Paragon Asra Housing Limited (201911969)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201911969

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

20 April 2022

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:
1. the resident’s possessions going missing following the attendance of the landlord’s furniture removalists;
2. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports regarding a leak into her property;
3. the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes as follows:

39. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

a) are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

The resident has advised that following the landlord arranging for furniture removalists to move her furniture during repair works, a number of her possessions went missing. The resident has advised she has reported this to the police and also raised a complaint with the landlord that it did not follow its policies when hiring the furniture removalists. The resident has further advised that this complaint is yet to complete the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the resident’s possessions going missing following the attendance of the landlord’s furniture removalists is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
If the resident progresses her formal complaint through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and is dissatisfied with the outcome, she may then be able to bring the complaint to this service.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 22 December 1997. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
The property is a ground floor flat. There are two flats on the first floor above the resident’s property, which adjoin directly above the resident’s bedroom.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. A stage one response should be provided within 10 working days of a complaint. A stage two response should be provided within 15 working days of an escalation. The policy notes that a complaint will not be closed until actions have been agreed upon, and those actions have been completed.
The landlord operates a maintenance policy. The policy notes that emergency repairs will be attended to within 24 hours. Non-emergency works will be attended to within 15 working days and can include plumbing repairs and roof leaks. The policy notes that where multiple visits or tradespeople are required, it may need to adopt a variable timescale for repairs, in which case it will agree a timescale with the resident. The policy also notes that should the landlord use contractors, the contractor’s work will be to the “highest standard” and that they will inform the resident of further arrangements should further works be required.
The landlord operates a compensation policy. The policy notes that where a bedroom is not habitable due to disrepair, the landlord will offer compensation of £20 per week.

