Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202006266)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006266

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

10 May 2022

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:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be reimbursed for fittings he purchased for his windows.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident (who is an assured tenant) wrote to the landlord on 6 July 2020 to inform it that the window fittings in his property had broken, and that he had bought and installed new ones as a replacement. He asked for £31.02 as reimbursement for the fittings, explaining that he was aware it was the landlord’s responsibility to replace them, yet, due to predicted windy weather, he wanted to have them fixed quickly. The landlord explained that it would not be able to reimburse him and asked that he return the fittings to their original state.
3. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 7 July 2020, in which he outlined his reasoning for carrying out the repair himself. He noted that due to the ongoing pandemic he thought it was better to carry out the repair himself. He also reiterated his view that the landlord should reimburse him for the costs he had incurred. The landlord responded to the complaint on 14 July 2020, upholding its previous decision not to reimburse the resident’s costs. It explained that, whilst it understood the resident’s reasoning, it would have carried out the repair had he reported the issue to it.
4. The resident requested to escalate his complaint on 12 August 2020. The landlord refused this request the following day. The resident then brought his case to the Ombudsman. The landlord was given further opportunity to respond at stage two of its internal complaints procedure and this culminated in the final response of6 April 2021 in which the landlord upheld its original decision. On 29 October 2021, following further interaction with this Service, the landlord offered to reimburse the resident’s costs for the windows.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

5. Section 5.1 of the landlord’s complaints policy outlines the landlord’s two-stage complaints procedure. Section 6.1 of the complaints policy outlines the response timescales for complaints. It gives a ten-day response time.
6. Section 2.4.19 (iii) of the tenancy agreement lists window catches as a responsibility for the landlord to maintain and repair. Section 3.11 of the tenancy agreement instructs the resident to ‘report to the Trust…promptly any disrepair or defect for which the trust is responsible in the premises’.
7. Section 4.6 of the tenancy agreement states that the resident may make improvements to the premises ‘provided that the tenant has first obtained written consent of the Trust and all other necessary approvals’.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be reimbursed for the fittings they purchased for their windows

8. On 6 July 2020, the resident informed the landlord that window fittings in the property had broken and that he had ordered new ones online which he intended to fit himself. The resident said that it saved the cost of using a contractor and that it kept things safe in regard to the pandemic. The resident also attached a receipt of the purchase and requested the £31.02 to be reimbursed by the landlord.
9. The landlord responded the following day and explained that it would not be able to reimburse the cost, as repairs such as this fall within the responsibility of the landlord and its contractors to fix. This is supported by section 2.4.19 (iii) of the tenancy agreement which states that window catches are a responsibility of the landlord to maintain and repair. The landlord also rightly pointed out that ‘it may have future impact on any repairs that would need doing in the future in the same area’. It further explained that ‘if these needed replacing again, or there was an issue with the same area that we found affected by these new fittings, they would unfortunately fall under [the resident’s] responsibility to repair and pay for’. The landlord rightly set out its stance on the issue and clearly explained its reasoning.
10. The resident submitted his complaint on the same day (7 July 2020). The resident explained that he believed he had set out good reasons as to why he felt it was appropriate for him to carry out the repair himself. He also reiterated that due to the pandemic, he felt it was better for him to do the repair. The resident said that it was an essential repair and that it needed to be issued quickly as windy weather was predicted. He also referred to a previous repair that the landlord had (in the resident’s view) not done in time and suggested that he did not want this to be the case regarding the repair of the windows.
11. The landlord offered its formal response on 14 July 2020. It explained that it had investigated the issue and that it stood by its initial conclusion and refused reimbursement. It addressed the resident’s concerns regarding the pandemic and explained that its contractors were provided with full PPE and are ‘equipped to perform any repairs with all safety measures covered’. The landlord also reiterated that had the resident reported the repair, it would have sent contractors to fix the issue.
12. The landlord’s decision to refuse the resident’s request for reimbursement of the costs he had incurred was both reasonable and appropriate. The landlord had not been notified that the window latches were in need of repair. Section 3.11 of the tenancy agreement instructs the resident to ‘report to the Trust… promptly any disrepair or defect for which the trust is responsible in the premises’. The resident only notified the landlord once he had already bought and fitted the new window latches. The resident also explained in his initial request for reimbursement that ‘[he understands] that [the landlord is] responsible for the upkeep of fixtures and fittings’. Therefore, the resident did not follow this aspect of the tenancy agreement, resulting in a situation whereby the landlord had not been given the opportunity to fulfil its repair responsibilities.
13. In addition, the landlord has since exercised reasonable discretion and offered to reimburse the cost of the window latches. By consequence, the resident has now received his desired outcome from the complaint he originally submitted. As such, a finding of no maladministration has been found in respect of this aspect of the complaint.
14. The resident’s concerns that the landlord had not inspected the fittings he installed has been noted. Given the circumstances of the case, it is recommended that the landlord arrange to inspect these fittings, or at least clarify why it does not believe such an inspection is required. This will provide reassurance to the resident about the reliability and durability of these fittings and will enable this issue to proceed to a full resolution.

