Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202103899)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103899

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

18 October 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and illegal activity in the communal areas.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy states that it will encourage and support complainants to continue to live in their home and work with them to resolve the problem. Measures to support complainants include a full investigation and evidence gathering.
The landlord’s ASB policy further 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. It says that failure to meet this responsibility is likely to lead to the landlord ending its efforts to overcome complaints of ASB.

Background

The property is a ground floor two-bedroomed flat. The resident lives there with her daughter, who is now 10 years old. The resident’s tenancy began in December 2014.

Summary of events

In January 2019 the resident reported that the gate to the communal car park was broken, which had led to non-permit holders using the parking spaces and drug-dealing in the car park. The gate was repaired by mid-January 2019.
On 11 April 2019 the resident reported a needle left by a drug user at the back door of the car park. The landlord made an emergency clean request for its removal.
On 9 May 2019 the landlord noted that the neighbourhood coordinator would attend to check the building as a new fob and door system had been installed which should prevent unauthorised access to the scheme and that the issue would be monitored. On 16 May 2019 the landlord noted that there had been no up-to-date incidents.
On 22 June 2020 the resident called the landlord to inform it that her car tyres had been slashed that morning and she wanted to check the CCTV, believing it to have been done by a particular female neighbour in the block. The landlord said it would record the matter as ASB and contact the neighbourhood coordinator to see if the CCTV could be accessed. The resident then called back with a police crime reference number.
The resident then called the landlord again on the same day to say that she wanted to move as she felt the area was unsafe for her and her child due to issues with the neighbour.
On the evening of 22 June 2020 there was an altercation between the resident and the neighbour. The police attended and arrested the resident for assault, which she said was in self-defence. The resident was later released without charge. However, the police later confirmed to the landlord that the resident had been given a community resolution order.
On 24 June 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident’s mother who said that the neighbour had slashed her daughter’s tyres as they had fallen out socially. She said there were three witnesses, although she did not know where they lived. When speaking again the next day she also said that her daughter had been spat at by drug dealers and that her granddaughter had stood on a needle in the car park.
On 24 June 2020 the landlord asked one of its staff to check the site when next there as the resident had reported the car park not being clean and evidence of drug use. The estates team was copied in to see if it was aware of any issues.
On 25 June 2020 the landlord discussed the case and noted that the resident was disabled, and it looked as if she was being targeted by others in the block. The resident had said that she had experienced two years of ASB with a male exposing himself and urinating on the patio window, as well as drug dealers entering through the broken gate.
The landlord received an anonymous report that the neighbour had had an all-night party on 2 July 2020. On 6 July 2020 the resident contacted the landlord and said that, with regard to the music, partying, drug use and fighting until 4am, it was unfair of the neighbour as other tenants had small children. The resident said that she had two people staying with her at the time who could confirm what she was saying and that she would ask other tenants if they would also confirm what had happened.
The landlord responded on 6 July 2020, asking for the names, addresses and dates of birth of the two witnesses. It also said that there had been no other complaints apart from the anonymous one. The landlord said that it was going to hold a meeting to see if anything could be done as they did not have enough evidence without videos or photos, or other tenants complaining.
The landlord has a case note dated 6 July 2020 saying that the resident had been refused a management move as the police were not willing to write her a harm letter. As well as the alleged party, the ASB also involved the neighbour getting control of a security fob to the car park and using it for herself as well as allowing access to others without a permit. The neighbourhood officer was tasked with gathering as much information as possible.
At this point the landlord made a further case note summarising the situation. It said that the resident and the neighbour were complaining about each other. Both wanted to move and said they were in fear and had been attacked. Both were making similar accusations against each other. The resident had had her tyres slashed whilst the neighbour had been slapped in the face in front of her children. The police were taking no further action on all incidents.
