Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202326748)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326748

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

30 June 2025

 

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 a leak at the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the 8th floor. The resident lives with her son. The landlord had no vulnerabilities recorded for the household. The resident advised the landlord that her and her son used inhalers.
  2. The resident raised a number of complaints with the landlord, 2 of which are considered for this investigation. For the purposes of this report, the complaints will be referred to as complaint A and B.
  3. On 25 September 2023 the resident raised complaint A about the landlord’s approach to gaining access to her property when there was a leak in the building which was affecting another flat. The resident was dissatisfied that she had been told she was denying access to her property. She had been warned by the landlord that it could force entry. The resident said there had been several inspections of her property and it had been confirmed that the leak was not from her home.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to complaint A on 11 October 2023. It explained the investigations that had taken place in the block to determine the cause of a neighbour’s leak. The landlord said its records showed its operatives had not been given access to the resident’s property. It stated no inspections of the resident’s property had taken place. The landlord acknowledged its communication with the resident was not clear and had caused confusion and frustration. It apologised for the distress caused and upheld the resident’s complaint. The resident escalated complaint A on the same date because she was dissatisfied that the landlord continued to state she had not provided access to her property. She said numerous surveyors had attended her property. The resident asked the landlord to provide exact dates for when visits had been refused.
  5. On 17 November 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response for complaint A. It said there were no notes or records of refused visits on its system but that could be due to visits being unplanned. The landlord said it was reasonable for its staff to knock on doors when there was an urgent issue to address. It did not uphold this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
  6. The landlord said since the resident had escalated her complaint she had contacted it about a leak in her living room. It said the resident had reported the flat roof was leaking on 20 October 2023. The landlord acknowledged there had been delays and issues with scheduling regarding this repair. It said an appointment had been made for 15 November 2023, but the contractor had not attended due to system errors which led to the job not being on the system. The landlord upheld this aspect of the resident’s complaint and said a new contractor would attend on 17 November or 22 November 2023. It said the resident had already been offered £150 compensation and it offered an additional £150 to bring the total compensation to £300.
  7. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction to the landlord in emails on 5 March and 6 March 2024. She referenced a number of outstanding issues including the unresolved leak. The resident said the leak was still present and asked for this to be rectified immediately. The landlord logged complaint B for these matters on 29 April 2024 and issued its stage 1 response for complaint B on 24 June 2024. It said it was sorry that the leak was not resolved. The landlord advised that after it visited the property on 19 June 2024 it was identified that an external survey using rope access was needed to fully understand the issue. It said it would chase the contractor for a date and said, if possible, the repair might take place at the same time as the survey, but it could not guarantee this. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and said after the survey had taken place it would compensate the resident for the delays and inconvenience caused.
  8. On receipt of the stage 1 response for complaint B, the resident escalated her complaint as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The landlord issued its stage 2 response for complaint B on 5 August 2024. It acknowledged that the resident did not feel the stage 1 investigation or compensation was comprehensive enough. The landlord stated the rope access survey took place on 22 July 2024. It said it was looking at the survey report to see what action was needed and would update the resident. The landlord said there had been difficulties due to the height of the building and establishing the cause of the leak. It acknowledged that despite the difficulties it could have been more efficient at looking into the matter and apologised for the inconvenience caused. The landlord advised it had not followed processes and had not recorded surveyor visits on the system so it could not provide the resident with the repairs records she had requested.
  9. The landlord upheld complaint B and awarded £530 compensation. This was comprised of £20 for missing reports, £40 for delay in repairing a hob, £100 for 5 missed appointments, £20 for the delay in issuing a stage 2 response and £350 for the cumulative effect the issues had on the resident’s health and the inconvenience caused.
  10. On 27 August 2024 the resident contacted the Ombudsman. She said her and her son had not had full use of the living/dining area since the leak worsened in 2023. On 16 June 2025 the resident advised the Ombudsman that the leak was still unresolved, and she had experienced continued missed appointments and delays.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told this Service that the ongoing leak affected her and her son’s health and wellbeing. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear of these problems, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there is a direct link between the actions or inaction of the landlord and the effect on the household’s health. Such matters are better suited to a court or liability insurer to determine.
  2. This investigation features 2 complaints that the resident made. Complaint A in 2023 and complaint B in 2024. The resident has advised the Ombudsman that she only wants the ongoing leak, which featured in both these complaints, investigated. Therefore, both these complaints are included in this investigation, rather than being separated under 2 case references with the Ombudsman.

