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

Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202324683)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324683

Paradigm Housing Group Limited

4 December 2024


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a damaged extraction unit in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, a flat owned by the landlord.
  2. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 25 July 2023. She said the extractor fans had not been working for over a year and this caused mould within the property.
  3. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 15 August 2023. It said as a shared owner, any repairs or replacement of an extractor fan is the resident’s responsibility. It identified service failures related to other matters and offered £75 compensation. It also agreed to survey the property.
  4. On 18 October 2023, the resident requested escalation of her complaint. She said that previous leaks from the roof damaged the extractor fans. As such, she felt the landlord was responsible for repairing them.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 November 2023, explaining that it had raised a case under the National House Building Council’s (NHBC) warranty. However, NHBC declined the claim. The landlord recognised it did not inform the resident at the earliest opportunity that she could make a claim upon the block’s buildings insurance for the alleged water damage to the extraction unit. It subsequently provided a claim form. It offered an additional £100 compensation, resulting in a total award of £175.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response and referred her complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident was concerned about the impact the mould had on her health, particularly as she was pregnant when she initially complained. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident. However, as this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on the health of a resident. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspect of the resident’s complaint. This is better suited for consideration by a court or a personal injury claim.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman cannot consider the actions or decisions made by the insurer or NHBC. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme which sets out the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.
  3. Within the information provided to this Service, there are references to roof leaks in 2021 and 2022. Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme (that was applicable at the time of the resident’s complaint) states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which the resident did not bring to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising. Taking this into account, and the availability and reliability of evidence, we have focused on the period from November 2022 onward, when the resident reported issues with extraction to the landlord. This investigation considers matters up to the date of the landlord’s stage 2 response. Reference to historical and more recent events is to provide context only.

Damaged extraction unit

  1. Where a landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the redress offered by it put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The Ombudsman also considers whether the landlord acted in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The lease sets out that the resident is responsible to repair and keep the premises in good and substantial repair and condition. The exception is in respect of damage by risks insured, unless the insurance money is irrecoverable by reason of any act or default of the resident.
  3. The landlord’s records show the resident initially referenced an issue with the extraction unit in November 2022. She contacted the landlord again about this in March 2023. During this time, the landlord demonstrated that it explored the matter internally and referred to the lease to clarify the resident’s repairing obligations. It established that as the extraction unit only served the resident’s property, she was responsible for repairing it. The Ombudsman finds that this information was in line with the terms of the lease. However, it failed to consider the wider circumstances surrounding the leaks in the property and whether the problem with the extraction unit resulted from these leaks. This was an oversight.
  4. Following the resident’s report of mould in the property, it was reasonable for the landlord to undertake a survey to understand the extent of the problem, the probable cause and decide an appropriate course of action. The surveyor reported, “staining evidence to extractor fan unit in the ceiling void (believed to power both bathroom and kitchen fans).” They also reported an audible noise from the unit which the resident believed happened after the roof leak. As such, she had kept the extractor fans switched off.
  5. Following the survey, the landlord surmised that the water staining – potentially from the roof leaks – may have impacted the extraction unit. The developer of the block, who was responsible for building defects, had ceased trading. It was, therefore, appropriate for the landlord to see if a claim could be made upon the NHBC warranty.
  6. NHBC refused the claim in October 2023. Records show the landlord informed the resident on 18 October 2023 that as she was a shared owner and the issue was not a latent defect, she would be responsible for the repairs to the extraction unit. After further consideration, it provided her with information on how to make a claim on the buildings insurance on 2 November 2023.
  7. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord recognised it initially provided incorrect information to the resident and it could have directed her to make an insurance claim much earlier. Within its complaint response, it was reasonable for the landlord to apologise and offer compensation for the delay providing the correct information and distress caused. It also promised to stay in touch with the resident about the claim. We consider the £175 awarded to be appropriate for cases where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident. As such, while some of the £75 (offered at stage 1) relates to issues not investigated in this report, the Ombudsman considers that overall, the landlord’s apology and final offer was sufficient to remedy the failings identified.
  8. When making a buildings insurance claim, the onus generally falls to the policyholder to demonstrate that an insured peril caused loss or damage. In this case, the landlord acted over and above its obligations by supporting the resident with her claim post-stage 2, including arranging and paying for a report to establish whether water ingress damaged the extraction unit. It also liaised with the insurer and kept the resident updated. The insurer accepted the claim and the unit was repaired.
  9. The Ombudsman recognised the landlord had close oversight of the matter post-complaint, monitored the insurance claim through to completion, and acted proactively to rebuild the landlord/resident relationship. This demonstrates the landlord took the matter seriously and acted in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to be fair and put things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a damaged extraction unit in the property.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pays the resident the £175 previously offered, as this recognised a genuine element of service failure. The reasonable redress finding is made on this basis.