Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202347781)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347781

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

31 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the resident’s bathroom.
2. Repairs to the resident’s living room ceiling.
3. Repairs to the resident’s kitchen.
4. Kitchen replacement.
5. Exterior holes leading to pest infestation.
6. Damp and mould in the bathroom.
7. The complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant in a 3 bedroom house. His tenancy began in November 2021, and he lives in the property with his partner and adult children. He suffered from a brain aneurysm and his partner lives with a brain tumour. Another member of the household lives with severe asthma.
Shortly after moving to the property, the resident began raising concerns with the landlord. He raised concerns about the condition of kitchen cupboards in January 2022 and said there was a stench “almost like” rat urine from them. He raised concerns about the upstairs bathroom, and leaking toilet. He also told the landlord about the vulnerabilities in the property, and he had moved through the local authority under a medical transfer. The resident then continued to raise his concerns into March 2022.
On 30 August 2022, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. He raised the issues he had told the landlord about in January 2022. He also raised concerns about the rusted upstairs bathroom flooring, damp on the bathroom ceiling, rat holes outside the property where they entered his him. He told the landlord he moved into the property with all of these being major issues. It told him that it was unsure why it had not repaired the upstairs bathroom and flooring left unchanged when he signed the tenancy, and it would investigate this. He said it did not consider the vulnerable residents within the property and the issues caused a health and safety hazard for them.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident on 13 September 2022. It provided information on the actions it had taken and intended to address his concerns between January 2022 and September 2022.
The resident asked the landlord for an update on the complaint on 27 September 2022 and said he had not received a response. He also asked to escalate his complaint. It provided No stage 2 response.
The resident approached the Ombudsman on 2 occasions in March 2024 and explained his concerns since moving into the property. He said he had repeatedly tried to address these concerns with the landlord and the situation remailed unresolved. He said the landlord had either consistently ignored the issues or addressed them inadequately. He wanted the landlord to resolve the repair issues as it ignored his complaints. It had also ignored the local authority and done nothing other than attempt to gaslight him or conduct minor repairs to hide the major issues.
On 4 April 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He said it was imperative that it took actionable steps to rectify the issues. He told it that mere dispatching of contractors without tangible results was inadequate.
The resident told the Ombudsman on 3 occasions between May 2024 and September 2024 that he had not received a response from the landlord. The issues remained unresolved. He raised the impact on the household due to their vulnerabilities.
The landlord provided a complaint response on 10 September 2024. It said this was a stage 1 response, but later in the response said this was a stage 2 response. It apologised for the delay in its response and upheld the resident’s complaint. It apologised for not undertaking the repairs to his bathroom and block the burrowing homes in a prompt manner, following its repairs policy. It said it had raised works to address the bathroom repairs, and filling the holes. Its operative had attended on 10 September 2024 and did not smell rat urine in the cupboards. As such it was not upholding this aspect of his complaint. It offered the resident compensation of £175 in compensation broken down as:
1. £50 for the service failure.
2. £100 for the upset and inconvenience caused.
3. £25 for the delay in responding to his complaint.
The resident disputed the landlord’s response with the Ombudsman on 11 September 2024. He said the issues had been ongoing for over a year and he had reported several of the issues over 2 years ago.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 18 October 2024. It apologised for the delay in its response and said it was not upholding the resident’s complaint. It explained its findings and said it had issued a stage 1 response on 16 October 2024. It explained the actions it had taken around his concerns and said it completed all remedial works on 30 September 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised issues in relation to a leak following his concerns with a crack in his living room ceiling. He said the leak aligned with a previously reported crack from 2022 which the landlord considered minor and purely decorative. He said this now appeared to be incorrect, and he also raised concerns about a leak on 6 November 2024 causing damage to his belongings. He further raised concerns about severe damp and mould issues within the ceiling structure, and the implication of ceiling cracks within the span of 1 year.
Paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint where it has not exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints process. This is unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure in relation to that issue. There is no evidence that the landlord has had the opportunity to consider the concerns raised about the leak in November 2024 and the further damp and mould issues or that they exhausted its internal procedure. As such we will not consider these issues in this investigation.
The resident has said that the landlord made assurances to him that it would replace the kitchen when he moved in. He said this contributed to him signing the tenancy agreement. The concerns described by the resident suggest he believes there was a misrepresentation, and this led to him accepting the tenancy. The Ombudsman cannot decide whether the landlord gave false or misleading information about the tenancy. This is because this relates to a contractual dispute and requires a legal decision better made by the courts. This report will investigate and review any complaints about the landlord’s actions that have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process and are within jurisdiction.
The resident has also raised concerns about the landlord breaching legislation. He told us that it had failed in its duty to maintain safe and habitable conditions for residents, particularly those with disabilities. He said under the Housing Act 1985 and the Equality Act 2010 that the landlord has a responsibility to make reasonable adjustments and ensure the health, safety, and accessibility of essential facilities for disabled residents. We are unable to determine if there has been a breach of such legislation as these are matters for a court to decide upon. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on such matters. This investigation will consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaints and whether it followed its policies and acted reasonably in response.

