Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202302943)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302943

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

30 August 2024

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to an expansion vessel causing no heating and hot water.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to carpets, flooring and belongings.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a ground floor maisonette and is a tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 18 May 2009. The landlord has stated it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
On 16 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord’s out of hours service and reported his heating system was leaking due to an exploded water tank and water flooding the property. The landlord’s records stated it’s heating contractor advised the boiler at the property was an air source heating system and it did not have a specialist engineer for that type of heating. The resident confirmed water was switched off and the electrics not affected and he would call in the morning. Later that evening the resident recalled the out of hours service requesting the repair was completed. The out of hours service advised it would not be able to do anything about the water tank and the best it could do in out of hours was to get an electrician out who would make the electrics safe.
The landlord’s operative’s records noted that when it arrived at the property, it found that the expansion vessel had burst and there was water damage to the wooden floor and carpet, the resident had already isolated the water supply and the system was mains fed, so the resident had no running water and no bathing facilities.
The next day the resident called the landlord to chase the works to the water tank. The landlord records noted it spoke to it’s contractor who advised it was waiting for the sub-contractor’s report and would then contact the resident. The resident asked about compensation for damages and was advised by the landlord that would be down to his insurance. The landlord’s records noted the resident said he had no insurance and that it called him back later that morning to inform the resident that a team leader advised he could make a complaint regarding the carpets and wooden floor to see if they would recompense in any way, but that was not a guarantee.
On 17 October 2023 the landlord’s records noted that the contractor had received the report from the subcontractor and a new expansion vessel was needed. A work order was raised and the property would be attended the next day to check exactly what type was needed. The landlord’s records showed on 17 October 2022 that it’s contractor visited the resident’s property and noted the resident had turned off all water supply to the property. The contractor stated it had turned on the mains and it was isolated from the tank so the resident had drinking water and use of the toilet.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 19 October 2022. In the complaint the resident said:
1. On 16 October 2022 his water heater exploded in his property. He called to report the repair as an emergency around 7pm and turned his stopcock off. That meant he had no water in the property and therefore could not have hot water. Someone came that day and could only take pictures of the damages.
2. He called again on 17 October 2022. An operative attended and was unable to do anything as they said “I can’t deal with that” so a new date for the repair was set for 18 October 2022. That repair was cancelled without 24 hours notice.
3. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, he had the right to expect his landlord to carry out repairs in a ‘reasonable time’. If it was an emergency repair when there was no heating or hot water, the landlord should fix that in 24 hours. He would be taking that further as he had no hot water and no running water to the property. That was the second time it had happened while living there. It had caused damage to items he had in the property due to the boiler system and he had incurred consequential losses. He expected to be compensated for damage goods, appointments being cancelled without a 24 hour notice period and taking longer than what was required by law to remedy the repair he logged on 16 October 2022. The resident said he gave permission for his son to take over any further correspondence regarding that.
The landlord’s records on the same day noted the heating contractor was meant to attend on 18 October 2022 but the resident had received a text at 9.42am that the appointment was cancelled. The landlord spoke with the contractor and was told they tried to attend at 12.40pm but had no access. The resident’s son requested compensation for his father as he was being left without heating or hot water for days.
On 20 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and said that a gas engineer attended the property but was unable to progress the repair as the boiler was all electric. An electrician then attended the same day and informed the resident he needed a plumber. The resident informed the landlord he had health conditions and the repair needed to be addressed as a priority due to his vulnerabilities. The landlord’s records noted the resident was offered heaters but had turned them down.
On 21 October 2021 the landlord raised a new works order for the expansion vessel. It’s records showed the expansion vessel was picked up that day by it’s contractor.
On 24 October 2022 the landlord issued its stage one response. The landlord stated that:
1. From reviewing the complaint, it understood that the resident was left without heating and running water due to his heater rupturing. The resident and his family had contacted it and there had been operatives at the property; however, they were unable to fix the issue due to a gas technician being sent when the boiler was electric.
