Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202223594)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223594

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

29 September 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 management and handling of:
1. Repairs to address a roof leak and damp and mould in the property.
2. The resident’s request for window reglazing in the property.
3. Requests to reposition the gas meter due to concerns about heating costs.
4. The resident’s request for information about the level of rent being charged for the property.
This report also looks at the landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s complaints.

Background

The resident lives in a first-floor bedsit in a block owned and managed by the landlord. The property was let under a fixed term tenancy agreement in December 2019.
The landlord does not record any vulnerabilities for the resident but has noted that the resident is asthmatic.
The resident’s gas meter is located behind a heavy plant pot located beneath foliage at the rear of a flower bed in her neighbour’s front garden which is inaccessible.
The resident’s property is located in a designated conservation area which is subject to planning permissions “for the preservation of architectural quality.”
Paragraph 35(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “a complaint is duly made when it has exhausted, or the Ombudsman has decided it has exhausted, the members internal process for considering complaints”. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 3 February 2022.
This service asked the landlord to provide evidence related to this investigation to assist with the assessment and determination. However, the information it provided contained evidence of activity that goes beyond its final stage 2 complaint response, and therefore beyond the scope of this investigation.
It is, however, prudent for some elements of the additional evidence to be considered and referenced in the report; where it provides clarity on activity that is within the scope of this report. Where this occurs it is noted

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s housing complaints policy states it operates a 2-stage complaint process where stage one complaints will be responded to within 10 working days and stage two complaints within 15 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states:
1. It will pay compensation if it has failed to meet its service targets, not acted reasonably or a tenant has been unable to use a room in their home.
2. Compensation will reflect the level of inconvenience, disturbance, stress of annoyance suffered, and the time taken to resolve the problem.
3. Compensation values will be assessed using a table of costs related to three levels of impact (low, medium, and high).
4. If a room is not habitable because of disrepair a guideline compensation payment of £20 per week will be paid for a bedroom or living room and £50 per week for a kitchen or bathroom.
The landlord’s maintenance policy states:
1. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property and for repairing the structure of the property to eradicate penetrating damp.
2. The resident is responsible for taking action to prevent and control condensation, keeping the property properly ventilated and free from moisture which includes mould treatment.
3. A minimum lettable standard applies to all empty properties which ensures:
  1. The property has an adequate and safe form of heating.
  2. Gas safety checks are completed to boilers, radiators, and thermostats.
  3. Electricity and gas supplies are disconnected and recommissioned when a utility provider is arranged.
  4. Walls and ceilings will be free from damp.
  5. Any room which is in a very poor state of decoration, due to mould growth will be redecorated.
  6. The roof will be safe, secure, and free of leaks.
  7. The roof, windows and brickwork will be wind and watertight.
4. Emergency repairs are attended within 4 hours and completed within 24 hours.
5. Non-emergency repairs are completed within 15 days, and this includes leaking roofs, minor plumbing repairs, repairs to windows, external repairs to walls.
6. Some repairs are carried out as part of a planned programme; planned repairs are outside the responsive repair priorities.
7. A Better Homes standard will:
  1. Include installing double glazed windows when undertaking window replacements.
  2. Comply with local authority planning requirements and building control approvals.
8. Where planning and conservation rules allow, windows are replaced with either Upvc or aluminium powder coated double glazed windows.
The landlord’s guide to condensation, mould, and damp states it will arrange for a surveyor to respond to a report of mould or damp within 5 days and complete works within 4 weeks.