The landlord’s handling of a leak at the property

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement lists its responsibilities for repairing the resident’s property. It states that it will keep in good repair and maintain in proper working order, the structure and exterior of the property and building including roofs, walls, floors, ceilings, window frames and external doors. The landlord also has repair obligations under section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  2. The resident advised the Ombudsman that the ongoing leak in her living room was initially reported in November 2022. The resident’s communication with the landlord repeatedly stated this. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with any repairs logs to be able to identify when the leak was initially reported. It has only provided some photos from 2023 and 3 reports from 2024. It is unclear whether the landlord just did not provide the repair logs or whether it is unable to provide these due to errors in record keeping.
  3. However, in its stage 2 response for complaint B, issued on 5 August 2024, the landlord advised the resident that it was unable to provide the full records of the repair that she had requested. The landlord stated this was because it identified that it had not followed correct processes and had not recorded surveyor visits on its system meaning full records were not available.
  4. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on repairs, published in March 2019, highlighted the need for “landlords [to] keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail.” This is so the landlord can demonstrate that it has met its obligations. In practice, this means that a landlord should be able to evidence what repairs were reported and when, what action it took and when, and whether any further works were required. The landlord apologised to the resident for its record keeping failings and said it had put actions in place to ensure this did not occur again. As we did not receive full repair logs, the Ombudsman has been unable to identify when the leak was first reported and what action the landlord initially took to resolve the leak.
  5. The evidence showed the resident reported the leak in her living room again on 20 October 2023. This was acknowledged by the landlord in its stage 2 response for complaint A, dated 17 November 2023. The evidence showed that after initially reporting the leak on 20 October 2023, the resident chased the landlord 5 times by email for the leak to be addressed. These emails were sent on 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8 November 2023. The resident included photos of the leak and the damage it had caused. She told the landlord that she had expected a repair operative to attend on 25 October or 26 October 2023, but nobody had attended. The resident also told the landlord she had chased up the appointment by calling the landlord on 31 October 2023. She said she had been told she would receive a call back but said nobody called.
  6. The landlord replied on 10 November 2023. It said the resident’s emails had been forwarded to the person investigating her complaint. The landlord said once the complaint handler had provided a timeline of events of what the issues had been and how it planned to get the matter fixed, it would be in contact. Attending to the leak should not have been put on hold while the complaint handler was providing a timeline of events. The landlord’s repairs policy and processes to address the leak should have operated alongside its complaints policy and processes.
  7. The resident chased the landlord again on 15 November 2023 as she had not been contacted. An internal email dated 15 November 2023 confirmed the resident had made “a lot of calls” chasing the repair which the landlord identified as being pending from October.
  8. In its stage 2 response to complaint A issued on 17 November 2023 the landlord stated it was clear that there had been delays and issues with scheduling appointments. The landlord acknowledged the delays had been unacceptable and that this had caused the resident upset and stress.
  9. The landlord acknowledged that a roofing contractor was due to attend the resident’s property, but this had not occurred. It said this appointment did not happen because there had been “a system glitch that led to jobs not being on the system”. The landlord advised that a new contractor had been found but the stage 2 response did not specify an exact date this contractor would attend. It said the contractor would attend on 17 November 2023 or “early” the following week. This timeframe for the appointment was vague. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on repairs includes good practice guidance for landlords on booking appointments. It states appointments should be confirmed with the resident.
  10. In the month after the stage 2 response for complaint A was issued, the resident contacted the landlord 4 times to chase up a response to her repair. On 22 November 2022, despite what the landlord stated in its stage 2 response about an appointment, the resident said she had not been contacted about resolving the leak. She highlighted to the landlord that it had been over a month since she had reported the leak. The resident said it seemed as if her repair was not being taken seriously and that there was no consideration to her and her son’s health and wellbeing.
  11. On 27 November 2023 the resident told the landlord that nobody had turned up to an appointment that had been arranged for the afternoon of Friday 24 November 2023. The resident said it had rained the previous night, and a window had leaked again.
  12. On 10 December 2023 the resident contacted the landlord again as an appointment had been arranged for 9 December 2023 but again nobody had turned up. She stated she had not received any apology for the previous missed appointment and now there had been another appointment missed. The resident expressed the distress and anxiety she was experiencing every time it rained and said she had become reliant on an inhaler and her son was needing one periodically. She stated that for over 7 weeks she had sent the landlord many photos of the damage and the damp, but nothing had been done to resolve the matter.
