Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202345554)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345554

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s concerns raised in relation to the void inspection.
2. The subsequent repairs to:
  1. Damaged floor tiles which contained asbestos.
  2. Leak/roof issue.
  3. Cracked toilet.
  4. Cracked walls.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was an assured shorthold starter tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. She moved in on 13 January 2023. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The resident has a representative who made the complaint on her behalf. The resident and the representative shall both be referred to as the resident for the purpose of this report.
The landlord conducted an asbestos survey of the property in 2014. It said:
1. It had identified asbestos in the floor tiles of the living room and bedroom. The tiles were in good condition with no further action required. However, the landlord should consider removing the floor tiles if the tiles were disturbed by refurbishment works.
2. Asbestos was also identified in the kitchen and bathroom ceilings.
3. Asbestos was presumed/strongly presumed to be present in other areas of the property.
4. No further action was required and there was no significant health risk to residents if the asbestos was left undisturbed during maintenance work.
The resident completed an initial tenancy review on 17 January 2023 where she raised a number of concerns with the property. These included:
1. The cracked toilet.
2. Gaps in boxing under the sink.
3. Concerns about asbestos in the damaged floor tiles.
4. The living room window could open wide (and she had a young child).
5. Blocked bath.
6. Pipes under the radiator needed clipping up.
7. Damp in the kitchen cupboard.
The repair log showed the landlord referred (at least some of) the issues back to its voids team and raised an inspection and repair with its asbestos team for the damaged floor tiles.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 7 March 2023. She said:
1. Major work needed to be carried out in the property and the asbestos needed to be removed.
2. There were holes behind the toilet and tiles were loose in the bathroom.
3. There were cracks in the walls which should be plastered and decorated.
4. There was damp in both bedrooms.
5. The radiators were in poor condition and needed to be painted.
6. A bedroom socket needed to be screwed in properly.
7. The kitchen unit kickboards were loose and coming away.
8. The skirting boards needed to be painted.
The landlord partially upheld the complaint and sent its stage 1 complaint response on 9 August 2023, as follows:
1. It apologised for the delayed complaint response.
2. It said its voids team said the property was left in “very good condition” and to a “lettable standard” before the resident moved in.
3. Its voids team had attended and completed a repair to the toilet stack when the resident first moved in. The voids team then tried to contact the resident (unclear exactly when) to arrange an inspection of the issues raised but had been unsuccessful.
4. It offered £300 compensation made up of £100 for any inconvenience caused, and £200 for the delayed complaint response.
The resident escalated the complaint on 11 August 2023 and said the compensation was insufficient. She said the property had not been checked properly before she moved in. She raised further repair issues with the toilet seat, kitchen cupboard doors, the vinyl flooring the landlord had installed and with a flooring threshold/carpet gripper.
The landlord replied on 15 August 2023 and said its offer was reasonable and the resident should report the new repairs. The resident emailed the landlord 6 days later and said:
1. The property should not have been let when there was asbestos in the rooms.
2. There were cracked walls.
3. There was a leak in the bedroom.
4. The toilet was cracked, and the seat was loose.
5. The floor threshold was not replaced when it installed new vinyl flooring.
6. The kitchen cabinets were loose.
The landlord partially upheld the complaint and sent its stage 2 response on 4 March 2024. It apologised for the delayed response and said;
1. It completed a clear air test to ensure there were no asbestos issues and the damaged floor tiles were removed as requested.
2. There were no cracks in the walls.
3. There was no leak in the bedroom and water present in the loft was caused by condensation. It said it had tried to contact the resident to arrange further investigation of the roof but had been unsuccessful.
4. The voids team should have noticed the cracked toilet. The toilet was repaired but the resident remained unhappy with the repair. It had tried to contact and visit her where cards were left, but she had not responded.
5. Regarding the floor threshold, it said the resident had decided to put down her own laminate which it would not provide thresholds for.
6. It partially upheld the complaint and offered a further £250 compensation. £100 to apologise for the delays repairing the toilet crack, and £150 for the delayed complaint response.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaint process

The resident contacted this service on 13 March 2024 and forwarded the email she sent to the landlord on 21 August 2023.
The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 12 August 2024 to complete an inspection before a proposed mutual exchange. The landlord has since advised the mutual exchange was completed on 7 October 2024 and the resident has since moved to another property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