On 7 July 2020 the landlord instructed the fob for the communal gate to be reprogrammed. It also spoke to the neighbour and said that if it was found that she was abusing use of the car park, she would lose her access to it.
On 9 July 2020 the landlord noted that it had checked the cameras at the block and had been unable to find anything that would help resolve the matter. It said that there was a fob-gated unit with CCTV and so it really needed the help of other tenants and the neighbourhood officer to find out more.
On 10 July 2020 the landlord had a discussion about the case. It was noted that there was no evidence of criminal activity. It said that similar issues had been dealt with last year and there was also no evidence then. The neighbour was due to move as part of a mutual exchange but that had been held up due to the pandemic. Therefore, the landlord suggested that it might offer mediation going forward if the move did not go ahead.
On 13 July 2020, following evidence that she had allowed others use of the car park, the car park fob was withdrawn from the neighbour.
On 4 August 2020 the landlord had contact with the police about the neighbour’s car being damaged whilst parked on the street. The landlord requested further consultation with the police about the ongoing issues between the resident and the neighbour, stating that they had no evidence to substantiate matters and that the parties had refused mediation. The landlord asked the police if they would consider a community resolution between both parties.
On the same day, the landlord emailed the police a summary of events. It said that the resident and neighbour were former friends who were now in dispute. Both were making claims of ASB against each other, although there was no supporting evidence. Both wanted to move but neither met the criteria to be rehoused as they were currently classed as being adequately housed. The landlord said that, following a report of the resident’s daughter standing on a drugs needle, it had paid for a sterilised clearing of the grounds, but no needles had been found. In terms of actions completed, the landlord explained that it had visited both parties and offered words of advice. It had made referrals to social services for support and explained alternative housing options. It had verbally offered mediation and was linked in with the schools and social services. The landlord said that it was now going to write to the parties to outline its expectations in terms of behaviour and to offer mediation. It hoped to close mediation with an outcome of a neighbour agreement or behaviour contract, after which, if there was evidence of breaches, action would be taken against the tenancy.
On 15 September 2020 the landlord had an internal discussion in which it agreed to close the ASB case as no enforcement action was needed at that time and that appropriate advice had been given to the resident and the neighbour.
On 4 May 2021 the resident rang the landlord to say that she had experienced problems with drug addicts since moving into the property. She said that now drug users were knocking on her daughter’s bedroom window during the night and that her daughter had stabbed herself with a needle last year. The resident named the flats that the drug users were living in, at least one of which was upstairs from her flat. The resident said that her daughter was now too scared to sleep in her own room due to the banging on her window. The landlord spoke to the resident about the noise app and diary sheets, but she stated that she just needed to discuss this with the tenancy solutions officer.
On 5 May 2021 the landlord set up a case file for the ASB complaint with actions detailing that two members of staff would be looking at the evidence.
The resident then called the landlord on 10 and 11 May 2021 saying that she had been expecting a call back. The final call note for 11 May 2021 records the resident as saying she was unwilling to fill in diary sheets or the noise app, after which she hung up. The note goes on to say that the resident was not willing to engage with any services in relation to ASB and that the CCTV cameras did not substantiate what the resident was reporting. Furthermore, the resident had requested to move several times but was not providing the supporting evidence to allow a move to take place.
The resident’s mother later rang the landlord on 11 May 2021. As well as raising some old incidents, she also said that the resident could not open her window due to drug smells and that the resident’s daughter did not want to live in the property anymore.
On 12 May 2021 the landlord rang the resident to discuss the current issues. The resident said that people urinate up her patio doors on a regular basis and that she has been spat at by other tenants and called a grass. People are banging on her daughter’s bedroom window for access to the building to buy drugs.
Having contacted the police, the police replied to the landlord on 14 May 2021 apologising for not getting back in touch for a couple of weeks but that they could have a discussion about the matter on 19 May 2021.
On 17 May 2021 the resident’s mother contacted the landlord to inform them of an incident the previous night when they called 999 just before 9pm because there was a serious fight in the flat above which they thought was the drug dealing tenant being beaten up. The resident was said to have called the police who did not attend, and then she and her daughter left the property and returned much later in the evening. The mother told the landlord that the same men turned up again at 7am that morning and got through the car park gates and that a fight had taken place in the car park over drugs. The resident had called the police again, who again did not attend, although they rang back two hours later to see if the perpetrators were still there. The resident and her mother were going to the police station later that day to complain about such events happening at the scheme.