Summary of events

The resident emailed the landlord on 22 and 23 January 2020 about high heating costs related to the void period and the location of the gas meter. The landlord replied to the resident on 24 January 2021 stating the issue with the meter would be followed up.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 February 2020 to report repairs related to the relocation of her gas meter. She emailed the landlord again on 20 February 2020 asking the landlord to review her application to move the gas meter.
On 12 February 2021, the landlord made notes on its housing database related to repairs to 3 windows which it described as rotten and breaking. The landlord subsequently raised a works order the same day to “attend and inspect windows in property as tenant states in bad condition and advise what can be done to resolve issue.”
The landlord attended the resident’s home on 25 February 2021 to inspect the windows and subsequently noted, “new works order for either the windows to be renewed to double glazed or metal casing to be put up on all windows, total of 5, three in bad condition.”
The landlord’s surveyor visited the resident’s property on 4 June 2021 and identified “multiple issues”.
The landlord made notes of a conversation it held with the resident on 29 June 2021 which said it could not locate any logged repairs following the surveyor’s inspection on 4 June 2021. The landlord subsequently made notes on its database on 29 June 2021 that confirmed it had raised a works order to repair the sash windows.
The resident emailed a photograph of mould in the kitchen to the landlord on 29 June 2021 and reported a leak in the kitchen. The landlord booked an appointment for an operative to attend and repair the property 15 days later, on 19 July 2021. The works order said that the resident believed the leak was coming from the roof and travelling down the walls.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 July 2021 stating:
1. A huge area of the wall was damp and getting worse and she could see black mould underneath.
2. There was long term damage from before her time, that the landlord painted over and did not tell her.
3. It was a massive threat to her health as an asthma sufferer.
4. The landlord should call her as the matter was urgent.
The landlord raised a communal works order on 21 July 2021 to check the roof for leaks entering a neighbouring property. The repair was completed on 12 August 2021 during which the landlord noted scaffolding was required to inspect the guttering and ledge above the window.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 22 July 2021 related to the leak the resident reported on 29 June 2021. The landlord noted someone needed to arrange access through the neighbour’s property to access to the back garden so it could take a scaffolding picture or see if it could take a ladder through.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 July 2021 stating:
1. She had contacted it on numerous occasions, but no one had emailed or called her.
2. The black mould that was painted over in her kitchen in 2020 before she moved into her flat had become worse, and her health was being affected.
3. She had obtained got a quote to remove it the mould which totalled £730 but said she couldn’t afford to remove something the landlord was responsible for.
The landlord completed a property inspection on 3 August 2021 to respond to reports of damp and mould that the resident posted on social media and a report she made to the landlord on an undisclosed date that said rain was coming in through the bricks.
The landlord raised a communal works order on 9 August 2021 to address water ingress into the property.
The landlord raised a works order on 11 August 2021 to wash mould on the kitchen wall caused by water ingress. The landlord completed the works on 2 September 2021.
The landlord completed a property inspection on 12 October 2021 to respond to reports of a leak affecting properties in the block. The landlord made follow on notes on the works order that said works were raised to hack off plaster in the lounge due to water coming through from the property above. The landlord said a job could be raised to make good the resident’s property if the leak from the property above had stopped.
The landlord’s tenancy sustainment team sent a stage one complaint on behalf of the resident on 22 October 2021. The complaint said:
1. The resident did not qualify for assistance with benefits.
2. The resident had questioned why her rent was higher than her neighbours’ who had bigger properties.
3. The resident had repairs issues that were not being addressed. These were listed as:
  1. Black mould in the kitchen which started in March 2021.
  2. Leaks into the kitchen when it rained.
  3. Single glazed sash windows that let out the heat causing high energy bills.
4. The resident advised she did not wish to move but wanted the repairs and rent matters raised addressed.
The landlord sent an internal email on 25 October 2021 about the resident’s rent figure. The landlord said rent related to the type of tenancy, when the property was let, and when the resident’s neighbours took up occupation in their homes. The landlord said it could provide information about the tenancy but not “how the decision is reached to charge a particular rent.”
The landlord made notes on its housing database on 4 November 2021 that said there was a large issue at the block with a leak affecting several properties. The notes said visits had been made and the contractor was arranging works. Once the leak was resolved a mould wash repair would be raised which was explained to the resident.
The landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 4 November 2021. The response said:
1. It did not have control over rent setting, and it was not unusual for rents to differ.
