Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202012977)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012977

Paradigm Housing Group Limited

6 June 2021

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 report of repairs needed to windows in the property, and
The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of repairs needed to the rear patio doors.

Background and Summary of Events

In 2018, the landlord carried out a repair to the resident’s double patio doors following an attempted break-in.

Then in January 2020, the resident advised the landlord that cold air was coming through the windows in his property. The landlord raised a repair job to attend on 14 February 2020.

Meanwhile, on 12 February 2020, the resident reported that his bedroom window would not close. The landlord’s contractor attended the same day. A new part was needed, but a temporary repair took place so that the window could be closed.

On 14 February 2020, the landlord’s contractor carried out an inspection of all the windows in the property. They found that the bathroom and living room windows needed their hinges replacing, and the bedroom window needed its gearing replaced. The contractor also found that a roller strip lock was needed for a patio door repair.

The resident complained to the landlord on 10 March 2020 about the outstanding door repair. The following day, the landlord advised the resident that a repair had been arranged for 18 March 2020 for the patio door, as well as the windows.

On 12 March 2020, the landlord spoke with the resident about the repairs. It advised that it had been able to get to the bottom of the confusion around the repair. It explained that the way in which the jobs were raised made it difficult for its contact centre to give the resident the correct information. It apologised for this, and accepted he had been caused inconvenience because when it had visited his property on 10 March 2020 (for another matter), he was under the impression the patio door was going to be fixed at that time. The landlord again reassured the resident that the repairs for the windows and patio door had been arranged for 18 March 2020.

The landlord’s contractor attended on 18 March 2020 to carry out the repairs. They were able to carry out repairs to the affected windows, however, the strip lock that had been ordered for the patio door was the wrong one. The contractor advised the landlord they had ordered the correct strip lock, and in the meantime, they had secured the patio doors by screwing them shut, as the resident’s main concern was security.

The landlord called the resident later that day, and he confirmed he was happy for the patio doors to be screwed shut. The landlord advised the resident that its contractor would reattend after 20 April 2020, as it was only carrying out emergency attendances at the time due to the Covid-19 restrictions. The landlord later confirmed what had been discussed in that conversation in an email to the resident on 20 March 2020.

The landlord then spoke with the resident on 8 June 2020 about the outstanding patio door repair. It confirmed the repair had been booked in for 11 June 2020.

On 11 June 2020, the landlord’s contractor fitted the correct strip lock to the patio door.

The following year, in January 2021, the resident raised concerns about the windows still letting in cold. The landlord said it could not carry out an inspection at that time, due to Covid-19 restrictions.

In February 2021, the resident made a formal complaint about the window repairs, and the length of time his patio doors were screwed shut whilst waiting for the correct part to complete the repair. He said he thought the latter issue was a fire hazard, and had put his life in danger. He also sent the landlord pictures of gaps in his window frames. The landlord acknowledged the complaint, and arranged for a surveyor to carry out an inspection of the windows and patio door.

The landlord’s surveyor carried out their inspection on 16 February 2021. Later that day, the landlord advised the resident that, in line with its surveyor’s recommendations, the patio door would be replaced, and a further repair would take place to the windows.

Also on 16 February 2021, the landlord issued its Stage One complaint response. It said:

The resident was unhappy with the quality of repairs it had previously carried out to his windows as he said they were loose, had gaps around them, and moved within the frames. He was also unhappy that the landlord had screwed his patio door shut whilst waiting for the part to repair. He was also frustrated that the landlord would not agree to carry out an inspection due to Covid-19 restrictions.

The resident had moved into the property in 2018 and first reported an issue with the windows in January 2020. He told the landlord the windows were not well-insulated and the bathroom felt cold. It raised a repair job, but then attended the property on 12 February 2020 as the resident had reported that he could not close his bedroom window. This was deemed an emergency as his property was on the ground floor. A repair was carried out at the time so the resident could close his bedroom window, and its contractor advised that the window needed a new bottom strip.
Two days later, the landlord’s contractor attended to inspect all the windows in the property. It then replaced the hinges to the bathroom window and carried out further repairs to the bedroom window. The resident did not raise any further concerns with the windows until the following year.
In January 2021, the resident advised the landlord that the windows were letting in air and his home felt cold. He thought the previous repairs had not worked. The landlord arranged for an inspection to take place, and the resident was advised by its surveying team that it would carry out the inspection once Covid-19 restrictions lifted and it could schedule non-urgent repairs again.
The resident had written to it on 1 February 2021, as he was unhappy that no action had been taken since the previous month. The landlord and resident then had a phone call about the matter, and the resident followed this up by sending the landlord photos of the gaps in the windows.
The landlord’s contractor attended in March 2020 to repair the patio door, but noticed they had been provided with the incorrect part and needed to order another strip lock from the landlord’s suppliers.
As the resident was concerned about the security of the doors, the contractor agreed to remove the glass and screw the doors shut until it could reattend to complete the repair. The landlord had advised him at the time that, as the doors had been made safe, it would not be dealt with as an emergency. The resident was informed that the landlord would attend after restrictions were lifted in April 2020, and that it needed to work through its backlog of non-urgent repairs.
The landlord had sent the resident a text message in May 2020 to reassure him that it had not forgotten his repair, and would be in touch as it worked through the backlog of repair jobs. It contacted him again on 8 June 2020 to confirm it would be attending to complete the repair. Its contractor attended on 11 June 2020, and unscrewed the door and fitted the new strip lock.
The landlord arranged for its surveyor to attend the property on 16 February 2021 and he thought the patio doors could have been easily forced open. He recommended the patio doors be replaced. The surveyor also noted that, whilst work to adjust the windows had been carried out previously, it had not been successful as the frames also required fixing. It was recommended that the landlord fix the frames and adjust the window casements in the property to close any gaps and eliminate any draughts.
The landlord did not think the continued issues with the windows had been caused by poor workmanship in respect of the previous repair carried out in 2020, as it thought the windows may have deteriorated due to manual handling since the earlier repair had been carried out. It also pointed out that the resident did not tell it that the issue had not been resolved at the time, which would have prompted further investigation.
The resident had expressed concerns about the length of the time the landlord left his patio doors screwed shut, as he felt this would cause a fire risk. The landlord said the resident had agreed to its solution in order to address his concerns about safety at the time, and it did not think the resident was put at risk because his primary evacuation point in the event of a fire was his front door.
It had agreed to renew the patio doors and carry out further repairs to the windows, in line with the surveyor’s recommendations.

The following day, the landlord’s contractor carried out repairs to the windows in the property.

The resident called the landlord on 18 February 2021, and said he wanted financial compensation for putting up with the draught in his property for so long. He later sent the landlord details of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

The landlord advised the resident that it did not consider he was entitled to compensation. In response to this, the resident told the landlord that he intended to take legal action against it. The landlord therefore offered to undertake a Stage Two complaint review, which the resident agreed to.

On 11 March 2021 the landlord issued its Stage Two complaint response. It said:

Following a recent phone call between the resident and the landlord, the resident had confirmed he was now happy with the window repairs carried out, and the landlord’s proposed action to replace the patio doors. However, the resident wanted to receive financial compensation for what he considered to be a failure of service on the landlord’s part.

An appointment had been scheduled to measure the patio doors for replacement.
The window frames had been fixed to eliminate movement, and the window casements had been adjusted to eliminate any gaps.
It had previously explained to the resident that the delays in carrying out the repairs to his home were due to Covid-19 restrictions, but he had been kept informed throughout this period.
Although the resident thought there had been poor workmanship in respect of the window repairs that took place the previous year, it did not think that was the case. It referred to its Stage One complaint response, where it had been unable to conclude that there had been poor workmanship.
It noted the resident had provided it with extracts from the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, however, it confirmed it had explained in its recent phone call to the resident that this order did not include individual dwellings/homes. It said that the resident’s primary fire evacuation point was his front door, and so it did not agree that the resident was at an increased risk in the event of a fire. The landlord also pointed out that, according to its records, the resident’s main concern was the security of the door following a reported break-in, and it was this which led to the decision to secure the door whilst the part was being ordered.
In view of the Covid-19 restrictions, it thought it had managed the resident’s expectations about timescales correctly.

