Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202102094)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102094

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

27 September 2021

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 concerns:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbances.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. He lives on the seventh floor in a flat, in a block of similar properties.
3. On 3 February 2021 the resident reported “constant thumping, crashing, and banging from the above floors which [had] been ongoing for the past 3 months”. He said the noises were becoming a huge nuisance. He said his neighbour directly above him had confirmed they were not the source of the noise.
4. The landlord responded on the same day and asked the resident to confirm where the noise was coming from. It advised him to download a noise recording app, and log the incidents in diary sheets. It signposted him to its online antisocial behaviour (ASB) toolkit (which explains what is and is not ASB, and advises residents what steps they needs to take in response to it).
5. The resident emailed the landlord on 3 February 2021. He said he was “almost certain the disturbance [was] coming from the 8th floor but at other times, apparently it [came] from the 11th floor”. He said he had downloaded the noise app but advised that his phone had problems with its microphone. 
6. The landlord again asked the resident, on 17 February 2021, if he could confirm where the noise came from. It asked him to continue recording the disturbances.
7. On 17 February 2021 the resident emailed the landlord. He reiterated that he did not know who was making the noises. He said the disturbances were “slamming doors, pounding feet, things being dropped and banged around, noisy clattering”. He said he wanted the landlord to attend and listen. He said he would no longer record the disturbances as the process was “stressful and bottom line crazy”.
8. On 23 February 2021 the landlord sent the resident a letter. It explained that, to investigate his concerns, it needed to know the suspected perpetrator. It said that due to the COVID-19 lockdown and people being asked to stay at home, he may experience more noise than usual. It said everyday general living noises (people walking about and children playing) was not classed as ASB, and it would not investigate such reports.
9. On 1 March 2021 the landlord advised the resident that it had listened to his recordings, and that they consisted of everyday household noise, and did not meet the criteria for ASB.
10. The resident emailed the landlord on 10 March 2021. He said it had downplayed his very serious complaint. He said that on 1 March he had an anxiety episode due to the disturbances which resulted in him “frantically grabbing one of the mop sticks…and walking around [his] entire flat tapping on the roof in frustration”. He said this resulted in a £2 coin-sized hole” in his ceiling. He said that on 3 and 4 March two security guards from the building entered his home, and witnessed the noise. He said he contacted the local authority on 8 March to report the noises. The resident forwarded this email to his local MP on 12 March. This is understood to be the resident’s stage one complaint.
11. The landlord emailed the MP on 19 March 2021 (it is unknown when the MP initially made contact). The landlord said it advised the resident to download a noise recording app, and signposted him to its ASB toolkit. It said it received recordings, but did not class the noises as ASB. It said it had heard faint footsteps and thuds. It said these were noises which would be expected in a flat, and occurred during the day. It said it had written to the resident advising him that it would not take action. It said on 11 March “to try and understand the issue being reported…a visit was made” to the block. It said that “following this visit it was reported that there was no obvious cause of the noise, and no issues were identified”. It said the resident had not submitted any recordings since 1 March, and that it would not be able to take action without evidence of ASB, and without knowing the suspected perpetrator. The landlord’s internal correspondence show it considered this as its stage one complaint response.
12. On 24 March 2021 the resident emailed his MP. He said he had previously advised the landlord that his phone had difficulties recording the disturbances. He said the noises occurred throughout the day. He disputed that the landlord had attended on 11 March. He asked why the landlord had not advised him of the appointment, and why it had not visited his home. He said he had not made any more recordings due to the issue with his phone, and because “attempting to record these exacerbated [his] anxiety”. The resident asked his MP to raise these issues with his landlord. The evidence indicates that the landlord considered this as the resident’s escalation.
13. On 7 April 2021 the resident emailed the landlord. He said it had lied to his MP about attending on 11 March. He said the landlord had closed his case without offering him any assistance. He said in response to his complaint as he had been reporting the disturbances since January, he wanted “the full month’s rent for those months in gratuity”. He said he wanted to landlord to thoroughly investigate the disturbances. He said if the disturbances could not be resolved, he would “require a subsidy on [his] rent ongoing”. He also asked the landlord to repair the hole in his ceiling. 
14. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 15 April 2021. It said in order to help the resident, it needed evidence to progress his case. It said the resident needed to work alongside it. It said it had taken every action to help the resident, and said it confirmed its findings from its stage one response. It concluded by explaining how the resident could refer his complaint to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
15. Evidence provided by the resident and landlord following the end of the landlord’s complaints process shows that the resident has now identified where he believes the noise to be originating from. He has reported that to the landlord, along with diary sheets documenting the incidents he continues to experience. These are clearly significant developments. However, they do not form part of this investigation, which focusses on the landlord’s actions up to the point of its final complaint response.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of noise disturbances

16. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it considers persistent noise nuisance to be ASB. Examples of this include loud music, persistent shouting, excessive TV or radio volume, or animal noises. The landlord’s ASB toolkit explains that it does not consider everyday general noises, such as DIY, children playing, or footsteps as ASB.
17. On 3 February 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that he could hear thumping, crashing, and banging from the floors above. He submitted recordings of the disturbances. The landlord explained that the noises recorded did not constitute ASB as they were general living noises. If the landlord had identified ASB, it would then have been expected to take further steps to identify the source of the noise. However, as it had not detected ASB, and had already explained that general living noises were to be expected in a flat during the day, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to not take further action at that stage.
18.  The landlord explained to the resident that it had also visited the property in an attempt to witness the problem. It said it had not identified anything unusual. The landlord has not provided evidence of this visit, and it is apparent from the resident’s challenge that it did not visit him in his home. That was an unusual omission, and this aspect of the complaint is addressed more fully below.
19. It stands to reason that landlords require sufficient evidence of an ASB issue in order to warrant any formal action. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to provide evidence in the form of recordings, or diary sheets when he continued to report the disturbances.
20. No evidence has been provided for this investigation to show the landlord had reasonable cause to take more formal steps in response to the resident’s reports without sufficient evidence, not knowing the perpetrator, and given that it had not identified ASB from the recordings he had provided. As such the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbances was reasonable. It attempted to manage his expectations, and its responses were in line with its ASB policy and toolkit.

Complaint handling

21. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it has a two stage complaint procedure to ensure residents have an opportunity to challenge its decisions. The resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord will not make good any damage in the property which was caused by the resident.
22. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response it said it had visited the block to try to understand the issue being reported. In the resident’s escalation, and email from 7 April 2021, he disputed that the landlord had attended, and questioned why it had not visited him. The landlord did not acknowledge or address these comments in its stage two response. No evidence of the visit has been provided for this investigation. That in itself does not disprove the landlord’s explanation, but in the face of the resident’s dispute, the landlord should have supported its explanations with evidence of its actions.
23. Like the landlord’s complaints policy, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out that residents should be given an opportunity to comment on any adverse findings before the landlord makes a final decision. The Code (and basic good practice) also sets out that landlords should address all points raised in a complaint. In this case the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s clear objection to its explanation that it had inspected the building, and missed an opportunity to reassure him with information and evidence about its attendance. This was poor complaint handling, as it failed to address the complaint in its entirety, and failed to act in line with the landlord’s complaint policy and good practice.
24. In his email to the landlord on 7 April 2021 the resident requested three month’s rent reimbursement, a subsidy on his future rent until the disturbances could be resolved. The landlord did not address these requests in its stage two complaint response, and it should have. Nonetheless, there appears to be no grounds on which the landlord could reasonably be expected to compensate the resident in the circumstances of this complaint, given that its handling of the noise reports was reasonable. The resident also asked the landlord repair the hole in his ceiling, which he caused due to his frustration with the noise. There is no denying that persistent noises from outside sources can and will be wholly frustrating and aggravating. Nonetheless, residents are responsible for any damage they cause to their homes, in line with their tenancy agreements, and there were no grounds on which the landlord should have agreed to the request.

Determination (decision)

25. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbances.
26. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

27. The landlord managed the resident’s expectations in terms of the limited action it could take without knowing the perpetrator of the noise disturbances. However, it failed to address an important point raised in the resident’s escalation, and did not provide evidence to support its explanation that it had visited the property.

Orders and recommendations

28. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. pay the resident £150 for the frustration and inconvenience caused by the service failure identified in this investigation. This payment must be made within four weeks of the date of this report. Evidence of the payment must be provided to this Service within the specified timeframe.