Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202003949)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003949

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

29 June 2021 (As amended following review on 11 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to a fence.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an uninhabited neighbouring building and its condition.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for fire assessment reports.
5. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that Covid-19 guidelines were not being adhered to.
6. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident has had an assured tenancy with the landlord since 1 October 2007.
A large amount of material has been provided regarding events and communication that has taken place following the provision of the landlord’s final complaint responses on 2 September 2020. While some of the documents have been included in the summary of events due to the context they provide for the complaint, this report largely considers the evidence dated up to and including the final responses of 2 September 2020.
On 7 February 2019 the resident emailed the landlord to advise that the fence between his and his neighbour’s gardens had blown over. On 14 February 2019 the resident emailed the landlord again to advise that he had made a makeshift repair but that the fence needed a more complete repair.
On 27 February 2019 the landlord’s contractors attended the property and examined the fence, noting that it would need three new posts and foundations. It was confirmed that the repair would be carried out at the appointment on 7 March 2019. On 7 March 2019 the resident contacted the landlord at 12:45pm to complain that the fence repair had been outstanding for a month given the contractors had not attended the scheduled appointment.
On 27 November 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord noting how the contractors could gain access to the gardens to carry out the repair to the fence. He stated that he was pleased the repair was finally being addressed but was frustrated that the repair had been delayed for so long and noted he intended to make a complaint to the Ombudsman. On 6 December 2019 the fence repair was completed.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 January 2020 stating that the landlord had failed to address certain issues which he was dissatisfied with:
1. His request for compensation for the fact that there was no attendance on the appointed date the first time he took time off from work for the fence between he and his neighbour’s properties to be repaired.
2. His seeking of compensation for the extended delay in addressing the fence repair between his neighbour and his own property.
In the same communication the resident stated that a different fence between his building and the next building had not been repaired and posed a security risk given the latter was abandoned and could be accessed by intruders. He noted that because of this he intended to employ contractors to repair the fence privately and deduct the cost from a future rent payment.
On 24 January 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to notify it that the adjacent building had waste left in the garden of the building.
On 28 February 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord requesting that a fire risk assessment be carried out regarding the wooden shed that was erected adjacent to his fire escape by his former neighbours. He also requested copies of the fire risk assessment reports for the property since he moved in in 2007.
On 18 March 2020 the landlord responded to the resident noting that it was carrying out an emergency repairs service only, it also acknowledged his request for provision of copies of the past fire assessments.
In mid-April the resident contacted the landlord to report that his neighbour had been smoking in the communal areas which he said was having a detrimental effect on his health. He requested that the landlord communicate with the neighbour about the issue to try and find a resolution.
On 11 May 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord again requesting that he be provided with the previous fire risk assessments for the property. He also stated that he had not received a response to his concerns about the abandoned neighbouring building, including the fence boundary and the rubbish in the garden.
On 12 May 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord noting that he had asked the landlord to mediate a problem about the attendance of contractors at the building given his concerns about their lack of PPE and social distancing in line with government guidelines. He noted that the shared communal areas through which contractors and residents were passing was contributing to health risks from Covid-19. He therefore requested that the landlord pass on his messages to the neighbour, whom he understood to be the one arranging for contractors to attend their property.
On the same day, 12 May 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident noting that it had contacted its fire safety team requesting that they send the requested past fire safety assessment documents to the resident. It also noted in response to the resident’s concerns about his neighbour’s behaviour during the lockdown that:
1. The case had been assigned to a particular team, but for GDPR reasons it could not disclose whether the neighbour had been spoken to.
2. It noted that it was not responsible for enforcing the lockdown directly but was following governmental advice. If the resident was concerned that it advised him to contact the police who had stricter powers to enforce social distancing.
