Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202338335)

Background

1. The resident lives in a house which had previously been inspected by the landlord’s insurers for subsidence. When the household’s concerns about subsidence continued, the resident’s daughter, who also lives at the property, raised 2 complaints. The resident is disabled with physical and mental health conditions. For the purposes of this report, the resident’s daughter will be known as the representative.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Reports of subsidence.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of subsidence.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of subsidence

4. The landlord did not keep the resident updated. Matters were often only progressed when the representative raised complaints or requested escalations. The landlord’s poor record keeping and communication caused delays in progressing matters with its insurers.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord did not acknowledge the second complaint and escalation request in line with its policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

6. The representative told the landlord in her first complaint that the resident had been reporting concerns about subsidence for years. The landlord acknowledged in its first stage 1 response dated 13 June 2023 that the resident had been reporting cracking in walls and problems with doors since November 2010. The landlord said it had made its first claim for subsidence at the property in September 2018. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the length of time there had been issues at the property.
7. Despite the length of time the issues had been ongoing, the landlord said there had not been service failure as it had followed its processes and the opinions of experts were relied upon. While this was reasonable, it would have been appropriate to consider the distress and inconvenience the ongoing issue had caused the household. The landlord did not do this at stage 1.
8. In its stage 2 response dated 29 August 2023 the landlord put this right. It acknowledged the household had reported the issue on multiple occasions. The landlord said the household had needed to chase it for updates and had spent a lot of time accommodating appointments which had been disruptive. It was appropriate for the landlord to address these matters.
9. The landlord said it was waiting to hear back from its insurers. It said it would contact the resident by 1 September 2023 about whether the insurers had accepted its claim or whether it would be appointing its own third-party specialists to investigate.
10. The landlord did not contact the representative as it had promised in its stage 2 response. After chasing the landlord about this on 4 September 2023 and getting no reply, the representative raised a second complaint. In its second stage 1 response the landlord said it had taken longer than expected to hear back from its insurers about whether the loss adjuster was accepting the claim.
11. The landlord’s decision to refer the matter to its insurers was appropriate. The landlord contacted the insurers on 15 June 2023. However, the landlord only chased up the insurers on 29 August 2023 after issuing the first stage 2 response. While the landlord was not responsible for any delays caused by the insurers, it would have been reasonable to have chased up the insurers at an earlier date, and repeatedly, if needed.
12. The landlord’s communication and record keeping contributed to the delays in the insurer reopening the subsidence case. Landlord internal emails showed there was confusion about whether the landlord had carried out the agreed works from the previous insurance claim. This meant the insurer needed to review the case in full before deciding on whether to reopen the case.
13. After further emails, the landlord identified that it had carried out the works agreed from the previous insurance claim. However, the costings of the works had not been sent to the insurer. The landlord sent this information to its insurers on 13 September 2023. The landlord was told on 21 September 2023 that the insurers would re-open the claim and would be in touch shortly.
14. The landlord did not tell the representative about the update on the insurance claim. This was not appropriate and a missed opportunity to keep the representative updated.
15. After further contact with the insurers, the landlord had to raise a new subsidence claim. The landlord updated the resident on 11 October 2023, and the loss adjuster carried out a visit on 26 October 2023. The landlord managed the resident’s expectations that a period of monitoring might be needed before any resolution would be achieved. It was appropriate of the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations.
16. However, the landlord did not update the representative after the loss adjuster’s visit. This was not appropriate or reasonable. The representative had not heard from the landlord for 3 months, so she escalated her complaint.
17. In its second stage 2 response dated 20 March 2024 the landlord acknowledged that the representative had not been contacted since the loss adjuster’s visit and that she had not been updated on the outcomes of visits and next steps. It apologised for this which was appropriate.
18. However, the landlord had acknowledged the same communication failings in the previous complaint. It was not putting things right or learning from outcomes by allowing the same problems it had previously identified to reoccur.
19. The landlord told the resident that the outcome of the loss adjuster’s visit was that the insurer did not think the problem was subsidence. The insurer thought the problem was thermal movement caused by seasonal temperature and weather changes. The landlord said it did not agree with the loss adjuster’s report. It decided to appoint an independent contractor to complete further monitoring. This was an appropriate action to seek clarity on the problem.
20. The landlord said it appreciated this was the third time monitoring was being carried out. It said monitoring would be needed for up to 8 months. The landlord said it had taken too long to take an objective view of the situation given the household’s reports and the issues they had experienced. It apologised for the stress caused and the chasing the representative had needed to do.
21. The representative was dissatisfied with further monitoring as the household did not want ongoing problems for another 8 months. During the period of monitoring the representative reported problems with further cracking, the stack pipe, floorboards, stairs, doors and water pressure which she thought were all caused by subsidence. The landlord carried out works when the problems were raised which was appropriate. But the representative said the continuous disruption for these works was affecting the household.
22. The monitoring was extended to 12 months. It was reasonable to get a full year’s data, especially given the previous opinion that the cause of the problem was due to thermal movement caused by the change in seasons. However, this information was available at the time of deciding to carry out monitoring so the household’s expectations could have been better managed by deciding to carry out a full year’s monitoring initially. While the extension to the monitoring was reasonable, it meant the household was further delayed in getting resolution to the matter.
23. After the monitoring was completed, the landlord arranged for a structural engineer to review the data and inspect the property. This visit took place on 13 August 2025. The landlord contacted the representative on 18 August 2025 to advise that the structural engineer did not find any immediate safety concerns. It was appropriate to advise the representative of this at the earliest opportunity.
24. The landlord said it expected to receive the report within 2 weeks of the visit. It said it would update the resident with next steps by Monday 15 September. This was to allow it some time to review and discuss the report internally and contact insurers if necessary. This was reasonable.
25. However, on 23 October 2025 the representative told us that she had not heard from the landlord about the structural engineer’s report or the next steps. The representative said she was still not being kept updated. She felt the situation was going round in circles and she had raised more complaints. The representative said there was no timeline on when the matter would be resolved which was very stressful and affecting the resident’s wellbeing.
26. In many communications with the landlord, the representative repeatedly stated about how the matters were causing distress, inconvenience and affecting the resident’s mental health. When the resident expressed distress to the landlord on 28 November 2024, the landlord appropriately signposted the resident to support options which was appropriate. However, this response came 8 working days later. Due to the distress expressed it would have been reasonable to have replied more promptly.
27. In June 2025, the landlord discussed a management move with the resident and her representative. This was appropriate. However, it was unclear what the outcome of these discussions were.
28. The landlord awarded compensation during both complaints. In the first complaint the landlord awarded £500 compensation at stage 2 for service failures, time and inconvenience. In the second complaint the landlord awarded £150 compensation. This was made up of £100 at stage 1 for delays and inconvenience and £50 at stage 2 for failing to keep the resident updated.
29. The compensation the landlord offered during these complaints was appropriate and in line with our remedies guidance. However, the matters remain unresolved 20 months after the date of the last stage 2 response investigated by us in this case.
30. While subsidence and thermal movement are complex issues which can take time to identify and resolve, particularly where there is no clear cause and conflicting expert opinions, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have communicated more effectively with the resident and her representative. The representative expressed her concern consistently and the impact the matters were having on the household. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered this, along with the vulnerabilities in the household, and ensured there were timely updates consistently provided.
31. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a further £400 in recognition of these failures. This is to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the household by the matters being unresolved and the ongoing poor communication.

32. There were no failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the first complaint that was made on 30 May 2023. The acknowledgements and responses were all issued in line with the timescales in the landlord’s policy and the Code.
33. The second complaint was made on 29 September 2023. The landlord acknowledged this complaint on 11 October 2023 which was 8 working days later. This timeframe was not in line with the 5 days specified in the Code and the landlord’s policy for complaints to be logged and acknowledged. The landlord did not address its delay in acknowledging the complaint during its stage 1 response issued on 25 October 2023.
34. The second complaint was escalated on 29 January 2024. The representative did not hear from the landlord. She chased the landlord about this on 19 and 20 February 2024. The representative should not have needed to chase the landlord to acknowledge her escalation request.
35. The landlord acknowledged the escalation to stage 2 on 21 February 2024. This was 17 working days after the representative requested the complaint be escalated. This timeframe was not in line with the 5 days specified in the Code and the landlord’s policy.
36. The landlord addressed the delay in acknowledging the escalation request in its stage 2 response dated 20 March 2024. This was not referenced as a complaint handling failure. Instead, it was referenced along with the other delays the representative had experienced regarding her reports of subsidence.
37. It was reasonable that the landlord mentioned the delay in acknowledging the escalation request. However, it would have been appropriate to have acknowledged this as a complaint handling failure.
38. We have ordered the landlord to award the resident £50 compensation. This is because the landlord did not award any compensation for complaint handling failures which occurred due to the delays in acknowledging the second complaint and its escalation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

39. More robust records would have prevented the confusion about whether the landlord had carried out the agreed works from the previous insurance claim. We would encourage the landlord to review the recommendations in our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.

Communication

40. The landlord needs to proactively keep residents updated. Having better oversight of the matters would enable more timely updates to be issued to residents.