Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202316689)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316689

Paradigm Housing Group Limited

28 February 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of her repair requests following a mutual exchange.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The resident moved into the property on 17 April 2023 following a mutual exchange. The property is a semi-detached house.
Following an application request for a mutual exchange, the landlord wrote to the resident on 24 February 2023. It provided the resident with a leaflet outlining the process involved in the mutual exchange. The letter explained that the resident must accept responsibility for the condition of the property they move in to. This includes the standards of decoration, any improvements or alterations to the property and any items of repair which are the tenant’s responsibility.
On 20 March 2023 the resident and the landlord conducted an inspection of the property prior to the mutual exchange. The following day an electrical installation condition report (EICR) was completed. The condition was satisfactory, however it noted the property could do with a rewire to add additional points.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 19 April 2023 about the condition of the property. The following reports were raised:
1. Black mould.
2. Plaster needed after removing wallpaper.
3. Dangerous electrics as sockets were hanging off walls.
4. There were not enough sockets, so extension leads were being used in the kitchen .
5. Radiators were 30 years old.
6. Gutter and roof leaked when it rains.
7. Kitchen last updated in 1950.
8. Bathroom smelt of urine due to leak.
9. Water pump was broken.
10. Front step of house was broken.
In response, the landlord contacted the contractor who completed electrical checks in March and asked it if there were outstanding faults or electrical repairs. It confirmed the fixed wiring was satisfactory. The contractor did state it had outstanding works to upgrade the smoke alarms and do trunking to conceal double insulated cables by the fuse board, but was unable to do the works as the former resident was moving out.
During April 2023 the landlord arranged an inspection of the property. It was noted that, after the previous resident moved out, plug sockets, light switches and ceiling lights were found damaged and missing. The landlord arranged for these to be replaced by its contractors. A drain technician also inspected the drains for blockages, however did not find an issue as everything was flowing well. They recommended the landlord have a CCTV survey conducted to find out why the drain was previously blocked. In May the landlord arranged for this survey.
A stage one response was issued on 12 May 2023. The main points raised in the response were:
1. The landlord explained a mould wash and stain block had been booked in for 23 May 2023. It also confirmed extractor fans would be installed on 10 June 2023.
2. Regarding the electrics, the landlord understood the property was cluttered when she viewed it. Once the repairs had been raised to the landlord after the resident moved in, contractors attended bringing the property to the required standard. The EICR confirmed this. The landlord provided the resident with a home improvement form to complete to gain the necessary permission to install additional sockets.
3. It agreed to have a CCTV survey of the drains and confirmed that all other repairs had been booked and would be completed in due course.
4. Overall, the landlord did not find service failure in relation to the condition of the resident’s home. It explained that she visited the property prior to the mutual exchange and signed the forms confirming acceptance.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage one response. She stated it should have informed her there was a damp and mould inspection in 2021 prior to the mutual exchange.
A stage 2 response was issued on 16 June 2023. The landlord did not uphold the complaint as it was satisfied it responded in time to the multiple repairs raised by the resident and in accordance with its policies and procedures. It confirmed it had completed follow on work as proposed from the CCTV survey, replaced 6 radiators, fitted a new glass unit on door, and replaced the extractor fans. Works to the kitchen worktop, gutter and front step were booked in for August and September and the landlord made the resident aware of the expected timeframes. As a gesture of goodwill the landlord agreed to install a double electrical socket for the resident and offered a decorating pack voucher so she could get materials to decorate her home.
With regard to the damp and mould, the landlord explained inspection took place on 25 November 2021 and remedial works were completed. A further report was made on 16 January 2023, however it was found there was no heating and ventilation issues. At that time advice was given to the previous resident on how to heat, treat and ventilate the home. The landlord further explained it would not routinely inform customers of such inspections.
On 18 July 2023 the resident wrote to her local MP about the ongoing repairs. She was unhappy about black mould within the home, stated the kitchen was in disrepair and she felt her home was not safe as the kitchen was being run from extension leads. The resident wanted the kitchen to be replaced.
On 15 August 2023 the landlord wrote to the MP to address the resident’s concerns about the kitchen repairs. It explained that all repairs previously raised had been completed within its timescales. The only repair not completed in time was for the worktop, to be replaced on 17 August. The landlord explained the operative did attend the resident’s home to carry out this repair and instead she asked for the curtain in the downstairs bedroom to be made good and the skirting to be replaced. This was completed that day. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns of damp and mould and explained it had asked for a surveyor to attend.
Several repairs were booked during October 2023, some of which were previously reported:
1. Kitchen electrical check – 3 October.
2. Scope for missing radiator in the kitchen – 4 October.
3. Front and back door scopes – 5 October.
4. Bedroom ceiling removal and reinstatements – 17 -18 October.
5. Damp and mould clean in the conservatory – 18 October.
6. Guttering work was booked for 6 November 2023 – however the landlord was checking if this could be brought forward.
It is noted that a period of time has passed since the resident raised this complaint. Neither party has given an update to confirm whether any further repairs are pending.

Assessment and findings

Condition of property – Multiple repairs.

The evidence shows the resident has raised numerous repair reports since moving into the property. She moved into the property via a mutual exchange. This is a scheme where residents are able to swap properties with other social housing tenants. We can see that after the exchange she was unhappy with the condition of her home and felt the landlord should have ensured the property was in a suitable condition prior to her moving in.
The landlord’s mutual exchange policy and factsheet informs residents it is their responsibility to inspect the property thoroughly before the exchange happens to ensure they are aware of the condition of the property. It further states that, although the landlord will carry out an inspection, not all issues may be identified and residents who are exchanging are ultimately responsible for being satisfied with the condition of the property they are moving into. Once the exchange has taken place, the resident takes responsibility for the condition of the property with the exception of any repair issues that fall under the responsibility of the landlord.
It is important to note that a mutual exchange is an assignment of an existing tenancy, rather than a new tenancy being created. As such, the landlord is not required to carry out the same void checks that it would for a property which has been vacated and is being let on a new tenancy agreement.
In this instance we see that the landlord and the resident carried out an inspection of the property prior to the exchange and no repair issues were raised at the time. Subsequently the resident agreed to the exchange and signed the deed of assignment, which stated that the resident must accept responsibility for the condition of the property. This includes the standards of decoration, any improvements or alterations and any items of repair which are the tenant’s responsibility.
We have reviewed the landlord’s policy and there is no requirement for the landlord to inspect the property more than once during the exchange period. Whilst we can understand the resident’s frustration about the condition of the property after exchange, the landlord acted in accordance with its policies.
When repairs were raised by the resident, the landlord proceeded to address her concerns by arranging for an inspection to take place and it then conducted multiple repairs. It also informed the resident of expected timeframes. Whilst we acknowledge multiple repairs were completed within the landlord’s proposed timeframes as set out in its stage two response, it appears that some of the repairs to the kitchen were not completed. During a further inspection conducted on 4 September the operative noted work was still required to repair the worktop, and to replace a radiator in the kitchen. We understand the landlord stated this may be as part of a kitchen replacement, however we have not seen evidence to show when this kitchen replacement would be taking place. Furthermore, given 6 months had passed since the resident first reported the issue, the landlord ought to have made a repair. Repairs to the guttering still remained outstanding, despite the resident first reporting concerns of this in April and we have not seen evidence to see the landlord sought to appropriately fix the leak. We are aware works to the kitchen and cleaning of the guttering were completed during November 2023, however the length of time taken to resolve the issues was unreasonable.
Although the landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint, it understood the resident’s frustration and offered a decorating pack voucher so she could decorate her home without charge. Whilst we acknowledge its goodwill gesture, we are not satisfied this sufficiently reflected the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the ongoing delays. The delays impacted the resident’s ability to use the kitchen as she was having to rely on extension leads. Therefore, we have made a finding of service failure andhave made an order to reflect this.

Electrical sockets.

The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the sockets and electrical installations and stated they were poorly installed. In the landlord’s correspondence there was also speculation that the previous tenant removed or damaged some lights, plug sockets and switches in the property that were not noticed during the viewing, and it was believed damage had been caused. There is no evidence to suggest if this was done before or after the resident viewed the property, but we can see that when the property was viewed it was cluttered, so this could have been missed. The evidence shows the landlord investigated these concerns and spoke with its contractor to understand the condition of the property when he visited. We have reviewed the landlord’s repairs history and can see that it arranged for the lights, switches and plug sockets to be replaced during April. We find the landlord acted appropriately given the circumstances and made a repair within the expected timeframes.
We can see the resident also complained about the lack of electrical sockets within the property. In response the landlord explained to the resident that the property previously passed the electrical certification requirements.
The evidence shows that an electrical installation condition report (EICR) was also completed prior to the resident moving on 21 March 2023, this concluded the electrical condition was satisfactory but that it could benefit with a rewire to add additional points. There were no faults noted.
With regard to installing additional sockets within the property. this would have been considered a home improvement and not a repair. Therefore, when the landlord provided the resident with a home improvement form and informed her this would be required to gain permission for this improvement, it acted appropriately and in line with its policies.
Nonetheless, as a gesture of goodwill, the landlord later agreed to have the double socket installed. We find that although it was not obligated to do so, by doing this it appropriately demonstrated a willingness to support the resident’s needs.

Damp and mould.

The resident expressed upset over the damp and mould in the property and felt that this should have been picked up during the inspection visit prior to the mutual exchange. She also felt the landlord should have informed her of any history of issues concerning damp and mould in the property before she agreed to the mutual exchange.
In response the landlord said the last inspection concerning damp and mould was during 2021 and remedial repairs were completed.
Whilst we understand the resident’s frustration in not knowing about historic issues with the property, it is not a requirement for the landlord to make residents aware of previous reports and repairs during the mutual exchange process. Furthermore, we have not seen evidence to suggest the resident asked about this prior to the exchange. In our damp and mould spotlight reports we recommended that landlords be more transparent with residents involved in mutual exchanges and make the most of every opportunity to identify and address damp and mould, in visit and void periods. We understand that at the time of the mutual exchange, there were no open reports concerning damp and mould.
When the resident raised reports of damp and mould on 18 April 2023the landlord arranged for an inspection on 2 May 2023. It then arranged for a mould wash and stain block to be completed to the affected areas on 23 May. During the visit the operative noted a high moisture reading was occurring due to the external drain and pipe outside the property. The contractor stated that once this was fixed,the mould behind the kitchen unit and the washing machine would stop. The landlord also agreed to an extractor fan replacement during June 2023. The evidence shows thatthese works were completed.
The resident informed the landlord that the black mould behind the kitchen unit had not been treated as it could not be reached without the units being taken out. She continued to express her concern about the damp and mould not being resolved in July and August 2023.
We can see a further damp and mould inspection was completed on 4 September 2023. It confirmed that damp and mould were detected to the external walls in the kitchen. The operative recommended further investigation was required and also recommended the to the kitchen units in the affected area, wait for the area to dry and then to reinstall plastering.
Overall we find the initial response by the landlord was timely, but the issues persisting in the affected areas indicate that the follow-up actions were insufficient. The length of time it took to fully address the resident’s ongoing concerns was unreasonable, as it required multiple chases from her and a considerable delay before another inspection took place. Therefore, we find there was service failure by the landlord and we will make an order to reflect this.
Taken all together, the cumulative findings of service failing in the landlord’s overall handling of reports of repairs to the property mean that we have made a finding of maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the condition of the property following a mutual exchange.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays in addressing the resident’s repairs reports. This should be paid directly to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination letter. Once completed the landlord should provide evidence to this service to confirm it has complied with the order.