Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202403682)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403682

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

20 December 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 handling of:
    1. The resident’s report of a leak causing damp and mould and reports of a lack of communication.
    2. The associated complaints.

Background

  1. The resident is a joint shared owner of the property and the lease began on 7 October 2022. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. The landlord has advised this Service that it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for either of the residents.
  3. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the ground floor of a newly built block.
  4. The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 March 2023 and reported a damp patch on the internal wall near his front door. The landlord therefore raised an order on 2 March 2023 to trace and remedy the leak from outside the property, which was causing the damp patch in the property. An operative attended on 24 March 2023 and reported that he was unable to detect any visible signs of a leak but said there were signs of a previous leak.
  5. The resident wrote to the landlord on various occasions during April and May 2023 to say that he was dissatisfied with the contractor’s findings as the operative had not inspected the area that was damp inside the property. As a result, a further inspection was carried out by the contractor on 12 May 2023. The operative took a photo of the damp patch and said he would send it to the landlord for further instructions.
  6. Following the inspection, the resident wrote to the landlord on various occasions during May and June 2023 requesting an update. He emphasised that the damp patch was getting worse and as a result the area also had black mould growth.
  7. The resident submitted a stage one complaint on 21 June 2023 in which he stated that he had reported the damp patch at the beginning of March 2023 and it was still outstanding. He said that black mould had been growing over the damp patch since March 2023.
  8. The landlord replied on 9 August 2023 and said it had arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property on 10 August 2023. The surveyor inspected the property on this date and identified there was possible water ingress from a neighbouring flat affecting the party wall between the resident’s property and the neighbouring flat. However, the surveyor recommended carrying out a pressure test on the radiators to eliminate the possibility that the leak was from the resident’s central heating system.
  9. The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 September 2023 and said it accepted there had been a delay in carrying out further investigations into the source of the leak. The landlord said its surveyor had requested a more detailed leak detection survey of the water supply and drains. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered the resident £270 compensation.
  10. The resident replied to the landlord on the same day (12 September 2023) and declined the offer of compensation as he said the issue was still unresolved. The resident asked the landlord to advise him of the timescale for receiving a stage 2 complaint response.
  11. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 2 April 2024 and confirmed that it had carried out various inspections but had not been able to identify the source of the leak causing dampness in the resident’s property. The landlord said it had therefore commissioned a specialist subcontractor but the subcontractor had not inspected the property due to “administrative issues”.
  12. The landlord had therefore engaged a different subcontractor who had inspected and found a potential displaced joint on the soil vent pipe above the resident’s property. However, the surveyor did not believe this was the cause of the leak and therefore said he would continue with further investigations.
  13. The resident contacted this Service on 7 May 2024 and stated that the issue had not yet been resolved and, as a result, his property was affected by damp and mould.
  14. During May to August 2024, the resident and the landlord exchanged further correspondence regarding the reported damp and mould and on 13 September 2024 the landlord carried out ‘intrusive’ inspections in the resident’s property and the neighbouring flat. As a result, an active plumbing leak was found in the neighbouring flat and the landlord’s surveyor instructed a contractor to carry out remedial works to both properties.
  15. The landlord and the resident exchanged further correspondence between September and November 2024 regarding the arrangements for the remedial works and the temporary storage of some of the resident’s belongings during the works.
  16. The resident and the landlord confirmed to this Service that the repairs to the resident’s property were completed on 2 December 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident wrote to this Service on 8 October 2024 to advise that he had received evidence that the source of the leak was in his neighbour’s bathroom and this had been reported by the neighbour in Autumn 2022. The Ombudsman has considered this information. However, based on the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to investigate events from 1 March 2023 when the resident first reported the damp patch in his property.
  2. The landlord and the resident provided this Service with information regarding events that occurred after the landlord’s stage 2 reply dated 2 April 2024. A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the landlord’s stage 2 reply. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.
  3. The resident could consider submitting a new complaint to the landlord if he is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of matters after 2 April 2024.

