Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202116338)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116338

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

31 July 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:
1. The landlord’s decision not to reimburse the resident for a replacement appliance.
2. The landlord’s management of wet room floor repairs.
3. The landlord’s management of roofing repairs.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy, which started on 20 January 2014. The property is a one-bed flat in a converted townhouse. The landlord has not indicated that there are any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
On 31 May 2021, the resident reported a leak from the wet room floor but despite an inspection being carried out on 1 July 2021, no work was completed before the resident raised a complaint on 19 July 2021. During this time the resident’s hob had been condemned and the landlord disputed responsibility for repair of the appliance, refusing the resident’s request for reimbursement. Within their complaint, the resident also raised concerns around current and potential future maintenance to the roof, as they felt previous repairs had not been completed correctly.
The resident followed the complaint process but they were disappointed with the responses and the lack of action from the landlord as the repairs remained incomplete.

Policies and Procedures

The tenancy agreement says that the landlord is responsible for repairs to “fixtures and fittings we have provided for water, gas, electricity, space and water heating.”
The landlord’s maintenance policy says:
1. It is responsible for “maintaining appliances we have installed, which may not have been gifted to you.”
2. It states that “severe roof leaks” are a “Priority 1” repair, it details these as “emergency work to be attended to and made safe within four hours and rectified within 24 hours.”
3. It says that “repairs to doors, windows and floors” and “leaking roofs” are a “Priority 2” repair, defined as “non emergency repairs work to be completed within 15 working days.”
The landlord’s complaint policy is a two-stage process with responses due as below:
1. Stage one – agree a solution with the resident within ten working days. If a response can’t be provided in this time, the resident will be “kept informed and regularly updated.”
2. Stage two – “a definitive response will be provided within 15 workings days following a thorough investigation of the points raised.” If longer is needed, the resident will be “kept informed and regularly updated.”

