Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202004419)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004419

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

21 October 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 the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of problems with the roof and balcony at the property.
2. Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a shared owner of the property with the landlord. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
Under the terms of the shared ownership lease the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the roof and balconies at the building. The landlord’s maintenance policy says that non emergency repairs work is to be completed within 15 working days.
The National Housing Building Council (NHBC) is a warranty and insurance provider for new homes. There is a two-year builder warranty period to cover defects that are not general wear and tear or maintenance issues. The NHBC also provides further insurance under its Buildmark cover for the following eight years if there is damage to the home because the builder failed to build certain parts of the home to NHBC requirements. It provides a guarantee if the builder cannot do this.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process. At stage one the landlord will respond within 10 working days and at stage two within 15 working days.
The resident moved to the new build property in 2009. There is evidence that during the defects period the resident made reports to the landlord about an issue with rain water not draining from the roof of the property.
The landlord’s repair records say that on 25 June 2018 a repair was raised for the balcony as the decking boards were rotten and the rain water couldn’t reach the main downpipe. The repair was closed on 16 July 2018.
On 1 August 2018 the landlord inspected the roof and balconies at the building. The inspection report says under the inspection summary and recommendations for follow up actions heading “Possible latent defect.”
In early 2019 the resident contacted the landlord concerning ongoing problems with the water drainage from the roof and balcony.
On 4 March 2019 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about its response to her reports of problems with the water drainage from the roof and balcony. The landlord issued a stage one response to the complaint on 11 March 2019. The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 28 March 2019.
On 18 April 2019 the landlord sent the resident an email saying that it couldn’t conclude the complaint immediately because it needed to ensure that it did not invalidate any 10 year warranty (e.g. NHBC / Premier Guarantee) in case the balcony leak was a latent defect. The resident responded the same day saying that the builder had already done an initial inspection the previous year.
The landlord inspected the property on 29 April 2019. The inspection report said that the balcony was defective and any water that soaked through the decking just sits and is not able to flow to the outlet.
The landlord’s repair notes show that on 6 June 2019 the following job was raised, “Working in conjunction with quotation to review decking with all timber structures and install new drainage system”. The job is marked as closed and raised again on 7 August 2019. Sometime following this the landlord replaced the decking on the balcony at the property.
On 16 September 2019 the landlord carried out an inspection of the roof of the building and noted that the vinyl covering was bubbling due to water ingress and needed to be stripped back to check the membrane and if the membrane was defective it needed to re-apply and relay the vinyl covering.
On 12 March 2020 the resident sent the landlord a video of rain falling on the roof. The landlord replied to the resident on the same day saying “…that is interesting there does not seem to be much of a gutter detail on either edge of the building. Keep the videos coming if you have any other details to note and we can start to build a schedule of works for the Autumn.”
On 17 June 2020 the resident sent the landlord a further video showing the drainage problems from the roof. The landlord sent the resident an email the same day saying that the drainage to the balcony would be classified as latent defect and would be the responsibility of the building developer and should have been logged within the first ten years of build completion. The landlord understood that the resident had logged the issue with the landlord during the defect period.
On 19 June 2020 the landlord sent the resident an email saying that it would be serving a Section 20 Notice of Proposal in August 2020 concerning the proposed works to the roof. It was looking to commence works after September 2020 and this might be in early 2021.
On 19 June 2020 the resident again complained to the landlord about its response to her reports of problems with the drainage from the roof and balcony.
On 9 July 2020 the landlord sent the resident an email saying that its surveyor would be visiting the property that day and on 13 July 2020 when he would assess the roof and the communal areas.
On 10 July 2020 the resident sent the landlord an email saying that the lack of gutters or drainage channels attached to the building seemed to have confused every surveyor and roofer inspecting the building.
On 17 July 2020 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. In its response the landlord said that:
1. It had instructed its surveyor to undertake a survey of the block and to provide possible solutions for the drainage of the water.
2. The roof inspection was due to be carried out on 20 July 2020. Once the survey had been carried out it would review and discuss with her what action it intended to take.
