Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202209772)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209772

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

2 March 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 concerns:
1. The condition of the property when it was let to the resident and how the subsequent repairs were handled by the landlord.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a two-bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association. The resident’s tenancy began on 22 February 2022. It is unclear from the information provided exactly when the resident moved in, as the landlord noted that the resident moved into the property on 23 March 2022, although the resident later advised this Service that she moved in on 28 February 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord throughout March 2022 and reported that plaster repairs were needed in her bedroom, lounge and hallway. She also reported issues with damp in her passage way and lounge (due to blocked guttering) and faults with her bedroom floor. It is understood that the passage area formed part of the hallway as both parties appeared to refer to these areas interchangeably throughout the period when repairs were being carried out.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord from late March, and throughout April 2022. She believed that her property had not been checked thoroughly by the landlord before it was let to her. She was unhappy that she was waiting for her blocked guttering to be cleared and the resulting damp and mould to be resolved. She said the damp and mould affected the walls in her bedroom and hallway. She said that she was unable to sleep in her bedroom, due to the outstanding plaster repairs needed in that room. She highlighted that repair work to the bedroom floor had been delayed due to the floor tiles needing to be removed because they were identified as contacting asbestos. She was concerned because she said that the same tiles were present in other areas of the property and wanted them to be inspected to check for asbestos. She implied that the presence of asbestos containing materials (ACM’s) further demonstrated that her property was not in a lettable condition when her tenancy began. The resident also highlighted that an air vent in her bedroom was attached to the venthole with sticky tape and that the plaster around it was crumbling off.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 22 April 2022. It apologised for the delay in repairs and implied that this was due to the need for improved communication between its repairs team, voids team and contractor. It stated that it was “glad to hear that plastering and guttering works [had] been completed”. In regard to the mould and damp in the property, it said it would raise this with its repairs service once it received pictures of the affected areas. It said that it believed it had addressed all of the resident’s issues.
Throughout early to late May 2022, the resident advised the landlord that she was dissatisfied, as she believed that it had not addressed the damp and mould. She said that this concern had been dismissed twice previously by the landlord’s surveyor. She also said that blown plaster on walls in the bedroom had not been repaired. She reiterated her concern with asbestos tiles in other areas of her flat. She also highlighted that during this period there had been a leak from the ceiling in the passage way and that she had to keep a bucket in this area in case it rained. She additionally reported blown plaster and holes in walls in the hallway due to the roof leak. She said that she could not decorate or put furniture in some of the rooms until all the repairs were completed, and that the ongoing situation was causing her stress.
A repairs surveyor inspected the resident’s home on 14 June 2022. The survey did not find any defects with the roof, and the surveyor believed that the leak was related to the boiler flue rather than “lead flashing or rainwater goods”. The survey noted that it had found no damp and mould on the walls that accorded with the resident’s initial report of the issue. It did report that the surveyor had observed and tested a patch of damp less than 200mm wide, which is understood to have been a recent issue, due to the roof leak which had recently undergone several repairs. The surveyor identified that the following works were still required: “Main bedroom – cracked plaster repair, patch plaster repair (above window), fit PVCU vent and cover. Hall/landing – patch plasterboard repair to ceiling”.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 27 June 2022. The landlord did not specify whether it upheld the complaint or not. It merely stated that to resolve the repairs identified during the previous surveyor’s inspection, it had raised follow-on work orders. It also said that “the leak has been located and isolated, allowing for the beginning of corrective actions”.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she sought compensation for the condition of her property when it was let and the landlord’s handling of remedial works, and wanted the landlord to complete those repairs which she said remained outstanding. These were the roof leak, and plastering works in the hallway and lounge, which she said the landlord had refused to undertake. She also said that she had arranged for other plastering work in the bedroom to be completed herself.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In correspondence to the Ombudsman, the resident has mentioned that the landlord has refused to replace the skirting boards in her bedroom which are old and worn, and that her “floor needs new concrete on the edge near the radiator”. She has also expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of repairs to a leak in her roof and her boiler flue.
The Ombudsman is unable to consider these issues as part of our current investigation because they were not raised to the landlord through its formal complaints process as part of the complaint brought to the Ombudsman. Although the resident highlighted the roof leak during her stage two complaint in correspondence in May 2022, it appears from the evidence that the issue had only occurred shortly before this. It was not seen in the evidence that she clearly made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the boiler flue and roof repair until 28 June 2022, which was the day after the landlord issued its final response to the other issues, raised earlier in the complaint process. The evidence indicates that the landlord did not raise a separate complaint regarding these issues following this, as it should have done. In light of this, a recommendation has been made to the landlord to contact the resident and raise separate complaint through its complaints process if she wishes to pursue these matters further.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) the Ombudsman will not investigate matters which have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. This is because the landlord has to be given the chance to respond to any issues before they are brought to the Ombudsman. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the above collective repairs she can raise a new complaint to the landlord about these matters.

Assessment and findings

The condition of the property when let and the landlord’s handling of subsequent repairs

The tenancy agreement sets out that it is the landlord’s responsibility to keep in good repair, the structure and exterior of the property, including roofs, walls (excluding minor internal plasterwork repairs), floors, ceiling, window frames, external doors, drains, gutters and outside walls and paths.
The landlord’s maintenance policy sets out how it categorises responsive repairs. Priority one repairs are those that it considers emergency work to be attended to and made safe within four hours and rectified within twenty-four hours. Priority two repairs are those that it considers non-emergency repairs, which it states will be completed within fifteen working days, which includes blocked gutters and plasterwork.
A particular frustration of the resident’s, is that she believed that the landlord had not sufficiently checked the condition of her property for repair issues before it was let to her. It is understood that this was due to the number of issues she reported.
It is noted that the inspection report undertaken by the landlord’s surveyor in February 2022, shortly before the resident’s tenancy commenced, identified no repair issues at that time. However, the number of repair issues that the resident raised in a short time following this, indicates that checks carried out as part of the previous inspection may not have been not have been sufficient. As such, once the landlord made investigations into the outstanding repairs, it should have communicated to the resident if it was satisfied or not if it had let the property to a lettable standard and explained its position in response to her complaint about this. There was no evidence of it doing so, which was unreasonable.
Due to extremely high demand for social housing and the need to let vacant properties as soon as possible, it is generally considered acceptable for a landlord to let a property with some repairs outstanding, provided that they are repairs that do not make the property unsafe to live in. Nothing in the evidence suggests that any repairs bought to the landlord’s attention following the commencement of the resident’s tenancy, were an immediate threat to health and safety. Although it would have been understandably inconvenient for the resident to have to wait for repairs to be addressed before she could decorate her home, this does not mean it would be uninhabitable. Nonetheless, a landlord would still obliged to complete any outstanding repairs for which it is responsible for, once notified of them, in a timely manner in accordance with its repairs policy.
The landlord’s records show that the resident first reported an issue with damp in her hallway and lounge on 7 March 2022. The evidence suggests that this issue was penetrating damp that was the result of blocked guttering that runs alongside an external wall of the resident’s home. The records show that the gutter repair was completed on 12 April 2022. This was originally arranged to take place on 31 March 2022, but the landlord said that this was cancelled due to poor weather conditions. This appears to be a reasonable explanation, and the repair was completed within a reasonable timeframe following this. Good practice would have been for the landlord to explain this in its initial response to the complaint. Nonetheless, the resident did not raise any concerns with the landlord’s handling of repairs to unblock the gutter at stage two of the complaint, apart from the resulting damp and mould, which may have given the landlord the impression that she was satisfied that that aspect of the complaint had been resolved.
Once on notification of the damp, a landlord is expected to undertake an inspection and carry out any identified repairs within a reasonable time frame. In its stage one response, it was t appropriate that the landlord acknowledged that delays in repairs had been due to communication issues, although the landlord did not specify which repairs this related to. This was particularly relevant in relation to its handling of damp and mould. This is because the evidence shows that there was confusion between the landlord’s staff throughout March and early April 2022, in regard to whether a surveyor was needed or not to assess the damage that resulted from the blocked guttering.
The landlord advised the resident in its stage one response, that due to her ongoing concerns, it would raise the damp and mould issue with its repairs and surveying team. It is reasonable to assess that the landlord wished to determine the extent of the issue, once the source of the problem had been rectified. However, it should have done this in the first instance once the guttering had been repaired.
In escalation of her complaint, the resident said that a surveyor had been out twice and dismissed her concerns with damp and mould, though it was not apparent when these appointments took place. The landlord did not confirm whether this was the case, nor dispute this account, so it is therefore reasonable to assess that the resident’s account is accurate. However, there is no record of a damp inspection in the landlord’s records before June 2022, which indicates poor record keeping.
The only assessment of the damp and mould seen in the evidence provided, was when a surveyor attended the resident’s property on 14 June 2022. This was unreasonably approximately two months after the guttering had been repaired, and more than three months after the resident first reported the issue. This exceeded the landlord’s timeframe for addressing routine repairs and was a service failure which would likely have caused the resident inconvenience and time and trouble in pursuing the matter.
On inspection, the surveyor reported that they found no damp and mould in the property in the areas that the resident had initially reported. This appears to accord with the resident’s account, who advised this Service that there was “damp in the bedroom with mould and in the passage but this seems to have gone but may come back as they never treated it”. It was not seen in the evidence that the resident reported signs of mould following this, and in general, a landlord would not be expected to address a repair issue of which there is no apparent sign of.
