Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202403329)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403329

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

7 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to reports of mice at the property.
   2. Handling of repair work.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association and has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident lives at the property with her 4 children and partner, she has said 2 of her children have a disability.

Summary of events

3. The resident raised her complaint on 3 January 2024. She told the landlord that the work relating to mice proofing in a cupboard remained outstanding. She said she had not received a response to her previous emails about the outstanding works.
4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 29 January 2024. It apologised for the delay in responding and said:
   1. The pest issue was first reported on 13 October 2023 and a repair was raised to fill access holes on 18 October 2023. Its contractor attended on 27 October 2023, noted the water tank would need to be removed but no follow on works were raised. The resident contacted it on a few occasions about the work. It accepted there were delays and the case was closed in error. It had since contacted the resident to complete work on 1 February 2024.
   2. It upheld the resident’s complaint due to delays and admin errors and apologised for the time spent on the matter. As a token of apology it offered £100 compensation to the resident for the inconvenience caused.
5. The resident escalated her complaint on 9 February 2024 and told the landlord the issue was causing her an overwhelming amount of stress. She said the landlord was putting her household, with children, at risk.
6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 February 2024. It acknowledged that the resident remained unhappy with the lack of progress and apologised for the delay with works. It said it had spoken to the repairs team and could confirm 2 repair orders had been raised for the removal of the water tank and for the flooring. It had arranged the works as a joint visit so the contractors could communicate with each other. In recognition of the delay in its decision making about the water tank it upheld the resident’s complaint and increased its compensation offer to £200 in total.
7. The resident remained unhappy that the landlord had not completed work and brought the complaint to this Service in April 2024. She said in resolution of her complaint she wanted the landlord to complete work to ensure her home was safe from infestation. She wanted the landlord to assess the issue and not leave it up to her to chase and repeatedly explain works.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. Following the landlord’s stage 2 response the resident has told it, and this Service, about not having hot water in her property for 1 month (between July 2024 and August 2024). In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint and the landlord’s stage 2 response from February 2024. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any further complaints as part of its internal complaints process, prior to the involvement of this Service. As such the issue relating to not having hot water at the property will not be considered within this report. This report will consider the complaint that formed part of the landlord’s stage 2 response from 20 February 2024.

Response to reports of mice at the property

9. The tenancy agreement and maintenance policy are silent on mice/rodent issues. However, legislation requires landlords to take action to deal with infestations and disrepair problems that are causing infestations. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 landlords have a duty to deal with disrepair. The resident reported a mice infestation in her property in May 2023 and as such the landlord had a responsibility to conduct inspections and investigate any issues that would allow mice to enter the property. It is not disputed that the landlord directed the resident to arrange for her own pest control service and did not conduct any investigations at that time. This was not appropriate.
10. Between May 2023 and October 2023 the resident appointed her own pest control service and has said this was at a cost. There is no evidence to show the landlord provided any support to the resident despite its obligations. This was also not appropriate.
11. From October 2023 onwards the resident’s contact with the landlord was mainly about repair work relating to entry points for mice, this will be addressed later within this report. The resident has told this Service that the pest control work resolved the mice issue and that she does not currently have mice at the property. However, it is unclear when the mice issue was resolved.
12. Overall, the landlord’s failure to inspect and investigate the mice issue at the property was not appropriate and amounts to maladministration. The landlord failed to take account of its wider obligations and put the onus on the resident to address the issue without considering what it could do.
13. The resident has said that she paid for the pest control service herself. This Service’s remedies guidance allows for payments of quantifiable financial loss in circumstances where costs have been reasonably incurred by a resident, which would not have been necessary if the maladministration the Ombudsman found had not occurred. However, it is unclear exactly how much the resident has paid for pest control services and if she had incurred further costs after October 2023. As such the Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to work with the resident to establish the direct financial loss reasonably incurred in relation to costs for pest control work and pay this amount to her.
14. The Ombudsman has also made a further order for compensation to acknowledge the time and trouble caused to the resident due to the landlord’s failing. In deciding an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance for findings of maladministration has been considered and an amount of £300 has been decided as appropriate in these circumstances.

Handling of repair work

15. It is not disputed that on 13 October 2023 the resident told the landlord about repair work needed to fill holes in a cupboard to stop access for mice. The landlord appropriately attended on 18 October 2023. It noted that it could not fill all holes in the area due to a water tank and said the water tank needed removing “as redundant then floor can be boarded with sheet ply”. The landlord failed to complete this work within 15 working days as per its non-emergency repair timeframe. This was not appropriate.
16. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 November 2023 and said it did not complete all the work required in October 2023 due to the water tank. She explained how the water tank was not in use, or needed, as she had a combi boiler. She asked the landlord to remove the water tank and replace the flooring to stop the mice issue. There is no evidence to show the landlord acted on this email, instead it closed the contact as a ‘duplicate’. This was not appropriate and meant the resident had to contact it again on 17 November 2023 and 3 January 2024. The landlord took until 25 January 2024 to confirm an appointment with the resident for work, this timeframe was not appropriate.
17. The landlord attended the property on 1 February 2024. However, it said it could not remove the water tank at that time as it found it was in use. Following this, the landlord adjusted its approach and raised a joint repair for the water tank removal and flooring repair. While this was a reasonable approach to adopt, the landlord did not remove the water tank until 18 July 2024 and did not complete the agreed work to the floor at that time. The landlord reinstated the water tank in August 2024 and while it attended on 3 September 2024 it has not completed the work it said it would or explained why it could not. This was not appropriate.
18. Overall, the landlord’s handling of repair work to remove a water tank and repair a floor to prevent mice access was not appropriate and amounts to maladministration. The landlord agreed it would complete work in October 2023 but a year later the work remains outstanding. The landlord failed to progress the work in a timely manner, monitor that the work had been completed or explain why it could not do the work. It missed opportunities to put things right despite the resident’s complaint and of her health and safety concerns for herself and her vulnerable family. The landlord actions, and omissions, have left the resident feeling that she has not been listened to. The landlord’s failings here would have caused the resident avoidable upset and worry for a prolonged period of time.
19. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response it appropriately apologised for its delay to complete work and offered the resident £200 in compensation. While it recognised its service fell short, its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the repeated failings identified, it missed a further opportunity to monitor work until completion and it is understood that the work remains outstanding. The Ombudsman has decided a greater compensation amount would be more appropriate in the circumstances. When deciding an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedy guidance has been considered along with the landlord’s repeated failings and the impact this may have had on the resident, an amount of £500 has been decided as appropriate in these circumstances. This amount falls within the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s
    1. response to reports of mice at the property.
    2. handling of repair work.

Orders

21. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Arrange for a senior manager to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report. This should be in writing.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £800 compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears.
       1. £300 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its response to reports of mice at the property.
       2. £500 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of repair work. This amount includes the £200 it previously offered, if it has not been paid already.
    3. Agree the direct financial loss reasonably incurred by the resident in relation to costs for pest control work and pay this amount to the resident.
    4. Explain in writing to the resident and this Service the repair work required to the property in relation to the above mentioned complaint. It should confirm:
       1. The work required, its planned approach and provide a schedule of work including timeframe for completion.
       2. The measures it will put in place to monitor the completion of the work.

Recommendation

22. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord consider the findings of this report and its lack of pest infestation policy. If after considering this the landlord decides it does not need a policy for handling pest infestations it should explain why in writing to this Service. This should be within 4 weeks of the date of this report.