The surveyor attended the property on 20 July 2020.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 22 July 2020 to update her on the roof. In its email the landlord said:
1. It intended to unblock all gullies and down pipes and install gully covers that will be fixed to the roof and can’t be removed by birds.
2. It was obtaining quotes to increase the downpipe diameter to allow for larger water volume to drain off the rear of the roof to prevent any back-up.
3. After lengthy discussions with its roofing contractors it proposed to add a rainwater drainage channel to the roof front which would come to the very edge of the roof. The intention was to the install new downpipes from the channel onto the face of the timber cladding, under the balcony decking, through the perimeter wall and into the existing drainage from that point.
4. It was also getting quotes to increase the downpipe diameter at the front of the roof in the same way as the rear elevation.
5. It would take at least a week, maybe two, for quotes to come back and it would then liaise with its management to establish best processes to move forward.
On 3 September 2020 the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord asking that it look into the resident’s concerns about damp at the property and update it.
On 4 September 2020 the landlord sent an email to the resident saying that it was still awaiting a further quote for the roof front edge detail and guttering downpipes.
5 October 2020 the resident sent the landlord an email saying that although the landlord had replaced the rotten timber on the balcony with plastic spacers “the water that pours off the gutter less roof still sits in the balcony for days or until it soaks into the building.”
On 9 October 2020 the landlord sent the resident an email saying that it had opened her complaint on 4 March 2019, issued its stage one response on 11 March 2019 and it had received her request to escalate the complaint on 28 March 2019. However, it did not appear that it had issued a stage two response to the complaint. The landlord apologised as it had clearly failed in the complaints process and this was not an acceptable level of service to provide.
On 9 October 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident by telephone and advised her that the rear repair to the roof would start 19 October 2020. The landlord’s notes of the conversation say “Improvement work to the front has been reviewed and discussed with [the resident]. Next stage is to seek approval to complete works due to cost. Will contact [the resident] on the Wednesday next week to update further.”
On 20 October 2020, in response to an enquiry from this Service, the landlord sent the resident an email saying that it could confirm that there was a stage 1 complaint open for her that was being investigated.
On 21 October 2020 the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord asking for a response to his email dated 3 September 2020.
On 18 November 2020 the landlord sent the resident an email saying that it had : escalated her complaint to stage 2 and she would receive a response within 10 working days.
On 12 January 2021 the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord asking for a response to his letters dated 3 September 2020 and 21 October 2020.
On 5 February 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP saying that on 16 November 2020 it had written to him and informed him that the work to the rear exterior of the building had been completed. It also said that it had arranged for a surveyor to visit two properties in the building, including the resident’s, on 8 February 2021 to establish if there were any further issues with water penetration into the property. If the work that was done in November 2020 had resolved the issues it would advise the resident that as a shared owner of the property she could then make a claim for any remedial work required within the property through the building’s insurance. The landlord would reimburse any insurance excess cost that the resident might have to pay. The landlord also said that it could see that the resident’s complaint had been escalated to stage 2 of its complaints process, and it would ensure that if the response was outstanding the resident would be contacted to discuss the issues further.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 7 April 2021 asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint within 10 working days. The landlord replied to this Service on 7 April 2021 to advise that an email had been sent to the resident to arrange a phone call to discuss the complaint. However, from the documentation provided by the landlord to this Service it appeared that the landlord had in fact sent an email to the resident’s neighbour to arrange a phone call. This Service wrote again to the landlord on 30 April 2021 asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint by 10 May 2021.
On 1 May 2021 and 10 May 2021 the resident sent emails to the landlord expressing her concerns that the works carried out to the balcony and roof had not solved the drainage issues and had made her balcony more water logged than before.
On 27 May 2021 the landlord sent an email to the resident answering specific questions she had about how the landlord was addressing the drainage issues. In its email the landlord said that:
1. The elevated tiles it was installing on the balcony would allow any surface water that would not drain to evaporate.
2. The drainage channels to the front of the balcony needed the gradient to be changed to encourage the surface water to drain towards the outlets and the outlets needed to be enlarged to 100 mm.
