Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202110414)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110414

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

9 November 2022


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
    2. The resident’s request to be rehoused.

Background

  1. The resident is the secure tenant of a two bedroomed ground floor flat. She has lived there for 20 years.
  2. During the summer of 2019, the resident reported to the landlord that a neighbour was dumping rubbish outside of her property. This escalated to dog faeces being smeared on her bathroom window, her front door, and posted through her letter box in October 2019. The resident reported that her neighbour led a chaotic lifestyle, involving criminal activity, harassing behaviour, and noise nuisance. Ongoing ASB of this nature continued to be reported.
  3. In around November 2020 the resident wrote an undated letter to her MP about the landlord’s handling of her reports. She detailed broken promises of action and a failure of communication about what was being done.
  4. In January 2021 the MP forwarded the letter to the landlord who treated it as a complaint. The landlord responded that a Notice Seeking Possession had been served but it had then been hampered by the restrictions on eviction/enforcement during the pandemic. The ongoing ASB was not considered serious enough for possession to now be granted anyway and the resident’s reports had petered out in early 2021.
  5. The landlord confirmed it was liaising with the police, who attended regularly, and that it had monitored the situation, reviewing it monthly until the case was closed in April 2021. The landlord asserted that the situation did not meet the criteria for a managed move for the resident but agreed to review her banding.
  6. The resident remains dissatisfied with this response. She states the ASB is ongoing, but that she stopped reporting it to the landlord as it failed to respond. She considers the ASB directed at her was racially motivated and that the landlord failed to apply its Hate Crime Policy or uphold her rights under equality legislation. She also considers its handling of her reports generally was deficient and that there was a lack of communication about any action it was taking – it failed to answer her queries about this. Finally, the resident states the landlord has not offered appropriate assistance in rehousing her.
  7. By way of remedy the resident states she wants an external investigation into her case and for the landlord to admit its failings and apologise for them.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as conduct that might cause harassment, alarm, distress, nuisance, or annoyance. This includes racially motivated “hate behaviour”; persistent noise; intimidation; aggression; and misuse of drugs. It divides ASB into two categories – “Level 1 Serious and hate related incidents” and “Level 2 Persistent nuisance”. It commits to acknowledging reports within one working day for level 1 and three working days for level 2 incidents.
  2. The policy sets out an extensive “range of tools” to manage the behaviour and a series of measures to support those on the receiving end of that conduct. These tools and measures include writing to and interviewing the perpetrator; mediation; referral to other agencies; working with police; installation of CCTV and security measures; injunctions; possession proceedings; and “in exceptional cases” a management transfer. The policy places a responsibility on residents complaining of ASB to provide “appropriate evidence of the incidents and nuisance they experience”.
  3. The landlord’s Hate Crime Policy gives the definition of hate crime as “any crime or harassment where a person’s prejudice against an identifiable group of people is a factor in their choice of victim”. The incident does not have to amount to a criminal offence but where the police are investigating a hate crime incident, its policy suggests that “they will be the lead agency” and the landlord’s role will be a supporting one.
  4. While the landlord can take legal action against the perpetrator, it is more likely to try other actions first, as possession proceedings will often be the landlord’s last resort.
  5. In this case, the resident refers to first contacting the landlord in summer 2019 regarding fly tipping outside the building her flat is situated in. The landlord’s records note reports on 14 and 24 June and 10 and 22 July 2019. At first the resident was recorded as being “unsure of who dumped the rubbish” but later provided evidence that she considered it was her neighbour. Some reports refer to rubbish to the front of the building and others to it being directly outside her own property. The resident supplied photographs to the landlord. On each occasion the landlord acknowledged the report the same day, or the day after, stating that its estates and neighbourhood teams were dealing with the situation but offering no further details.
  6. The evidence suggests the landlord’s primary response was to treat the resident’s contacts as reports of rubbish to be removed rather than as allegations of ASB, which given the circumstances was not unreasonable. The resident emailed the landlord on 22 July 2019 confirming the rubbish had been collected but noted that an old barbecue, which she had already reported on 10 July 2019, remained uncollected. The resident had to chase for removal of this item again on 24 July and 29 July 2019, and the date of collection thereafter is not revealed in the evidence.  It is unclear why the landlord did not deal with this matter more promptly.
  7. Evidence suggests that no further reports of rubbish were made until a year later. The resident once again reported fly tipping in June and August 2020 to the back of the building and in September 2020, she was able to provide the landlord with evidence of the neighbour’s rubbish clearing business – implying he was collecting rubbish from other households for money and then distributing it around the flats. The landlord acknowledged this information and confirmed it would be shared with “the relevant authorities”. It provided no evidence to confirm that it removed this rubbish, however, that the perpetrator was confronted with the allegations, or on who the “relevant authorities” were.
  8. It was therefore unclear for the resident at this time how the landlord had responded to the issues raised. Although the landlord had advised the resident that it was investigating the problem, it did nothing to demonstrate this, provided no updates on the progress of its alleged investigation, and gave no indication that the perpetrator had been deterred. The landlord’s response to the intelligence provided by the resident did not demonstrate that it was taking the issue seriously.
  9. On 14 October 2019 the resident reported to the landlord that dog faeces had been smeared on her bathroom window, front door, and posted through her letterbox. This Service can see that the landlord subsequently opened an ASB case on the same day, categorising the report at Level 2, “medium risk” / “community harm” and noting it needed to contact the resident within three days to arrange an interview with her. Given that she had initially informed the landlord on 23 July 2019 that she believed the fly tipping to be racially motivated, however, and had since informed the landlord that upon confronting the culprits, she was racially abused, this should have been considered a “level 1” ASB issue.
  10. Nevertheless, the landlord did contact the resident on the following day, as would be required for a “level 1” case. Although records suggest that it intended to agree an action plan at this time, no such plan has been provided to the Ombudsman. It is therefore difficult to identify what was agreed and ultimately to conclude that the right approach was taken at this time.
  11. It is noted that there was some police involvement following this incident and as such, the landlord did liaise with them in November 2019. Whilst the landlord’s records do not disclose a specific plan and course of action on its behalf at this point, the following is noted: –
    1. The landlord’s records confirm that the culprit was identified as the relative of the neighbour being complained about.
    2. The resident states the landlord committed to applying to the courts for an injunction against this person but then changed its mind in December 2019.
    3. The records note that in a telephone conversation with the resident on 28 November 2019 she expressed “concern about the court hearing and….[was] not comfortable about proceeding.”
    4. The neighbour was interviewed in November 2019 at the latest and told not to allow this relative back to the property.
  12. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that some action was being taken but the records do not confirm the timing of these events or how (or whether) they corresponded to the landlord’s plans, as set out above. The landlord is reminded of its obligation to maintain appropriate records.
  13. In the Ombudsman’s view, given this sequence of events, it was reasonable for the landlord to step back from applying for an injunction. However, the landlord has not demonstrated that it explained this decision to the resident, and it might reasonably have been expected to do so. Further, the landlord could have taken greater steps to ensure that the neighbour did not allow his relative to return to the property. The neighbour was responsible for any ASB perpetrated by his guests and so a reasonable intervention, such as an Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC), would have reinforced the expected behaviour by underlining the requirements of the neighbour / his guests, and the consequences of any breach. There is no evidence that the landlord took any such action, however. 
  14. Records suggest that during the early stages of the pandemic, the neighbour and his relative vacated the property until September 2020. The evidence shows a couple of ongoing reports by the resident of noise coming from others staying at the property in the meantime. Once this return had taken place, it is noted the resident raised concerns about possible drug activity and asked the landlord to update her with any developments. The landlord advised that whilst it would continue to log her reports to build a case against the neighbour, it would not disclose what action it was taking due to its duty of confidentiality for that tenant.
  15. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to take the approach of not discussing the neighbour’s tenancy provisions with the resident, this would not have prevented it from confirming details of any visits it had made to the perpetrator; the way in which it was going to respond to the relative’s return; what action it would take if this was breached; whether a warning would be given or of providing confirmation that the police would be patrolling regularly. The resident emailed the landlord on 7 September 2020 asking a series of questions about the situation and the landlord’s blanket response – that it could not disclose any meaningful information to the resident – was inappropriate and unhelpful.
  16. On 25 September 2020 the landlord emailed the resident to “remind” her of the action plan. It gave advice on gathering evidence – completing diary sheets; submitting Noise App recordings; and reporting criminal activity to the police. The landlord confirmed it would liaise with the police and determine appropriate action based on the evidence supplied. It has been noted above that the landlord’s ASB policy does place some onus on residents to provide evidence to support their reports and this approach was therefore appropriate. However, this Service does also expect landlords to seek/obtain corroborating evidence too, where possible, from other agencies, other neighbours and through its own investigations. 
  17. The landlord’s records note the resident submitted some diary sheets in October 2020 and a Noise App recording in November 2020 which it logged as it said it would. The resident also reported her neighbour’s visitors had started a fight on 12 November 2020 and the police had attended as a result. Whilst this suggests only sporadic and isolated ASB, the evidence demonstrates regular attendances to the neighbour’s property by the police and confirms liaison between them and the landlord. The evidence shows other neighbours were also reporting issues and the landlord was aware of the ongoing issue with the perpetrator and his visitors. 
  18. At this time, as fewer and more sporadic reports were being made, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that more reports of ASB needed to be made to effectively ‘rebuild’ a case if court proceedings were to take place. It appears to this Service, however, that the landlord overlooked the several other intervening tools – such as an offer of mediation given the clear conflict – that it could have used to manage the situation in the meantime. Where there were clear issues discovered with the neighbour’s behaviour, it is unclear why warnings, for example, were not issued.
  19. During the course of the complaints procedure, the landlord confirmed it had been open to taking possession proceedings. It confirmed it had served a notice seeking possession (in around early February 2020) but there had been restrictions on this action. It stated that whilst constant police visits had an impact on the other residents in the building, its view was that the ongoing reports were not serious enough for possession to now be granted.
  20. The Ombudsman accepts that between late March 2020 and September 2021 the Government placed restrictions on the granting of possession orders, to be followed by limitations on enforcement. This would have had an impact on any immediate legal action the landlord sought to take at this time. This did not, however, detract from the landlord’s obligation to explain to the resident what was happening during this period, and to manage her expectations.
  21. With consideration of all of the above, while it is clear that the landlord did take some action to address the issues reported by the resident, this Service is not satisfied that it exhausted the tools available to it to provide resolution, or that it offered reasonable assurance that the right steps were being taken. This resulted in the issue going unresolved for a protracted period of time and a refusal from the resident to continue to make reports.
  22. For completeness, in relation to the resident’s concerns about information shared as part of her Subject Access Request, it is worth noting that any alleged breach she seeks to pursue would need to be raised with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). It is beyond the expertise of this Service to comment on any alleged breaches in the sharing of information.
  23. Moreover, as the resident expressed a desire for an external investigation into her case, she may wish to read-up on the benefits of the community trigger. A recommendation will be made for the landlord to signpost her to this information.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.

