Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202106939)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106939

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

1 September 2022

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:
1. Repairs to the resident’s property.
2. The resident’s request to be rehoused, including whether the landlord has considered her vulnerabilities when assessing whether she should be rehoused.
3. An infestation of pests.

Background and summary of events

The landlord’s Repairs Policy states:
1. “We will pre-inspect if this is in the best interests of PA Housing and/or its customer in order to achieve a sustainable repair solution”.
2. “PA Housing is not liable for any damage to personal belongings, except in certain circumstances, for example where negligence on our part is proved”.
3. “PA Housing will ensure that its maintenance services are flexible to the needs of vulnerable tenants”.
4. Non emergency repairs work to be completed within 15 working days although “Some repairs will need more than one appointment to resolve”.
5. “Typically, variable priority repairs [specialist or major works] are those which require multiple visits, often using multitrade skills or a number of special order parts. Major works usually require a tender process and a number of visits over an extended period of time. Variable timescale repairs typically cost over £1,000…Planned or variable repairs are often raised following a visit from one of our technical team. If we need to carry out extensive repairs, we will talk through what we intend to do, agree timescales and project manage the work through to completion. In the vast majority of cases, we will also carry out a post work inspection to check the quality of repair”.
The landlord’s complaints procedure states that at Stage 1 it should agree a solution within 10 working days, although it may require a longer time if the complaint is complex. At Stage 2 it should provide a definitive response within 15 working days although it may need longer in more complex cases, in which case the resident should be kept informed and updated.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that:
1. “We will consider paying compensation if we have:
  1. failed to meet our own service targets.
  2. failed to deliver a service which is paid for through a service charge.
  3. not acted reasonably.
  4. damaged personal possessions, OR
  5. a tenant has been unable to use a room in their home”.
2. Where it has caused high inconvenience to residents, … , it can pay compensation between £100 and £500.
3. “Residents are encouraged to take out home contents insurance for their furniture, decorations and personal possessions, to insure them against accidental damage, loss, fire or water damage, burglary etc. Where a resident’s possessions are damaged through building failure which is not covered by their own insurance, compensation for the damaged possessions will be paid if it can be shown that PA Housing was at fault”.
The landlord’s Allocations Policy states that:
1. It operates a Choice Based Lettings system whereby it shortlists interested applicants for a property by their relative priority.
2. Applicants will be assessed according to a banding scheme to determine their relative priority. There are 4 bands:
  1. Emergency housing Need – (Band A / Category 1)
  2. Urgent housing Need – (Band B / Category 2)
  3. Identified housing Need – (Band C / Category 3)
  4. Keyworker or Choice Plus applicants – (Band D / Category 4)
3. A “management transfer is a transfer that takes place outside of the usual transfer process. Management transfers are offered under extremely limited circumstances and on a single offer only basis.

A management transfer can be considered if a customer or member of their household is at risk of significant harm from someone not living in their household; is the subject of a safeguarding panel and a transfer is urgently required to assist in their safeguarding; or a Personal Evacuation Escape Plan (PEEP) assessment identifies that the customer is unable to evacuate their property in the event of a fire”.