The resident later advised the landlord on 11 March 2021 that draughts were still able to enter through his bathroom and kitchen windows. The landlord’s contractor attended on 6 April 2021 and carried out a repair to the kitchen window, but found the bathroom window was misaligned. They said there was nothing that could be done about the misaligned bathroom window without removing it. They therefore recommended the window be replaced, which the landlord agreed to.

The landlord advised the resident on 14 April 2021 that replacing the bathroom window would take around four to six weeks. It also confirmed that his patio doors were due to be replaced on 22 April 2021. The patio doors were replaced on this date.

In the landlord’s file papers sent to this Service, it said that the repair outcomes were logged under the incorrect job description, which had caused previous confusion around what had been done/what parts had been ordered. The file papers stated that it would address this with its contractors to ensure the correct jobs were raised to reflect the repair and investigation into other repair notes.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s fire safety policy says that it will carry out fire risk assessments on all properties where it is in control of the premises and subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. It also says that it will ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, to take all reasonable steps to ensure the means of escape are kept clear.

The landlord’s repairs guidance says that a repair will be treated as an emergency where there is an imminent and severe risk of danger or harm to the home, residents or the public. It says it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours. For routine repairs that are the landlord’s responsibility, it will arrange an appointment for the repair to be carried out.

Assessment and Findings

Windows

When the resident initially reported that windows in his home were letting in a draught, the landlord treated this as a routine repair. That was appropriate and in line with its repairs guidance.

After the landlord was told by the resident in January 2021 that its earlier repairs had not worked, it advised him that it could not arrange an inspection at that time due to Covid-19 restrictions. It is understood the landlord was only responding to emergency repairs at that time, which was reasonable given the national lockdown that was in place at the time. The issue was not considered an emergency, which was again, in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.

The landlord arranged for an inspection to take place the following month, which was reasonable given the resident thought its earlier repairs had not worked. The surveyor found the previous repairs had not been successful because the frames needed to be fixed, and the window casements adjusted.

It is unfortunate that the issues with frames and casements were not identified when the repairs initially took place in March 2020. However, it is also the case that the resident did not raise further concerns with the windows in the property, or the previous repairs carried out by the landlord, for nearly a year. If he had done so, the landlord could have arranged an earlier inspection.

When the landlord issued its Stage Two complaint response to the resident, it understood at that time that the further repairs it had arranged to the windows had been carried out to the resident’s satisfaction and had resolved the issues. Unfortunately, the resident then advised the landlord that the kitchen and bathroom windows were still allowing a draught to enter.

Although the landlord’s internal complaints procedure had ended by that point, the landlord arranged for its contractor to carry out a further inspection. A repair took place to the kitchen window, and it was recommended the window be removed and replaced. The landlord agreed to this recommendation, which was appropriate. Whilst it is understood that the resident likely found it frustrating that the bathroom window had been repaired on two previous occasions, it was reasonable for the landlord to have previously relied on its contractors’ advice that repairs could take place. When it was advised that the window needed to be replaced to resolve the issue, it agreed to this course of action, which was reasonable.

The resident thought the initial repair carried out by the landlord’s contractor had not been done properly and there had been poor workmanship. The landlord did not agree with this, and instead thought the windows may have deteriorated due to manual handling since the first repair had been carried out.

It is not known whether the problems the resident experienced with the windows in the property following the initial repair occurred because of wear and tear to the windows, or whether the initial repair was simply not sufficient. In the Ombudsman’s view, however, if the repair had immediately failed, it would be reasonable to have expected the resident to advise the landlord of that. No report was made for nearly a year.

Nevertheless, after the landlord became aware that the resident was still experiencing a draught in the property following its initial repair, it took appropriate and timely action taking into account the Covid-19 restrictions in place at the time.

Patio doors

The landlord’s contractor found that the patio door needed a new roller strip lock. The incorrect part was ordered. The impact of this was that the repair could not take place when the landlord’s contractor attended the property to carry out the repair in March 2020.

The resident was reportedly concerned about the security of the door, given a previous attempted break-in at the property. The landlord’s contractor therefore removed the glass and screwed the doors shut until it could go back and finish the repair when it received the correct part. That was not unreasonable, given the resident’s security concerns. The landlord also called the resident to confirm that he was happy with this course of action, which was appropriate.

A three-month delay then followed this, due to the landlord’s backlog of routine repairs. Whilst this inevitably caused the resident inconvenience, the landlord could not help the impact that the Covid-19 restrictions had on its services.

