Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202327597)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327597

Paradigm Housing Group Limited

28 April 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 defects and repair issues reported by the resident since moving into the property.

Background

The resident is a shared owner of the property, which is a 3-bedroom house. The property is a new build and the resident moved into the property in February 2023. The resident lives in the property with his partner and 2 children. The Ombudsman notes that the resident’s partner also reported issues to the landlord. For the purposes of this report both the resident and his partner will be referred to as the ’resident.’
The resident reported various defects upon moving into the property. On 8 February 2023, the landlord listed the possible defects and provided its position on each one. It clarified the difference between a defect and a cosmetic issue. It said anything confirmed as cosmetic would be picked up on at the end of defect inspection and the developer would consider it at that point. The landlord confirmed that anything raised with the developer would result in a phone call with the resident to discuss the works. The landlord confirmed it would keep the resident updated.
The resident continued to raise a number of defects in the property, including issues with the quality of the remedial works. On 9 March 2023, the landlord confirmed it had met with the resident at his home that day. It apologised for him having so many issues and said it would write a report of its findings. It said it recommended that its design and quality manager, and a representative from the developer undertake a further visit. It said the aim of the visit would be to establish what needed to be rectified and to have a solid plan of action.
Following the further visit on 27 March 2023, the design and quality manager completed a snagging report which noted that there were 105 defects upon the resident moving in. The manager said that the developer had not resolved any of the issues. They said to re-establish confidence with the resident, they had stopped the developer from carrying out any further works. They said they had spoken with a new contractor who could carry out all the necessary works.
The resident made a formal complaint on 31 July 2023. The resident said he had been fighting to resolve the extensive list of issues in his property since the first week of moving in. He said that he felt both the landlord and developer treated him unsatisfactorily as a shared ownership customer.
The resident said he had just been informed that the kitchen which the landlord was due to replace the following day, had been cancelled. He believed this was due to the landlord not paying the contractor. The resident said he had sold his fridge/freezer and no longer had a functioning kitchen. He said the situation was impacting on his daily life and mental health. The resident asked for the landlord to resolve the situation.
On 9 August 2023 the landlord offered to reimburse the resident £2,255.90. It confirmed this was to account for the costs incurred regarding the fridge freezer, 3 gas bills, an air fryer, an electrician, a toilet seat, and a light fitting. The resident accepted the offer.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 16 August 2023. It outlined the action it had taken so far. It said that it could not find service failure as his concerns were dealt with in line with its policies and procedures at the time. It confirmed that due to the high number of defects and issues reported it put the developer on notice and intended to fix the issues itself. The landlord referred to the report provided by the design and quality manager. It said the report provided was not as objective as it would expect from a member of the team.
The landlord said the replacement of the kitchen was not in line with its policy. It said the kitchen could and should be resolved through repair, rather than replacement. It confirmed that it had provided the resident with a summary of the proposed works and provided the named contact for the works. It offered £300 as a good will gesture for its poor communication and not following its due process and procurement policy.
The resident escalated his complaint on 7 September 2023. He said the breach in agreement of remedies previously offered had left him disappointed and in financial hardship. He said the landlord was supposed to complete the works in June 2023 and to date the work had not started. He said there was an ongoing security risk with his front door not locking correctly and the bathroom leak from February remained outstanding. He said he had raised those issues as urgent throughout the process.
The resident said there were times when the landlord said issues were cosmetic but when he reached out to the developer, they rectified them and marked them as defects. He said he raised a gas leak and it took the landlord 2 weeks to attend and investigate. He also referred to appointments which the landlord had booked in and no one attended, causing him wasted time off work. The resident said he was unhappy with the compensation.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 6 October 2023. It said it had let down the resident on several occasions on a range of matters. It said this included staff promising solutions beyond their authority, a lack of communication, and a poor standard of work from both the landlord and the developer. It confirmed the following:
1. The resident had provided a spreadsheet detailing the outstanding repairs. The landlord had annotated it with its comments and outlined who would be carrying out the remedial work.
2. It would contribute £1,620 toward the flooring sourced for the kitchen, utility room and bathroom.
3. It would source a new shower screen and bath mixer tap/shower unit.
4. It acknowledged the residence was unhappy with the way the landlord had handled the outstanding works. It said it fully accepted that its communication could have been better. It outlined the point of contact for the residents case and said they were committed to keeping the resident updated with developments.
5. It fully upheld the complaint. It offered £1,700 for the stress and inconvenience caused. It said it recognised the high number of issues that existed when the resident moved in and that they fell way below the standards it normally worked to. It said the compensation was in addition to the £1,620 for replacement flooring and the £2,255.90 agreed in August 2023.
6. The landlord summarised its learning from the case and outlined its new approaches based on the learning.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He referred to the initial manager and the report they provided. He raised how that had changed and the landlord was no longer offering the proposed remedies. He said multiple contractors had attended to repair or “make good.” But the front door still did not lock properly, the bathroom still leaked, and there was mould growth in the property which had not been investigated. He said he had a 16 month old baby and a 3 year old. He said the 16 month old had repeated pneumonia. The resident said he was still battling for the issues to be resolved and it was causing the family endless stress.