  13. The resident contacted the landlord again on 19 December 2023. She said it had been over a week since the landlord had last informed her that it would follow up on the repairs, but she had not heard back. The resident attached a video to her email which she said showed unacceptable living conditions with water puddled on her floor. She said she had to use an inhaler or keep a window open despite the cold weather if she wanted to sit in the living room for a long period of time.
  14. In an internal landlord email dated 20 December 2023, the landlord described the video the resident had sent of her property as “awful”. The landlord stated it needed to get something done about the matter.
  15. The landlord replied to the resident on the same date saying it had chased its contractors who had advised a roofing contractor was going to attend the property. However, the landlord stated it had not heard back about this. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on repairs states, “If a landlord contracts out its repairs service, the obligation to repair remains with the landlord and not the contractor. Landlords need to ensure that they have adequate oversight of their outsourced services”. The evidence showed the landlord did not have the required level of oversight. This resulted in missed appointments and delays in getting a resolution for the resident.
  16. In the same email, the landlord said the issue had now been escalated internally as it needed to be addressed as soon as possible. The landlord advised the resident that if anything got worse to call the emergency repair line.
  17. The resident contacted the landlord again on 14 January 2024. She stated the walls were damp. The resident said each time she had been out while it had rained, the water had run into the property, and she was concerned her flooring was getting damaged. The resident said she had experienced another missed appointment as nobody turned up as scheduled on 2 January 2024. She said she had been chasing the repair for 3 months and as this leak had been reoccurring since November 2022, she thought it would have been prioritised and resolved quickly.
  18. The landlord did not reply to the resident until 22 January 2024. It said the matter would be escalated internally. However, the landlord had already told the resident the case was being escalated internally over a month prior. It is evident from the delays and reoccurring missed appointments that nobody was taking ownership of the resident’s repair. An internal landlord email of the same date questioned what was happening with regards to the resident’s repair. The lack of ownership led to the resident experiencing unreasonable delays.
  19. The resident chased up the landlord again on 6 February 2024. She said she had not heard from the landlord for two weeks. The landlord replied to the resident on the same date stating it had chased its senior management, and it would be in touch as soon as possible. This was unreasonable considering the resident had already been waiting for an update from the matter being escalated internally on 20 December 2023, which was 31 working days prior. This also did not manage the resident’s expectations on when she would be getting a reply.
  20. An internal email dated 6 February 2024 queried again what was happening regarding the resident’s repair. The evidence repeatedly showed that it was only because of the resident’s contact that the matter was chased up by the landlord. It should not have taken repeated contact from the resident to drive the progress of the repair.
  21. A month later, on 5 March 2024, when there was still no progress with the matter, the resident forwarded her email trail from when she reported the leak in October 2023 to the landlord’s chief executive. The resident asked for the landlord to immediately rectify the leak in the property. The landlord replied stating it would update the resident by 8 March 2024. The resident followed up with a reply to the landlord on 6 March 2024 highlighting that the leak was in the exact same area that she had a leak in November 2022. She said she had requested a follow up in July 2023 where she said she was told the leak had been resolved. The resident attached videos from November 2022 and February 2024 so the landlord could see how the problem had escalated. She told the landlord that it had breached its tenancy by failing to resolve the matters in a reasonable timeframe. The landlord logged the content of the resident’s emails from 5 and 6 March 2024 as complaint B.
  22. The resident was advised that a surveyor would attend the property on 13 March 2024. However, 2 days prior she was told this needed to be rescheduled to a week later. The resident contacted the landlord to say she was not available the following week due to commitments that meant she was not in the area. The landlord confirmed that a surveyor would still attend on 13 March 2024 as planned. The resident contacted the landlord on 14 March 2024. She said she had booked the afternoon off work to be there for the scheduled appointment on 13 March 2024. However, she said when she got home on 13 March 2024, she found a card had been left advising that somebody had attended the property at 10.30am. The resident explained to the landlord that the appointment had been scheduled for after 3pm, not the morning.
  23. The landlord acknowledged its mistake with confusing the afternoon appointment for a morning one. It asked when the resident would be free the following week. She explained her availability and stated she was off work from 2 April to 14 April 2024. The resident asked if the survey and works could be booked for that period of time, so everything was complete by 14 April 2024 so not to cause any further disruption.
  24. The landlord surveyed the resident’s property on 3 April 2024. This was 113 working days after the resident had reported a reoccurrence of the leak on 20 October 2023.
  25. The resident chased the landlord again on 17 April 2024. She said it was 2 weeks after the survey, and she had not been contacted about when works would be carried out to the property. The resident should not have needed to chase the landlord up again. The landlord should have been monitoring the outcome of appointments and taking the appropriate follow-up action in a timely manner. It should have communicated the next steps it had to take after the survey and the timescales involved to manage the resident’s expectations.
  26. The landlord replied on the same date saying it was arranging for access equipment and would get back to the resident when this had been arranged. Again, no timescale was given to the resident, so her expectations were not managed.
  27. A month later, on 17 May 2024, the resident chased the landlord again as she had not heard back from it. The resident stated it had now been 7 months since she had reported the reoccurrence of the leak and that she had still not received any repairs visits. She requested a timeline for when the repairs would be carried out and the damage fixed. The resident attached a video to her email and said that mould was now present. She reiterated that since the original leak in November 2022 that she had been prescribed an inhaler. The resident said that as mould can increase the chances of allergies and breathing conditions that she no longer allowed her son to access the living room. She said as the living room is open plan she was only accessing the area to use the oven.
  28. The landlord replied on the same date apologising that the problems had not been resolved. It asked for the resident to be contacted today with a timescale for the repairs, which it wanted to be prioritised. There was no evidence to show when the landlord contacted the resident and what information she was given.
  29. The resident chased the landlord again on 4 June 2024. She said a survey had occurred on 31 May 2024. The resident said the surveyor that attended had been given the wrong information and thought he was inspecting a balcony instead of the roof. The resident said this meant the surveyor had to check the property above and she wanted to know whether access for this had been successful. The resident said there had been no update on the whether the surveyor had been able to carry out his checks or about any works. This was 157 working days after the resident had reported the reoccurrence of the leak. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to show what, or if, the landlord replied.
  30. On 14 June 2024 the resident contacted the landlord. She explained again the effect the leak and the presence of mould was having on her health and the use of the room. The resident said her and her son had been isolated as she had not felt comfortable having people round due to the appearance of the property. She explained the stress and frustration caused by having to clear up the leak after heavy rainfall, repeatedly chasing up the landlord and the inconvenience of missed appointments. The resident said she had sent over 60 emails and had countless phone calls with the landlord. She said she was distressed by all of this.
  31. The landlord replied asking to visit so it could take photos and review the best way forward. The resident advised that she had already had 3 days off work for surveys and photos. An appointment was arranged for 19 June 2023. This appointment was 8 months after the resident reported the reoccurrence of the leak.
  32. The landlord contacted the resident on 21 June 2024. It advised her that it needed to arrange for somebody to provide an external survey via rope access so that it could fully understand the issue. The landlord said due to the height of the building it has not been possible to determine the issue from an internal survey of the flat. It said it was chasing a contractor for the date the rope access survey could take place. The landlord apologised that its recent attendance at the property had not resulted in an immediate repair and said it would treat this with the utmost urgency.
  33. On 24 June 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 response to complaint B. It reiterated what it had told the resident in its email of 21 June 2024 about a rope access survey. The landlord said where possible, the rope access team will try to carry out the repair at the same time as the survey, but it could not guarantee this.
  34. The evidence showed the rope access survey was carried out on 22 July 2024. The survey stated there were significant cracks in the top line of pointing where the damp proof membrane was situated at the top of the cavity wall. The survey said temporary repairs had been performed to prevent further damage until permanent repairs could be carried out. The repair was listed as needing 2 abseilers and a banksman for 2 days of work.
  35. The resident chased the landlord on 2 August 2024 to request an update about the rope access work. The landlord replied on 7 August 2024 stating that the rope access contractor was going to provide a quote for the work. It said it had chased the contractor stressing the urgency of needing the quote. Prior to updating the resident about this quote, the landlord had issued its stage 2 response to complaint B on 5 August 2024. It said there had been difficulties in dealing with the repair due to the height of the building and establishing the cause of the leak. The landlord acknowledged that it could have processed looking into the matter more efficiently and apologised for the inconvenience caused. While the landlord appropriately acknowledged it could have dealt with the repair more efficiently, it did not address the long length of time the matter was outstanding, the length of time it took to survey the property and the number of times the resident had to chase the landlord to progress the investigations and repair.
  36. The evidence showed the rope access contractor returned on 27 and 28 August 2024 to complete the work identified during the rope access survey. The report stated that all pointing cracks beneath the cavity wall had been widened, inside and outside of the balcony above the flat. It said the entire interior had been repointed and the top pointing line on the exterior had been completed. The report listed advisory work to be carried out which included a full inspection of the balcony above the resident’s property. It said this work would take another 2 days and would include removing the tiles, reinstallation and a water test in case the leak persists. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to show this advisory work was carried out.
  37. The resident reported damp in her property from the leak on 1 November 2023. She repeatedly referenced the damp in the property throughout her communications with the landlord. On 17 May 2024 the resident also told the landlord that mould was present in her property due to the damp. She told the landlord this again on 14 June 2024. Despite the landlord being aware of damp in the property from 1 November 2023 and mould being in the property from 17 May 2024, the landlord did not conduct a damp and mould inspection until 7 August 2024.
  38. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  39. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not carry out a damp and mould inspection sooner. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould states, “It is imperative that residents are not left living with damp and mould for an extended period” and “Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue”. The evidence showed the landlord did not act with urgency regarding this potential hazard at the resident’s property or the vulnerabilities that the resident had highlighted when explaining her and her son had started needing inhalers.
  40. On 16 June 2025 the resident advised the Ombudsman that there was still a leak in the same places in the living room when there was wet weather. The resident said she had chased the landlord again regarding this in January 2025. She said she was still waiting for a resolution to the problem. In preparation for speaking to the Ombudsman the resident had checked her online portal on 16 June 2025, and it showed an appointment had been scheduled for that day between 8am – 1pm. The resident said she had not been advised about this appointment and previous appointments had been continually rescheduled by the landlord. The resident said she is concerned about having another winter with leaks and damp. She is worried about the health implications of damp on her and her son’s health.
  41. The landlord awarded the resident £300 compensation in its stage 2 response for complaint A. However, £150 of this was for a previous communal issue for which it had offered £150 compensation to the resident and 3 of her neighbours.
  42. The landlord awarded the resident £530 compensation in its stage 2 response for complaint B. However, £60 of this was for matters not relating to its handling of the leak. Regarding the leak the landlord awarded £20 for missing repair reports, £100 for missed appointments and £350 for the cumulative effect the issues had on the resident’s physical and mental health and inconvenience. The compensation offered for these aspects was reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy. However, the compensation does not address the landlord’s handling of the leak which involved considerable delays to investigate the problem, delays to inspect the resultant damp and mould, a lack of ownership of the repair and the number of times the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord to progress the repair.
  43. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak at the property. This is because of the considerable delays to investigate the problem, delays to inspect the resultant damp and mould, a lack of ownership of the repair and the number of times the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord to progress the repair.
  44. To reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of a leak at the property, the landlord should award the resident £400 in compensation. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This compensation is in addition to the amount the landlord has already awarded the resident in its previous complaint responses.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states there are 2 stages to its complaints process. The policy states the landlord will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. On 10 December 2023 the resident advised the landlord about more missed appointments and the reoccurrence of the leak. She asked the landlord to log her email as a formal complaint. The resident chased the landlord on 19 December 2023 as she had not received a response to her request for another complaint to be logged. She chased the landlord about this again on 14 January 2023.
  3. It was not until 22 January 2024 that the landlord replied to the resident about her request to make a complaint. This was 27 working days after the resident contacted the landlord about logging another complaint. The resident should not have needed to repeatedly chase up the landlord. During this length of time, the resident would have expected to receive an acknowledgement and a stage 1 response.
  4. The landlord told the resident it would not log 2 complaints about the same issue. The Code states that “If a landlord decides not to accept a complaint, an explanation must be provided to the resident setting out the reasons why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process and the right to take that decision to the Ombudsman”. The landlord did not advise the resident of her right to contact the Ombudsman about this decision.
  5. The resident emailed the CEO on 5 March and 6 March 2024 expressing her dissatisfaction regarding a number of issues. These matters were logged as complaint B and addressed in the landlord’s stage 1 response for this complaint. The landlord correctly identified the resident’s emails as a complaint in line with the Code. However, records showed the landlord did not issue its acknowledgement for complaint B until 29 April 2024. This was considerably in excess of the 5 working days that the Code states complaint acknowledgements should be issued.
