Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202008426)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008426

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

31 March 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

  1. The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour, and her request to move properties.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The following summary is based on the landlord’s complaint responses and its chronology of events. No specific records relating to the complaint have been provided for this investigation.
  3. The resident first reported a noise disturbance and antisocial behaviour (ASB) to the landlord on 31 July 2020.
  4. The resident reported further noise nuisance on 11 August 2020. The landlord advised her to report this via its noise app or by keeping diary sheets. According to the landlord, the resident refused to do this, and it told her that it could not take the matter further as no “specific allegations” had been made.
  5. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 28 August 2020. No records of the complaint have been provided for this investigation. According to the landlord, the resident complained that it had not supported or assisted her, and that she no longer wanted to live in the property due to the ASB. 
  6. On 11 September 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that her neighbour was playing loud music. The landlord said that it advised her to that she needed to report this either on the noise app or by keeping diary sheets, but she had refused to do either. This case was not taken any further as the landlord deemed that there was insufficient information.
  7. On 17 September 2020 the resident called the landlord. The landlord advised her how to “report evidence” and said that it would be unable to investigate complaints of ASB unless “specific allegations [were] made and evidence provided”. The resident also advised that she wanted to move as her current home was causing her stress and anxiety. The landlord signposted her to a website to help secure a move, and to a charity for further assistance.
  8. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 7 October 2020. It explained the chronology of events from when the resident first reported ASB on 31 July up until 17 September. It said that although it agreed that the resident had experienced ASB and noise nuisance, it did not agree that it had failed to deal with the matter appropriately. It explained that it only acted on reports of ASB that were “specific and evidenced”. It said that in the absence of such information, it was limited with what action it could take. It encouraged the resident to report ASB using a noise app or on the “ASB toolkit” on its website.
  9. It advised the resident how she could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  10. The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint on 12 October 2020. No details or other evidence for the escalation have been provided for this investigation.
  11. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 19 October 2020. It said that its stage one complaint response was handled correctly and in line with its complaints policy. It reiterated that it could only deal with ASB complaints that were evidenced. It said that without proof that an issue was occurring, it was difficult for it to take enforcement action against the alleged perpetrators.
  12. It said that when the resident had previously reported ASB, she had been correctly told how she needed to document the incidents. It said that it did not have any supporting evidence of the ASB issues that the resident claimed to have experienced. It said that due to this lack of evidence, it could not consider rehousing her on the grounds of ASB, or the impact it was having on her health. It explained that a management move was a “discretionary offer” made to a resident where there was significant evidence to support that they need to urgently move due to “a threat to life or a serious risk of harm or danger”.
  13. The landlord apologised that the resident felt that she had not been supported. It said it had offered support by signposting and referring her to external agencies.  It concluded by advising the resident how to contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions.


Assessment and findings

  1. For a landlord to take formal action in respect of ASB, it requires corroborating evidence of the alleged behaviour and specific dates, times, and knowledge of the alleged perpetrators. In this case, it is evident that the landlord took reasonable steps to encourage the resident to obtain evidence using a noise app and diary sheets. In light of the resident’s apparent reluctance to do so it explained that it could not take any specific enforcement action. The landlord’s ASB policy stipulates that its ability to tackle ASB is increased when the resident provides appropriate evidence. It also says that if the resident fails to provide such evidence, the landlord is “likely” to ends its efforts to overcome the complaint of ASB. Therefore, the landlord’s responses to the resident that it could not take action, and its advice for her to record the incidents were reasonable and in line with its policy.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy states that in “exceptional circumstances” it will consider a management transfer for a witness to or victim of ASB who needs to be moved to “ensure their safety”. Accordingly, the landlord’s explanation to the resident that it would not consider such a transfer was reasonable, as it had not been provided with evidence to indicate that she required such a drastic measure, or that her life was in serious danger. Although it could not support her request for a management transfer, the landlord acknowledged that the resident wanted to move, and offered her advice as to how she could do so using appropriate options. Overall, based on the landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaints, its handling of her ASB reports and request for a management transfer was reasonable.
  3. However, the landlord was asked to provide for this investigation its records of the resident’s ASB reports, and correspondence or evidence in relation to her complaints. It did not do so. Rather, it provided internal emails concerning the resident from November 2020. This was after the landlord had issued its final complaint response, making these emails of only limited relevance to this investigation.
  4. In conducting investigations the Ombudsman relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence from the time of the incidents complained about to identify what took place, and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. It is apparent that the resident contacted the landlord over the telephone when she made her ASB reports and complaints. We therefore expect the landlord to have at least provided evidence of its call logs with the resident, or explained why it could not do so. This information would have allowed our investigation to corroborate the landlord’s complaint investigation findings and explanations. In the absence of such records, we cannot robustly determine whether the evidence supports the landlord’s explanations of the actions it took and decisions it made. This is a failing by the landlord, and impacts on our overall assessment of its handling of this complaint. 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and her request to move properties, insofar as it was not able to provide records or logs of the ASB reports or the resident’s complaints.

Orders

  1. In light of the service failure found in this investigation, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £175.
  2. 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.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to consider the issues around record keeping identified in this investigation, and why it did not or could not provide the information it was asked for. If procedural or systemic causes are found it should consider how to ensure such problems do not arise again.