Summary of events

On 30 May 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that the wet room flooring was leaking. A works order was raised by the landlord.
A gas safety inspection was carried out on 7 June 2021, during which the hob was noted on the report as being “Immediately Dangerous.” The inspector detailed in the report that the resident would not allow it to be “made safe” and that a warning label was attached stipulating “DO NOT USE.”
The resident later said that the engineer that carried out the gas inspection had initially said they would replace the hob immediately. They said that after the engineer consulted with their office, they were told that the responsibility would lie with the landlord. The resident said that they reported this to the landlord and they were told their request would be passed to senior management. The resident said that after a week, they had not received a response and bought a new hob with the intention of claiming back the cost.
On 14 June 2021, the landlord attended to inspect the wet room floor but noted there was no access. It is not clear whether this visit was agreed with the resident in advance.
On 15 June 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and provided an invoice for £281.95, the cost of a replacement gas hob and the associated installation.
On 1 July 2021, the landlord carried out an inspection of the leak on the wet room floor. The repair notes suggest that there should have been a plywood base under the flooring but this had not been installed. The note then said “this is an inspection so I’ve closed the job off.” No follow-on works were booked.
The resident raised a complaint on 19 July 2021 which the landlord acknowledged the same day. The complaint was around the following:
1. Water damage to paintwork in the hallway, a smoke detector no longer working and lights in the bathroom and kitchen not working correctly.
2. A request for an update on a recent survey of the roof.
3. They reported that the leak had caused damp in the bathroom and kitchen.
4. A request for an update on a date for the landlord to replace the wet room floor as it had raised and was leaking into the property below.
5. A request for payment of £300 for the replacement hob.
On 27 July 2021, a neighbouring property reported a leak from the roof.
Internal emails show that on 27 July 2021, the landlord identified that a sub-contractor would be required to fit a cap and cove floor (vinyl flooring that continues up the wall) in the wet room. It said they were obtaining a quote and it “try to do this urgently.”
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 August 2021, as they had not received a stage one response within ten working days. The resident asked that the complaint be escalated to stage two.
On 9 August 2021, the landlord provided its stage one complaint response. It stated the following:
1. In relation to the wet room floor, the “entire flooring will be replaced” and its repairs team would raise a work order to replace it.
2. “The results of the roof survey and the costs from the contractor have been received and awaiting approval to go ahead.” It said this should be approved “shortly.”
3. Regarding the replacement hob, it asked “who authorised this” as “a team leader and a senior manager both advised this was not authorised.”
On 23 August 2021, the resident responded to explain that they were not satisfied with the stage one response. They addressed the points set out in the stage one letter:
1. The resident said that in February 2020, the landlord had reimbursed them £200 for a replacement refrigerator due to the previous one becoming faulty.
2. They said that after reporting the issue with the hob to the landlord, they were told their request for a replacement had been escalated to senior management. They said they eventually purchased the replacement hob, as they had not heard back after a week and they had no means by which to cook.
3. In relation to the roof, the resident said that there had been issues with it for around four years. The resident said that in that time the landlord sent “two contractors with no experience of 18th Century listed building maintenance onto the roof for two days.” The resident said they had provided a report around these issues. The resident said this was based on them having had sight of a report written by previous contractors suggesting work had been completed on the wrong building by mistake. The resident requested a copy of the most recent report that was referenced in the stage one response.
4. In relation to the bathroom floor replacement, the resident said that two contractors had turned up to take photographs but no work had been carried out.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s response on 24 August 2021 and indicated that it would provide a stage 2 response within fifteen working days.
On 16 September 2021, the landlord issued its stage two response. Within it, the landlord said:
1. It maintained that it was not responsible for reimbursing the cost of the replacement hob as “there is no document to establish that the landlord are responsible for the replacement of white goods in the property”. It said that the reimbursement for a fridge in 2020 was a goodwill gesture and “we will not be contributing towards your new gas hob.”
2. It explained that it had raised the works order for the wet room floor to be replaced but it was experiencing issues in arranging it, due to the location of the property.
3. It reiterated that the roof survey had been completed and it was awaiting authorisation of the works. It said it could not send a copy of the report as “I don’t have access to that report.”
4. It said it would continue to monitor the repairs to both the bathroom and roof and would update the resident shortly.

Post Internal Complaint Process

The resident brought the complaint to this Service on 17 October 2021 as they remained unhappy with the landlord’s decision to not provide reimbursement, the lack of a date for the flooring work and it not provided further details around the roof works. The complaint was considered duly made on 10 December 2021.
On 18 January 2022, the wet room floor repairs were noted as being completed. Work order notes show that this work was offered to three different external contractors between July 2021 and its completion in January 2022.
On 18 November 2022, following consideration of findings in other cases from this Service the landlord contacted the resident in relation to the complaint from 2021. It confirmed the outcome of this discussion in writing and said:
1. After reviewing the tenancy “I agree with you that the landlord is responsible for the cost of replacing your hob.” It asked for a copy of the receipt and it would arrange for a payment to be made.
2. It confirmed that the wet room floor had since been replaced. It acknowledged “this took seven months which is unacceptable and outside of our published timescales of 15 working days.” It offered a payment of £350 as compensation for the delay, it said this was based on £50 per month that it took to complete the work.
3. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns around the time they had invested in trying to get both the wet room and roof repairs carried out. The landlord also acknowledged the resident’s concerns around the quality of the contractors it had sent and their technical skills given the complexity of the type of building.
On 21 November 2022, the resident responded to the landlord’s letter of 18 November 2022. The resident said that they would accept the offers made in that letter, if the landlord would reclassify their property as ‘general needs’ and provide a new tenancy, which would include a reduction in the rent. They added that they would also sign a non-disclosure agreement, as it would be “in the commercial interest of the landlord.” The resident said that it’s “admission that the landlord is responsible for the repair and replacement of white goods will apply retrospectively to all similar tenancies, if made public.”
The landlord responded on the same day and said:
1. It had no plans to change the classification of any of the properties. It explained that the current classification of ‘Independent Living’ meant that it targeted residents of generally over 55 years of age. It said that any changes would lead to the allocations being changed to different groups.
2. Most of its properties do not have any white goods in them. It explained that in the instances where they do “they are gifted to the incoming residents and become their responsibility to repair or replace.” It acknowledged that there was a hob in place when the resident moved in but it “can find no record of the hob being gifted to you.” It said that due to this, the hob had to be considered a kitchen fixture and therefore it would reimburse the resident the cost.
3. The landlord also agreed to attend the property in the future to discuss the resident’s concerns.
The resident responded on 26 November 2022 and accepted the compensation payment of £350 for the delay in repairing the wet room floor and £281.95 for the replacement and installation of the hob. They provided an invoice for the hob and the landlord replied to confirm that the resident should receive the payment by 1 December 2022.The resident has confirmed that these payments were made.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

