Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202335919)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335919

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

29 October 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 regarding the landlord’s response to:
1. Reported damp and mould in the resident’s property.
2. Reported damage to the resident’s belongings.
This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She has resided at the property, described as a 2-bedroom flat within a purpose built block, since 2014. The landlord has advised it does not have any record of vulnerabilities within the household.

Summary of events

On 16 December 2023, the resident emailed a complaint to the landlord, stating she had “made several complaints” about unresolved issues at her property over the “last couple of years”. She stated that a surveyor had inspected the property earlier in the year and identified “numerous amounts of things…wrong” which made it “unsafe for (her) health” and that works needed to be carried out. She raised the following areas of concern regarding “ongoing issues”:
1. The previous day she had identified mould growth “within the seats, flooring and throughout (the) property”. This had damaged her sofa, which she needed to throw away, other furniture and possessions including a mattress, clothes and children’s toys. She stated it was affecting her and her family’s health through “escalating respiratory issues and chronic chest pains”.
2. There was mould throughout her property, affecting walls and ceilings, which had returned after a previous mould wash. Wallpaper had been painted over with “damp paint” but she provided photographs which she stated showed mould was still coming through.
3. Windows leaked “in all rooms” when it rained. This made the property “constantly wet” and caused a bad smell.
4. The balcony door had “ongoing issues with closing” and was prone to condensation, which she stated was because of previous, poorly handled window repairs. There was a “constant” draught which caused her property to be cold even when the heating was on and resulted in higher energy bills.
5. She stated her family “dreaded” sleeping in the property due to the smell and it making them ill. She also claimed the “whole building” had been affected by mould issues for years and that the structure of the building was to blame, meaning the problems would continue.
6. She requested compensation for the distress experienced and for her damaged items to be replaced.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 18 December 2023. It summarised its understanding of the complaint and advised it would aim to respond by 3 January 2024.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 and 16 January 2024 to chase up its response. She sent a further email on 29 January 2024 in which she asked for her complaint to be escalated due to the landlord’s lack of response to date.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 9 February 2024 and apologised for the delay. It was incorrectly dated 9 February 2023 and also erroneously addressed the resident as “Mr”. It advised it understood the complaint to be about mould in the resident’s home and “the damage it had caused to your sofa and curtains”. It advised it had “reviewed the history relating to the mould in your home” and it went on to make the following comments and findings:
1. Following the resident’s reports, it had made a referral to its Damp and Mould Team (DMT) and an inspection was completed on 4 January 2024. It advised the survey had identified the following repairs as being necessary:
  1. Install boxing and insulate a supply access panel around the coldwater mains in a cupboard.
  2. Install a new ventilation fan in the bathroom which has “the highest extraction rate”.
  3. Wash and treat mould to the window/patio door recess in the lounge and supply a new ventilation fan in the kitchen.
  4. Re-check seals around the window in the second (child’s) bedroom.
2. It acknowledged that, following the inspection, it had not communicated further with the resident. It apologised for the delays and confirmed that a contractor had now been instructed to complete the above works and they had been asked to contact the resident directly to arrange appointments.
3. It offered a further apology for the delays the resident had experienced and the contractor not contacting her sooner, which it states was due to the volume of work they currently had. It also recognised the “time and effort” the resident had spent chasing it for updates.
4. It confirmed the resident’s complaint was upheld and advised it had fed back to its DMT regarding “the delays and the failure of their contractor…to schedule…works in a timely manner”.
5. Regarding the reported damage to her personal belongings, the landlord stated it understood this was “unsettling…especially when (damage) is caused by circumstances beyond your control such as mould”. However, it clarified that it “did not cover personal items” and it usually advised residents to claim on personal contents insurance, although it was aware the resident did not have such a policy. It stated it had therefore “considered a contribution towaeds the cleaning of the items affected”.
6. In recognition of the failings it identified, it offered the resident £400 compensation, consisting of £50 for the delay in scheduling works after the damp and mould survey, £250 towards cleaning mould off her personal items and £100 for the delay in responding to her complaint.
The resident replied the same day and asked for the complaint to be escalated. Issues she raised included:
1. The landlord had failed to follow its policy by issuing its response late.
2. Her family’s physical and mental health had been affected by the condition of her home – she stated they all had respiratory issues – and she alleged the landlord had contravened “Human and Disability Act rights”.
3. The £400 offer was “a slap in the face” and she was unhappy at being directed to make a claim via the landlord’s insurer regarding her damaged possessions.
4. There was a “bigger issue within the foundation of the building” and she alleged that every flat in her block had “a severe mould issue”. While a mould wash had been done the previous year, she stated mould had come “back again 10x worse”, which led to the damaged possessions.
5. She wanted every damaged item to be replaced and for the landlord to provide compensation for the “pain and suffering of each member of the household”.
The landlord emailed the resident on 13 February 2024. Headed “Stage 2 Acknowledgement”, it recognised it had not responded to her complaint within its stated timeframe and apologised for the delay and lack of updates. It stated it would provide a response within 20 working days (by 12 March 2024). It summarised its understanding of the resident’s outstanding concerns:
1. Its failure to respond to the complaint.
2. For it to consider the impact of the issues on the resident and her family.
3. For it to reimburse and/or replace all damaged items (it advised the resident she would need to provide an itemised list of possessions which would “help (it) expedite the process of calculating the financial impact” and “ensure the reimbursement process is considered…thoroughly and fairly”).
Internal landlord correspondence from 16 February 2024 indicates that a damp and mould survey was booked to take place on 27 February 2024.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 29 February 2024. It noted the resident had provided evidence regarding her damaged items and had requested compensation. It made the following comments and findings:
1. Having spoken to its Damp and Mould and Disrepair teams regarding “further investigation” into the damp and mould, it acknowledged it had been “ongoing…(and) the issues persist to return” despite works previously being carried out. It had therefore arranged a further assessment of the property to “determine a permanent resolution” for 27 February but the resident had cancelled as she was unwell. It understood the resident had been given direct contact details through which she could rearrange an appointment.
2. Regarding her request for compensation, it had consulted with its Insurance Team and been advised it would “need a claim for this”. It clarified that the £400 compensation issued at stage 1 was not intended to “reflect any reimbursements of items” and it would therefore remain unchanged.
3. Regarding “compensation and reimbursement for the damage”, the resident would need to submit a claim form. It clarified its insurer did not offer “new for old” and any settlement would be based on a used, wear and tear offer”. The resident would also need to provide “images and evidence of how much…items cost”, including date of purchase or evidence of the cost of replacement. It stated any claim would be independently assessed by its insurers and provided the relevant form to be completed.

Post complaint

The resident replied to the landlord on 27 March 2024 and provided photographs of the furniture and personal items that had allegedly been damaged by damp and mould. She also submitted a completed Property Damage Form, an itemised list stating how much each item cost, and she also attached some receipts. The total amount she claimed for was £5,335.
Following further correspondence between the parties, the landlord’s Insurance Team emailed the resident on 20 June 2024 with an update:
1. It understood all outstanding repairs had been completed on 4 June 2024 apart from the installation of vents. It apologised for this omission and offered a new appointment for 27 June 2024, when it would also “pick up the mould cleaning/wash of any furniture required”.
2. It provided a “cost analysis” regarding the damaged possessions the resident had claimed for, which it stated was based on her claim form, correspondence and complaints and evidence provided.
3. It clarified that a previous offer had been incorrect and confirmed that it would agree to pay £4165 (calculated as 75% of the full requested amount – which had been revised to £5554) in recognition of the damaged items which needed replacing, plus the £400 compensation already awarded.
The resident responded via email on 22 June 2024 to confirm that she accepted the landlord’s final offer.
In September 2024, the resident provided this Service with an update, stating that mould had returned on her windows and that the ventilation system had not yet been installed. She reiterated her concerns that her family’s health was being affected by the continued presence of mould in the property.

Assessment and findings

In correspondence with the landlord and this Service, the resident has referred to health conditions which she states have been impacted on by the reported damp and mould. While we understand the resident’s concerns, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused and how the landlord responded to this.