Repairs to the resident’s bathroom.

The resident raised concerns with his leaking upstairs toilet, rotten upstairs bathroom floor in an email on 3 January 2022. In 2024 he raised concerns about an internal leak, unlevelled bathroom floor and persistent water pooling in the bathroom. The landlord addressed the works it had looked to complete in 2022 in response to the resident’s concerns in its 2024 complaint response. As such the Ombudsman will consider these issues within this investigation.
The landlord’s maintenance policy states it will complete routine repairs within 15 working days. It says that repairs such as minor plumbing repairs and dripping or leaking taps, or shower units are none emergency repairs.
The landlord’s repair records provide a description of a work request including the resident’s toilet, and state that it raised the request on 19 January 2022 and responded on 7 February 2022. As the resident told it about the required repairs on 3 January 2022, there was an 11 working day delay in raising the necessary works to the bathroom and this was inappropriate and not in keeping with its policy.
As the resident reported the concern on 3 January 2022, the landlord should have completed the repair by 24 January 2022. The invoice provided to the landlord for the works also confirmed it did not attend until 7 February 2022. This represents a delay of 10 working days. Although the evidence suggests there was no need for a repair, it failed to meet the timeframes within its policy. However, there does not appear to have been any detriment to the resident as it did not need to complete a repair, and the toilet remained in working order.
The resident provided the Ombudsman with an email reporting concerns with a tap on 24 March 2022 to the landlord. However, it is unclear whether this was the bathroom tap. The landlord’s records also do not mention the resident’s report of 24 March 2022. This raised questions about the landlord’s record keeping.
It is important for a landlord to keep accurate records of all repair requests. This is to ensure it has a log to enable it to take appropriate action in a prompt manner. Failure to do so can lead to failings in a landlord’s service provision. As the resident reported the repair on 24 March 2022, the landlord should have completed the works by 7 April 2022. It did not do so until 31 May 2022, a delay of 36 working days.
The landlord has not demonstrated that it explained the delay to the resident, and this was unreasonable. This also raises questions with its communication. The landlord’s records show that it raised another job on 14 May 2022 due to a leak from basin taps and pipework. It is unclear whether this was in relation to the report of 24 March 2022, or a new report. The landlord attended on 31 May 2022 completed some works to the bathroom and its contractor said that everything was “okay”. The resident explained to the landlord in an email on 22 August 2022 that its contractor attended on 31 May 2022. They said that the tap caused the water under the toilet and changed the one tap to two as it was causing the leak, but the leak remained ongoing.
In relation to the bathroom flooring, the landlord’s records say that the resident reported that the floorboards were rotten and needed replacing. It raised a job on 14 May 2022, and its records say that it attended to review this on 31 May 2022 but there was no access for the floor works. It said in its response in September 2022 that it left the resident a voicemail in May 2022 around the lack of access for works to his kitchen cabinet and the rat holes but received no response. It is unclear whether this also related to the lack of access around the bathroom flooring reported in its repair records.
The landlord then completed a survey on 24 June 2022. The survey states that it was a “preinspection of damp and mould in the bathroom”. The survey says that the resident explained that the flooring was dirty and grimy. He had since cleaned it, and the landlord said it did not need to take further action which he agreed, as said in the inspection report. It explained in its response of 18 October 2024 that it surveyed the bathroom on 24 June 2022 and determined it did not need to complete any further work to the floor. It reasonably relied on the advice of its operative in informing its actions.
The landlord’s records then show that following this. It received no further reports in relation to the bathroom between June 2022 and January 2024, a period of around 18 months. It was reasonable for it to conclude that there were no further issues. In February 2024 it received a report and inspected on 19 February 2024. The inspection found that there was a leak from the bathroom which caused the plaster to bow and the ceiling to become soft.
The landlord identified concerns with the seal to the toilet and hand basin and said the toilet was leaking. Its records show that it raised the necessary works on 20 February 2024, but it did not complete this until 28 March 2024.It advised in its records that the delay was due to the resident cancelling the initial appointment scheduled for 5 March 2024. As such the Ombudsman finds that the delay was reasonable and outside of the landlord’s control. The landlord had also reasonably identified that the residents also had access to another toilet in the property.
Within his stage 2 escalation, the resident raised his concerns with creaking of floorboards and water pooling in the bathroom. On 28 May 2024, the landlord’s surveyor explained to him that this was typical for a property of its age and construction and did not require remedial work. This was a reasonable response from the landlord. It had inspected in June 2022 and found no concerns that required work. It also had not received any further reports in 18 months.
In summary, the resident raised concerns around his bathroom in both 2022 and 2024. There were delays in it taking the necessary action, an issue with its record keeping and concerns with its communication. It tried to inspect the floorboards in May 2022 but could not access the property. It surveyed in June 2022 and concluded it did not need to complete any works. It then did not receive any further reports for a period of 18 months, as such it was reasonable for it to believe there were no further problems. The resident also raised concerns about creaking floorboards in 2024, and the landlord appropriately explained what it believed to be the reason for this. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it will consider paying compensation if it failed to meet its own service targets and not acted reasonably. The compensation would reflect the level of inconvenience, disturbance, stress, or annoyance suffered and the extent to which it was directly responsible. It would also consider the time taken to resolve the issue.
The landlord has offered the resident compensation of £150 to put things right. It said this was also for its failure to fill the holes outside of his property. Its compensation offer aligns with a medium level of inconvenience caused to the resident according to its compensation policy. Whilst this goes some way in addressing its failings, the Ombudsman does not believe this goes far enough. This is because it is unclear how much of the offer was in relation to the bathroom.
There were also other failings in the landlord’s handling of the matter it did not recognise and as such does not adequately reflect the annoyance and inconvenience to the resident. For example, although it referenced its actions in 2022 in its latest response, it failed to recognise the delays in raising and completing the repairs in 2022. It also did not recognise its communication failings around those repairs. Based on this, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident added compensation.