Whilst it is accepted that the resident and other occupants of the property have made numerous reports of repairs linked to leaks in the roof prior to 2021. Along with concerns around the quality of previous works completed to the roof, this formal complaint was not raised by the landlord until July 2021.
This report has therefore focussed on the events that occurred from six months prior to July 2021 until the end of the internal complaint process. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Ombudsman’s Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not raised with the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time, which would normally be within six months of the matter arising.
This Service has been made aware of further instances of leaks and leak related repairs that were reported outside of the scope of this investigation. These will not form part of this investigation as these were addressed later in a complaint raised outside of the timeframe covered by this investigation.

The landlord’s decision not to reimburse the resident for a replacement appliance.

In line with the landlord’s policy, it was responsible for the maintenance of the gas hob as it was supplied at the start of the tenancy and there is no evidence that it was gifted to the resident.
The landlord provided a copy of its spreadsheet that detailed properties in the building that have appliances for which it would be responsible. This stated that the landlord was not responsible for a hob in the resident’s property. This demonstrates a failing by the landlord in either not formally gifting the hob to the resident, or failing to update its records accordingly.
Since the complaint was brought to this Service for investigation, the landlord contacted the resident on 18 November 2022 and acknowledged that it should have reimbursed them for the hob. It acknowledged that as it provided the property with the hob in it and it had not gifted it to the resident, it remained responsible for its upkeep. The landlord has since reimbursed the associated cost of £281.95 to the resident. In view of this, it is clear that the landlord failed to identify it’s responsibility for replacing the hob between it being identified as faulty on 7 June 2021 and its final complaint response on 16 September 2021.
After the landlord was made aware of the hob being condemned, the resident was left without the appliance for a week. This would have impacted the resident’s ability to cook. They have incurred inconvenience in having to chase it with the landlord, albeit unsuccessfully, and in having to manage without an important appliance. Had the landlord maintained accurate records of its responsibility around this appliance, or considered its position in the absence of any gifting records in a more timely manner the resident would not have had to incur this inconvenience.
Although the landlord has since refunded the cost of the appliance, the customer was inconvenienced in having to make do without the hob and then in having to chase the landlord for a refund. Had the landlord identified its responsibility for the cost and refunded this during the complaint process, this may have been considered reasonable redress. However, it cannot be considered such when it has taken 17 months for the resident to receive the payment following a supplementary complaint review. When considering the failings in the management of this process, cumulatively this amounts to a service failure.