2. There were a number of factors that caused different rents such as when a property was let, the use of social or affordable rents, the time of re-let, the length of time at the property and the types of tenancy held.
3. An outside company that specialised in leak detection had attended the property and identified works required to repoint the front elevation to the building, the flat roof and a down pipe, which was causing the leak.
4. These works orders were “in hand and I will query an appointment date and inform you once the date has been confirmed.”
5. When the leak was resolved, it would raise a mould wash works order to clear the mould in the property which was caused by the leak.
6. Windows were due to be renewed in 2023.
7. The building was in a conservation area and as a period building on the main road it would not be able to change to double glazed windows because “they will want to maintain the street scene.”
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 November 2021. The resident:
1. Said she had received a letter on 4 November 2021 which was supposed to be a complaint response but was filled with incorrect information and no actual solution.
2. Said she had to wait a year to fix the roof and “no one can even fix the damn leaks in the house.”
3. Clarified the leak was not from her ceiling but coming through the wall which she said she had said 100 times.
4. Reported black mould which affected her health and that the landlord had cleaned once.
5. Said the landlord’s offer to clean the black mould when the leak was fixed was not helpful and not a solution.
6. Advised that a surveyor had looked at the property a few times, but months on there was still no fix for the back and side of the house. The resident said, “why not – I reported this back in March.”
7. Said she had been asking for double glazing for windows for over a year as British Gas was charging her more than her rent, which she said was also too high.
8. Said her flat was freezing cold, and this affected her health.
9. Said “claims the landlord won’t fix the windows as it will ruin the street view is absolute bull****, all my neighbours have plastic windows at the front and my flat is at the back,.” She also said that the contractor hadn’t bothered to check this, and her windows need double glazing.
The resident emailed the landlord on again 16 November 2021 stating, “It’s funny how the [enquiries email] doesn’t work yet it’s on all your letter head paper which you send to tenants.”
The landlord sent an internal email on 16 November 2021 requesting a call was made to the resident to discuss matters that were raised via social media.
The landlord sent an internal email on 16 November 2021 summarising a phone call it held with the resident. The email said:
1. No works had been raised and the resident’s downpipe was still blocked causing a leak into her property leading to dark black mould.
2. The resident suffered from asthma and was worried about this.
3. The resident had been using a mould wash to clean and limit the mould, so it didn’t urgently need rectifying.
4. Every time it rained there was a leak, which had still not been repaired,
5. The leaks had been ongoing since March 2021.
6. The resident had requested double glazing and advised the windows were at the back of the block and therefore wouldn’t ruin the street view.
7. The property got very cold and was difficult to warm up as the windows were only single glazed.
8. The resident was paying a lot of rent for a studio flat, and the rent on a 1-bedroom flat was less, she had queried this before and could never get an answer.
The landlord recorded notes on its housing database on 29 November 2021 that said:
1. It spoke with the resident and explained that windows would not be due for review until 2023.
2. The property was within a conservation area and was of period character and Upvc windows could not be fitted as this would contravene planning law.
3. Many homes within the area had similar single glazed box sash windows and she was not singled out.
4. It was working toward a “carbon neutral 2050” target and one of the elements was renewing all single glazed homes.
5. It would need to work with local authorities and seek planning approval.
6. The resident did not accept this outcome.
The landlord raised a communal works order on 8 December 2021 to erect scaffold to the rear of a neighbouring flat for works needed to the roof.
The landlord raised a works order on 10 December 2021 to source and rectify a leak in the kitchen from the ceiling which was causing mould. The landlord also made notes on its housing database the same day which said black mould in the kitchen started in March 2021, and progressed into the kitchen which leaked whenever there was heavy rain. The resident believed the leak came from a corner of the ceiling but there was no obvious hole.
On 5 January 2022, the resident emailed her councillor about her housing circumstances, the gas meter and bills, outstanding repairs, window reglazing and leaks.
The councillor emailed the resident on 6 January 2022 asking a series of questions to understand more clearly the resident’s concerns. The councillor also said “being in a conservation area does not preclude having double glazing. It means that the property owner would need to apply for planning permission and the replacements may have to adhere to particular specifications.”
The resident sent an email to the councillor on 6 January 2022. The resident provided a timeline of her contact with the landlord between January 2020 and January 2022 which contained 53 entries of approximate dates for emails and visits related to leaks, window repairs, damp and mould, insulation, and gas meter and heating costs. The resident also said:
