Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202007666)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007666

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

27 March 2023

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 handling of:
1. A flood in the communal car park serving the resident’s property.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder. The property includes use of a shared private car park located in the basement, with an allocated parking space for each property in the building.
The resident reported to the landlord that the car park has regularly flooded during periods of rain since 2011. This flooding has caused damage to fire doors and a bike shed, both located in the basement car park area.
Under the rules which govern this Service, we are only able to consider complaints that have been reported to us within a reasonable timeframe, which would usually be 12 months from the complaint completing the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. For this reason, although the historic issues provide context to the recent reports of flooding, the scope of this investigation has been limited to the most recent complaints raised by the resident since 5 October 2020 only.
The resident raised three complaints to the landlord within this period:
1. The first complaint was raised on 5 October 2020 and related to flooding in the underground car park. The landlord issued a stage one response on 21 January 2021. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated this to stage two of the complaints process on 28 January 2021. The landlord issued its stage two response on 8 June 2021, after this Service intervened on 23 February 2021. The response included an offer of £400 compensation, but this was later withdrawn by the landlord on the 10 June 2021, pending completion of the repairs.
2. The resident raised a second complaint on 1 October 2021 on the grounds that further flooding had caused damage to two fire doors, which had not been repaired. The resident sought repairs to the fire doors, a solution to the recurring flooding, compensation for time and effort and an assurance that leaseholders would not be charged for this repair. The landlord issued a stage one response on 21 October 2021. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated this to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process on the same day the response was issued. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged or responded to this complaint.
3. The third complaint in this period was raised after this Service intervened on 13 December 2021. This complaint was raised at stage two of the landlord’s complaints process as no stage two response had been provided to the previous complaint. The landlord issued its stage two response on 25 January 2022 and advised that works had been completed on a water pump to avoid future flooding and further work had been arranged to repair the fire doors. The landlord offered the resident £150 in compensation for the delay.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated their complaint to the Ombudsman on 15 December 2021. The resident was seeking completion of the repairs to the fire doors and increased compensation for the time and distress caused in pursuing the repairs and complaints process.

