Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202218804)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218804

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

10 May 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 concerns:
   1. The landlord’s communication regarding the completion of outstanding remedial work following its replacement of the resident’s bathroom.
   2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to an extractor fan.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association.
3. The resident’s complaint concerned the landlord’s response to his reports that snagging work remained outstanding following planned work it had undertaken to replace his bathroom.
4. The landlord sent its surveyor to inspect the resident’s bathroom on 26 September 2022 to determine the scope of the remaining works. The surveyor reported that it needed to retouch paint where this had been damaged, re-gloss the skirting board and fill in and paint holes in the ceiling above the light fitting. The resident had also previously reported that his shower rail had been fitted in an unsuitable location, which caused him to get “tangled” in the shower curtain. The surveyor noted that the shower curtain should be replaced with a shorter one. It said that if a shorter curtain failed to resolve the problem, then the shower curtain rail would need to be repositioned.
5. The landlord issued its final response on 12 October 2022. It outlined the works the surveyor had identified on the above inspection and confirmed that it would complete these. It did not provide a timescale in which it would carry out the work. It also offered the resident £20 compensation, understood to have been in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the overall issues concerned in the complaint, in relation to its handling of the bathroom replacement. The resident wrote to the landlord the same day and expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had not provided him with a timeframe in which it would complete the outstanding remedial works, and with the amount of compensation. The landlord promptly responded, and said that it believed that £50 compensation was more reflective of the circumstances and inconvenience caused. In regard to when it would complete the remaining snagging works, it said it would chase the relevant team and update the resident accordingly. In response, the resident advised the landlord that he was prepared to accept the revised offer of £50 in closure of the matter, and that he looked forward to hearing from it with a date and time on which he could expect the outstanding work to be completed.
6. The resident referred his complaint to this Service on 17 November 2022. He was dissatisfied as he said that the landlord had not contacted him with an update as agreed. To resolve the complaint, he wanted the landlord to provide him with a completion date for the outstanding works. He also requested additional compensation for the time and trouble he said he had been put to in pursuing the matter. He also mentioned an additional issue with water leaking through his extractor fan which he said leaked onto his floor, caused water staining and potential damage to the bathroom ceiling.

Jurisdiction

7. 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.
8. 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.
9. In correspondence to the Ombudsman, the resident highlighted an issue with water leaking through his extractor fan in his bathroom which caused water staining and potential damage.
10. The Ombudsman is unable to consider this issue as part of our current investigation because the matter was not raised to the landlord through its formal complaints process as part of this complaint. 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 repair he can then raise a new complaint to the landlord about the issue.

Assessment and findings

11. The landlord’s complaint responses addressed several issues, including the length of time the landlord took to replace the resident’s bathroom, the position of the bathtub, an issue with hot water, the professionalism of its contractors, debris left in the resident’s home, and an issue with flooring. The only outstanding issue that the resident brought to this Service, was his dissatisfaction that the landlord had not provided him a date for when the remaining snagging works it agreed to undertake in its stage two response would be completed, and requested further compensation for the time and trouble he had been put through in pursuing this. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s communication in regards to managing the resident expectations about when it would complete those remedial works.
12. Although the landlord appropriately committed to undertaking the works identified as a result of the above inspection in its final response in October 2022, it should have managed the resident’s expectations in relation to when he could expect those repairs to be completed by. Nonetheless, when the resident contacted the landlord the same day and expressed dissatisfaction with its final response, the landlord responded promptly, and appropriately agreed to chase the relevant team in regards to when works would commence, and update him accordingly. In response, the resident accepted the revised offer of £50 compensation in resolution to the overall complaint. However, his acceptance of this was on the implied basis that the landlord provided him with dates for completion of the outstanding snagging works. As such, if the landlord had kept the resident informed and provided him dates within a reasonable timeframe within which it would complete those works, this would have suitably remedied the complaint.
13. However, the evidence shows that the resident had to chase the landlord again three weeks later on 7 November 2022, as he had not yet received an update. The landlord said it would again chase its contractor, and it would update the resident that week. Although internal communication shows that the landlord appropriately queried this with its contractor, it is not clear in the evidence that the contractor responded, nor that the landlord kept the resident informed about any difficulties it faced in obtaining a schedule of works. This caused the resident to seek assistance from this Service with the matter on 17 November 2022. This was unreasonable given that prior to this, on 20 October 2022, the landlord noted that a point of learning it took from the resident’s complaint concerned its poor communication, in relation to it needing to ensure that it provided updates and expected completion dates for repair work. The landlord’s continued poor communication following this shows that the landlord failed to learn from its previous communication failings in a meaningful way.
14. The above was a failing, as the Housing Ombudsman’s Code (the Code) is clear that a landlord’s remedy offer must clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate, and that any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. If the landlord had difficulty in scheduling a completion date within a reasonable timeframe, it should have regularly updated the resident, as it had agreed to do on more than on occasion. Its failure to do so was not in line with the Code which is clear that landlords must adhere to any reasonable arrangements agreed with resident’s in terms of frequency and methods of communication.
15. It is not known what the resident was told about when the snagging works would be completed following November 2022, as the landlord has not provided any evidence to confirm this, and therefore there is no evidence to show that the resident’s expectations were adequately managed in this regard. It was also not apparent from the evidence when the works concerned in this investigation were individually completed. It is evident that over the course of late November 2022, to late February 2023, the resident reported additional repair issues that the landlord committed to resolving, which included an extractor fan that leaked water and potentially caused additional damage to paintwork, and an issue with a leaking toilet. This indicates that the leaks may have taken priority over the outstanding snagging works, until they were sourced and rectified, as there is no evidence of the resident chasing further repairs until February 2023.
16. On 7 February 2023, the landlord noted the resident reported that bathroom paint was peeling, and that woodwork had not been painted properly. As it was not seen in the evidence that the resident reported further issues with the handrail, and holes in the ceiling above the light fixture, it is reasonable to assess those repairs were resolved satisfactorily. However, it was not apparent if the resident’s report of peeling paint and unfinished woodwork in February 2023 related to the outstanding painting works the landlord previously agreed to undertake or if they had occurred, or deteriorated further as result of the leaks. Nonetheless, the landlord advised this Service that all defect work in the bathroom was completed by 24 February 2023, and there is no evidence that the resident reported any further issues following this. Nor did he raise further concerns with this Service at that time or following this.
17. In this case, the landlord’s poor communication did not affect the outcome of the complaint as the landlord ultimately agreed to complete the snagging works. Given the minor nature of the works, the evidence does not imply that the delay in completing these works impeded the resident’s ability to use the bathroom, and as such did not have any apparent significant impact. Nonetheless, its failure to manage the resident’s expectation in its final response regarding when the works would be completed, and its failure to provide him updates following this as it had agreed, did cause the resident additional time and trouble in having to chase the landlord, and would understandably have been a source of some frustration for the resident.
18. To remedy the above, the landlord should apologise to the resident and pay compensation of £100 for its continued poor communication. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance which suggests that remedies in this range may be used for instances of service failure resulting in minimal impact on the complainant, that may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its communication regarding the completion of outstanding remedial work following its replacement of the resident’s bathroom.
20. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the the complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to an extractor fan is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders

21. Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the service failing in regard to its poor communication.
    2. Pay the resident an additional £100 compensation. This is inclusive of the £50 it offered in its final response.
    3. Carry out a review of its staff’s training needs in relation to communication with residents about the completion of outstanding repairs. The landlord should write to this Service detailing the outcome of this review.