Although the resident did not make a complaint to the landlord for several months about its delay in carrying out the repair to the patio door, it was reasonable for the landlord to still consider his concerns. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint said that the resident was informed it needed to work through the backlog of non-urgent repairs – that is not reflected in the landlord’s call note from 18 March 2020, or its follow-up email to the resident of 20 March 2020. The resident was only informed that the landlord would attend after 20 April 2020 as it was only carrying out emergency repairs at the time. It did not make him aware that it may be some months after 20 April 2020 before the repair could actually take place because it would need to work through its backlog of non-urgent repairs. The landlord ought to have better managed the resident’s expectations here.

After the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the repairs needed to the patio door, the landlord arranged for an inspection to take place the same month. Its surveyor found that the doors could be easily forced open. The landlord therefore agreed with its surveyor’s recommendation to replace the patio door, which took place two months later. It was appropriate for the landlord to take into account its surveyor’s recommendations in this respect.

The resident raised concerns about fire safety as a result of the landlord’s decision to screw the patio doors shut. He thought the landlord needed to abide by the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

Landlords have a legal duty to ensure that properties meet fire safety standards. However, the landlord was correct when it advised the resident that those regulations do not apply to domestic premises. Although the landlord’s fire safety policy makes reference to those regulations, it only needs to abide by them for fire safety in communal areas.

The relevant law that applies is the Housing Act 2004, and this requires the landlord to ensure that the resident had an adequate means of escape in the event of a fire.

The landlord says the resident could exit the property via the front door in the event of a fire. It is accepted that the resident still had a main form of exit in the event of a fire. However, this Service is unable to determine whether there was a fire safety breach as a result of the landlord’s decision to screw the patio doors shut. Ideally, it ought to have arranged for a fire assessment to take place to check that its actions were not contrary to fire safety rules. Particularly since its own fire safety policy says it will take all reasonable steps to ensure means of escape are kept clear (as set out at point 23 above).

The landlord has recognised that it caused unnecessary confusion to the resident in 2020 in relation to the repairs. The repair outcomes were logged under the incorrect job description, which led to confusion around what repairs had been carried out, and what parts had been ordered. Although this did not form part of the resident’s complaint, it is noted that the landlord took action by addressing this issue with its contractors to ensure a repeat of the situation did not occur again. That was appropriate in the circumstances, as this Service expects landlords to learn from their errors, and take action to avoid a repeat of those errors in the future.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:

No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of repairs needed to windows in the property; and
No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of repairs needed to the rear patio doors

Reasons

The initial repairs the landlord carried out to the windows in the property did not resolve the problems, and adjustments were needed to the window frames and casements. However, the resident did not advise the landlord for nearly a year that its repairs had not worked, and so the landlord was not able to carry out an inspection or further repairs until the resident advised it of this. After the landlord learnt that the resident was still experiencing issues, it arranged for further repairs to take place to the frames and casements in line with its surveyor’s recommendations, which was appropriate. Unfortunately, that still did not resolve all the problems, as the resident continued to experience draughts from the bathroom and kitchen windows. Although the landlord’s internal complaints procedure had ended by that point, it arranged a further repair to the kitchen window, and agreed to its contractor’s recommendation to replace the bathroom window. The landlord took appropriate and proportionate action after learning that its initial repairs had not worked.

The landlord’s contractor unfortunately ordered the wrong part for the patio door repair. Due to Covid-19 restrictions in place at the time, that meant the landlord was only responding to emergency repairs rather than routine repairs. Its contractor therefore removed the glass and screwed the doors shut, as the resident was concerned about safety. A three-month wait then followed before the repair could take place, as the landlord was unfortunately affected by matters outside of its control due to the impact of Covid-19 restrictions upon its services. Though the landlord ought to have better managed the resident’s expectations in terms of timescale here. It also should have arranged for a fire assessment to take place after its contractor decided to screw the patio doors shut, as it knew they would remain that way for some time.

Recommendations

The landlord to seek advice from a competent fire risk assessor in future where a potential exit from a property has been or needs to be indefinitely removed.

The landlord ought to aim to manage the expectations of its residents in terms of the approximate timing of repairs.