Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202341638)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341638

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

30 August 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 about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of structural damage to her property causing damp and mould growth.
2. The resident’s reports of works to her downstairs WC.
3. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the housing association landlord. She lives in the property with her husband and three children. The resident is disabled with limited mobility. She has fibromyalgia and suffers from asthma. She has three children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
The resident reported that there was damp and mould in her property on 18 August 2022. She believed this was due to her neighbour, who owned the adjoining property, making alterations to a party wall which had damaged the brickwork and plaster in her property, causing leaks and damp. In response, the landlord contacted the private owner of the adjoining property in September 2022 to discuss the disrepair caused by the major works.
On 5 December 2022, the resident called the landlord again to report the associated damage to her home caused by the renovation works in the adjoining property. She said that they need an extractor fan to reduce the moisture in the property and asked that a surveyor attend to assess the problem.
The landlord made an appointment for a surveyor to attend on 12 January 2023, but when they did not attend on the day, their diary was checked and there was no entry for an appointment. It rescheduled this for 27 January 2023.
Around this time, the resident reported that the landlord would need to treat the bedroom, kitchen and toilet box room for mould. She also said that the flat roof to the house was leaking because of the renovation works and was causing damp.
On 30 January 2023, the landlord raised a job to install a hydrometer extractor fan in the kitchen.
The resident called the landlord on 20 February 2023 to report that the landlord had not yet arranged the works, other than to fit the extractor fan. She chased this again on 7 March 2023.
On 15 March 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to book another surveyor’s visit for 24 April 2023. The resident expressed her frustration about the landlord arranging several surveyor inspections without resolution. In March and April 2023, the landlord arranged for a damp and mould treatment in affected areas in the resident’s home.
On 23 May 2023, the landlord reported that it had treated the property for damp and mould, however there was no access to one of the rooms because it was filled with the resident’s belongings. It recorded that it had booked a handyman to attend to move items outside and conduct damp and mould treatment in the room. It arranged a further surveyor’s inspection for June 2023. The records do not show what the outcome of this inspection was.
The landlord booked another mould wash on 30 May 2023, to treat the bedroom, kitchen, downstairs toilet and box room.
In August 2023 the resident chased up the surveyor inspection works but the landlord told her that it had not raised the works as the room needed clearing and the landlord’s handyman was unable to do it.
The landlord raised a flat roof repair and requested a further surveyor’s inspection for 23 August 2023. A roofer attended that month.
On 23 August 2023 the surveyor inspected and raised works to install a new hand basin in the downstairs toilet and to renew the vinyl flooring.
The resident called the landlord on 1 September 2023 to report that she had cleared the room for works in the utility room to start that day but was told that one of the contractors would not be starting until Monday 4 September 2023. Between 1 September and 4 October 2023 there was a further surveyor’s inspection and more works were raised to skim plaster the ceiling, replaster or repair cracks to the walls, apply stain block and redecorate the room. When the resident reported new mould growth on the walls of the utility room, the landlord arranged a mould wash.
On 13 September 2023 the landlord noted that there had been a miscommunication with the subcontractor who it had asked to fit a new WC and not a new wash hand basin in error. It raised a new job. The resident chased this with the landlord on 20 September 2023. On 4 October 2023 it noted that it had closed this job down in error and a surveyor would need to raise this again. The landlord chased this again on 25 October 2023. On 30 October 2023 the landlord’s notes state that “this has been deemed as a new install which is something that we do not do”.
On 4 October 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that it had not completed the agreed works to the utility room. She said that the operative was due to redecorate the previous day but did not turn up. She said that her belongings had been left outside since August 2023 and were now damaged.
On 5 October 2023 the resident reported further problems with the flat roof in the utility room. This job was reraised. The resident chased this again on 25 October 2023.
On 16 October 2023, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She said that:
1. It had told her on 31 August 2023 that it would be carrying out the works and that she would need to move belongings so that the works could ensue. She had moved her belongings outside for the works to go ahead, but due to the length of time it had taken for the landlord to complete the works, they have been damaged due to poor weather.
2. She said that the works had been ongoing for 3 months and the landlord had not yet finished the works.
On 17 October 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint and said that it would respond by 31 October 2023.
On 1 November 2023, the resident chased a response to her complaint. When there was no progress, the resident asked on 11 November 2023 for the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord contacted the resident to discuss her complaint with her on 15 November 2023. On 29 November 2023 the resident wrote again to the landlord asking for an update on her complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 5 December 2023. It said that:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint.
2. It apologised for the delay in carrying out the repairs and for the impact this has had on the resident and her family. It conceded that it had asked the resident to move her belongings, but it did not accept that it had told her to put them outside.
3. It agreed to compensate her for the delays in carrying out the repairs. It calculated this as £100 per month which amounted to £500.
4. It said that it had arranged works for the 7, 8 and 12 December 2023.
5. It said that it does not compensate for belongings and that the resident should claim on her own home insurance.
On 21 December 2023, the resident asked again for the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said that:
1. The landlord had told her that it would complete the work by 1 September 2023. She believed that her belongings would not have been damaged if the work was completed on that day.
2. She wanted compensation for her damaged belongings and for the landlord to complete works to her downstairs toilet.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 27 December 2023 and said that she should allow 20 working days for a response.
On 24 January 2024 and 30 January 2024, the resident chased a response to her complaint. She reported mould growth in 2 of the children’s bedrooms and the bathroom and kitchen on 27 February 2024. The landlord completed a mould treatment on 28 February 2024.
On 5 March 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said that:
1. It apologised for the delays.
2. It would arrange for a structural surveyor to attend and inspect her home.
3. The damp and mould team would attend on 14 March 2024 to inspect the damp.
4. It would not award compensation for damage to her belongings.
5. It offered an extra £300 to the £500 already offered in compensation due to the further delays.
On 25 April 2024, the resident contacted this Service to report that the landlord had not raised the works as agreed in the complaint response and that the situation had not progressed. She asked that we investigate her complaint.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Scope of the investigation

