Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202303669)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303669

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

12 April 2024

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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of his:
1. Reports of harassment by his neighbours.
2. Formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord under a tenancy agreement which began on 17 March 2011. The property is a 2 bedroom first floor flat in a residential block, the resident is the sole occupant. The resident has health conditions which impact his vision and mobility. He is unable to leave the property unaided and has carers which visit on a daily basis.
The landlord logged an antisocial behaviour (ASB) case on 26 November 2020 following reports from the resident that his neighbours were harassing him by regularly kicking the front door to his flat when entering and exiting the building. The landlord visited the resident and asked him record dates and times that this was occurring. It also spoke with the neighbours the resident claimed were responsible, who denied the allegations.
The landlord closed the ASB case on 27 April 2021. It said that it was unable to progress the case as the resident had not been able to provide records of any of the incidents and it had no evidence to substantiate his complaints.
On 12 August 2021, the landlord logged another ASB case after the resident made a further report of his neighbours kicking the front door to his flat.
Social services contacted the landlord on 24 August 2021 regarding the suitability of the resident’s property. The landlord discussed the possibility of moving the resident to a ground floor property on medical grounds, however the resident was hesitant to do this as it would require downsizing to a 1 bedroom property.
On 19 October 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident informing him that it was closing the ASB case. It said that it had:
1. Explained the ways in which he could gather and provide evidence to it, including diary sheets, its noise app and installing a camera to record noise.
2. Referred him to the local authority with a view to it installing noise monitoring equipment.
3. Liaised with the local police, including their ‘proactive vulnerability engagement’ (PAVE) team, who had also offered him advice on collecting evidence of the ASB.
4. Worked through the agreed action plan for the resident’s case and taken all available steps, but would reopen the case if he could provide supporting evidence of his reports in the next 3 months.
The landlord opened another ASB case on 3 February 2023 after the resident alleged that the neighbours had been harassing and intimidating his carers when they visited the property and were continuing to kick his front door.
On 23 February 2023, the landlord had a contractor install a temporary CCTV camera in the corridor outside the resident’s flat covering his front door.
On 4 March 2023, the police provided the landlord with dates and times that the resident had reported his front door, and an adjacent wall, being kicked. They requested that the landlord check the CCTV footage to corroborate these. The landlord checked the footage and advised it could not see anyone kick or hit the resident’s front door during the relevant time periods. The landlord acknowledged that the CCTV camera did not cover the relevant wall and said it would arrange for a camera with audio recording capability to be installed to account for this.
The landlord raised a repair to adjust the communal front door to the block on 14 March 2023. It noted that it appeared to slam more heavily than others within the estate and it was concerned this may be a contributing factor to the resident’s reports.
At the landlord’s request, the contractor swapped the CCTV camera for one which also had an audio recording capability on 15 March 2023.
The police contacted the landlord on 17 March 2023 to say that the resident had reported someone kicking his front door that morning. The landlord checked the CCTV footage and was unable to locate this incident.
On 31 March 2023, the police provided the landlord with a list of dates and times the resident said his front door had been kicked between 12 March and 29 March 2023. This totalled 27 occasions. The landlord checked the corresponding CCTV footage and was unable to see any incidents of this occurring, it said that the only noise audible was from people entering and exiting the block.
The landlord completed the adjustment of the block communal front door on 3 April 2023.
The resident made his complaint to the landlord on 13 April 2023. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the way it had handled his reports of his front door being kicked since 2020 and accused the landlord of failing to take his complaints seriously.
On 20 April 2023, the police provided the landlord with a list of dates and times the resident had reported kicks to his front door and wall. The landlord checked the corresponding footage and saw only people entering and exiting the building from other flats.
The landlord and the police arranged to visit the resident on 27 April 2023 to discuss the findings from the CCTV camera. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 April 2023 requesting that it did not attend. Despite this, the police and landlord attempted the visit as scheduled and the resident declined to speak with them.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 May 2023 to advise it was closing the ASB case and removing the CCTV camera. It said that despite the camera being in place for 3 months it had been unable to find any evidence that his front door, or wall, were being kicked. The landlord said it would not be able to reopen the case, or log a new case about the same issues, unless he could provide video evidence to substantiate his reports.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 27 May 2023. It said it had not upheld the resident’s complaint as it had followed the correct process in managing his reports, including liaising with the police and social services, but required “proof” before it could take any further action. The landlord offered the resident £25 compensation for the delay in providing its complaint response.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 8 June 2023 asking for it to provide the resident with a stage 2 complaint response by 13 July 2023.
On 17 August 2023, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord again repeating the request for a stage 2 complaint response and asking it to provide this by 24 August 2023.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 complaint response on 24 August 2023. It reconfirmed its findings at stage 1 and said that it had “tried multiple ways to help” including offering to assist the resident with a move, installing CCTV to capture evidence and carrying out a repair to the communal front door. The landlord signposted the resident to the local authority to request a ‘community trigger’ case review and advised it would also be referring the case for a ‘partnership meeting’ so it could be discussed between partner agencies.

