Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202115914)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115914

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

5 May 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

1. The complaint is about the level of compensation offered by the landlord in response to the resident’s complaint about how it dealt with repairs to a leak in the property.

Background

2. The resident has lived in the property on an assured tenancy since 2016.
3. The resident complained about the time it took the landlord to identify the source of the leak and carry out repairs and then the subsequent making good to the damage caused. In addition, the resident was unhappy about the lack of communication from the landlord. The resident says it was always him having to chase the landlord for updates.
4. In response, the landlord said it appreciated that there had been poor service and communication. The landlord offered £500 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
5. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He is unhappy that the landlord did not complete the work sooner, even though he had made it aware that the situation was affecting his health. The resident considers the amount of compensation offered fails to fully address the stress caused, the deterioration in his health and his embarrassment about the flat smelling. It also does not cover the unpaid leave he took from work to be at home for appointments, the cost of extra heating and cleaning products.

Assessment and findings

6. The resident first reported a leak at the end of December 2020. To some extent, early delays were justifiable. Firstly, only emergency repairs were being carried out due to the Covid lockdown. Secondly, it was a relatively complex repair as the source of the leak was not immediately obvious. Initially it was thought that it was coming from the flat above and then possibly from the flat roof of the building.
7. However, by mid-January 2021 the leak had spread and was coming down the walls of the property. The resident questioned whether the matter should now be classed as an emergency but there is no evidence that the landlord started to treat it as a greater priority.
8. A contractor reported to the landlord on 5 February 2021 that they had visited and the resident had shown them an area of damp and mould in the communal stairwell that was adjacent to his flat. There were pipes within the stairwell wall and the contractor recommended that the area needed to be chopped open to expose the pipework and find the problem. However, this recommendation was not acted upon at that time. Throughout March and April 2021 the resident was chasing the landlord to do something and received responses that a works order was being raised.
9. The resident was reporting mustiness in the flat and the presence of flies. The resident informed the landlord of his recent health problems and how he felt the ongoing situation was worsening his condition and causing respiratory problems. However, the landlord did not acknowledge this. There is no evidence that the landlord factored this into its consideration of how quickly the work should be carried out.
10. The problem was finally resolved on 13 May 2021 when operatives identified the source of the leak and carried out an effective repair. Given the severity of the problem, it was a failing by the landlord that it did not respond more quickly.
11. Remedial work was then required to make good damage caused to the resident’s flat. The Ombudsman understands that the resident is satisfied with the works that have now been carried out. However, the Ombudsman also appreciates the resident’s view that the correct level of work was only carried out due to the involvement of Environmental Health.
12. Throughout the period January to August 2021 there is evidence that the resident was often chasing the landlord for updates about what was happening. The resident resorted to making formal complaints on more than one occasion to try and move matters along.
13. Also during this time there was clearly some miscommunication in regard to dates of visits. For example, the resident waited at home on 27 April 2021 for a surveyor to attend, only to find out later that he had attended on 23 April 2021. The resident was also not told in advance the date that the surveyor would be visiting to carry out a post-work inspection.
14. There is no doubt that the resident has been through a difficult time. However, in identifying whether there has been any maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognized and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make any finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress.
15. The landlord’s Compensation Policy sets out a tariff of compensation levels where there has been low, medium or high levels of impact to a tenant. ‘High impact’ is described as a ‘serious or prolonged service failure or loss of facilities resulting in severe stress, disruption, inconvenience or loss of income.’ The maximum compensation amount for ‘High impact’ is £500.
16. In this case the landlord has upheld the resident’s complaint. By offering the £500 compensation at the very top end of the scale prescribed by its Compensation Policy, the landlord has demonstrated that it was mindful of the provisions in its policy and recognised that the delay and poor communication was unacceptable. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that, in offering this amount, the landlord has given proper consideration to the events.
17. The landlord’s Compensation Policy does set out that payments will not be given to compensate tenants for time off work. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord has not considered this as a separate item but has instead looked at it in the round when concluding that there has been a high impact on the resident. The resident may wish to seek legal advice regarding payment for damages with respect to any loss of earnings.
18. The resident has described the impact the issues raised in the complaint had on his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to decide on the health impact of landlords’ actions on residents. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on making a personal injury claim as this is the appropriate means of escalating this aspect of his complaint.
19. Our position here is in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme which provides that: ‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure’.
20. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of the errors by the landlord, based on our assessment of the issues.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has identified and acknowledged service failings and made an apology and an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

22. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord has already paid the £500 compensation offer to the resident. Therefore, the Ombudsman makes no further recommendations.