On the same day, the landlord checked the CCTV for the periods when the fights were alleged to have been happening but could not see anything untoward. In another phone call the resident then stated that the incident the night before took place at around 10.30pm.
Also, on 17 May 2021 the landlord emailed the police again to say that the resident’s allegations about a drug dealer in the flat upstairs was the one main issue. It said that this needed to be discussed further and that a joint visit with a PC could be arranged to meet the resident and to allay any concerns and advise on the reporting of criminal activity.
The landlord then tried to call the alleged perpetrator. When he did not answer, the landlord wrote to him. It said that it had received reports that he had been using and allowing persons to deal in illegal substances in his flat and that there had been an alleged assault on 16 May 2021 which the police would be investigating. It said that any evidence of illegal activity could result in police action and the tenant losing his home.
Following contact from this Service, the landlord reviewed the case on 20 May 2021. It noted that the resident had been spoken to several times and refused to engage with the process of completing diary sheets, using the noise app, appropriate reporting to the police or informing it of a known perpetrator. The resident had said that she had done this ‘five years ago’ and so was not willing to do it anymore. The resident’s recent reporting of a fight in the car park was not backed up by the CCTV evidence and, as the resident did not know the perpetrators, there would be little action that could be taken anyway. The car park was fob access only and no other tenants had been able to verify anything that the landlord could act on. The resident’s property was ground floor and street facing and knocking from unknown passers-by was something it could not act on. It said that the resident often left a window open and had been advised that she should close it. The resident had been signposted to victim support and given target hardening advice. She had also been advised about options for moving, including registering for a house swap. The landlord had paid for two sterile cleans of the whole block and no needles or drug debris was found. The resident reported that a female neighbour was causing ASB however, the resident herself had assaulted the neighbour, resulting in the police issuing her with a community resolution notice. Mediation had been offered to assist these two former friends to co-exist. Currently it was difficult to know how to proceed as there was inadequate reporting and no known perpetrators.
On 6 June 2021, having received no new evidence about any drug-related issues, the landlord decided that it would keep the case open for monitoring for a couple of more weeks. It noted that the resident had been advised again that she would not be able to move on grounds of ASB. However, it was discussed with the resident that if she thought she needed to move for medical reasons, she would need to have an occupational therapy visit.
On 11 June 2021, the landlord sent the resident a full response to her complaint. It summarised the situation (as set out in paragraph 35 above). It concluded that it wanted to help with these types of issues but did need information and evidence from the resident. Overall, the landlord felt that it had carried out all reasonable steps to help with the issues that the resident had raised.
The resident responded that she could not believe that the landlord’s solution was that she should close her window. She said it was not knocking, it was people banging on the window to get their drugs from the drug dealing tenant upstairs and that this had been going on for five years. She said the police had photos of needles found in the car park. She said she had never stated that the fight was in the car park, and it was actually outside of the gates. She said the landlord had received letters from her mental health team and from the daughter’s school in support of a move but that the landlord was useless.
The landlord sent the resident a further response on 18 June 2021, setting out its position. It said that:
1. Unless diary sheets were completed, or the noise app used, tenancy solutions would not have enough evidence to build a case.
2. The landlord could not control activity on the highway/road outside the block or indeed people walking past ground floor windows.
3. The landlord had already discussed the issue of the needle and confirmed that it did two sterilised sweeps and found nothing.
4. No one has been charged with drug dealing in the block which is fob access only so as secure as it is possible to make it.
5. The resident had not named a perpetrator or known person in the block who was drug dealing for the police or tenancy solutions to investigate.
6. There is CCTV at the block that is checked regularly.
7. It asked the resident to engage constructively with its tenancy solutions team as it was not appropriate to deal with issues of ASB via the complaints process.