On 13 May 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident noting that it had carried out an investigation into the status of the building next door to the resident’s property and confirming that it did not manage this. It advised him to contact his local council who might have owned the building or who could advise where to go with the enquiry about security and the clearing of rubbish and apologised for any inconvenience caused to him. The resident responded to the landlord on the same day noting that he had contacted the Council who had stated they would look at the property when the Covid-19 crisis allowed. He maintained his position that the landlord was failing in its duty to take responsibility for the issue.
On 15 May 2020 the landlord again wrote to the resident noting that because the neighbouring building wasn’t managed by the landlord, it needed the owner to make good its side of the fence before it looked into making good its side. This was on the basis that if it were to take responsibility and fix its side and the owner didn’t do its side, the issue would continue to be a problem. It stated, “once the council has attended, please let [it] know” and it would look into resolving the issue.
On 10 June 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord reporting that his neighbour had attended their property in the early hours of that morning, having been staying somewhere else. The resident expressed concerns that the neighbour was breaching their tenancy agreement by risking the health and safety of other residents due to the national lockdown.
On 12 June 2020 a contractor attended the neighbour’s property. The resident reported to the landlord in his email of 16 June 2020 that to access the property, the contractor had passed through a communal area which he himself would also make use of. He noted that given the hallway in particular was a small, unventilated space, he was concerned that the contractor was posing a risk to himself, and others given he was not wearing PPE.
On 16 June 2020 the resident emailed the landlord and reported the events he had observed on 12 June 2020. He also reported that other contractors attended the property on that day, 16 June 2020 without PPE, waited in the garden for some time and then came through the communal area. The resident noted he considered to be further breaches of the lockdown rules which were putting him at risk. He stated that even if there was no breach of lockdown rules, he reasonably needed to be informed of dates and times for contractors’ attendance through communal areas during a pandemic for the purpose of protecting his health.
On 18 June 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident with its complaint response in which it set out the following:
1. It understood the resident’s concerns about the communal entry way being used by people who did not live in the building but noted that this was necessary for contractors to carry out required repairs. It noted it was happy to raise the issue of their lack of PPE with them, but that it was not contractually obligated to make the resident aware of any appointments which were booked for other units in the block, as opposed to communal works which it was obliged to notify him about.
2. It did not have the resources to police or enforce lockdown regulations and so would expect people to adhere to them at their own discretion. It encouraged the resident to make his own safety paramount by wearing a mask when leaving and entering the property if he was concerned about the air in the shared area, as well as not touching surfaces in the communal areas and washing his hands regularly upon returning.
3. As the resident of the neighbouring property, the neighbour was free to come and go as he pleases irrespective of whether he was staying somewhere else, and neither this nor any other information provided by the resident demonstrated the neighbour had committed a breach of their tenancy.
On 19 June 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord requested that the complaint be escalated. On the same day the landlord wrote to the resident noting that without evidence there was only a certain amount it could do to address the resident’s reports of the neighbour and contractors breaching lockdown rules.
On 23 June 2020 the landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint. It noted in this response that it believed the contractors were not its contractors but noted that this would be investigated. It noted it would provide a response within 20 working days.
On 6 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident stating that it understood from the resident’s email that there had been contractors entering the property who were not wearing the required PPE. It noted having checked with its contractors and systems and confirmed that it had not authorised anyone to attend the property. It noted it would advise the relevant team that the neighbour had been bringing in contractors and not following government advice, however it stressed to the resident that it could not enforce this guidance but could only express concerns for their well-being.
On 7 July 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord about a separate repair issue, noting it had taken the latter approximately a year to fix the fence which had been a previous repair issue he had reported.
On 7 August 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to state that contractors were attending the property and not adhering to government advice regarding protective coverings and social distancing. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns on 9 August 2020.
As of 10 August 2020, the resident communicated to the landlord that the waste in the neighbouring building that he reported on 24 January 2020 had still not been cleared.
