Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202121133)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121133

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

4 January 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. the resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen and windows in her property;
    2. the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), and;
    3. the resident’s formal complaint.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said there have been longstanding defects to her windows since 2013. The Ombudsman would expect that a resident raises a complaint about an aspect of the landlord’s service within a reasonable period; this would normally be within six months of an issue arising. This is because it is difficult to reliably make a determination on historical events. There is no indication that the resident raised a formal complaint about the windows until October 2021, and no evidence of her reporting an issue with the windows in the year prior to this. As such, the investigation will focus on events from 2021 onwards..

Background

  1. The resident reported a repair to the landlord for her kitchen drawer on 4 July 2021; however, access was not provided when the landlord attended to carry out a repair on 26 July 2021. The resident raised a further repair request for this on 24 August 2021, which was completed on 10 September 2021. On 29 October 2021 the resident reported a kitchen cupboard door broken, which was repaired on 26 November 2021, with the records noting ‘kitchen in poor condition with delamination edge strips to drawers and cupboard doors and as such cannot be cleaned’.
  2. The resident logged a stage one complaint with the landlord on 28 October 2021, in which she said that the two ground floor bedroom windows had been broken for eight years and could not be opened, and that despite the landlord attending several times, the windows had never been fully repaired. She also said that she had reported experiencing ASB from her neighbour but was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of this, contending that its staff had been biased and acted unfairly in response to her reports.
  3. Before the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident, it attended the property to perform an emergency repair to board up the broken windows on 29 October 2021, and carry out a repair to a kitchen drawer. In November 2021 resident additionally reported that she believed her kitchen needed to be replaced, and that the kitchen flooring was damaged. 
  4. The landlord’s subsequent stage one complaint response dated 6 December 2021 confirmed that the repairs to the kitchen units had been passed to its repairs team to resolve. It said, ‘During our conversation, you mentioned that the window repairs are crucial due to health issues and to the increased amount you spend on heating your home. The repair manager advised that quotation has been received and will be approved. The estimated waiting time between approval and repair completion is 8 weeks. I will continue to update you with the repairs.’ The landlord also confirmed that a mediation meeting was scheduled to take place between the resident and her neighbour.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint in early January 2022 as she continued to be dissatisfied with the condition of the kitchen, the repairs to her windows, and the landlord’s handling of ASB issues. On 19 January 2021 the resident reported that several kitchen units were broken and the flooring was also dangerous and damaged. The records noted that the resident refused works to the kitchen units in early February 2022 as mismatched colours were to be used.
  6. The landlord provided its final stage complaint response to the resident on           3 February 2022, in which it confirmed that it had booked an appointment for the repair of the kitchen cabinets and an inspection of the flooring on 8 February 2022. It repeated that the windows would be replaced within eight weeks, and noted that the mediation meeting had taken place which had improved the situation with the neighbour. 
  7. The records note that when attending to carry out works to repair broken kitchen units and flooring, contractors left site due to the resident’s behaviour.
  8. The resident informed the Ombudsman on 20 February 2022 that she continued to be dissatisfied as the windows had not been replaced, and were still boarded up, which had left the room without light and ventilation. She said that the kitchen cabinets and flooring were “completely damaged”. The resident wanted the repairs to be completed and compensation for distress she experienced.
  9. In June 2022 the resident stated to this Service that the kitchen had still not been repaired. More recently she has indicated that further patch repairs have been carried out unsatisfactorily.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to kitchen cabinets, flooring, and windows

  1. The landlord has an obligation to repair and maintain the structure of the property and the fixtures within. This includes the windows and the fitted kitchen, and this is confirmed by its tenancy agreement with the resident. The landlord’s maintenance policy states that a routine non-emergency repair should be completed within 15 working days. An emergency repair (one which may pose a security hazard) should be attended within 24 hours and made safe, with routine repairs to follow if necessary. This policy also confirms that it is the landlord’s responsibility to provide suitable waterproof flooring for the kitchen and bathroom.