  1. The resident has raised this issue as part of her referral to this Service. The landlord’s records show that on 28 November 2019, in a telephone conversation with the resident, it noted it “would help her if she felt she wanted to move”. This was on or around the time the resident suggested that after living in her home for 18 years (by that time) she “may have to accept defeat” by seeking a move.
  2. However, this Service can see that on 7 December 2020, the resident emailed the landlord asking how to start the process for a transfer of property but there is no evidence of the landlord responding with the appropriate information.
  3. On 19 March 2021 the landlord responded to an enquiry by the resident’s MP and confirmed a managed move could not be considered as there was not ‘a significant risk’ to the resident from the neighbour. This was in accordance with the landlord’s own policy. It was reasonable nonetheless, that the landlord confirmed that it would review the resident’s priority banding and offer advice on her moving options.
  4. In the landlord’s stage two complaint response though, it stated that “from [its] perspective the situation has not changed. You have no active Search Moves application, no live HomeSwapper application, and from investigating all your previous and most recent communications since March 2021, you have not raised this issue with [he landlord] but have contacted us about other matters”. This was despite previously advising the resident that she would be provided with advice on her banding and her moving options months earlier. It reiterated at this time that it would provide advice and guidance around the resident’s rehousing options but this would not be in connection with a managed move.
  5. Whilst the landlord considered any lack of progress as being due to inactivity on the resident’s part, it is clear to this Service that there was also a failure on its own part to share information with the resident on her re-housing options. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord was obligated to offer the resident a managed moved given that the resident’s circumstance did not meet the criteria, but it would have been appropriate for it to have offered greater direction for her to pursue a move herself. The resident advised this Service that she received little contact from the landlord’s Home Moves Team after this time.
  6. This Service has subsequently concluded that the landlord could have managed the resident’s request more appropriately. This Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that awards starting at £50 may be proportionate where there has been a failing but it is of shorter duration with no long-term consequences. An order of £50 compensation has therefore been made below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was a service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was a service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay compensation to the resident of £300 (£250 for its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and £50 for its handling of her request for information as to how to arrange a move).
  2. The landlord should provide this Service with proof of payment within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should signpost the resident to information about the Community Trigger. It should also share information with the resident on all of her available options for re-housing if it has not done so already.
  2. The landlord should make contact with the resident to establish whether she is still experiencing ASB and if so, should agree a plan of action to address this. The landlord should consider use of all of its available enforcement / intervening tools, as well as considering whether legal action is required.