Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202105499)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105499

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

30 November 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 report about:
1. A window repair.
2. A gutter repair.
3. The complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder. The original lease which was assigned to the resident commenced in November 2018.
The lease states that the landlord is obligated to maintain and repair structural parts of the building, roof and service media within the building and balconies, windows, and common parts.
The maintenance procedure states that responsive repair services are arranged through contractors and the timescales are: 24 hours for emergency works, 15 working days for non-urgent works (such as blocked gutters and repairs to windows) and variable timescales for planned or major works.
The complaint procedure states that the landlord will respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage two complaints within 15 working days (or longer with notice).

Summary of events

This assessment is based on the available evidence.
According to the resident’s correspondence, a leak occurred in February 2020 from the bedroom window when it rained. This was reported to the landlord at the time, and an appointment was made for March 2020. The landlord’s contractor that attended at the time identified a repair to the window and said that he would report this to the landlord.
The resident said that she then experienced delays in getting the matter resolved following her ongoing contact with the landlord in May and June 2020, during the pandemic.
The resident said that she chased the landlord in July 2020. A contractor attended on 24 August 2020 and repeated the same findings as before; he said that he would report back to the landlord.
In August 2020 the resident experienced a new repair issue. There was excess water from a gutter in the main balcony when it rained. This was reported to the landlord on 17 September 2020 and a contractor attended the following day (18 September 2020). The resident said that the contractor considered that there was a drainage issue or blockage elsewhere in the guttering and this is what caused the overflow onto the resident’s balcony. The contractor had said that they would report this to the landlord. The resident said that at the time they did not hear back, but the problem had seemed to be resolved.
The resident said that she had contacted the landlord multiple times, without success, and on 17 September 2020, she raised a formal complaint about the window repair.
1. In her complaint, the resident said that she reported this on 11 February 2020 and was told that the contractor would contact her; she chased this on 14 February 2020 and was given an appointment for 9 March 2020.
2. An inspection took place at the time and the builder said that they would report back to the landlord, however, she had not heard back.
On 6 October 2020 the landlord asked internally for the matter regarding the window to be raised with the contractor and noted that there had been delays in getting the work sorted.
An appointment had been made for 23 December 2020 but the outcome of this is unclear.
On 14 January 2021 the resident emailed the landlord about the delay in the window repair and highlighted that this had been outstanding since February 2020. The resident detailed her numerous attempts to chase this and said that the whole matter had caused ‘unbearable frustration’.
On 4 February 2021 the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay and forwarded this internally.
On 26 March 2021 the resident reported that the gutter issue had recurred, (following the last occurrence and visit by a contractor in September 2020). A contractor attended within 24 hours and applied some silicon which resolved the issue temporarily; he was to report back to the landlord about the guttering and reportedly was to arrange a replacement.
The resident said that she chased the landlord for the replacement several times, and on 14 May 2021 she was told by the landlord that it would only replace the gutter if it was to break again.
On 21 May 2021 the guttering issue recurred, and the resident said that she told the landlord, but she was not contacted back to arrange an appointment. On 27 May 2021 the resident said that she chased this and was told that there were no appointments until July 2021 for the replacement, and that she would be contacted for an appointment.
On 7 June 2021 the resident said that she chased this again and was given the appointment time for 5 July 2021 but the contractor did not attend. The resident reported this to the landlord, and an appointment was made for 19 July 2021.
On 7 June 2021 the resident called the Ombudsman and reported delays in the repair to the window.
On 15 June 2021 the Ombudsman flagged the resident’s concern about the window with the landlord and asked it to engage in local resolution.
On 29 June 2021 the landlord issued its stage one response. This was 10 working days after the complaint was officially logged, although it was several months after the resident first raised the complaint. This related to the window repair.
1. The landlord surmised its understanding of the complaint: when it rained, water seeped through a hole in the roof or the bedroom window. The window was also not positioned correctly.
2. It said that it originally attended the job in August 2020 and it identified problems with the roof and window. It said it should have contacted the defects team (as the property was a new build) to fix this and there was an error in doing this, for which it apologised.
3. In March 2021 it attended and there were similar issues, which it failed to report to the defects team about. It apologised for the delay.
4. It was liaising with the contractor to establish the issue with the roof and window and then it would contact the manufacturer to arrange the repair. The contractor would be in touch with the resident.
On 30 June 2021 the resident called the Ombudsman and reported her outstanding concerns with the landlord’s complaint response. The resident said:
1. The landlord said that the resident’s report had been sent to the wrong team in February 2020 however the resident since made numerous further calls since the first report, so this was not a fair explanation.
2. The landlord said it was sorry for the hole in the roof, yet the cause of the window leak was not diagnosed as such.
The Ombudsman encouraged the resident to escalate her concerns with the landlord directly. The resident escalated her concerns with the landlord on 4 July 2021.
On 5 July 2021 the landlord’s internal communications set out its intentions to address the windows through the available warranty. It considered that it needed a detailed report of the water ingress.
On 12 July 2021 there were further incidents of heavy rain and reports of flooding in the living room as well as flats below, in connection with the guttering. The resident explained in correspondence to the Ombudsman that at the time, her husband had to maintain buckets for a few hours, to mitigate the impact of the water leaking into the property. The water was leaking through from the balcony and into the resident’s property. As a result of several calls by the resident, the landlord arranged a 24 hour visit by a contractor. The contractor was shown videos of the issues (during rainfall) and said that they may have to undertake work to the area to diagnose the reason for the blockage.
