Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202419492)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419492

Paradigm Housing Group Limited

19 June 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 response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Draughty windows.
2. Damp and mould.
3. Damage tohisbedroomceiling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The tenancy was assigned to him through mutual exchange on 2 April 2019. He holds a joint tenancy with his partner, and both were involved in communicating with the landlord during the complaint. References to ‘he’ and ‘the resident’ in this report will refer to both tenants.
On 6 June 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that there was damp and mould in the porch of his property. It inspected the property on 23 August 2022 and identified, among other repair issues, that there was penetrating damp in his kitchen. The landlord raised work to address the repairs, which were all completed by November 2022.
Between April 2023 and April 2024, the resident reported issues with his windows, damp and mould in the property, and a bowing bedroom ceiling to the landlord. After an initial repair on 12 April 2023 to his windows, which was incomplete, he said the repair remained unfinished after several appointments. The landlord inspected the resident’s report of damp in the bathroom externally as it did not have access to the interior and found no issues. He also reported damp in his porch, and the landlord repaired this.
The resident also reported a possible leak in his bedroom, which the landlord inspected and found no leak. It raised work to prevent condensation on cold areas of the ceiling, however this was cancelled after 4 unsuccessful appointments. The resident re-reported his windows were draughty and this job was eventually closed after the resident disagreed with the landlord’s approach to the repair. He also reported that the property’s rainwater pipes were defective, causing the walls to be saturated. The landlord responded to this by installing new drainage.
The resident complained to the landlord on 2 April 2024 about the condition of the property. He highlighted that his household members had asthma, and one had a compromised immune system, and he wanted to be rehoused. The resident said he was unhappy that there was damp in the property which was causing mould and attracting silverfish. He said he was unhappy about the windows which were draughty and leading to higher heating costs.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 17 April 2024. It referred to a conversation it had with him on 5 April 2024 where it had identified that he was unhappy with:
1. The bedroom ceiling, which was bowing, and the resident was concerned it would cave in.
2. Mould in the kitchen which would return quickly, despite the resident cleaning it.
3. The windows, which the resident said were draughty. The landlord acknowledged that its contractors had approached the repair incorrectly.
The landlord explained there was “minor twisting” caused by the newly installed framework in the loft drying out. To remedy this, it said it would refix the ceiling plaster boards and fill the gaps. The landlord said it would inspect the windows to assess what repair work was needed. It said that it would visit the property on 18 April 2024 to assess what work was needed to address the effect of the damp inside the property.
The landlord inspected the property on 18 April 2024 and relayed its findings to the resident the same day. It said there were several potential causes of the damp in his kitchen, and it would first work to resolve the external drainage issues. The landlord said it would also investigate the wall cavity and the exterior drainage at the front of the property. It said it had found that the windows were poorly installed, and it would repair these.
The resident re-reported to the landlord on 19 April 2024 that his ceiling was bowing. It said it would inspect this. The resident then escalated his complaint, and the landlord acknowledged this on 1 May 2024.
On 3 May 2024 the resident told the landlord he was unhappy that the repair appointments he had been offered were in July 2024. The landlord told him that it worked to a 60 working day standard for repairs.
The landlord inspected the loft space in the property on 16 May 2024 which found that there “natural timber deflection” and it had “no concerns as [to] the structural adequacy of the roof or ceiling”.
The landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 31 May 2024. It confirmed that:
1. It would start repairs to address the damp and mould on 20 August 2024, as the resident was away during July 2024.
2. It would attend on 14 June 2024 to repair the windows which were found to be poorly installed.
3. It had found no structural issues with the roof and no repairs were required.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident had raised issues with damp and mould since July 2022. It said it had carried out repairs “in good faith” but its recent inspections showed that it had not dealt with the root cause of the damp The landlord confirmed that further investigative work was needed to resolve the damp. To recognise the effect of the damp and mould on the resident, it offered him compensation of £200.

