Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202206764)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206764

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

24 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s request for her kitchen to be renewed.
2. Handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen.
3. Handling of repairs to the resident’s toilet.
4. Handling of repairs to the resident’s skylight.
5. Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
This Service has also made a finding regarding the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She has resided in the property, a one-bedroom flat, since 2000.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 8 September 2021, in which she queried whether her kitchen and bathroom suites met the Decent Homes Standard as they were both “probably over 40 years old and in need of repairs”. She reported that her toilet would not flush properly, then bathroom sink needed unspecified “work done to it”, kitchen doors were falling off and “many other repairs” were required in both rooms. The resident asked the landlord to confirm when the bathroom and kitchen suites would be replaced and requested it arrange for a surveyor to attend her property.
The landlord provided a Stage One complaint response on 17 October 2021 in which it advised that the resident’s kitchen was not due to be renewed until 2035 as its records showed this had most recently been done in 2010. It advised it surveyed its homes every five years to assess whether it needed to carry out any improvements and noted a surveyor had attended on 23 September 2021 following the resident’s complaint. It advised the surveyor concluded that while the kitchen needed multiple repairs, it was not due to be renewed yet. The landlord therefore raised repairs to renew the kitchen vinyl flooring, the damaged triple base unit and to install a new double wall unit.
The resident responded to the landlord on 23 October 2021 to advise the works referred to in its Stage One response had yet to be completed despite the fact a completion date of 20 October 2021 had been given. She also raised repair concerns regarding her toilet, the presence of damp and mould in the property and advised that her skylight was so dirty she could “not see through it”. She further queried the dates the landlord cited in relation to her bathroom and kitchen renewals, advising that her kitchen had not been replaced since she had moved into the property in 2000 and the landlord’s records stating it had been renewed in 2010 were therefore incorrect.
The resident chased a response from the landlord on 4 and 14 November 2021 before requesting the complaint be escalated on 30 November 2021. The landlord acknowledged this request and agreed to escalate the complaint but noted that repairs had been booked for 23 December 2021 and it had been under the impression the resident was therefore happy for the complaint to be closed.
The landlord subsequently issued a Stage Two complaint response on 29 March 2022 in which it reiterated its position with regard to the replacement of the resident’s kitchen. It also advised the resident it had raised repairs with regard to her toilet and it would arrange for a survey to be carried out to investigate the reported damp and mould in her property. The landlord also informed the resident that the skylight would not fall within its repair responsibilities, but it would nevertheless book an inspection and carry out any cleaning or repairs if needed. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s refusal to replace her kitchen, and the landlord’s handling of the reported repairs. As a resolution, she requested that the landlord complete the repairs to her skylight, treat the damp and mould in her property, and replace her kitchen according to the Decent Homes Standard.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for her kitchen to be renewed

In its complaint responses, the landlord advised the resident her kitchen was not due for renewal until 2035, another 14 years, as it had been renewed as recently as 2010. Its stage one response noted that a surveyor had attended the resident’s property in September 2021 and confirmed the kitchen was “not due to be renewed”. It not that instead the surveyor raised repairs which included the replacement of the vinyl flooring and a base unit and installing a new wall unit. Its Stage Two complaint response reiterated that the kitchen had been renewed in 2010 according to the “information we found on our system”.
However, the landlord did not adequately address the resident’s concern that information on the landlord’s system was incorrect. In her complaint and further correspondence with the landlord, she maintained that while the kitchen had been scheduled to be replaced in 2010 the work had ultimately not been carried out and since moving into the property in 2000, her kitchen had not been renewed.
While the landlord initially acted reasonably by relying on its repair records, it missed an opportunity to fully respond to the concerns the resident raised by not carrying out further investigations when she queried the accuracy of its records. Although the landlord appropriately made enquiries with its Stock Investment Team, this investigation has not seen further evidence, other than a screenshot from its repairs system, that would confirm the kitchen had been renewed in 2010, such as more detailed work orders or dockets from the time. This Service acknowledges such documentation may not be easily available from over ten years ago, although the landlord should maintain a robust set of records which contains historical repairs information. However, based on the resident’s own recollections of works carried out (or not) in her property, the landlord should have given further consideration to her concerns, particularly as repair records can at times be updated incorrectly due to simple human error.
While in a complaint response it noted that other neighbouring properties had had their kitchens renewed “at the same time”, this was not evidence the resident also had hers done simultaneously, especially given that her complaint referenced the fact hers kitchen was not done while her neighbours’ were. The landlord should have sought further confirmation that the kitchen renewal was carried out at that time, or explained why further confirmation was not available, so as to properly address the resident’s concerns. That it did not do so was a service failure.
It is also of concern that the landlord advised the resident its surveyor confirmed the kitchen was “not due to be renewed”, as information seen by this Service show its surveyor, following his visit in September 2021, in fact recommended that renewal of the resident’s kitchen should “ideally…be brought forward”. The surveyor’s report also made clear that the kitchen repairs raised were intended to be a “temporary measure”. From the evidence available, while it would have been helpful for the surveyor to indicate when he thought the renewal should be brought forward to and how long the temporary measures should last, he clearly believed the kitchen required renewal sooner than 2035.
The landlord therefore did not appropriately advise the resident of the surveyor’s full findings and its records do not provide any clarity as to why it chose to set aside this recommendation. This is not appropriate and meant the landlord did not treat the resident fairly when it reiterated its position that the kitchen would not be renewed before 2035, despite its surveyor clearly recommending this should be done sooner, albeit on an unspecified date. This amounts to maladministration by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen

While the landlord determined it would not renew the resident’s kitchen, following the survey carried out in September 2021, it did agree to raise certain repairs: to renew the vinyl flooring, replace a base unit and install a new wall unit. Landlord repair records show these orders were initially raised on 29 September 2021 and in its stage one complaint response, the landlord advised the resident it aimed to complete the works by 20 October 2021. However, it did not do so, and this Service has not seen evidence it properly responded to several chaser emails from the resident which asked for updates. This did not treat her fairly and would have exacerbated her frustration regarding the condition of the kitchen.
In its submissions to this Service, the landlord has advised that all the works have been carried out, although its repair records do not make clear when they were completed. Correspondence seen by this Service indicates that its contractor advised the flooring was renewed by March 2022, although this was five months after the landlord initially advised the repair would be completed. This was not appropriate, and the landlord has not indicated why it failed to meet its original target and complete the repairs within a reasonable timeframe. It also does not appear to have appropriately acknowledged the delay or attempted to “put things right” in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles by either offering an apology or considering whether to offer the resident any financial compensation to reflect the inconvenience she was caused.
Taking into consideration the delay in completing the repairs, the landlord’s failure to appropriately acknowledge the delays in completing work it initially agreed to in September 2021, its poor overall communication with the resident and its poor record keeping regarding the repairs it raised, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of kitchen repairs.
While it is noted in her correspondence with this Service that the resident advised a further inspection had taken place and a surveyor advised that her kitchen doors would be replaced, this Service has not seen any information regarding this subsequent inspection or any confirmation from the landlord that it would be replacing doors in the kitchen. While a finding has therefore not been made in relation to this, a recommendation is made at the end of this report for the landlord to clarify its position regarding the replacement of kitchen doors.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s toilet