Repairs to the resident’s living room ceiling.

The resident’s bathroom is above the living room. The landlord’s repair records show that the resident first reported concerns in relation to cracks and a hole in the living ceiling in 2024. The landlord’s records show that it raised a job on 7 February 2024, around this. It also completed an inspection of the property on 19 February 2024 which identified there was a leak from the bathroom causing plaster to bow and become soft to the ceiling. It said that the ceiling required taking down to the corner of the living room, boarding, skimming, and decorating.
The landlord then raised a job for this however, the resident cancelled the job it had raised for 5 March 2024. As such, it did not complete works to the ceiling until 28 March 2024. From the evidence provided, the delay in completing the works was outside of the landlord’s control.
The landlord’s inspection found that the crack in the living room ceiling was purely cosmetic and caused by foot traffic from upstairs. At the time, the landlord reasonably relied on the evidence and opinion of its operative, in informing its approach and we consider this to be reasonable. However, the landlord could have done more to explain how it arrived at its decision. For example, it could have explained the investigations it had completed which allowed it to decide the cracks were cosmetic. This may have allowed it to reassure the resident appropriately.
The resident then reported another leak in August 2024, and the landlord’s records show it raised an emergency job. The records state that there were streaks on the ceiling and it looked like a leak from the bathroom above. The resident told the Ombudsman on 27 January 2025 that it resolved the leak in October 2024. Given the almost 6 month gap between the inspection, and the previous reports of a crack, there is no evidence that the matters were related.
The resident then raised on 11 September 2024 in his stage 2 response to the landlord that the issue had been ongoing for over a year as his downstairs living room ceiling had broken. He said he had also raised the issue in 2022, and that rather than addressing the leak after raising it again, it chose to cover the hole instead. However, we have seen no evidence that the resident raised the matter in 2022.
The resident further raised concerns with another leak from the ceiling 2 months later. He said that a leak had occurred from the cracks in the living room ceiling that day, and water was pouring through the ceiling. He told us on 27 January 2025 that the landlord completed works to the ceiling in November 2024. As these events occurred after the end of the landlord’s complaints process, the resident will need to make a separate complaint to the landlord as previously explained. This is because these matters did not exhaust the landlord’s complaint’s process.
In summary, the resident reported concerns with a crack and hole in his living room ceiling. The landlord raised works to address this, but these did not go ahead due to circumstances outside of the landlord’s control. It completed an inspection and found that the crack was due to foot traffic from above. The landlord relied on this to inform its approach, and this was a reasonable position to take. The resident reported another leak in August 2024 and there were streaks on the resident’s ceiling. However, due to the 6 month gap between the inspection and leak, there is no evidence that the leak and crack were related. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration.

Repairs to the resident’s kitchen.

The resident told the landlord in January 2022 that he had moved to the property due to a medical move. He had also advised about the vulnerabilities of the family. He raised concerns about the kitchen handles and the difficulties they caused his partner. He also raised concerns about a lack of shower seat in the bathroom. The landlord should have considered at this point whether it needed to involve the Occupational Therapist (OT).
The evidence shows that the parties did not discuss the involvement of an OT until 2 months later in March 2022. However, this was in relation to a dispute about the repairs needed to the property.
It is important for the landlord to note that it had an obligation under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act). Its suggestion that the resident obtain an OT assessment demonstrates a consideration of its obligations under the Act to allow for reasonable adjustments. However, it could have done more to support the resident in obtaining the assessment. For example, it could have signposted him to the local authority, or his GP to help him with requesting the service.
As it did with the bathroom, the landlord delayed in its handling of the repairs to the resident’s kitchen following his email on 3 January 2022. To summarise, the landlord did not raise the works to the kitchen until 19 January 2022, a delay of 11 working days. From the date the resident raised her request, it should have completed the works by 24 January 2022 in line with its policy. It then did not complete the works until 7 February 2022, a delay of 10 working days.
