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

Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202234137)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234137

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

19 November 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 handling of:
    1. Repairs to a communal lift.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner of the property with the landlord. Her lease began in January 2017. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the 6th floor in a high rise block. There is a communal lift. She lives with her young twin sons.
  2. On 22 January 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that the communal lift had broken down 5 times since 17 January 2023. This prevented her from leaving her home as she could not manage the number of stairs necessary while carrying her children and pram. She was unhappy with the number of reports and time taken to return the lift to service. She was also unhappy with the lack of communication from the landlord regarding the outages and its plans to resolve these issues.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 10 February 2023. It told the resident that where the lift was out of service for more than 24 hours, it provided a concierge service to its residents. It was reviewing whether its lift contractor was meeting the requirements of its service level agreement. It would recover the costs from the contractor for any failures to maintain the agreement and pass these back to residents. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered £50 compensation in addition to any costs recovered from its contractor.
  4. In March, April, June, and July 2023 the resident sought to escalate her complaint. She was unhappy with the number of times the lift had broken down and the landlord’s progress to repair the lift. She said that the concierge service did not work. She felt ignored by the landlord. She disagreed with the amount of compensation offered.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 October 2023. It acknowledged that the lift had broken down repeatedly over the summer and there had been too many breakdowns. The disruption had gone on for too long and the contractor’s attendance had not been acceptable. It apologised for the inconvenience this caused. It explained that some delays were the result of the availability of parts. It apologised for its poor communication. It planned to replace the lift controller to reduce its reliance on parts from outside the UK and tender the contract and design the new controller. It expected the plans to be resolved in April 2024. It offered to credit the resident (and others in the block) the service charge costs for the lift between March and September 2023. It also offered to pay the resident £200 for the inconvenience caused and £100 for its delays in responding to her complaint.
  6. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and sought to escalate her complaint to the Ombudsman in December 2023.
  7. In November 2024 the resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord refunded the service charge costs as agreed in its stage 2 response. It also met with residents in April 2024 to discuss plans to replace the lift. She said the landlord told the resident that works would begin in January 2025 and would take around 16 weeks.

Assessment and findings

Policy and Procedures

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaint procedure. It states that it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. Where a resident remains unhappy within 28 days of its stage 1 response, it will escalate a complaint to stage 2. It will issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days. Where it is unable to maintain these commitments, it will keep the resident informed about the delay and will provide regular updates.

