Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202005865)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005865

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

16 March 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 response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of a flat on the fourth floor of a purpose-built block.
The landlord’s Maintenance Policy states typically, variable priority repairs are those which require multiple visits, often using multi trade skills or a number of special-order parts. Variable timescale repairs typically cost over £1,000. In some cases, where the landlord requires consultancy advice such as a structural engineer, it will use a variable priority. Planned or variable repairs are often raised following a visit from one of its technical team. If it needs to carry out extensive repairs, it will talk through what it intends to do, agree timescales and project manage the work through to completion.
The landlord’s Complaint’s Policy states at stage 1 when it first receives a complaint it will aim to agree a solution with the customer within 10 working days. If the complaint is particularly complex, it may on occasion need longer than 10 days to resolve. In these instances, the customer will be kept informed and regularly updated on the reasons for this. For stage 2 escalated complaints, if the customer is not happy with the decision, they have received at Stage 1, they have the right for this to be reviewed at Stage 2. A definitive response will be provided within 15 working days following a thorough investigation of the points raised. If the complaint investigation and/or resolution is particularly complex, it may on occasion need longer than 15 days to resolve. In these instances, the customer will be kept informed and regularly updated on the reasons for this.

Summary of events

The resident has been complaining about mould and damp in the property since 2018. The landlord commissioned a specialist damp report and whilst the report was in draft in October 2018, it noted that more information was required from the landlord to understand the anomalies noted within the resident’s property. The landlord was provided with a copy of the report to provide input. Issues were identified within the lounge area and to the perimeter of the apartment where heat loss occurred and therefore a cold bridge occurred which was noted as a contributing factor to a higher risk of condensation.
From November 2018 to January 2019, the resident continually sought updates from the landlord regarding remedial works that would be completed. The resident also sought to claim compensation for damaged items and made a formal complaint. Works were raised for an extractor fan in the kitchen and replacement in the bathroom. The resident declined the installation of the kitchen fan as she was concerned about the property being cold, the bathroom fan was eventually replaced in March 2019.
Following the final survey, it was noted further investigations were needed to the external walls of the property. In April 2019 scaffolding was erected to access the concrete ring beam, weep holes, tray dpc, so the contractors could investigate the dampness in resident’s flat. Again, following this, in May, the residnet chased an update from the landlord in relation to remedial works. The landlord noted there was a delay, however the resident again had to chase in June and submitted photos of damage to her belongings.
In July, the landlord eventually provided a stage one response to the resident and noted an external consultant had been appointed to consider if there was water ingress into the property. The resident was again left to chase updates in September, October and November, when she advised the damp was spreading across the living room. The landlord responded noting it would be installing new extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen.
Given the Covid-19 pandemic works were halted. In June 2020, the resident chased the landlord once repairs had started again seeking an update on the damp woks, as the mould had worsened in her bedroom with ‘mushrooms’ growing on the wallpaper.
In July the landlord noted it was working with its contractors to address the issue and a works order was raised to carry out a thermal and ventilation assessment. The resident again sought an update in August and September. The landlord apologised for the lack of contact, noting non-emergency repairs had only resumed.
In October the landlord commissioned a further survey of the entire block. The resident contacted the Ombudsman given the delays and a request was made for the landlord to escalate the complaint.
On 1 December 2020 the resident again requested the escalation of the complaint advising that she had previously stated that she did not want an extractor fan fitted as other people had stated how cold it made the room. She noted the damp was not in the kitchen so the extractor fan in situ would not resolve the issue in the lounge. A previous inspection of the bathroom fan found it in working order, so she was unsure why it now needed replacing. She had spent £200 on a dehumidifier to try and resolve the issue but believed the damp was due to the cavity wall insulation.
The landlord responded; however, the response did not propose what action would be taken to deal with the damp and mould or provide an update on the repairs.
Following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord issued another stage 1 response in February 2021. The landlord apologised for the issues the resident had experienced, accepting that some issues were caused by the retrofit of the cavity wall insulation 4 years ago. It advised it wanted to try new de–humidistat fans in the first instance and monitor if these made any difference although it was aware she was opposed to this. It noted the other option was to re-clad the building but due to the cost and because it was unsure if other flats were affected it wanted to try the fans first. It offered £500.00 compensation and noted it would ask its in-house architect if there were any other solutions based on the specialist report and that if the fans didn’t work it would find another solution.
The resident remained dissatisfied and whilst the extractor fans were replaced the issue remained. The resident requested that the landlord resolve the issue with the cavity wall insulation and escalate her complaint.
Following the resident’s request to escalate the complaint as the repairs remained outstanding, the landlord provided a final response to the complaint on 12 March 2021. The landlord’s final position was that it had had a detailed conversation with the resident about the findings of the specialist damp and mould report , however, the company was now dissolved, and this had made any recourse back to defective works difficult. It agreed to fit another extractor fan as per the recommendation of the previous report in August 2020. It agreed it would cover the costs of some items of clothing damaged by the damp
It noted the thermographic survey showed up a construction feature where the worst of the damp problem was occurring; upon opening the wall on the outside, it confirmed a concrete beam with a steel plate underneath where interstitial condensation was occurring. It noted a recommendation was made for external wall insulation to be applied to the block as the best option to ensure that the temperature of the feature was maintained above the dew point. However, it noted this option would be in the region of £70,000 so it needed to try more practical options recommended in the report before it resorted to recladding an entire block. It considered internal insulation, but noted this would worsen the damp and a works order had been raised to install the 2 recommended fans but the resident had refused this work. It noted it had discussed a management move but as she had lived there for many years she did not want to move. It advised that if the fans did not work it would consider improvements to the fabric of the block.
The resident remained dissatisfied and referred the complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