Assessment and findings

Flooding in the car park

The lease outlines that the landlord is responsible to “maintain, repair and renew the car parking space forming part of the premises.”
The landlord’s maintenance policy sets out that emergency repairs must be made safe in four hours and rectified within 24 hours. Non-emergency repairs would be completed within 15 working days. Where works would involve multiple trades over a period of time (variable repairs), the landlord commits to discuss options, agree timescales, project manage the work and, in most cases, inspect the work after completion.
The resident states that the carpark flooding issue has been ongoing since 2011. The landlord also noted in internal correspondence that it was “best to settle this rather than delay it and ensure we get the issue looked at as I think the same problem occurred about 3 years ago.” Taken together, this indicates a longstanding and recurrent issue that has not been fully addressed by the landlord, despite regular requests and complaints from the resident. The delay in these repairs, along with the need for contact from the resident and this Service, shows repeated and longstanding failings by the landlord to comply with its own policy and to undertake the work in a timely manner, amounting to maladministration.
The resident reported flooding the carpark in October 2020 and she has said the issue was still outstanding up until she moved out of the property in September 2022.Throughout this process there in evidence of two formal complaints from the resident, multiple requests for updates and three interventions from this Service. The landlord had carried out a number of repairs during this period including repairs to pipework, fire doors and a sump pump. However, the resident was dissatisfied with the quality of the repairs to the fire doors and the length of time taken to resolve the flooding issue. There was a delay to some of the repairs as the landlord considered whether undergo a consultation process with residents in the building in view of the impact of the repair costs on their service charges. Overall the landlord has not given an adequate explanation for the delays and it has not been possible to determine if the consultation process has been completed. Therefore, the Ombudsman can only conclude that the bulk of the delays were unreasonable and the landlord should have done more to find the cause of the problem and resolve it in a timely manner.
It is noted that the landlord has made some attempt to put things right by offering £150 compensation in its second stage two complaint response, however in the view of this Service, this offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. It is also noted that an earlier offer of £400 compensation was made and then withdrawn by the landlord. The withdrawal of this offer was unreasonable, and the landlord has not adequately explained to this Service why this offer was withdrawn.
The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our Remedies Guidance, available on our website. In the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, redress of £100 – £600 should be considered in cases where there have been failings by the landlord which affected the resident but did not have a permanent impact. Awards in this range are considered where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. In this case, the delays were substantial and caused the resident distress and inconvenience in pursuing the complaint and time and trouble in repeatedly contacting the landlord for updates. This amount of time was significant more than would be reasonably expected, due to the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
The landlord is therefore ordered to pay £500 compensation to the resident for her time and trouble taken in pursuing these repairs. If the landlord has already paid the £150 (or any part of it) offered within its stage two complaint response, this can be deducted from the total of £500 ordered by the Ombudsman.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy outlines that it will respond to resident complaints within 10 working days at stage one and 15 working days at stage two of its complaints process. These timescales may be extended by an additional 10 or 15 days respectively if the complaints are particularly complex, provided that the resident is informed and kept updated.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations of landlords’ complaint handling. The Code specifies that stage one complaints must be responded to within 10 working days. Stage two complaints must have a response issued within 20 working days, other than in exceptional cases when a further 10 working days may be allowed, provided that this is explained clearly to the resident.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation would be paid for failure to meet service targets, not delivering a service paid for via the service charge, not acting reasonably or when personal possessions have been damaged. The rates of compensation are up to £20 for ‘low impact’, £20-100 for ‘medium impact’ or £100 and above for ‘high impact’. The policy notes that cash compensation can be a maximum of £500 only.
There is evidence of repeated delays by the landlord in progressing the complaints in this case. The resident’s first stage one complaint was responded to 71 days after submission and 61 working days over the landlord’s policy timescales. The resident’s first stage two complaint was responded to 90 working days after submission and 75 working days over the landlord’s policy timescale. This Service intervened during this stage of the complaint to request that the landlord issue a timely response. The landlord’s response was issued 62 working days after this request being made. The resident escalated her second complaint to stage two and there has been no evidence provided to this Service that this complaint was acknowledged or responded to by the landlord until an intervention from this Service. In the interim, the landlord also received at least three emails from the resident following up on the complaint. Following this Service’s intervention, the landlord re-opened the second complaint, under a different complaint reference number and escalated it to stage two. A response was issued 66 working days after receipt of the complaint and therefore 51 working days over the landlord’s policy timescales. There has been no evidence provided to this Service that the landlord communicated any of these delays, or gave updated response times, to the resident.
Within the first stage two complaint, the landlord offered £400 compensation to the resident for her time and trouble in pursuing this complaint. The following day, the landlord informed the resident that it would “hold on the compensation offer for now and wait for the work be completed”. This action was unfair as there is no provision for the withdrawal of compensation within the landlord’s policy. The landlord’s second stage two response offered £150 of compensation to the resident for needing to chase the repairs, along with an apology for the delay, however, the previously withdrawn offer of £400 compensation was not reinstated.
There is evidence of repeated contact from the resident requesting updates and three separate interventions required by this Service to complete the complaints process. In total, the landlord’s complaint process took an additional 187 working days over its policy timescales to complete these complaints. This is an unacceptable level of service, amounting to maladministration, which caused loss of time and distress to the resident over a prolonged period.
In the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as above, where cases are found to have maladministration, redress of £100 – £600 should be considered. The landlord’s own compensation policy also suggests an indicative amount of £100 – £500 compensation in ‘high impact’ cases. Owing to the level of intervention required by the resident and this Service, and considering the remedies guidance and landlord’s policy, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident and pay compensation of £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by these delays.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of flooding in the communal carpark serving her property.
2. The associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for both aspects of maladministration found within this complaint.
2. Pay the resident £700, calculated as:
  1. £250 for the time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
  2. £500 for the delays in completing repair work.

If the landlord has paid the £150 compensation offered in its stage two complaint response (or any part of it), this may be deducted from the amount ordered above.

The landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within the timeframes noted.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord should:
1. Within a reasonable time, undertake works to rectify the flooding in the car park and ensure that fire doors are fit for purpose, or, if appropriate, begin the Section 20 consultation process for major works.
2. Review its compensation policy, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, to avoid a hard limit of £500 in cases of cash compensation.
3. Review its records management processes, in light of the findings in this report regarding its record keeping and timeliness of responses, ensuring that records are accessible and comprehensive so that the landlord can track its own actions.
4. Ensure that it has a clear process for tracking complaints through the internal complaints process and that staff are aware of, and adhere to, the timescales set out in its complaint policy.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 28 days of this report.