Summary of Events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord having mutually exchanged in 2019 and the property is a three-bedroom mid-terrace house. She is an amputee and sleeps in the lounge. The resident has a representative who has communicated with the landlord and this Service on her behalf. For ease of reference, this report will simply refer to the resident.
The resident has provided correspondence showing that she reported damp in the second bedroom in 2020 which damaged the plaster.
On 14 January 2021 the resident advised the landlord that she was recovering from a hip operation and a right leg amputation in hospital. The landlord advised her to provide an OT assessment after which a surveyor would inspect to see if adaptations could be made.
On 29 January 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord stating she had returned from hospital and was sleeping and being cared for downstairs, in the living room, as she could no longer manage the stairs in the property. The resident requested various repairs, adaptations and improvements given her disability. She noted that there were outstanding repairs that she had previously reported: a leak through the bathroom skylight window; the bathroom light did not work; damp and mould to the third bedroom’s internal wall; the kitchen ceiling needed repainting after a leak and the kitchen lighting did not work; and there was a mice and cockroach infestation. The resident also suggested a transfer to a two-bedroom property if suitable accommodation could also be found for an adult household member.
On 21 February 2021, the resident submitted a formal complaint noting that the landlord had not responded to her email of 29 January 2021. The resident stated that water continued to leak in her bathroom and had worsened over the last week. At a visit the previous day a plumber noted that water was continuously dripping from the skylight/roof into the upstairs bathroom, which was now leaking into the living room / her now bedroom and her mattress/bedding and damaging the ceiling. The resident further stated that another plumber attending that day had advised that there was a leak from an overflowing water tank in the loft, which was a straightforward repair, which raised concerns why this leak was not stopped the previous year or the previous day. She also noted that an electrician had removed the dining room lighting so there was now no lighting in the kitchen, dining room and upstairs bathroom.
On 3 March 2021, the resident’s OT sent a report to the landlord noting the amputation and other “multiple medical diagnoses which impacted on her mobility functional ability” and other activities. The OT explained the difficulties the resident faced with her property noting that “the property does not lend itself to being suitably adapted to meet [the resident’s] needs even with extensive adaptations it cannot be made fully wheelchair accessible”, and recommended relocation to a more appropriate property. With regards to the kitchen the report noted that not only could the resident not negotiate a wheelchair through the hallway to access the kitchen, she could not enter the kitchen in a wheelchair due to its configuration. The OT also stated that the front and back of the property should be adaptable to create ramped access for wheelchair use with a suitable gradient.
On 12 and 16 March 2021, the resident noted that there had been no response to her formal complaint and no works carried out despite inspections by a surveyor. She stated that there continued to be leaks from the bathroom skylight and items she kept in the loft and a bedroom continued to be damaged. (The resident has advised this Service that the leak from the water tank that was resolved is separate to the leak through the skylight).
On 31 March 2021 the landlord sent the Stage 1 response to the complaint. It accepted it had delayed in dealing with issues since January 2021 due to poor communication between its surveying team and its repairs service. It confirmed its surveyor would inspect the property on 7 April 2021 and ensure works were completed. The landlord apologised and stated that it would offer compensation after the surveyor’s assessment and the works were in progress. In the covering email the landlord advised that the response was not its full and final reply, and it would contact the resident further once the surveyor had visited.
The inspection was rearranged to 8 April 2022. The surveyor’s report identified the replacement of a light in the lounge, redecoration of the kitchen, gutter repairs at the rear of the property, replacing the bathroom, inspecting and clearing the loft, plastering and decoration of the rear bedroom. The report also noted that the surveyor advised the resident it was her responsibility to resolve any pest issues as her property was a house. The landlord and its contractor then carried out a joint visit on 20 April 2021 to agree the full scope of works.
The contractor sent a quote on 12 May 2021 after being chased by the landlord. The quote covered a revised list of works entailing works to the lounge, kitchen decoration, rear and front elevation works which included gutter repairs and fencing works, upgrading the bathroom, inspecting the loft to further quote for clearance, redecorating the front bedroom and front garden works which included building a wall and renewing a gate. After approval on 19 May 2021 the landlord raised a works order (1076429/1). Within this period the resident’s chronology indicates that she contacted the landlord several times for an update without receiving a response.
Furthermore, on 10 May 2021 the resident had submitted a Stage 2 complaint stating that she had not received a full formal email response. She stated that she had allowed extensions to the works commencement date and that she had received no response from the landlord’s Home Moves Team about a transfer. She also provided medical information and the landlord’s internal correspondence dated 17 May 2021 indicates that it would consider whether the resident was eligible for management transfer.
At the start of June 2021, the contractor requested a variation to the works order to include the environmental clearing and cleaning of the property as it was not safe/appropriate to work in, although there was a delay caused by this request initially being rejected by the landlord’s repairs system. On 21 June 2021 the clean and clearance was completed, after which works could be booked. In the interim the resident sought an update on the status of her complaint and a date when the works would start.
The resident also requested to speak with the landlord about her rehousing prospects. On 10 June 2021 the landlord’s Home Moves team wrote to the resident stating that she was eligible for an urgent transfer. It stated that it would also explore offering the adult household member a property to increase the resident’s chance of obtaining a transfer. It also advised the resident of her other housing options: applying to the local authority, mutual exchange, Mayor of London Housing Moves, other housing associations, and private rented accommodation.