Events after the landlord’s final complaint response

The landlord carried out an inspection of the wall cavities on 11 June 2024, which found the cavities were dry. On 20 August 2024 the landlord gave the resident its action plan and started external drainage work to investigate the source of the damp. In September 2024, the resident disputed the landlord’s approach to the work, cancelled repair appointments, and referred the issue to the local authority’s environmental health team. It inspected the property again on 17 October 2024 and gave the resident an updated action plan with additional repairs added. The landlord proposed to restart work on 14 November 2024.
On 11 December 2024 the landlord confirmed that the external drainage work was complete, and it was moving on to address potential causes of damp inside the property. It proposed to carry out thermal boarding of the kitchen, but the resident disputed the usefulness of this. The landlord’s internal records from 10 February 2025 showed that this was the final outstanding repair, and it was having difficulty agreeing an appointment with the resident. On 6 March 2025 it inspected the property again to identify other potential causes of damp.
The resident told us on 12 June 2025 that the landlord was currently in the process of fitting the thermal boarding in the kitchen.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the member’s [landlord’s] complaints procedure. This is because a landlord must be given an opportunity to respond to a resident’s dissatisfaction through its complaints process before we become formally involved.
We understand that the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of work that it proposed in its final stage complaint response. As the landlord has not responded to these concerns as a complaint, we will not make a determination on these, in line with the Scheme. This report will focus on the reasonableness of the landlord’s response to the complaint and whether it followed through with any work proposed in its final complaint response.
Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
The resident has told us that he has experienced issues with repairs and damp and mould for 5 years. However, this investigation has focused on events from April 2023, in line with the Scheme. This is because, with the passage of time, it is not possible to make a reliable determination on historical events as the evidence may not be available or complete. Some historical events have been described to provide context to the complaint, but these have not been included in our assessment.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that:
1. Emergency repairs – those which are an immediate danger to people or the property – will be completed or made safe within 24 hours.
2. It will carry out repairs considered ‘urgent’ within 20 working days.
3. For ‘non-urgent’ repairs, these will be carried out within 60 working days.
The landlord’s policy does not say what makes a repair urgent or non-urgent. Nor does its policy give examples of what types of repairs it considers urgent or non-urgent.
The landlord’s procedure guide for dealing with reports of damp and mould states that it will respond to a resident’s report of damp and mould by carrying out an internal and external inspection of the property. The procedure says it should then tell the resident about the findings and raise any necessary repairs. The landlord should also note if any hazards, as set out by the Housing Health and Safety Rating Scheme, are present and whether these are severe, moderate, or slight.
The damp and mould procedure also says that, after repairs are completed, the landlord should reinspect the property to confirm whether the damp and mould issues are resolved. If the issues are not resolved, it should raise further work and monitor the progress of repairs. The procedure states that the landlord should write to the resident to provide its inspection findings and set out the repairs required. The damp and mould procedure does not set out any timeframes for repairs, or how soon the landlord should carry out its initial inspection.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of draughty windows

The resident first reported his windows were draughty to the landlord on 3 April 2023. It then carried out repairs on 12 April 2023, but its contractor’s notes recorded that it could not complete repairs to one window due to an incompatible part. The landlord then raised an appointment for 23 June 2023 to inspect the windows. The resident cancelled this appointment, and the landlord was unable to gain access on the rebooked appointment on 29 June 2023. It was then unable to gain access again on 21 July 2023 and the job was then closed. The landlord responded to the repair request in broadly reasonable timeframes and there was no evidence of failure up to this point.
On 17 October 2023 the resident re-reported the draughty windows to the landlord. He cancelled 4 subsequent appointments on 9 and 27 November 2023, 19 December 2023, and 6 February 2023. The landlord then attended on 22 March 2023 and the job was stopped as the resident disagreed with the contractor’s proposed method for repairing the window.
There may be legitimate reasons why the resident was unable to allow access for the appointments. The Ombudsman is not commenting on his reasons for not granting access. However, the landlord cannot be held responsible for the subsequent delay in carrying out work as the resident did not provide access. There was evidence that the landlord made regular attempts to agree appointments with the resident. When he expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of the work, it acted appropriately in attempting to inspect it. This demonstrated that the landlord made reasonable efforts to try to resolve the repair.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint about the windows by inspecting them on 25 April 2024 and completing follow on repairs on 14 and 17 June 2024. The resident reported to the landlord on 16 August 2024 that the window handles were loose. It then attended on 30 September 2024 to replace these. These visits were in line with the landlord’s timeframe of 60 working days for non-urgent repairs. However, the Ombudsman expects non-emergency repairs to be completed within 28 days in line with industry best practice. The landlord took longer than 28 days to complete the above window repairs, however the timeframe was not excessive. The Ombudsman will recommend that the landlord updates its repairs policy to bring its timeframes in line with the Ombudsman’s expectations.