In her complaint to this Service, the resident has not mentioned any specific issues with the landlord’s handling of repairs to her bedroom floor. She suggested that her remaining concern was what she described at confusion surrounding asbestos floor tiles, due to the asbestos containing floor tiles that were removed in the bedroom being present in other areas of her home.
The resident initially raised concerns with the presence of aspestos in April 2022, and continued to chase a response from the landlord in May and June 2022. However, the landlord unreasonably did not demonstrate that it managed the resident’s expectations in that respect, until 6 July 2022. On that date, it noted that “tiles have low grade asbestos all fine tenant happy with this as she wants to put down carpet”. As the resident had said that the tiles were the same as those in her bedroom, and the evidence shows that the bedroom floor tiles contained chrysotile, the landlord’s conclusion appears reasonable as chrysotile has a lower risk than other forms of regulated asbestos.
However, it was unclear from the evidence how the landlord reached the above conclusion. Correspondence between the resident and landlord suggests that the landlord performed additional testing on the floor tiles in other arears of the resident’s home, following its repairs to the bedroom floor, but no corresponding asbestos report was seen in the evidence. This again indicates poor record keeping, and therefore a recommendation has been made in light of this. The evidence also suggests that the landlord may have had had pre-existing knowledge that the tiles contained chrysotile. Therefore, a reasonable explanation has not been provided as to why it took the landlord almost three months to address the resident’s concern, despite her continually chasing the matter. The landlord has somewhat recognised this, as following its final response, it noted in learning from the complaint, that it should ensure that it provides asbestos results when requested. However, it has not demonstrated that it acknowledged this outcome with the resident, nor took any action to remedy this failing. This was unreasonable and a service failure.
Considering the above, the landlord would have managed the resident’s concerns more effectively if it had explained why it had needed to remove the floor tiles in her bedroom. The landlord should have explained from the outset, what its legal obligations are in relation to managing asbestos and the conditions in which they are allowed to remain in place. A landlord is not obliged to remove asbestos from a domestic property if it is in a sound condition and can be left undisturbed. It was not seen in the evidence that the resident’s concern with other asbestos tiles in the property was due to them being damaged, but more so that they were present. As such, if the landlord had managed the resident expectations in this regard in the first instance, then it may have put her at ease at a much earlier time.
In relation to plastering works, it was unreasonable that the landlord advised the resident in its stage one response that “I am glad to hear that plastering works have been completed.” The evidence indicates that some plastering work was undertaken in the resident’s bedroom, prior to the landlord issuing its stage one response, on 19 April 2022. However, the resident contacted the landlord on 20 August 2022 and said that not all plasterwork had been undertaken, and that an air vent in her bedroom had not been refitted correctly (an inspection undertaken in June noted that the air vent had been missed off previous plastering works). The landlord’s incorrect response meant that resident had to escalate her complaint causing a delay in getting these repairs resolved.
It was appropriate that the landlord undertook an inspection on 14 June 2022, in part, to determine which plasterworks remained outstanding. However, this was unreasonably almost two months after the resident had raised issues with previous repair work not being carried out and a reasonable explanation hasn’t been provided as to why this was not undertaken at an earlier time.
In its final response issued shortly after the above inspection, the landlord said “to address the problems identified during [this] inspection, follow-up works have been scheduled”. However, this response did not go far enough, as the landlord should have specified which individual works were required and why, and outlined a timeframe in which it would undertake these repairs, in order to manage the resident’s expectations. Given the number of plastering repairs the resident raised, and that some of these issues were new requests as a result of the leak roof, it would have been good practice for the landlord to address the outstanding repairs individually and to have been transparent about it handling of each. This would not only have helped give the resident reassurance that the landlord was going to adequately resolve all her individual concerns, but it also would have ensured that the landlord had a better understanding of the resident’s collective repair requests.
The evidence of what happened following the landlord’s final response in relation to the completion of plaster repairs is unclear. This is because the landlord’s records show that it had trouble accessing the resident’s property to progress these repairs in July 2022, whereas the resident advised this Service that the landlord missed an appointment and turned up on the wrong date for another. This Service is unable to determine which account is accurate. What is evident, is that the landlord attended the resident’s home on 11 August to progress the outstanding works, but the resident subsequently complained that not all had been carried out. Following this, a further inspection was undertaken in September 2022. The September inspection noted that all agreed works were completed satisfactorily, and the corresponding report appears to have been signed by the resident which indicates she did not raise any further concerns with outstanding work. Photographs of repairs attached to the inspection report also show that the air vent was reattached and plastered around by this date.