The resident contacted the landlord several times between 25 June and 5 July 2021 seeking a start date for the works and noting that the contractor had attended once unannounced when she was not prepared for them to attend. On 9 July 2021 the contractor advised the landlord that in between the clean and clearance and its operative attending, the resident’s garden had again been left in a state that could not be worked in, in particular from dog mess uncleared in the garden.
Internal correspondence sent on 8 July 2021 confirms that the Home Moves team had spoken to the resident and advised there were limited, if any, transfer options within the landlord’s stock given the resident’s wish to stay in the borough, that she needed an adapted property, and did wish not to live in a flat. The correspondence confirmed that it would supply a report on what 2-bedroom houses and bungalows it had in the borough. The team also noted that it had advised the resident that she should apply to another housing association that specialised in providing adapted properties and use its Choice Based lettings system for the region.
The landlord’s internal records then state that it produced a report that showed no bungalows in the area and only a handful of houses, none of which had the required adaptations. It is not evident that the landlord has provided the report to the resident although it has provided this Service with a spreadsheet showing five properties in the area.
The resident’s chronology and messages sent to this Service indicates that the contractor attended between 12 July and 28 July 2021 to carry out various works including the installation of a new bathroom. However, the works caused new leaks around the bath and toilet. The resident has also provided evidence that she made several reports about having no hot water over two weeks and a drooping gutter preventing the conservatory door from easily shutting. She has indicated that the contractor attended to maintain the garden and that the landlord also agreed to the removal of a tree from the front garden. The resident also noted that there was a leak to the conservatory due to disrepair to the guttering.
The resident has also noted in her chronology that she queried on 27 July 2021 whether the landlord should start plastering the bedroom when it had not yet carried out external works to remedy water ingress from outside. The resident raised concerns about the quality of some works and outstanding repairs. Consequently, the contractor carried out a video-link inspection on 11 August 2021, following which the landlord advised that it would construct a brick wall to the front wall elevation over the next couple of days.
On 12 August 2021, the contractor sent the landlord a list of the works that it considered to be outstanding. It noted:
1. All bathroom works were complete apart from a hot water pressure issue.
2. Preparation works for the replastering of the rear bedroom had been completed but a variation order for a new scope was outstanding.
3. Five garden panels would be installed the following day.
4. The external front wall was completed but a variation order was added on site.
5. Kitchen and loft works were on hold as the landlord needed to send the scope following the inspection on 11 August 2021. An internal email from the landlord noted the kitchen was in “poor condition”, but a kitchen replacement would be a standard upgrade which the resident would not be able to use.
6. The completion date for decoration works was to be confirmed.
The resident’s correspondence indicates that a kitchen fitting company attended her property to survey a new kitchen in August 2021.
The resident also sent a list of the works that she considered outstanding, or which needed to be carried out at her property and on 12 August 2020 the landlord agreed to provide an update and a revised programme of works. However, there is no evidence that it did this.
On 13 August 2021 the landlord sent the Stage 2 response although it was only received by the resident on 27 August 2021, finding:
1. There had been a delay in assessing the works listed in Stage 1 response.
2. Bathroom works had been completed although a hot water pressure issue needed to be resolved. Panels in the garden would be completed that day and scaffolding erected for other repairs. Other repairs in the property would be completed.
3. Although pest control was a tenant responsibility it would arrange for a pest controller to attend. (The landlord’s internal correspondence indicated that it had not acted on the resident’s report of mice previously).
4. Its Home Moves team had written to the resident on 10 June 2021 to set out her options. Regarding a management transfer, it had no bungalows and only very few houses in the same area, all of which were occupied and did not have adaptations. It had suggested that the resident apply to the local authority and make enquiries with another housing association that provided adapted housing.
5. It should have dealt with the complaint more efficiently and effectively.
6. It would offer £400 compensation (its internal correspondence indicates this was calculated at £50 per month).
The resident’s chronology indicates that the landlord continued to attend her property during August 2021, although as of 1 September 2021, the hot water issue had not been resolved and there had been missed appointments including removal of building waste and material from the front garden area which prevented the resident from leaving her property for a medical appointment on 16 August 2021. During this time, the landlord replastered the second bedroom. The resident’s correspondence indicates that she requested a full works plan from the landlord but this was not provided, and that she questioned the plastering of the bedrooms “prior to investigating the external cause of the damage”.
On 31 August 2021 the resident advised the landlord that whilst the second bedroom had been replastered, “there are no other developments in the bathroom (and door fallen off), second bedroom, kitchen, dining room / [the resident’s] bedroom, conservatory, front or rear garden”. The resident noted that she still had not received a plan / timetable of works or follow up communication from the landlord about rehousing.
On 12 October 2021 the resident advised that she remained dissatisfied with the Stage 2 response as:
1. Works remained outstanding including the hot water pressure and volume, decoration works, the recently offered full kitchen installation and pest treatments.
2. There were three leaks. The main bathroom leak from the water tank was repaired at the 4th or 5th visit and had damaged the ceiling of the dining room where the resident was bedbound. There was also a leak to the kitchen ceiling which remained undecorated for 18 months and an unrepaired leak from external pipes to the conservatory.
3. The landlord had not assisted with rehousing or provided a list of available properties.