The resident’s report of a leak causing damp and mould and reports of a lack of communication

  1. The resident’s shared ownership lease agreement sets out the repair responsibilities of the resident and the landlord. The agreement states that the resident is responsible for the upkeep and repair of the interior of the property, including water pipes and drains that exclusively serve the property. The landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property, including maintaining tanks, drainage and waterpipes that do not exclusively serve the property.
  2. The landlord’s damp and mould procedure states:
    1. When a resident reports damp and mould, the landlord will book in a damp and mould pre-inspection with the relevant surveyor for the area.
    2. The surveyor will proactively keep the resident updated throughout the ongoing repairs.
  3. It is not in dispute that the landlord was responsible for completing repairs to stop the reported leak and to carry out remedial work to address the damp and mould in the resident’s property. As a result, when the resident reported damp and mould in his property due to a leak, the landlord was obliged to investigate the issue and complete any identified repairs that were its responsibility.
  4. On 1 March 2023, the resident reported the presence of a damp patch on the internal wall to his property near the front door. The landlord raised an order on 2 March 2023 for its contractor to investigate the source of the dampness. The contractor attended on 24 March 2023 and the operative’s notes stated that he examined the external communal areas for a possible leak. He reported that he could not see any visible signs of a leak but said there was a ‘musty’ smell, which he attributed to a previous leak and said the smell would clear in time.
  5. It was reasonable for the landlord to initially arrange for the contractor to attend to check whether there was an active leak requiring repair. However, following the contractor’s report that there was no active leak, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not then arrange for a surveyor to carry out further investigations into the source of the dampness. The landlord’s damp and mould procedure states that it will arrange for the relevant surveyor for the area to carry out a pre-inspection when a resident reports damp and mould.
  6. The resident advised the landlord on 25 April 2023 that the damp patch was now worse and on 3 May 2023 he reported that there were signs of black mould growing on the damp patch. The resident wrote to the landlord again on 11 May 2023 and repeated that there was black mould growing on the damp patch near the front door. The landlord therefore arranged for the contractor to attend the property again on 12 May 2023. The contractor took photos of the damp area and said he would send them to the landlord for further instructions.
  7. It was unreasonable that the landlord had once again not arranged for a surveyor to attend the property to investigate the matter. The resident had advised on 25 April 2023 that the damp patch was getting worse and on 3 May 2023 he had reported the presence of black mould. The contractor had already attended on 24 March 2023 and reported that there were no visible leaks. Therefore, it was inappropriate for the landlord to ask the contractor to attend again, rather than sending a surveyor to inspect.
  8. The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 May 2023, 25 May 2023, 8 June 2023 and 15 June 2023 requesting an update. The landlord replied on 16 June 2023 and apologised for its lack of contact with the resident. It explained that it had ended the contract with the contractor and reorganised its repairs staff. The landlord explained that the contractor had left without providing any information regarding the damp in the resident’s property and therefore the landlord had made an appointment for its new contractor to attend on 21 June 2023.
  9. Based on the evidence from the landlord, the termination of the contractor’s contract and the staffing reorganisation had caused disruption to the repairs service. Nevertheless, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not at least maintained communication with the resident during this period of disruption. It had been over a month since the contractor attended on 12 May 2023. Furthermore, the resident had made it clear that the damp patch had worsened and there was mould growth present.
  10. It was also unreasonable that the landlord had again arranged for a contractor to attend on 21 June 2023, rather than arranging for a surveyor to inspect the damp and mould. This action was again contrary to the landlord’s damp and mould procedure dated November 2022. It meant that almost 4 months after the resident first reported the damp patch, the landlord had not arranged for a surveyor to inspect the damp and mould.
  11. The resident submitted a complaint on 21 June 2023 and advised the landlord that the contractor had failed to attend the pre-arranged appointment that day. He advised that black mould had been growing on the damp patch since March 2023 when he first reported the problem. It was unreasonable that the contractor had failed to attend the pre-booked appointment on 21 June 2023. This caused further inconvenience and frustration for the resident as he had taken time off work to be present.
  12. The resident chased the landlord on 12 July 2023 as he said he had not received a reply to his complaint nor any update regarding the damp and mould. The landlord’s complaint handling is assessed below, however, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not provided any further update to the landlord regarding the damp and mould.
  13. The landlord sent its stage one reply on 9 August 2023 and apologised for the delay in responding and for the delay in resolving the issue. The landlord stated that as its contractor had not been able to detect the source of the damp, it would arrange for a surveyor to attend on 10 August 2023. The landlord partially upheld the complaint because it accepted that it could have arranged the inspection sooner. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £20.
  14. It was inappropriate that it had taken the landlord more than 5 months following the resident’s first report of damp to arrange the surveyor’s inspection. The surveyor inspected the property on 10 August 2023, as arranged, and identified there was possibly water ingress from a neighbouring flat. However, he also confirmed he would arrange a pressure test of the central heating system to eliminate this as a possible source of the damp.
  15. The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 September 2023 and apologised for the delay in providing an update. The landlord said its surveyor had asked for a more detailed leak detection survey to be carried out on the water supply and drains to trace the source of the water. The landlord accepted there had been a failure in identifying the source of the damp. It accepted the resident had reported the problem in March 2023 and it had not carried out detailed investigations until August 2023. It said this was unacceptable and would feed this back to the repairs manager. The landlord apologised and offered compensation of £270, which included the £20 offered at stage one. The landlord also confirmed that it upheld the resident’s stage one complaint.
  16. The resident replied on the same day (12 September 2023) and declined the landlord’s offer of compensation because he said the problem with the damp had not been resolved. The resident asked the landlord to advise him of the timescale for receiving a stage 2 reply regarding the issues he was complaining about. The Ombudsman’s assessment of the landlord’s offer of £270 to put things right is included later in this report.
  17. The landlord sent a stage 2 reply to the resident on 2 April 2024. The landlord said there had been numerous attendances but it had not been able to identify the cause of the leak. It confirmed that the radiators had been pressure-tested and no leaks had been found. The landlord confirmed that it had therefore arranged for a specialist subcontractor to carry out an inspection. The landlord’s engagement of a specialist contractor was reasonable as the surveyor had not been able to identify the source of the damp. However, the landlord stated that due to “administrative issues”, the subcontractor had not completed the inspection. The landlord accepted that this had caused significant delays while it sourced an alternative contractor.
  18. The surveyor contacted the resident on 20 March 2024 with the findings from the alternative subcontractor. This was more than 6 months after the landlord had advised the resident on 12 September 2023 that it would arrange a more detailed leak detection survey. The Ombudsman understands that landlords may encounter problems sourcing specialist subcontractors. However, the view of this Service is that the delay of over 6 months was unreasonable, particularly as the resident had been waiting since March 2023 for the issue to be resolved.
  19. The landlord advised the resident that the new subcontractor had found problems with the soil vent pipe, but the surveyor did not believe this to be the cause of the damp patch in the resident’s property. The surveyor therefore said he would arrange a more invasive inspection. It was reasonable for the landlord’s surveyor to arrange a more invasive inspection as the previous attempts to trace the source of the damp had been unsuccessful.
  20. The Ombudsman accepts that it can be difficult to trace the source of dampness, particularly where more than one property is involved. However, the delay in the landlord’s handling of the reported damp and mould was, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, unreasonable. At the time of the landlord’s stage 2 reply on 2 April 2024, it had been 13 months since the resident had first reported the damp patch and the landlord had not yet identified the source of the damp. The delays resulted in mould growth forming on the damp patch.
  21. In October 2021, the Ombudsman produced a spotlight report on damp and mould and one of its recommendations was: “Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue”.
  22. Although the landlord did take steps to treat the mould, for example by applying anti-mould paint in the winter of 2023, the landlord should have acted with greater urgency to resolve the damp in the resident’s property. In particular, the landlord should have arranged for a surveyor to inspect the damp shortly after it was reported, rather than waiting more than 5 months to arrange the inspection in August 2023.
