Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202208013)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208013

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

13 December 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a leak affecting the property, including the time taken to complete repairs.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

The resident is a shared owner of the property which is managed by the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a first floor flat. The resident moved into the property on 8 November 2016.
On 24 February 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and reported that rainwater was leaking into his bedroom and living room via the flat roof of the bay windows.
On 16 March 2022 a contractor attended the resident’s property and determined that there was a broken vent. It also confirmed that there were signs of water ingress inside the property and that it needed to access the windows and reveals to inspect how the water was getting in. The contractor said that it could access the windows with a 3 run ladder, but needed the scaffolding, which was in place, to be taken down.
On 17 March 2023 the contractor emailed the landlord and confirmed that it was unable to complete the works as there was scaffolding in use from a different contractor and therefore could not access the window. It asked the landlord to reraise a works order once the scaffolding had been taken down.
On 20 and 24 May the resident contacted the landlord and chased it for an update. When no response was received, on 30 May 2022 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint, where he said:
1. He was unhappy at the lack of progress that had been made to repair the leak, which he reported in February 2022.
2. He had contacted the landlord multiple times, but had not heard back.
3. That as a result of the water damage, mould had started to form within his home and he was concerned about the impact on his health.
On 31 May 2022 the landlord sent the resident a stage 1 acknowledgement and said it would provide a response within 10 working days.
On 17, 20 and 21 June 2022 the resident chased the landlord for an update. On 22 June 2022 the landlord contacted the resident and informed him that there was confusion over who was managing the works and would chase the relevant staff member for an update.
On 25 July 2022 the landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 response, where it apologised for the delay in responding to his complaint. The landlord said it which was as result of miscommunication about who was dealing with the issue. The response said that:
1. The repairs contractor determined that scaffolding was required and that a separate scaffolding contractor was attending on 25 July 2022 to do this.
2. The repairs contractor would then contact the resident to book in the works needed.
3. If the resident had any internal damage to the property then he would need to contact his own contents insurance.
4. It upheld the complaint due to poor communication and unacceptable delays and offered the resident a total of £300 compensation.
On 1 August 2022 the resident chased the landlord for an update and said that mould was continuing to spread within his property. On 3 August 2022 the landlord responded and said that the scaffolding had been erected and that the contractor would attend on 12 August 2022.
On 15 August 2022 the resident contacted the landlord again asking for an update, as the contractor who attended on 12 August 2022 had not completed the repair because it did not have the right materials. The resident also said that the works order that had been raised did not cover the full extent of the repairs required as there was a water leak in his front room and water damage to the interior window bay.
On 3 September 2022 the resident contacted the Ombudsman as he had not heard from the landlord, the contractor did not attend on 2 September 2022, as planned, and that the repair remained outstanding. The Service contacted the landlord on the same day and requested that it escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2.
On 19 September 2022 the resident contacted the landlord again for an update as he had not been contacted, he further requested to escalate his complaint due to the lack of communication and resolution.
On 22 September the landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 response which said:
1. A repair had been raised to replace a vent cover, and although the contractor attended on 12 August 2022 it needed a part in order to complete.
2. It acknowledged that it missed 2 appointments on 2 and 5 September, and that the job was closed in error which resulted in a further delay. The vent was fitted on 21 September 2022.
3. It upheld the complaint and offered £60 compensation for the missed appointments.
In November and December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord on numerous occasions and informed it that the leak remained unresolved. He said that water was still leaking into his property and that mould was continuing to spread.
On 22 December 2022 the resident contacted the Ombudsman and confirmed that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response as he felt the landlord had continued to stall on the mutually agreed repairs, which resulted in continued structural damage to his property and the growth of black mould.
As a result of the resident’s communications, on 23 December 2022 the landlord arranged for a specialist company to attend the resident’s property on 4 January 2023 to inspect the leak. The specialist contractor reported that it was their initial opinion that the issue was likely to be associated with rainwater ingress, and possibly aligned to the detailing of the balcony above. It recommended an invasive review of the exterior wall structure and associated balcony detail to clearly understand the ‘wetting mechanism’.
On 19 January 2023 the landlord arranged for a contractor to attend and repair the leak on 9 February 2023. The contractor attended and applied a mould wash and stain blocked the interior walls within the property but did not find any evidence of a leak as the walls were dry.
On 27 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and requested an update regarding the leak. He asked the landlord to provide him with a plan on what it was going to do in order to repair the leak and the damage to his property.
On 31 May 2023 the resident chased the landlord’s complaint team as he had not received a response from his email in February 2023. The complaints team responded on 1 June 2023 and informed him that it could not check the status of the repair and he should contact the repair team.
On 2 June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again and informed it that the leak had returned and provided pictures. The landlord raised a further repair on the same day for an operative to attend, trace and repair the leak. It is not clear whether the leak has been rectified.
In November 2023 the resident informed the Ombudsman that the repair remains outstanding. A contractor visited on 22 September 2023, but said it would need to return to complete further investigations. To date the resident has not received any further updates.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of leak a affecting the property, including the time taken to complete repairs.

The resident’s repair responsibilities as a shared owner, and the landlord’s repair responsibilities as the freeholder, are set out in the resident’s shared ownership lease agreement. The agreement states that it is the resident’s responsibility to keep his flat, including any fixtures and fittings “within and/or exclusively serving” it, clean and in good repair and condition.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a legal duty on landlords to make full, effective and lasting repairs, once it is given notice of disrepair. This duty includes repairs to drains, gutters and external pipes, amongst other components.
The landlord’s responsibilities include repairing and keeping in good order and condition the exterior walls, the roof structure, gutters and rainwater pipes, and window frames. It is not in dispute that the landlord was responsible for completing repairs to stop the water getting into the property, which were reported by the resident.
The resident is responsible for internal repairs, however, the landlord should ensure that external, structural issues are not contributing to damp and mould. As a result, when the resident reported damp and mould in his property due to a leak, the landlord was obliged to investigate the issue and complete any identified repairs that were its responsibility. Aside from the visit in February 2023, there is no evidence that it did this.
It is clear from the evidence that the landlord was made aware that a leak was affecting the property from 24 February 2022. Despite numerous communications from the resident, the repairs remain outstanding. This is an unreasonable length of time, particularly given the impact on the resident whose home was affected by water penetration and mould in two rooms including the main living area (the lounge and bedroom). The resident complained of the inconvenience of dealing with the leaks; his concerns over mould forming in his property and the inconvenience of having to continually chase the landlord for a response.
During this period, the landlord did make attempts to arrange the repairs. It promptly raised a repair to its contractor on 24 February 2022, and an appointment was booked for 16 March 2022. They attended the property but no works were carried out at that stage due to an issue with existing scaffolding. The contractor appropriately reported back to the landlord that there was a broken vent, and it needed access to the windows and reveals to inspect where water was coming in from. However, it could not complete any of the works until the scaffolding was taken down.
Based on the information provided, the landlord failed to take any action. This prompted the resident to contact the landlord for an update on 20 May 2022. As the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s email, he raised the stage 1 complaint 10 days later about the alack of progress with the repair, the landlord’s communication and his concern about the mould which was forming and the possible health implications.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 response it acknowledged that there had been issues with communication and a lack of ownership of who was dealing with his complaint and offered the resident compensation for the delay and poor service. However, it did not put in place an action plan to ensure the repairs were then completed in a timely manner.
The landlord also gave incorrect information when it stated that any internal damage should be referred to his contents insurance. While this may have been right had there not been service failure, the Ombudsman would have expected in this scenario, to see the resident being signposted to the landlord’s own insurance. The resident would have been able to make a claim for damages caused by defects that the landlord was reasonable for and failed to remedy within a reasonable timeframe.
There is evidence that the contractor arranged to replace the broken vent, but the resident experienced further unnecessary delays and inconvenience due to an issue with materials. This resulted in appointments being arranged when the materials were not available, and it was not until 21 September 2022 that the broken vent was eventually replaced.
While the stage 1 and 2 investigations focused on the landlord’s handling of the broken vent, the investigations failed to identify that the contractor’s visit in March 2022 identified that an inspection of the window reveals was also required. This led to the resident continuing to experience water leaks as well as continued mould growth within his home, which he continued to report to the landlord.
The resident made numerous attempts to obtain an answer from the landlord about what steps it would take to repair the ongoing leak. It took the landlord 10 months for it to take further steps, in December 2022, to investigate the source and appoint a specialist contractor to attend. Had the landlord took action sooner it may have identified the cause earlier, and the resident would not have experienced the distress, inconvenience and delays that he did in trying to obtain a resolution.
Following the independent inspection, which identified that the leak was associated with rain water ingress and recommended that an invasive review of the exterior wall structure and balcony is carried out, the landlord raised an order for a contractor to attend and find the source of the leak in February 2023.
While these are positive steps, the order simply asked the contractor to track and trace the leak. It is not clear whether the report was shared with the contractor, as the repair log stated that the operative did not find the source, but did carry out a mould wash to the affected internal area. No further information has been provided to show what investigative work was carried out by the contractor to try and find the leak, and therefore was a further missed opportunity for the landlord to try and identify the case of the water ingress and repair any defects identified.
The landlord again failed to follow up with the resident and check whether the leak had been rectified. This led to the resident once again having to contact the landlord in February, May and June 2023 and confirm that the leak had not been fixed and that his property was still being affected.
It is acknowledged that leaks and subsequent damp and mould can take more than one inspection or repair attempt to resolve as there can be several potential causes. It seems that the leak may have been intermittent, as the records show it was that there were sometimes breaks in the resident chasing the landlord, which can also cause delays in identifying the cause. However, in this case, the delays have been excessive as the issue was ongoing for over 18 months. There is also no evidence to show that the landlord made any attempt to inspect the damp and mould within the resident’s property.
Overall, there has been a distinct lack of progress in the repairs and the landlord failed to complete the identified repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord also failed to keep the resident updated or make meaningful attempts to reduce the impact of the issues. The landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to its failings and the impact on the resident.
Furthermore, there is evidence that shows that there was a lack of ownership with regards to the resident’s repair and complaint, such as when the resident emailed the specialist customer experience specialist for an update on his repair, he received a response which said ‘Sorry, I’m not able to check on repairs, you can call our repairs hub for more information or email’. It is concerning that such specialist teams were not able to assist the resident, who was already frustrated by the lack of communication.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that for prolonged service failure or loss of facilities resulting in severe disruption or inconvenience payment of between £100 and £500 should be made.
In accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance, awards of above £600 are appropriate in cases where there is a single significant failure in service which have had a detrimental impact on the resident, and the landlord has failed to provide a service, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In this case, the landlord offered £260 to the resident due to its communication failings but did not acknowledge its failings to progress the repair. It also failed to fully acknowledge that the resident was living within a property which had mould growing as a result of the landlord’s failure to repair the leak. Furthermore, the leak remains outstanding and the landlord has not taken steps to try and repair this within a reasonable timeframe. As a result, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £800 compensation, bringing the total compensation to £1060, including the landlord’s earlier offer.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint policy, dated September 2022, states that it operates a 2 stage complaint process. It states that at stage 1, it will agree a resolution with the resident within 10 working days. If the resident escalates a complaint to stage 2, then a response will be provided within 20 working days.
The policy also states that regular updates, even without a definitive outcome, will be provided where possible to help resident’s feel reassured and that someone is working on their behalf to put things right. It further states that a complaint will not be closed until all outstanding actions are completed.
When the resident raised a stage 1 complaint, the landlord acknowledged the complaint the next working day and said it would provide him with a response within 10 working days. However, it did not provide a response until 25 July 2022. There is evidence to show that the landlord was investigating the complaint internally, but it failed to communicate this to the resident. This led to the resident having to chase the landlord for an update on multiple occasions.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint appropriately acknowledged that there had been service failure regarding its delay in providing a stage 1 response and offered £100 in an effort to put things right. However, as previously noted, the landlord did not have a robust process in place to follow through and monitor the works that were needed.
Had the landlord had a robust system in place to ensure that the works were completed within a timely manner, the resident may not have had cause to escalate his complaint to the Ombudsman.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 3 September 2022, which the landlord failed to acknowledge. He again requested his complaint be escalated on 19 September 2022. The landlord did not acknowledge this, and although it provided a response 3 days later, there is no evidence to show that it contacted him in order to determine his complaint, or the impact that this was having on him.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states the landlord is expected to address all points raised by the resident in a complaint and provide clear reasons for its decisions. As the landlord failed to make contact with the resident and understand his full complaint, namely that the leak was causing mould to form, it missed a vital opportunity to put things right for the resident quickly.
The resident was having to continually chase the landlord for a response to his stage 1 complaint, and it took 56 days for the landlord to respond. Furthermore, the landlord also failed to acknowledge the resident stage 2 complaint and on both occasions failed to follow up and ensure that the works it had arranged fixed the leak. Therefore it failed to follow its own policy when dealing with the resident’s complaint.
The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation; however, this does not reflect the level of distress and inconvenience and time and trouble the resident experienced as a result of the landlord’s actions. As a result, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £200 compensation, bringing the total compensation to £300, including the landlord’s earlier offer.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks affecting the property, including the time taken to complete repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to provide a written apology within 4 weeks of the date of this report for the failings identified.

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £1360, which includes its earlier offer, within 4 weeks of the date of this report which is made up of:
1. £1060 for distress and inconvenience for the delay the resident experienced regarding identifying and repairing the leak.
2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience for the complaint handling.
3. Compensation for any internal repairs required due to damage caused by the leak and signpost the resident to make a claim through its insurance provider for damage to household items.
Within 6 weeks, the landlord is ordered to carry out a full inspection to the building to identify all points of water ingress, as well as a further damp inspection to the resident’s property. Within 6 weeks of the date of the inspection, the landlord should complete all repairs identified as required by the survey. If it is not possible to do this it must write to the resident with a plan of when it will be able to complete the repairs.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord shares the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code with its staff members who deal with complaints in order to ensure that complaints are responded to in line with best practice.
It is also recommended that the landlord introduce a process whereby complaints are followed up to ensure the issues identified are completed within a satisfactory timeframe.