Overall, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of draughty windows. It made reasonable efforts to complete the work in broadly appropriate timeframes, in line with its repairs policy.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The landlord was aware of damp and mould in the property from 9 May 2023 when he reported damp and mould in his porch. It completed repairs to address this on 22 July 23, after being unable to gain access on 21 June 2023. However, it is unclear why it did not carry out a damp and mould inspection in line with its damp and mould procedure above. The landlord’s repair records from 11 September 2023 recorded that the resident had damp and mould in his bathroom and kitchen, however the landlord again did not carry out an inspection. It was unreasonable that it did not carry out an inspection until 18 April 2024 after the resident raised his stage 1 complaint.
In his complaint emails to the landlord on 2 April 2024, the resident said he was getting silverfish in his property because of the damp. Its complaint responses addressed the repair issues which may have led to the spread of silverfish, however, it did not specifically state its position on whether it would do any work directly to tackle them. This was unreasonable considering the silverfish were causing the resident inconvenience and distress.
Generally, landlords are not responsible for dealing with pests in individual properties, unless multiple properties or communal areas are affected. However, if there are access points for pests to enter an individual property, we would expect the landlord to seal these. If pests arise in a property because of a repair issue the landlord has responsibility for, such as damp and mould, then we would expect it to resolve the pest issue as part of its repair work. We will order the landlord to apologise to the resident for not responding to him about the silverfish. This apology must also set out its position on whether it will carry out work to address them directly and the reasons for its decision.
Once the landlord inspected the property on 18 April 2024, it raised work to investigate the cause of the penetrating damp which was leading to damp and mould. However, it initially scheduled work for July 2024. While this was within the timeframes in the landlord’s repairs policy, this was an unreasonably long wait given that the resident had told it about the vulnerabilities in his household. Damp and mould can have a direct negative effect on a resident’s health and the landlord failed to prioritise the work accordingly to reduce any potential negative effects to the resident’s household.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould “It’s not lifestyle” recommends that a landlord should ensure that its response to damp and mould is timely, and it should consider the vulnerabilities of the household in its response. It was particularly important for the landlord to prioritise the work considering that it still had not established the cause of the damp in the property. It therefore did not know how long it would take to resolve it, and how long the resident would be affected by it. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not attempt to put any measures in place to reduce the impact of the damp and mould on the household while it was investigating the cause. For example, there was no evidence that it considered carrying out mould washes or providing dehumidifiers.
Once work to remedy the penetrating damp began on 20 August 2024, the landlord proceeded within reasonable timeframes. It carried out external work on 20 August 2024 and it updated the resident on 17 September 2024 about further investigative work it had done that day. When the resident reported the issue to the local authority’s environmental health team on 24 September 2024, it responded reasonably by carrying another inspection and reported back on this to the resident on 17 October 2024. The landlord acted reasonably in following through with the work proposed in its final complaint response.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the time the landlord has taken to find and fix the source of the penetrating damp has been frustrating for the resident. We also note that he has disputed the effectiveness of the landlord’s approach because of this. This led to him reporting the issue to the local authority and cancelling repairappointments. However, the process of diagnosing a defect may take longer than normal when the repair issue is complex. Provided the landlord is continuing to make appropriate efforts to resolve the problem, this is not necessarily a failing.
While the resident questioned the landlord’s approach, it was reasonable that it relied on the opinions of its suitably qualified staff in its approach to the repair work. The resident has provided photographs to illustrate his concerns about the ongoing work. While these illustrate the disruption he has experienced from the work, the photographs do not in themselves evidence that the landlord acted inappropriately in progressing the repair work.
The evidence shows that the landlord maintained regular contact with the resident through a senior member of its surveying staff while the work progressed. It explained to him that it was working through a process of elimination to get to the source of the damp. The landlord concentrated on carrying out the least intrusive external works before considering more intrusive internal work. The landlord acted reasonably in considering the potential disruption to the household and keeping the resident informed of progress.
On balance, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould amounts to service failure. It was positive that the landlord offered the resident £200 compensation to recognise he was inconvenienced by its historical repairs failing to stop the damp and mould. However, this offer did not take into account that it failed to prioritise the work proposed in its complaint response appropriately and that it did not adequately consider the resident’s household’s vulnerabilities.
Therefore, the landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate. We order the landlord to pay the resident £500 compensation. This award replaces its previous offer of £200, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid. This award is in line with our remedies guidance, which is available to view on our website. This guidance sets out that awards of compensation between £100 and £600 are appropriate when the resident has experienced an adverse effect from a landlord’s failures, but this effect may not be permanent.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his bedroom ceiling

The resident first reported water marks on the bedroom ceiling on 17 July 2023. The landlord inspected the loft on 7 September 2023 and found no evidence of a leak. It raised follow on works to prevent condensation, but this was cancelled after it was unable to gain access on 18 September, 6 November and 22 November 2023. As mentioned above, the landlord cannot reasonably be expected to complete work if it cannot gain access.
The resident then raised the issue of the bowing ceiling on a call with the landlord on 5 April 2024. It responded reasonably and promptly to inspect the loft on 9 April 2024, 4 days later, and raised repairs to refit plasterboards and fill cracks. The resident declined this work was on 18 April 2024. While the resident may have legitimate reasons for declining the repairs, the incomplete repairs are not a failing by the landlord.
When the resident escalated his complaint around the beginning of May 2024 which included his concerns over the bedroom ceiling, the landlord again responded reasonably and within an appropriate timeframe to inspect the ceiling again on 16 May 2024.
The resident disputed the landlord’s conclusions about the ceiling. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinions of its suitably qualified staff and contractors. We have seen no evidence to suggest that the landlord’s approach to the ceiling repair was not accurate. Therefore, it was reasonable for it to conclude from both inspections that there were no concerns over the bowing of the ceiling, which it attributed to natural movement. Overall, the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns over the bowing bedroom ceiling and there was no evidence of maladministration.
The landlord was not able to complete a full inspection of the loft on its second inspection visit on 16 May 2024 due to the resident storing possessions there. It would have been reasonable for it to arrange another inspection when the loft had been cleared. However, we note that it reinspected this on 6 March 2025 and it identified no concerns. We also note that the landlord advised the resident, after this inspection, that he was not to use the loft for storage. However, the landlord has not provided evidence to confirm that the resident should not use the loft for storage. The tenancy agreement is silent on this issue. We will recommend that the landlord provide evidence to the resident to clarify whether he may or may not use the loft for storage and the reasons for this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of draughty windows.
2. Service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. No maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damage to his bedroom ceiling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the following orders:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £500 for the distress and inconvenience he experienced as a result of the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould repairs. It may deduct the £200 it previously offered for this if it can evidence that it has paid this already.
2. Write to the resident to apologise for not addressing his concerns about silverfish. This letter should also set out its position on the resident’s reports of silverfish and the next steps for this issue. The apology should come from a senior member of staff and comply with our guidance for apologies set out in our remedies guidance.
3. Offer dehumidifiers to the resident to assist with reducing the dampness within the property until it has completed the necessary repairs to resolve the damp and mould.
4. Complete its current work to prevent penetrating damp in the kitchen and carry out a post inspection to confirm whether the penetrating damp has been resolved. A copy of the inspection report must be provided to the Ombudsman and the resident.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Reimburse the resident for the cost of running the dehumidifiers in line with its remedies and compensation policy, until the damp and mould is resolved.
2. Provide evidence to the resident to confirm whether he is permitted to use the loft for storage and the reasons for its decision.
3. Carry out a review of its repairs policy with a view to bringing its repairs timescales in line with industry standards and the Ombudsman’s expectations. It should also consider providing clarity in its repair policy of what constitutes an urgent or non-urgent repair.