Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202332089)

Background

1. The resident experienced ongoing issues with her property, some of which dated back to late 2020 when the lease was signed. Outstanding issues when the stage 1 complaint was made included work needed for the bath, extractor fans, damp and mould and the water meter box.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs needed within the property.
3. We have also considered how the landlord responded to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have made a finding of reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs needed within the property.
5. We have made a finding of service failure in how the landlord responded to the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised for delays and took responsibility for repairs it was not contractually obliged to complete. It improved communication with the resident and offered compensation in line with its policy.
7. The landlord addressed most aspects of the complaint and advised the resident on possible resolutions when it could not assist directly. It identified how to improve service standards. The resident’s stage 1 complaint included concerns about the garden door and tap which were not covered in the landlord’s response.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. The resident complained to the landlord in January 2022 about ongoing issues in the property. We encourage residents to refer complaints to us promptly, usually within 12 months of issues occurring. This is because over time, evidence may become unavailable and personnel may have left an organisation, making a thorough investigation difficult. The evidence suggests this complaint did not exhaust the landlord’s complaint procedure therefore we cannot investigate back to January 2022. As the resident made a new stage 1 complaint in May 2023, this investigation will focus on events from May 2022 onwards.
9. In the stage 1 complaint, the resident described problems she experienced when trying to get the garden door and tap repaired in 2022. As these issues were resolved at the time the complaint was made, they have not been included in this section. We have considered these aspects in the complaint handling section of this report.
10. The landlord’s homeowner’s handbook says that for new homes there is a defect period of 12 months. During this time the developer is responsible for internal issues if caused by faulty workmanship or materials used during the building process. After the defect period ends, the resident’s lease agreement and the landlord’s website confirms that leaseholders (or shared owners) are responsible for repairs within their property. The resident’s defect period ended in November 2021.
11. As the resident was not satisfied with the time taken to complete repairs, in May 2022 the landlord inspected the property to review any defects. This was a reasonable step to take to try to resolve matters. The resident said she was told that the issues identified would be raised with both the landlord and the developer. We do not know if the developer was informed and cannot comment on their actions. We also cannot confirm if the landlord accepted responsibility for the outstanding defects at that time. When the complaint was made, the landlord agreed to take responsibility for some of the work. In its stage 1 response, it agreed for its contractors to attend to investigate the bath and mould on the ceiling caused by issues with the bathroom fan. It completed repairs to the bath on 7 October 2023. It completed repairs to the bathroom fan and treated mould by 23 January 2024. In its final complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the length of time taken to resolve the issues in the property was not aligned to its timescales.
12. The landlord also acknowledged that it did not communicate well during this period. After the inspection in May 2022, the resident said she received no update on next steps, which led to her stage 1 complaint in May 2023. The landlord acknowledged its failure to follow up and to explain that the kitchen fan did not class as a defect. It apologised for the delay and offered compensation.
13. The landlord’s stage 1 response confirmed it would communicate effectively with the resident going forward and worked to uphold this commitment. When the resident did not respond to the complaint outcome, the landlord followed up to check if she had questions. It explained its compensation policy did not cover days off work when the resident queried the amount offered. The landlord sent reminder texts before contractor visits and apologised when one was missed, explaining it was due to a system failure and rebooking the appointment. On 30 October 2023, the resident had to chase progress on the mould treatment. There is no evidence of a response until 28 November 2023. While the overall communication during the complaints process was good, this was an oversight and not appropriately acknowledged. The resident did not raise this in her stage 2 complaint and it did not impact the outcome. It has been highlighted as a learning point for the landlord.
14. The resident was unhappy with the quality of the landlord’s work and was concerned that the issues would come back. We cannot recommend further inspections as under the terms of the lease agreement, internal repairs are the responsibility of the resident.
15. The landlord took responsibility for some repairs and compensated the resident for the resulting delays. The overall compensation offered was reasonable for the failings identified. In its final response it offered £250 for the time taken and for the resident having to chase updates before the stage 1 complaint was made. It added £50 for the missed appointment. The total of £300 aligns with compensation we consider proportionate for the impact of failings amounting to maladministration. As the landlord identified its failings, apologised and offered compensation, we have found reasonable redress.

16. In May 2023 the resident asked to escalate a complaint she received a response to in January 2022. The landlord advised that due to the time passed, it had instead opened a new stage 1 complaint. This was in line with its complaints policy which says it will not escalate a complaint if the request is more than 6 months after the stage 1 response was issued.
17. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the stage 1 complaint within policy timescales. For stage 2, it agreed to reply by 23 January 2024 which was three days later than the 20 working day timescale. It issued its response on 24 January 2024, one day later than agreed and 4 days later than the deadline. The policy allows up to 10 extra working days if an explanation is given but none was provided. For example, if it was due to office closure over the festive period. The landlord acknowledged the delay and offered £25 compensation, in line with its compensation policy for late complaint responses. Reasons for the 4 day delay were not provided. This is a minor point and does not contribute to the finding of service failure.
18. The landlord addressed most aspects of the complaint in its responses. Its final response recognised the frustration caused by the missed contractor appointment and apologised for any inconvenience caused. For some issues, such as the broken water meter box and the kitchen fan, it explained why it would not be able to assist. It suggested the resident contact the water provider and advised how she could improve the fan’s efficacy, noting that the developer had confirmed that the kitchen fan met required specifications. The landlord was not under any contractual obligation to complete repairs and it was reasonable for it to reiterate the developer’s comments. Offering advice when it could not complete repairs itself showed a solution focused approach to the complaint.
19. The landlord also took organisational learning from the complaint. It recognised that it did not meet its service standards after the inspection in May 2022, identified this as an area for improvement and made changes. It introduced a team to manage resident communication and defects, to streamline its service.
20. In the stage 1 complaint, the resident described issues with both the garden door and the tap causing a pool of water under the sink. Although these had since been resolved, the resident said she felt that the landlord had not dealt with either aspect appropriately at the time. The landlord did not include these points in its complaint responses. This was a missed opportunity to show it understood the impact these issues had on the resident and if appropriate, acknowledge fault.
21. We have made a finding of service failure and an order for the landlord to pay the resident £50 in compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings which were not acknowledged, and which did not impact the overall outcome for the resident.

Learning

Record keeping

22. There are no issues to identify in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Communication

23. There was a four-week gap in communication with the resident while the landlord arranged contractor appointments. Providing an update during this time would have helped keep the resident informed and reassured that progress was being made.
24. After receiving the resident’s complaint, the landlord implemented an aftercare team. Overall, this team communicated well with the resident throughout the complaints process. This was a positive outcome from the initial failing and demonstrated a commitment to learning and improving.