During the complaint journey, the resident raised concerns with both the landlord and this service in relation to the impact the situation had on the her mental and physical health. This was particularly in relation to living in a property which contained asbestos. The Ombudsman does not doubt these comments and empathises with the resident’s situation, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health.
The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
Throughout the course of the contact with both the landlord and the Ombudsman, the resident (and/or her mother) raised concerns about numerous issues with the property which included:
1. The living room window could open wide.
2. Loose tiles in the bathroom.
3. A gap in pipework boxing under the sink.
4. A bedroom socket not screwed in properly.
5. Issues with the floor thresholds.
6. The condition of:
  1. The radiators.
  2. Kitchen units.
  3. Skirting boards.
  4. The toilet seat.
The landlord responded to these points at various stages of its communication with the resident, but there is no evidence of all the points being raised consistently through the full complaints process. As a result, the landlord has not had a proper opportunity to investigate and resolve them through the operation of that process.
As a result, these matters are not considered further (reflected at paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme). Instead, this investigation is focused solely on the issues raised in the formal complaint which the landlord has had an opportunity to investigate and resolve in the first instance, namely the condition of the property when she moved in, the asbestos, cracked walls, and a leak which the resident believed caused damp.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute resolution principles are to:
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.

The condition of the property when the resident moved in.

The landlord’s maintenance policy says:
1. Every property should be in a good state of repair when a resident moves in.
2. Its ‘lettable standard’ in the maintenance policy sets out what residents can expect when they move in. It provides residents with a checklist and outlines the standard of repair and cleanliness required to meet the standard.
3. Emergency repairs should be fixed within 24 hours.
4. Non-emergency repairs should be competed within 15 working days.
5. Specialist or major repairs/works have a variable timescale.
6. If a customer misses a repair appointment the work order will be cancelled. Residents will need to re-book the repair.
7. The resident is responsible for repairs to:
  1. Toilet seats.
  2. Repairing internal doors including replacing locks and handles.
  3. Filling minor cracks.
  4. Unblocking baths, showers, and drains where the blockage is a result of anything which would not usually be flushed.
  5. Taking action to prevent and control condensation (includes mould treatment).
The resident’s occupancy agreement also confirms the repair responsibilities. However, it also says:
1. The resident must allow landlord staff and contractors into the property to complete maintenance, repairs and improvements. It will normally give at least 24 hours’ notice.
2. The landlord will provide suitable waterproof flooring to the kitchen and bathroom. However, the resident must keep other floors covered with an appropriate covering.
It is good practice for a landlord to maintain accurate, contemporaneous records on reports it receives, and its actions in response. This enables it to effectively manage any issues raised by its residents as well as fulfilling its obligations as a landlord. Neither the landlord nor the Ombudsman can properly investigate and respond to complaints without accurate and comprehensive records, and this could result in unfairness to the resident. Whilst the record keeping in this case was overall of a good standard, there were multiple repair appointments, particularly in relation to the voids team, where there was no record of what happened. It has therefore not been possible to fully understand what action was taken at every stage of the handling of the resident’s issues. This has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation.
The repair records showed the landlord raised void works before the resident moved in. However, it is not clear exactly what work was completed or when. The landlord did not provide photographs or the inspection report to show the property condition when the resident moved in. Although neither party disputes the voids team completed repairs to the toilet stack, there was also no evidence when this was completed.
The repair log showed the landlord referred the cracked toilet, boxing under the sink and blocked bath to its voids team after the initial tenancy review on 17 January 2023. It is not clear whether it also referred the issues with the blocked bath, radiator pipes, or damp in the cupboard. It was also not clear if or when it repaired the issues raised.
The voids surveyor said he tried to call the resident multiple times to inspect the issues, but she did not answer. Again, there are no records to show if or when he tried to call the resident. However, there was also no evidence the resident chased the repair issues on a daily or weekly basis with a high degree of urgency. Landlords are expected to respond to repair requests and complaints in a timely manner, but residents are also expected to use reasonable efforts to pursue such matters and maintain ownership where they consider there to be undue delays.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the property was not in the condition the resident hoped for when she moved in. It was not clear whether the resident viewed the property, however, she signed the sign up checklist on 5 January 2023 and agreed to become a tenant. The landlord’s voids team said the property was in “very good condition” and to a “lettable standard” before she moved in. The landlord acts on the expert advice of suitably qualified staff, in this case its voids surveyor. In the absence of expert evidence to contradict the surveyor’s we cannot conclude he was incorrect. There was no evidence to suggest the property did not meet the landlord’s lettable standard.
The landlord acknowledged its surveyor should have noticed the cracked toilet during the void process in its stage 2 complaint response. However, it would have been good practice for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations regarding property condition. It could also have reiterated which repairs she was responsible for in its complaint responses. There was no evidence it did so. No compensation was offered for failing to identify the cracked toilet in the void inspection. Considering the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, there was therefore service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns raised in relation to the void inspection. An order has been made that the landlord pay £50 compensation to reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble caused.

The landlord’s handling of subsequent repairs.

Damaged floor tiles which contained asbestos

The evidence showed the landlord raised an emergency repair with its asbestos team on 19 January 2023. This was reasonable given the resident’s concerns. The asbestos team attended promptly the next day and tested for airborne fibres. The test results were provided to this service and noted the outcome to be ‘satisfactory’ and recommended the damaged floor tiles be removed. The resident was informed she was not at any risk and could remain in the property. Despite this, the resident’s mother requested her daughter be decanted on 23 January 2023. The evidence showed the landlord considered the request, which was reasonable, and asked its asbestos team for further advice. The asbestos team said the work to remove the floor tiles could be completed whilst the resident was home and reiterated the test outcome. The landlord acts on the expert advice of suitably qualified staff. After the resident raised her concerns, the landlord arranged for the property to be tested, managed her expectations, and considered the decant request. It therefore acted reasonably in its response to the resident’s concerns.
Repair records showed the landlord raised the repair to remove the floor tiles on 1 February 2023 with a target date of 8 February 2023. However, the landlord did not remove the tiles until the end of April/early May 2023. The evidence showed the delays were initially caused by the fact the landlord and its asbestos team could not contact the resident. In an email to the resident’s former landlord sent on 7 February 2023, her mother said her daughter’s phone was damaged. However, it is not clear exactly when her phone was damaged and there was no evidence the resident informed the landlord. The evidence showed the landlord then unsuccessfully tried to call the resident to arrange repair appointments on 9 and 10 February 2023.
There was no evidence the resident chased the repairs until 21 February 2023. She requested a decant whilst the work to remove the tiles was completed. The landlord managed her expectations and re-confirmed its position regarding a decant in emails sent on 28 February 2023 and 2 March 2023. This was a reasonable approach to take given the outcome of the airborne fibre test and advice from its asbestos team.
The repair log noted the resident refused an appointment to remove the floor tiles on 10 March 2023. It is not clear why this was or what happened after this date. However, there was no further action until the landlord’s contractor scheduled to complete other repairs chased an update on 14 April 2023.
The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to monitor the situation and works order raised and ensure the work was completed in accordance with its policies. There was no evidence it did so in this 5-week period. The landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is responsible for the floor tile removal and repairs, regardless of whether it outsources the work to a contractor. It is not clear whether the resident got her phone repaired. However, the landlord did have an email address for her. With that in mind, it should have done more to chase the resident to get the tiles removed, which was a failing.
After the floor tiles were removed the landlord replaced the flooring in the living room and bedroom on 19 May 2023. The repair log noted this was normally the tenant’s responsibility and the delays were caused by its inability to contact the resident. The evidence showed overall the landlord was proactive in its overall handling of the concerns with the asbestos, and the removal of the damaged floor tiles. The landlord could have tried to contact the resident by email, and there were delays. However, again there was no evidence the resident pursued the matter or maintained ownership during the 5 weeks of delays. The landlord did not need to install new flooring for the resident. Taking into account the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the repair to the floor tiles.

Leak/roof issue.

The landlord’s repair records showed it raised an emergency repair for a leak from above which had caused damp to the bedroom ceiling on 20 January 2023. The repair records noted the landlord attended promptly within its policy timescale but there was no access to the property.
The landlord raised a further repair on 30 January 2023. The repair was closed due to no access on 20 February 2023. However, the repair log is not clear as its voids team noted it “checked the roof space and found water had dripped on the insulation within the loft which could be from condensation due to no air vents in the roof tiles.” It also said “there may be water ingress from the roof ridge tiles and scaffolding was required.” It was not clear when the voids team attended. As with the other issues, the landlord could not contact the resident by phone around this time.
After the resident chased the issue on 21 February 2023 the landlord contacted its repairs contractor. The landlord’s repair log noted it promptly attended on 23 February 2023 but its repairs team said a key was needed a key for the fire exit. The resident agreed to provide the key in an email sent to the landlord on 28 February 2023. The landlord said the water (which she believed was a leak) was condensation in its stage 2 response on 4 March 2024. There was no evidence to show if the landlord attended to carry out further inspections or repairs. However, it was then not clear what happened with this repair. There was no evidence the resident reported further issues until the repair was re-raised on 27 April 2023 and she also said there was a roof issue in her tenancy review on 5 May 2023.
Contractor notes showed the landlord attended on 22 May 2023 but required scaffolding to install roof vents. It then tried to contact the resident on 25 May 2023 but was unsuccessful. It was not clear if the landlord kept the resident updated however the repair was closed in August 2023 after further failed appointments and no access.
It was not clear what happened with the repair after the resident agreed to provide a key to the fire exit or whether a repair took place. However, the landlord’s surveyor did not find any damp/leak issues when the property survey was completed in August 2024 prior to the mutual exchange.
The evidence showed the same issues of failed appointments and difficulty contacting the resident. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to monitor the roof repair and ensure any required roof repairs were completed. Whilst the resident did not chase the leak/roof issue, the landlord should have done more. There was therefore service failure in its handling of repairs and a further order of £50 compensation is made for the inconvenience caused.