2. Whilst investigating the complaint, it had contacted its repairs contractors, who advised that a job was raised to them on 16 October 2022, when the operative attended, he advised that the expansion vessel had burst and there was water damage to the wooden floor and carpet. The water supply had already been isolated by the resident. As the system was mains fed, the resident did not have any running water or bathing facilities. The contractor then reattended on 17 October 2022, the operative turned the mains back on to allow the resident to be able to have running water and use of the toilet as it was isolated from the heater. The hot water however was still not fixed. A subcontractor then attended on 20 October 2022 to ensure that the water was not affecting the electrics, which it was not. The operative attended later that same day to assess which parts would be needed to repair the immersion heater. The parts were ordered, and two plumbers would be attending on 25 October 2022 with the parts to fix the heater.
3. It apologised for the delay and the inconvenience that had been caused and apologised for the unhelpful and unsympathetic service he received. It confirmed that the required parts had been ordered and should be fitted the next day. It apologised about the service that the resident had received whilst trying to contact it to have the repairs carried out. It had provided feedback to ensure that did not happen again and that any training required was undertaken.
The landlord’s records showed that the boiler was repaired on 25 October 2022. However, on 26 October 2022 the resident reported an immersion boiler fault to the landlord which it raised an emergency repair for. An operative attended and noted an engineer for a fully electric heating system was needed. The landlords records noted its heating contractor attended the next day and completed the works.
On 29 October 2022 the resident’s son requested the complaint be escalated stating that following the issues raised in the initial complaint and responded to at stage one:
1. The landlord’s response regarding the complaint was lack-lustred, half-hearted and audacious.
2. The original complaint mentioned damage to the resident’s property and he was wanting compensation for the water expansion vessel rupturing. The resident had also wanted compensation for the cancellation of the appointment without 24 hours notice. Both of those points were ignored and the stage one response did not address damages apart from the carpet and wooden flooring.
3. The landlord was factually incorrect what it had stated about 17 October 2022 as the resident did not have running water for his toilet.
4. Although the landlord had stated the repairs would commence on 25 October 2022 that was only the case if it was not for the resident’s son’s intervention by directly contacting the contractor, otherwise the issue would still be ongoing.
5. The investigation had not been thoroughly conducted as the landlord had not stated that the boiler system and the way the landlord conducted itself would be investigated.
6. Within the past 3 years, issues had arisen from the boiler at least 3 times. Including in 2021 when the resident was left without heating or hot water for 9 weeks during the summer.
7. It was set out in Article 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 that a landlord carries out repairs in a ‘reasonable time’. If it’s an emergency repair including no heating or hot water, the repair should be completed in 24 hours. The issue was only fixed on 26 October 2022 and was not acceptable.
8. The resident was neglected as he was not given temporary accommodation due to no water or heating facilities. Nor was he given any electrical heaters while his boiler system was out of service
9. The resident requested:
  1. Compensation for his damaged belongings, the carpet and wooden flooring to be refurbished due to damages caused by the water expansion vessel and compensation for the stress the issue had caused as he was without the use of basic facilities and the repair was not remedied as soon as possible.
  2. An investigation to be conducted as to why the boiler system as a whole had constantly failed and expected improvement works of replacing the boiler system by changing the boiler which did not require the use of a heat pump or immersion heater or by supplying the property with gas and have a gas only boiler.
The landlord acknowledged the request to escalate the complaint on 31 October 2022 and to allow 20 working days for a response.
On 6 December 2022 the resident’s son contacted the landlord and said the 20 day response time for the stage two complaint had passed and requested an update.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 16 February 2023. The landlord stated it apologised about the delay in responding to the complaint and:
1. It did phone the resident to let him know that the parts had been ordered and were due to be picked up. It was unable to send anyone to repair the issue as they would require the part to complete the repair. The agent asked if it’s engineer had left any temporary heaters, and the resident advised that the heaters were offered but he declined. The resident also confirmed that he had running water in the kitchen sink.
2. The agent should have reviewed the notes and explained that the part was ready for pickup and that after the operator picked it up, the repair would be scheduled and carried out. The team leader had given feedback to the agent and instructed them to try to find out more information by asking further questions. It apologised for the error and offered £25 in compensation.
3. Repair to expansion vessel. The operative’s notes suggested that the water was turned back on. Additionally, the resident advised that there was running water in the kitchen sink. The hot water, however, was still not resolved. It understood that an appointment was made for an electrician and plumber to attend on the 25 October 2022. The repair to the expansion vessel was made, but there was no electrician present, and the hot water was not working. The landlord’s contractor attended on the 27 October 2022 and confirmed that the system was working.
4. The resident notified it on the 16 October 2022, and it raised an emergency repair at 20:56pm. The operative attended and left his notes on the system at 23:16pm. This meant that it’s operative attended within the 4-hour emergency target. Since it attended on time and the water supply was cut, it was not liable to compensate him for a new carpet. However, if there was damage to the floorboards, it could arrange for a surveyor to inspect the property. For the inconvenience of no water in the toilet, it offered £50 in compensation.
5. It was sorry to hear that the resident was without hot water and heating for 12 days. There had been a misunderstanding over which operatives to dispatch based on reading the notes and the resident’s email. The heating system worked differently to the typical gas boiler frequently used in homes. There was lack of communication between the repair and gas department which had slowed the completion of the repair. It would be highlighting the issue and provide feedback to the relevant managers. In line with its compensation policy it offered compensation of £55.
6. It understood the inconvenience that the resident had been experiencing. It was glad to hear that all the repair issues raised had been resolved and offered an additional £50 as compensation for the delay in responding to the complaint. It confirmed the complaint had been upheld and in recognition of that had offered the resident the £180.
7. The landlord stated that it increased the compensation to £205 as discussed on a telephone call. It was agreed that the resident would provide a list of items damaged in the leak and would forward that to it’s repair management team or insurance team for further consideration.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

In bringing his complaint, the resident has informed the Ombudsman that carpets, wooden flooring and personal belongings had been damaged as a result of inaction by the landlord and believes that it should compensate for this. It is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to award damages or assess loss. Determining liability and awarding damages are legal matters that require a binding decision from a court or assessment via an insurance claim. The Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of the repair to the expansion vessel causing no heating or hot water.

The landlord was first informed of the resident’s reports of water leaking during an out of hours call on 16 October 2022 and following an emergency visit to the property it was established that a new expansion vessel was needed. The landlord’s records showed a works order was raised the following day for a new expansion vessel which was the appropriate step for the landlord to take.
Section 3 of the landlords maintenance policy states the landlord has two repair priorities. Emergency and non emergency. Emergency repairs are responded to within 4 hours and rectified within 24 hours. Non emergency repairs are to be completed within 15 working days.
Under the landlord’s maintenance policy a repair required due to no hot water or a total loss of heating during October to March should be completed within 24 hours and this is consistent with industry expectations. The landlord would therefore be expected to attempt to ensure it did all it reasonably could do to complete the repair in that timescale.
In this case the landlord has not evidence it completed the repairs within 24 hours or within a reasonable timescale and left the resident without required services including hot water and heating for an unnecessarily long period of time.
Following the first report made to it’s out of hours service on 16 October 2022, over the following days, there was evidence the landlord sent incorrect trades persons to the property including gas engineers when an electrician was required and plumbers not being booked when required. The landlord’s property records should have noted the type of heating system in the resident’s property and the appropriate tradesperson should have been sent to assess and complete the repair. This did not initially happen in this case, causing unnecessary delays and this would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
There was also evidence on 18 October 2022 of the resident being informed of a cancelled appointment only for the landlord’s contractor to attend a few hours later when the resident was not available which indicated further communication failures and would have further delayed the repairs process for the resident.