4. There had been no response to pest issues. The landlord had previously accepted responsibility for the pest control issue in 2018 or 2019.
5. There had been missed appointments, call backs not carried out and a work schedule not provided.
6. The compensation was insufficient, in particular as there had been damage to a bed and bedding and no operatives had attended during the previous two weeks.
Internal correspondence sent on 14 October 2021 noted the slow progress of works which included “delays in organising the kitchen renewal”. A message from the resident to the contractor on 19 October 2020 noted that there had been no work for six weeks and the landlord was not aware of this. The resident informed the contractor that she was dissatisfied that she was told the roofing sub-contractor was taking two weeks leave before starting works but in any event, these works did not prevent works to clear the loft, deal with the rodent infestation, the second bedroom repair, the leaks or poor water supply to the bathroom”.
The contractor attributed the delay on waiting for instructions from the landlord and suggested that the resident liaise with the kitchen company or the landlord about the kitchen works. The resident has provided evidence that she completed the kitchen company’s selection form for frontals, handles, worktops and flooring on 20 October 2021.
On 19 October 2021, the landlord advised the resident that roof works would commence on 21 October 2021 with external decorations to follow and then garden works would commence from 1 November 2021. The resident’s correspondence indicates that there were delays to the works in part due to alterations needed to scaffolding. On 9 November 2021 the contractor advised the scaffolding was to be dismantled after completion of external works and that internal works could start. However, on 19 November 2019 the resident noted that the scaffolding was only being removed that day and neither she nor the landlord had not been provided a plan of timescale for remaining internal works.
It is understood that the landlord’s pest controller carried out a visit on 1 November 2021 and reattended on 8 November 2021 to bait the property.
An internal email dated 19 November 2021 shows that works remained incomplete, and that the landlord had concerns about the management of works by the sub-contractor. It anticipated remaining external works to take 3-4 days. The resident’s correspondence indicates that these works included work to the ceiling of the conservatory and the front porch. However, the works were not completed at this time.
In December 2021 the resident advised the landlord of outstanding issues expressing dissatisfaction over the length of time being taken for satisfactory repairs to be carried out. She also requested repairs to broken locks and handles.
On 4 January 2022 the landlord advised that the remainder of the front property works would be completed on 8 January 2022. On 4 and 5 January 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and contractor asking for confirmation as to what works would be completed as outstanding works included a displaced gutter, the removal of a large tree and making good the ground, the replacement of a slab broken by an operative and removal of old fence panels. She noted that this was the first contact she had received for one and a half months, and that there had been no internal works for two months. However, she noted that the contractor attended to carry out a repair to the wall.
She also requested another inspection as some internal works carried out had “gone bad” including new water stain marks on the redecorated bathroom ceiling, the redecorated bedroom wall had stains and cracks as no specialist damp treatment was applied, and cracks to the hallway ceiling.
On 25 January 2022 the landlord and contractor inspected the resident’s property and raised a list of works. This included repairing and decorating a crack to the ceiling at the top of the stairs, repairing a small damp patch in the back bedroom, examining options to resolve water pressure issues in the bathroom, clearing the loft and then upgrading the insulation, tiling around the bath, upgrading the bathroom extractor fan, insulating, plastering and decorating the third bedroom, decorating the lounge ceiling, renewing the kitchen unit doors, overhauling the back door, unblocking the garden drains, renewing Perspex sheets to the conservatory, overhauling the door and window to the conservatory and renewing and realigning the gutter at the front of the property.
On 1 February 2022 the resident again chased up a schedule of works stating that most of the renovations had failed. She also noted that she had not heard from the heating contractor about proposed new radiators or from the kitchen company about a new kitchen. On 2 February 2022 the landlord advised the resident that the contractor was chasing its sub-contractor for costs of additional works which would need to be agreed before works could be arranged. It stated it understood the kitchen would be repaired but not fully replaced.
On 17 March 2022 the Council wrote to the resident confirming that it had assessed her application under its Housing Allocation Policy, and she was assessed as a Band 1, eligible for a two-bedroom property.
On 5 April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord stating that it had not contacted her about rehousing since December when it had sent forms out. She complained that it had not provided help and assistance, for instance in completing forms or with the bidding process. The resident noted that neither the landlord nor the Council had mentioned the separate rehousing of her adult family member and asked whether the landlord had liaised with the local authority about this point and/or whether it would rehouse the adult household member separately.
On 13 April 2022 the resident sent an email to the MP, copied to the landlord, confirming that a contractor had attended to remove items from the loft to facilitate works but could not access the full area due to health concerns. She stated that damp works should have commenced in a bedroom on 11 April 2022 but did not and there were new stain marks to the decorated bedroom. Furthermore, the front entry wall cover stone was coming away for the second time. The resident noted that the landlord had wanted to post-inspect but she was not sure what works would be inspected as only the rear garden fence had been completed fully. She also noted that she understood she would be getting a new kitchen but now would only get new cupboard doors. The resident has provided this Service with screenshot of messages sent to the landlord showing that she pursued further repairs at this time.
In messages to the contractor sent between 10 and 13 May 2022, the resident agreed for internal works to bedrooms to recommence on 16 May 2022 but expressed dismay that there had been no internal works that year. She requested a timetable and specification for the ensuing works. The resident also advised that she had provided evidence of repeated water leaks on 24 April 2022 that had not been responded to, there was staining on the redecorated first bedroom wall and bathroom ceiling which had been witnessed but not rectified and the fence panels still needed to be removed. The resident also asked the contractor if it had made contact with the next-door neighbour regarding outstanding works to a joint conservatory roof.
On 13 May 2022 the resident emailed the landlord confirming she had received a message that internal works were to start on 16 May 2022 (after her items were put into storage by the landlord) but noting that she not been sent a schedule of works or a timetable for remaining works for a year. It is not evident that the landlord responded. The resident on 23 May 2002 advised that that she was still awaiting “unanswered queries on the spec/timetable and resolution of the clearance of garden fence panels and follow up repairs to the bedroom and bathroom (Inc repeat leaks) … also crack to upper hallway ceiling”.
The landlord’s internal correspondence indicates that by 16 June 2022 the contractor was of the view that there were only “a few items left to address”. The correspondence noted that the garden was cleared on 22 June 2022.
On 23 June 2022, the landlord carried out a post-works inspection. However, the resident wrote to landlord that day stating there had been no works for the previous two weeks, and only eight days of works that year. The resident also raised concerns that she had not been contacted by the landlord or the Council about her transfer application, and that she had received conflicting advice about the rehousing of the adult household member, and no clear assistance.
On 24 June 2022 the landlord produced a list of works from the inspection of 23 June 2022 noting that some works were still outstanding including a ceiling crack, damp patch in the rear bedroom, loft clearance, kitchen unit doors, and a leak through the skylight. The contractor aimed to complete the outstanding works on 27 June 2022, although further correspondence indicates that a further appointment was made for 4 July 2022 to decorate the second bedroom again with a post-inspection to follow. On 27 June 2022 the landlord sent the resident a copy of the report.
On 28 June 2022 the landlord advised this Service that it would increase its compensation offer to £700.
On 21 July 2022 the landlord advised this Service that its contractor stated that all outstanding works identified on 25 January 2022 were completed except works to a double-glazed unit; however, it had not post-inspected itself due to lack of access. The resident in response to the email of 27 June 2022 stated that she disagreed with the landlord’s understanding of necessary repairs and compensation offer and assistance with rehousing. She advised that:
1. Whilst the stain patch in the second bedroom had been repaired, she was unsure what works were completed to the external wall to prevent further damp.
2. The leak through the skylight (potentially from the roof) had not been remedied.
3. The crack at the top of the stairs had not been repaired.
4. Thermal boards had been installed in the third bedroom without the mould having been cleared and had reduced the width of the room.
5. She was unsure whether the soil stack going through the conservatory was still leaking. It had not been boxed in and a window frame was broken.
6. The gutter was not yet unblocked.
7. The landlord had not met its promise to install a new kitchen, the door repairs had left the kitchen mismatched, the floor had not been cleaned, and the kitchen did not meet the resident’s disability needs.
8. The ceiling and wall in the lounge/resident’s bedroom had yet to be repainted. The landlord had not offered a solution for the relocation of the resident who was not able to sit in her wheelchair for any length of time.
9. There were also issues with locks and door handles that the surveyor did not have time to inspect.
The resident advised that there had only been 12 days of works that year. She further stated that she had not heard from the landlord or the local authority about her transfer application for six months and the landlord had not confirmed that it was looking at the adult household’s application separately. The resident rejected the offer of £420 compensation and noted that the landlord had not asked for an estimation of items damaged by the leak.
There continued to be correspondence between the resident and the contractor during July 2022 with the resident noting another period of two weeks without hot water, and leaks in the bathroom, as well as the time taken for the removal of rubbish, debris and rubble from the front garden.
On 29 July 2022 the landlord advised that having visited the day before, it considered all works except for the decorating of the lounge ceiling, which required arranging access with the resident, had been completed and provided a list of the works. It advised that an OT assessment was carried out which assessed that the kitchen was not suitable for adaptive works, therefore it decided to carry out repairs to the kitchen, which its surveyor had assessed was fully serviceable. The landlord also noted that whilst the resident believed there was a leak from the roof area, the surveyor did not see evidence of this.
In response, the resident has stated to this Service that from the list provided by the landlord, which contained works not previously communicated to her, several works were still incomplete or unclear. She considers incomplete items to include the loft insulation (carried out after the loft was cleared), decoration of the lounge ceiling which required the resident being placed in respite care, cleaning of the kitchen floor, unblocking of the drains at the back garden and the conservatory window.
The resident stated it was unclear whether the loft had been fully cleared, the bathroom extractor fan upgraded, the UPVC back door repaired and whether the possibility of moving the hot water cylinder to the loft had been assessed. The resident disputed the landlord’s position on the kitchen stating that whilst the OT assessment in March 2021 stated that the home was not suitable, “over 6 months we were informed by PA that a new kitchen would be fitted. This included Magnet kitchens turning up fixtures and surface samples. A new bathroom suite was fitted upstairs though [the resident] cannot get upstairs. The only works to date in the kitchen have been the replastering of the kitchen ceiling, the mismatched unit doors and 2 patches of painting, one of which (after removal of the cooker hood) flaked away the same day”.
The resident in the response asked the landlord to liaise with the Council to backdate her housing application start date to January 2021. The resident also provided an itemised list of losses and asked the landlord to make a new compensation offer which would also take into account the resident’s child not having use of a bedroom for two years because of the damp and mould.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

