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

Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202221406)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221406

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

21 January 2025


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the shower.
    2. The associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the property, a one-bedroom, second floor flat, since 2014. The landlord is a housing association. The resident’s son has acted as her representative in relation to this complaint. For the purpose of this report, unless it is otherwise necessary to distinguish between them, all communication from the resident and the representative are referred to as coming from the resident.
  2. On 8 August 2022 the resident reported that the shower was not draining properly. The landlord logged it as an emergency repair and a contractor attended the same day. The shower drain was unblocked as a temporary fix and a job was raised the following day for a replacement drain pump to be fitted.
  3. An appointment for the follow-on repair was booked for 22 August 2022 and the landlord sent a text message to the resident on 12 August 2022 advising this, after trying to call her mobile phone twice.
  4. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 16 August 2022, claiming the landlord had left her without bathing facilities due to its delay in repairing the shower.
  5. The contractor attended on 22 August 2022 as planned but did not have the replacement pump with them. They attended again the following day and fitted the pump, completing the repair.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 31 August 2022 it advised that there had been no service failure as it had completed the required repair within target timescales.
  7. The resident requested an escalation to stage 2 on 1 September 2022. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention, the landlord ultimately issued its stage 2 response on 23 June 2023. It reiterated its position regarding the repairs but offered £300 compensation for its failure to escalate the complaint.
  8. The resident referred her complaint to this Service, seeking additional compensation for time, stress and inconvenience caused. She also wants the landlord to improve communication and the timeliness of repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident has multiple ongoing complaints with the landlord, regarding a variety of issues. It should, therefore, be noted that this investigation relates only to the matters outlined at paragraph 1 above.

Repairs to the shower

  1. The occupancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to drains and bathroom fittings. The landlord accepted and met this responsibility by responding to the resident’s report and making arrangements for a replacement part. According to the landlord’s repair policy, the nature of the repair did not meet the criteria for emergency attendance. The fact that it was logged as such, and a contractor attended the property on the same day, meant the landlord exceeded its obligation and acted quickly.
  2. Emergency attendance is to make an issue ‘safe’ so it was reasonable that after unblocking the shower drain as a temporary fix, a new drain pump was ordered as a routine repair. The landlord had a target of completing this repair within 15 working days as per its policy. In the event it completed the repair within this timeframe, so it acted appropriately and fairly in this case.
  3. It was unfortunate that when the contractors attended on 22 August 2022 they did not have the replacement pump with them, due to miscommunication. It is understandable that the resident was frustrated that it resulted in an extra day for the pump to be fitted. However, the completion of the repair was still within the landlord’s target timescale.
  4. In her escalation request the resident disputed that the landlord had tried to call and text her to arrange the appointment. Records from the landlord show that it did try to call the resident twice and a text message was sent. It is unknown why the resident did not receive these contacts. Regardless, the pre-appointment communications did not impact upon the ultimate completion of the repairs, as contractors did attend on the scheduled day and returned the following day to complete the works.
  5. As a result, any failure to receive details of the planned appointment did not cause a material detriment to the resident or delay the required repairs. While it is acknowledged that the resident has raised other complaints with the landlord, and may be frustrated at how it has communicated in relation to other matters, there is no evidence of a failing with regards to the shower repair specifically. As a result, there was no maladministration by the landlord and no further action is required to resolve this complaint.

Handling of the associated formal complaint

  1. According to its complaint policy, the landlord should provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days. While it missed its target by 1 day in this case, the landlord’s response was still reasonable and the extra day had no effect on the overall outcome. As the repair had been completed, the resident was not disadvantaged by the response time.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it should provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days. The landlord failed in this case and did not provide the response until over 9 months later. This delay was excessive and unacceptable. While it did not impact the substantive issue, as the repair had been completed, it caused the resident frustration by not resolving her complaint.
  3. The resident sought assistance from this Service regarding the failure in complaint escalation, and the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord 11 May 2023 to request a stage 2 response. The fact that the resident received a stage 2 response the following month, after 8 months had already passed, suggests the landlord would not have provided it had it not been prompted. The landlord’s delay and inaction here was unreasonable. 
  4. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  5. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged its failure in complaint handling and offered the resident £300 compensation. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident, but which have no permanent impact. As such, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made an offer of redress which resolves its poor complaints handling satisfactorily.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the shower.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in relation to its complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should, if it has not already done so, pay the resident the £300 compensation it offered through its complaints process. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress determination is made on the basis that this amount is paid.