  6. This acknowledgement stated the resident would receive a stage 1 response for complaint B by 14 May 2024. However, on 17 May 2024, the resident chased the landlord for the response as she had not received it. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email but did not address her question about the outstanding stage 1 response. The resident contacted the landlord again on 4 June 2024 and asked for an update on her complaint. She advised the landlord the response was 3 weeks overdue and stated she had not received any contact about her complaint since raising it. The Code states that if the landlord needs an extension to the timescale for issuing a response it must inform the resident. The landlord did not do this.
  7. The Code also states that “Any extension must be no more than 10 working days without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident”. The landlord’s extension exceeded 10 working days, and it did not communicate with the resident regarding this.
  8. If a response to a complaint falls outside the timescales set out in the Code, the Code states “the landlord must agree with the resident suitable intervals for keeping them informed about their complaint”. The landlord did not do this.
  9. The resident chased the landlord for her stage 1 response to complaint B again on 21 June 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 June 2024. This was 38 working days after the landlord acknowledged the complaint. This was considerably in excess of the 10 working days that the Code states a stage 1 response should be issued. This delayed the resident being able to progress her complaint through the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, also delaying the resident being able to bring her complaint to this Service.
  10. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request for complaint B on 27 June 2024. It said the resident would receive a stage 2 response on or before 25 July 2024. This date was in line with the Code. However, the landlord did not meet this timeframe. The resident chased the landlord for the response on 26 July 2024. She said she had received no communication from the landlord about her complaint. The resident did not receive a reply and chased the landlord again on 1 August 2024. She repeated again that the deadline for a response had been missed, and she had received no communication. The resident stated she was “tired and exhausted” from continually chasing the landlord. The resident chased the landlord again for its response on 2 August 2024.
  11. The landlord issued its stage 2 response for complaint B on 5 August 2024. This was 27 working days after the landlord had acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. This was in excess of the 20 working days that the Code states a stage 2 response should be issued. This further delayed the resident being able to progress her complaint through the landlord’s complaints procedure and bring her complaint to the Ombudsman.
  12. In its stage 2 response to complaint B the landlord acknowledged the delay in issuing its response and that the resident had needed to chase it. The landlord awarded the resident £20 compensation for the delay she had experienced receiving the stage 2 response. It was appropriate to acknowledge the delay and award compensation for the delay in issuing its stage 2 response to complaint B. However, this amount of compensation was not sufficient to put things right for the other complaint handling failures identified in this report.
  13. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This is because of the delays the resident experienced in getting a reply to the complaint she made on 10 December 2023 and the delays she experienced throughout the complaints process for complaint B.
  14. To reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, the landlord should award the resident £150 in compensation in recognition of the delays experienced. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This compensation is in addition to the £20 the landlord has already awarded the resident in its stage 2 response for complaint B.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of a leak at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £550 to the resident. This amount is in addition to the compensation previously awarded by the landlord. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to her rent account. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with this order within 4 weeks of the date of this investigation report by submitting a copy of the remittance advice, or equivalent document, to this Service. The compensation is comprised of:
    1. £400 in respect of the landlord’s handling of a leak at the property.
    2. £150 in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with a copy of a recent inspection report regarding the leak and associated damage. The inspection must have been undertaken within the last 4 weeks, or another inspection will be required. The inspection and any remedial work required must be completed and evidenced within 8 weeks of the date of this investigation report.
  3. If not already done so, the landlord must complete the advisory work stated on the rope access contractor’s report from the visit on 27 and 28 August 2024. Within 4 weeks of the date of this investigation report, the landlord must have commissioned the contractor to carry out this work. The landlord must provide evidence it has complied with this order by showing emails between the landlord and contractor or a work order to show this work has been requested within 4 weeks of the date of this investigation report.
  4. The landlord must allocate one named staff member to be the point of contact for the resident regarding the investigations and repair work. This staff member must coordinate the work to ensure there is minimal disruption to the household and to ensure the resident is kept up to date. The landlord must email the resident the contact details of this named staff member and their working hours within 2 weeks of the date of this investigation report. This must be evidenced by sending the Ombudsman a copy of the email it has sent the resident within 2 weeks of the date of this investigation report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to review the information it has on file about the vulnerabilities of the household as the resident has referenced the use of inhalers in her communication to the landlord.