The landlord’s maintenance policy states it aims to complete non-emergency repairs within 15 working days. It notes “blocked toilets” as an examples of a non-emergency repairs.
The resident informed the landlord about a long-term issue with her toilet in September 2021. However, the landlord’s repair records do not refer to any repairs being raised until April 2022, over six months later. This Service has not seen any evidence which explains why there was such a delay by the landlord in raising any inspection or repair order following the resident’s report.
In its stage two complaint response, sent in March 2022, the landlord advised an order had been raised and a contractor would contact the resident to make an appointment although, as above, this is not reflected in its repair records, which indicated an order was not raised until the April. This raises further concerns over the landlord’s record keeping and management of its repairs. Additionally, having advised her it had raised an order, so as to manage her expectations the landlord should have provided a timeframe for when the resident could expect to be contacted. That it did not do so was not appropriate and was a service failure.
As above, it is assumed that fixing the resident’s toilet would have been considered a non-emergency repair, which should therefore have been completed inside 15 working days. However, records show the resident’s toilet was eventually replaced in October 2022, almost one year after the resident first raised the issue with the landlord in her original complaint. This was a significant delay for which this Service has not seen any explanation and despite the fact that correspondence shows the resident chased the landlord regarding the toilet on at least seven occasions between October 2021 and August 2022.
This investigation has not seen any evidence that shows the landlord addressed the resident’s reports in a timely fashion, appropriately responded to her requests for updates or progressed the repair in a reasonable manner. Its complaint responses also failed to acknowledge the delay and impact this would have had on the resident, a delay which ultimately became more significant after the completion of the landlord’s complaint procedure. This Service has not seen evidence the landlord appropriately acknowledged the delay or the impact this would have had on the resident. Due to the inconvenience this would have caused and the time and trouble the resident spent chasing the issue, this amounted to maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s skylight

