Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202216669)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216669

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

18 July 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the installation of new lighting within the external communal areas of the property.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, who resides in a house that forms part of an estate. The estate has access to a communal street and carpark.
3. The resident said that she first reported on 22 and later 29 August 2022 that the external areas of the property were in darkness following the removal of the street lighting across the estate. She raised a formal complaint on 13 September 2022, stating that no action had been taken since raising the issue and that the property had been in “pitch darkness” for over six weeks. She said that following a dispute about an ongoing repair between the landlord and the local council, the council removed all streetlights within the estate (though no further details were provided). She requested the landlord to install new lighting within the external communal areas.
4. The landlord issued its stage 1 formal complaint response on 29 September 2022, and did not uphold the complaint. Itexplained that following repairs to a wall the communal lighting and all signage was removed (the date of removal was not provided) as it was found to be placed onto private property. It aimed to install new light bollards and signage by October 2022. It apologised for the time taken to organise this and any impact this was having on the resident’s concerns over her public safety.
5. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process on 30 September 2022. She said that it was nine weeks since the landlord left her property and estate in a dangerous position of having no streetlights, and that she informed her local member of parliament for support.
6. The landlord consulted with its electrical engineers on 17 October 2022 to begin the works, as the parts had arrived, and a quote was accepted. It informed the resident via a letter on 20 October 2022 that new streetlighting in the car park areas was to be installed between 24 to 27 October 2022. It explained that the works required the installation of a new power supply, cabling and bulkhead lights across the estate. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 25 October 2022. It upheld the resident’s complaint, agreeing that it should have installed the new lights earlier. It attributed the delays to the removal of a wall (though no specific details were provided), and that the new lights would be installed by November 2022.
7. The resident raised a further complaint on 26 October 2022. She said that she had been reporting anti-social behaviour for years, including drug use in the communal car park. And now that the estate had insufficient lighting, strangers were using the car park to smoke and drink alcohol. She felt unsafe, saying that the issue has caused her untold emotional stress and anxiety.
8. The landlord’s engineers installed new bollard lighting in the communal areas around the estate on 28 October 2022, advising that further lighting could be installed in the communal car park if required.
9. The resident bought her complaint to the attention of this Service, as she remained dissatisfied with the time taken to install the new communal lighting. She said that due to having no lighting for three months she felt at risk, experiencing high levels of stress and anxiety. She requested compensation for the pain, suffering and anguish the issue caused her, and the delays in providing her complaint response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. In her communications to this Service, the resident raised concerns that drug dealing, loitering and alcohol consumption took place in the car park, and that she had been reporting this for years to the landlord without any action being taken. However, no evidence has been submitted by either party that this issue has been reported to the landlord, or exhausted its internal complaints procedure and as such is excluded from this report. This is because the landlord needs to be given the chance to formally respond to and address the issue before it can be investigated by this Service. The resident is recommended to contact the landlord and raise this as a separate complaint where appropriate should these issues persist.
11. The resident attributed the decline of her mental health and wellbeing, including anxiety to landlord’s delays to install the communal lighting. However, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing and as such, it is excluded from this report. However, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the installation of new lighting within the external communal areas of the property