In her correspondence with this Service, the resident has raised further matters that she had not included in her stage 1 and stage 2 complaint. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.    
The resident has also said that the ongoing issues in the property had affected her health. The Ombudsman does not seek to diminish the resident’s comments about her health; however, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on matters such as causation, liability and damages. Matters of personal injury, are not part of the complaints process, and better addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim. Should the resident wish to pursue this, she should, again, seek specialist legal advice.

Structural damage to her property causing damp and mould growth.

The landlord’s maintenance policy says that it will complete emergency repairs, such as a burst pipe or blocked toilet, within 24 hours. It will complete all other repairs within 14 working days. Planned works were outside of the responsive repairs’ priorities. Where extensive repairs were needed, the landlord will discuss these works with the resident, agree timescales and project manage work through to completion.
Its Damp and Mould policy says it will “undertake effective investigations and implement all reasonable remedial repair solutions and improvements to eradicate damp…It will proactively tackle/manage the causes of damp and mould through robust procedures, analysis and service delivery”
The resident raised structural problems with the property, leading to leaks and damp and mould in August 2022. As this had been caused by works to the adjoining property, it was right that the landlord liaised with the owner about cost of remedial works. However, the landlord has provided no further information in relation to this. The resident continued to report cracks to brickwork and leaks to the flat roof throughout 2023 and into 2024. While the repairs log shows that contractors attended to repair the roof, the resident reported further leaks some weeks later. It was only as part of the resident’s stage 2 complaint response in March 2023, that the landlord agreed to commission a structural survey, but by 24 April 2023 the resident had received no update in relation to this.
There was poor communication with the resident. The landlord’s maintenance policy says that “customers will be kept informed of progress with repairs, even when subsequent appointments are awaited”. However, this was not the resident’s experience. She had to repeatedly chase for updates on the works. The landlord did not let her know the reasons for delays and what it was trying to do to remedy them. Ultimately, she felt that the issue would be unresolved unless she raised a complaint.
The resident informed the landlord in January 2023 that she had asthma and arthritis, and that the damp and mould conditions in the property were presenting a significant risk to her health and that of her family. At this point she was reporting mould throughout her property. While the landlord continued to raise appointments for mould washes, it is not evident that a thorough inspection was undertaken to consider the potential structural problems caused by the works to the adjoining property. Resolving an issue such as mould and damp at a property requires a collaborative and investigative approach and where an issue is complex and unresolved, a holistic one. There is no evidence of attempts in this case to thoroughly discuss the issues with the resident, evaluate the situation, bring specialist contractors together or to approach the issue in any joined-up or solution-focussed way. There was no communication or expectation management by the landlord and the narrow and short-term focus, was not only far from economical, with repeated visits, but led to the issues remaining unresolved for an extended period.
The landlord’s response was poorly co-ordinated. There were repeat appointments for surveyors to inspect and report on the same works. The landlord did not communicate effectively with contractors and subcontractors as to the works required and the time necessary to complete the works. It did not always follow its own processes, resulting in confusion for landlord and its contractors about the works needed. Poor communication between the landlord and its contractors led to it giving the wrong instructions to contractors and closing jobs before it had completed them. Consequently, the works extended far beyond the agreed timeframes.
The landlord did not oversee and monitor the works and the conduct of contractors effectively. Its contractor code of conduct says that it will “inform you immediately if they are unable to keep the appointment” and “Inform you of the arrangements to complete the works if it has not been possible to complete the works in one visit.” However, on several occasions contractors did not attend for pre-arranged appointments without notice being given to the resident. On other occasions, contractors attended but left the job before they had completed it. This led to the resident being more involved in the repairs process than necessary, updating the landlord on the works that were still outstanding. This was unsatisfactory and avoidable.
The landlord could have prevented these delays with better knowledge and information management. Improved record keeping would have allowed it to track progress and hold contractors to account. Further, the landlord had informed this Service that the resident had only told them of her health needs in January 2023. However, the resident had been involved with the repairs service about disabled adaptations to her property since her tenancy began. The landlord would have been aware of her vulnerabilities, and it should have recorded this to ensure that all staff met its duties towards disabled persons under the Equality Act 2010. The landlord’s maintenance policy says that the landlord “will ensure that its maintenance services are flexible to the needs to vulnerable tenant….where additional flexibility to repairs priorities and services are required (the landlord) will take into account customer needs and the severity of the situation to vary the standard offered…(the landlord) maintains a record to identify residents with a particular vulnerability or disability in order to ensure maintenance services are effectively delivered to meet their needs on an ongoing basis.” The landlord has not provided evidence to show that it risk assessed the works considering the resident’s particular needs and that of her household or that it looked at what it could do to lessen the impact and disruption of the works on them.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that the landlord “is not liable for any damage to personal belongings, except in certain circumstances, for example where negligence on our part is proved. We will not insure residents’ personal belongings including furniture, and residents are responsible for this.” However, as the resident had alleged that the landlord was responsible for the damage to her belongings, and it should have referred this to its insurance team to consider.
In its complaints response the landlord apologised for the delays in completing the repairs and offered the resident £800 in compensation. However, it did not identify what it could do as “lessons learned” to prevent such failings going forward. It did not recognise the greater impact of the delays on the resident and her family due to their vulnerabilities, and the compensation was therefore not proportionate to the detriment experienced by the resident. Further, the resident had reported to this Service in April 2024. that she had not had an update from the landlord about the proposed works. This was more than a month after she had received the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. A landlord should ensure that agreed works are monitored by its complaints team through to completion and that the resident receives regular updates. The Ombudsman has asked the landlord for an update as to the repairs and the structural survey in this case but at the date of writing this report, no response has been received.
The Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration and orders the landlord to make an added payment of £500 in compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which says that an uplift can be applied where there are aggravating factors which would increase the impact on the resident. Examples of aggravating factors include the presence of young children and people with vulnerabilities in the household.
This Service has made a wider order under paragraph 54.f. of the Scheme in case 202229230 about the landlord’s approach to damp and mould repairs. The Ombudsman has not included any orders or recommendations in this report that would duplicate those included in the wider order.