In investigating this complaint, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider the reasonableness and appropriateness of the landlord’s handling of the repair and maintenance issues, taking into account its legal obligations, policies and procedures, good practice, and what is fair in all the circumstances. It is not for the Ombudsman to make definitive, technical assessments of disputed repair and maintenance issues.
The resident initially requested a range of repairs, adaptations and improvements in her email of 29 January 2021. The landlord had a responsibility to consider the resident’s request, taking into account its repair obligations and her needs. The landlord responded to individual issues such as the leak by sending contractors, but initially did not address the full request. The lack of a response prompted the resident to make a formal complaint.
It was not until the Stage 1 complaint response that the landlord undertook to determine the works to be completed at the resident’s property through a visit by its surveyor. However, by then two months had passed since the resident informed it she had moved back home and four weeks had passed since the OT advised that the property was not suitable for her needs. The delay in the inspection demonstrated an unreasonable lack of urgency on the part of the landlord in ensuring that it met its repair obligation and that the property best met the resident’s needs whilst she remained there. Compounding this was its failure to resolve prior reported repair issues in the property such as the leak which was entering the area of the property which the resident had to use as a bedroom and was causing damage.
It was appropriate and in line with its policy on variable priority repairs that the landlord obtained a quote for the works it identified before raising an order, given that the works were extensive and included improvements over and above its responsibility to keep the property in good repair. Nonetheless, this took four weeks which was an unreasonable length of time given the resident’s situation. The resident’s uncertainty and distress were compounded by the landlord not proactively updating her during this period which contributed to her decision to escalate her formal complaint.
There were further delays to the start of works due to the need for the property to be environmentally cleaned and cleared on two occasions. Landlords and contractors have obligations to control health and safety risks at their working environment, therefore it was reasonable that the decision was taken to clean and clear the property before the substantive works commenced. However, the delay in the initial clean caused by an error in the landlord’s repair system was avoidable.
When works commenced in July 2021, over five months had passed since the resident’s initial request. The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that “If we need to carry out extensive repairs, we will talk through what we intend to do, agree timescales and project manage the work through to completion”. However, there is no evidence that the landlord or its contractor/sub-contractor followed the policy by carrying out these actions.
It transpired that works were not completed fully due to various reasons including some repairs not commencing or needing to be reattended to, bathroom leaks and variations requested. It was appropriate that the landlord inspected on 11 August 2021 to determine exactly what works were outstanding. However, there is no evidence that it then informed the resident of the works identified or provided a schedule for completion. As such the resident’s distress and uncertainty was unnecessarily prolonged.
The landlord again took steps to determine what works to the resident’s property were outstanding by visiting on 25 January 2022. However, again it did not inform the resident of the works it had identified or confirm with her exactly what works she believed were outstanding. Nor is there evidence of the landlord taking ownership and project managing the works. The significance of this omission was compounded by the increasing delay and also because by this point, the resident had actively sought confirmation of outstanding works and a schedule for completion.
There have continued be delays in the completion of works throughout 2022 with works being sporadic, and the evidence indicates that there have been long periods where no works were carried out at all, including between January 2022 and April 2022. The landlord’s correspondence indicates that this was in part due to evolving and additional works being identified which required quotes, but nonetheless given the previous delays and number of works still outstanding this was unreasonable. It also reinforces that the landlord was not effectively overseeing and managing completion of works that were outstanding or where the contractor had to be recalled.
The landlord also failed to respond to further requests made by the resident for a schedule of works and a timetable. The resident cited specific matters such as further leaks which meant works in the bathrooms and bedrooms needed to be completed again, the clearance of the loft, disrepair to the wall that had been constructed and conservatory works, which the landlord did not respond to promptly. The failure of the landlord to ensure completion of all works prolonged the resident’s distress and inconvenience and her uncertainty about the closure of works. It is also unclear why the landlord prioritised some external works over internal works, given the impact on the resident’s living conditions.
It was not until 27 June 2022 that the landlord sent the resident a list of works having again visited on 23 June 2022. The landlord’s recent correspondence shows that at this time it accepted many works had not been completed, including long-standing items that were raised prior to the resident returning home after her procedure the previous year, such as the leak through the skylight and damp in bedrooms.
Of particular importance to the resident is the issue of the kitchen. The resident’s correspondence indicates that at one point the landlord decided to renew the kitchen, arranging for a kitchen company to survey the resident’s property in August 2020. However, it ultimately decided to carry out repairs to the kitchen not to overhaul or replace it. The OT report did not recommend any adaptions to the kitchen. However, the landlord clearly raised the resident’s expectations by arranging the kitchen survey. It then did not take steps to manage her expectations as it was only in July 2022 that it made clear that, in fact, it interpreted the OT report as stating the kitchen did not need to be replaced and that it was relying on the assessment of its surveyor.
It is noted that the OT report focussed on wheelchair accessibility to the kitchen and not the use and suitability of the kitchen itself. It is therefore recommended that the landlord consider and act on any more recent OT report about the use of kitchen if received.
Although the OT report recommended that the resident ultimately move to a different property, it noted that the property should have ramped access. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this at any stage or any other adaptation to ameliorate the resident’s situation whilst she remained at her current property, which was unreasonable given the time that was elapsing.
Another significant, ongoing issues was damp and mould to the second bedroom which was reported prior to works arising from the resident’s amputation in 2021. The resident has stated that her child could not use the bedroom for two years and lost his possessions. Whilst there is no independent corroboration that the room was unfit for habitation, for instance from Environmental Health, the landlord did not dispute that the room required repairs which inconvenienced the resident’s family. This was compounded by redecoration works having to be completed again and the landlord not making clear what works it had completed to prevent the recurrence of damp and mould.
After another visit on 28 July 2022, the landlord took the view that all works had now been completed aside from redecoration of the lounge ceiling which could not be completed with the resident in situ. This was 18 months after the resident’s initial request for works. As noted in this report there has been a series of delays and failures in the works with some works required to be completed again. There is no evidence that the landlord has effectively managed the works by agreeing a schedule and sequence of the works, or that there has been effective oversight of the works including ensuring that its contractor / sub-contractor attends the property. Compounding this, the landlord has not consistently updated the resident or responded to pressing queries in particular her requests for a schedule and plan of works. Given the resident’s situation, in particular her disability and the extent of works needed, and the adverse affect caused, the landlord’s multiple failings constitute severe maladministration that has not been adequately remedied by the landlord’s offers of compensation.
It is noted that the resident and the landlord have differing views as to whether all works have been completed satisfactorily. The resident has been specific in responding to the landlord and in outlining what further works she believes are outstanding and necessary. In light of the impasse and need to find a resolution to this complaint, the Ombudsman orders that the landlord commission an independent surveyor to inspect the disputed repair and maintenance items and then carry out any identified works.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy allows the landlord to make a maximum award of £500, and the amount of £400 offered within the complaints process fell within this limit. The compensation offered was not proportionate to the adverse effect caused by the landlord’s failings. Notwithstanding that the landlord, whilst wating for this investigation and dealing with unresolved repair issues, has increased the offer to £700, a formal compensation limit set at £500 risks the landlord fettering its discretion when dealing with complaints, and therefore not awarding compensation that is proportionate to the circumstances. It is therefore ordered that the landlord reviews its compensation awards. It is noted that the landlord was due to review its Compensation Policy in January 2022. If this is yet to be completed, the landlord should review the awards as part of the wider policy review.
The resident in her complaint of February 2021 and subsequent correspondence of 12 and 16 March 2021 advised that she suffered damaged items due to the landlord’s failure to resolve leaks in her property. Under the Compensation Policy the landlord had a responsibility to consider the claim and decide whether it was at fault. However, there is no evidence that it responded to the resident’s claim even after she continued to report that the leaks within her property had not been resolved. The landlord has therefore failed to give due consideration to the resident’s claim for damaged items.
The resident has provided the landlord with an itemised list of items damaged by leaks plus the cost of a storage box that was damaged by the scaffolders, totalling £2,606. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to confirm its position; whether it will pay the resident for the claimed losses or whether it will refer the matter to its insurers.

