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

Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202122394)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122394

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

28 June 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of;
    1. Antisocial behaviour (ASB)
    2. Leaks in the property
    3. Defective windows
    4. Broken lift in the building
  2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an allocated car parking space.
  3. The landlord’s complaint handling

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She resides in the property with her children, one of whom has various health conditions such as asthma, as well as mental health difficulties. The resident moved into the property following a mutual exchange in August 2019.
  2. On 14 January 2022, the resident raised a complaint about various matters such as;
    1. An aggressive man sleeping in the communal area of the building when she moved into the property
    2. Leaks, damp and mould in the property
    3. Broken lift in the building
    4. A defective window that had come out of its frame on 11 January 2022, and fell onto her pregnant friend. The resident confirmed that a contractor attended on 13 January 2023 and said that the window had not been fitted properly, and was missing an essential part.
  3. The landlord issued a stage one response on 20 January 2022. It advised that it was unable to locate any leaks but would arrange for a specialist leak detection company to carry out an inspection. It also said that it would reattend to check all windows and replace a broken hinge.
  4. The resident instructed solicitors who initiated a housing disrepair claim in February 2022, associated with leaks in the property and defective windows. Following receiving a complaint escalation request from the resident in September 2022, the landlord issued a further stage one response that stated as it was now a legal disrepair matter, it was unable to respond to the resident’s complaint via its internal complaints process. However, it offered £50 compensation as a good will gesture, after reviewing photographs of the property provided by the resident.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to stage two on 24 October 2022, due to outstanding repairs. Following this, an independent housing disrepair witness report was completed that outlined that the resident’s complaints regarding defects in the property were substantiated.
  6. On 3 February 2023, the resident raised a complaint directly to this Service regarding the same issues that she raised in January 2022, as well as issues with parking as she had not been allocated a car parking space. The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage two on 4 April 2023.
  7. On 11 April 2023, the resident reported that her window had collapsed out of the frame. The landlord confirmed that it had boarded the window on 3 May 2023 and offered to decant the resident so repairs could be undertaken in her property.
  8. Following intervention from this Service, the landlord issued its stage two response on 12 June 2023. It advised the following;
    1. There were outstanding repairs associated with the defective windows and leaks in the property which were identified during a survey in March 2023. The landlord acknowledged that while the resident had been decanted, it had communicated poorly with the resident which it apologised for.
    2. With regards to the lift, the landlord acknowledged that it was out of service on 27 March 2023. Due to sickness, the repair was delayed. However, the landlord had informed resident’s of the delay via text message and the lift was fixed on 13 April 2023.
    3. The landlord said that there had been no recent reports of people sleeping in the communal areas, but it would check for further evidence.
    4. With regards to the resident’s complaint about parking, the landlord confirmed that it had asked the resident to stop parking in the area without an agreement on 7 November 2022. It advised that the resident was able to apply for a car parking space, and explained the process for doing so, but advised that the application could be affected by rent arrears.
  9. The landlord offered the resident £550 compensation; £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delayed repairs, as well as £50 for the poor communication during the complaint process.
  10. In July 2023, the landlord settled the resident’s housing disrepair claim out of court for £4,000.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
  2. The resident has reported that issues with ASB, namely an aggressive homeless man sleeping in the communal area, had occurred in 2019 when she first moved into the property. The resident only brought the matter to the landlord’s attention in January 2022.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 42c of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
  4. Therefore, the resident’s reports of ASB in 2019 are outside of this Service’s jurisdiction to investigate and will not be considered. Should the resident have any complaints related to ASB that have occurred in the past 12 months, she should raise a new complaint directly to the landlord.

Leaks & defective windows

  1. The resident initially reported the issues with leaks in the property and defective windows in January 2022, albeit the landlord’s repair records are limited. The evidence reviewed by this Service regarding when the landlord attended to repairs is restricted to its complaint responses and internal staff emails.
  2. The landlord is expected to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
  3. The Ombudsman has issued guidance about record keeping in May 2023, Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management, which stresses the importance of good record keeping, enabling landlords to provide a better service. We recommend that the landlord pays close attention to the report and takes steps to implement relevant recommendations to improve its record keeping.
  4. It is evident that the resident’s issues with leaks was longstanding. However, the landlord was unable to source the leak, but acknowledged that there was damage in the property. This is supported by the housing disrepair witness report that recommended work to be undertaken because of leaks, including repairing damaged plasterboard and redecorating water-stained walls and ceilings.
  5. The issue with the leak escalated as acknowledged by the landlord, as the resident’s bedroom ceiling was soft due to water damage. The landlord offered the resident a dehumidifier, which she refused. While there is no doubt that the landlord encountered difficulties in sourcing the leak, the severity of the issue was clearly progressing, and it does not appear from the evidence reviewed that the landlord did enough to resolve the issue promptly.
  6. The reported issues with the defective windows were longstanding, serious and dangerous. The landlord has not disputed that the resident’s windows had seriously malfunctioned on several occasions.
  7. As above, the records are limited in the action that the landlord took. However, the landlord attended on occasions and referred to making the windows safe. It is of concern that the landlord failed to act with any urgency to fully resolve the issues with the windows. The landlords records indicate that an order had been raised to renew 3 windows in March 2023. Given the significant health and safety risks posed by the defective windows since 2022, it is unclear why the landlord failed to recognise that the windows required replacing prior to March 2023.
  8. In its second stage one response, the landlord offered the resident £50 as a good will gesture following reviewing photographs of the property. It is reasonable to conclude that this was related to visible damage related to the leaks and windows. In its stage two response, the landlord offered £500 for the distress and inconvenience that the delayed repairs had caused. This was appropriate redress to acknowledge the impact that the issues had on the resident and her family.
  9. The resident was legally represented, and an offer was made to the landlord on behalf of the resident to settle the disrepair claim for £4,000. This was accepted by the landlord. It is fair to assume that the resident was given competent legal advice and offered to settle the disrepair claim for £4,000 on the basis that this would have reasonably resolved the resident’s complaint.
  10. Overall, the landlord provided £4,500 redress for the disrepair associated with the leaks and defective windows. This Service understands that the required repairs have been completed and post-inspected as part of the settlement agreement.
  11. This Service has seen evidence of maladministration by the landlord. However, the landlord has made appropriate efforts to put things right by offering an apology and compensation. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that compensation over £1000 should be considered where there are significant failings by the landlord which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. The landlord therefore made an offer that was in accordance with this Service’s guidance and its offer of redress was satisfactory in putting matters right.

Broken lift

  1. The landlord’s lift policy outlines that any reported repairs associated with a lift will be dealt with in accordance with its repairs policy,
  2. In accordance with the landlord’s maintenance policy, non-emergency repair work will be completed within 15 working days. A non-emergency repair is one that does not immediately affect the health, safety or security of the residents, nor does it endanger life.
  3. The resident initially raised the issue of the lift regularly breaking down in her complaint in January 2022. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge that aspect of the resident’s complaint in its stage one response. The resident did not specify dates or times that the lift had been broken, nor do the landlord’s records reflect lift breakdowns prior to January 2022. Therefore, the lack of evidence has meant that it is difficult to determine the exact course of events to assess whether the landlord acted appropriately to reports of the lift breaking down.
  4. Nevertheless, the resident raised a further complaint in February 2023 saying that the lift was often broken but again, did not specify dates and times. However, the resident raised concerns regarding the impact that the broken lift had on her daughter’s health conditions. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident about this.
  5. The landlord stated that it was informed on 27 March 2023 that the lift was out of service. This is the only report of a broken lift evidenced to this Service by the landlord. It repaired the lift on 13 April 2023; 13 working days after the initial report, which is within the timescales outlined in the landlord’s maintenance policy for non-emergency repairs. Positively, the landlord also sent residents 5 texts between 27 March 2023 and 13 April 2023 to provide updates about the repairs. This was appropriate and evidenced positive communication.
  6. The landlord’s obligation was to act on any issues with the lift as a responsive repair. While it would have been frustrating for residents if the lift was frequently out of service, the landlord could only put things right if reports were made to it as and when the issue occurred. This Service has not seen any examples of occasions when the landlord did not reasonably address a report. As such, it appears that the landlord responded appropriately. The Ombudsman has been unable to find that there was any maladministration.  

Car parking space

  1. The resident raised an initial complaint to the landlord on 3 February 2023 regarding not having a car parking space. The resident said that it caused significant inconvenience to her family, and she had signed an agreement upon taking on the tenancy that stated she had a parking space. This Service has not seen any evidence of that agreement.
  2. The landlord advised the resident that she was able to apply for a car parking space via a formal process, provided the forms that she was required to fill in but advised that rent arrears could affect her application. This was reasonable and appropriately managed the resident’s expectations.
  3. Overall, there is no evidence of any failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an allocated car parking space.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC) is a guidance document that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service it provides to resident’s and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement.
  2. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. The landlord ought to provide a stage one response within 10 working days of the complaint being raised, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. These timescales are in accordance with the CHC.
  3. The resident initially raised a complaint on 14 January 2022. The landlord issued a stage one response on 20 January 2022. This was within the timescales outlined within its complaint policy and the CHC.
  4. However, the landlord failed to respond to all of the resident’s complaints, namely the complaints about the broken lift and ASB. The CHC is clear that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
  5. While the ASB complaint was historic and the landlord was not obligated to respond, it should have explained this to the resident. These failures were inappropriate and undoubtedly frustrating for the resident.
  6. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 6 September 2022 due to outstanding repairs; 7 months after she raised her initial complaint. The landlord should have issued a stage two response. However, it failed to do so and issued a further stage one response. This did not adhere to the CHC that outlines that landlords must escalate a complaint to stage two if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage one. Its failure to escalate to stage two unnecessarily prolonged the complaints process. If there was a time limit within which the resident had to escalate her complaint, the landlord should have made this clear.
  7. The landlord’s stage one issued on 17 October 2022 stated that it was unable to address the resident’s complaints regarding repairs as the matter had become a legal disrepair matter. This was incorrect. The resident had issued a solicitors letter outlining her intention to pursue a disrepair claim, but legal proceedings had not been issued. Therefore, the landlord was obliged under the CHC and Scheme to issue a complaint response detailing its answer to all complaint grounds. It failed to do so, which was unreasonable.
  8. The resident raised a further complaint directly to this Service on 3 February 2023. We raised the complaint to the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 28 March 2023, explaining that it was obliged to respond given legal proceedings had not been issued.
  9. The landlord said it would respond to the resident’s complaint on 2 May 2023. However, the landlord issued a stage two response on 12 June 2023; 51 working days after this Service raised the complaint to the landlord. This is significantly beyond the 20 working day timescale expected. The landlord failed to follow its complaint’s procedure and the CHC, and only did so with the intervention of this Service. This was inappropriate.
  10. Although the landlord apologised to the resident and awarded £50 compensation for its complaint-handling failures, this was not sufficient to reflect the impact the delay had on her. The landlord failed to follow its complaint procedure, significantly prolonging the complaints process for the resident, and did not offer an appropriate remedy in recognition of its failures.
  11. Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint and as such, this Service has concluded that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42c of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, the landlord offered redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the following complaint elements satisfactorily;
    1. Leaks in the property
    2. Defective windows
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a broken lift in the building.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an allocated car parking space.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £200 compensation, consisting of:
    1. £50 already offered to the resident in recognition of the landlord’s poor communication during the complaints process.
    2. An additional £150 for the distress, inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by the landlord’s poor complaint handling and delayed responses.
  2. Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be sent to this Service within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should review its record-keeping processes against the recommendations in the Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report (available on the Ombudsman’s website).