1. She provided a couple of gas meter readings to the utility provider; the rest were estimated.
2. The location of the meters was difficult to access.
3. No one had got back to her about the gas meter being moved, the continuous leak in her kitchen and recurring black mould.
4. Scaffolding had never been put up in the back of the house.
5. No one cleaned the communal areas or attempted to address the insulation issues with the windows.
6. The gas utility provider tried to charge her an extra £300 because this was what she used.
7. Another provider looked at the property and became suspicious that the usage was not just her own, which was why she had tried to get the gas meter moved in 2020.
8. Not having double glazing was a factor in her high energy bills,
9. She was told she was in a conservation area and not allowed double glazing as it ruins street views.
10. She was at the back of the building with no street view, yet her neighbours had double glazing. The neighbours were “told they weren’t allowed this but have it anyway.”
11. The person who spoke to her was very rude and went quiet every time she asked, ‘is it just me who is not allowed double glazing’”.
12. Nothing was resolved.
The landlord issued a stage two acknowledgement letter to the resident on 7 January 2022. The landlord said it would respond to the complaint within 15 working days.
The landlord sent an internal email on 7 January 2022 to obtain information about the resident’s complaint from staff within the organisation.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 12 January 2022 related to water ingress works order it raised on 10 December 2021. The landlord noted it had spoken to the resident and the repair wasn’t a plumbing issue but was a structural issue. Further that it needed to arrange for scaffolding and a bricklayer to attend because damp and water were getting through the brickwork when it rained.
The landlord visited the property on 12 January 2022 to “review the gas meter and gas pipework installation due to the resident being charged for gas in neighbouring flats”. The landlord stored a photograph of the meter and recorded notes following the inspection that said:
1. It located the resident’s gas meter outside her property, but all other gas meters were inside resident properties.
2. The resident’s meter reading was the same as a reading the supplier estimated 2 months previously.
3. It suspected the reason for the resident’s high bills was because they were always estimated and so the resident should speak to her supplier.
The landlord sent internal emails on 18 January 2022 and 21 January 2022 to obtain information related to its handling of scaffolding and repairs to the roof and its investigation into the gas meter at the property for inclusion in the stage two complaint response.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 3 February 2022. The landlord provided an apology for the requirement to escalate the matter and said:
1. The complaint was about:
  1. The renewal of windows and their replacement to Upvc.
  2. High gas bills.
  3. Repairs to a leak from the roof.
2. Scaffold was due to be erected on 11 January 2022, but access was not achieved until 19 January 2022 and works would commence afterwards.
3. A works order was raised on 10 December 2021 to attend to a leak in the property. The contractor attended on 12 January 2022 and said the leak was not a plumbing issue but related to the roof leak.
4. Work to address mould could not be completed until the leak was fixed.
5. The gas contractor had visited the property, confirmed gas meters were inside neighbouring properties and suggested high utility bills were related to supplier’s estimates and not actual readings.
6. The resident should contact her utility provider about this because there was no more the landlord could do unless the utility provider requested it.
7. The windows would be repaired under the 2023-24 window and door programme and the planning application would be issued at the end of the year (2022).
8. Upvc would probably not be accepted, but a timber box sash and casement would be approved.
9. It currently had an order to renew 3 sash windows.
10. It apologised for any poor communication over the course of the works being completed and for the inconvenience caused during this time.
11. It would update the resident about the roof and windows when it had more information.
12. The response did not indicate if the complaint was upheld.
The resident contacted this service about her complaint on 5 January 2023 when the complaint was accepted as duly made.
Since the landlord’s stage 2 complaint was issued this service is aware that the landlord has taken additional actions These include:
1. A roof repair which was completed on 29 March 2022.
2. Additional kitchen repairs.
3. Additional mould treatment, which was confirmed as completed on 31 January 2023.
4. Property and window inspection appointments.
5. Assessing the gas meter pipework and installation and confirming the resident needed to liaise with the utility company because it would not respond to the landlord under GDPR. Informing the resident that the gas meter is the responsibility of the resident and utility company and that it generally didn’t agree to move meters, but if the resident spoke to the utility company and then provided the costings, it could review this.
6. Paying £700 compensation to the resident on 12 April 2023 “for the delays in getting solutions, lack of communication and the impact it had on the resident.”
7. Making an offer to reimburse the resident’s 2022/2023 utility bills.
8. The installation of secondary glazing,
9. Making plans for window installations to take place in 2024.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s management and handling of repairs to address a roof leak and damp and mould in the property.

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented 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.
The landlord completed repair works in the property prior to the resident taking up occupation. It was expected that the property was let in a decent state of repair and in line with the landlord’s letting standard. The resident suggested that the landlord had painted over long-term damage in the property prior to taking up occupation at the property, however this matter was unproven. The landlord was expected to have treated the property where, or if, damage, damp and/or mould was found and identified and remedied any cause of water ingress causing damp prior to offering the tenancy.
The resident reported damp, mould, and a roof leak in her kitchen to the landlord in June 2021, 18 months after taking up occupation at the property. The landlord scheduled an appointment for 15 working days later however attended the appointment a further 2 days later due to an operative running late. The resident waited 17 working days for the landlord to inspect the property and whilst this was only 2 working days late it was an inappropriate delay when addressing the leak and reports of damp and mould given the matters were likely to worsen if left untreated. This caused time, trouble and inconvenience to the resident who had emailed the landlord during this time to explain the matter was getting worse and affecting her health.
During the appointment on 22 July 2021, the landlord identified access was required to a neighbouring property to assess how it could gain access to address the roof leak. This service has not seen any evidence that works to address the damp and mould in the property were completed during the appointment. The resident sent an email to the landlord a week later that said she had obtained a quote to remove the damp and mould but that she could not afford it. Further that she considered the matter was the landlord’s responsibility because it had painted over long term damage.
On 21 July 2021, the day before the landlord inspected the resident’s property it raised a separate works order to address a roof leak into a neighbouring property. The landlord completed the repair 15 days later but noted scaffolding was required to inspect the guttering and ledge above the window. During this time, the resident continued to contact the landlord about the leak, damp, and mould in her property and used social media to raise awareness of the matter that was continuing to cause her detriment and was getting worse, thereby affecting her use of the bed-sit property. The landlord completed a further inspection of the resident’s property on 3 August 2021, and raised a works order 5 working days later to complete a mould wash which it completed on 2 September 2021, within 15 days in line with its policy timescale.
Whilst the landlord carried out it did not do so until 45 working days after the resident reported the mould. Notwithstanding, the cause of the worsening state of damp and mould in the property remained undetermined despite inspections being completed, therefore no lasting solution had been put in place. This was unreasonable.
During the landlord’s visits to the property it had the opportunity to complete a risk assessment and draw up an action plan based upon its assessment of the matter and impact on the resident and structure of the property. However, this service has not seen any evidence that this was completed. Establishing an action plan, based upon a detailed assessment of the matter would have increased the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s repair service, further it would have provided a timeline and information about works required for a remedy to be achieved. By failing to complete a risk assessment and action plan the landlord failed to respond to the matter in an appropriately robust way. This resulted in time, trouble and inconvenience and distress to the resident whilst residing in the property in a substandard condition.
The landlord arranged for an external leak detection specialist to inspect the property because it identified that the rook leak affected a number of properties in the block. The inspection was completed on an undisclosed date “a couple of weeks prior” to the landlord confirming it took place in an internal email it sent on 28 October 2021, therefore 3 months after the landlord had identified scaffolding was required to repair the leak. Seeking the advice of a specialist was a reasonable decision for the landlord to make if it was not confident in its own assessment of the cause, especially given the impact on a number of residents and properties. However, it is unclear why the landlord did not arrange for the specialist contractor, or the erection of scaffolding sooner, based on its previous inspections of the property and the roof leak.
The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 complaint response that repairs to the flat roof, downpipe and repointing were required and that additional mould washes in the resident’s property would not be arranged until afterwards. This decision did not recognise the cumulative detriment this was likely to cause the resident, especially as the landlord did not provide any information about when the repair would be completed. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to consider making an offer of compensation to the resident in recognition of the inconvenience and distress its delays had caused her and to provide clear information about when the repairs would reasonably be completed.
The resident contacted the landlord about the roof leak again in November 2021, 2 weeks after receiving the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response because the landlord had not repaired the downpipe and roof leak which was continuing to cause black mould in her property. The landlord had committed to provide the resident with a timescale for the work in its complaint response, it was therefore reasonable for the resident to expect this information to be provided within 10 days. The landlord was aware it had not completed a mould wash in the resident’s property since September 2021, that the resident had reported the water ingress in June 2021, stated that the mould appeared in March 2021 and that the leak was unresolved during the wetter months of the year. Not resolving the repair or providing any information to the resident about the progress of the repair was unreasonable and would have exacerbated the inconvenience, distress, time, and trouble caused to the resident.
The landlord raised a works order on 8 December 2021 to erect scaffolding at the rear of the property to complete roof repairs. This works order was raised 5 months after the landlord identified scaffolding was required and 2 months after the leak specialist diagnosed the cause of the leak and water ingress. The delay in raising a scaffolding works order to complete repairs was unreasonable and represents a significant failure by the landlord to appropriately respond to its repair obligations.
The landlord raised a further works order on 10 December 2021, 2 days later to source and rectify a leak into the resident’s kitchen that was causing mould. By doing so the landlord indicated it did not retain records or consult information it retained. This service would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts, decisions, actions, and repairs, in order that it manages, handles, shares and uses information and knowledge in an appropriate and effective way. Keeping accurate records enables landlords to understand the condition of its housing stock and the status of its housing management practises at any given time thereby assisting it to carry out its landlord obligations. The Housing Ombudsman’s May 2023 spotlight report on knowledge and information refers specifically to these types of incidences and the landlord is encouraged to consider the impact its knowledge management has on the quality of its housing services.
The landlord attended the resident’s property in January 2022 in response to a works order it raised in December 2021. This visit was 3 months after the specialist recommended the repair. This was an inappropriate time for the resident to wait, given the water ingress was ongoing during colder, wetter winter months. The landlord noted that the repair was not a plumbing issue but related to the structure of the property and that scaffolding was required for works to be completed to the brickwork; information of which it was already aware. This represents a further record keeping or knowledge and information management failure which could have been avoided if the landlord had stored and reviewed the information it had already obtained appropriately.
The landlord’s failure to respond to the repairs or provide the resident with reassurances that the repair was being managed resulted in the resident submitting a stage 2 complaint to the landlord via her councillor. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint restating that the matter was a roof leak that required scaffolding and that an update would be provided when it had more information. Further that a mould wash would not be completed until the leak was fixed. The handling of the resident’s complaint is addressed in a separate section of this report, but the lack of any detailed information was unreasonable and would have caused frustration and further detriment to the resident.
The landlord had the opportunity to complete a risk assessment and coordinate a response to the resident’s reports of a leak, damp, and mould in the property. The landlord completed a series of property inspections over the course of a year yet did not remedy the leak, nor erect scaffolding to complete repairs it had identified were required in a timely way. The landlord provided limited information to the resident about the progress of the repairs and failed to keep to the commitment it provided in its stage 1 complaint response which resulted in the complaint being escalated to stage 2 and similar insufficient advice being provided. This was unreasonable and cumulatively resulted in the resident residing in the property with a leak, damp, increased heating costs, and black mould affecting her health for over a year. Taking all matters into account this service finds maladministration in the landlord’s management and handling of repairs to address a roof leak and damp and mould in the property.

The landlord’s management and handling of a request for window reglazing in the property.

The property is located in a conservation area and is subject to planning permission for some structural or architectural alternations. However the property is not subject to an article 4 direction which restricts the scope of permitted development rights either in relation to a particular area or site, or a particular type of development in the local authority’s area.
The landlord first inspected the windows in February 2021 in response to the resident’s reports that 3 of the windows were rotten and breaking. The landlord visited the property 10 working days after the report was made which was within its policy timescales and therefore appropriate. The landlord subsequently made clear notes on 25 February 2021 that confirmed the windows required replacing with double glazing or the use of secondary glazing and that 3 of the 5 windows were in a bad condition.
The landlord visited the property again 4 months later during which a surveyor identified multiple issues. However, the landlord failed to raise any subsequent works orders until the resident chased the landlord about the visit 3 weeks later which instigated a works order being raised to repair the sash windows. This was unreasonable. It is not clear to this service why the landlord reinspected the property instead of acting on the outcome of its earlier inspection. This resulted in time and inconvenience to the resident who resided in the property with poorly insulated windows and increased heating costs.
The single glazed windows and the high energy bills were referred to in the resident’s stage 1 complaint which was sent to the landlord 8 months after the landlord original inspection. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint confirming that the windows were due to be replaced in 2023, but that the windows would not be changed to double glazing due to the location of the property in a conservation area. The landlord could have provided this information to the resident prior to the stage 1 complaint being issued and therefore managed her expectations sooner. Waiting 8 months to provide the information would have caused inconvenience to the resident and was likely to have caused frustration and disappointment.
The landlord explained to the resident that it was aware the period property was subject to planning application permissions for works to the windows to be completed, but it did not explore the option of secondary glazing for which there is a lesser requirement for planning, despite this being recommended during its initial inspection in February 2021. The landlord could have verified if the suggested use of secondary glazing was an appropriate solution to the poor insulation and increased heating costs to the resident and communicated this with the resident. Instead the landlord maintained its position that the windows would not be renewed until 2023 with the understanding that double glazing would not be installed. This was unreasonable when alternative options were available to it that would have addressed the matters much sooner.
The resident drew the landlord’s attention to neighbouring properties that had Upvc double glazing installed the front face. She further stated that her windows faced the rear of the property. The resident’s observations challenged the landlord’s understanding of the requirement for planning permissions, and/or highlighted that neighbouring residents had not sought permission, something which the landlord was expected to address. The conflicting information provided to the resident gave her the impression that she was singled out, despite the landlord later confirming during a conversation it held with her that many other homes still had similar single-glazed sash windows to her. The resident’s perception and the associated detriment it caused could have been avoided if the landlord had correctly researched the planning permission requirements so as to be clear with the information it provided to the resident. Further if it could have explained how the neighbouring residents might have obtained permission for their double-glazed windows replacements and/or what it would do to respond to this information.
The local councillor advised the resident that living in a conservation area did not preclude having double glazing rather that window replacements might have to adhere to particular specifications. It is not clear if the councillor shared this information with the landlord when she sent the stage 2 complaint on behalf of the resident, but the information was available on the landlord’s website. The landlord was expected to understand the constraints it faced when handling major works programmes, particularly when providing advice about these to the residents. However it is not clear to this service if the landlord verified whether windows facing the rear of the property were subject to the same planning rules as those at the front of the property as it did not respond to the resident about this matter. This was unreasonable and caused detriment to the resident who anticipated an appropriately detailed stage 2 response but did not receive an answer to all aspects of her complaint.
In its stage 2 response the landlord maintained that the replacement of the windows would not be completed until the 2023/24 works programme. It failed to explore or advise if secondary glazing as a reasonable alternative could be installed. The landlord later installed secondary glazing in the property which it completed after issuing its stage 2 response. Whilst this decision is out of the scope of this investigation it indicates that the landlord waited an unreasonable amount of time to install secondary glazing as a solution to the concerns raised in its own assessment of the repair requirements when it first inspected the property over 2 years previously. This was unreasonable. Taking all factors into account this service finds maladministration in the landlord’s management and handling of a request for window reglazing in the property.

The landlord’s management and handling of requests to reposition the gas meter due to concerns about heating costs.

The resident first contacted the landlord about her gas meter and high fuel costs in January 2020, 3 days after taking up occupation at the property. The landlord agreed to investigate the matter but failed to provide a further response to the resident about the matter. The resident made two further requests for the landlord to review her application to reposition the meter because she could not access it. This service has not seen any evidence the landlord addressed the matter. Failing to provide a response to the resident which explained what could or could not be achieved was unreasonable.
This service has not seen any evidence that the resident raised her concerns about the relocation of the gas meter again until 2 years later.
The resident referred to the repositioning of her gas meter again when she emailed her local councillor in January 2022. The resident confirmed that the landlord had not responded to her previous requests and was advised by another provider that the usage might not just be her own, which was why she had tried to get the gas meter moved. This information was incorporated into the resident’s stage 2 complaint and the landlord made arrangements to inspect the gas meter 5 days later. Responding to the matter within 5 days was an appropriate response for the landlord to take and was in line with it maintenance policy timescales.
The landlord addressed the matter in its stage 2 response following its inspection during which it located the resident’s gas meter outside the property. The landlord commented that the resident’s high utility bills were related to supplier’s estimates and not actual readings which it based on a meter reading it took during its visit which had been shown as an estimated reading on a bill issued by the utility provider two months previously. The landlord confirmed that the neighbouring gas meters were located inside the properties but did not clarify if the resident’s meter powered other properties, nor provide any further information about relocating the meter. It was unreasonable of the landlord not to have explained more clearly the repairing obligations of the landlord and the utility provider in relation to the gas meter and billing. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to leave no doubt about the utility provider’s liability for maintaining and relocating the meter and billing for gas usage.
The landlord was limited in what action it could take to reposition the resident’s gas meter which it identified was the responsibility of the utility provider. Further it was unable to identify what properties the utility company billed for usage as this was protected information. However the landlord did not respond to the resident’s initial requests which was unreasonable. The resident’s subsequent enquires, raised in the stage 2 complaint by the local councillor, whilst resulting in an inspection and advice being issued about estimated billing, were not sufficiently detailed so as to clearly define the landlord and utility provider’s liabilities. Taking these factors into account this service finds service failure in the landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s request to reposition the meter due to concerns about heating costs.
Since the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint it has reinspected the gas meter and reviewed its position again. The landlord has confirmed to the resident that the meter would require relocating further than 25 metres and that this is the responsibility of the utility provider. The landlord has explained that the utility provider would not respond to the landlord about the gas meter due to the General Data Protection Regulations and therefore the resident would be required to contact the utility provider herself. The landlord advised that it does not usually reposition gas meters but if the resident could gain consent from the landlord and costings it would consider this.

The landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s request for information about the level of rent being charged at the property.

The resident requested information about the level of rent being charged in her stage 1 complaint via a tenancy sustainment officer. The landlord responded to the resident’s questions in its complaint response with information that explained why there are differences between social housing rents. The landlord’s explanation was appropriate and suitably detailed. The landlord was unable to share specific information about comparable rents being charged in neighbouring properties as this was confidential, but it indicated that neighbouring properties were impacted by differing factors and that the landlord did not have control over the level of rent it is required to charge as a provider of social housing.
Taking into account the landlord’s response to the resident’s questions which were appropriately detailed, this service finds no maladministration in the landlord management and handling of the residents request for information about the level of rent being charged at the property.

The landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s complaints.

When identifying whether there has been failure in service the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaint and compensation procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
The landlord accepted a stage 1 complaint on behalf of the resident from its tenancy sustainment staff. Recognising the internal correspondence as a complaint was appropriate, however it failed to send a complaint acknowledgement to the resident setting out when a response would be provided in line with its policy. The landlord responded to the complaint within its policy timescales, and this was appropriate.
The resident emailed the landlord in response to its stage one complaint 8 days after receiving it. The resident stated the response was filled with incorrect information and contained no solution. The landlord contacted the resident about her email the same day, as she had requested. Further it recorded notes of the conversation on its housing database. However, it is not clear to this service why the landlord did not log the resident’s response as an escalation request for her complaint to be reviewed at stage 2 of the complaint procedure. It was apparent from the tone of her email and the landlord’s notes of the conversation that the resident was not satisfied with the stage one response she received. The landlord’s failure to register and respond to the resident’s email as a stage 2 complaint was inappropriate and would have caused inconvenience to the resident and this was avoidable.
The landlord accepted a stage 2 complaint on behalf of the resident from a local councillor on 7 January 2022, 43 working days after it issued its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord issued an acknowledgement letter to the resident the same day and this ensured she understood the complaint was made and when a response was due. The landlord issued its complaint response within the housing ombudsman complaint handling code timescale of 20 working days however, this was 5 days later than the landlord’s own policy and the timescale it previously provided to the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was brief and did not address the elements of the complaint with sufficient detail and empathy, nor set out an appropriate action plan to address the matters raised. The response included information that had been copied from emails that were drafted 2 weeks previously and this resulted in poor grammar and statements that were out of date. This was inappropriate and would have caused detriment to the resident who would have reasonably expected the landlord’s response to be accurate and up to date.
The landlord operated a compensation policy that set out financial awards for matters relating to inconvenience, distress, time, and trouble as well as for the loss of the use of rooms in the property. The landlord had the opportunity to consider offering a form of redress to the resident within its complaints process for the detriment caused by delays in responding to her leaks, the presence of damp and black mould and the conflicting advice it provided about the window replacement. However compensation was not considered in either of the complaint responses and this was unreasonable.
The landlord subsequently offered compensation to the resident on 12 April 2022 after it issued its stage 2 response. The landlord failed to adequately address the level of compensation required to resolve the complaint satisfactorily and only did so 48 working days after the complaint had exhausted its internal complaints procedure.
Taking into account the landlord’s failure to provide a stage 1 acknowledgement, its failure to identify and register the resident’s response to the stage 1 response as an escalation request, its inappropriate and delayed stage 2 response and failure to adequately address the level of compensation required this service find maladministration in the landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s complaints.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of repairs to address a roof leak and damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s request for window reglazing in the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of requests to reposition the gas meter due to concerns about heating costs.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s request for information about the level of rent being charged for the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

The landlord had the opportunity to complete a risk assessment and coordinate a response to the resident’s reports of a leak, damp, and mould in the property. The landlord completed a series of property inspections yet did not remedy the leak, nor erect scaffold to complete repairs it had identified were required in a timely way. The landlord provided limited information to the resident about the progress of the repairs and failed to keep to the commitment it provided in its stage 1 complaint response which resulted in the complaint being escalated to stage 2 and similar insufficient advice being provided. This was unreasonable and cumulatively resulted in the resident residing in the property with a leak, damp, increased heating costs, and black mould affecting her health for over a year.
The landlord had an opportunity to install secondary glazing at the property following its first assessment of the property. Instead the landlord waited over two years and subjected the resident to a series of explanations which delayed and distracted from its use of a solution it later came to rely on. The resident incurred increased heating costs, inconvenience, time, and trouble as a result of the landlord’s decisions and delays.
The landlord was limited in what action it could take to reposition the resident’s gas meter which it identified was the responsibility of the utility provider. Further it was unable to identify what properties the utility company billed for usage as this was protected information. However it did not provide appropriate responses to the resident’s concerns. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s requests so as to clearly define the landlord and utility provider’s liabilities which resulted in unnecessary ambiguity.
The landlord provided the resident with information that clarified why the resident paid a different level of rent to her neighbours. The landlord was unable to provide specific information about the resident’s neighbours as this was protected information, but the landlord responded within a reasonable time and with an appropriate level of detail.
The landlord’s failed to provide a stage 1 acknowledgement and identify and register the resident’s response to the stage 1 response as an escalation request. It issued an inappropriate stage 2 response outside of the landlord’s complaint policy timescale and did not consider offering a reasonable compensation award within the complaints process.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings in managing the various repairs and for its complaint handling failures. This is to be provided within 28 days of the date of this report.
Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation totalling £2984, made up as follows:
1. £700 compensation previously offered if this has not already been paid.
2. £2034 for distress and inconvenience associated with repairs to address a roof leak, damp, and mould at the resident’s property.
3. £500 for inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident in pursuing window reglazing in the property.
4. £200 for inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident in pursuing repositioning of the gas meter.
5. £250 for time and trouble caused to the resident related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
6. This money is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.
Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to confirm to this service it has fulfilled its commitment to the resident to:
1. Install secondary double glazing in the resident’s property.
2. “Offer a contribution towards the resident’s energy bill for the autumn and winter of 22-23″.
Within 2 months of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to produce a fact sheet that clearly explains its repairing responsibilities and liabilities in relation to the repair and maintenance of gas and electricity meters. The factsheet is to be published so as to make available advice any resident could share with their utility provider where repair and maintenance works to utility meters are required.
Within 2 months of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to review the learning on this case in respect of its management of damp and mould. The landlord is required to review and incorporate the best practise highlighted in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and into the provision of housing services. In particular related to:
1. The use of risk assessments and specialist equipment in the diagnosis and monitoring of damp and mould.
2. Communication with residents about the diagnosis and assessment of damp and mould in the home.
The landlord is ordered within 28 days of the date of this report to consider the learning from this case, and advise this service of its plans and actions, including timescales, to ensure that its complaint handling practices fully align with the principles of the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code. In particular related to:
1. The appropriate use of the landlord’s compensation policy for providing reasonable redress where service failure, unnecessary delays or detriment have been identified.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to review the learning on this case in respect of its management of knowledge and information. It is recommended that the landlord reviews and incorporates the best practise highlighted in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information into the provision of housing services. In particular related to:
1. The retention and supply of accurate records and information relied on in complaint responses.
2. The accuracy of records stored on the housing databases related to repairs and property surveys.
3. The storage and use of information related to repairs and complaint handling.
4. The storage and use of photographic evidence for assessing repairs.