3. The main roof perimeter at the front of the building had been raised by a 100mm edging to push the surface water from the main roof to the rear open gutter and outlets.
4. There was to be a drip detail installed to the front façade of the balconies to direct the surface water run off away from the balconies below.
On 18 June 2021 the landlord sent an email to the resident saying that it would take in to consideration that the resident had pointed out the defect within the defect period. It asked if she had written evidence that clearly showed that she had raised the defect within the defect period (January 2009 to January 2019) as this would support it in its “case to discount the cost from the final account.”
On 22 July 2021 the landlord, following a request from this Service, sent the resident a stage two final response to her complaint. In its response the landlord said that:
1. The main roof works were now completed.
2. The work still required to the balcony was:
  1. Removing the existing timber decking.
  2. Installing a polyroof liquid system.
  3. Applying non slip tiles to the balcony area.
3. It was waiting for the balcony tiles to be delivered and to be installed and delivery was due by the end of the month.
The landlord’s letter dated 22 July 2021 was its final response to the complaint confirming that the complaint had exhausted its internal complaints process.
On 2 September 2021 the landlord sent an email to the resident saying that it would be starting works to the balcony on 6 September 2021.
During the course of this investigation the resident has informed this service that there are still problems with the drainage of water from the roof and balcony at the building. Water still pools on the balcony and the landlord has suggested that it provide pebbles for the resident to place in the area where the water pools. The resident has also said that the landlord has not charged the residents for the works carried out to the roof and balconies.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of problems with the roof and balcony at the property

Usually, where a latent defect comes to light within ten years of the property being built and the builder is a member of the NHBC as in this case, the builder would be responsible for addressing the defect. If for some reason, for example insolvency, the builder was no longer responsible, then the landlord would refer the matter to the NHBC who would be responsible in accordance with its eight-year insurance Buildmark cover. If it accepted the claim, the NHBC would be responsible for arranging any repairs need to correct the defect.
The landlord’s inspection report dated 1 August 2018 identified a possible latent defect with the roof and balconies resident. Despite this being identified within the defect period and some evidence that the builder had attended the property in 2018 there is no evidence that the landlord pursued a claim with the builder or the NHBC. This amounts to a failure by the landlord.
When the resident made reports of issues with the roof and the balcony in early 2019 the defects period had finished. In accordance with the lease the landlord was therefore responsible for maintaining and repairing the roof of the building and the balcony of the property. Therefore when there were reports that there were problems with the drainage from the roof and the balcony it was obligated to take steps to investigate and resolve any issues within its repairs obligations.
Despite the resident reporting problems with the drainage of rainwater from the roof and balcony many times since early 2019 the landlord has still not fully resolved the issues and is therefore in breach of its repairing obligations under the lease.
Despite the resident reporting further issues with the drainage from the roof and balcony on 12 March 2020 and chasing the landlord for a response, the landlord’s surveyor did not inspect the property until 20 July 2020 (73 working days outside the 15 working day response time set out in the landlord’s repairs policy) and did not carry out the works identified to the rear of the roof until November 2020 (at least 146 working days outside the 15 working day response time).
There was no acknowledgement by the landlord of its delay in completing the repairs in its final complaint response, for example, an apology, consideration of the impact that delay had on the resident and what the landlord might do to address that; and/or evidence that the landlord had sought to learn from the events that led to such a delay.
As part of this investigation the Ombudsman requested various documents from the landlord, including Information related to the repairs such as repair logs, record of dates that the property was attended and an explanation of the works completed. Whilst the landlord has provided some documentation, including copies of correspondence between it and the resident, the repair records provided have no entries after January 2020.