Window repair

  1. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has explained that the bedroom windows were left boarded shut with wood for four months, which meant that the bedroom had no light and could not be ventilated. She explains that this was especially impactful as a household member was suffering from a number of serious illnesses and required ventilation in the bedroom due to this. She also reported an increase in heating costs, explaining that the due to the household member’s illnesses the temperature in the property needed to be maintained, which she made the landlord aware of. She has stated to this Service, ‘The window was fitted with a wooden plank…with half of the window open, from November 2021 to February 2022 and we had to endure the coldest months of the year last winter with freezing conditions. I had to use my heating throughout those months 24/7 and still struggled to stay in the bedroom as it was so cold, which increased my energy bills.’
  2. Once the landlord was made aware of the repair in October 2021, it would be expected to resolve this within a reasonable timeframe. It is appreciated that sometimes repairs may be delayed while sourcing parts for a repair, as in this case, where new windows needed to be ordered. When a repair is delayed for such a reason, the landlord would be expected to manage the resident’s expectations, provide accurate timeframes for the repair, and provide regular updates on progress. If the expected wait for a replacement part becomes excessive, then it should consider alternative means of acquiring the part or completing the repair.
  3. In this case, the landlord was made aware on 28 October 2021 of the window repair. In the information that it provided to this Service, the landlord stated that the repair to the window was completed on 16 December 2021, however, there is no evidence to support this. The evidence that is available indicates that the repair was completed on 24 February 2022 (which also accords with the resident’s account). This was a period of four months and was a significant delay, considerably in excess of the 15 working day timeframe specified in the maintenance policy above.
  4. While this delay may have been in large part due to the lead time for the new windows to be obtained, and so was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control, there is no evidence that the landlord took into account the health issues of household members, which the resident had made it aware of, or that it attempted to manage the resident’s expectations on the timeframe for the repair from the outset. It was not until its 6 December 2021 stage one complaint response that it advised that the repair quotation was waiting for approval, and once this was done it would take eight weeks for the works to be completed. It is unclear why, some five weeks after the landlord had first attended for the windows, the works required had still not been approved. This indicates some delay on the part of the landlord in progressing the repair.
  5. Further, despite referring to the health conditions in the household and the increased heating costs in its stage one letter, there is no indication that the landlord considered whether it could expedite the repair, or any other actions to try and alleviate the impact the delay was having on the household. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to provide further information on the progress of the repair, and in its final stage complaint response, on 3 February 2022, approximately eight weeks later, it simply repeated that the windows would be repaired within eight weeks with no explanation given for this apparently extended timeframe. The lack of updates and extended delay would have exacerbated the adverse impact that the situation was having on the resident and wider household. 
  6. Overall, while the landlord did respond promptly on 29 October 2021 to ‘make safe’ the windows in line with its repair policy, it remains that there were delays in completing the repair with a lack of communication and updates to the resident. The landlord does not appear to have given due consideration to the household’s vulnerabilities and circumstances. To remedy the ‘adverse affect’ that these failings had, an order for compensation is made below.

 

