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

Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202300957)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300957

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

31 July 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 concerning:
    1. Accessibility.
    2. A replacement key fob.
    3. The heating.
    4. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was a joint tenant of the landlord with her partner. The property was in a block with 2 lifts and a wheelchair stairlift, and was managed by a managing agent (‘MA’). The tenancy started in April 2022 and ended in May 2024 when the resident moved out of the property. The resident is disabled and uses a wheelchair.

Accessibility

  1. The resident raised concerns, soon after she moved into the property in April 2022, about a communal mechanical wheelchair stairlift, and she asked for the landlord to look into a better one. In May 2022, the landlord asked the resident to obtain an occupational therapist (‘OT’) assessment, on receipt of which it would be able to start the process of upgrading the wheelchair lift. It is understood that the landlord subsequently explained that the wheelchair lift was the MA’s responsibility, and it told the resident in June 2022 that it was chasing the MA about the issue.
  2. At the end of July 2022, a local authority OT contacted the landlord and supplied a report. This identified that the resident experienced significant difficulty accessing the property, particularly when using her wheelchair, due to the weight of fire doors and function of a wheelchair platform lift. They recommended alterations to the lift to enable use without inserting and holding a key, or replacement with a step lift, and also recommended alterations to 3 fire doors, such as making them automated. They noted they had made a referral for another individual on the ground floor who also experienced difficulty with the fire doors.
  3. Between August and October 2022, the OT and the resident contacted the landlord on multiple occasions asking it to advise how to action the adaptations, and she then complained about its handling of her accessibility concerns in November 2022. The same month, the resident says she was informed that the local authority needed to send the OT report to the landlord along with confirmation that the local authority would fund and carry out the work, and its stock investment team would then review matters. In December 2022, the resident says that she and the OT met with the landlord and was told that she should apply for a housing transfer, as it would be cheaper for the local authority to move her than to adapt the property.
  4. In its February 2023 stage 1 response, the landlord said that as it did not manage the property it could not comment on a long running issue with the lifting platform in the building and its sustainability. It said the MA would need to address it and it had chased them for an update. It advised the resident to contact the MA if the issue was still outstanding, and if she was still receiving unsatisfactory responses to let it know and it would chase on her behalf. It acknowledged communication issues for issues including the accessibility, and awarded a total of £200. The following day, the resident said she had never received a response about wheelchair access, and that the local authority had decided to look for other properties that were accessible to her. She raised concern about the property being advertised as wheelchair accessible in future, and about being left to struggle in the meantime.
  5. The landlord contacted the MA about issues in the complaint, and in a response addressing multiple aspects noted that they had discussed the accessibility issues with the landlord in December 2022 and explained issues with the wheelchair lifts and how they could not be moved or changed. The landlord subsequently emailed the resident in mid-February 2023 passing on the MA’s feedback on multiple aspects, but this omitted their above comment. In its August 2023 stage 2 response, the landlord said that the block was managed by the MA, and issues in relation to the accessibility of the block needed to be reported directly to the MA. It apologised that it was unable to act on this aspect.

The replacement key fob

  1. The resident reported, soon after she moved into the property in April 2022, that one of the 2 fobs she and her partner were provided did not work on all the doors. The landlord referred the issue to its voids team the same month. In May 2022, the landlord chased the MA about the fob, and the MA provided details about how to obtain a fob and said payment would be required. In early July 2022, the resident chased the landlord about the fob, and almost a month later the landlord responded. The landlord was again informed by the MA that payment would be required, which the resident queried given the fob did not work from the start. The landlord subsequently agreed to replace the fob at its cost and made a payment to the MA at the end of August 2022.
  2. In September and October 2022, the resident reported that she still awaited a replacement fob, and she then complained about the issue in November 2022. In February 2023, the landlord responded, acknowledged delays, and awarded £200 for the distress caused to the resident by its poor communication and delayed response for all the issues in the complaint. It also said that the resident should have received the fob by now. The following day, the resident reported that she had still not received the fob, the landlord told her a fob would be sent out, and it contacted the MA. In April 2023, the resident said she had still not received the fob, and said this was even more needed as her health had worsened and she needed a fob to give to home help. She chased the issue again in April, May and June 2023.
  3. In August 2023, the landlord provided a stage 2 response. It acknowledged that there had been failings in its communication with the resident and the MA, it had lacked ownership, and the resident had not had a fob for over 2 months. It awarded £200 for the fob delays and said it had raised a request for a new fob which the MA had confirmed the resident would receive within 3 weeks. In mid-September 2023, the resident informed the landlord that she had received a fob but it did not work on a door to her corridor. It is understood that the resident was in receipt of a fully working fob between September and December 2023.

The heating

  1. In mid-December 2022, 8 months after moving in, the resident contacted the landlord to report that her heating was not working. In mid-January 2023, an engineer who attended noted that the heating ran off a communal boiler, and the landlord would need to arrange for correct engineers to attend. They noted the resident had likely been cut off as it was a pay-as-you-go system and the meter was £18 in debt. However, they noted that the resident did not know how to top this up, and asked the landlord to advise her. At the end of January 2023, the resident reported a lack of follow up to the engineer’s visit, and said radiators still did not work and she had no means of heating the flat apart from her small electric heater. The resident restated her lack of heating from early to late February 2023. In early March 2023, the landlord delivered 2 temporary heaters and established that the resident would need to order a top-up card to top up her gas meter if she did not have one. She subsequently received a top–up card in mid-March 2023.
  2. In its stage 2 response, the landlord noted that it had not provided a top-up card at the start of the tenancy as it was informed that the property did not have gas, and a debt on the meter led to the heating being cut off. It acknowledged that the resident had not been provided all information at sign-up, it had lacked ownership to help resolve the issues, and there had been failings in communication. It apologised and awarded £300 for the delay resolving the issue and £200 for the distress caused to the resident by all the issues in the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has provided information about antisocial behaviour issues in correspondence to the Ombudsman, however these were not subject of the complaint that completed the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident may have the option to complain about these to the landlord, and to then refer any final response she receives to the Ombudsman.

The landlord’s response to the resident concerning accessibility

  1. The evidence shows that from April 2022, the resident and the local authority occupational therapist (‘OT’) contacted the landlord multiple times about concerns with communal wheelchair accessibility at the block. These meant that it took a long time for the resident to enter and exit the block, and impacted the extent to which she went out. The concerns do not appear to have been clearly addressed until December 2022, when it is understood that the managing agent (‘MA’) told the landlord that the wheelchair lifts could not be moved or changed, and when it is understood the local authority concluded that moving the resident was the best solution.
  2. The evidence shows that there were often lengthy delays in response to contacts from the resident, and that it took 8 months for there to be some clarity on matters. The landlord was therefore appropriate to acknowledge issues in relation to this, however other aspects of its handling were not satisfactory.
  3. The landlord seems unhelpful, when forwarding feedback from the MA to the resident, to have omitted some comment about their inability to move or change the wheelchair lifts. The landlord also seems unhelpful to have not clarified the MA’s position on the fire doors, the OT’s concern that these were too heavy for the resident and another tenant, and their recommendation for these to be automated.
  4. The Ombudsman understands that resolution of the accessibility issues was out of the landlord’s direct control, however it had a too disengaged approach to them. Our spotlight report on MAs recommends landlords to build strong working relationships with MAs, expects landlords to own the relationship with their residents and be proactive in pursuing resolution on their behalf, and says that ‘signposting’ of residents to MAs (as the landlord did at points including its stage 1 response) is inappropriate.
  5. It is not evident that the landlord made any real attempts to effectively discuss if there were any solutions to issues such as the wheelchair lift requiring users to stand up, and heavy communal doors that also affected another tenant. These reasonably merited some further discussion which it would have been customer focused for the landlord to attempt to meet with the resident, her OT and the MA to discuss. The response delays and the landlord’s disengaged approach fails to show that it took the concerns seriously or that it had sufficient empathy with the resident’s struggles to access the block, which is not appropriate.
  6. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s response to the resident about accessibility was not satisfactory. Its responses to her were delayed. It lacked engagement with her concerns, which eventually led to her moving out, and did not engage in any real discussion of them with the MA. Its complaint responses did not address the concerns that were raised in any detail. It is unclear that the landlord took on board her concerns about the flat and block being advertised as suitable for wheelchair users. The resident will have felt ignored by the landlord and been caused much frustration by its handling. This leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration in the landlord’s response about accessibility.

