Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202002651)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002651

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

23 November 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 is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
    1. excessive noise coming from his neighbour’s property;
    2. excessive noise from the communal door to the building;
    3. cigarette smoke entering his property from outside the building.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 30 June 2014. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
  2. The property is located close to the communal entrance area for the building in which it is located. At the time of the complaint, there was a communal ash tray affixed to the external wall near to the resident’s property.
  3. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy.
  4. The landlord operates an antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy. The policy notes ASB can include persistent noise, such as excessive volume from a TV. The policy notes the landlord can address ASB using a number of methods including writing to alleged perpetrators, installing noise monitoring equipment, or using its ‘noise app’. The policy also notes that residents are expected to assist in providing evidence using the resources available to them and that failure to do so may result in the landlord ending the complaint.

 

Summary of events

  1. On 4 June 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that there was excessive television and washing machine noise coming from his neighbour’s property at around 20:00 and 23:00. He advised he desired soundproofing to be installed to address the problem. He also reported disrepair issues with his kitchen and boiler, which are not the subject of this investigation.
  2. The landlord replied on 19 June 2020 and requested that the resident complete diary entries to record when the noise occurred and also requested he use its noise app to make recordings of the noise. It requested he provide this evidence prior to 3 July 2020 in order for it to progress its investigation.
  3. The resident did not reply to the landlord’s communication and, on 1 July 2020, he contacted this service to reiterate his concerns and advised the landlord had not taken action. On 6 July 2020, the landlord repeated its request for evidence via diary entries or the noise app and extended its timeline to provide the evidence to 20 July 2020. On 8 July 2020, this service requested the landlord provide the resident with a formal response.
  4. On 29 July 2020, the landlord provided its stage one response under its complaints procedure. It noted the resident’s concerns and that it had requested supporting evidence on two occasions, which the resident had not provided. It requested the resident consider providing the evidence as it would not be able to take action without it. It also noted it had provided the resident with contact information for its repair team regarding the disrepair he had reported, and also its ‘asset team’ regarding his request for soundproofing. This service has not been provided with a copy of the correspondence in which this advice was given.
  5. The resident replied on the same date and requested his complaint be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure. Regarding the landlord’s request that he make recordings on his phone using the noise app, he advised “its not gonna happen” as he did not wish to stay awake at night to make the recordings. He subsequently requested that the landlord install its own sound monitoring equipment. He additionally reported that use of the communal door created a lot of noise at night and that other residents were smoking outside of his property which caused cigarette smoke to enter his property.
  6. On 7 August 2020, the landlord acknowledged his escalation request and advised it would provide its stage two response within 20 working days. On 15 August 2020, the resident repeated his reluctance to use the landlord’s noise app and advised he was concerned it may steal his personal data. Between this time and the landlord’s stage two response, the resident also reported a sewerage leak into his property, which is not the subject of this investigation.
  7. On 17 September 2020, the landlord provided its stage two response and apologised for its response having been delayed. It advised that it considered its stage one response to have been a “fair outcome” and that it gave adequate advice regarding providing evidence to investigate the ASB and requesting soundproofing through its asset team. It noted the resident’s concerns about having to stay awake to make recordings but advised that its own sound monitoring equipment would require the resident to manually push record as it was not able to continuously record. Regarding the resident’s reports about cigarette smoke entering his property, the landlord advised it agreed that the communal ash tray’s location was “not appropriate” and that it had sought permission to relocate it, which should reduce the noise and smoke.
  8. On 1 October 2020, the resident provided the landlord with a video depicting the noise from his neighbour. This video was not taken through the noise app, which the resident reiterated he did not wish to download. He also reiterated his request for the landlord to install its own sound monitoring equipment and advised that the communal ash tray was yet to be removed. On 11 October 2020, he noted he was yet to receive any updates.
  9. On 13 October 2020, the resident provided a lengthy response to the landlord’s stage two response in which he reiterated the ongoing excessive noise, that he didn’t wish to use the noise app, that he wanted the landlord to install its own sound monitoring equipment, and that the ash tray was still yet to be removed. It is not evident that the landlord replied to any of his requests for update and as of 17 March 2021, the resident advised this service that all of the above issues remain outstanding.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman recognises that the noise from his neighbour, as well as the door noise and cigarette smoke experienced by the resident has caused him distress. Not every instance of annoyance reported to a landlord, however, will be something it has the power to act on. A landlord has two main duties when anti-social behaviour is reported. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of the anti-social behaviour. The second is to weigh in balance the evidence, and the respective parties’ rights to enjoy their home and decide what action it should take. The Ombudsman’s role in such cases is to determine if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation and whether the actions it took were within its powers.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy notes that excessive TV noise can constitute ASB, and so following the resident’s reports of such noise, the landlord appropriately opened an investigation and sought more evidence. The landlord’s ASB policy also requires that residents be proactive in providing evidence. The Ombudsman considers it common practice for landlords to make such requests, especially in instances such as noise complaints, however, this is not the only method to investigate such reports. In its initial communication, the landlord requested that the resident keep diary entries and also make recordings using its noise app, as suggested in its ASB policy. Such a request is seen as reasonable and as the landlord explained in its communication, evidence is often required for it to take further action. Following the landlord’s request, given there had been no response, rather than close the investigation it appropriately followed up with a further request for this evidence and also extended the deadline it would keep its investigation open.
