2021 that further issues came to light which had a direct impact on the return of damp and mould.
Records show that the landlord raised for urgent attendance of pest control in December 2021 which was appropriate. The contractor attended on five occasions in relatively quick succession into February 2022 to lay bait and check back for progress, which demonstrated commitment to resolve the issue. However it was only when the resident reported further issues with damp and mould, that a surveyor established on 18 February 2022 that the rodents had damaged the electrical wiring of the property. They concluded that none of the extractors within the property were working effectively, worsening issues of condensation and the electrics needed to be made safe.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Both electrical hazards and damp and mould growth are potential health risks. It is unclear from the landlord’s records what date the electrics were made safe, but internal notes from the landlord noted that after the visit, the resident was left with no lights in the bedroom, hallway and bathroom. The electric shower was also unusable. The lack of electricity and resulting damp and mould had a significant impact on the resident and caused him considerable distress.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on attitudes, respects and rights recently highlighted that vulnerability can be defined as “a dynamic state”. In this case, although the family were not recorded as being vulnerable on the landlord’s systems, the resident’s wife was pregnant at the time. Both residents also had a diagnosis of asthma. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered what reasonable adjustments could be put in place for the residents until it had completed the repairs satisfactorily. However contrary to HHSRS the landlord did not adopt a risk based approach, and it failed to resolve the issues in a timely manner.
No evidence was seen that the landlord had considered whether a temporary decant would have been appropriate, and the resident had to chase it on several occasions for an update, causing him inconvenience and distress. It was not until May 2022 that the landlord referred the matter to its senior electrician. At this point the resident had been without working electrics in a large proportion of the property for approximately 3 months, which was inappropriate. The situation caused the resident significant worry and distress, and was the basis for his complaint in June 2022.
It is acknowledged that a neighbouring tree was a contributing factor to the rodent infestation. The landlord had been made aware of the tree in January 2022, as is evidenced in the reports from its pest contractor. The reports noted the tree had to be felled in order to control the influx of squirrels, and the landlord concluded the works needed to be done before it could conduct a full rewire of the property. In its stage 1 response in June 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it had been seeking permission from the neighbouring land owner to cut the tree and apologised it had not kept him updated. However, no record of an attempt to contact the neighbour was evidenced until 22 July 2022. The delay was unreasonable and exacerbated the situation for the resident.
The tree was felled and a full rewire was later completed in August 2022. The landlord acknowledged the additional delay within its stage 2 response and offered the resident an additional £100 in compensation. In considering a complaint, landlords should adopt the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of “be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”. In this case, whilst the landlord had put matters right and resolved the repairs before its final response, its compensation offer was not reflective of the resident’s experience.
Aspects of the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman relate to his request for compensation to cover loss of earnings for a period of 3 months he was off sick because of the mental and physical impact the situation had on him. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to award damages in the way a court might, but we can consider whether the landlord appropriately applied its compensation policy.
In this case, the landlord’s policy had specific clauses for discretionary compensation, and included consideration of a percentage of rent for the loss, or partial loss of electricity. The amount payable can be calculated as a percentage of the gross weekly rent for the period a facility, for example the electrics, is unusable. There is no evidence that the landlord considered applying this part of its compensation policy to its final award of compensation.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rodents and the associated increase in damp and mould. The landlord was slow to make enquiries about the tree in the neighbouring property. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the vulnerability of the family, particularly during the time the resident’s wife was pregnant. Its offer of compensation did not take into consideration that he had been without electricity in all but two rooms for approximately 6 months. Furthermore it did not go far enough to consider additional learning from the complaint. This is evidenced in its repetition of the same learning it had taken from the stage 1 response.
The Ombudsman has therefore ordered further compensation which takes the resident’s circumstances into account, using the resident’s rental liability and the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. The resident’s current rent is £123.77 per week. The Ombudsman has taken into consideration that the resident’s enjoyment of the bedroom and bathroom were significantly curtailed and has ordered compensation as follows:
1. The landlord should pay the resident 50% of the rental income for the approximate period of time he was without electricity.
2. Covering the period of 18 February 2022 (date of the surveyor’s report which acknowledged the electrics needed to be made safe) to 25 August 2022 (date of full rewire) amounts to 27 weeks.
3. Therefore compensation in recognition that the resident was unable to use electricity amounts to £1,670.90.
Since the conclusion of the resident’s complaint, the resident has advised this Service that damp and mould has recently returned and there are areas where the anti-mould wash paint is peeling. He has not reported this to the landlord as he reports he has lost confidence in its ability to tackle the issue. An order has been made for the landlord to revisit the property to re-assess the situation. In doing so it should consider commissioning an independent damp and mould specialist to alleviate the resident’s concerns.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance

The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will investigate reports of drug use or dealing. When the resident first reported the issue in the communal stairwell in December 2021, he was given appropriate initial advice that further investigation from the police was required. Whilst it is accepted that enforcement action by the landlord would have been limited because the persons were unknown, it failed to recognise there were still crucial steps it could take to investigate the issue itself.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that on receipt of a report of ASB, it will agree a frequency of communication and updates through an action plan. The action plan is a fundamental part of ASB case management, which the landlord failed to undertake in accordance with its policy. In failing to do so, it did not manage the resident’s expectations.
Key to the ASB, crime and policing act 2014 is strong multi-agency partnership working to tackle instances of ASB. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord was in contact with the local police or that it discussed the matter with its local community safety partnership. By referring the resident to the police as the sole agency responsible for dealing with the issue, it left the resident feeling unsupported and “unsafe”.
There is no evidence that the landlord was proactive in obtaining further evidence to substantiate the resident’s reports. It failed to contact him to revisit the issue to see if the matter had improved once the police had been informed and it did not take ownership of the issue. It did not suggest that he kept diary sheets to record frequency of instances and it did not conduct any door knocking exercise to get an understanding of whether other neighbours were also affected. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it considered what estate environmental improvements might be possible in accordance with its policy. The lack of action by the landlord caused the resident evident worry and frustration.
A victim-centred approach is essential to identify risk and can help guide the landlord with what actions it needs to take. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord completed a risk assessment matrix (RAM) with the resident to measure the potential harm. This hindered the landlord’s ability to recognise the level of risk posed the resident, and it missed an opportunity to consider if it needed to refer him for further support.
In bringing his complaint, the resident reported that his downstairs neighbour was particularly noisy, banging and talking loudly. The landlord did not respond to these concerns. It’s failure to discuss the matter in greater depth with the resident to establish if there was anything it could do to address the issue was unreasonable. There is no evidence that the landlord considered any form of intervention or mediation between the two parties, and it provided the resident with no guidance or advice.
Overall there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance. In responding to the resident’s complaint, the landlord failed to acknowledge that it had not taken appropriate steps to address his concerns, and it failed to apply its ASB policy. The landlord’s focus within its complaint responses was weighted towards his options for a move and it did not consider what steps it could take to make him feel safe in his home.
In recent correspondence with this Service the resident has reported that both the ASB and noise nuisance from his neighbour are ongoing. An order has been made for the landlord to revisit his concerns and complete a RAM and action plan.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management move

There are specific requirements that need to be met in order for a resident to meet the criteria for a management move in accordance with the landlord’s tenancy management policy. These include that the resident is deemed to have require an immediate move due to violence or harassment or because they are required to downsize. Any requests for a management move must be accompanied by qualifying third party evidence.
The resident requested a move on the grounds that he felt the property was no longer suitable for his growing family and he had concerns about repairs that were required to his home. It is accepted that the resident also had concerns about drug use in the communal stairwell, as has been assessed above. It is not disputed that the situation caused the resident worry and frustration, however none of the reasons he gave met the requirements for a management move in accordance with the landlord’s policy. There was no supporting evidence from the police that he was at personal risk, and the landlord was taking steps to address his repairs.
The landlord’s communication about what other options available to him were consistent and clear. Records show that the landlord visited, wrote to and spoke with the resident promptly on several occasions to advise him that he would need to join the local authority housing list or consider a mutual exchange. The advice it gave him was proportionate, fair and demonstrated that the landlord was acting in accordance with its tenancy management policy.
Once the baby arrived, the landlord reconsidered its stance which was appropriate and agreed that it would submit his case to a management move panel, if he could demonstrate that he had supporting evidence to show he met the criteria. The GP letter that he included within his appeal made reference to the impact damp and mould has on asthma, but did not state it was a direct result of the property condition. The resident was given appropriate advice on 27 October 2022 to manage his expectations in this regard, before the case went to panel.
Records show that after conclusion of the complaint, the resident was updated of the outcome of the appeal in writing, which was appropriate. The landlord provided a clear explanation of why his case had been rejected and he was given appropriate advice of what options were available to him.
Overall, there was no maladministration of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a move. Whilst the landlord’s decision not to accept the resident onto its management move list was disappointing for the resident, the landlord acted fairly, proportionately and in accordance with its policy.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation, damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports repairs required to the windows and doors.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management move.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failures noted within this report, within four weeks.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay directly to the resident a total of £2,270.90 in compensation within four weeks. The compensation is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation is comprised of:
1. £250 the landlord offered the resident within its complaint responses, if not already paid.
2. £1,670.90 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident during the approximate period of time he was without electricity. The calculation of the amount is explained in paragraph 27 of this report.
3. £100 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation, damp and mould.
4. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures found in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance.
5. £50 for the failure in service caused to the resident in the landlord’s handling of repairs required to the windows and front door.
The landlord is ordered to attend the property to inspect the front door and reports of damp and mould, within 4 weeks. In doing so, the landlord should consider commissioning an independent damp and mould specialist to alleviate the resident’s concerns. The landlord to provide a written update to both the Ombudsman and the resident the outcome of the visit.
The landlord is ordered to contact the resident to discuss his most recent ASB concerns. In doing so it should complete a RAM and action plan with the resident, within 4 weeks.
The landlord carry out a full review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices. The outcome of the review to be shared with the Ombudsman within 6 weeks. The review must include:
1. a review of its procedures in relation to resident’s vulnerabilities. In doing so, demonstrate how it will actively use its vulnerability information to provide any additional support that may be required. In doing so, it should have regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on attitudes, respects and rights.
2. an explanation of how the landlord will quality check the works of its contractors, and how it intends to identify and respond to repeat repairs in the future.
3. an assessment of its training to staff on its ASB policy and procedure, with particular focus on the use of the RAM and action plans.
4. an analysis of its management oversight on ASB cases, with particular focus on recording actions, outcomes and case closure decisions.
5. a review of its staff guidance on compensation, to ensure that all available options of discretionary compensation are considered before providing a final complaint response.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review its complaint handling procedure against the new Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code which will become a statutory requirement on 1 April 2024.