The landlord’s management of wet room floor repairs

The leak in the wet room was reported on 31 May 2021 and in line with the landlord’s repair policy, this should have been addressed within 15 working days. Although there was a visit noted as no access on 14 June 2021, it is not clear whether this had been agreed with the resident in advance. The next visit was agreed with the resident but did not take place until 1 July 2021, 23 working days after it was reported. Given the works order was raised to address a leak, the landlord should have shown more urgency around attending the property to establish the severity of it. This is a failing as the resident would have been reticent to use the wet room during this time, impacting on their ability to bathe.
When the landlord attended on 1 July 2021, it identified that cap and cove flooring would be required. The work order was noted “this is an inspection so I’ve closed the job off.” Despite the required repair being identified during this visit, no further action was noted as being taken until a works order was raised on 27 July 2021. This was eight days after the resident raised their complaint on 19 July 2021. This shows both a lack of ownership following the inspection, and a lack of urgency following the complaint being made. In both instances, a works order to carry out the required repair should have been raised sooner. It should not have taken the resident raising a complaint for this to have been raised.
Despite identifying the required works on 1 July 2021, the required work was not completed until 18 January 2022, over six months later. The landlord has shown that requests for the required work were sent to three different contractors during that time.
Although the landlord has shown that it made attempts to arrange this work, the landlord’s management of the work request shows no determination to get the work completed with an appropriate level of urgency. The works order was left without reply by contractors for some time before the landlord chased a response, in some instances this was over a month.
Despite it being aware of the type of work needed and the time since it was reported, no alternative methods were used by the landlord to expedite the repairs. This demonstrates a failing in its contract arrangements in place as it was unable to arrange for the required works through its existing contracts for a significant period. This also shows a lack of understanding or empathy by the landlord as to the situation that the resident was left in. Even if the leak did not stop them fully using the wet room, they would likely have been hesitant to do so, knowing that it could leak into the flat below. This would have meant that their full enjoyment and use of the room was curtailed. When considering the failings in the management of this process, cumulatively this amounts to maladministration.

The landlord’s management of roofing repairs

Within the resident’s complaint, they expressed concerns that previous historical repairs to the roof were not completed to an adequate standard. As explained earlier in this report, this investigation will not address those previous works, as they do not fall within the scope of this investigation.
The landlord provided this Service with a list of reports of leaks and other repairs linked to the roof at the property. However, this was not complete, as it does not show any report for a leak that led to scaffolding being erected on 9 July 2021. Within its internal emails, the landlord said that scaffolding was erected on 9 July 2021 to “inspect the roof leak”. It does not specify what was reported or by which property. The list provided by the landlord also did not include the resident’s report of issues with a smoke alarm and lights that were likely caused due to a leak. This is a failing in the landlord’s record keeping which would have caused further issues in monitoring and potentially completing the repairs.
With regards to the resident’s report of the lights not working, the landlord’s internal emails suggest it was aware of the fault, but did not raise a works order when it was reported. The landlord already had scaffold erected at the property on 9 July 2021 to inspect a leak. Then after receiving the resident’s complaint, the landlord identified that it had “raised a job this morning” (19 July 2021), as the resident had been isolating due to COVID, and it had ended that day. It is not clear when this had been reported but the response demonstrates that it was aware of the issue prior to that day but it had not raised a works order for it due to the resident isolating. Regardless of the circumstances, the landlord should have recorded the issue on the day that the resident reported it. Further to this, the landlord could have discussed with the resident possible ways to progress the works during the period of isolation without undue risk to the resident or others.
Although the landlord would not have been able to attend the property while the resident was isolating, it could have raised a provisional appointment for after the isolation period. This could have been changed if the resident remained in isolation but if not, it would have ensured it was attended sooner. The works order raised on 19 July 2021 was for an appointment on 8 August 2021, some sixteen working days later. This meant that it left the resident without a functioning smoke alarm and potential hazards with the lighting issues for over three weeks. Given the nature of these issues, it should have sought to attend the property sooner. This is a failing on the part of the landlord which led to an unnecessary delay in resolving those issues.
Works were completed on the roof on 7 September 2021, these were recorded against a report of a leak made by a neighbouring property on 27 July 2021. This Service has not had sight of evidence of any other roofing repairs logged by the resident during the time covered by this investigation.
Within their complaint, the resident also asked for an update on repairs to the roof following an inspection six weeks prior. Within its complaint response, the landlord said that it had carried out a survey and obtained a quote, for which it was awaiting authorisation to carry out the works. No further detail was provided. The resident chased updates and requested a copy of the survey but this was not provided. Despite a request to the landlord for a copy of this survey, this Service has not had sight of it. The landlord said it “cannot provide the report as the systems where these were kept has changed”. Given the importance of such records in demonstrating a landlord’s actions in resolving potentially long running issues, and its legal requirement, whereby it should have retained such reports for a period of six years, this was a failing.
In response to the residents questions in their complaint around the proposed works from the survey, the landlord said “the quote for replacing the roof was approximately £80k however upon checking the condition no leaks were detected so this didn’t go ahead”. The landlord did not detail when this decision was made. However, given that the works to weatherproof the roof were completed on the 7 September 2021, it would be reasonable to conclude this inspection survey and the resultant position was not established before the 6 September 2021. The next report of a leak at the building was made on 7 April 2022. While this might be considered as evidence of continued issues with the roof. It also comes seven winter months after the previous repairs. Given the time between those repairs carried out on 7 September 2021 and the next report of a leak on 7 April 2022, the decision by the landlord to not replace the roof cannot be deemed as unreasonable at that time.
It is understandable that seeing evidence of leaks each year would call into question the quality of the repairs that were being completed. Within the investigation, it cannot be determined whether the leaks were all caused by the same issue, or multiple different issues. However, with the age and type of the property in question, smaller scale repair works would always be considered first due to the financial costs and the potential disruption to residents.
It is clear that the resident has made requests for updates around current repairs and the potential for future repairs due to serious concerns around the roof. The landlord has failed to provide updates around this work, despite its assurances that it would. Although the landlord was not obligated to provide this information, it did offer to keep the resident informed but then failed to do so.
During the period in question, the landlord failed to manage its repairing obligation effectively. The landlord did not adequately consider the health and safety concerns caused by the repairs and it could have also looked to address them sooner by enquiring if there was a way for it to attend during the resident’s isolation. Its records around this period were limited and were also not consistent with the repairs it has shown were being carried out. This has led to the resident having to chase responses to those repairs and the general roofing repairs that were being proposed and carried out. The landlord then failed to keep the resident informed around the larger scale repairs. When considering the failings in the management of this process, cumulatively this amounts to service failure.

The landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord failed to provide its stage one response by the target of 2 August 2021, in line with its complaint policy. The resident had already requested an escalation to stage two, prior to it actually being issued on 9 August 2021.
The stage one response from the landlord had no specific dates for the works to be completed in the wet room and it gave a vague answer to the residents enquiry around the proposed roofing works. The response demonstrated a lack of adequate investigation being carried out prior to issuing the decision. An opportunity was missed to engage with the resident to discuss the complaint and focusing on finding a resolution to it. If the response had been issued later due to the landlord looking to provide a more definitive investigation response, this would seem reasonable. However, the response was issued five working days later than it should have been and still provided no real answers to the resident’s complaint. This demonstrates no learning by the landlord and the complaint led to nothing being put right for the resident as a result of it.
The stage two response was also issued outside of the timeframe stated in the landlord’s acknowledgment. Within the response, it incorrectly stated that it was not responsible for the hob replacement. It also reiterated that the roofing repairs were awaiting authorisation and that it did not have a date for the completion of the wet room repairs. The landlord’s complaint policy says that a “thorough investigation” will be completed at stage two. The response it provided at stage 2 in this case does not however demonstrate that it has completed a thorough investigation.
In relation to the wet room repairs, the work was already outside of the timeframe stated in the repair policy when the initial complaint was made. The landlord has investigated this element of the complaint on two occasions but failed to take appropriate action through its complaint management to speed up the resolution of the repair need and the extended delays in the process of allocating those works.
Within the stage two response, the landlord said it would provide updates on both the roofing and wet room repairs. This Service has not had sight of any evidence of such updates being provided.
Across both stages of the complaint, the landlord has not provided any definitive resolution to the resident’s questions and concerns. The one definitive response it provided, around the reimbursement of the hob, was incorrect. The landlord did not follow up on its assurances around updates for both the wet room and the roof. The roofing work that it said was just awaiting authorisation, was not authorised and did not take place.
Ultimately, the complaint responses from the landlord were not satisfactory as both responses were late, lacking in terms of investigation and proposed actions were not followed up on. When considering the failings in the management of this process, cumulatively this amounts to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s decision to not reimburse the resident for an appliance in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s management of the wet room floor repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure found in the landlord’s management of roofing repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s decision not to reimburse the resident for a replacement appliance.

The landlord failed to gift an appliance to the resident when they moved in and failed to keep an accurate record of its responsibility around that appliance. This led to the resident having to chase a response around that appliance when it was condemned, leaving the resident without an important everyday appliance for a week before they bought a replacement themselves. The landlord then failed on at least two occasions to identify that it was responsible for the appliance. This would have only required the landlord to identify that the appliance was there at move in and that it had no record of the appliance being gifted to the resident. Had it done so, it could have either minimised the period during which the resident had no hob, or the time taken for it to refund the cost of the hob. It is acknowledged that the landlord has since reviewed its decision in line with feedback it had received from this Service on similar cases. However, it is worth noting that it is not in the spirit of our dispute resolution principles or the Complaint Handling Code for a landlord to make an offer of redress at the end of a long process with the effect that the Ombudsman will not consider the matter further.

The landlord’s management of wet room floor repairs.

The landlord failed to attend the report of a leak with any urgency, as it took around one month for it to carry out an inspection of the issue. After identifying the problem with the flooring in the wet room, it closed the works order and did not raise one to have the works completed. This was raised following the resident’s complaint, 26 days after the inspection. The landlord did experience delays due to contractors not accepting the work. However, it failed to manage this request for work, as there were significant gaps in its requests to have the work completed. It took over seven months for the work to be completed which could only have caused the resident significant inconvenience and concern that their using the wet room would cause a leak into a neighbouring property.

The landlord’s management of roofing repairs.

The landlord failed to manage repairs linked to leaks from the roof in line with its own repair policy. It did not record the issues when they were reported which then delayed the response to them. Although the resident was isolating during this period, the landlord was in a position to make allowances for this, rather than just not recording the repair until the resident was able to schedule an appointment. The landlord then failed to provide updates around current or future repairs, despite it agreeing to do so.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord failed to respond to the complaints in line with the timeframes set out by its complaint policy. Delays are understandable if the landlord is seeking to provide a comprehensive investigation or it is awaiting further action. However, this could not be seen as the reason for the delays in this case. The landlord has not investigated the resident’s concerns fully as it provided an incorrect response on both occasions around the reimbursement for the hob. With regards to the repairs and questions around the roofing repairs, it failed to provide any significant detail in response to the resident’s questions. It then failed to meet its proposals from the complaint as it didn’t provide updates around these works.

Orders

The landlord’s management of wet room floor repairs.

The landlord is ordered to make a payment of £250 to the resident towards the distress and inconvenience caused by the reduced enjoyment of the wet room caused by the delays to the repair. This should be paid directly to the resident within 28 days of the date of this report. This is in addition to the £350, paid in 2022.

The landlord’s management the roofing repairs.

The landlord is ordered to make a payment of £100 to the resident towards the time and trouble required of the resident in the management of the roofing repairs. This should be paid directly to the resident within 28 days of the date of this report.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord is ordered to make a payment of £200 to the resident towards the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint. This should be paid directly to the resident within 28 days of the date of this report.
The landlord must review the learning from this report, it must advise this Service of its intentions within four weeks of the date of this report and bring into its operations within three months of the date of this report. This review must consider at minimum:
1. Knowledge refresh for relevant staff re complaint handling timeframes and managing complaints in line with the Code.
2. Ensure that thorough complaint investigations are undertaken and that these fully reflect policies and procedures, for example in respect of gifting.
3. Ensure that it honours commitments made to provide updates to residents.
4. Ensure consistency across its approach to gifting and adequate recording of any such arrangements.
5. Ensure adequacy of its records when multiple repairs are taking place and providing updates to residents in respect of recurring repairs.