Assessment and findings

Reports of ASB

The resident has said that the harassment he experienced from his neighbours has severely impacted his health. He was admitted to hospital in both December 2020 and May 2022 due to issues with his heart which he attributed to the kicking of his front door. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to establish the cause of any damage to health, this would be for a court to determine through a personal injury claim during which expert medical evidence can be considered. The Ombudsman does, however, take into account a resident’s particular circumstances including health conditions when assessing the landlord’s handling of their case.
Upon opening the first ASB case on 26 November 2020, the landlord contacted the resident the same day to discuss his reports and arranged to visit him the following day. At this visit, the landlord checked the communal entry door to the block and noted that opening and closing this caused the resident’s front door to shake – however the resident said that the noise was “much louder when it is kicked”. The landlord asked the resident to make a log of times and dates the kicking was occurring.
On this date the landlord also spoke with the neighbours whom the resident alleged were responsible for kicking his front door. The landlord’s records indicate that the neighbours denied the allegations. Due to this, typical early intervention options such as mediation or acceptable behaviour contracts were inappropriate in this instance.
The landlord next spoke with the resident on 9 December 2020, when he advised he had been in hospital since its visit to him but had now returned home. The landlord reiterated the need for the resident to log any incidents of his front door being kicked.
Despite this, there is no evidence that the resident provided the landlord with such a log, despite reporting that the issue was still ongoing throughout January to March 2021. This Service has not seen any evidence that the resident made the landlord aware that he was unable to compile a log, and the police later informed the landlord that the resident had been capable of completing diary sheets they had provided. Nor was the resident able to supply a recording of the noise, despite telling the landlord on 17 March 2023 that he had been attempting to capture such a recording and would continue to do so.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that its ability to tackle ASB is “increased when residents provide appropriate evidence of the incidents and nuisance they experience. Residents are expected to make use of all the resources available to them to provide this evidence”. The policy notes that “failure to meet … these responsibilities is likely to lead to [the landlord] ending their efforts to overcome complaints of ASB”.
Based upon this, the landlord’s decision to close the ASB case on 27 April 2021 was reasonable. By this time, the case had been open for 5 months and the landlord had received no incident logs or recordings from the resident, or corroborating evidence from any third parties. Due to the neighbours denying the alleged behaviour, the landlord was limited in what further action it could take without such evidence.
The landlord opened the second ASB case on 12 August 2021 after the resident made a new report of his front door being kicked. It contacted the resident on 19 August 2021 and discussed him using its noise recording app, which he made it aware he was unable to use due to having no internet access. The resident raised the possibility of having noise recording equipment installed in the property, however the landlord advised that it did not have access to such equipment and the resident would need to contact the local authority – which had this capability.
On 24 August 2021, the landlord was contacted by social services, which had recently become involved with the resident, to discuss concerns about the suitability of his property as he was unable to navigate the stairs unaided. The landlord appropriately contacted the resident on 25 August 2021 to discuss supporting him with a move, but he indicated that he would only be willing to move to another 2 bedroom property. The landlord explained that the local authority’s, and its own, allocations policy would only deem him a 1 bedroom need due to living alone.
Despite the unsuitability of the property, such a move would still be contingent upon the resident’s consent and agreement, with the landlord unable to unilaterally move him. The landlord did later carry out a ‘hazard identification checklist’ with the resident and make a referral to its fire safety team in order to appropriately manage the risks presented by the resident’s continued occupancy of the property.
During the call of 25 August 2021, the landlord advised the resident that it had ‘done what it could’ with the evidence he had been able to provide, but as it was his word against the neighbours it would require “more solid evidence” to move forwards.
The landlord also claimed it was looking into getting noise recording equipment from the local authority. It is noted that the resident has disputed that the landlord ever referred his case to the local authority noise team, and there is no evidence of action taken in this regard within the ASB casefile provided for this investigation. However, the resident was aware of the local authority’s noise team (having previously been signposted to this by the landlord) and capable of approaching it directly himself had this been something he wished to pursue.
On 26 August 2021, the landlord contacted the police regarding the resident’s case. The police said they were in contact with the resident, had provided him with diary sheets to log incidents on and suggested he look into installing a camera in the spyhole of his front door to capture evidence. The police advised they had referred him to their PAVE which was working with social services and looking into how they could support the resident.
The landlord spoke with an officer from the PAVE on 2 September 2021 and again on 14 September 2021 – after the officer had visited the resident. The landlord recorded that the officer had confirmed the resident was capable of completing diary sheets and felt that the police and the landlord had “given [the resident] all of the tools and information in relation to how he can prove these issues are happening…now the responsibility is on [the resident] to prove the issue”. The officer also reported that they did not think the resident “has any mental health that we should be concerned about and that he has a support worker visiting daily and is getting the level of help required for his needs from social services and his care agency”.
Just over a month later, on 19 October 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident closing the ASB case. It explained that it had now “worked through all the case steps” but would reopen the case and agree a new action plan if the resident could provide supporting evidence of his reports within the next 3 months. This was a reasonable position considering the landlord and police had clearly explained what was required from the resident in order to progress the case and, as with the previous case, would not be in a position to take further action without this.