The landlord’s handling of reported damp and mould in the property

Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, 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. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In this case, the landlord accepted there had been delays in its response to the resident’s reports regarding damp and mould in the property. In its stage 1 complaint response, it acknowledged that, while it had made a referral to its DMT and carried out an inspection in early January 2024, it had subsequently failed to communicate with the resident following this and this had caused her to chase for updates. Although it advised the delays were due to its contractor’s workload, it upheld her complaint, offered an apology, £50 compensation and clarified that a contractor had been instructed to complete identified repairs. It also advised that feedback about the contractor had been provided to its DMT. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was positive that the landlord acknowledged the delay in progressing repairs following the inspection, as well as its poor communication and the impact this had on the resident. Its apology and offer of compensation were an indication that it was appropriately trying to “put things right” via its complaint process.
In its stage 2 response, issued 3 weeks later on 29 February 2024, it outlined there had been “further investigation” regarding the damp and mould and acknowledged the “issues persist” despite works having been previously completed. It noted a further inspection had been scheduled 2 days prior, but this had been cancelled as the resident was ill. No further actions were set out, with the resident advised to make contact directly to rearrange an inspection, and it did not offer any additional redress.
Based on the evidence seen by this Service, from the time the resident submitted her complaint in December 2023 and its stage 2 response in late February 2024, the landlord acted reasonably when considering her reports regarding damp and mould in the property. It identified the need for an inspection and raised one accordingly. While the landlord advises within its “Guide to Condensation, Mould and Damp” factsheet that it will attend within 5 working days on receipt of a report about damp and mould, and an inspection should therefore have been completed by 22 December 2023, it is acknowledged that this fell over the Christmas and New Year period when operative availability would have been affected. In the circumstances, while the 4 January 2024 inspection was carried out outside its stated target, this was not a significant failing, and the detriment caused would have been minimal.
While the landlord then failed to raise follow-up orders or effectively communicate with the resident, it acknowledged this within its complaint responses and offered redress which was in the region (albeit the lower end) of what the Ombudsman would expect to see in the circumstances. Records show its complaint investigation identified that details of the January 2024 survey had not been saved on its records. While this raises questions regarding its record keeping and the landlord could have shared the additional explanation with the resident in the interest of full transparency, the landlord responded appropriately by stating it would feed back to the DMT and it is noted it had raised a further inspection for 27 February 2024.
It does not appear to be disputed that, prior to the resident’s complaint, the landlord had attended the property to treat damp and mould before (both parties referred in correspondence to a mould wash being carried out some time in 2023). There are, however, no references to this within the records provided to this Service. It is also noted that the resident, in her original complaint, referred to damp and mould issues recurring since 2018. While this Service has not seen evidence of any reports made to the landlord prior to her December 2023 complaint, the above raises concerns that the repair records provided to this investigation may not paint the full picture of its response to the reported damp and mould.
Within its stage 1 response, the landlord outlined works that were recommended following its January 2024 inspection, but there is no confirmation within its repair records as to whether these were completed. This was not appropriate and means the landlord has not evidence that it progressed, or monitored progression of, these repairs appropriately.
It is unclear why there is no information regarding any previous reports or completed works contained within the records provided. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is inappropriate and indicates either poor record keeping by the landlord or a failure to appropriately consider the full timeline of events as part of its complaint investigation.
Following the landlord’s final complaint response, records show a further damp and mould inspection took place on 19 March 2024 (it is assumed this is the appointment rearranged from 27 February 2024). The inspection report identified the presence of mould within both bedrooms, including around the windows and an external wall, and around her patio door. It made the following recommendations:
1. Mould wash “above and around window and wall 2msq…paint ceiling with anti-condensation paint x 20msw” in one bedroom.
2. A Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) system was required, and a quote should be obtained.
3. In the other bedroom, a mould wash was needed around the window and on the ceiling (2msq) and the bedroom decorated on completion.
4. A mould wash around the patio doors.
However, following the inspection, the landlord did not appear to raise any orders until 21 May 2024, over 2 months later. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, this appears to have been an avoidable delay which would have caused the resident further distress and inconvenience. From the records seen by this Service, it is then unclear when the works actually took place. Internal landlord correspondence appears to indicate that the works were not submitted correctly and needed to be re-raised on 5 June 2024, although later emails suggest the contractor advised that all works, except the installation of the vents, had been completed the previous day. The lack of clarity is not appropriate and again raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping as well as its monitoring of the repair process and oversight of its contractors.
In any case, in correspondence with the landlord regarding an insurance claim, the resident advised on 18 June 2024 that mould had already returned. She also advised this Service in September 2024 that mould growth was recurring after the mould wash had been completed and her possessions continued to be damaged. She also stated that the PIV vents were yet to be installed.
It is of note that the survey carried out in March 2024 did not contain any details regarding the cause of the mould. Its recommendation that a new ventilation system be installed may indicate it believed excess condensation was the cause, but a comprehensive report should be more explicit in identifying the apparent root cause of the problem. It is also of concern that, having apparently already recommended the installation of vents following its January 2024 inspection and again in March 2024, as of September 2024, some 9 months later, the resident has advised vents have still not been installed. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, this was an avoidable delay over a significant length of time, which will have caused the resident further distress and inconvenience. The landlord also potentially missed the opportunity to resolve issues at an earlier stage, with the damp and mould situation possibly deteriorating and running the risk of more of the resident’s possessions being damaged. This is not appropriate and from the evidence seen, the landlord has not handled these repairs effectively.
While the landlord can show it did take steps to respond to the resident’s reports following her December 2023 complaint, it is not able to evidence that it has resolved the issue, some 10 months later. Within its complaint response, it also failed to respond to the resident’s assertion that other residents in her block were experiencing similar issues and that she believed there were structural issues causing the damp and mould. There is no indication the landlord gave any consideration to this, or that it carried out any kind of review or further enquiries that may have identified similar reports from other residents. This was not appropriate and means the landlord missed an opportunity to ascertain whether there was any substance to the resident’s reports or allay her concerns.
Following the conclusion of its complaint response and the completion of the March 2024 inspection, there is evidence of unreasonable delay, first with raising the recommended orders, and then regarding the installation of a PIV system which was intended to resolve the problem, within one bedroom at least. The Ombudsman therefore considers there has been maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. Order have been made for the landlord to provide further compensation to the resident to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by further delays and inability to resolve the damp and mould issue after the completion of its complaint procedure, for it to provide an update regarding the installation of the PIV system and for it to carry out a further inspection of the property and draw up a report on what it considers to be the cause of the damp and mould affecting the resident’s property.
Additionally, having noted the resident’s assertion that neighbouring residents may also be affected and structural issues may be present, the Ombudsman has identified that it has received contact regarding damp and mould in their properties from other residents in the resident’s block. The Ombudsman is careful to note that none of these contacts have progressed to a full investigation and therefore no other related determinations have been made that definitively indicate a wider issue. However, and given that the landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns within its complaint response, we consider it appropriate to order the landlord to carry out a further review.
A further order, under Paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, has therefore been made for the landlord to carry out a damp and mould inspection of the resident’s block and draw up with an action plan for resolving any issues identified. Depending on its findings, the landlord should then consider whether it is appropriate to carry out similar checks of neighbouring blocks on the street. It should also review all repair reports and complaints received from residents in the block regarding damp and mould and complete a report that identifies the information it has on its systems which may, or may not, indicate whether there are wider or structural issues that need addressing. It should also complete a report that sets out its learning from this case and any action plans it has drawn up, outlining the steps it will take to ensure its DMT can effectively manage and monitor reports of damp issues in all its properties going forward.