In her complaint to the landlord, the resident advised that it was not possible to see out of her skylight. According to the landlord’s maintenance policy, the resident is responsible for cleaning the inside and outside of windows and to replace broken glass or glazing to any doors, windows or fixed panes where a crime reference number has not been provided by the police.
While there was a delay in responding to the resident’s report, the landlord eventually agreed to carry out an inspection of the skylight. Although this Service has not seen details of the survey or inspection carried out within the landlord’s repair records, it advised that, following an inspection in April 2022, while it had not identified any leak or damage to the skylight and no repairs were necessary, it did use its discretion to raise a work order to clean the skylight. This was a positive step by the landlord and showed it was willing to address the resident’s concerns outside of its repair policy and “put things right” in accordance with then Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
However, the resident had advised this Service the skylight has still not been cleaned. While the landlord was originally not under any obligation to carry out the work, having agreed to do so, it is unreasonable there was such a significant delay in cleaning the resident’s skylight. There is no information regarding any inspection of the skylight within the landlord’s limited repair records, so it remains unclear why this was not completed within a reasonable timeframe and why an order was not raised following the April 2022 inspection. The resident was caused time and trouble in chasing the work and this amounts to service failure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
As stated in the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp & mould (“It’s Not Lifestyle”, published in October 2021), “landlords should ensure they have strategies in place to manage these types of cases with an emphasis on ensuring that the resident is kept informed, feels that the landlord is taking the issue seriously and that the matter is progressing”. Furthermore, when the resident reports damp and mould, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to inspect and treat the resident’s property within a reasonable time. The Ombudsman considers 20 working days a reasonable timescale.
This Service has not seen evidence of the resident raising concerns over damp and mould in the property until she requested a complaint escalation in October 2021, noting it was affecting her bathroom, bedroom and living room. However, having been notified of potential issues with damp and mould, there is no record of the landlord addressing these reports until it issued its stage two complaint response in March 2022, in which it advised it would arrange an inspection. This was despite the resident having chased it for a response on at least four occasions in November 2021 and January and March 2022. After it issued its stage two complaint response, the landlord’s repair records do not include any reference to a survey being carried out or any treatment works being raised as a result. This is not appropriate and is evidence first of an unexplained and unreasonable delay in addressing the reports of damp and mould, and secondly of poor record keeping regarding its repairs and the actions it took.
In correspondence with this Service, the resident indicated the landlord had carried out remedial work to treat damp and mould in the bathroom and living room by April 2022 but advised no works had been done to the bedroom. In the absence of any repair records, it is unclear what works the landlord raised, although it is noted the resident considers appropriate work has been carried out. However, the landlord’s poor record keeping in this case means it is unable to adequately evidence steps it has taken to address the resident’s reports, which is inappropriate and amounts to a service failure.
The landlord has also informed this Service that damp and mould treatment in the resident’s bedroom had yet to be carried out because an asbestos test was needed prior to carrying out the required repairs. Records indicate this was completed late in 2022. The landlord has not outlined what those repairs were, and it is unclear why the asbestos test took such a significant length of time to be booked and carried out after the survey was completed in April 2022. This was a further unreasonable and avoidable delay and was further service failure.
Given the previous delays in addressing the damp and mould in the resident’s property, the landlord should have carried out the asbestos test within a reasonable timescale, which in this case did not occur. Furthermore, despite the asbestos test having been carried out, the resident has advised this Service the damp and mould in her bedroom has not been remedied.
It is also noted that while the landlord did refer to the resident’s damp and mould reports in its stage two response, it did not offer an apology for the delay in responding to her concerns and does not appear to have considered whether any financial compensation was required to “put things right”. This is despite the significant delay in addressing the resident’s concerns and the inconvenience, which only continued after the conclusion of its complaint process, and the time and trouble this delay would have caused. The landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and as a result it did not treat the resident fairly. Overall, the landlord’s delay in addressing the resident’s repair reports of damp and mould, the lack of repair records and the time and trouble caused to the resident in pursuing the matter amounted to maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that the landlord should issue a stage one response within 10 working days of a resident raising a formal complaint and a two response within 20 working days of any escalation request. Should there be any delay in responding to a complaint, the Ombudsman expects landlords to regularly update residents on progress and to provide an explanation regarding the reasons for any delays when providing responses.
In this case there were delays by the landlord in issuing its formal responses and a lack of evidence that updates had been provided to the resident regarding the reasons for those delays. Records show the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 8 September 2021 and the landlord responded on 17 October 2021, 28 working days later. Its stage two response was then issued 83 working days after the resident requested that her complaint be escalated.
Records indicate the landlord apologised for the delay in issuing its stage one response, advised the resident on the reasons for the delay and offered an apology. Overall, the delay would not have caused the resident significant detriment, and the landlord’s explanation and apology were appropriate in the circumstances. However, the subsequent delay in issuing its stage two response was significant and there is insufficient evidence the landlord effectively communicated with the resident by providing regular updates. This caused her time and trouble in chasing it for a response and amounted to service failure.
The landlord does not appear to have considered offering compensation, nor did it apologise for the delay in issuing its stage two response. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to acknowledge its failures and attempt to provide a satisfactory remedy via an apology and/or compensation as per the Ombudsman remedy guidance, which the landlord failed to do. This amounted to a further service failure in the circumstances.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the kitchen to be renewed.
2. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen.
3. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s toilet.
4. Service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s skylight.
5. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the resident’s property.
6. Service failure regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to write to the resident and:
1. Offer an apology for the delays she experienced relating to her kitchen repairs, cleaning of her skylight and investigation of damp and mould issues.
2. Set out its position in writing regarding outstanding repairs to her skylight and the reported damp and mould in her bedroom and provide a reasonable timeframe for the completion of these works.
3. Set out its position regarding the date her kitchen is due to be renewed. It should arrange a new inspection and specifically ask its surveyor to give their opinion on when the kitchen was last renewed and/or how old it is. It should also clarify whether it will abide by its surveyor’s previous recommendation to “bring forward” the renewal date from 2035 and, if so, advise when it will be brought forward to.
The landlord should also pay the resident a total of £1250 compensation, consisting of:
1. £250 to reflect the failings in addressing the resident’s request for her kitchen to be renewed and her subsequent queries regarding the renewal date.
2. £300 for the delays relating to the kitchen repairs, to adequately reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble these have caused.
3. £300 for the delays relating to the toilet repair, to adequately reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble this caused.
4. £250 regarding the delays relating to the inspection and treatment of reported damp and mould in the property.
5. £100 to reflect the time and trouble caused by the delay in cleaning the resident’s skylight.
6. £50 to reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the delayed stage two response.
The landlord is ordered to action the above orders within four weeks of the date of this determination and provide this Service with evidence of compliance.

Recommendations

The landlord should review how it manages its repair records and handles it repairs responsibilities, particularly in respect of how it records the results of inspections, including details of surveyors’ reports, and review its processes for raising works following completed inspections.
The landlord should review its staff’s training needs in relation to the application of its responsive complaints policies and compensation procedure, to seek to prevent a recurrence of its above service failures.