Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202219467)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219467

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

29 February 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report about the condition of the property upon letting.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy started on 5 August 2022. The property is described as a 7th floor 2–bedroom flat. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The property has a fitted kitchen supplied with white goods.

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
In view of this, the resident’s complaint about her energy supply account and her request for a fob key would not be included in this investigation. This is because the complaints had not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. We may however assess the landlord’s handling of the complaint about these matters.

Landlord obligations

The landlord has a legal duty under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to make sure that its rented houses and flats are ‘fit for human habitation’, which means that they are safe, healthy, and free from things that could cause serious harm.
The landlord’s maintenance policy states that:
1. It will check the home to make sure it is safe, secure, clean and in a good state of repair before the resident moves in.
2. It will attend non-emergency repairs work within 15 working days.
3. It is responsible for the maintenance of appliances that it has installed which have not been gifted to the residents.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to respond to:
1. stage 1 complaints within 10 working days
2. stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that:
1. It will consider compensation when its customers incur financial loss or inconvenience due to a service failure.
2. It will pay compensation when a tenant has not been able to use a room in their home. If a room is not habitable due to disrepair, major works, or improvements it will pay compensation for every week of the continued loss. This will be £50 for a kitchen, and it may pay an additional sum for out of pocket expenses such as costs incurred for eating out if the kitchen is unavailable for use.
3. Any offer of compensation will reflect the level of inconvenience, disturbance, stress or annoyance, extent to which it has been directly responsible, and the time taken to resolve the problem and any costs incurred.
4. It will not offer compensation where evidence is not provided to justify any claims of out of pocket expenses.
5. It will offer up to £500 maximum for serious or prolonged service failure or loss of facilities resulting in severe stress, disruption, or loss of income.

Summary of events

The void inspection form dated 19 July 2022 noted various works for completion in the property. It indicated that the kitchen units and white goods in the kitchen and utility room needed to be cleaned. It also noted that the balcony needed to be cleaned.
The landlord’s voids post inspection report dated 2 August 2022 noted that there were no issues identified.
On 5 August 2022, the resident reported that the kitchen appliances needed to be replaced as they had an unpleasant smell, and they were unhygienic. She said:
1. Despite her efforts to clean them, the fridge, oven, and the washing machine had an unpleasant smell and had not been used in years.
2. The landlord should review the pictures provided, as she was unable to store food in the fridge, cook in the oven or wash her clothes in the washing machine.
3. The landlord should carry out an inspection to confirm the condition of the appliances as the checks completed did not reflect the state of the kitchen.
4. The balcony was not cleaned and asked for the matter to be looked into urgently so she could start using the kitchen.
On 8 August 2022, the resident informed the landlord that she had arranged for a professional cleaner to clean the property. She said despite this the appliances remained smelly and unhygienic. She said the kitchen cupboards were also cleaned as they were greasy, dirty, and full of painting debris. The windows were full of mould and dirt. She further said that:
1. The landlord should reimburse the cost of cleaning which came to a total of £500.
2. She was told the flat was ready the day before her tenancy, so she had to sign and pay rent the day she received the check in report which need to be completely revised.
3. She had attached a file of all the issues she found in the flat.
4. Her tenancy started on 5 August 2022, but she could not live in the property as she could not use the fridge, washing machine or the oven.
The landlord responded on 8 August 2022 that her concerns had been raised with the voids team and that they would respond to her. It followed this up with an email on 9 August 2022 and advised that a manager would contact her as soon as possible.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 August 2022 and said that she was advised that a contractor would visit her within a day or 2, to check the appliances but no one had visited yet. She advised that she was still not living in the property and her family were being inconvenienced.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 12 August 2022 thanking it for its visit on the day to investigate her concerns. She also provided additional information regarding the condition of the fridge freezer, washing machine, oven, and windowsills. She reiterated that although the appliances had since been cleaned, they needed to be replaced as they were still in an unacceptable condition.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 12 September 2022. She said:
1. The landlord should reimburse the cost of cleaning as the property was not in an acceptable state when she moved in.
2. It had since replaced the appliances, but it took over a month for it to do so.
3. The top of the kitchen units, the radiators and the windowsills were very dirty.
4. The landlord had not responded to her enquiries about updating the account for her energy supply with her details. This had been ongoing for 5 weeks and the energy company had advised her that they could not deal with her directly as they needed the landlord to complete a registration form to set up her own account.
5. She had been trying to get an extra fob for her son. The intercom had not been working and she had not been able to report it online.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 12 September 2022 and advised that it would respond to her within 10 working days.
On 16 September 2022, a manager in the landlord’s voids team said in an internal email that they agreed the white goods were dirty and unsanitary, but the resident did not give them an opportunity to return and resolve the issue. They said they were not sure how to approach the compensation request, but the white goods had since been removed and replaced with new ones.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 29 September 2022. It said:
1. It agreed that some parts of the kitchen were dirty and unsanitary, but it was not given the opportunity to return and carry out the clean.
2. Although the white goods and some parts of the kitchen were not up to standard, the general condition and cleanliness of the property were satisfactory.
3. It apologised for the delay in resolving the matter and offered £150 for the lack of communication.
4. Her concerns about the fob had been looked into and any further concerns should be raised for further investigation.
5. It had discussed her concerns about her energy supply and the relevant teams are looking to resolve this for her and set up the account in her name.
The resident requested the escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 30 September 2022. She said:
1. The £150 offered was not acceptable.
2. The property was not ready to move into at the time it was let.
3. It took the landlord a week after her initial contact to offer to send a cleaner or check the condition of the appliances and she could not stay in the property in the condition it was left in.
4. Once the contactor attended, she had to chase for updates for 2 weeks. The appliances were only changed during the first week of September which was more than 5 weeks after she accepted the property.
5. She was not asking for compensation for other additional expenses incurred such as the laundry charges or other charges that were incurred as a result of not having a fridge freezer in August.
6. With regards to the fobs, it took a month to get the third fob for her son and she was still waiting for an update on her query about her energy supply account. The level of service and communication were poor and had caused her some inconvenience.
7. The pictures of the condition of the property showed that it had failed to meet the expected standards at the time it was let.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 October 2022 and apologised for the delay in escalating her complaint to stage 2. It said it would respond to her within 15 working days.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident on 18 November 2022. The key points in the response are summarised below:
1. It agreed that the condition of the home was not in an acceptable state and had upheld the complaint, but she should have escalated the matter and allowed it to rectify it.
2. It was sorry for the errors made and the inconvenience caused.
3. It had reviewed the compensation offered at stage 1 and decided that it was fair, as the amount offered was more than it would have cost it to arrange the cleaning if it had been given the chance.

Summary of events or actions after the stage 2 response was issued.

The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 November 2022 and 21 November 2022 and asked it to reconsider the amount offered.
The landlord responded on 21 November 2022 it accepted it was its error that the property was left in a poor condition and it acknowledged that she made contact immediately after she moved in to report her concern. It said she should have given it more time to resolve the matter or chased up the progress rather than engaging the services of cleaner without its consent.
The resident responded on 21 November 2022 that she was not happy with the landlord’s suggestion that she should have endured the condition of the property while she waited for it to resolve it. She reiterated that she moved in on a Friday and its offices were not open at the weekend.
The resident contacted this Service on 14 December 2022 and said:
1. She tried to contact the landlord on 5 August 2022, when she moved in, but she was unable to get through.
2. The landlord initially offered her £50 but then revised it to £150.
3. She found the whole experience stressful because she had lived in the flat without a functioning fridge, freezer, washing machine or an oven during the month of August 2022.
The landlord noted in its internal records on 29 December 2022 that some lessons had been learnt. It said its voids team needed to ensure that properties are left in better condition.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. be fair
2. put things right
3. learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report about the condition of the property upon letting.

The Ombudsman notes from the pictures provided by the resident that some of the appliances in the kitchen and some other parts of the property were not in an acceptable condition. However, the void handover sheet completed by the landlord on 2 August 2022 noted that the quality of the completed works against the specification met the expected standards. This was disputed by the resident when she accepted the property on 5 August 2022, and we have seen that the landlord acknowledged this throughout the life of the case.
Whilst the void works specification noted that cleaning was required to the kitchen appliances and balcony, the landlord has not explained why these works were not completed prior to the time it was let to the resident. There is no evidence that it informed the resident of any outstanding works and the expected time for completion. In view of this, it did not meet the expected standards for letting empty properties as stated in its maintenance policy. The resident expected to move into a clean property that was ready for occupancy, but she found this was not the case when she moved in. This would have caused her some distress and frustration.
According to the evidence, the resident arranged the cleaning of the appliances and other areas in the property on 6 August 2022, a day after she reported the matter to the landlord (5 August 2022). As the landlord’s maintenance policy states that non-emergency repairs would be completed within 15 working days, its explanation that it was not given an opportunity to resolve the matter was reasonable. Although the landlord inspected the property within a reasonable period, a week after she moved in (12 August 2022), it did not manage her expectations as she said she could not live in the property without a functioning oven, fridge and washing machine. It is also noted that the resident has a young child of teenage age, so the household would have been highly inconvenienced.
The resident advised the landlord on 8 August 2022 that the kitchen appliances remained unusable even though they had been professionally cleaned and asked it to replace them. There is evidence of some learning as the landlord noted in its internal records that void properties should be left in better condition in the future. It also stated that it had removed the old appliances, and replaced them with new ones, but the resident said it took 5 weeks for this to happen. There is no evidence that the landlord provided any assistance or temporary services in the interim. During this period, she said the landlord failed to communicate effectively or provide updates on the progress of her case. This means that the resident not only incurred additional expenses for the cleaning, but she also experienced further inconvenience due to the delays in replacing the appliances.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that any offer will reflect the level of inconvenience, disturbance, stress or annoyance, extent to which it has been directly responsible and the time taken to resolve the problem and any costs incurred. It further states that it will pay compensation when a tenant has not been able to use a room in their home due to disrepair, major works or improvements and pay compensation for every week of the continued loss. This will be £50 for a kitchen and it may pay an additional sum for out of pocket expenses such as costs incurred for eating out if the kitchen is unavailable for use.
