Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202534244)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202534244 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Paradigm Housing Group Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Shorthold Tenancy |
|
Date |
23 March 2026 |
Background
- When the resident moved into the property she experienced asthma symptoms. She reported her health concerns to the landlord and asked it to inspect the property for damp and mould. She also raised concerns about asbestos in the property. The landlord carried out inspections and repairs. On 20 August 2025 the resident requested a copy of the asbestos report. On 17 September 2025 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about its handling of her concerns relating to damp and mould and asbestos.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports about damp and mould and asbestos.
- We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found the landlord responsible for:
- Service failure in its handling of reports about damp and mould and asbestos.
- No maladministration in its handling of the complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
The landlord’s handling of reports about damp and mould and asbestos
- The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould was appropriate. However, the landlord did not provide the resident with written information about asbestos in the property in a reasonable time or in line with its procedures. This was a service failure by the landlord.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint
- The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy and procedures.
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.
|
Order |
What the landlord must do |
Due date |
|
1 |
Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failure identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 20 April 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports about damp and mould and asbestos. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. |
No later than 20 April 2026
|
|
3 |
Communication order We have asked the landlord to set out its position on whether cleaning the balcony soffit is the responsibility of the resident or the landlord. If the responsibility lies with the landlord, it should communicate in writing to the resident how often and when it will be cleaned. |
No later than 20 April 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
Review the information provided to residents during the tenancy sign-up process if a property contains asbestos. It should inform the resident how to minimise risk to the household by leaving it undisturbed and report any deterioration to the landlord immediately. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
17 September 2025 |
The resident complained to the landlord that since moving into the property her household had experienced an increase of asthma symptoms which she believed was caused by damp and mould and asbestos. She said that she had asked the landlord for a copy of the asbestos report and had not received it. |
|
7 October 2025 |
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It said that it had carried out 2 inspections and not found damp and mould in the property. It had carried out additional cleaning to support the resident. The landlord clarified that there was no risk to health from the remaining asbestos in the property. The landlord could not find a link between the resident’s reported respiratory issues and the condition of the property. |
|
8 October 2025 |
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 because:
|
|
6 November 2025 |
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It confirmed that it had provided the resident with the asbestos report on 20 October 2025. It had completed repairs to windows and vents in September and October 2025. It had carried out an inspection on 16 October 2025 and found no damp and mould, and adequate ventilation. The resident had recently reported damp and mould in the airing cupboard and the landlord had carried out a mould wash. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
On 6 November 2025 the resident brought her complaint to us. She told us that her household had experienced increased symptoms of asthma which she believed was caused by damp and mould and asbestos in the property. She wanted to be moved to a property free from hazards, and to receive an apology and compensation from the landlord. |
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.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s handling of reports about damp and mould and asbestos |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
What we have not investigated
- During the complaint process, the resident told the landlord that the previous tenant of the property had experienced damp and mould. She believed the landlord had not been honest with her about this information. However, we are only able to investigate the landlord’s handling of damp and mould that relates to the resident’s tenancy.
- The resident also told us that the landlord’s handling of the issues outlined in his complaint had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
What we have investigated
- While the property was void the landlord carried out an asbestos survey and removed a significant amount of asbestos from the property. The resident received the keys to the property on 18 August 2025. The next day she called the landlord to advise she had experienced an asthma attack which she believed was caused by damp and mould.
- On 20 August 2025 the landlord visited the property to carry out an inspection. The inspection report stated that no damp and mould was found but it recommended additional cleaning to help the resident’s symptoms. The resident told the landlordduring the visit she was concerned about asbestos in the property. She asked fora copy of the asbestos report.
- We have not been provided with a copy of the landlord’s damp and mould policy from this time. However, its damp and mould policy published 2 months later says that it will aim to investigate within 24 hours if the initial report or resident’s circumstances indicate a significant risk of harm.
- On 1 and 5 September 2025 the resident reported to the landlord that there was mould in the property. She also reminded the landlord that she had asked for a copy of the asbestos report and not received it.
- On 8 September 2025 the landlord’s surveyor and housing officer visited the resident. The surveyor’s inspection report stated that damp and mould was not a concern in the property. The surveyor treated a small amount of mould on window trims and cleaned some fan covers. The surveyor noted that there was staining to the balcony soffit outside but determined that this was not a hazard. The landlord noted following the visit that it would liaise with relevant services to support the resident’s vulnerabilities.
- The landlord’s damp and mould policy from October 2025 says that it would carry out an inspection within 10 working days if its initial assessment indicated that the hazard was unlikely to be an emergency. The landlord’s inspection was in line with the policy that it was soon to publish.
- On 12 September 2025 the landlord told the Environmental Health Officer (EHO) that it had responded to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould by carrying out 2 inspections and completing additional cleaning. The EHO responded by saying the landlord had taken the necessary steps to address the complaint.
- On 17 September 2025 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about damp and mould in the property. She detailed the asthma symptoms that she (and her household) had experienced since moving in. She also stated that she had asked for a copy of the asbestos report and the landlord had not provided it.
- The landlord’s complaint response on 7 October 2025 stated it had acted immediately to address the resident’s concerns. It had not identified any hazards caused by damp and mould. Its inspections had concluded the property had adequate ventilation. It clarified that there was no risk to health from the remaining asbestos flooring. However, the landlord did not address the resident’s request to receive a copy of the asbestos report.
- The next day the landlord completed servicing of the windows in the property. The resident called the landlord after the visit to explain that window vents were still blocked. The same day the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2.
- On 16 October 2025 the landlord carried out a third inspection. It found no damp or mould and adequate ventilation. On 20 October 2025 the landlord provided the resident with a copy of the asbestos report.
- On 31 October 2025 the resident sent the landlord photos of damp and mould in the boiler cupboard where a cold-water tank had been removed. On 6 November 2025 it carried out a mould wash and raised other repairs to prevent a reoccurrence.
- The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will start repairs within 5 working days of issuing the investigation report. Therefore, the landlord acted in line with its policy when it arranged repairs for the damp and mould.
- On 6 November 2025 the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response. It acknowledged that the resident had been experiencing health issues but said that it had been unable to identify a causal link from within the property.
- The resident told us that window vents are still blocked. The landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response that it had completed window and vent repairs on 17 September and 8 October 2025. The landlord has since carried out a further inspection that identified the property had adequate ventilation. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of its surveyor.
- When the resident brought her complaint to us, she told us that she wanted the landlord to move her to a property free from hazards. We would not order a landlord to rehouse a resident. This is because we do not know the local housing need or available properties. On 16 October 2025 the landlord noted that it was unable to consider a management move for the resident because the property was habitable.
- The resident told us that the landlord did not provide any information about the asbestos in the property at the start of the tenancy. The landlord’s Tenant Information booklet 2024 states that if a resident is concerned about asbestos, they should contact the landlord immediately. The landlord’s website says that if a resident wants to make alterations to their home, it will provide the asbestos report to confirm if there is asbestos and if so where it is.
- The resident requested the asbestos report several times over 2 months. The resident was aware of the asbestos and the risk of disturbing it. The landlord’s surveyor had discussed the asbestos in the property with the resident in person. Therefore, the detriment to the resident caused by the landlord’s failure to provide the report sooner was lower than if the resident had been at risk of creating asbestos dust or had not received advice in person. However, it was a service failure not to provide a copy within a reasonable time and likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
- The resident has told us that she is still concerned that mildew on the balcony soffit may be contributing to her worsening asthma symptoms. The landlord has previously inspected and disregarded any impact from dirt or mildew on the resident due to it being outside. We have ordered the landlord to set out its position on whether cleaning the balcony soffit is the responsibility of the resident or the landlord. If the responsibility lies with the landlord, it should communicate to the resident how often and when it will be cleaned.
- We have also ordered the landlord to pay £100 to the resident for its failure to provide information about asbestos in the property for 2 months, which likely caused her distress and inconvenience. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for a finding of service failure. We have also ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident for its failing.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
No maladministration |
- The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (April 2024) (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure refers to those in the Code.
- The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy and procedures.
Learning
- The resident told us that the landlord did not provide information about asbestos in the property at the start of the tenancy. We have made a recommendation that the landlord reviews the information that it provides to residents at the start of a tenancy, to make sure it is adequately informing residents about the presence of asbestos and any risks.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- When we asked the landlord to send us evidence for our investigation it included multiple copies of the same documents and photographs. Duplication of records makes our investigation process take longer, which delays the outcome for the resident.
- When we asked the landlord to send us additional information for our investigation, it did not provide it. This has made it harder for us to investigate the landlord’s actions in the light of its policies and procedures.
Communication
- The landlord’s communication with the resident about the health issues she was experiencing had a sympathetic and understanding tone. Even though it could find no causal link between her symptoms and the property, it thoroughly investigated and considered her vulnerabilities.