Post complaints procedure.

In recent correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident has confirmed that the front door had been replaced and the leak was fixed, but there were delays in doing so. As an outcome, the resident would like more compensation and felt the landlord should not have increased the rent while the issues were ongoing. The resident also wanted the landlord to do more to address the mould in the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

The resident has referred to his own and his family’s health and how the landlord’s handling of the repairs could have had an impact on this. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. As a result, we cannot determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or damage to personal belongings.
In correspondence with the landlord, the resident raised dissatisfaction with the developer of the property. The developer is not a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. For this reason, the Ombudsman cannot investigate the way the developer handled matters. The Ombudsman has therefore assessed the landlord’s handling of the reported repairs and its handling of communication with the developer.
In this case, there were over 100 issues reported in the timeframe investigated. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider the reasonableness and appropriateness of the landlord’s handling of the issues, taking into account any legal obligations, its policies, and good practice. It is not within the role or expertise of the Ombudsman to carry out independent technical assessments of disputed repairs and maintenance issues.
The resident has referred to mould growth within the property and the increase of rent which took place after the stage 2 response. This investigation focuses on events raised during the resident’s complaint up to the stage 2 response dated 6 October 2023. Separate issues, and events that post-date the complaints procedure have not been investigated and are referenced for contextual purposes only. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.

The landlord’s obligations.

As per the landlord’s handover form, the property was covered by a 12 month defects period from 23 November 2022 to 23 November 2023. It states that during that time the developer was “responsible for defects (a construction fault or omission) that may arise in the property.” The form outlines that the resident should report all defects to the landlord, it says that the developer will then confirm if the issues are defects and rectify if agreed.
The existence of defects alone does not constitute a failure in the landlord’s service. During the defect liability period, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to function as an intermediary. It should coordinate between the developer and the resident to ensure repairs are managed and completed to a satisfactory standard within a reasonable timeframe. This includes passing reports of defects to the developer and providing regular updates to the resident.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy refers to new properties which are still within their defects period. It states it will refer responsive repairs to the original developer who will be requested to carry out repairs to its same standard and completion time targets. The targets are:
1. Emergency – within 24 hours.
2. Urgent – an average of 15 working days.
3. Non-urgent – within 60 working days.
The landlord’s remedies and compensation policy says that it will offer compensation where service failures have impacted a customer and take into account their individual circumstances. It says where a customer’s personal possessions have been damaged as a result of a property or service failure, consideration will be given to reimbursing the customer.
The policy outlines 3 levels it will consider for compensating service delivery failures. The highest level of compensation it says it will offer is between £500 and £700. It states this is in recognition of severe failing where there has been a significant long-term effect on the customer.

The landlord’s handling of multiple defects and repair issues reported by the resident since moving into the property.