Taking the above into consideration, there is evidence of maladministration in its handling of her concerns as its offer of £150 was not in compliance with its policy. Whilst it asserted that it would have cost far less if it had cleaned the property itself, its offer did not reflect the full impact of its failing and that its actions had left the resident out of pocket. Simply stating that it was not given enough time to remedy the situation was not reasonable, as it was aware of the condition of the appliances before the resident moved in and failed to ensure they were cleaned. It missed another opportunity to resolve the matter quickly when the resident made contact on 5 August 2022. This does not show that it paid attention to the customer’s needs when considering her complaint and it failed to learn from this throughout the life of the case. It is therefore appropriate to award additional compensation in the sum of £350 broken down as:
1. £50 for each week the resident was without an oven, washing machine and fridge freezer and did not have use of the kitchen due to its unsanitary condition. This amounts £250 for 5 weeks.
2. £100 for the time and trouble and distress to the resident for the failures identified.

The associated complaint

The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint 13 working days (29 September 2022) after it was received (12 September 2022). This was 3 working days later than the 10 working days stated in its complaints policy. Although this Service notes that it was a short delay, the landlord did not inform the resident of the expected delays or acknowledge it in its response. This would have caused the resident some inconvenience.
From the evidence seen the landlord took over 30 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. She requested the escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 30 September 2022, but the landlord did not respond until 18 November 2022. Although it apologised to the resident on 24 October 2022, for the delay in escalating the complaint, it exceeded the 15 working days it promised for the response. It also failed to acknowledge the delay or apologise in its stage 2 response or offer any compensation for the inconvenience. This is not appropriate.
This Service’s complaint handling Code (the Code) advises landlords to address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. This Service has reviewed the stage 2 response and noted that the landlord did not respond to all the issues raised by the resident in the stage 2 complaint. This included its handling of her request for an additional fob for her son and the setting up of her energy account in the property.
This is not appropriate, and it shows that the landlord had not actively listened to the resident’s concerns. This also meant that this Service could not investigate the complaints that had not yet exhausted its complaints process. This would have caused the resident further distress and frustration. Overall, there is evidence of maladministration in its handling of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report about the condition of the property upon letting.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to ensure that the property was in a clean condition, in adherence with its maintenance policy, when it was let to the resident. Although it acknowledged its error and changed the appliances in the kitchen, it failed to fully consider the detriment to the resident which left her with additional expenses.
The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s complaints at stage 1 and it failed to learn from this as its stage 2 response was also delayed. It did not fully address the issues raised by the resident in its stage 2 response or acknowledge any inconvenience or detriment this would have caused to the resident and her family.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £800 broken down as:
  1. £250 for the loss of use of the kitchen.
  2. £100 for the time and trouble to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
  3. £150 previously offered (if the resident has not yet been paid).
  4. £300 for distress and inconvenience for the failures identified in the handling of the associated complaint.
Share this report with the relevant members of staff who handle complaints and deal with empty properties. Emphasise the importance of adhering to its internal policies to ensure that:
1. Void properties are left in a clean, safe, and secure condition before they are let.
2. They familiarise themselves with the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code and provide timely responses that address all points raised in complaints.