The landlord’s response to the resident concerning a replacement key fob

  1. The resident reported from when she moved into the flat in April 2022 that only one of the 2 fabs she and her partner (the joint tenant) were provided worked. The landlord did not take steps to request and pay the MA for a new one until August 2022, 4 months later, after repeated chasing from the resident. In September, October and November 2022, the resident reported that she had not received a replacement fob, and the landlord’s February 2023 stage 1 response 5 months later said she should have received it by then. The resident continued to report lack of receipt of a replacement fob in February, April, May and June 2023, and 6 months later in August 2023 the landlord said it had requested a new fob. The resident then received a replacement fob in September 2023 which, like the first fob, did not fully function and a new one had to be requested again.
  2. The resident experienced issues with the original fob when she moved in, and then experienced issues when provided the replacement in September 2023. This calls into question how reasonable the landlord was to accept the MA’s contention that the issues had nothing to do with them and required payment for a replacement fob to resolve, and the landlord could have represented the resident’s interests in a more effective and timely manner.
  3. The landlord said in its responses that the delays were over 2 months, but there were over 16 months of delays, as it took 4 months to process a replacement fob after issues were reported in April 2022, and then took over a year to provide a replacement after it was reported a replacement had not been received in September 2022. It also failed to take any steps to resolve the issue before its February 2023 stage 1 response, which will have contributed to delays.
  4. The landlord acknowledged and compensated £200 for delays of over 2 months providing the new fob, in addition to £200 for the distress caused by all the issues in the complaint. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this did not go far enough to acknowledge the delays and the frustration, distress and inconvenience that will have been caused by the resident only having one working fob for over 16 months. The resident has explained that as long as she and her partner only had one working fob between them, she had to keep the working fob and buzz in her partner when they returned home from work. The general inconvenience this caused will have been increased for the resident, as she had to make herself available to buzz in her partner even on days she was particularly affected by her conditions and needed to lie down, and she was also unable to provide a fob to home help when she needed to. This leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration in its response about the fob.

The landlord’s response to the resident concerning the heating

  1. The resident was not provided relevant information at her April 2022 tenancy sign up that the property had gas and that the heating requiring a top–up card, which did not seem to become an issue until December 2022. The resident then reported issues in mid-December 2022, and in January 2023 a contractor noted that the issues required a different engineer. There was a delay in following this and further reports up, and the issue was not resolved until mid-March 2023. This meant that the resident was without full heating for 90 days.
  2. The landlord acknowledged and compensated £300 for issues with the heating, in addition to £200 for the distress caused by all the issues in the complaint. It acknowledged that it should have provided all relevant information to the resident at sign up. This went a long way to remedy matters, however it does not demonstrate it reasonably acknowledged all issues and steps it intended to take to try to ensure the issues did not happen again. Further issues evident include a lack of follow up to the January 2023 engineer reporting that a different engineer was required, and temporary heaters not being provided until March 2023 when the January 2023 visit should have prompted these. This leads the Ombudsman to find a service failure in the landlord’s response about the heating.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord took 3 months to provide a stage 1 response, and then took 6 months to provide a stage 2 response, in which it acknowledged poor communication and delays in its responses, and awarded £420 in total for these. The landlord’s responses could have taken a more detailed approach for some aspects, and incorrectly stated that issues related to the first 2 months of the resident’s tenancy. However, in the Ombudsman’s view, the £420 it awarded overall provided reasonable redress for the issues evident with its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident concerning accessibility.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident concerning a replacement key fob.
    3. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident concerning the heating.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks:
    1. pay the resident £600. This comprises £200 for the issues identified with its response concerning accessibility issues, £300 for the issues identified with the fob replacement, and £100 for the issues identified with the heating, which is in addition to the compensation the landlord originally paid.
  2. The landlord is ordered to, within 6 weeks, review any steps it can take to try to ensure that:
    1. its records allow accurate and timely information to be provided to tenants, and be obtained by its staff, about the gas top-up system at the property and other areas such as CCTV footage requests, where responsibilities at the block differ from normal due to being managed by the MA.
    2. contractor reports such as the January 2023 visit are detected and responded to in an appropriate and timely way.
    3. the need for temporary heaters is appropriately reported and actioned in a timely manner.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on managing agents, in order to review learning in respect to how it handles reports from residents at properties managed by managing agents, including reports about faulty fobs.
    2. review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights, in order to review learning in respect to how it handles reports from vulnerable residents about issues including accessibility.
    3. ensure that it responds to complaints in a timely and appropriately detailed manner, and in accordance with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
    4. assess the appropriateness of advertising the flat and block as being suitable for wheelchair users, taking into account the operability of the wheelchair lift and the heaviness of communal doors.