The Ombudsman has found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. It should be noted that we would have found maladministration if not for the steps taken by the landlord to put right the complaint. The failings likely caused time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience in the resident having to repeatedly raise the issues. The landlord has not disputed that there were several failings which impacted the resident’s enjoyment of the home. It offered redress which took this into account and outlined what lessons it had learnt from the complaint. This was reasonable.
In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident felt the landlord had not escalated the concerns quickly enough to the defects team. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had dealt with the concerns in line with its policies and procedures. It said it could not find a service failure.
On 1 February 2023, the resident emailed the landlord a list of 13 possible defects with images attached. The landlord responded on 8 February 2023 and addressed each issue raised. It clarified the difference between a defect and cosmetic issue. It said cosmetic issues would be addressed at the end of defect inspection. It confirmed which issues it had raised with the developer and what the next steps would be. While the resident disagreed with some of the landlord’s categorisation of the repairs, its initial response was reasonable and in line with its policy.
The developer scheduled and undertook the work. However, we would expect to see the landlord was managing the situation and communicating with both the developer and resident regarding any issues. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to visit the resident’s property on 9 March 2023 following the high number of issues raised. While the resident felt the landlord should have escalated it sooner, it was reasonable for the landlord to initially follow its process of raising the defects with the developer. It was also positive for the landlord to suggest a further visit with the developer to establish next steps.
On 24 May 2023, the landlord contacted the developer to state that following ongoing complaints from the resident, the developer should no longer attend the resident’s property. The landlord’s design and quality manager provided a snagging report on 1 June 2023. As acknowledged by the landlord in its stage 1 response, the report was less objective than one would expect. It said there were 105 snagging items and this resulted in stopping the developer from carrying out any further works.
While it was fair to consider escalating the issues with the developer following the findings of the report, it was unclear what the developer’s position was following the joint visit and whether it had sight of the report provided. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explored what steps the developer could take to repair the relationship with the resident and improve the handling of the repairs. In the absence of this information, it is difficult to determine that the landlord’s decision to remove the developer was proportionate at that time.
It is also unclear what steps the landlord took in line with its contractual obligations with the developer and the resident. In an internal email dated 15 June 2023 the landlord stated that it had implemented the contract and notified the developer accordingly. It said this meant the property would come out of the defects rectification period. And the residents had accepted they will have responsibility once it had carried out the outstanding works. The Ombudsman has not had sight of any written communication to the resident regarding this. The resident disputed that the landlord had fully explained this.
The resident raised a formal complaint following notification that the landlord had cancelled the kitchen replacement. The landlord apologised, explained why, and said that it could repair the kitchen, rather than replace it. While disappointing for the resident, the landlord has a responsibility to find the most efficient and suitable solution for repairs, considering both cost and functionality. Therefore, despite its previous commitment, it was appropriate for the landlord to rely on its qualified staff and reconsider what was reasonable. However, it is clear that this was damaging for the landlord tenant relationship.
It appears the landlord reinstated the developer in September 2023. The decision to do so was understandable if it felt it should not have removed the developer in the first place. Although, this could have made it difficult for all parties involved to establish who was responsible for any outstanding repairs. The developer’s liability is typically intended to cover poor workmanship dating back to the original construction of the building. Therefore, if the landlord had carried out any such repairs, it could have invalidated the warranty. The delay in reinstating the developer led to 4 months of uncertainty and confusion regarding what repairs were being dealt with in the property.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that part of the resident’s complaint was related to “an ongoing leak on the shower screen in the family bathroom which had leaked into the downstairs utility room” causing damage. The landlord stated that it was sourcing a new shower screen and bath/shower unit and offered compensation for the damages. It would have been reasonable for it to address the resident’s concerns regarding the time taken to resolve the leak.
Similarly, in his stage 2 escalation, the resident referred to an ongoing security risk with his front door not locking properly. We have seen evidence of the landlord responding to the concerns when raised. The stage 2 response also included an annotated spreadsheet of all outstanding repairs and what steps would be taken in relation to them. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have clarified its position on its handling of the door.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident felt £1,700 was an appropriate amount of compensation for the stress and inconvenienced caused. Although the amount offered exceeded its own compensation policy, it was reasonable for the landlord to agree to that amount. The landlord also reimbursed the resident £3,875.90 for numerous items including energy bills, replacement flooring, and a fridge freezer. While the resident has since stated the costs incurred were higher, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine liability and we would not order a payment for damages.
As already stated, the Ombudsman finds that there were failures in this case which caused the resident significant time and trouble in raising the issues and chasing the landlord. The landlord did not demonstrate that it effectively communicated with either the developer or the resident. There were times where it did not have oversight of the works required in the property, this resulted in delays and a failure to manage expectations.
However, the landlord upheld the complaint, accepted, and apologised for its failures. Its compensation offer was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases of severe maladministration. The steps and learning it outlined in its stage 2 response were thorough and addressed the concerns raised in this report. They were in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of “Be fair; Put it right; Learn from outcomes”.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of multiple defects and repair issues reported by the resident since moving into the property.