In considering the complaint, the Ombudsman has assessed the landlord’s actions in line with its policies and procedures and general good practice.
Firstly, it is noted that the issue of damp has been ongoing for some time, further compounded by the national lockdown which saw repairs put on hold and once resumed, significant delays occurred. As such the Ombudsman has also factored this into its consideration of the complaint.
It is clear that the landlord seriously considered the resident’s concerns by commissioning several surveys relating to the damp and mould. There were several recommendations made, which the landlord was entitled to rely on to attempt to resolve the issues. A substantial recommendation was to carry out extensive work to the fabric of the building. Given that this was costly the landlord was entitled to balance this against the number of residents who had complained of the matter and whether there were any other options available to it. As such the Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s actions in this regard was reasonable.
However, given the multiple delays and lack of updates given to the resident and recommendations of works which had previously been carried out and failed, alongside evidence that there was an issue with the fabric of the building following previous works; the expectation was that the landlord would have carried out more substantial repairs. As noted above the Ombudsman does appreciate the cost involved in the work required, but given that the previous recommendations had not worked, it was futile for the landlord to continue relying on the same recommendations, whilst the resident clearly expressed that the conditions were worsening. This amounted to service failure.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord recognised its short comings and offered compensation of £500 to address this alongside reimbursing the resident for some damage caused to her belongings. In addition, the landlord clearly advised that it would need to consider all inexpensive recommendations before the more costly ones (of which would correctly fall within the variable priority repair timescale), and as such offered the resident a management move. The landlord’s offer here explicitly shows that it was attempting to resolve the matter for the resident one way or another whilst balancing the resources it has available to it as a social landlord. This was reasonable in the circumstances and taken all together, the landlord’s consideration of the matter was reasonable.
In relation to the complaint handling, the resident formally complained in January 2019, however it was not until July 2019 that she received an initial response. Whilst the landlord was considering the issues complained of, the resident continuously had to chase for updates and responses. Additionally following receipt of the response and lack of action, the resident had difficulty in escalating her complaint and required the assistance of the Ombudsman. Whilst the resident attempted to escalate her complaint, the landlord for one reason or another considered the complaint again at stage 1, providing more than one response. The Ombudsman again had to intervene to request that the landlord provide its final response. This was again provided outside of the landlord’s stipulated timescales. Given all the delays and multiple responses which often confused the resident as to the status of her complaint, the landlord’s consideration of the complaint was not in line with its Complaint’s policy and amounted to service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration (service failure) by the landlord in its formal complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord has commissioned several surveys and has then sought to carryout the recommendations within the survey. It is noted there were delays through the process, however the landlord considered its handling of the complaint, offered compensation and reimbursement of damage to belongings, and also offered the resident a management move.
The landlord delayed in both providing a response to the formal complaint and escalating the complaint. The landlord also made it difficult for the resident to understand what part of the process her complaint was at.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord pay the resident £150 for the failures identified in its complaint handling.
Payment should be made within four weeks of this report.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. Reoffer the £500 compensation if this has not already been paid.
2. Reoffer the reimbursement of damage to belongings, if this has not already been paid, or allow the resident to make an insurance claim through its own insurer.
3. Consider carrying out the extensive recommendation if the issue persists.
4. Reoffer a management move if the issue persists.