On 13 July 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint about the guttering and drainage and said that the floor had been damaged. The resident said that the problem had first been reported in September 2020 and the landlord did not take further steps to understand the reason for the blockage. This was the second formal complaint that was raised, after the first one had been raised about the window.
On 14 July 2021 a surveyor visited the resident (regarding the window repair).
1. The report included a diagnosis of the repair, and this was water ingress above the bedroom window which was considered to be an external issue caused by a defective seal around the window (allowing rain water to enter the property).
2. There was also a report about a defective window mechanism.
On 22 July 2021 the resident chased the landlord for an action plan for works and reported that she had not heard back since the surveyor’s visit. The landlord said that the contractors were getting quotes for works such as resealing the windows and would arrange an appointment with the resident. Internally, it established that this was a long running issue and that the repairs were not a ‘defect’ issue.
On 25 July 2021 the resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that she remained dissatisfied with the lack of a date or appointment for the repairs, the lack of completed works by builders, and the lack of ‘clear explanation’ on the status of incomplete works following visits.
There were some works done at the property in August 2021, although the entirety of the records have not been seen.
On 12 August 2021 the Ombudsman contacted the landlord to encourage local resolution and stated that while the resident had received an update on the repairs, she had not received a stage two complaint response.
On 14 August 2021 the resident emailed the Ombudsman with details of the progress of the repairs. The resident reported that:
1. The landlord visited the property on 9 August 2021 to review the problem and confirmed that:
  1. The gutter needed to be checked and the balcony wall alongside the flat needed sealing.
  2. The window sealant needed replacing.
  3. The indoor skirting needed new sealing.
  4. The resident needed to make a claim to the landlord’s building insurance to repair damages to their property.
2. The flooding happened again when it rained (9 August 2021).
3. The landlord attended again on 10 August 2021 with builders to supervise the repairs.
4. The contractors identified blockages and that the original builders did not clean the balcony floor before adding additional flooring and this had caused the debris to build up, causing a blockage to the guttering. The debris was cleared and the area tested, which seemed to resolve the drainage issue. The landlord explained that it would recommend annual cleaning of balconies to prevent blockages to the drainage and other residents should also claim on the building insurance.
The resident said that the landlord had not been in touch following this and sought the Ombudsman’s advice on how to proceed. The resident explained that she sought for the landlord to carry out the repairs to the balcony sealing, the internal skirting sealing, the floor replacement, and the window sealing. The resident also explained that she sought compensation for the impact of the repairs; the intermittent raining had caused ‘constant distress’ (14 August 2021).
In August 2021 the landlord was notified about flooding in other flats in the building and damage to the ceilings of other residents, seemingly in connection with the resident’s balcony gutter repair. The repair was described as a leak from the resident’s flat causing ‘gallons and gallons’ of water to penetrate the ceiling of the flat below, and cause damage to floors.
On 18 August 2021 the landlord issued a ‘stage two’ response letter for the gutter repair. This was actually a first response to the guttering repair, which the resident complained about on 13 July 2021. The landlord said:
1. It apologised for the delay in addressing the leaking roof.
2. It summarised the diagnosis (repairs required to the guttering which was causing leaks). Contractors were scheduled to attend on 26 August 2021 to replace a pipe, seal the door and reduce risk of future leaks.
3. It was concerned about the way the decking had been placed and it was looking to see what could be done to prevent future problems.
4. It advised the resident to claim on her own personal house insurance for damages to the floors, to look to have this replaced.
On 2 September 2021 the landlord issued another ‘stage two’ response in which it offered its apology for the delay. This was addressed to a different resident, though it is not clear if this was in error, as it was specifically about the resident’s repair. The landlord issued a final and more detailed response on 13 October 2021 (to the resident).
The landlord’s final response of 13 October 2021 addressed the combined repairs.
1. It reviewed the stage one response and detailed the information it had previously provided regarding the windows. The resident’s reports had been sent to the wrong team in error. It apologised that this was outstanding and said that this was unacceptable.
2. It referred to the guttering and the actions to be taken for that. It apologised for not following up with the information it said it would give to her about preventing further issues with the balcony/guttering/drainage.
3. It apologised for the internal communication error and explained that this caused the delay. It said that work was booked in now for the window for 26 October 2021 and it had also arranged for hatches to be installed, to prevent leaks into the home, scheduled for 25 October 2021 and a post work assessment was booked for 27 October 2021.
4. It acknowledged the delay in completing the repair and offered the resident £100 for the inconvenience caused to her.
5. It considered that the original complaint and subsequent additional issues to have now been resolved.
On 25 October 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to raise concerns about the progress of repairs. The resident reported that abseilers had been scheduled by the landlord for the window/roof repair (for 25 and 27 October 2021) but the contractors did not turn up and did not inform the resident.
On 26 October 2021 the landlord emailed the resident and said that it would chase an update on the works, it apologised and it acknowledged that the redress it had offered of £100 was not sufficient for the aspects which had gone wrong.
The resident provided a copy of the contractor’s report dated 26 October 2021 to the Ombudsman. This detailed the work carried out that day to the window. It detailed the cause of ‘slight water ingress’ which was a ‘defective seal around window’ and this also affected the window mechanism. The works were carried out on the same day and the resident confirmed to the landlord that the repair had appeared to resolve the leak (November 2021).
The evidence suggests that there were reports of further concerns in December 2021, however, it is not clear if this was a new repair report or the same as before. The Ombudsman’s scope under this investigation has not included events after October 2021 given that:
1. There is no evidence that the landlord has considered the later timeframe under its complaint process.
2. The resident confirmed in November 2022 that the matter had been resolved in October 2021.
3. The outstanding point of dispute was confirmed to be about the level of compensation, following the completion of the repairs (November 2022).

Assessment and findings

Window repair

The landlord has not disputed that it failed to address the resident’s report about the window repair within a reasonable timescale. It apologised for this and offered a lump sum of redress (£100) for this and the other repair. Although it was appropriate for the landlord to recognise its failure, it did not offer proportional redress.
The resident said that she first reported the water ingress from the window in February 2020 and a contractor attended in March 2020. There has been limited evidence to show what happened, but it is clear that following this there were delays in May and June 2020 (due to the pandemic) and in September 2020 (when the resident raised a formal complaint).
Following notice of the outstanding repair from the formal complaint, the landlord chased this internally and considered the responsibility for the windows (eg if this was under the defects or warranty). Although there appear to have been attempts to address the repair toward the end of 2020, it was not until 14 July 2021 that the surveyor eventually attended and established the required works to the windows. This followed two previous visits by contractors. There was clearly a delay in following up, either from the contractor side or the landlord’s internal teams. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with the policy timescale for such repairs.
Then, following the established work order in July 2021 the landlord took three further months to complete the repair (October 2021). This was not reasonable.
The evidence as to what happened has not always been clear, but it has not been disputed. There were delays evident during the pandemic (March – May 2020), however, the landlord’s delays exceeded this period and were overall not reasonable.
The landlord intermittently acknowledged the delays and apologised (February 2021, June 2021) and the evidence shows that it was aware that its redress of £100 may not have been sufficient, but it ultimately did not take reasonable steps to put things right. The resident experienced time and trouble in chasing the works. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about the window repair.

Gutter repair

The resident reported repairs to the gutter to the landlord on 17 September 2020 and a contractor attended the following day and said that they would report back to the landlord. It was reasonable for the landlord’s contractor to attend within 24 hours following the initial report; however, there was a delay in the completion of the repairs following this which was not reasonable.
The resident did not report the issue again until further flooding arose six months later (March 2021). The evidence suggests that the landlord’s contractor attended and offered an interim repair within a reasonable timescale at the time (24 hours), but that following this there was a lack of clarity over the scope of the required works. The resident was under the impression that the guttering needed to be replaced while the landlord considered that repairs were sufficient (May 2021). Actually, the issue was with how the guttering had been installed during the building of the balcony, which was established following a surveyor’s visit (August 2021). The eventual visit by the surveyor and the landlord and works following this were reasonable, but the delays in reaching that point were not. The landlord did not offer sufficient redress.
There was an initial delay in the contractor following up works in September 2020 and then a further delay in the landlord’s visit following the recurrence of flooding in March 2021. The landlord’s combined offer of redress (£100 in total for both repairs) was not proportional to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The resident had to chase the works before the landlord agreed to visit and diagnose the issue, and she explained that this caused ‘constant distress’.
There were also reports made to the landlord about the impact of the repair (flooding) affecting other properties at one stage, so it would have been resolution focused for the landlord to prioritise the resident’s repair.
At one stage, the landlord advised the resident to claim on her own insurance for damage to the floors. The evidence about what happened after that is unclear. However, as a matter of good practice, if there has been an unreasonable delay by the landlord in carrying out a repair and there has been damage to the resident’s possessions due to this, it would not be reasonable to ask the resident to engage their own insurance policy. A recommendation has been made regarding this approach.
Overall, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s response to the reports about the gutter.

Complaint handling

The resident raised the complaint about the window in September 2020 but this was not logged by the landlord and responded to within its published complaint timescales. Instead, it progressed with the repair without providing a formal response to the complaint until 29 June 2021. This followed Ombudsman intervention on 15 June 2021. The nine month initial delay in logging the complaint was not appropriate.
Following the resident’s escalation of the concerns about the window on 4-5 July 2021 and her new complaint about the gutter around the same time (13 July 2021) the landlord issued a ‘stage two’ response, which was actually a stage one response to the new complaint (18 August 2021). Following this, it issued a further response by email which acknowledged and apologised for delays and offered holding responses (September 2021). The final stage two response for the combined complaints was issued on 13 October 2021. Therefore, there was a delay from July 2021 (when the resident escalated her concerns) to October 2021 (when the landlord issued its final response). This was not reasonable.
The landlord did not respond to the complaints within the timescales under its complaint policy, which was not appropriate. However, it is evident that there were multiple issues being chased and discussed in the same period. The landlord interchangeably addressed the complaints in the respective complaint responses and there was some conflation of the repairs and communication about the repairs, which the Ombudsman recognises. Although the landlord did apologise in general terms for the delays and it offered the combined redress (£100), it’s redress for the evident failures in the complaint handling was not fair and reasonable. In all the circumstances of the case, there was service failure in the complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the revised Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about:
1. The window repair.
2. The gutter repair.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the revised Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not resolve the repair to the window within a reasonable timescale.
The landlord did not resolve the repair to the gutter within a reasonable timescale.
Although the landlord acknowledged the delay and offered compensation, this was not proportional to the detriment which the resident experienced.
The landlord did not respond to the complaints within its policy timescale.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay a total of £675 for time, trouble and distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident comprised of the following:
1. £250 for the window repair.
2. £250 for the gutter repair.
3. £175 for the complaint handling (to be reduced by £100 if already paid).
The landlord is recommended to revise its practice in prompting residents to claim on their personal content or house insurance in cases of damages due to repairs without first assessing whether their response timescales were in line with their relevant policy. Further reading about HOS guidance on complaints involving insurance can be found on our website.