On 11 August 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident noting that its investigations had demonstrated that the attending contractors about whom the resident had raised concerns regarding PPE and social distancing had been brought in privately by a neighbour for work on their property, meaning its repairs team was “therefore very limited” in terms of what it could do.
On 12 August 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord requesting again that it provide him with the copies of fire assessment reports regarding the property since 2007.
On 14 August 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that contractors had attended the property that day walking through the communal area without masks to attend his neighbour’s property. He noted that the contractors were sometimes wearing gloves but also taking them off at various points. He noted that work was being carried out on the fence between his and a neighbouring property, which he considered should have been addressed promptly following the departure of previous residents in December 2019.
On 23 August 2020 the landlord provided a complaint response to the resident. It apologised to the resident for the lack of action it had taken in speaking to the neighbour about the issue of their smoking, on the basis that it had previously communicated to him that it would discuss the issue with them. It provided information on its ASB policy and requested the resident fill out the diary when such events occurred which would assist it with resolving the issue in future, as well as providing a document to assist the resident in dealing with his neighbour and resolving the dispute, though acknowledged he was reluctant to engage with the neighbour face to face. It requested he record any evidence should the issue continue, and it would act on this information where possible.
It also noted that it was not normally a housing agency’s responsibility to educate the public on the laws surrounding public safety in a pandemic. Whilst it noted his wellbeing was its priority, it would not pay compensation and the neighbour was welcome to seek information on the government’s coronavirus guidance. It noted that whilst it could contact a resident to remind them of lockdown rules, there was very little it could do with regards to actually enforcing them.
In the same day, 23 August 2020, the resident requested that the complaint be escalated to stage two of the complaints process. He set out that:
1. The impact of the failure to notify his neighbour of his concerns was being overlooked. He stated that it had been four months since he first requested the landlord contact the neighbour and the landlord had agreed to do so in approximately mid-April. His neighbour had advised him that the landlord had not contacted them about the concerns, which he considered to be an intentional failure which was part of a pattern of harassment. He believed the landlord welcomed the distress he was experiencing, seeing it as a means to harass them out of his home, and leaving the concerns unaddressed for this purpose.
2. The landlord was not complying with its obligations to allow the resident to have quiet enjoyment of his home and should address nuisance and ASB under the terms of his tenancy.
On 2 September 2020 the landlord provided its stage two complaint response about the attendance of contractors at the property. It acknowledged and apologised for the delay in providing the response. It set out the following:
1. The time spent by contractors walking from the main door through the communal hallway to the neighbour’s property was minimal. It was difficult to maintain a 2-metre distance if there were more than 2 people in the communal hallway, however the contractors were not working in the hallway but rather in the neighbour’s flat or outside the property. It stated that if contractors were working in an enclosed area for more than 15 minutes and they could not maintain a 2-metre distance from others, they were wearing masks.
2. It noted that the neighbour had agreed to wear a mask when entering and leaving the building to allay the resident’s concerns. It stated it would ask its contractors to do the same. It set out its belief that neither the neighbour nor the contractors had been anti-social.
3. It considered it unreasonable that the resident be made aware of everyone who visits the property, noting that the neighbour had the right to quiet enjoyment of the property as did he. It stated that it would naturally advise him when contractors were attending to carry out work at his request.
On 3 September 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident stating that it was encouraging him to talk to his neighbour to attempt to resolve the neighbour dispute, given that in its experience to escalate the issue could make problems worse. It noted that the neighbour was only prohibited from smoking in the communal hallways. It also stated that it was unable to deal with complaints regarding people on the property who may not be adhering to the lockdown rules as this was enforced by police. It also provided the resident with information on how to approach the neighbour and provided information about mediation, which it offered to set up if necessary.
On 9 September 2020 the resident wrote to the neighbour noting that the latter’s smoking outside his building was affecting his health. He requested that the neighbour smoke somewhere further away from the building.
On 13 October 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident noting that it would look into providing the fire assessment documents to the resident once the latter had confirmed his personal details for GDPR reasons by return email.
On 23 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident noting that the neighbour was entitled to smoke within his home or in the communal garden, as it stated it had communicated to him multiple times previously.