The resident then raised further concerns about the kitchen to the landlord in an email on 21 March 2022 and it did not show that it raised the works until 14 May 2022. This was a delay of over 1 month and was unreasonable. The landlord was unable to access the resident’s property to complete repairs to the kitchen cabinets on 31 May 2022 and left him a voicemail. The landlord said this included works for access holes in its stage 1 complaint response in 2022.
The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord took a reasonable step in leaving a voicemail in relation to the missed appointment. However, due to the potential health and safety concerns, it would have been reasonable for it to follow up further. This was especially important given the vulnerabilities in the household, and potential for infection from any rat urine.
The landlord completed an inspection of the property 4 months after it tried to carry out works to the resident’s property in May 2022. During the inspection, it said that it could not smell the rat urine from the cabinets. The landlord appears to have relied on the advice from the inspection in dealing with the issue and this was reasonable. However, it is unclear from the evidence whether the landlord ever took any action around the holes found by the resident. If the landlord felt it did not need to take any action in relation to the holes, it should have explained this to the resident. It has not shown that it has, and this was unreasonable.
The landlord’s records show that the resident raised further concerns with his kitchen in 2023, but these were in relation to other repairs such as his kitchen window, and tiles in the kitchen. The evidence shows that it completed these repairs within the timescales in its policy. There is however no evidence that he raised any further concerns about the kitchen cupboards at this time. He explained to the Ombudsman on 27 January 2025 that he raised further concerns but could not access the necessary system to evidence this.
The resident then raised concerns in relation to his kitchen cabinets again in April 2024. He also raised issues about a lack of handles making them unsuitable for disabled residents. He again raised concerns with the smell of urine.
Although the landlord had previously explained that it needed an OT report in 2022, it has not demonstrated that it followed up on this with the resident. Whilst it had no obligation to do so, as the onus is on the resident to provide this, it would have been a customer focused approach. This would have allowed it to identify how it could support the household appropriately.
To address the concerns raised about the property, the landlord appropriately completed a disrepair survey on 28 May 2024. The survey made no recommendations around the resident’s concerns with the kitchen. It said that the resident did not suspect any recent/ current activity in the kitchen. He however believed there were faint smells that he suspected were coming from behind the kitchen cabinets. The resident’s concerns remained after the inspection, but we have seen no evidence that he continued to raise them with the landlord following the survey.
The evidence provided shows that the landlord however attended the resident’s property 3 months later. It said in its complaint response in September 2024 that its operative attended and found no smell of urine from the cupboards. They also said that the “kitchen doors” did have handles at the top and this was a part of their design. It appropriately relied on the evidence of its operative in informing its decision. The landlord’s repair records provided to this service however do not mention this visit and this raises questions with the landlord’s record keeping.
In summary, there were delays with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns with the kitchen, but it did however complete the necessary repairs. It advised that the resident needed an OT assessment, but did not provide any support around obtaining this such as signposting. It also did not follow up around this or the repairs after the missed appointment in May 2022 despite the vulnerabilities in the household. It completed a disrepair inspection in May 2024 which made no recommendations around the kitchen. Its operative also found no concerns with the kitchen cabinets during a visit in September 2024. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.
The landlord did not offer any compensation to the resident around this concern. It failed to recognise the level of inconvenience the situation caused the resident. It also failed to consider the time taken to rectify the issue. In line with its policy, and our guidance, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident added compensation for the failings identified.