Assessment and findings

Following a detailed review of the evidence submitted by both parties, the Ombudsman’s investigation considers the action taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s reporting of ASB and illegal activity in the communal areas and whether it followed its own policies and procedures, kept to the law, and acted reasonably and proportionately in the circumstances.
In relation to the events of 2020 concerning the female neighbour, the landlord set up an ASB case and considered that the resident might be being victimised by other tenants. It also consulted with the police about the ongoing issues. This demonstrates that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously.
However, it would have been wrong for the landlord to take action against the neighbour based purely on what the resident was reporting. Also, available evidence suggested that there had been a breakdown of relations between the resident and the neighbour and the resident’s reports of ASB therefore had to be considered in that context. Counter-allegations had been made by the neighbour and the resident had assaulted the neighbour, which the landlord could not ignore. The landlord had to be fair to all sides and, without proportionate evidence, the landlord was unable to reasonably support any further action against the neighbour.
By asking the resident to complete diary sheets and use the noise app, the landlord was acting in accordance with its ASB process. The contents of completed diary sheets would allow the landlord to consider what further action it could take. The Ombudsman understands that the resident did not want to complete diary sheets or use the noise app, however, that seriously hindered the landlord’s ability to progress the case.
Where there was sufficient evidence of wrongdoing in relation to the neighbour mis-using the car park, the neighbour’s access to the car park was revoked. This demonstrates that the landlord does take action if it has appropriate supporting evidence to do so.
Although the landlord was unable to take direct steps in relation to the ASB, it did identify that the falling out between the resident and the neighbour made the case more complex. It therefore offered mediation to try and bring about an acceptable solution, which both parties refused. The landlord also made referrals to social services in support of the resident.
Overall, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord deal with the allegations against the female neighbour in a proportionate and appropriate manner and it was reasonable that it closed the ASB case in September 2020.
In relation to the events of 2021, about alleged drug dealing by another tenant, the landlord set up a new ASB case and tasked two members of staff to gather any available evidence. This included again asking the resident to use diary sheets and the noise app, which she refused to do.
The landlord again liaised with the police, which shows that it took the resident’s concerns seriously and was seeking further intelligence about drug dealing activities in the area.
The problem was again the lack of independent evidence to support what the tenant was reporting. When speaking about the current issues, the resident often reverted to previous incidents, such as her daughter treading on a needle, which had already been dealt with by the landlord. There was no corroborating information from any other tenants in the block and, as the resident had refused to fill in diary sheets, there was no detailed information about any incidents that occurred and no times or dates. Again, this hindered the landlord’s ability to progress the case or to decide on what further action it might take.
There were inconsistencies in the resident’s reports of events with regard to the alleged fights on 16 and 17 May 2021, with different times reported for the fight on the evening of 16 May 2021 and different locations reported for the fight on the morning of 17 May 2021. This could simply be due to miscommunication between the resident and her mother, but it was not helpful in assisting the landlord to piece together what may have happened. In any event, the available CCTV did not capture anything that supported the resident’s version of events and no other tenants reported disturbances at those times.
Although the landlord said that the resident had not named a perpetrator or known person in the block who was drug dealing, the resident had in fact given the numbers of the flats she thought were involved, which was sufficient for the landlord to write to the alleged perpetrator. However, it is true to say that the other alleged perpetrators, who were banging on the window and involved in fighting, were unknown to the resident.
Although the landlord was unable to progress the ASB case due to lack of evidence, it nevertheless showed concern for the resident’s situation by signposting her to victim support.
The resident’s situation did not meet the criteria for a management move. However, understanding the resident’s desire to move, the landlord provided appropriate advice about alternative housing options, including registering for a home swap. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident has followed through with any of this advice.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident has found the situation distressing for both herself and her daughter and that it has had implications for their mental health. However, both the landlord and the Ombudsman can only rely on the presenting evidence to reach sound conclusions.
Overall, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of ASB and illegal activity in a reasonable and proportionate way that was in accordance with its obligations under its ASB policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of ASB and illegal activity in the communal areas.

Reasons

The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took the resident’s reporting of ASB and illegal activity seriously and that it acted in accordance with its ASB process when monitoring the situation. However, due to insufficient evidence, it is reasonable and proportionate that the landlord has been unable to take any further action.