Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202111314)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111314

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

22 May 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:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports of a noise nuisance by her neighbour.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 30 March 2021. The property is a one bedroom ground floor flat, in a building of similar properties. The resident’s reports of noise nuisance concern a neighbour who lives directly above her.
  2. The resident has explained to this Service that the noise began in April 2021. However, there is no evidence of her reporting any concerns until June 2021. She said the noise mainly consisted of furniture being moved around.
  3. The resident hand delivered a formal complaint to the landlord in July 2021. It is understood that the landlord did not receive her complaint, and was unaware until this Service became involved (in September 2021). We then asked the landlord to raise a complaint concerning the noise nuisance.
  4. In the landlord’s final response, it explained that it had not received any evidence to support her allegations, and that it needed evidence to warrant any action.
  5. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she described the noise as ‘‘becoming unbearable’’ and said the landlord had not resolved her concerns. 

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s ASB (anti-social behaviour) policy explains that it expects residents to make use of all resources available and provide evidence of the ASB they are reporting. It says its ability to tackle ASB is increased when residents provide appropriate evidence. The landlord’s website explains that residents can send diary sheets to it by hand, post, or online.
  2. The evidence provided for this investigation shows the resident began reporting noise nuisance from her neighbour in June 2021. The landlord advised her of its noise recording app. She said the noise began early in the morning, and lasted until late at night.
  3. The landlord visited the resident on 21 July 2021 for a routine tenancy visit, said it would speak to the neighbour about her concerns and provided the resident with diary sheets. There was then a leak from the neighbour’s property into the residents, which the resident reported on 26 July 2021 stating that she believed this was intentional, and an act of ASB.  The landlord said it would interview the neighbour. The resident also claimed that she believed there was a potential repair issue with the neighbour’s floorboards which was causing the noise. The landlord said it would investigate, and carry out any necessary work.
  4. The landlord’s internal records show that on 13 August 2021 it commented that it had “done everything” it could in terms of the resident’s reports. It then referred the case to another internal department, which is understood to have been the Independent Living Officers team, for further help. However, it remains unclear from its records what action, if any, it had taken up until this point. There is no evidence to show it spoke to the neighbour, like it said it would, and there is no evidence of it taking any steps to alleviate the nuisance for the resident by addressing the potential floorboard repair, as it said it would.
  5. The resident raised a formal complaint as she was dissatisfied with how the landlord had responded to her concerns.
  6. In its stage one complaint response of 18 October 2021, the landlord said it understood that its Tenancy Solutions Manager had called the resident on 8 October 2021 and that her case had been referred to a Tenancy Solutions Officer to investigate and to provide the resident with the assistance, tools and information required.
  7. For a landlord to be able to take action in response to ASB (noise nuisance) it needs sufficient evidence of the nuisance being reported in order to warrant its intervention. In this case it is evident that the landlord attempted to gather evidence as it provided the resident with diary sheets, and suggested she use a noise recording app. These were reasonable and pragmatic attempts to capture the noise nuisance.
  8. The landlord has explained to this Service that it did not receive the resident’s hand delivered diary sheets. It said this was why it said in its complaint responses that it had insufficient evidence of the nuisance being reported. If the landlord was unaware of any evidence being submitted, it would not be expected to take any enforcement action.
  9. Nonetheless, the evidence shows that the landlord was made aware that the resident had submitted diary sheets on 4 August 2021 as she had advised she had during a phone call on 1 September 2021. Therefore, before issuing its complaint responses, the landlord should have checked its records to ensure the resident had not submitted evidence, rather than basing its complaint response on the assumption that she had not. Even if the landlord did not think her reports demonstrated ASB, it was still required to at least consider them, and then explain to the resident whether or not her reports met the threshold for its intervention. Its actions were therefore unreasonable.
  10. Also, it is evident that the same officer produced the stage one and two complaint responses. The Ombudsman encourages landlords to ensure their stage two investigations are conducted by someone who has no prior knowledge of the complaint. This is basic good practice, helps ensure impartiality, and brings in a wider perspective of the matters at hand. In this case, it was unreasonable for only one officer to deal with the resident’s complaint as her complaint was not investigated fairly. This was a failing in terms of the landlord’s complaint handling.
  11. Ultimately, there is no evidence to show the landlord adequately addressed the resident’s concerns of a noise nuisance. It has not demonstrated that it spoke to the neighbour, it did not acknowledge the resident’s evidence and there is no evidence of it taking any steps to alleviate the nuisance for the resident by addressing the potential floorboard repair. By failing to ensure that the stage two investigation was conducted by someone who had had not no prior knowledge of the complaint, the landlord has also failed to evidence that it conducted a fair and impartial investigation of her complaint.
  12. Given the time that has elapsed since the resident raised her concerns of noise nuisance, we will not order the landlord to take any action in response to her diary sheets. However, the landlord has been be ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation for its failure to adequately addressed her concerns of a noise nuisance and for the inconvenience this would have undoubtedly caused her. The landlord is also to pay the resident an additional £50 for its complaint handling failure.
  13. This in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website). The guidance suggests awards between £50 and £250 are suitable for cases where there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a noise nuisance.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident at total of £200 compensation, made up as follows:
    1. £150 for the inconvenience and frustration experienced as a result of the failings identified in this report in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a noise nuisance.
    2. £50 for its complaint handling failures.

This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when the payment has been made.