Policies and Procedures

The resident’s tenancy sets out at paragraph 2.4.1 that the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises including boundary walls and fences.
The landlord’s maintenance policy sets out that the landlord is responsible for boundary walls and fences separating a property from communal areas, public paths, or roads. The resident is responsible for repairs to fencing between neighbouring properties. Non-emergency repairs such as fencing repairs are to be completed within 15 working days.
The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person, that is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential remises, or capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person. Examples of ASB include persistent noise nuisance, intimidation and harassment, aggressive and threatening language, or behaviour, using the property for unlawful or illegal activity, or misuse of alcohol or drugs on the property that causes a nuisance to others. The policy does not make specific reference to smoking as either permitted or prohibited.
The policy states that residents should behave in a manner that does not cause nuisance and annoyance to their neighbours and the wider community. Residents are also expected to understand and be tolerant of different lifestyles.
The Ombudsman’s Covid-19 guidance for landlords and tenants sets out that normal service standards should be adhered to where possible with timeframes being met and updates and explanations provided to residents where there have been, or are likely to be, any delays. If a resident is not self-isolating, they can allow landlords or contractors access to their home in order to carry out a range of routine inspections, essential and non-essential repairs, and maintenance. Restrictions may mean it is harder to carry out routine or essential repairs and maintenance, but landlords should make every effort to meet their responsibilities. Landlords are expected to show regard for residents and particularly vulnerable ones when assessing whether a repair request should be carried out. If a resident is self-isolating, repair work should not go ahead.
On 24 July 2020 regulations in England made it compulsory to wear face coverings in most indoor public spaces. The government’s guidance online notes that people are encouraged to wear face coverings in enclosed public spaces where there are people they do not normally meet. This guidance did not specify their necessity for private, residential buildings. Face coverings are noted not to be a replacement for the other ways of managing risk including minimising time spent in contact, using fixed teams, and partnering for close-up work, increasing hand and surface washing. The guidance states that the government would not expect to see employers relying on face coverings as risk management for the purposes of their health and safety assessments.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out the following:
1. A stage one complaint will be acknowledged within three working days of receipt, and it aims to provide a formal response within ten working days.
2. If the complaint is not resolved at stage one, the resident will have 28 working days to request the complaint be escalated and explain why. It aims to provide a formal response within ten working days.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of ASB

The landlord’s policy does not prohibit residents from smoking in the communal areas of the building. The ASB policy’s definition of ASB does not make reference to this particular activity in its examples, which largely consist of what could reasonably be considered to be more ‘aggravating’ behaviours such as persistent noise nuisance, threatening language and behaviour or misuse of alcohol or drugs.
Evidence has been provided of the resident’s communication with his neighbour, in which he acknowledges that he does not have a legal right to insist that the neighbour smoke further away from his property. Despite this he made repeated requests to the landlord that steps be taken to get the neighbour to do this on the basis of the impact this was having on his health. The landlord has demonstrated that it communicated with the neighbour in an attempt to resolve the issues between the parties but maintained the consistent position that the neighbour was entitled to smoke in their home or the shared garden area. While the landlord has acknowledged a delay in actioning its commitment to the resident to speak to the neighbour, it did engage with the neighbour on multiple occasions and discussed the resident’s concerns.
The neighbour’s responses indicated that they had taken steps to minimise the impact on the resident, moving further away from the resident’s window and deeper into the communal area when smoking in response to the concerns raised by both the resident and the landlord. The landlord’s internal emails noted this and set out the position that the neighbour could not reasonably be expected to do any more in response. It encouraged the resident to engage with the neighbour to find a resolution, while also offering to proceed towards mediation if this resolution did not occur. It explained its reasons for taking this approach and was reasonable in the level of communication it had with the resident. The landlord therefore acknowledged the resident’s concerns and attempted to find a solution, even though it was not obligated to find a resolution to the issue.

The resident’s reports of repairs required to a fence

There is evidence that the resident made the landlord aware of issues with the fence as early as 7 February 2019, and contractors attended the property on 27 February 2019. This was a reasonable response time given the resident had communicated to the landlord that he had undertaken a makeshift repair to the fence which was therefore not an urgent priority to fix, but rather a routine one.
There is some dispute as to whether the landlord attended the scheduled appointment on the morning of 7 March 2019. The resident’s position is that no-one attended the property, and he reported this to the landlord early that afternoon. In contrast, the landlord has stated that its contractors did attend the property but were unable to gain access, although the resident has stated that the landlord did not make this claim until approximately a year after the appointment.
The fence repair was completed on 6 December 2019, which was approximately 10 months after it was reported to the landlord. It is unclear what was the reason for the delay, and there is minimal evidence to indicate that the landlord was undertaking steps to action the repair or that the resident was chasing up the issue. The length of time demonstrates a failure by the landlord to adhere to its repair policy, which set out that such repair work should be undertaken within 15 working days.

The resident’s reports of an uninhabited building

The landlord took steps to investigate the resident’s reports of an uninhabited neighbouring building. The evidence available demonstrates that the landlord carried out an investigation prior to 13 May 2020 into who had ownership of the building on the basis of the resident’s concerns about security, dumped rubbish and the visual impact of the building and its yard. Based on these investigations and its conclusions, it communicated to the resident on multiple occasions that the building was not one it managed and that it therefore had limited responsibilities in relation to it.
While the resident has noted concerns about the visual impact of rubbish in the building and yard, the impact is minimal and does not give rise to any responsibility for the landlord to take action beyond what it did. Nevertheless, it also directed him towards potential steps he could take to investigate the ownership of the building with the local Council. The language used in the communication demonstrated a sympathetic approach as there was a recognition of the resident’s inconvenience, and the suggested action by the landlord demonstrated an attempt to assist the resident in achieving a resolution to the problem.

The resident’s requests for fire risk assessment reports

The resident requested the landlord provide him with copies of its previous fire assessment documents for the property on multiple occasions, chasing up the requests from the landlord when he failed to receive a response. Evidence has been provided of the resident making this request on 28 February, 11 May, 12 August, and 13 October 2020. The resident has stated that to date he has been provided with a copy of the 2020 fire assessment report and 2 further reports but it is not known whether additional reports exist.
It is unclear why the landlord took as long as it did to respond to the resident’s requests, given these were reasonable and communicated in a clear manner, stemming from his concerns about the current fire safety standards of the property. The resident’s concerns should have given greater weight, as he clearly demonstrated to the landlord that he was distressed about the condition of the property and was seeking to review the fire assessment documents for his own peace of mind.

The resident’s reports that Covid-19 guidelines were not being adhered to

The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns about the attendance of contractors in the communal areas of the property and his neighbour’s property within the same building. It established that it had not booked in some of these contractors, who instead appeared to have been hired by the neighbour to undertake work in their property. It communicated with the resident that the neighbour was entitled to have work carried out in his property as necessary. However, despite the fact that it had not brought in the contractors itself, it took steps to communicate with the neighbour and his contractors about the resident’s concerns and requesting that they make more consistent use of PPE which was in line with government guidance at the time. It also demonstrated that it was considering the needs of both the neighbour in terms of his repair issues and the resident who was concerned about his wellbeing.
In terms of the contractors that it had commissioned, it noted that when passing through the communal areas of the property it was difficult to maintain social distancing, but that this risk was limited given the work was not being completed in the communal hallways but rather in the neighbour’s flat or outside the property. Nevertheless, it had communicated with the neighbour who had agreed to wear a mask when entering and leaving the building, and it requested its contractors do the same. This response demonstrated an engagement with the resident’s intermittent reports and concerns about guidelines not being adhered to, whilst also managing his expectations about what it could do to keep him safe. Though the landlord did not have a published Covid-19 guidance policy in place for such work, the landlord’s actions demonstrated a reasonable attempt to manage the need for contractors to be allowed to work in the building while still ensuring the wellbeing of residents and adhering to the available guidance from the government and Ombudsman.
The landlord was entitled to note that the Covid-19 guidelines regarding lockdown and social distancing had been put in place by the government. While it acknowledged his concerns and sought to provide him with some assistance and reassurance, it was reasonable for it to direct him to contact the police in circumstances where he observed people to be breaching lockdown rules. Furthermore, it set out clearly that it was not obliged to inform him of appointments at the neighbour’s property, while confirming that it would give notice to him for work being undertaken in any communal areas. It additionally advised him about steps he could take to protect himself in terms of following the guidelines.
Considering all the circumstances, the landlord responded reasonably to the concerns. The resident’s reports of contractors failing to adhere to guidelines and use of PPE were intermittent and were addressed by the landlord as they arose. It attempted to provide assistance to the resident by offering advice as to protective measures he could take for his own safety and wellbeing, communicated with contractors to resolve the issue as well as reassuring him that it would adhere to its obligations to provide him with notice regarding works being undertaken in communal areas.