Kitchen and floor repairs

  1. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has said, ‘My kitchen cupboards are completely damaged, the doors come out unexpectedly. On two occasions hitting my husband’s feet. The floor near the kitchen area is completely damaged.’
  2. The landlord’s better homes standard states that it will carry out a planned assessment of all kitchens every five years, and it will only replace those which are 25 years old and in a poor condition.
  3. In response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen cabinets on 4 July, 24 August and 29 October 2021, the landlord attended each repair within a reasonable time. While not all of these were completed within the 15 working days specified in its maintenance policy above, they were all completed within a month and therefore the delays were minor. However, when the resident reported on 29 November 2021 that her floor needed repair and her kitchen needed to be replaced, it took an excessive period of approximately ten weeks to attend the property on 9 February 2022; this was to inspect the flooring, and carry out a patch repair to the kitchen. This was an unreasonable delay, particularly since there was no evidence of the landlord explaining why.
  4. It is reasonable for a landlord to carry out patch repairs to a fixture while it is still economically viable for it to do so, rather than carry out a replacement, and it is noted that the kitchen was not due for renewal until 2033. However, in this case the records show that the landlord was aware of significant disrepair to the kitchen: On 26 November 2021, it recorded that the kitchen was in “poor condition… and as such difficult to clean” and its records on 13 December 2021 also noted that the resident’s photographs showed that it was in “poor condition”. As such, rather than raising a number of patch repairs, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have carried out an inspection to satisfy itself that patch repairs were still appropriate to maintain the condition of the kitchen, or whether more extensive works were required. This would also have provided some reassurance to the resident that the landlord was taking her concerns seriously. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not do so, and persisted in arranging for patch repairs of the kitchen cabinets. This has led to frustration to the resident, and time and trouble in pursuing the matter. An order for compensation as a remedy to this is made below.
  5. To date, there is no evidence that the landlord has inspected the kitchen, and the resident’s recent communications indicate that patch repairs are ongoing. Therefore, an order is also made to inspect the kitchen.
  6. The compensation amount ordered in relation to the repair issues is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view online, which provides for compensation awards of between £100 and £600 for failures which had an adverse effect on the resident which the landlord did not acknowledge or put right. When calculating this the Ombudsman has particularly taken into account the additional impact on the household due to the serious health issues.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy confirms that it considers harassment, vandalism and property damage to be antisocial behaviour. This policy provides for the use of early intervention strategies such as mediation to discourage or limit ASB.
  2. When a landlord receives a report of ASB, it would be expected to investigate the report and take proportionate action based on any evidenced ASB. The ASB reported by the resident was that her neighbour had taken her shoes left outside her property and vandalised these. She also reported that she received abuse from a person staying at her neighbour’s property. The landlord’s records from the investigation of the complaint on 2 December 2021 stated that this report was made earlier in the year and the resident was unable to evidence that this was done by her neighbour. It also recorded that the matter was not reported to the police.
  3. The landlord’s records of the investigation on 2 December 2021 also noted that, on its visit to the block on 23 September 2021, it observed conflict between the resident and her neighbour, where both parties made accusations about the other. It is noted that there was no independent third-party evidence to corroborate the reported ASB.
  4. The role of the Ombudsman is not to determine whether ASB actually occurred, or to determine who perpetrated the reported ASB. The role of the Ombudsman is to consider whether the landlord acted reasonably in response to the reports of ASB. In this case, as there was no evidence that the resident’s neighbour was responsible for the damage to her shoes, but there was clear friction between the two parties, it was a reasonable and proportionate response for the landlord to attempt mediation.
  5. This mediation meeting took place on 12 January 2022 and the landlord’s final stage complaint response noted that this had improved the situation between the resident and her neighbour. There was no evidence of the resident disputing this. Considering this, the landlord’s actions to tackle the reported ASB were fair in the circumstances and in accordance with its ASB policy. There was no evidence, therefore, of a failure in its handling of the reports of ASB.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage complaints procedure, which specifies that it should respond to a stage one complaint within ten working days, and a final stage complaint within 15 working days. If it is unable to meet either of these timeframes, it should keep the resident informed and provide regular updates.
  2. The resident raised her stage one complaint on 28 October 2021 and the landlord responded to this on 6 December 2021. This was a period of 26 working days and was in excess of the timeframe specified in the landlord’s complaints procedure. While the resident did provide the landlord with further information for the consideration of her complaint on 29 November 2021 – when it agreed an extension for the stage one complaint response – it should have contacted her before this, by 11 November 2021. This would have kept it compliant with the ten working-day timeframe specified in its policy. There was no evidence of the landlord updating the resident prior to 29 November 2021 and therefore this was a failure to handle the complaint in accordance with its procedure.
  3. Furthermore, the resident’s stage one complaint mentioned that she was unhappy with the staff member who handled her reports of ASB. She believed that this staff member had acted unfairly and was biased against her. When a landlord receives a complaint about staff conduct it should investigate the issues raised, and confirm its position to the resident. While there was evidence, on 3 December 2021, that the landlord investigated the reports about the staff member acting unfairly, it did not relay the findings of this to the resident in either of its complaint responses. This was a failure by it to address all the aspects of the complaint.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to the final stage on 11 January 2022, and the landlord responded to this on 3 February 2022. This was a period of 17 working days and was in excess of the timeframe in its policy, but not a significant delay.
  5. For the delays and failure to address all issues in its complaint handling, the landlord should pay compensation to the resident to recognise any distress and inconvenience caused. As there was no evidence that she experienced a significant degree of detriment due to the complaint handling failures, it should pay compensation of £75 to the resident. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which provides for awards of compensation between £50 and £100 where there was a failure which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident, but which the landlord did not acknowledge or put right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen and windows in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the formal complaint.

Orders

  1. Within one month of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £575 compensation (£500 for its failures in the handling of repairs to the kitchen and windows, and £75 for the failings in the complaint handling).
    2. Carry out an inspection of the resident’s kitchen to determine whether renewal or repair is required to ensure that the kitchen is in a reasonable condition. A record of the findings should be made and a copy sent to the Ombudsman, to include a date by which any identified works will be completed. 
    3. Review its procedures for the management of repairs, including how it communicates with residents about delayed/outstanding repairs, and confirm to the Ombudsman what steps it will take to ensure that repairs are handled in a timely manner, and residents are kept appropriately informed about these.