An infestation of pests

In her email of 29 January 2021, the resident reported a mice and cockroach infestation. When the landlord inspected on 8 April 2021 its report noted it was the resident’s responsibility to resolve as her property was a house.
As a tenant of the landlord, the resident possessed by reason of her tenancy agreement a legal estate in the property which meant she was responsible for issues at the property that the landlord was not responsible for. It is also noted that the landlord did not have a specific obligation under the resident’s tenancy agreement to carry out pest control within her property and the resident’s property being a house did not have communal areas that the landlord was responsible for. As such it was reasonable that the landlord informed the resident that eradicating pests would be her responsibility in the first instance.
In the Stage 2 response the landlord agreed to arrange for a pest controller to attend. Although the resident had to pursue attendance by the pest controller, it attended on 1 and 8 November 2021 carrying out treatments. There is no evidence that any further pest problems were reported to the landlord. Therefore, the landlord has ultimately taken reasonable action to resolve the pest issue.
It should be noted however, that the landlord does not have a policy or procedure on pest control. It is important that landlords have policies so that it can set and manage the expectations of stakeholders, and set out actions it can reasonably take such as blocking entrance points and other works. Policies guide landlords when making decisions and can be relied on when responding to service requests. Policies can also allow the landlord the flexibility and discretion to provide a service over and above minimum statutory requirements, often in line with corporate aims and values. Therefore, whilst the landlord handled the resident’s reports of pest reasonably, it is concerning that it did not have a policy to rely on. It is therefore recommended that the landlord draft such a policy.