During that time the resident had no access to heating or hot water. The landlord’s records showed it failed to conduct an assessment of the boiler to establish the exact part required and order the required part until 20 October 2022 – four days after the initial repair was reported. This was a failing by the landlord that prolonged the issue and kept the resident without access to heating and hot water.
It is recognised that sometimes the parts which are required to complete a repair will not be immediately available, and in these circumstances, it is important that a resident is kept updated about the progress of the repair. This did not reasonably happen in this case, and the evidence provided showed the resident and family members had to constantly chase the landlord for updates. The landlord however did acknowledge the inconvenience the resident experienced due to its lack of communication in it’s stage two response.
Although heating from the boiler was not available in the property due to the outstanding repair, the landlord has evidenced heaters were offered to the resident on 20 October 2022 and that was a positive and appropriate action taken by the landlord to ensure heating was available in the property.
However it is noted this was offered four days after the initial report was made by the resident. The landlord would be expected to have offered heaters to the resident at the earliest opportunity as part of any assessment into the resident’s needs and establishing any vulnerabilities the resident may have. There was no evidence of the landlord offering the heaters at an earlier stage.
There was also no evidence the landlord enquired if the resident had any vulnerabilities when the repair was initially reported. This is concerning considering the resident was reporting he had no heating or hot water. In an email to the landlord on 20 October 2022 the resident informed the landlord he had health conditions and the repair needed to be addressed as a priority due to his vulnerabilities. There was also no evidence provided that the landlord followed that up with the resident to establish what vulnerabilities he was referring to and if it needed to therefore reconsider its response to the outstanding issues or offer any short term solutions including temporary accommodation and that was a failing by the landlord.
In it’s submission of evidence to this Service the landlord stated it had no vulnerabilities listed for the resident. There appears therefore a discrepancy between the residents statement of having vulnerabilities and the landlord’s records. As there was no evidence provided that the landlord contacted the resident to establish if he had any vulnerabilities that needed to be recorded, an order is made for the landlord to do so to ensure any vulnerabilities are recorded for the resident.
The resident made it clear in his correspondence and complaint to the landlord that he wanted an investigation to take place to try an establish the cause of the repair and if any further action may be required. The landlord has provided no evidence that it conducted any investigations into the condition of the boiler or cause of the damage to the expansion vessel. The only evidence of the actions it took was to replace the expansion vessel. A recommendation therefore has been made for the landlord to consider carrying out an inspection of the boiler to reassure the resident that it is operating correctly.
In summary, although the landlord took some appropriate actions, there were delays in it completing the required repair. There were also issues with its communication with the resident, and it should have taken steps to establish if the resident required any reasonable adjustments at the earliest opportunity. As a result, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.
In this case, the resident was caused inconvenience because the repair was delayed by poor communication regarding appointments and incorrect operatives being sent to the property which meant the repair issue was not resolved within a reasonable timescale. It was appropriate that the landlord offered redress to recognise the inconvenience caused to the resident. In its stage two complaint response the landlord initially offered the resident £180 comprising of £50 for complaint handling and £130 for the failings it had found in it’s handling of the repair. The complaint response noted it had increased the offer to £205 after speaking to the resident but the complaint response failed to evidence what the increase was for.
It is clear £50 was offered to the resident for the landlord’s complaint handling leaving the remaining amount at £155. This Service has considered whether the compensation offer made by the landlord was reasonable. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, this Service takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issue, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions.
This Service does not consider the amount of compensation offered to be appropriate given the failings identified in this investigation and the landlord should pay the resident an amount of £250 inclusive of the £155 it had already offered.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to the carpets, flooring and belongings.

The resident informed the landlord of damage to his carpet and other belongings due to water leaking from the boiler. The landlord on 17 October 2022 responded and advised the resident that would be for his insurers to determine. The landlord later that day however stated to the resident he could raise the issue as a complaint and see if he could be recompensed in any way.