Summary of events

The resident has advised this service that there have been leaks coming into her bedroom from the ceiling since 2018. The resident raised a complaint in relation to these leaks, to which the landlord provided its stage two response in February 2020. It considered that the leaks were coming from the pipework in the property above the resident’s and that repairs had now been completed. It also apologised for the delays, for which it offered £500 compensation. The Ombudsman notes that around this time, the landlord received and acknowledged a communication which noted the resident was affected by a disability.
On 5 November 2020, the resident reported that the leak had returned to her property in August 2020. She advised that the emergency electrician had attended the same day as her report to make safe her electrical fittings, but that subsequently no plumber had returned to attend to the leak.
The resident informed the landlord that the plumber never came, following which, the landlord arranged for an inspection and also provided her with a dehumidifier. The landlord had discussed reimbursing the resident for the energy costs for the dehumidifier, but she said that she had not received any updates about repair works or reimbursements since then.
On 12 November 2020, the resident noted there still had been no further updates regarding repairs to the leak and that she wished for a new formal complaint to be opened. The landlord acknowledged this on 16 November 2020.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 30 November 2020. It noted the resident’s advice that she had been unable to use her bedroom during the leaks and that she was sleeping in her living room. It acknowledged that it had committed to repair works in August 2020, but that these were still incomplete. It advised this was due to the works having been erroneously noted as completed on its system. It also acknowledged it had failed to respond to the resident’s requests for updates in a timely manner. It apologised for its service failure and offered £150 compensation for the resident’s distress and inconvenience. It also advised the repair works were now booked to be completed in the next three weeks.
On 6 December 2020, the resident replied that she was not satisfied with the landlord’s investigation into why it had failed to provide her with adequate updates. She also expressed her dissatisfaction that the leaks had damaged her bedding and also had an impact on her health and wellbeing, which was not addressed in the stage one response. She subsequently requested that landlord escalate her complaint.
It is evident that the landlord arranged a call with the resident to discuss her concerns and on 21 December 2020, it advised it would be carrying out a further inspection of the above property on 23 December 2020, following which it would provide her with an update. On 29 December 2020, it advised it had identified a leak under the soil stack in the above neighbour’s property, and that it was obtaining quotes for a repair.
On 30 December 2020, the resident expressed concern that the landlord’s recent investigation didn’t include a CCTV examination of the pipework, or a “gas test” and so she was concerned there could be further causes to the leak. The landlord replied on the same date and advised these further tests were not necessary as it was confident it had identified the cause of the leak. It also advised further inspections would be carried out following the repair works. It advised it was still arranging for these works and would provide a timeframe shortly.
On 16 February 2021, the resident advised that she had witnessed the repair works being carried out in her neighbour’s property, but the landlord had not provided her with any updates, nor advised when it would carry out the remedial works to her bedroom. She additionally noted that the landlord’s complaint staff had informed her that her complaint had been closed, which she disputed and reiterated her request for a stage two response.
On 19 February 2021, the landlord noted it had discussed remedial works with the resident, but that she had expressed concerns about the ability of the landlord’s contractor and had enquired as to whether a different contractor could carry out the works. The landlord advised that it was unable to arrange for a different contractor to carry out these works, but that “there may have been a delay confirming this with you.” It enquired as to whether the resident was happy for the works to proceed with its initial contractor. Regarding her complaint, it also advised this had been closed in error and so it would reopen the complaint and provide a response by 16 March 2021.
Following a further discussion between the parties, on 8 March 2021, the landlord confirmed its understanding of the resident’s concerns, being that she was not happy with its contractor completing the remedial works, that she was still sleeping in her living room due to disrepair in her bedroom, and that she still had concerns about the landlord’s investigation of the leak given that it had not carried out a CCTV investigation of the pipework.
On 12 March 2021, the resident reported that the leak had returned. It is not evident that the landlord initially acknowledged this report. On 28 April 2021, the landlord advised its contractor would contact the resident regarding the remedial works. On 6 May 2021, the resident replied that the leak was still ongoing and that she was still to receive a stage two response. She also advised that she was still sleeping in her living room, and advised that while she had a spare room, this was not adapted to her disability.
On 21 May 2021, the landlord provided an update to the resident. Its communication was in the body of an email and did not identify itself as a formal response under the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The landlord advised that it had decided to fully replace her neighbour’s bathroom, including all pipework which would likely not commence works before 28 June 2021. Following the completion of these works, the landlord would then arrange for remedial works in the resident’s bedroom. The landlord also offered to make adjustments to the resident’s spare bedroom to adapt it to her needs and advised it would offer compensation for the loss of the use of the main bedroom.
On 24 May 2021, the resident advised she wanted additional compensation for her damaged bedding and for the distress the delays had caused her. She also queried what adjustments the landlord could offer in relation to her spare bedroom. She additionally noted she was yet to receive a formal stage two response, however, the landlord replied and advised it considered its email dated 21 May 2021 to be its stage two response.
On 9 July 2021, the landlord advised the works would commence on 20 August 2021 and would take four days. The works were subsequently brought forward to 26 July 2021, and on 29 July 2021, the landlord advised it would contact the resident the following week regarding remedial works to her bedroom.
On 13 August 2021, the landlord advised that the remedial works would commence on 25 August 2021. The resident replied and requested a more detailed timeline about what the works involved and how long it would take. The landlord advised that until the ceiling was removed, it was unable to be precise as to what timeline the works would be completed in as it did not know the extent of damage. It advised it could be a day, or up to one week.
It is evident that the works did not commence and on 1 September 2021, the resident reported the leak had begun again over night, and that the landlord’s contractor who had attended had not brought any tools with them, so was unable to do anything. She advised that she was therefore dissatisfied with this contractor completing the remedial works to her bedroom.
On 9 September 2021, the landlord advised it would arrange for a surveyor to assess the most recent leak and that in the meantime, it would provide a dehumidifier, the running cost of for which it would reimburse.
On 24 September 2021, the landlord acknowledged the ongoing delays and advised it was still waiting on a start date from its contractors for the works. The resident has advised this service that as of April 2022, the works are still yet to be completed and she is still unable to use her bedroom. The resident has also advised this service that she reported new leaks in October 2021 and March 2022 but is yet to receive any updates about works to address these.