12. It is not disputed by either party that the landlord is responsible to install new communal lighting around the estate. In accordance with its responsive repairs policy, communal lighting would be considered a repair with variable timescales. It describes repairs like this as those that require multiple visits, often using multi skilled operatives or several special-order parts. As such It was required to respond to the resident’s reports of inadequate lighting in these areas, by explaining proposed works and giving a clear timeframe of when the works would be completed.
13. It was therefore appropriate that following the removal of the previously installed communal lighting, the landlord looked to implement plans to install new lighting to the external communal areas of the estate. Though it is not known when the landlord looked to remove the previous lighting, it appropriately carried out an inspection to the estate on 23 September 2022, and looked to inform the resident that new lighting would be installed by (what is assumed) within October 2022, as part of its stage 1 complaint response. Ultimately the landlord provided a long-term solution by installing new lighting on 28 October 2022. What is more, it fulfilled its obligations within its repsonsive repairs policy by ensuring that once it had received a quote and date of completion from its electrical engineers, that it provided the resident with a letter on 20 October 2022, clearly outlining dates of installation.
14. Although this Service finds that the landlord fulfilled its obligations within its repsonsive repairs policy, the landlord ultimately agreed that there had been delays to installing the new lighting which it attributed to repairs of a wall. It would be expected to have communicated these delays when they became aware of them, detailing the reason for the delay and when the lighting would look to be installed. However, the landlord has not evidenced, if any, what actions it took to communicate any such delays. Furthermore, it did not include any evidence regarding the repairs on the wall, or why the local council removed the streetlighting across the estate which caused the resident’s complaint to take place.
15. The landlord would be expected to respond to the resident’s reports over her safety feeling jeopardised by the lack of sufficient lighting, by looking to provide reassurance, adequately resolving the issue, and provide any advice or guidance on personal safety at night. While it ultimately installed new lighting, it did not evidence what actions it took, if any, to advise the resident it was looking to do this prior to her complaint raised 13 September 2022, and as such her concerns that she felt the landlord would do nothing unless she pursued a complaint are reasonable. Neither did it provide any evidence it considered the resident’s risk to her personal safety as part of its complaint responses. It would have been preferable had the landlord looked to provide or suggest a temporary means of lighting for the resident, such as torches, wall lights, or other means, as this would help ease the resident’s concerns for her personal safety while it looked to install new communal lighting. Yet no such offer was made.
16. When failures are identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. This is in accordance with this Service’ Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from the outcome.
17. In this case the landlord looked to put things right by ultimately installing new lighting within the external communal spaces across the estate. It accepted there had been delays and correctly apologised to the resident for the delays in the new lighting being installed. However, if we consider the additional failings identified above, its omissions of a fair, and proportionate remedy are a further failing on its behalf. Furthermore, the landlord did not show it had addressed the resident’s concerns over her safety at night, not has it provided sound reasoning for the delays that took place. As such, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 for its communication failings and £50 for not addressing the resident’s concerns to her personal safety.
18. The landlord’s record keeping is of some noticeable concern in this case. It did not provide evidence as to when the communal lighting was removed, nor did it provide any details surrounding the repairs on the wall, to which it attributed the delays in this case to. It is important that landlord’s keep robust and detailed records of its repairs and contacts, as when a complaint is raised the Ombudsman will request for the landlord’s records. As no evidence has been provided, the Ombudsman is unable to ultimately determine if the landlord has acted within its obligations on these matters, and as such, cannot determine that it acted fairly, or reasonably regarding the delays. It is ordered to pay an additional £50 compensation for its record keeping failures to the resident.
19. The above amounts have been calculated using this Service’s Remedies Guidance where issues that have not had a permanent or lasting impact, but where a service failing has been identified and not been addressed. It is also ordered to carry out staff training in respect of its record keeping and communication, to ensure that, moving forward, all service requests are appropriately logged in some written manner and that residents are made aware of any delays in completion of works moving forward.

Complaint handling

20.  The landlord has a two stage complaints policy. Upon receiving a formal complaint, it is to issue a stage 1 response within ten working days. Where a complaint is escalated it is to issue its stage 2 response within 20 working days.
21.  According to the landlord’s records, the resident first raised a stage 1 complaint on 13 September, and it replied on 29 September 2022, 11 working days later, one day longer than its stipulated timescale. The resident escalated her complaint on 30 September 2022, and the landlord issued its stage 2 response 25 October 2022, some 17 working days later, three days within its complaints policy timescale.
22. Considering the above, although the landlord was one working day past its timescales for its stage 1 response, ultimately, the Ombudsman finds that this did not have any lasting impact on the resident and that the landlord had, for all but one working day fulfilled its obligations within its complaints policy. As such, an overall finding of no maladministration is found within the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

23.  In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling to install new lighting within the external communal areas of the property.
24.  In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration found in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

25.  The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £150 compensation broken down as follows:
       1. £50 for its communication failings in this case
       2. £50 for failing to address all aspects of the resident’s complaint.
       3. £50 for its record keeping failings.
    2. Carry out staff training regarding the following:
       4. Its record keeping to ensure that all contacts, repairs, and service requests are appropriately logged in some written format moving forwards,
       5. Its communication in respect of planned or major works to ensure that residents are made aware of any delays moving forwards.
26. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders.