Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202317285)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317285

Paradigm Housing Group Limited

18 March 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 handling of:
1. Repairs to the communal gate.
2. Service charges.

Background

The resident lives in a 1 bed flat under an assured tenancy which began on 11 May 2015. The property is owned by a managing agent and leased to the landlord.
The landlord does not have any specific vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. In the course of the complaint, the resident noted that the process has affected her mental health and her ability to secure work.
The complaint centres around repeated repair issues with a communal gate leading to a car park. Additionally, the resident queried the level of service charge that she was paying, particularly as she did not feel that she had received all of the services that she was being charged for.
The resident raised a complaint on 22 May 2023 in which she said:
1. The communication she was receiving from the landlord and managing agent was poor.
2. The communal gate into the car park had been “broken for weeks” and there had been delays to the repairs being completed by the managing agent’s contractor.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 9 June 2023 and said:
1. It fully upheld the resident’s complaint as there had been a five week delay in the communal gate being repaired.
2. It had chased the managing agent on several occasions to progress the repair and it had been caused by a delay in sourcing a part needed for the repair.
3. It apologised for the delay the resident had experienced and for the inconvenience and confusion caused by the communications issued between the resident, landlord and managing agent.
4. It had raised the communication issues with the managing agent and had appointed a single point of contact with the managing agent for contact and monitoring moving forward.
The resident escalated her complaint during a site visit on 25 July 2023 as the communal gate was out of order again. The resident also said:
1. Her service charge included communal water charges for outside taps, which she had never seen.
2. Her block had not received window cleaning services, but other blocks had.
3. The bin store was often left messy from other resident’s misuse of the area, including dumping of bulk rubbish.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 7 August 2023 and said:
1. It fully upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for a missed callback during the complaint process. It offered £25 compensation in respect of this and later increased this to £75.
2. It acknowledged that there had been further periods when the gate had not been operational, including a period on 2 August when the gate was stuck and resident’s were unable to enter or leave the property. The landlord had contacted the managing agent the same day, who had committed to a repair by 3 August 2023. The landlord had followed up on this, but not received a reply from the managing agent.
3. While communal water had appeared on the resident’s service charge statement for 2022/23, this had not been spent and had been returned to the resident’s service charge account as a credit for the following financial year. The water charges had also been removed entirely in the following financial year.
4. Neither the landlord or the managing agent provide window cleaning to the resident’s block as this is not a contractual requirement. The landlord also confirmed that this service is not charged for.
5. It had raised the issue of the bin store with the managing agent, who had committed to writing to all residents. In addition, the landlord had arranged a bulk waste collection for 31 July 2023 to clear the accumulated rubbish. The landlord had also raised a repair request for damage caused to the bin store doors, which was due to be completed no later than 7 August 2023.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 11 August 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident’s property is owned by a managing agent. In this setup, the managing agent retain the legal responsibility for keeping the property in good repair. Part of the resident’s complaint relates to the repair of communal assets such as the car park gate and external lighting.
Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme says that “the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.”
Complaints related to the actions of managing agents fall within the jurisdiction of The Property Ombudsman (TPO) to investigate and determine. On this basis, this investigation will consider the actions of the resident’s landlord but will not assess the actions of the managing agent.
Should the resident remain dissatisfied with the conduct of the managing agent, she should consider seeking advice around the managing agent’s complaint process and escalating this to TPO if required.
Furthermore, paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme says that “the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.”
As part of her complaint to this Service, the resident raised concerns about the level of the service charge she was asked to pay, particularly in response to the level of service she felt she had received. While this investigation has considered the landlord’s communication and responses to the resident in relation to her service charge, an assessment of the level of charges has not been considered.
Should the resident remain dissatisfied with the level of service charge being raised, she may wish to seek legal advice about progressing her complaint to for the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), who can make a binding determination on the level of a service charge.

Communal gate

It is not disputed that the managing agent is responsible for the maintenance of the communal gate as the freeholder of the property and grounds in which the resident lives.
Within the scope of this complaint, the resident first notified the landlord on 22 April 2023 that the gate was broken. In response to this, the landlord took the following action:
1. It chased the managing agent for an update on repairs on 4 May 2023. It was told that the managing agent’s contractor was awaiting a part to be able to complete the repair.
2. It chased the managing agent again on 10 May 2023 for and update and was told that it would be completed on 26 May 2023. It confirmed that the works had been completed with both the managing agent and the resident on this date.
3. It apologised in its stage 1 complaint response for the 5 week delay in the repairs to the gate being completed.
4. It told the resident that it was reviewing communication with the managing agent and was planning to have a meeting to discuss better ways of working in the future.
On 4 July 2023, the gate had broken again and was stuck closed, preventing residents from entering or leaving the car park. Both the resident and landlord pursued a repair with the managing agent. The resident called the landlord on called on 31 July 2023 to say that a repair had been completed on 27 July 2023, but that the gate had broken for a third time on 29 July 2023.
In response to this, the landlord:
1. Contacted the managing agent and was told that a repair would be completed by 3 August 2023.
2. Attempted to make contact with the managing agent on several occasions but did not receive a response.
3. Wrote to the managing agent on 7 August 2023 to check on the status of repairs to the gate.
From the evidence provided, it is not clear if or when a repair was made to the gate. Notwithstanding this, there were further issues with the gate reported beyond the scope of this complaint in March 2024, April 2024, May 2024 and the resident has said to our Service that issues persist at the time of this investigation.
Following completion of this complaint, there is evidence of the landlord taking further steps to address the issues with the gate including:
1. Attending a meeting with the managing agent on 15 April 2024. During this visit, the managing agent committed to:
  1. Registering the landlord on its new communications portal to receive updates and be able to log and track issues more clearly.
  2. Appointing a new property manager for the resident’s block to better manage ongoing issues.
  3. Setting up a single email address for contact to and from the landlord.
  4. Take advice and consider removing the gate, following consultation with residents, to avoid further issues.
  5. Take advice and consider installing CCTV to oversee the gate, as the managing agent was concerned that the gate was being repeatedly broken by vandalism or by resident’s driving into it.
2. Identifying learning for its own staff, including its communication with the managing agent and to ensure that it responded to resident callbacks in a timely manner.
3. Undertaking site visits with the managing agent and singularly to assess the gate and other issues raised by the resident.
4. Providing personal support to the resident, including supporting her with arranging a mental health support appointment.
It was positive to note the landlord’s communication with the resident and the managing agent as it pursued the various repairs to completion. Had this resulted in a lasting and effective repair to the gate, this would have been reasonable in the circumstances.
Given that the issues with the gate were first reported in 22 April 2023 and are ongoing at the time of this investigation, this is a period of almost 2 years in which there has been no lasting fix to the gate. Additionally, it is the landlord who manages the relationship between itself and its residents, and the managing agent. The resident is not able to manage this relationship or affect change directly but does still experience the distress and inconvenience caused.
Given the longstanding nature of these repairs and the nature of the relationships between the three parties, it would have been reasonable in these circumstances for the landlord to have done more to escalate contact with the managing agent in an attempt to progress repairs or seek an alternative solution to the issues with the gate.
While it was positive to note that the landlord attempted to put additional steps in place to manage the relationship with the managing agent, such as the dedicated email address and use of its portal, it took a significant period time for this to take place. Given that the resident felt the repairs were ineffective and repetitive it would have been a proportionate response to have taken further steps to have satisfied itself about its rights under its own occupancy or contractual agreements with the managing agent. It could then have explored whether it had additional practical or legal avenues to pursue in order to affect the repairs needed and resolve the resident’s complaint. Had it done so it would have been in a position to better demonstrate it had taken a range of steps in attempting to address the resident’s concerns about the repeated repairs and lack of a lasting repair. That it did not was a failure to demonstrate it took proportionate action to consider the resident’s concerns and this was a service failure.
The landlord should seek specialist advice and write to the resident to clarify its position on what avenues it has available to it under the occupancy agreement, contractual agreements or through other informal or legal redress to pursue the managing agent completing a lasting and effective repair on the gate.

Service charges

As outlined above, the Ombudsman is not able to consider the element of the complaint related to the level of service charge or whether this was reasonable. Part of the resident’s stage 2 complaint related to queries regarding the level of service that she was receiving from the landlord, which she paid for via the service charge.
The resident said that:
1. She was charged for communal water usage in the 2022-23 financial year, for water taps which she had never seen.
2. Other blocks received window cleaning, provided by the landlord, but hers did not.
3. The bin store was often left messy due to misuse by other residents. This included bulk waste accumulations.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said:
1. It had levied a communal water in the 2022-23 financial year, but this was not spent, so was added back into budget for 2023-24 and no further charge was raised. Overall, savings were made in various aspects of the service charge budget for 2023-24 which resulted in a decrease in service charge payable.
2. Neither the landlord or the managing agent were contracted to provide window cleaning on the resident’s block. However, this service was not part of the resident’s service charge and she had not ever been charged for it.
3. It had raised the issues with the bin store with the managing agent, who had committed to write to all residents with a reminder about appropriate use of the area. Additionally, the landlord arranged for a bulk waste clearance on 31 July 2023 and raised a repair request for the doors on the bin store, which was due for completion on 7 August 2023.
This was a timely and appropriate response to the resident’s concerns which addressed the elements fully that were within the landlord’s control. The landlord also stated its position clearly and outlined what action it had taken with the managing agent for matters which were beyond its jurisdiction to action.
On this basis, there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of service charges.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there has been:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal gate.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of service charges.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the time and trouble of repeatedly raising the repair issues with the landlord due to a lack of lasting and effective repairs being made to the gate.
2. Undertake a review of the effectiveness of its current revised arrangements with the managing agent (as set out in paragraph 22 of the report). The landlord must then also:
  1. Consider what additional rights and remedial powers it has under its occupancy agreement, contractual agreements or other informal or legal routes to affect a lasting and effective repair to the gate.
  2. Take appropriate advice on pursuing these routes to remedy the situation.
  3. Write to the resident and this Service setting out its position on any options that it has available and what action it plans to take to affect a lasting and effective repair to the gate within a period not exceeding 8 weeks.