  23. The evidence shows that the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor and this resulted in the resident chasing the landlord on several occasions for updates. For example, he sent several requests for updates during May and June 2023. This involved the resident in additional time and trouble and caused him significant frustration as described in his email dated 18 June 2023.
  24. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  25. In this case, the landlord acted fairly by upholding the complaints at both stages of the complaints process. It acknowledged its failings and apologised for the delays and lack of communication. The landlord also offered the resident compensation of £270 on 12 September 2023 to recognise its failings and said in its stage 2 reply that it would offer further compensation once the damp had been resolved.
  26. However, at the time of the stage 2 reply on 2 April 2024, the landlord had not yet resolved the reported damp/leak and consequently had not offered the resident suitable compensation. Therefore, the landlord had not put things right by resolving the problem and offering suitable redress. Therefore, based on the failings identified in this report, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration.
  27. This Service is aware that the repairs were completed on 2 December 2024 and therefore has not ordered the landlord to carry out any further works. The Ombudsman has, however, ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £800 to put things right in relation to its handling of the damp and mould up to the time of the landlord’s stage 2 reply.
  28. The evidence shows that the landlord’s failings had a significant impact on the resident in terms of time, effort, inconvenience and distress. The amount ordered is therefore in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for situations where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident.
  29. In terms of learning, the landlord stated in its stage 2 reply that its senior managers were aware of the case to ensure lessons were learned. An order has therefore been included in this report for the landlord to share the report with the relevant managers so that lessons can be learned.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy, dated September 2022, states that it operates a 2-stage complaint process. It states that at stage one, it will agree a resolution with the resident within 10 working days. If the resident escalates a complaint to stage 2, then a response will be provided within 20 working days.
  2. At both stage one and stage 2, the policy states that if the complaint is particularly complex, the landlord may need longer than the prescribed timescales to resolve it. In these instances, the resident will be kept informed and regularly updated on the reasons for this.
  3. The resident submitted a stage one complaint on 21 June 2023 and the landlord sent its stage one reply on 9 August 2023. The landlord therefore took 35 working days to reply to the stage one complaint. This was longer than the landlord’s 10-working day target and was therefore inappropriate. The landlord apologised in the stage one reply for the delay and offered £20 compensation. However, it did not provide a reason for the delay or identify any learning to improve its response times.
  4. The resident submitted a stage 2 complaint on 12 September 2023 and the landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 2 April 2024. The landlord therefore took 141 working days to reply, which was excessive and inappropriate. The landlord offered compensation of £150 for the delay in replying. However, again the landlord did not provide a reason for the delay or any learning it would implement to improve its complaint handling.
  5. This Service has considered the landlord’s offer of £170 (£20 at stage one and £150 at stage 2) for complaint handling and has concluded that the amount offered was insufficient to put things right in terms of the complaint handling because:
    1. There were delays at both complaint stages and therefore this had a cumulative impact on the time taken for the resident to progress through the landlord’s complaints process.
    2. The delay at stage 2 was particularly excessive.
    3. The landlord did not provide any explanation for the delays nor indicate any learning to improve its complaint handling in the future.
  6. This Service has therefore found there was a service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling and has ordered compensation of £250. The Ombudsman’s finding and the sum ordered recognise that the landlord made some attempt to put things right, however, the sums offered were not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of a leak causing damp and mould and reports of a lack of communication.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £1,050 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £800 for the handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould (the landlord may deduct the £250 it has already offered if this has been paid).
  2. £250 for the handling of the associated complaints (the landlord may deduct the £170 it has already offered if this has been paid).
    1. Share this report with relevant managers and staff and provide evidence to this Service that it has done so. As per the landlord’s damp and mould procedure, it should emphasise the need for a surveyor to carry out a pre-inspection as soon as possible when a resident reports damp and mould.