However, following this, the resident has advised this Service that the landlord has refused to undertake some plastering works and arranged for others to be completed herself. It was not seen in the evidence that she reported further issues to the landlord at the time of, or following the September inspection, and therefore the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to her further concerns. Nonetheless, overall, the landlord considerably exceeded its timeframe for routine repairs in taking robust action to resolve the plaster repairs.
Whilst orders have been made later in the report, in part, to remedy the landlord’s delay to complete plaster repairs and the inconvenience caused to the resident as a result, this has only considered the period of March 2022 to September 2022, when it is reasonable to assess the landlord would have been satisfied that plastering works would have been completed. In light of the further concerns the resident has raised, it is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to provide an update on the current situation with the plastering repairs.
Given the number of service failures in the landlord’s handling of the collective repairs in this case, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not offer compensation, in part, to remedy the inconvenience, distress and time and trouble the resident would have been put to over a considerable period. To remedy this, an order has been made for compensation in line with The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests that the Ombudsman may award compensation of £100 to £600 for instances where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has not made sufficient attempts to things right, but where there has been no apparent permanent impact.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy sets out that in responding to a complaint at stage one, it will aim to agree a solution with a resident within ten working days. At stage two, if the customer is not happy with the decision received at stage one, they this will be reviewed and a definitive response will be provided within 15 working days.
As mentioned, the resident’s complaint was not made on a single occasion, but over the course of April 2022. Given that the evidence shows she had added new repair concerns to her stage one complaint as late as mid-April, the landlord issued its initial response by 22 April which was a reasonable timeframe in the circumstances. However, the earliest evidence of the resident advising the landlord that she was unhappy with its stage one decision was on 27 April 2022, but the landlord did not issue its final response until 27 June 2022. This was approximately 40 working days after the resident’s initial escalation. This was partly because the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request until late May 2022. A reasonable explanation was not seen in the evidence to explain why the landlord delayed in acknowledging the resident’s escalation request. Nor did the landlord acknowledge or apologise for the delays in its final response, and has therefore not remedied the additional time and trouble this would have put the resident to having her complaint responded to within an appropriate timeframe. This was a service failure.
In its submissions to this Service, the landlord said that all repairs were raised and attended to within an acceptable time frame. However, this was clearly not the case, which shows that the landlord did not engage with the resident’s complaint in a meaningful way, reflected in its brief complaint responses.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (published on our website) clearly sets out that landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
However, the landlord unreasonably did not address the resident’s concern with the condition the property was let in, in either of its complaint responses. It did not address the additional delays in its handling of the resident reports of damp and mould in its final response. Nor did it address, in either complaint response, the resident concerns with the presence of asbestos containing materials. The landlord’s failure to engage with the complaint in a meaningful way meant that it has not been transparent about its own actions, and has not demonstrated that it has learn from its mistakes.
To remedy the above an order has been made to the landlord to review its complaint handling, to determine what steps it can put in to place to prevent its mistakes from happening in future, including an order for compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the condition of the property when it was let and how it handled the subsequent repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

With four weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to;
1. Apologise for the service failures identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £450 compensation. This is £300 for its service failures in its handling of repairs, and £150 for the service failures in its complaint handing.
3. Carry out a review of the handling of the repairs in this case, to include the communication issues identified in this report, and what action has/will be taken to ensure that the identified service failures do not happen again. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman detailing the outcome of this review.
4. Carry out a review of its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its responsive complaints policies and compensation procedure, to seek to prevent a recurrence the service failures identified by this investigation. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman detailing the outcome of this review.

Recommendations

It is recommended that within the next four weeks the landlord contacts the resident with an update on the current position regarding the plastering repairs, and act to assess any outstanding concerns the resident has.
The landlord should consider undertaking a review of its record keeping practices to ensure that it keeps robust repair and inspections records and prepare an action plan accordingly so that it is able to provide such information to this Service on request.