The landlord’s complaints handling

From October 2017 the landlord operated a 2 stage Complaints Policy. It aimed to respond at each stage within 10 working days. Paragraph 6.2 of the landlord’s Complaints Policy stated that it may shorten the process on ‘rare occasions’, such as where the complaint ‘is being pursued unreasonably’, it ‘can add nothing further’ or ‘the issue raised through the complaint is outside [its] control’.
In the course of this investigation, it has been difficult to establish which of the resident’s concerns were logged and responded to as formal complaints. A full record of all complaints made and responded to has not been provided to this investigation. The parties have provided the following information about complaints raised in relation to the issues referred to this Service:
1. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about its handling of his neighbour’s behaviour on 23 August 2020. The resident requested escalation to stage 2, and this was acknowledged by the landlord the same day. The resident requested an update on 3 September 2020 and was informed that ‘this issue was not raised at stage 1 and therefore cannot be progressed to stage 2’. A new complaint was opened, and the landlord stated that it would respond within 20 working days.
2. The landlord emailed the resident on 2 January 2020 stating that it would close his complaint about the fence if he was satisfied with the repair. The resident objected to the closure of his complaint, as the landlord had not considered compensation for the delay. It is not known whether the landlord provided a further response. The resident informed the landlord on 10 January 2020 that he would be escalating his complaint to this Service.
3. There is no evidence that the landlord logged a formal complaint about the resident’s concerns about an uninhabited neighbouring property, or the disposal of waste by its contractors in a neighbouring garden.
4. The resident made repeated requests for copies of the fire risk assessment reports for his property, as described at paragraph 54 above, and expressed dissatisfaction that these were not provided. There is no evidence that this was logged by the landlord as a formal complaint.
5. The landlord first provided a response to the resident’s concerns about contractors not adhering to Covid-19 guidelines on 18 June 2020. The complaint was escalated on 23 June 2020. The landlord provided a second response on 6 July 2020. Following contact from this Service, a further complaint response was provided on 2 September 2020.
In its complaint response of 23 August 2020, the landlord apologised that it had not discussed the resident’s concerns about smoke with his neighbour. It gave advice on resolving neighbour disputes and provided diary sheets. This demonstrated a commitment to resolving the issues complained of and a willingness to accept that its service could have been better. The landlord attempted to manage the resident’s expectations about the action it could take in relation to his neighbour failing to adhere to Covid-19 guidelines. Overall, the landlord’s stage 1 response was helpful, clear, and accurate. Following the resident’s request for escalation to stage 2, the landlord failed to provide a response and the resident was given contradictory advice about the status of his complaint. This further increased his frustration and resulted in the complaint being referred to this Service.
It is unclear whether the landlord provided a stage 2 response to the complaint about the fence repair, or considered the resident’s request for compensation. The landlord should also have logged a formal complaint about its failure to provide copies of the fire risk assessment reports, as the resident had clearly expressed dissatisfaction with its response and the delay in it providing the documents.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that, in the circumstances, it was reasonable that the landlord did not respond to the complaint about the neighbouring property via its formal complaints process. The landlord had explained its position and the extent of its responsibilities in relation to the neighbouring property in previous correspondence. There was nothing it could reasonably add via the complaints process. The landlord should have ensured that it informed the resident that it was refusing to log a formal complaint about this issue and referred him to this Service. It was unclear from the resident’s email of 24 January 2020 that he wished to make a formal complaint about waste in the garden of the neighbouring property. The Ombudsman will not make findings about the landlord’s response to this issue, as it has not had an opportunity to comment via its formal complaints process.
Following the landlord’s responses of 18 June 2020 and 6 July 2020 to the complaint about contractors not adhering to the Covid-19 guidelines, the resident requested the escalation of his complaint and the landlord responded stating that it would revise its response. The resident referred his complaint to this Service and following contact from the Ombudsman a stage 2 response was provided on 2 September 2020. The landlord acknowledged that there had been a delay in providing a final response and apologised. The landlord offered £20 compensation for the delay, which was a reasonable and proportionate remedy. However, there was a lack of clarity about the stage that this complaint had reached, which resulted in the resident escalating his concerns to this Service. The landlord did not respond in accordance with the stages set out in its Complaints Policy.