The resident’s request to be rehoused

In her email of 29 January 2021, the resident suggested that she be transferred to a smaller two-bedroom property if a family member currently living with her was rehoused in her own right. The OT report later confirmed the property could not be adapted in the way required and was not suitable for her needs, therefore the resident should be transferred. However, there is no evidence that the landlord showed any urgency in exploring the possibility of transferring the resident, for instance by assisting her in registering an application and confirming her priority. The landlord only responded several months later in June 2021 after the resident asked to discuss her transfer prospects, which given the resident’s circumstances was an unreasonable delay.
In the letter of June 2021 the landlord agreed to explore the possibility of the adult household member being transferred so as to increase the resident’s chances of being transferred separately (to a two-bedroom property) under a management transfer. Although it is not clear to what extent if any the landlord considered rehousing the adult household member, it explored the possibility of the resident being rehoused in a two-bedroom property.
The landlord’s ability to house people is limited by the number of void properties in its stock, and the size, type and location of these properties. By advising her of the limited number of two-bedroom houses and bungalows it owned in the resident’s area of choice, the landlord managed the resident’s expectations about the prospects of being rehoused in another suitable property within its own stock. Given the limitations of its own stock, it was appropriate that the landlord also advised the resident of her other options.
It is not evident that the landlord, following contact with the resident in June / July 2021, provided her with the report of properties as agreed. Although there is no evidence that this omission in itself changed the outcome to the resident’s detriment, it further increased her frustration and inconvenience. To put things right, it is ordered that the landlord provide the resident with a current list of 2- and 3-bedroom houses and bungalows in the resident’s areas of choice.
The resident has complained that the landlord has not provided help and assistance, for instance in completing forms or with the bidding process. The resident has also complained that neither the landlord nor the Council considered the separate rehousing of her adult family member and asked whether the landlord had liaised with the local authority.
There is no evidence that the landlord proactively contacted the resident about rehousing after June / July 2021. The landlord has advised this Service that it concluded from the report it generated that it could not offer a management transfer to the resident and that it would only be back in touch if the report showed that there was a likelihood that this could be achieved. Nonetheless, having agreed to consider rehousing the adult household member it was unreasonable that the landlord did not make clear whether this was still a possibility, and if so, under what priority. This was a significant omission which exacerbated the resident’s uncertainty as the potential transfer of the household member affected the resident’s transfer application and therefore the resident required this information to fully understand her housing options.
The resident ultimately applied to the local authority which increases her chances of finding alternative accommodation in the area and has expressed dissatisfaction with how the local authority are handling her application to it. The landlord is not obliged to make or assist with applications to the local authority on behalf of residents, nor is it responsible for failures in service by local authority allocations departments. Nonetheless, in light of the accepted need for the resident’s need to be rehoused as soon as possible, it missed opportunities to proactively assist the resident with her local authority housing application or at least manage her expectations of the level of support and service it would provide in respect of rehousing.
In summary, although the landlord has considered offering the resident a management transfer and managed her expectations about the prospects of finding alternative suitable accommodation within its own stock, there have been failings in its handling of the resident’s request for rehousing. There was an unreasonable and avoidable delay in responding in the first instance. Moreover, the landlord has not made clear whether it will be rehousing the resident’s adult household member in her own right despite agreeing to look into this option.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused, including whether the landlord has considered her vulnerabilities when assessing whether she should be rehoused.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of an infestation of pests.

Reasons

There has been a series of delays and failures by the landlord in first responding to the resident’s request for works, then in completing all works. This includes works which needed to be completed again, such as those related to damp in the bedroom. This has culminated in works not being fully completed 18 months after the resident’s initial request.
There is no evidence that the landlord has effectively managed or overseen the works, by agreeing a schedule and sequence of the works and ensuring that its contractor / sub-contractor attends the property. Compounding this, the landlord has not consistently updated the resident and responded to queries, in particular her repeated requests for a schedule and plan of works. Given the length of the cumulative delays and the resident and her household’s situation, in particular her disability, damp and mould in the bedrooms and the extent of works needed, this constitutes severe maladministration that has not been adequately remedied by the landlord’s offers of compensation.
There have been further failures insofar as the landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations about the renewal/repair to her kitchen, nor did it respond to her claim for damaged items.
The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s request of January 2021 to be transferred. Also, having agreed to consider rehousing the adult household member it was unreasonable that the landlord did not make clear whether this was still a possibility, and if so, under what priority. This was a significant omission which exacerbated the resident’s uncertainty as the potential transfer of the household member affected the resident’s transfer application and therefore the resident required this information to fully understand her housing options.
It was reasonable that the landlord informed the resident that eradicating pests would be her responsibility given that it was not obliged to do this under the tenancy agreement and the resident’s property was a house with no communal areas. In any event, the landlord carried out pest treatments.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord within the next four weeks:
1. Arranges for a senior member of staff to apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pays the resident compensation of £2,500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs and for her time and trouble in pursuing the repairs. This takes into the account that all household membershave been affectedby leaks and dampness in the bedrooms in the property and in the living room where the resident sleeps.

If the landlord’s offer of £450 or £700 has already been made to the resident, this should be deducted from the total.

Consider the resident’s claim/itemised list for damaged items. If the landlord decides not to progress a claim to insurers, or a claim is referred but unsuccessful, the landlord should consider compensating the resident.

The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with the outcome of its decisions in this matter, also within four weeks.

Pays Ms Burns £250 compensation for the distress and handling caused by the handling of her transfer request.
Confirm to the resident whether it is seeking to rehouse the resident’s household member in an alternative one-bedroom property and if so, under what priority. If further action is required before it can make this application active, it should make clear what action is needed.
Provide the resident with a current list of 2 and 3-bedroom houses and bungalows in her areas of choice.

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord within the next six weeks:
1. The landlord must commission an independent surveyor to inspect the disputed repair and maintenance items and then carry out any identified works.

The landlord should confirm the outcome of the inspection, including any further action it will take, to this Service and the resident. The landlord may wish to also take into account any new OT report received.

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord within the next eight weeks:
1. Reviews its compensation awards either as part of its wider policy review or, if that has been completed, as part of a standalone review.

If the landlord plans to complete this as part of the wider review, and it is not possible to do this within eight weeks, the landlord should notify this Service at the earliest opportunity and within the next four weeks.

The outcome of the compensation review should be shared with the Ombudsman.

Considering the failings in management and oversight of works in this case, review whether:
1. Improvements to its procedures or policies for the management of complex and variable priority works can be improved.
2. Training of staff is required in this area of service delivery.

The landlord’s review must be shared with the Ombudsman, also within eight weeks of this determination.

The Ombudsman recommends that:
1. The landlord drafts a Pest Control Policy.