Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202127664)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127664

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

12 September 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:
   1. The resident’s concerns about visits made to their property by the landlord.
   2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s porch. 
   3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The complaint was raised by both the resident and his wife. For clarity, this report will refer to both the resident and his wife as ‘the resident’. The resident has advised that members of the household suffer with mental health conditions including OCD as well as other disabilities.
3. The landlord initially requested access to the resident’s property to carry out an asbestos survey in August 2020, the resident disputed that this was necessary and it is unclear if any further communication was sent in regard to this. During May 2021, the resident experienced issues with the hot water system which was rectified in July 2021. In June 2021, the resident reported that the ‘gallows’ supporting the porch roof on one side had rotted and needed repair. 
4. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord in August 2021 and explained the following:
   1. The family was being treated unfairly by the landlord due to what they believed was a high number of requests to access the property, stating that these were unnecessary and causing stress. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s issuing of a warning letter which threatened a breach of tenancy and quoted laws which did not exist in order to gain access to the property to complete an asbestos survey. They also raised concern that they had been verbally abused over the phone by members of the landlord’s staff. The resident advised that they were not willing to allow access to the property unless there was a genuine repair issue or emergency, or a legal requirement such as a gas safety inspection.
   2. The resident did not believe an asbestos survey was needed as one had been completed in October 2014 at which point no asbestos was found. In addition, they had been told when they moved into the property (in 1996) that the building was not built with asbestos containing materials.
   3. Members of the household suffered with OCD which made it more difficult to allow visitors to the property as they needed to cover the property in plastic sheets and spend time cleaning items that were touched. As such, they did not want staff to attend without appointments under any circumstances and wanted reasonable adjustments to be made.
   4. They also expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had attempted to complete the gas safety inspection 6-9 months after the previous certificate was obtained rather than 11-12 months as required. In addition, they were dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of repairs required to their boiler and that the repair needed to the porch gallows remained outstanding.
5. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord confirmed that the gas safety inspection was originally booked for 5 November 2021 but as it was due to expire on 1 February 2022 it had been rearranged to 14 January 2022. It said that it had applied a flag on the resident’s account which meant that staff and operatives should see that visits to the property should be via an appointment only. It confirmed that the resident could report any repairs directly to a single member of staff to prevent operatives turning up unannounced. It explained that the asbestos survey carried out in 2014 only surveyed the kitchen and external parts of the property; no asbestos was found, however, the rest of the property needed to be assessed as it was built prior to 2000 when regulations were put in place. It said that it would be in touch to book an appointment and that the repair to the gallows had been raised and was due to be completed on 3 November 2021. It also offered £100 compensation in recognition of the boiler disruption.
6. The resident referred the complaint to this Service as they maintained that the entire property had been checked for asbestos in 2014 and was dissatisfied that the landlord did not have adequate records of this. They were also dissatisfied that the landlord had sent tenancy warning letters as they  had refused access for the asbestos survey and an electrical safety inspection which they believed should be carried out every ten years rather than five. They also expressed dissatisfaction with the length of time it had taken for the gable to be repaired and raised further concerns about repairs required to the guttering at the property. The resident also noted that they were dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of a subject access request and its handling of the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. The resident has accused the landlord of harassment. In accordance with paragraph 39 (i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not investigate 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. This Service cannot determine whether harassment has taken place in a legal sense, however, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns and to the corresponding complaint handling.
8. The resident has said that the landlord’s visits to the property have impacted his family’s health in view of household vulnerabilities including OCD. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments; however, it is beyond the remit of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. 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 any errors by the landlord.
9. The resident has since raised a separate complaint to the landlord regarding repairs to the guttering at the property as well as a request for information regarding whether the property was built with asbestos containing materials. They have also raised concerns about the landlord’s request to replace radiators within the property and install a second toilet. As these are separate issues to the complaint raised with the Service, they will not be considered at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these aspects. The resident may wish to escalate the complaint if they are dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, and can approach this Service then.
10. In his communication to this Service, the resident has also raised concerns regarding the landlord’s handling of a Subject Access Request (SAR). This aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as complaints relating to data protection and freedom of information fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (www.ico.org.uk). Therefore, this investigation report will not consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s SAR request.

The resident’s concerns about visits made to their property by the landlord.

11. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is not to interrupt or interfere with the tenants right to peacefully occupy the premises except where access is required to inspect the condition of the premises or to carry out repairs or other works to the premises or adjoining property. It is also responsible for keeping installations for space heating, water heating and sanitation in good condition and for the supply of water, gas and electricity. Landlord’s also have an obligation in line with the Decent Homes Standard and Health and Safety rating system (HHSRS) to ensure that the property is suitable for habitation and free from any category one hazards which may pose a risk to its residents. These include asbestos, gas and fire risks.
12. The resident has an obligation in line with the tenancy agreement to allow access to the landlord and its staff at all reasonable hours of the daytime to inspect the condition of the premises or to carry out repairs or other works to the premises or adjoining property. The landlord would usually give 24 hours’ notice but immediate access may be required in an emergency. The resident has the right to occupy the premises without interruption or interference from the landlord for the duration of the tenancy (except for the obligation to give access to the landlord’s employees or contractors).
13. In this case, the resident has raised concerns about the frequency of visits to the property by the landlord, including the landlord’s request to complete an asbestos survey, a gas safety inspection and an electrical safety inspection as well as unexpected visits without an appointment. It is noted that unexpected visits to the property are likely to be more inconvenient and distressing in the resident’s case in view of household vulnerabilities including OCD.
14. The landlord’s records indicate that it sent the resident a letter requesting access to complete an asbestos survey in August 2020, although the landlord has not provided copies of the letters sent to the resident. The resident has advised that they did not feel that the landlord’s request to complete an asbestos survey of the property was reasonable as this had previously been completed in 2014 and they had been told when they moved into the property in 1996 that the property was not built with asbestos containing materials.
15. The landlord has provided a satisfactory explanation as to why it needed access to complete a further survey. The records from the inspection in 2014 show that the survey was completed to the kitchen and external parts of the property. It also indicates that the purpose of the survey was limited to surveying the kitchen. The resident has advised that the entirety of the property was surveyed at the time and was dissatisfied that the landlord had not kept adequate records. The Ombudsman relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence to determine whether the landlord acted appropriately, as such we cannot comment on whether the entirety of the property was surveyed at the time or whether additional notes should have been recorded.
16. The landlord has an obligation to the resident as its tenant to satisfy itself that there are no asbestos containing materials within the property. It also has a legal obligation to ensure that its staff are provided with a safe place of work when required. The landlord is entitled to rely on the records for the property and carry out a more detailed survey as the previous records did not indicate that the entirety of the property was checked. Whilst it is noted that allowing access to the property may be more inconvenient to the resident in view of household vulnerabilities, the resident has a legal requirement under the terms of the tenancy agreement to provide reasonable access. Refusing to provide access would be considered a breach of the tenancy agreement and the landlord would be entitled to take enforcement action, which would usually be in the form of a warning letter initially, in order to gain access. It is noted that the landlord has since confirmed on 12 May 2022 that the resident had been taken off the list for an asbestos survey but that future repairs could be put on hold until it was able to check the property for asbestos which is reasonable in the circumstances.
17. The resident expressed concern that the landlord intended to complete the gas safety inspection of the property every 6-9 months instead of 11-12 as required. The landlord’s maintenance policy states that gas safety inspections should be completed within twelve months of the previous year’s safety check. In its communication to this Service, the landlord has explained that it began the access process three months prior to the expiry of the existing gas safety certificate. This is considered reasonable as the landlord would be in breach of its legal responsibilities if the existing gas safety certificate expired and would need to account for potential no access/failed appointments. It was reasonable for the landlord to rearrange the appointment booked for 5 November 2021 to 14 January 2022 in view of the resident’s concerns considering that the existing gas safety certificate was due to expire on 1 February 2022.
18. In the complaint to the landlord, the resident advised that the tenancy agreement stated that electrical safety inspections should be carried out every ten years by the landlord rather than every five years. The tenancy agreement supplied by the landlord does not specify a timescale for these inspections. Whilst there is no current legal requirement for social landlord’s to complete electrical safety inspections every five years, it is reasonable for the landlord to complete these in line with its obligations to keep electrical installations in good repair and the property free from category one hazards. Its decision to undertake these inspections every five years is not considered unreasonable as it is in line with guidance for private sector landlords who should complete electrical inspections within this timeframe.
19. The landlord has demonstrated that it took reasonable measures to prevent visits to the property without appointment by adding a ‘flag’ to the resident’s account. It also confirmed that the resident could report repairs directly to a single member of staff to prevent any unexpected visits. It is, however, noted that the resident has advised that there had been five unexpected visits to the property since she was advised that the flag was placed. The landlord should ensure that visits to the resident’s property are arranged via appointment only except in cases of emergency. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the unexpected visits to the property, they may wish to raise a separate complaint in order to get this matter resolved. If they remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s explanation of the unexpected visits without appointment, they may then refer the matter to this Service for review.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s porch.

20. The landlord’s maintenance policy states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property as well as the fixtures and fittings it provided. Non-emergency repairs should be completed within 15 working days. Examples of non-emergency repairs would include repairs needed to external doors and external repairs to walls etc. In some cases, repairs may take longer than the published timeline due to the need for multiple appointments or the manufacture of parts. Where there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to provide regular updates to the resident, explain the reason for any delay and provide an expected completion date.
21. In this case, the resident initially reported that one side of the gallows, which held up the roof to her porch, was rotting on 16 June 2021. She continued to pursue updates from the landlord, however there is no evidence that she was provided with adequate updates or that the landlord managed her expectations of how long the work may take. In its stage two complaint response on 28 October 2021, the landlord explained that the repair to the porch gallows was due to be completed on 3 November 2021.It did not acknowledge or offer any explanation for the delays which is likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident.
22. The landlord’s records indicate that the final repair appointment to the gallows was completed on 19 January 2022, 137 working days outside of the landlord’s repairs policy timescales for non-emergency repairs. Whilst there may have been some delay during this time as a result of needing to source parts, the landlord has not provided evidence to show that it kept the resident updated on its progress. Nor has it provided an explanation of the delay to this Service. In view of this, financial compensation is warranted in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing the repair as a result of the delays and the landlord’s poor communication.
23. The landlord is to pay the resident £150 compensation. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that amounts between £50-£250 are considered proportionate where there has been service failure which had an impact on the resident but did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint. Examples include failure to meet service standards or respond to communication. The resident since raised concerns in March 2022 that one side of the gallows was repaired but that the other side was now rotting. The landlord should address this repair issue within four weeks to prevent any further delay if it has not already done so.

The landlords handling of the associated complaint.

24. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two-stage formal complaints procedure. At stage one, the landlord should respond within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should respond within 15 working days. If, at any stage, there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new complaint response timescale.
25. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. It states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, setting out their position and commenting on any adverse findings. Responses should include the decision on the complaint, the reasons for any decisions made, the details of any remedy offered to put things right, details of any outstanding actions and details of how to escalate the matter to the next stage if the resident is not satisfied with the response. Where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right.
26. The resident initially raised a complaint on 13 August 2021. This was acknowledged by the landlord on the same day but there is no evidence to suggest that a stage one complaint response was issued until 16 September 2021, which was outside of the landlord’s timescale at this stage by 14 working days. The resident escalated the complaint via a local MP on 17 September 2021. The resident attended a face to face meeting with the landlord on 5 October 2021 and its stage two complaint response was issued on 28 October 2021, which was 2 working days outside of its policy timescale, from the point of the meeting, this was not wholly unreasonable.
27. The landlord has not acknowledged or apologised for the delays in its stage one complaint response which would have been appropriate as the resident needed to spend time and trouble pursuing a response. In addition, the landlord’s responses at each stage were limited; whilst the landlord acknowledged overall ‘poor service’ in its complaint responses, it did not specify where things had gone wrong, offer any explanation of its errors or set out points of learning it had taken from the resident’s complaint. This is not in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code and likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident who did not feel that their complaint had been adequately addressed.
28. Similarly, the landlord failed to address certain aspects of the resident’s complaint, including their claim that they had received abuse from the landlord’s staff over the phone, dissatisfaction as a result of being sent tenancy warning letters, delays in handling repairs, poor communication and their concerns regarding its handling of their boiler repair. It is noted that the landlord offered the resident compensation for the boiler disruption in May 2021 which resolved this aspect of the complaint for the resident.
29. Overall, the landlord’s failure to investigate or respond to some of the resident’s concerns amounts to a service failure as it has prevented the Ombudsman from investigating these concerns fully due to a lack of evidence which is likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident. In view of the service failure identified, the landlord is to pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused and time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing the complaint. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as detailed above. 

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s concerns about visits made to their property by the landlord.
31. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s porch.
32. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

33. The landlord is to complete the following actions within four weeks:
    1. The landlord is to pay the resident £250, comprised of:
       1. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of repair delays and the landlord’s poor communication.
       2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
34. The landlord is to address the resident’s concerns that the other side of the porch gallows is rotting within four weeks if it has not already done so.

 Recommendations

35. The landlord should consider carrying out staff training for complaint handlers and contact centre staff respectively to ensure that complaints are handled in line with policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, and that residents are provided with regular updates on the progress of repair issues.
36. It is recommended that the landlord reviews the resident’s complaint to establish points of learning and prevent similar complaint handling failures in the future.