It is also noted that the resident made a formal complaint about the landlord’s complaints handling on 31 January 2020. There is no evidence that he received a response to this complaint.
Due to the volume of correspondence and the multiple concerns raised by the resident, it is accepted that it has been difficult for the landlord to separate out the various issues and to distinguish between complaints about its service and requests for assistance. The landlord must ensure that all complaints about its service are logged and responded to in a timely manner, that it communicates clearly with residents to provide updates, that complaints are escalated in line with its Complaints Policy and that residents are clearly signposted to this Service at the end of the process.
The Ombudsman considers that there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling due to its failure to log and escalate the resident’s concerns about the fire risk assessment reports and the fence. The landlord’s communication with the resident about the status of his complaints was poor. The Ombudsman therefore orders the landlord to pay £50 compensation in respect of its poor complaints handling.
The Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code) was published in July 2020 and landlords were asked to assess their complaints handling procedures against its requirements by 31 December 2020. The landlord has published a revised Complaints Handling Policy in April 2021, taking into account the requirements of the Code. It is hoped that the changes made will ensure that complaints are logged and dealt with in a timely manner, and that residents are kept informed and up to date.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. no maladministration regarding the complaint about the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. service failure regarding the complaint about the resident’s reports of repairs required to a fence.
3. no maladministration regarding the complaint about the resident’s reports of an uninhabited neighbouring building and its condition.
4. service failure regarding the complaint about the resident’s requests for fire risk assessment reports.
5. no maladministration regarding the complaint about the resident’s reports that Covid-19 guidelines were not being adhered to.
6. service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns about his neighbour’s smoking and communicated to him on multiple occasions that the neighbour was not breaching any policies by smoking in their own property or the communal areas. Nevertheless, it communicated with the neighbour which resulted in the neighbour taking some steps to move further away from the resident’s property in an attempt to mitigate the situation.
The length of time between the resident’s report of the initial disrepair issues with the fence in February 2019 were not properly resolved until December 2019. While it is unclear whether a scheduled appointment was attended or missed by the landlord, it is evident that the landlord was aware of the repair issue and failed to take steps to finalise it in a reasonable timescale.
The landlord investigated the ownership of the building next door, confirming it was not a building under its management and letting the resident know that it was unable to take steps to deal with his concerns regarding its potential abandonment and state of disrepair. It acted appropriately in directing the resident to steps he could consider taking to gather information about the building from the local council.
The landlord failed to respond in a timely manner to the resident’s requests for its previous fire safety assessment reports, despite it agreeing to provide these and the resident requesting them on multiple occasions over a number of months.
The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns about the attendance of contractors at the property during the Covid-19 lockdown and their lack of PPE and adherence to social distancing guidelines. It set out its position to the resident clearly in terms of the enforceability of breaches of guidelines and how this would be a matter for the police, while noting that it was limited in the actions it could take against contractors that it had not employed. It nevertheless communicated with the neighbour and contractors to reinforce the need to adhere to guidelines and use PPE. It reassured the resident that it would give him notice as required for any work being undertaken in the communal areas.
There was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling due to its failure to log a complaint about its response to the resident’s request for fire risk assessment reports. There is also no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about the fence repair at stage 2 of its complaints process, or considered his request for compensation.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is Ordered to:
1. Pay the resident the sum of £100 for the delays in carrying out repairs to the resident’s fence.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £100 for the delays in providing the requested fire risk assessment reports to the resident as requested and agreed to.
3. Pay the resident the sum of £50 in recognition of the service failure identified in its complaints handling.
4. Write to the resident to confirm how many fire assessments have been completed in relation to the property since 2007, providing details of the dates these were completed and any available reports.