It is apparent that the resident did follow police advice and (with the help of his carers) installed a sensor activated spyhole camera. However, the police advised the landlord that this was only capable of taking photographs, not capturing video footage, and had been unable to produce any viable evidence. This camera had also caused a dispute between the resident and a neighbour (in the flat opposite of the resident’s) as the sensor was activated whenever the neighbour entered and exited their flat.
The third and final ASB case was opened by the landlord on 3 February 2023, after the police contacted it to advise that they were still receiving calls from the resident “pretty much daily” to report his front door being kicked. The resident also reported incidents directly to the landlord where he said his carers had been harassed and intimidated by the neighbours.
The landlord spoke with the resident’s care manager on the same day. The care manager reported that they had not witnessed any incidents involving the neighbours themselves, but that some carers had experienced issues. However, these issues (being intimidated by the neighbours’ dog being in the communal area, hearing footsteps on the stairwell but nobody appearing, and a bottle being placed under the tyre of a carer’s vehicle by an unseen person) were all one off occurrences, and not things which the landlord could reasonably be confident were ASB purposely conducted by the neighbours.
The landlord also spoke to the resident and confirmed that it would be installing temporary CCTV covering his front door. It was reasonable for it to do this at this stage, as the landlord appropriately acknowledged that resident had previously attempted to install his own camera but encountered the issues described above.
The landlord visited the resident on 16 February 2023 to determine where best to place the CCTV camera. It also discussed the possibility of moving the resident to a more suitable ground floor property again, but recorded that he said “he doesn’t want to do this as he wants the neighbours to pay”.
Following the installation of the CCTV camera on 23 February 2023, the police provided the landlord with a list of dates and times of incidents reported to them by the resident. The landlord reviewed the CCTV footage of these periods and was unable to find any evidence to support the resident’s reports.
The landlord appropriately recognised that in several of the incidents the resident had referred to the wall of the property being kicked, rather than the front door. The resident had originally requested that the CCTV camera was placed so as to cover this area, but the landlord had been unable to do this due to the logistics of the wiring. As a solution to this, the landlord reasonably requested for its contractor to change the camera to one with an audio recording capability, which would pick up the noise from the wall being kicked even if it was out of vision. This was completed on 15 March 2023.
At the suggestion of the police, the landlord also arranged for a repair to be raised to adjust the communal entry door so that this could be eliminated as a possible source of the noise which the resident was attributing to kicking. Whilst this could have been arranged earlier – the door having been identified by the landlord as a possible source of noise back in November 2020 – the fact that the resident continued to report incidents after the repair was completed indicates that this had not been the source of the noise the resident was reporting.
Following the change of camera and adjustment of the communal entry door, the resident continued to report further incidents of his front door and wall being kicked to the police. The police passed these to the landlord, which reviewed the corresponding footage and was still unable to find any visual or audible evidence of this.
The landlord appropriately arranged visit to the resident, with the police, to discuss what had been captured by the CCTV camera and show him some of the footage. However, the resident declined to engage in this claiming that he had lost trust in the landlord. Whilst this Service acknowledges that the landlord still attempted to carry out this visit against the resident’s wishes, it would have been beneficial for all 3 parties to meet, and the resident to view the footage, and the detriment caused to the resident by this attempt was limited.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that “victims of ASB are expected to meet with [landlord] staff as required whilst active work is being undertaken to tackle their complaints”. As with providing evidence, the policy notes this as a complainant responsibility which, if not met, is likely to lead to the landlord closing their case. In light of this, and the lack of evidence obtained from the CCTV camera over a 3 month period, it was reasonable for the landlord to subsequently close the ASB case on 25 May 2023. It appropriately attempted to notify the resident of this decision by phone and sent him a case closure letter explaining its reasoning.
It is, however, of concern that within this closure letter the landlord told the resident that “if you continue to contact us about the same type of incident…without evidence, we may consider taking further action against you for breach of the terms and conditions of your tenancy”. The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord had expended considerable time and resources investigating the resident’s reports over several years without a single instance being evidenced, and therefore wished to make clear it would not continue to do this. However, there is no evidence to suggest the resident’s reports were made maliciously or dishonestly and threatening tenancy action to dissuade residents from reporting harassment in any context is a practice which should be avoided.
Following closure of the case, the landlord appropriately signposted the resident to the ‘community trigger’ in its stage 2 complaint response and advised him that it would be referring his case to the local authority’s partnership meeting for a multiagency overview. The landlord had also made contact with social services on 9 May 2023, to raise concerns about the resident’s welfare after it became apparent that the incidents he was reporting were not supported by what was captured on the CCTV camera.
In summary, the landlord’s position that it had taken the resident’s reports “very seriously”, appropriately investigated them and tried multiple ways to help was reasonable. The landlord worked effectively with the police throughout all 3 of the ASB cases that were opened and showed due regard for the resident’s health and welfare. However, there was no evidence to support the resident’s reports, even after the landlord installed CCTV, and it was therefore unable to reasonably take any further action.