Kitchen replacement.

It is important to note that a kitchen replacement is an improvement, and not a repair. Any such works would usually form part of a landlord’s planned improvement programmes. A landlord is not bound to complete an improvement to the property, and in relation to the kitchen it must make sure that it is less than 20 years old. The landlord appropriately told the resident when it would replace the units in communication with the resident.
The resident believed that the kitchen, units, and cabinets in the property required replacement. The landlord told him that it would not replace them until 2026. It however appropriately completed necessary repairs to them. It however has not shown that it explained why it would not replace the cabinets and units to the resident or how it arrived at this decision. This raises concerns with the landlord’s communication.
In summary, the landlord was not bound to complete an improvement to the property. It however failed to explain the reason it had decided it would not replace the kitchen and units to the resident. It also did not explain how it arrived at its decision. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was a service failure and orders that the landlord pay the resident added compensation.

Exterior holes leading to pest infestation.

The landlord became aware of the issues in March 2022 and delayed in raising the repairs. It then failed to follow up when it could not access the property. The resident explained in his complaint in August 2022 that he chased the landlord around the issue. He also raised the matter as a concern within the complaint. It completed an inspection in September 2022, over 3 months after it could not access the resident’s property. The inspection found holes, but no evidence of rats within the property or any Housing Health and Safety Rating System concerns (HHSRS).
On 28 January 2025, the resident provided the Ombudsman with an email dated 8 November 2023 from the local authority. The email states that there was a lot of evidence in the loft of the property of rats. They asked the resident to contact the landlord as a matter of urgency to resolve the holes. The evidence shows that he emailed the landlord on 21 December 2023, over a month later asking it to act as soon as possible. He explained it had not attended to conduct any work since he raised the issue and complaint in 2022. The local authority attended weekly but said that the matter would continue until it sealed all gaps outside the property.
The landlord then completed a survey on 28 May 2024, 5 months after the asked it to act. The survey found that it needed to complete works to fill external holes to the resident’s property as they were potential access points for pests. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord did raise works to rectify the issue in May 2022 but there were issues with it accessing the property to complete the works. However, the landlord could have followed up to ensure it completed the works in a reasonable timeframe.
It is unclear whether the resident continued to report concerns about the pests between September 2022 and November 2023. As explained previously, there was an issue around the provision of necessary evidence. However, the evidence provided shows that the resident informed it of the urgency of the situation in December 2023. It completed a survey around the matter 5 months later, following the resident’s escalation request to stage 2, and did not complete the necessary repairs for a further 4 months following the survey. This was unreasonable.
It then said in its stage 1 response of September 2024 that it completed works to fill the holes on 10 September 2024. From the evidence provided, the resident says that he chased the matter in June 2022 and evidenced she raised it as part of her complaint in August 2022. Following the landlord’s survey in September 2022, and it raised the necessary works. Its records show that it completed works raised by the survey on 7 October 2022, but it is unclear what works it completed as it also raised works for a drainage survey. The evidence also suggest that the holes remained based on the survey in May 2024.
There is then a gap in communication following the stage 1 response in September 2022, and December 2023. However, the landlord was aware of the holes in the resident’s property and has not shown that it took any definitive action to resolve the matter until September 2024. As such there was a delay of 2 years between September 2022 and September 2024 to fill the holes and this was unreasonable. During this period, the resident involved the local authority’s pest control team to assist with the matter. However, there is no evidence that she chased the matter with the landlord for a period of 15 months.
In summary, there were delays in the landlord raising the initial works to address the holes in the property. It then failed to follow up after it could not gain access to the property. Its actions demonstrate that it did not consider the vulnerabilities of the household in relation to the pests, as there was a delay of over 2 years in rectifying the issue. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.
Although the landlord offered the resident compensation of £150 to put things right, there were also other failings in its handling of the matter it did not recognise. For example, it did not acknowledge the length of the delay in filling the holes or follow up to ensure it completed the works. It said its offer was also for its failure to complete the repairs to the bathroom. Its compensation offer aligns with a medium level of inconvenience caused to the resident according to its compensation policy. Whilst this goes some way in addressing its failings, the Ombudsman does not believe this goes far enough. It is also unclear how much of the offer was in relation to the exterior holes.
Based on the additional failings, its offer does not adequately reflect the annoyance and inconvenience to the resident. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident added compensation.

Damp and mould in the bathroom.

The landlord’s damp and mould policy say that it will:
1. Undertake effective investigations and implement all reasonable remedial repair solutions to eradicate damp, including managing and controlling condensation.
2. Ensure that residents have access to, and it provides them with comprehensive advice and guidance on managing and controlling damp and condensation.
3. Proactively tackle or manage the causes of damp and mould through robust procedures, analysis, and service delivery.
The resident told the Ombudsman that he reported the issue of damp and mould in the bathroom 2 years ago. From the evidence provided to us, the landlord completed an inspection of the resident’s bathroom in June 2022. The inspection report however said that it did not find any damp or mould at the time of the survey. The surveyor provided the resident with general advice around managing mould which he reportedly found helpful.
The resident then raised concerns around damp and mould in the bathroom in August 2022 when he raised his complaint. The landlord explained the findings of its inspection and that it provided him with guidance and advice. The survey completed in September 2022 also found that no damp, mould, or leak at the time of the survey. The landlord relied on the evidence of its operatives at the time and the Ombudsman finds this reasonable. Its actions were in keeping with its policy around effective investigations and provision of advice and guidance.
The evidence then does not show any further reports between September 2022 and March 2024. The resident then raised concerns with damp and mould again in April 2024. The disrepair inspection completed in May 2024 found black mould spores to the bathroom ceiling. It believed this was due to condensation caused by excess humidity in the bathroom and said it needed to carry out a mould wash. There was then a delay in completing the mould wash between 28 May 2024 and 9 September 2024 according to the landlord’s records.
The landlord’s records explain that there were resource issues, but it has not demonstrated that it explained this to the resident. This raises concerns with the landlord’s communication. The lack of explanation or update, and the delay of over 3 months to complete the mould wash was unreasonable. Although the inspection report identified that the mould was not a HHSRS concern, it should have considered whether there was an impact on the household vulnerabilities. This is because the resident had told the landlord that a member of the household lived with respiratory difficulties. The failure to show that it considered this was inappropriate.
In summary, the landlord acted in accordance with its policy in 2022 around the resident’s concerns. It identified damp and mould in the bathroom in 2024, but failed to take proactive considerations around how it could complete the works in a prompt manner. This was especially important given the vulnerabilities in the household. Its failure to act promptly led to a delay of 3 months and it also did not show that it communicated a reason for the delay to the resident or keep her updated. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was a service failure. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident added compensation.

The complaint.

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It states it will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. The resident raised his complaint on 30 August 2022 and the landlord responded on time on 13 September 2022. This was appropriate and in line with its policy.
The resident provided the Ombudsman with evidence on 27 January 2025 that he tried to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 27 September 2022. He emailed from a different email address to request the escalation. He advised that he did not receive a response. Whilst we appreciate that using a different email address may have confused matters, the landlord should have been inquisitorial in its approach. The failure to do so and in turn not, provide a stage 2 response was unreasonable.
The resident then approached the Ombudsman in March 2024. Following our intervention, he asked the landlord to escalate his complaint of 30 August 2022 to stage 2 on 4 April 2024. Due to a lack of response, we asked the landlord to either provide a stage 2 response, or deal with the request as a new complaint. This was due to the 20 month timeframe between the stage 1 response and escalation.
The landlord’s internal notes suggest it treated the matter as a stage 2 complaint. However, due to the delay in its response the resident asked that the landlord escalate his complaint on 8 May 2024. It provided a response on 10 September 2024. The response said at the top that it was a stage 1 response, but later in the body of its response, said it was a stage 2 response. It also provided a different reference number to the complaint. This was unclear and confusing.
If the landlord’s intention was to treat the resident’s concerns as a new complaint, it should have explained this to him. It has not demonstrated that it did so, and this was inappropriate and raises further concerns with its communication. The landlord however provided a second response, and as such, we consider it reasonable to treat this response as a stage 1 response.
As the resident raised his complaint on 4 April 2024 the landlord’s stage 1 response was due on 18 April 2024. This means between 18 April 2024, and 10 September 2024, there was a delay of over 4 months in the landlord’s response. It has also not shown that it kept the resident updated on the delay or made him aware of the delay.
The landlord then provided a stage 2 response on 18 October 2024. The resident requested his escalation on 8 May 2024. This means that between 8 May 2024 and 18 October 2024, there was a total delay of over 5 months in it providing a stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint. Within the stage 2 response, it relied on evidence of its handling of the resident’s earlier complaint in 2022 to justify its decision. It did not reflect and acknowledge its failings across the 2 years the matter had been ongoing. This was inappropriate, and the confusion in the landlord’s approach to the complaint handling, raises questions with its investigation into the resident’s complaint.
In summary, the landlord’s approach to its complaint handling was confusing. It delayed in the provision of its responses causing delays in the process. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration. The landlord has offered the resident compensation of £25 around its complaint handling failings. This is due to the delay in its response. However, the Ombudsman does not consider this to be reasonable.
The landlord offered the resident compensation around its failings. Its offer of £25 ranks within a medium impact to the resident for its failing. However, we do not consider the level of compensation awarded reflects the level of delays caused in resolving the complaint. There were also further communication failings in the landlord’s handling of the issue. Its actions also did not adequately reflect the principles in its compensation policy.
Its offer does not properly consider the inconvenience, and length of time the matter remained outstanding. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident added compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme there was:
1. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of:
  1. Repairs to the resident’s bathroom.
  2. Repairs to the resident’s kitchen.
  3. Filling of exterior holes to the resident’s property.
  4. The complaint.
2. Service failure with the landlord’s handling of:
  1. The resident’s kitchen replacement.
  2. Damp and mould to the bathroom.
1. No maladministration with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the living room ceiling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the determination, the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with an apology around the failings found.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,700. This is inclusive of the £175 previously offered by the landlord and broken down as:
  1. £300 for the failings around its handling of the repairs to the bathroom.
  2. £400 for its handling of the repairs to the resident’s kitchen.
  3. £100 for its handling of the kitchen improvements.
  4. £500 for its handling of the exterior holes.
  5. £100 for its handling of the damp and mould.
  6. £300 for its complaint handling failings.
3. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.