Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202211764)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211764

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

28 February 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 bathroom repairs.

Background

  1. The resident, who is an assured tenant, had a new bathroom installed by the landlord. The installation began on 16 February 2022 and was completed on 14 April 2022. On 14 April 2022, internal communications confirmed that the resident was not satisfied with the finished work. He had voiced concerns with the paintwork in the bathroom, and a deep scratch in the enamel of the bath that had been caused by a contractor. Additionally, the bath handle had broken whilst in use and the toilet’s cistern lid did not fit properly. Other issues were also raised, including a blocked sink and the conduct of the landlord’s contractors. However, these issues were not progressed through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP).
  2. Although the exact date has not been made clear, the resident raised a formal complaint in May/June 2022. Due to the absence of the operative who had been overseeing the complaint, the landlord was not aware of what the resident had specifically raised. In late June 2022, the landlord asked for confirmation of the issues in order to investigate, and the resident confirmed on 29 June 2022 that there was an issue with the bath, the colour of the paint in the bathroom and that the landlord had replaced his shower screen with a curtain when he had said he did not want one.
  3. The new bath was installed on 8 July 2022, and the repainting of the bathroom was completed on 13 July 2022. The cistern lid was also fixed, however, it is not clear exactly when this was completed.
  4. The landlord’s stage one response of 11 July 2022 advised that the resident had selected the paint colour “Antigua bay” on 9 February 2022. As the resident was dissatisfied with the paintwork, and due to the delay in replacing the bath, the landlord had agreed to repaint the bathroom as a goodwill gesture. It also advised that it did not fit shower screens due to the risk of collapse/shattering. As such it agreed to reimburse the cost of it, having removed it. The landlord also offered £50 compensation for the delay in replacing the bath.
  5. The resident advised the landlord that he was not happy with the amount of compensation offered, due to the length of time taken to resolve the issues within the property. He advised that the issues had been outstanding for seven months. The landlord’s final response of 11 August 2022 confirmed that the report of a chipped bath was made on 28 April 2022, and the bath itself was installed on 8 July. The landlord maintained that due to this timeframe, and the goodwill gesture of painting the bathroom, the offer of £50 compensation was appropriate.
  6. The resident advised this Service that he had been caused stress and inconvenience due to the trouble in having the works completed. He also advised that the landlord’s communication had been an issue. The resident advised this Service that he was seeking further compensation for the issues he had faced.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

  1. Section 3.6 of the landlord’s compensation policy states that £20 to £100 could be awarded for instances in which there was “a succession of service failures and/or the problem [was] not resolved within a reasonable timescale”.
  2. Section 3.8 of the landlord’s maintenance policy states that “Contractors will confirm appointments prior to attendance”.
  3. Appendix 1 of the landlord’s maintenance policy states that “non-emergency repairs [are] to be completed within 15 working days”.

Scope of Investigation

  1. There were several issues raised by the resident regarding the bathroom repairs. However, not all of these issues were progressed through the landlord’s ICP. Therefore, these cannot be investigated by this Service. This is because the landlord needs the opportunity to investigate the issues thoroughly, and to be able to give a response.

The landlord’s handling of bathroom repairs

  1. As there was no dispute by the landlord that there had been service failure in how it had handled the bathroom works, the purpose of this investigation is to determine whether the compensation offered to the resident was reasonable and appropriate. As noted, the resident advised this Service that he did not feel this was the case.
  2. The landlord acknowledged that there was service failure in the length of time taken to complete works. There was no dispute in this sense. However, there was a dispute regarding how long works had remained outstanding. The resident advised that issues had been outstanding for seven months, however, the landlord advised in its final response in August 2022 that it had only been made aware of the broken bath handle on 14 April 2022, as well as issues with the paint.
  3. The landlord advised that the last of the works, the bath replace, was completed on 8 July 2022. As noted by the landlord, this was roughly three months after the issues were reported. This was outside of the timeframe allowed for repairs. As stated in the landlord’s maintenance policy, “non-emergency repairs [are] to be completed within 15 working days”.
  4. It is understandable that when replacing an item, there can be delays depending on availability and delivery times. However, in circumstances such as this, the landlord should keep the resident informed, and provide regular updates as to when the delivery and instalment would be expected. In this instance, there is no evidence that the landlord offered any of these updates.
  5. Regarding the paintwork in the bathroom, there was no reason why this work should not have been completed within the 15 working day timeframe. However, the correspondence between the landlord and the resident confirmed that wrong paint was used, and that the quality of the work on one occasion was not to the required standard. This was confirmed by the contractor itself.
  6. The contractor was required to provide a professional standard of work. Leaving the work in an inadequate condition causes further delay in the long-term completion of the work, and also causes additional frustration for the resident. This inevitably caused unnecessary involvement for the resident as he had to chase the landlord for the work to be re-done.
  7. There were other failings by the contractor that contributed to delay. For example, on one occasion, the contractors brought wrong paint to the property. This highlighted a lack of internal communication and preparedness between the landlord and the contractor. This caused even further unnecessary delay.
  8. As well as failings by the contractor during visits, there were failures regarding the landlord’s communication with the resident. During the works, contractors attended the property without prior notice. The resident should always be given clear communication, and any appointments and visits should be confirmed prior to arrival at the property. This can cause significant stress and inconvenience for the resident. Additionally, it can be understandably unpleasant and intrusive to have people attend the property without the prior notice.
  9. Whilst there were several issues and delays regarding the repainting of the bathroom, it was appropriate for the landlord to agree to do it as a goodwill gesture, given the delays in replacing the bath. As the resident had personally agreed to the original paint, the landlord was not obliged to repaint the bathroom a different colour free of charge.
  10. It was also appropriate for the landlord to offer to reimburse the resident for the shower screen that it had disposed of. From the evidence provided, the landlord did not appear to have given the resident notice that it would dispose of the shower screen. The landlord should have kept the resident informed that this was the intention.
  11. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation due to the delay in replacing the bath. However, it is the opinion of this Service that an offer of £50 was not reasonable. This is because, as well as damage to the enamel, the handle was also broken. This posed a potential health and safety risk for anyone entering and exiting the bath.
  12. Even though it was a gesture of goodwill to repaint the bathroom, there were several service failures relating to this work, that caused significant delay and inconvenience to the resident. When including these failures with the delay in replacing the resident’s bath, it is the opinion of this Service that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of bathroom repairs, and that the landlord should offer additional compensation to the resident.
  13. This Service’s remedies guidance suggests compensation payments of between £100 and £600 in instances such as this where the landlord has acknowledged some of its failings, and made some attempt to put things right, but failed to offer a level of compensation that was proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. The landlord has therefore been ordered to pay the resident an additional £150 compensation, bringing the total payable to £200 including the original £50 offered by the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of bathroom repairs.

Orders

  1. That within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £200, made up as follows:
      1. The £50 offered by the landlord in its complaint response, if it has not done so already.
      2. An additional £150 to reflect the level of failure identified in this report.
    2. Reimburse the cost of the shower screen, should the resident be able to provide receipts/invoices to demonstrate the cost.
    3. Confirm that it has complied with the above orders.