Repairs to a communal lift

  1. The landlord was responsible for the repair and maintenance of the lift. It appropriately arranged for a specialist contractor to conduct repairs and maintenance on its behalf. It was reasonable to rely on the advice and guidance given to it by this specialist contractor. Throughout the complaint journey, the records show that the landlord passed repairs to its contractor within appropriate timescales. Where there were concerns about the quality of the contractor’s work, the landlord reviewed its service level agreement and began an investigation into its actions. This was an appropriate response in the circumstances and was demonstrative of the landlord’s intention to resolve the substantive issues.
  2. The landlord’s records show that there were around 18 call outs to repair the lift in 2023. The landlord replied to the reports and conducted repairs in most circumstances within 24 hours. There were some prolonged periods that the lift was out of service. In its stage 1 response on 10 February 2023, it told the resident that it offered a concierge service when the lift was out of service for more than 24 hours. This was a reasonable offer and would have reduced the impact the outages had on the resident.
  3. Throughout her contact with the landlord between March and July 2023, the resident disputed the effectiveness of the concierge service provided. She said that she called many times and no one attended, the landlord had not provided her with details of the contingency plan prior to her stage 1 complaint and she did not receive all the messages the landlord says it sent. When she did ask for help, she got no reply and staff did not seem to be aware of the support available.
  4. On 27 June 2023, during a lengthy outage, the resident said that she was having difficulties with carrying items and had to leave some downstairs. She also reported that she called the concierge service on 9 and 11 July 2023 and nobody came. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this during the outage period. The landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s concerns and sought to resolve them. It did not and this contributed to her distress and inconvenience.
  5. In its stage 2 response on 24 October 2023, the landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for the impact the disruption caused to the resident. Its description of the actions taken demonstrated its understanding of the issue and its intention to resolve the substantive issues. Once the landlord identified that the main cause of delay was the availability of parts, it appropriately decided to replace a section of the lift. The landlord made this decision within a reasonable period and communicated it to the resident in its stage 2 response. Its actions show that it intended to resolve the lift service issues. Its offer to credit the resident with the service charge costs for the lift between March and September 2023 was fair.
  6. However, there is no record to show that it made any effort to investigate the concerns raised about its concierge service. It did not explain why the concierge it said existed in the stage 1 response did not benefit the resident. There is no evidence to show that the landlord sought to reassure itself that the concierge was at the level it had outlined in the stage 1 response. Therefore, while we note the landlord’s offer of £200 compensation went some way to put right its failings, it did not fully address the resident’s concerns. It failed to investigate her reports that the concierge service was inadequate, put things right for these failings, or look to learn lessons in case of future outages.
  7. The landlord has provided evidence showing that the number of callouts has reduced following its stage 2 response. It is also pursuing the replacement of the lift. There has been a reduction in service failures, with 8 call outs between January and September 2024. This indicates the landlord has taken steps to put right the earlier failures in service.
  8. Overall, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal lift. Its records show that it responded to reports of the lift outages within the timescales set out in its policy. It appropriately recognised the impact the outages had on the resident and its decision to replace substantial parts within the lift demonstrates its intention to put things right and that it learned from the delays in 2023. Further, its offer to refund the service charge for the lift between March and September 2023 was fair.
  9. However, it did not investigate the resident’s reports that the concierge service was inadequate, put things right for these failings, or look to learn lessons in case of future outages. Its offer of £200 compensation did not reflect the detriment caused to the resident over extended periods. The landlord should continue to pursue the replacement of the lift. It should provide a clear update on its current position, the timescales involved and its plan to mitigate the impact on the resident. It should pay the resident an additional £100 compensation.

The associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s policy states that it will record an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action as a complaint. It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, and that it complies with the timeframes set out in its policy. Its response to the resident’s requests to escalate her complaint to stage 2 was considerably outside those timeframes.
  2. The landlord failed to respond to 4 separate requests to escalate the complaint between March and July 2023. Its records show that it only acknowledged 2 of these complaints. Although it acknowledged a complaint from June 2023 within 3 working days, it did not issue any response. Its second acknowledgement was to her complaint from 19 July 2023 which it sent on 31 August 2023 (31 working days later). It issued its stage 2 response on 24 October 2023 (69 working days later). These delays were unacceptable and made worse when considering the original request to escalate was 7 months earlier on 13 March 2023. These complaint handling failures caused the resident considerable time and trouble.
  3. Throughout her correspondence with the landlord between March and July 2023, the resident described increasing frustration at the lack of response from the landlord. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We also assess whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
  4. The landlord did acknowledge its complaint handling failures in its stage 2 response and appropriately apologised for the inconvenience caused. There was a recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused in its overall poor communication. However, the landlord did not set out how it had learned from its poor complaint handling. It should have considered the number of requests made to escalate and record new complaints and the resident’s time and trouble pursuing her complaint. Its offer of £100 compensation did not reflect the detriment caused to the resident.
  5. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. The landlord’s apology for its complaint handling failures was appropriate. However, it did not address the impact the failures to respond to her complaint would have had on the resident. The resident’s reports showed her increasing frustration at its lack of action throughout. The landlord did not set out how it had learned from these mistakes. Its offer of £100 compensation did not put things right in the circumstances. The landlord should offer an additional £100 for its complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a communal lift.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Provide the resident and the Ombudsman an up to date position regarding its plans to repair/replace the lift. This should include timescales to begin the works and the expected duration of the works. It should also include its plan to mitigate the impact the loss of lift will have on the resident.
    3. Pay the resident £500 compensation. It should deduct any amount already paid throughout its complaint handling. This is comprised of:
      1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of repairs to a communal lift.
      2. £200 for its complaint handling failures.
    4. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to the Ombudsman.