Cracked toilet.

The resident mentioned a large crack around the toilet in the initial tenancy review on 17 January 2023. The landlord raised repairs promptly on 19 January 2023 and passed it to its voids team. It is not clear what happened to this repair, however there was no evidence of the resident chasing the repair until 21 February 2023 when she mentioned the toilet was cracked and had a broken seat. A week later the landlord said a contractor would contact her to arrange to repair the toilet, which was reasonable.
The evidence suggested the contractor tried to arrange the toilet repair but was unsuccessful. The landlord raised another repair for the toilet crack on 14 March 2023 which was completed on 27 March 2023. This was in line with its routine repair policy. The evidence showed the landlord tried to complete the repair straight away. The landlord’s offer of £100 in compensation for the delays in repairing the cracked toilet was therefore reasonable. This demonstrated that the landlord took the complaint seriously and sought to ‘put things right’ in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. The amount of compensation offered was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and a finding of reasonable redress is made.

Cracked walls.

The resident and her mother raised issues with cracks in the walls. Neither party provided evidence to confirm how serious the cracks were. In the stage 2 complaint response the landlord said there were no cracks. The tenancy agreement says the resident is responsible to repair small cracks or damage to plasterwork. It is not clear whether the landlord highlighted this to the resident, however it would have been good practice for it to draw this to her attention. This would have managed her expectations in the first instance. There was therefore service failure, and a further order of £25 compensation is made for any inconvenience caused.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy in use at the time (September 2022) provided a two-stage complaints procedure, which specifies that it should respond to a stage one complaint within 10 working days, and a final stage complaint within 15 working days. If it is unable to meet either of these timeframes, it should keep the resident informed and provide regular updates.
In this case the resident’s mother complained on 7 March 2023, but the stage 1 complaint response was not sent until 9 August 2023. This was 107 working days later and significantly over the policy timeframe. This was an unacceptable delay and there was also no evidence the resident was regularly updated during this time. The stage 1 response also failed to respond to all the individual issues raised in any detail. However, the landlord acknowledged the delay, apologised, and offered £200 compensation.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 August 2023 to escalate the complaint. The stage 2 complaint response was not sent until 4 March 2024. This was 143 working days later. This was another unacceptable delay and there was again no evidence the resident was regularly updated during this time. The landlord offered an additional £150 compensation to apologise for the further delays in its stage 2 response.
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. While the landlord did acknowledge some failings and made some attempt to put things right, it failed to fully address the detriment to the resident and the offer it made was not proportionate to the failings identified. The landlord’s delays meant the resident’s complaint was not resolved at the earliest opportunity. This meant that the matter became unnecessarily protracted, and caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord’s compensation policy used at the time said it could offer up to £500 for serious or prolonged service failure. The offer therefore was not proportionate to the period of delay and the length of time the resident therefore experienced before they could bring their complaint to this service. As a result, a finding of maladministration is made and an additional sum of £100 is awarded to recognise this significant period of delay and inconvenience caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns raised in relation to the void inspection.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the subsequent repairs to the damaged floor tiles.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the subsequent repairs to the leak/roof.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the subsequent repairs to the cracked toilet.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the subsequent repairs to cracked walls.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident (and not offset against money owed) the £550 compensation previously offered in its complaint responses (if it has not already done so). It should also pay the resident a further £225 compensation made up of:
  1. £50 for its handling of the resident’s concerns raised in relation to the void inspection.
  2. £50 for its handling of the leak/roof issue.
  3. £25 for its handling of the cracked walls.
  4. £100 for its complaint handling.
2. Provide evidence of compliance with the above order to this service.

Recommendation

The landlord should consider using all available contact methods to contact residents.