This is unsatisfactory and has limited the Ombudsman’s ability to thoroughly investigate the repair service the landlord provided the resident, specifically:
1. When the landlord replaced the decking on the balcony following its inspection of the property in April 2019.
2. When the work identified in the landlord’s roof inspection dated 16 September 2019 was carried out.
3. When the works to the roof listed in the landlord’s email to the resident dated 22 July 2020 were completed.
4. When the works set out in the landlord’s stage two complaint response dated 22 July 2021 were completed.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s repairs processes are not operating effectively.
For the reasons set out in paragraphs 43 to 51 there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of problems with the roof and balcony at the property.

The landlord’s complaints handling

There was maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling as:
1. The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process on 28 March 2019 and the landlord acknowledged the escalation request the same day. However the landlord did not provide a stage two response within the 15 working day timescale set out in its complaints procedure.
2. The resident made a further complaint on 19 June 2020 and, although the stage two response was still outstanding, the landlord provided a further stage one response.
3. The landlord acknowledged that it had not provided a stage two response in an email to the resident on 9 October 2020 and acknowledged that this was an unacceptable level of service.
4. The landlord informed the resident on 18 November 2020 that she would receive a stage two response to her complaint within 10 working days, however no response was sent.
5. Despite acknowledging in October 2020 that no stage two complaint response had been sent the landlord informed the resident’s MP on 5 February 2021 that it still didn’t look like a stage two complaint response had been provided to the resident.
6. The landlord eventually provided a stage two response to the complaint on 22 July 2021 after having being requested do so by this Service. The stage two response was issued 585 working days after the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage two and some 570 working days outside the 15 working day timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints procedure.
7. On 7 April 2021 this Service asked the landlord to respond to the complaint. However, in its response the landlord confused her complaint with that of her neighbour and delayed further in providing a response to the resident’s complaint.
The evidence suggests that the landlord partly delayed in responding to the complaint as it was awaiting information about whether the works were covered by the NHBC warranty. However, the landlord needs to ensure that it does not allow complaints to stay open indefinitely whilst waiting for further information. This runs the risk of the resident being blocked form escalating a complaint to this Service. The Ombudsman’s position is that a response can normally be sent detailing the landlord’s assessment of the service provided so far and its proposed plan to put things right. Progress of this plan should still be monitored even if a complaint response has already been sent.
The landlord’s consideration of the resident’s complaint was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. There is no evidence that in considering the complaint the landlord investigated what had happened in its response to the resident’s reports concerning the roof and balcony, considered how to put right what had happened or what lessons it could have learnt.
The excessive delay in dealing with the complaint meant that the landlord failed to resolve matters at the earliest opportunity; it also missed an opportunity to improve the landlord/resident relationship. There was no acknowledgement of, or apology for, the complaints handling delays in the landlord’s final complaint response. Neither did the landlord consider the impact that the delay had on the resident and what the landlord might do to address that, or how the landlord had sought to learn from the events that led to the delay.
The landlord’s complaint handling failures set out in paragraphs 53 to 56 amount to severe maladministration by the landlord. Financial redress is appropriate here for the evident distress and frustration caused to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints about its response to the resident’s reports of problems with the roof and balcony at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not pursue a claim against the builder or NHBC during the defects period, delayed in inspecting the roof and balcony, delayed in carrying out repairs and did not keep appropriate repair records.
The landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure when asked to by the resident and there were significant delays throughout the complaints process. Neither did the landlord consider the complaint in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident compensation totalling £1175. This is comprised of:
1. £750 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s maladministration in responding to the resident’s reports of problems with the roof and balcony at the property.
2. £75 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s poor record keeping.
3. £350 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaints handling failures.
The landlord must update this Service when payment has been made.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to inspect the property to establish whether further works are required to address any ongoing issues with the water drainage from the roof and balcony at the property and if so, within 2 weeks of this confirm in writing to the resident and this Service what works will be carried out and the target date for these to be completed.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to confirm to the resident and this Service in writing that, having regard to the findings in this report, it will not be charging the resident for the works carried out to the roof and balcony.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to provide staff training in complaints handling to ensure that complaints are responded to at both stages of the complaints process, in compliance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.