Landlord’s complaint handling

15. The resident issued his stage one complaint to the landlord on 7 July 2020. Section 6.1 of the landlord’s complaints policy states that a formal response must be issued within ten days. The landlord complied with this and gave its response on 14 July 2021. It addressed all aspects of the resident’s stage one complaint by confirming that its contractors are issued with full PPE and by explaining its stance on the resident’s request for reimbursement.
16. On 12 August 2020, the resident said that he would like his complaint to be escalated to stage two. The landlord responded the following day, explaining that it would not be escalating the complaint, though it understood the resident’s point of view regarding his reasoning for wanting to do the repair himself. The landlord’s response did not clarify however, that this amounted to its final response under its complaints process; nor did the response signpost the resident to this Service in the event that he remained dissatisfied.
17. The resident brought his complaint to this Service in September 2020 as he understood that the landlord’s internal complaints procedure had been completed. The landlord responded to an Ombudsman request that it make contact with the resident in respect of his complaint by way of an email to this Service dated 8 October 2020. The landlord said that it had two open complaints for the resident, one of which awaited information being sent through to the Ombudsman, and another which sat at stage two of its complaints process.
18. Having reviewed this correspondence, it is apparent that this Service confused the two complaints with one another. As such, the Ombudsman proceeded on the mistaken basis that the complaint under investigation was at stage two of the landlord’s complaint process and that a stage two response would therefore be sent to the resident in due course.
19. The resident contacted the Ombudsman in November 2020, stating his dissatisfaction that the landlord had not responded to him through its complaints process. However, this Service did not address these concerns until 6 March 2021, when it contacted both parties and explained that the case awaited a stage two response. The landlord responded to the Ombudsman’s requests, culminating in the final response sent on 6 April 2021, which upheld the original decision not to reimburse costs and explained that its position as outlined in its earlier responses had been correct.
20. In his correspondence with this Service, the resident made clear that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s initial refusal to reimburse his costs, its decision to refuse escalation of the complaint and the subsequent delay in completing the complaints process.
21. In respect to the complaints handling issues raised by the resident, landlords are entitled to exclude complaints from escalation in some circumstances, though it is expected that such decisions are clearly explained to the complainant, with further options provided. In this case, the landlord provided its reasoning for refusing to escalate, though it did not clarify that this amounted to a final response and nor did it signpost to this Service. Such actions would have conveyed the clear message that the complaints process was complete and their absence therefore contributed to the subsequent confusion and delay in completing this process.
22. Whilst there are concerns over the landlord’s communication, these are not sufficient to warrant an overall finding of maladministration on this case. The Ombudsman accepts that there was a significant delay in progressing the case between October 2020 and March 2021, though this was primarily on account of the failure of this Service to respond to correspondence from both parties. As such, it is not considered reasonable or proportionate to place overall responsibility for this delay on the landlord. Having received the Ombudsman’s further communication in March 2021, the landlord responded promptly, resulting in the final response of 6 April 2021.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:

1. No maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be reimbursed for fittings he had purchased for his windows.
2. No maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

24. The landlord to ensure that it clarify when a complaint response amounts to a final response under its complaints process and to ensure that such responses signpost complainants to this Service in the event that they remain dissatisfied.
25. The landlord to either inspect the window fittings installed by the resident or clarify to him why it does not believe such an inspection is required.