Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202216706)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216706

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

27 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 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 the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to his kitchen door in light of his disability.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a flat, and he is disabled, which is known to the landlord.
  2. On 11 August 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that the mechanism in his kitchen door was faulty, leading to him nearly being trapped in his kitchen on 10 August 2022. He informed it that he was disabled and would find it difficult to exit the kitchen if he became trapped, with it taking him ten attempts to open the door, and him being unable to open the locked windows more than a few inches. In addition, the resident informed the landlord that the boiler in his kitchen interfered with his mobile service, and he was concerned that, if he became trapped, he would be unable to seek help.
  3. Owing to his vulnerabilities, the resident asked for his repair to be treated as an urgent or emergency repair by the landlord, and for this to be attended as such by it within its maintenance policy’s 4 to 24-hour timescale. However, it informed him that the repair was not an emergency repair, as he was not currently trapped in the kitchen. Therefore, this was treated as a routine non-emergency repair that was due to be attended within 15 working days.
  4. The landlord then attended the property on 22 August 2022 and it repaired the kitchen door mechanism, with the resident reporting that its operative had experienced the same difficulties as he had with becoming trapped by the door. On the same day, he raised a stage one complaint stating that he felt that it had not taken his concerns seriously, and that he was “frustrated” that this repair was not treated as an emergency by it.
  5. The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord instead attended the repair after 11 calendar days, during which he was nearly trapped in the kitchen again on “many occasions” and feared going there. As a resolution, he requested that it offer him at least £200 compensation in light of the distress and inconvenience caused to him, and for it to change its maintenance policy, so that it assessed urgent repairs based on merit instead of according to a list.
  6. In its stage one complaint response of 8 September 2022, which was not provided to this Service, the landlord declined to uphold the resident’s complaint, and found that it had followed the correct non-emergency repair process when he had reported his kitchen door repair to it. He therefore made a final stage complaint to it on 20 September 2022, seeking for it to raise his future internal door repairs as emergencies due to his disability and lack of kitchen mobile connection, and to ask more questions before deciding between emergency and routine repairs. The resident also continued to request compensation for his distress and inconvenience, and for the landlord to review its maintenance policy.
  7. The landlord’s final stage complaint response of 12 October 2022 stated that the resident’s kitchen door repair was raised in line with its maintenance policy and, at the time of reporting, there was no immediate threat to life or to the structure of the property. Therefore, this would not have been classified as an emergency repair.
  8. The landlord acknowledged that the resident was worried about becoming trapped in his kitchen but, as it considered that there was no emergency, it could not classify the repair in that category. Owing to this, it would not offer him compensation, as it considered that it had categorised the repair correctly. The landlord further declined to reconsider its maintenance policy, as it used this to establish emergencies, and so the resident’s complaint was not upheld again.
  9. The resident referred his complaint to this Service because he remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his kitchen door repairs in light of his disability. As a resolution, he sought for it to compensate him for his “great distress and inconvenience” and “unnecessary” “physical danger”, and to change its maintenance policy so that a pre-determined list did not determine the urgency of repairs.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s maintenance policy defines an emergency repair as one that immediately affects a resident’s health, safety or security, and would endanger life or damage the fabric of the building. These repairs should be attended to and made safe within 4 hours, and rectified within 24 hours. For all other repairs that are not emergencies, including repairs to doors, the policy defines these as non-emergency repairs, which should be completed within 15 working days.
  2. The landlord’s maintenance policy also states that it will ensure that its maintenance services are flexible to the needs of vulnerable residents, who are defined as including people with a disability. Where additional flexibility to repairs priorities and services are required, it says that it will take into account its residents’ needs and the severity of the situation to vary the standard offered. The policy adds that it maintains a record to identify its residents’ particular vulnerabilities or disabilities to ensure that maintenance services are effectively delivered to meet their needs on an ongoing basis, allocating a budget to carry out aids and adaptations to its properties and helping them to apply for grants.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to his kitchen door in light of his disability