The resident did raise it as part of his complaint and in the landlord’s final complaint response it informed the resident it would not be offering compensation as it was not liable due to it attending the initial emergency repair within its 4 hours target timescale. However, further in the stage two response it stated it was agreed that the resident would provide a list of items damaged in the leak and it would forward that to it’s repair management team or insurance team for further consideration. The landlord stated to this Service it did not receive a list of damages from the resident.
Section 3.7 of the landlord’s compensation policy states it will replace a carpet if it had damaged it.
Section 3.8 states that residents are encouraged to take out home contents insurance for their furniture, decorations and personal possessions, to insure them against accidental damage, loss, fire or water damage, burglary etc. Where a resident’s possessions are damaged through building failure which is not covered by their own insurance, compensation for the damaged possessions would be paid if it can be shown that the landlord was at fault.
It would be expected that when a claim for damages is made to the landlord it would investigate the claim and determine if it would pay compensation or refer the resident to its insurers. In this case the landlord confirmed its decision not to pay compensation and the reason why. This demonstrated it had considered the resident’s request. The landlord also informed the resident he could make a claim on his insurance policy, if one was in place and provided the resident with information that he could provide a list of damages for its own insurer to consider.
The landlord in its final complaint response stated if there was any damage to the floorboards, it could arrange for a surveyor to inspect the property. This was also an appropriate response as the floorboards would fall under the responsibility of the landlord to repair if damaged
There was therefore no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damage to the carpets, flooring and belongings.

The landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord has a two stage complaints policy. At stage one it aims to agree a solution within 10 working days. If the complaint is particularly complex, it may on occasion need longer than 10 days to resolve. In those instances, the resident will be kept informed and regularly updated on the reasons for that. At stage two the response will be provided within 20 working days. If the complaint is particularly complex, it may need longer than 20 days to resolve. In those instances, the resident will be kept informed and regularly updated on the reasons why.
The stage one response was issued within the landlord’s timescales of ten working days. The landlord acknowledged it had failed to complete the repair within the expected timescales and did apologise to the resident for the inconvenience that had caused.
Although the landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience for the delays in completing the repair, the landlord failed to acknowledge the extent of the delay and the impact it would have caused to the resident and it offered no further redress to the resident. The landlord therefore failed to offer an appropriate level of redress to the resident in the stage one response.
The landlord failed in the stage one response to offer an explanation to all the complaint points raised by the resident. The complaint made included requests for compensation for the delays to the repairs, cancellation of an appointment on 18 October 2022 without 24 hour’s notice being given and for damaged items. The landlord failed to address those element’s of the complaint in its stage one response.
The response at stage two was much more detailed and did cover the complaint points raised by the resident however, it is noted the landlord did not provide an explanation for the cancelled appointment on 18 October 2022
The escalation to stage two was made on 29 October 2022 but the stage two response was not issued until 16 February 2023. This was 76 working days later and there was no evidence provided that would either explain the reason for the significant delay or that the resident was kept informed regarding the status of the stage two response.
There was therefore maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. It failed to offer a full response to all the complaint points raised at stage one and there were delays in issuing the stage two response with no updates or reasons for the delay provided to the resident. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for the delay with the stage two response. For the length of time in issuing the stage two response and the landlord not providing a full response at stage one the landlord should pay the resident £100 in addition to the £50 already offered.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the expansion vessel resulting in no heating or hot water.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damage to the carpets, flooring and belongings.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a sum of £250 including the £155 already offered to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the expansion vessel resulting in no heating or hot water.
3. Pay the resident a sum of £150 including the £50 already offered for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord conducts an investigation of the boiler to ensure it is in working order or if any additional works are required and provides the resident with the outcome of the investigation.
The landlord ensures it’s staff are trained with how to identify and deal with reports of faulty electric boilers to ensure correct operatives are sent to investigate reports of faults.