Assessment and findings

Leak

The landlord’s repairs policy notes that it will attend to an emergency repair within 24 hours, and to non-emergency works within 15 working days. Following the resident’s initial report of a leak in August 2020, the landlord appropriately arranged for its electrician to attend the property within 24 hours to make safe the electrical fittings. Given that there was a leak, it is evident a plumber would also be required to attend, however, this service has not been provided with any evidence that either a plumber or any other attendances to the property were arranged. This would have left the resident distressed that the leak would not be fixed and caused her time and trouble in chasing up the landlord to inspect the leak. The resident has also informed this service that the leak caused damage to her bedding, which would have caused her further distress and led her to have to sleep in her living room.
Following the resident’s further report, the landlord appropriately arranged for an inspection and also provided her with a dehumidifier. While it was appropriate that it advised it would reimburse the resident for the cost of running the dehumidifier, it is not evident that the landlord ever followed this up or made any further arrangements to reimburse the resident. The landlord also failed to provide any timeframe for its inspection of the leak or provide any further updates to the resident. Once again, this poor communication left the resident distressed and also out of pocket for the dehumidifier energy costs.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to respond to a resident’s reports of leaks within a reasonable timeframe, which would be dependent on the circumstances. Having alerted the landlord to her concerns about a lack of updates regarding the leaks on 5 November 2020, the landlord had still not replied by 12 November 2020, which would have caused further frustration for the resident, and led her to make a formal complaint.
In its stage one response, the landlord appropriately apologised for its delays and poor communication and also provided a reasonable timeframe for the works to address the leaks. The landlord also appropriately offered compensation of £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord acknowledged that the resident was sleeping in her living room due to the leaks. The landlord’s compensation policy notes that it will offer additional compensation where a resident is unable to use a room as a result of disrepair. The landlord had also been made aware that the resident expected to be reimbursed for the use of the dehumidifier. The landlord should, for the sake of clarity, have made it clear whether its offer of compensation above included an amount for the loss of the room and the use of the dehumidifier, and its failure to do so would have caused further confusion for the resident.
Additionally, given that it had been made aware of the resident’s disability, it would have been appropriate at this stage to also have enquired as to any assistance it could have provided. This could have included arranging for an Occupational Therapist (OT) to assess if any adaptions could have been made to the resident’s spare room. It did not, however, make any enquiries at this stage.
Following the resident’s request to escalate her complaint, the landlord appropriately discussed the resident’s concerns with her on the telephone and provided appropriate updates following its inspections, i.e. that it was obtaining quotes for repair works.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident had concerns regarding the landlord’s inspection, specifically, that a CCTV test and gas test of the pipework was not carried out. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s concern, given that the leak had repeatedly returned following previous repair works. The Ombudsman is not a plumbing expert so cannot conclusively determine that CCTV and gas tests would be required for this type of leak. Instead, the Ombudsman must determine whether the landlord’s investigation was reasonable. In this instance, the landlord appropriately acknowledged and considered the resident’s concerns, and reiterated its findings that the soil stack was the sole source of the leak. It was also appropriate that it advised it would carry out additional investigations after the repair works to determine any further leaks. It was therefore reasonable that it did not carry out a CCTV or gas test at this time.
Having previously advised the resident it would keep her updated regarding the timeframe for its repair works, it is not evident the landlord did so. Given that the landlord was aware of the damage to the resident’s bedroom, it should also have provided her with a timeframe for remedial works. It is evident that the landlord discussed this with the resident, but following the resident expressing concerns about its contractors, the landlord noted there had been a “delay” in confirming with the resident that it had to proceed with its contractors. This forced the resident to have to chase these updates herself, which would have caused her further distress, as well as time and trouble.
The resident reported in March 2021, and again in early May 2021, that the leak was continuing and reiterated she was sleeping in her living room. It is not evident that the landlord acknowledged these reports until its communication on 21 May 2021, aside from its advice in April 2021 that its contractor would contact the resident regarding remedial works, which did not subsequently occur. This would have caused considerable distress for the resident, who remained unsure about how and when the leak would be resolved and continued to leave her without the use of her bedroom.