  1. As per the landlord’s maintenance policy, a repair to an internal door would not be classified as an emergency repair if there was no immediate risk to a resident’s health, safety or security, endangering his life or the fabric of his property. Therefore, it should have attended the property for this within 15 working days under the policy, after he reported to it on 11 August 2022 that his kitchen door was faulty, making it difficult for him to exit the kitchen. As the landlord then attended the resident’s property to repair the door mechanism on 22 August 2022, within seven working days of the repair being reported, it acted in accordance with its policy.
  2. However, this Service acknowledges that the resident’s concerns about being trapped in his kitchen and unable to call for help would have been distressing for him, particularly in light of his vulnerabilities. It would therefore also have been appropriate for the landlord to have complied with its maintenance policy’s requirements in relation to this, in light of the information provided by him at the time of reporting the repair.
  3. In accordance with the maintenance policy, the landlord should have ensured that its service in relation to internal door repairs was flexible to the resident’s needs in light of his disability, taking these and the severity of the situation that he reported to it into account for the timescale in which it responded to him. It additionally ought to have maintained a record to identify his particular vulnerabilities and disabilities to ensure that these repairs were effectively delivered to meet his needs on an ongoing basis, and assisted him with any relevant aids and adaptations, under the policy.
  4. Instead, both at the time that the resident reported that he required an urgent kitchen door repair from the landlord on 11 August 2022 in light of his disability, and the lack of other exits or a telephone signal in the kitchen, and subsequently, it did not consider following its maintenance policy’s above requirements. This is because it declined his requests for quicker internal door repairs from it at that time and in the future, and there is no evidence that it recorded his vulnerabilities and disabilities, or offered him aids and adaptations, in order to help him overcome any further difficulties with this issue.
  5. This Service investigates complaints by taking into account what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. We recognise that some residents’ circumstances mean that they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability. In addition, as per our dispute resolution principles, it is the role of this Service to consider whether the landlord has acted in accordance with these principles for it to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  6. Therefore, the landlord should have done so in the resident’s case by addressing his concerns in line with its maintenance policy instead of declining to follow the policy’s requirements for it to be flexible to his needs on an ongoing basis and assist him with them. This did not mean that it had to offer him an emergency repair response timescale for every kitchen or internal door or other repair, but it could have reassured him by taking steps to deal with his concerns about being trapped in his kitchen until it could repair the kitchen door mechanism.
  7. For example, given that the resident was concerned that he had no other way to exit the kitchen or call for assistance from there if he was trapped by the door, the landlord could have considered making alternative emergency or regular contact arrangements in the meantime. This could have been via measures such as a panic button, neighbours, or scheduled welfare calls or visits.
  8. Following the landlord’s repair of the resident’s kitchen door mechanism on 22 August 2022, it could have then addressed his concerns about the possibility of being trapped in the kitchen without access to help from arising again by considering taking steps to prevent this from happening in the future. It could have done so by considering works to improve his mobile signal, provide a landline connection, or install a panic alarm to allow him to call for assistance from the kitchen, as well as by seeking to ensure that he could escape from there by considering works to the door or windows.
  9. Moreover, in accordance with the landlord’s maintenance policy, it could have considered addressing the resident’s concerns about his outstanding kitchen door repairs in light of his disability by using its aids and adaptations budget for the above or other measures at his property. If it was unable to do so, then it could also have followed the policy by helping him to apply for a grant for these, such as by referring him for an occupational therapist’s assessment and supporting a subsequent application for a disabled facilities grant from him.
  10. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered assisting the resident with any of the above steps, which was contrary to its maintenance policy and was therefore a failing on its part. This was also contrary to this Service’s above dispute resolution principles, as it declined to addressing his internal door repair concerns in light of his disability fairly at the time, or to put its failure to do so right subsequently. The landlord additionally did not show that it had learnt from the outcome of the resident’s case by taking any action to prevent the incident that he had experienced from happening to him or to any of its other residents again, which was inappropriate.
  11. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to contact the resident to apologise to him for failing to consider his outstanding kitchen door repair concerns in light of his disability in accordance with its maintenance policy. It has also been ordered below to arrange an inspection of his property with him for it to assess and agree a plan and timescale for measures to address his concerns permanently in line with the policy. This is in addition to the below order for the landlord to review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its maintenance policy to prevent its failings in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.
  12. As the resident sought compensation in recognition of his distress and inconvenience as a result of the landlord’s failure to consider his outstanding kitchen door repair concerns in light of his disability, this has been considered in accordance with its compensation policy and this Service’s remedies guidance. Both the policy and our guidance recommend compensation of up to £100 for problems that are not resolved within a reasonable timescale. Therefore, as the resident’s concerns were not addressed until the investigation of his complaint by this Service, the landlord has also been ordered below to pay him £100 compensation in recognition of this, in line with its policy and our guidance.
  13. On a separate note, it is of concern that, despite this Service’s request to the landlord for its responses to the resident at each stage of its complaints procedure, it does not appear that we were provided with a copy of its stage one complaint response to him. Given the importance of maintaining full, accurate, and up-to-date records of residents’ complaints, responses and other communications with landlords throughout the complaints procedure to enable these to fully and appropriately investigated by them and by us, it has additionally been ordered below to do the following. The landlord has been ordered to review its record keeping processes to ensure that it retains copies of all complaint correspondence and communications, so that these can be provided on request.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to his kitchen door in light of his disability.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Contact the resident within four weeks to apologise to and pay him £100 compensation in recognition of any distress and inconvenience that he experienced as a result of its failure to consider his outstanding kitchen door repair concerns in light of his disability in accordance with its maintenance policy.
    2. Contact the resident within four weeks to arrange an inspection of his property with him for it to assess and agree a plan and timescale for measures to address his concerns about internal door repairs permanently in line with its maintenance policy.
    3. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its maintenance policy to prevent its failings in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.
    4. Review its record keeping processes to ensure that it retains copies of all complaint correspondence and communications, so that these can be provided on request.
  2. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders.