Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202303439)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303439

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

5 February 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:
   1. Response to the resident’s reports about repairs to her windows and doors.
   2. Complaints handling.

Background

2. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since at least 2010. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The resident is impacted by health vulnerabilities, which she made the landlord aware of during the course of the complaint.
3. In or around November 2022, the resident reported that the windows in her propertied were not closing properly. The landlord attended on 2 December 2022 and determined that the windows required new hinges. It sourced the hinges, but unfortunately, they did not fit.
4. She also reported on or around 9 February 2023 that draughts were coming through the front and rear doors. The landlord attended on 2 March 2023 and fitted a new draught excluder; however, this was not successful at solving the issue.
5. The resident raised a formal complaint on 30 March 2023, which the landlord acknowledged the following day. She noted the impact the draughts were having on her given her medical vulnerability. It provided a stage 1 response on 18 April 2023, which included the following:
   1. It noted the steps that it had taken to attempt to resolve the issues.
   2. It acknowledged these had been unsuccessful and that there had been delays in advising the next steps, for which it apologised.
   3. It advised that its contractor would contact her and offered £180 for her distress and inconvenience.
6. The resident queried if the windows and doors would be replaced; however, the landlord advised it would seek to repair them in the first instance. The resident subsequently escalated her complaint on 11 May 2023, and the landlord acknowledged this on the same day.
7. As interim works, the landlord replaced the draught excluders again on 16 May 2023. It initially booked in works to the windows for 23 May 2023; however, despite some inspections, there was a delay to any action due to the landlord ending its contract with its repairs contractor.
8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 9 August 2023, which included the following:
   1. It noted that works were now due to begin on 14 August 2023.
   2. It apologised for the delays and multiple visits. It also apologised for the delay to its stage 2 response.
   3. It increased its offer of compensation to £590, being £500 for the delays to the repairs and £90 for its poor complaints handling.
9. Following a further inspection, it was determined that all the windows and doors needed to be replaced. This also required the use of a specialist contractor. Throughout September and October 2023, the landlord sought a specialist contractor and quotes for the works. It is evident it updated the resident on 16 October 2023; however, she was dissatisfied with the ongoing delay and poor communication.
10. On 21 November 2023, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £890 to reflect the ongoing delays. The works were then completed in or around December 2023.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

11. The landlord’s repairs policy describes repairs to windows and doors as ‘non-emergency priority 2’ repairs, which it will aim to address within 15 working days.
12. Following the resident’s initial report regarding the windows in November 2022, the landlord attended to inspect the windows on 2 December 2022. This was appropriate and broadly in line with its policy. It was determined that new hinges were required which the operative did not have immediately to hand. While it took additional time to source these hinges, this was reasonable, and the resident was kept informed.
13. Given that the hinges did not fit, the landlord should have kept the resident updated about what steps it would take to resolve the issue. The landlord has acknowledged that it did not do this. It has attributed this to issues with its contractor, which it ultimately ended its contract with due to poor performance. Nevertheless, this delay without adequate communication caused distress and inconvenience for the resident. This was especially impactful given her medical vulnerability, which she had articulated to the landlord. It is not evident that it considered any alternative approached or interim works to mitigate the impacts, which is a further failing.
14. Regarding the doors, the landlord initially sought to replace the draught excluders. The Ombudsman understands that landlords have finite resources and an obligation to manage their funds appropriately. It was therefore reasonable for it to attempt to repair the doors in the first instance. The landlord also appropriately explained this approach to the resident.
15. Given the ongoing issues with the windows and that the door works were unsuccessful, it was appropriate that it raised further works. It is not disputed, however, that this resulted in several repeated appointments for measurements amongst its contractors and subcontractors. The landlord has acknowledged that his would have caused distress and inconvenience for the resident and points to a failing in the landlord’s record keeping and ability to share reports with its contractors.
16. In its formal responses, the landlord recognised the impact the delays, repeated visits, and poor communication had on the resident. It appropriately apologised and offered compensation of £500 at stage 2. However, while it was appropriate that the landlord committed to replace the windows and doors given the advice of its contractors, it subsequently missed its proposed timeframes for the works. This caused yet further distress to the resident, and so it was appropriate that it revisited its offer of compensation outside of its complaints process.
17. The landlord’s compensation policy notes that it may offer a maximum of £500 for “serious or prolonged service failure resulting in severe stress, disruption, and inconvenience.” Its final offer of £800 was therefore in excess of the limit of its policy, which was appropriate to recognise the length of the delay in this case and the impact it had on a vulnerable resident. It also continued to acknowledge its failings and apologise.
18. The landlord’s offer was broadly in accordance with this service’s remedies guidance, which notes compensation from £100-£600 is appropriate for instances where there has been a failure by the landlord which has adversely affected the resident, but where there has been no permanent impact. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer and apology are proportionate to the impact caused, and so a finding of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Complaints handling

19. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a complaint at stage 1 within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. It will also provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days. If it requires further time, it will discuss this with the resident.
20. Following the resident’s formal complaint on 30 March 2023, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint the following day. This was in accordance with its policy. It then provided its stage 1 response on 18 April 2023, which was 12 working days after the complaint. While this was slightly outside of its timescales, this short delay did not have a specific impact on the outcome of the complaint.
21. The resident escalated her complaint on 11 May 2023, and once again, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint within the timescales of its policies. It did not, however, provide its stage 2 response until 9 August 2023. This was 63 working days after her escalation. It is also not evident that the landlord attempted to contact the resident and explain the delay throughout this period.
22. This delay would have been frustrating for the resident, and so it was appropriate that the landlord recognised this delay in its stage 2 response and apologised. It also offered £90 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy notes it can offer discretionary compensation from £20 where there has been ‘medium’ impact to the resident. Its offer was therefore in line with its policy and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was proportionate to the impact of the delay. A finding of reasonable redress has therefore been made.

Determination (decision)

23. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of the complaints regarding its:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports about repairs to her windows and doors.
    2. Complaints handling.

Recommendations

24. The landlord is to reiterate its offer of £890 compensation, if this is yet to have been accepted.