In its communication on 21 May 2021, the landlord appropriately provided an update regarding its investigation of the leak and also provided a timeframe for works to the neighbour’s bathroom which would rectify the leak. It also appropriately reassured the resident that the remedial works would be arranged following these works. Additionally, given the resident’s advice that the spare room was not adapted to her disability, it was also appropriate that the landlord offered to make reasonable adjustments and that it would compensate her for the loss of the use of her main bedroom.
Following the landlord’s stage one response, the resident had raised her desire for the landlord to compensate her for damage to her bedding caused by the leak, as well as for compensation for the distress the delays had caused her. Given that the landlord later advised its communication on 21 May 2021 was its stage two response, the landlord should have set out its position on these two issues, however, it failed to do so.
While it was appropriate that the landlord offered to provide assistance with adapting the resident’s spare room, following the resident’s further query as to what type of assistance it could offer, it is not evident that the landlord has responded to this query or returned to the subject in any of its subsequent communications. Additionally, it is not evident that the landlord returned to the issue of compensation regarding the loss of the bedroom, or the reimbursement of the energy costs for the dehumidifier, in any of its subsequent communications. In essence, the landlord’s formal response raised the resident’s expectations that it would take certain actions and provide compensation, only to fail to meet those expectations, causing further distress to the resident.
While the landlord initially advised the resident it would commence with remedial works on 25 August 2021, in its communication on 24 September 2021, the landlord acknowledged it had failed to meet this timeframe as it was still waiting on a start date from the contractors. As noted above, the resident has reported that she is still waiting for the works to be completed and this service has not been provided with any further evidence as to why there has been such a significant delay.
Additionally, it is evident that the resident reported further leaks, and while the landlord again provided a dehumidifier, this service has not been provided with any evidence that it addressed reimbursing the costs for the dehumidifier, or provided the resident with any updates regarding its investigation of the most recent leaks.
In summary, the landlord acknowledged that from August 2020 it was required to carry out remedial works to the resident’s property following a leak from the neighbour’s property. While it has carried out works to the neighbour’s property to address several reported leaks, it is not evident that it ever carried out remedial works to the resident’s property. While it made some arrangements for remedial works, it either failed to follow up on the resident’s concerns about its contractor, or the works were otherwise delayed and not completed.
The landlord also acknowledged in November 2020 that the leaks had caused damage to the resident’s bedding and led to the resident having to sleep in her living room, which has continued to date. While it raised the possibility of compensation for the loss of the room, it has never followed this up. The landlord was also aware that the resident was affected by a disability. It initially failed to offer any support until its de facto stage two response, at which point it raised the resident’s expectations it could offer her support by adapting her spare bedroom to her needs, only to not return to this issue despite further queries from the resident.
The landlord has also raised the issue of compensation on a number of occasions, including reimbursing the resident for the costs of running dehumidifiers, only to not return to the issue. It has also failed to give its position on compensation relating to the damage to bedding and to the distress caused to the resident.
Finally, throughout the period of the complaint, there have been multiple instances where the landlord’s lack of communication has caused distress to the resident, and even where it has provided timeframes for works, these have often not been met and no communications given to provide an explanation or updated timeframe for works.
In light of the above, there has been severe maladministration by the landlord, for which compensation is appropriate. The landlord’s compensation policy notes that it will offer £20 per week for the loss of the use of a bedroom. Between August to date, the resident has not been able to use her bedroom for 84 weeks. Therefore, an amount of £1,680 is ordered to reflect the loss of the use of the bedroom. Additionally, in recognition of the multiple instances the landlord’s works were delayed causing time and trouble for the resident in chasing updates, along with the distress these delays would have caused over a significant period of time, a further amount of £750 compensation is ordered.
In addition to the compensation, the Ombudsman also orders that the landlord provide updates to the resident, in particular:
1. its position on reimbursing the resident for the costs of the use of dehumidifiers on each occasion throughout the period of the complaint;
2. its position on compensating the resident for the damage to her bedding as a result of the leak (and providing her with any assistance in relation to making an insurance claim, if necessary);
3. an explanation as to what assistance it can provide in relation to adapting her spare bedroom to her disability (and providing her with any assistance in relation to obtaining an OT report, if necessary);
4. an updated timeframe as to when rectification works at her property will be completed, and a commitment to provide further updates should this timeframe change.
The Ombudsman also orders that a senior member of the landlord write to the resident to apologise for its severe maladministration and the distress this has caused to the resident.

Complaints handling

When raising her initial complaint in November 2020, the resident has advised this service that she initially requested for her previous complaint to be reopened but was informed by the landlord that it would need to be a new complaint, as the previous complaint had already completed its internal complaints procedure. Given that the new complaint related to a more recent incidence of the leak, this was reasonable and in line with what the Ombudsman would expect.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord provided its stage one response within two weeks, which was reasonable and was in accordance with the timeframes noted in its complaints policy.
The policy notes, however, that following a request for an escalation of the complaint, the landlord will endeavour to provide its stage two response within 15 working days. Following the resident’s request for an escalation on 6 December 2020, the landlord did not provide its stage two response until 21 May 2021. While the Ombudsman understands that it is sometimes appropriate to delay a formal response until works are completed, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to explicitly set out an amended timeframe for its response so as to measure a resident’s expectations, which it did not do. Despite repeated requests for a stage two response, the landlord unreasonably delayed in providing one, which caused distress to the resident.
The landlord additionally demonstrated failings with its complaints handling by erroneously closing the resident’s complaint despite her having requested an escalation. While it appropriately acknowledged this error and reopened the complaint, it is concerning that its system allowed it to close the complaint in the absence of any checks that the complaint response had been finalised.
Additionally, the Ombudsman would expect a formal response under the internal complaints procedure of a landlord to identify itself as such, and include information about how the resident can escalate their complaint if they remain dissatisfied, i.e. in the case of a stage two response, by providing details of this service. The landlord’s stage two response dated 21 May 2021 was sent in the body of an email, did not identify itself as a formal response, and did not include information about how to escalate the complaint to this service. This led the resident to continue to request a formal stage two response, and the landlord’s communication of 21 May 2021 was only identified as a stage two response after the resident’s local member of parliament requested an update on the stage two response.
The landlord’s delay in providing a stage two response despite multiple requests from the resident, its erroneous premature closing of the complaint, and its poorly formatted stage two response constitute maladministration in the circumstances. Given the time and trouble expended by the resident in chasing the complaint up, and the distress the delays would have caused her, an amount of £400 compensation is appropriate, being £50 per month for the six month delay to the stage two response, and an additional £100 for both the erroneous closing of the complaint and the poorly formatted response.

Determination (decision)

As noted above, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the complaint about the resident’s possessions going missing following the attendance of the landlord’s furniture removalists is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports regarding a leak into her property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

Leak

Throughout the period of the complaint, the landlord repeatedly failed to provide updates regarding works to rectify the leak within reasonable timeframes. It also failed to provide updates in relation to remedial works to the resident’s property and failed to meet timeframes on the occasions they were given.
The landlord also repeatedly offered to reimburse the resident for the costs of a dehumidifier but subsequently failed to do so. It also failed to address the resident’s concerns about compensation for damage to her bedding and for distress caused to her. Further, it failed to respond to the resident’s queries about what support it could offer in relation to her disabilities, despite having previously raised her expectations that it could offer support.
The resultant delays have left the resident unable to use her bedroom for an unacceptable period, and despite the landlord’s promise to compensate her, and complete the remedial works, it has failed to do so.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s delay in providing a stage two response despite multiple requests from the resident, its erroneous premature closing of the complaint, and its poorly formatted stage two response constitute maladministration in the circumstances, for which compensation is appropriate.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £2,830, comprising:
1. £1,680 for the resident’s loss of the use of her bedroom;
2. £750 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its severe maladministration in relation to providing updates and carrying out remedial works;
3. £400 for its ineffective complaints handling.
This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £150. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
The landlord to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and include the following:
1. its position on reimbursing the resident for the resident for costs of the use of dehumidifiers on each occasion throughout the period of the complaint, and should it determine that reimbursement is payable, a commitment to make such a payment within four weeks of its communication;
2. its position on compensating the resident for the damage to her bedding as a result of the leak (and providing her with any assistance in relation to making an insurance claim, if necessary);
3. an explanation as to what assistance it can provide in relation to adapting her spare bedroom to her disability (and providing her with any assistance in relation to obtaining an OT report, if necessary);
4. an updated timeframe as to when rectification works at her property will be completed, and a commitment to provide further updates should this timeframe change.
A senior member of the landlord to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination to apologise for its severe maladministration and the distress this has caused to the resident.
Taking into account the failings identified in this report, the landlord is to complete a review of its overall management of this case and identify any lessons learned following the Ombudsman’s investigation. It must also complete an action plan regarding how it can improve its service to its residents. This is to be shared with this service within four weeks of the date of this determination.