Complaint handling

The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 13 April 2023. The landlord acknowledged his complaint on 20 April 2023, in keeping with the 5 working day timescale contained in its complaints policy. The landlord advised that it would provide its stage 1 complaint response by 5 May 2023.
However, the stage 1 response was not sent to the resident until 27 May 2023 – over 3 weeks after this date. The landlord has not provided any explanation for this delay or evidence that it contacted the resident in advance to advise him of it.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did appropriately acknowledge and apologise for the delay and made an offer of £25 compensation for this. This was in keeping with the landlord’s compensation policy which allows it to consider compensation where it has failed to meet its own service targets. A compensation schedule contained within this policy says the landlord will offer “up to £20” for “one instance of mild inconvenience” and in this context the offer of £25 was reasonable.
After receiving the stage 1 response, the resident contacted the Ombudsman – which asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 8 June 2023. The landlord failed to acknowledge or action this request, with the complaint only being escalated following a second request from the Ombudsman on 17 August 2023.
The landlord’s records indicate that it had “missed the email” sent by the Ombudsman on 8 June 2023. This oversight resulted in unnecessary time and trouble being taken by the resident, who had to refer back to the Ombudsman when the landlord failed to provide its stage 2 response in accordance with the original request. This caused a delay of over 2 months for the resident to receive his final complaint response, which accordingly delayed his ability to refer his complaint to this Service for investigation.
Unlike the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord’s stage 2 response failed to acknowledge and apologise for this failure or make a reasonable offer of redress. This represents service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of harassment by his neighbours.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Reasons

The landlord worked effectively with the police throughout all 3 of the ASB cases that were opened and showed due regard for the resident’s health and welfare. However, it was unable to find evidence to support the resident’s reports, even after installing CCTV, and was therefore unable to reasonably take any further action.
The landlord “missed” the Ombudsman’s request for it to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 2, resulting in a delay of over 2 months in him receiving his final complaint response. The landlord failed to acknowledge, apologise or make a reasonable offer of redress for this within the stage 2 response itself.

Order

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £75 compensation for the time and trouble caused by the service failure in its complaint handling. This is in addition to the £25 awarded for the delay in its stage 1 complaint response.
2. Apologise for the service failure in its stage 2 complaint handling.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service.