  3. It is also not disputed that the landlord provided the resident with information about how to request soundproofing for his property. While a landlord may decide to install soundproofing at the end of an investigation into excessive noise, in general such a request would be considered an improvement to the property. The landlord is not obliged to carry out such improvements, but it was appropriate that the landlord signposted the resident as to how he could nevertheless make a request. As noted above, this service has not been provided with this communication and so the full content is not known, however, it is referred to in the landlord’s stage one response. This response does not give any further context to the reasoning around improvements discussed above, and it would have been helpful for the resident had the landlord included it. Failing to do so, however, would not constitute service failure in this case.
  4. Following the resident’s referral of his concerns to this service, and this service’s subsequent request that the landlord provide a formal response, the landlord provided a stage one response within a reasonable time period. The response appropriately detailed the actions it had taken, and the reason why it required evidence, i.e. in order to have a basis on which to take further action. It also reasonably re-requested this evidence in order to progress its investigation. Given the type of noise the resident was reporting (i.e. TV, washing machine), and the times at which he had advised it was occurring, it was reasonable for the landlord not to have instigated alternative investigation methods at this time, and its stage one response was reasonable in the circumstances.
  5. Following the stage one response, the resident explained his reluctance to use the noise app due to having to stay awake late to make the recordings, and also due to his concerns about data privacy. The landlord’s ASB policy also notes it can investigate ASB through its own sound monitoring equipment, which the resident subsequently requested it install. In its stage two response the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about staying awake to make the recordings and advised its own equipment would also require him to manually start the recording each time there was noise. The landlord did not, however, address the resident’s reluctance to use the noise app due to his data privacy concerns, and the landlord, being aware that the resident would not download the app, should have provided its position on whether it would be able to install the sound monitoring equipment, rather than just explaining how it operated. Additionally, the landlord could have reiterated at this point the use of diary sheets to record the sound as an alternative to the recordings, which it did not do. Further, the landlord could have arranged a time to visit the property to witness the noise first hand, which it also did not do. The resident had made his request for the equipment to be installed clear and by not providing its position on the request, the resident would have been left distressed and uncertain as to how his reports of ASB would be addressed.
  6. Following the stage one response, the resident also added to his complaint that there was noise caused late at night by the use of the communal door to the building, and that also cigarette smoke was entering his property due to a communal ash tray being situated near to his property. This was not part of the original complaint, however, the landlord appropriately used its discretion to include these concerns in its stage two response rather than request the resident open a new complaint.
  7. Regarding the cigarette smoke, the landlord accepted that the placement of the communal external ash tray was inappropriate and advised it was taking steps to relocate it. It did not, however, provide a timeline as to when the resident could expect an update on this, which would have been helpful. Following the stage two response, the resident made multiple requests for an update regarding the ash tray, which it is not evident the landlord acknowledged or replied to, and six months later, the resident has advised the ashtray still has not been attended to. This would have left him frustrated and unsure whether his concerns would be addressed.
  8. While the landlord advised that the relocation of the ash tray may address the noise outside the resident’s property, it is clear that the resident also had concerns about the noise from the communal door. It is unlikely that such noise would constitute ASB noise nuisance, or that the landlord would be able to prevent its use, however, while the landlord included the door as part of the complaint, it did not provide detail on its position regarding the noise from the door in its formal response aside from noting that the relocation of the ash tray may alleviate foot traffic. This would have once again left the resident unsure whether his concerns will be addressed.
  9. The landlord’s stage two response advised that should the resident remain dissatisfied with its response, he can refer the complaint to this service, which he has done. The Ombudsman would nevertheless expect a landlord to reply to a resident’s further correspondence even if just to refer them to this service or confirm that it considers a matter closed. However, it is evident that the landlord failed to reply to a number of the resident’s further queries following its stage two response, which would have caused him frustration.
  10. The landlord’s failure to provide its position regarding the installation of its own sound monitoring equipment, its failure to provide a timeline for the relocation of the ash tray or respond to any of the resident’s requests for an update, and its failure to provide its position regarding noise caused by the communal door would have left the resident distressed and caused him to expend further time and trouble in chasing updates which went unanswered. It also left him continued to be exposed to cigarette smoke entering his property for at least a further six months despite the landlord accepting the placement of ash tray was inappropriate. This constitutes service failure for which an amount of compensation is appropriate. Based on the detriment caused to the resident by the above, an amount of £100 compensation, in addition to providing further updates as detailed below, is ordered.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports concerning:
    1. excessive noise coming from his neighbour’s property;
    2. excessive noise from the communal door to the building;
    3. cigarette smoke entering his property from outside the building.

Reasons

  1. While the landlord’s initial requests for evidence were reasonable and it appropriately outlined its reasoning for its requests as well as reiterating them in its stage one response, the landlord subsequently failed to adequately outline its position on the installation of sound monitoring equipment despite the resident’s clear reluctance to use the noise app. It also failed to make suggestions in its formal responses for alternative ways to gather evidence, such as by using diary sheets or visiting the property.
  2. Additionally, having accepted that the communal external ash tray’s location was inappropriate and advising that it would relocate it, the landlord failed to provide any further updates, despite the resident making multiple requests.
  3. The landlord also acknowledged the complaint regarding the communal door noise but did not provide its position on this issue in adequate detail, leaving the resident unsure of how this part of his complaint would be resolved.

 

 

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £100 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its service failure in relation to its response to the complaint.
  2. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
  3. The landlord to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and include the following (if it has not already done so):
    1. a timeframe for when it will relocate the ash tray;
    2. its position on installing sound monitoring equipment at the resident’s property;
    3. its position on noise caused by use of the communal door.