Works to the resident’s downstairs toilet

There was also miscommunication about an order for a wash basin in the resident’s toilet. One surveyor had raised the works in August 2023, but the landlord gave the contractor the wrong job instructions. It then closed the job in error and when a second surveyor reviewed the works order, it was cancelled on the basis that it was a new installation and not a renewal. This raised the resident’s expectations unfairly and unnecessarily. She was further inconvenienced by appointments being raised to do the works, and then not going ahead.
A job had also been raised in August 2023 for the vinyl flooring in the resident’s toilet to be replaced as it was torn. The repair was raised a further 6 times over the following 2 months. It is not clear from the records provided whether these works had been completed. This was unsatisfactory. The landlord had a responsibility to keep the resident updated in relation to agreed works. It did not do so, and this was a failing.
Neither of these issues were specifically addressed by the landlord in its complaints response. The Ombudsman therefore finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of works to the resident’s downstairs WC and orders the landlord to pay her £250 in compensation.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints in 20 working days. Where it may need longer than the published timeframes to resolve, it will keep the resident informed and regularly updated on the reasons. It will also provide the Ombudsman’s details should the resident not agree to an extension for the response. It issued its stage 1 response 25 working days outside of its published timeframes, which was a failing.
The landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 when she had first requested this on 11 October 2023. She asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 21 December 2023. The landlord responded on 27 December 2023 to say that she would need to provide further information in support of her request. Having reviewed the landlord’s policy, it does not specify that it requires further information to escalate a complaint to stage 2. While the landlord may have provided this information in genuine error, the outcome was that the resident’s complaint escalation was unnecessarily delayed.
The resident had requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 due to her frustration at the landlord’s delay in providing a response at stage 1. However, there was a further delay of 29 days in responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 2. At neither stage did it keep the resident updated as to the delays and given an updated deadline for response and the landlord did not refer her to this Service. Overall, the landlord did not follow its complaints policy. This caused considerable distress to the resident who had to spent time and trouble chasing a response.
The Ombudsman therefore finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling and orders the landlord to pay the resident £300 in compensation.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of structural damage to her property causing damp and mould growth.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of works to her WC.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord will:
1. Arrange for a senior officer to write to the resident to apologise for the failings found in this report.
2. Pay the resident the amount of £1050 in compensation which includes:
  1. £750 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience, time and trouble because of the landlord’s service failings in its repairs response.
  2. £300 for the resident’s distress, inconvenience, time and trouble because of the landlord’s complaint handling failings.
3. If it has not done so already, pay the resident the £800 offered to her as redress following her stage 2 complaint.
4. Inform this service when this amount is paid to the resident. This amount should not be set off against any tenancy debt or arrears on the resident’s account.
5. Discuss with the resident a referral to its insurers regarding her damaged items.
Within 5 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to provide the resident and this Service with an update in relation to the works including a copy of the structural survey. If any of the works remain outstanding, the landlord is to give an estimate of when the works will be completed.