The landlord’s handling of reported damage to the resident’s belongings

The resident has stated that their belongings were damaged by mould they believed was caused by the landlord’s delayed repairs and inability to resolve the damp issue. The Housing Ombudsman cannot determine liability for costs where that liability is disputed. Only the courts or insurers can determine who is liable for the costs following legal action or a claim. All residents are advised to arranged contents insurance to cover any damages to their belongings, regardless of who they may believe to be at fault. The resident’s insurer can then pursue other parties if it believes there is sufficient evidence someone else is at fault. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord’s compensation offer was not based on the cost of any belongings that were reported as damaged.
From the information seen by this Service, overall, the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns regarding her damaged possession reasonably. Evidence shows it addressed her concerns within its complaint responses and, in its stage 1 response, it appropriately acknowledged her distress. It provided an explanation regarding its approach to advising residents to claim on contents insurance rather than covering the cost of damaged possessions itself, and instead offered a contribution of £250 towards cleaning some items of furniture. While it is acknowledged that this was well below the value of the items the resident stated had been damaged and/or needed to be thrown out, the landlord was reasonably considering how it could try and put things right within the limits of its policy and procedures.
However, in its stage 2 response, after the resident reiterated her request for further compensation for damaged items, it advised it would “need a claim”. It provided an explanation of how to go about this and details of the information it needed to pass on to its insurer. It was appropriate that the landlord reviewed and revised its position and provided details on how to progress a claim.
Outside of its complaint responses, evidence shows the landlord, in particular an Insurance and Procurement Officer, communicated effectively with the resident regarding her claim. In internal correspondence they acted positively when identifying the resident should not “expect(ed) to understand the technicalities of legal protocols and (it) need(ed) to support the customer when she has already had a maladministration”. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was positive and evidence that the officer was seeking to treat the resident sympathetically and ensure her concerns, and claim, were assessed fairly.
Following this, the landlord assessed the information provided by the resident within her claim and came back to her with an offer within a reasonable timeframe. While, as above, the Ombudsman cannot determine liability for costs, the landlord’s offer appears to have been reasonable and its explanation for the amount it offered – £4165, or 75% of the total being claimed – appears to be proportionate. Records indicate that, once the resident accepted the offer, this was paid to her in a reasonable timeframe. Based on available information, this Service has not seen evidence of maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of reports of damaged possessions.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

Records show the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response outside of its stated target time. There is no evidence it contacted the resident to advise her its response would be delayed or otherwise provide any updates. This was not appropriate and is evidence of poor communication. However, the landlord appropriately recognised this and offered an apology and £100 compensation when it finally issued its response. This was a proportionate response and evidence the landlord sought to “put things right”.
However, the landlord did not appear to address all the concerns raised within the complaint and escalation request. While it stated it had reviewed the history of her case, as identified above, it did not appear to consider any events that took place or reports that were received prior to January 2024. It did not provide any reason for using what appears to be an unreasonably limited period for its investigation. This was not appropriate and meant the resident was not treated fairly and the landlord cannot evidence that it completed as comprehensive an investigation as it should have done. This was a failing and would have left the resident feeling her concerns were not being fully addressed.
Furthermore, it failed to address her concerns that the damp and mould issues were not just isolated to her property, that previous repairs had not been effective and that draughts in the property was causing her heating bills to increase. Nor did it address her concerns regarding her family’s health conditions being exacerbated by the reported damp and mould. While the Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to investigate any causal link between the property conditions and any reported health issues, it should nonetheless have addressed this and considered whether there was any additional support it could offer. That it did not do so was unreasonable.
The landlord provided appropriate redress for the delay in issuing its stage 1 response. However, while comprehensive, its responses did not address all the resident’s concerns. A finding of service failure has therefore been made regarding the landlord’s handling of the complaint. An order has been made for it to pay further compensation to reflect the impact on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
2. No maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of reported damage to the resident’s belongings.
3. Service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

There were avoidable delays within the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, with follow-on works not raised in a timely manner after its inspections. There is no evidence it installed a ventilation system it first recommended in January 2024, there was apparent confusion regarding when works had been raised and/or completed and the repair records provided did not appear to cover the whole history of the case.
Its response to the reports of damaged belongings was reasonable, initially acknowledging the distress this would have caused and communicating well with the resident regarding how to make a claim for compensation. Once received, it then dealt with this reasonably and made a proportionate offer.
It offered appropriate redress for its delayed stage 1 response but it did not fully address all the concerns the resident raised through the complaint procedure.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be provided by a member of staff at Director level or above.
2. Pay the resident a further £600 compensation, made up of £500 to reflect the delay in completing repairs and resolving the damp and mould and £100 to reflect aspects of its complaint handling.
3. Provide this Service and the resident with an update regarding the installation of the PIV system and a timeframe for when this work will be completed.
4. Carry out a further damp and mould survey of the property, by an operative not previously involved in the case, and draw up a report on what it considers to be the cause of the damp and mould. It should draw up an action plan regarding any further repair recommendations and provide this Service with a copy of both the survey and action plan.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman has made a further order based on the findings of this case. The landlord is ordered to, within 12 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Complete an inspection of the resident’s block, surveying for damp and mould, and come up with an action plan for resolving any issues identified. Depending on the outcome of this inspection, the landlord should then consider whether it is appropriate to carry out similar checks of neighbouring blocks on the street.
2. Review all repair reports and complaints received from residents in the resident’s block regarding damp and mould and write a report that identifies the information it already has which may, or may not, indicate whether there are wider or structural issues that need addressing. It should provide this Service with a copy of its reports and any action plans drawn up.
3. Complete a report setting out its learning from this case and any actions plans it has drawn up, outlining the steps it will take to ensure its DMT can effectively manage and monitor reports of damp issues in all its properties.