Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202110692)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110692

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

19 January 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
3. The resident made an ASB report on 20 July 2020 stating her neighbour was intimidating her by staring at her through her kitchen window. She also said that it was affecting her mental health.
4. The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 29 July 2020. It said it did not usually get involved in neighbour disputes, and advised her to discuss the issue with her neighbour first. It provided her with information about how to approach her neighbour and said it would arrange mediation if this did not work. It told her to consider fitting curtains. There was no evidence of any further reports and the ASB case was closed on 1 September 2020.
5. No evidence of further reports by the resident has been provided, until a police officer emailed the landlord on 22 June 2021. The officer explained the police had received a complaint from the resident that her neighbour was “sitting near her kitchen window while in the communal garden”. He queried whether it would be possible to redesign the garden or install a fence to prevent people sitting outside the resident’s window.
6. An internal email on 24 June 2021 states that the landlord had spoken to the police officer and would assess whether a fence would be suitable, if not it would recommend the resident get curtains. A later internal email on 17 November 2021 noted that shortly after the police enquiry was received, it had informed the resident the garden was “communal… so other residents were entitled to use it as they see fit”, therefore a fence would not be installed, but she could fit curtains to allow her more privacy.
7. The landlord received a further report from the resident on 9 August 2021. It noted that her “neighbour was standing in front of your window leaving food, has plants near your window and talks loudly on his mobile phone” Specific records for this incident have not been provided for this investigation. However, in a community trigger report (a multi-agency case review of the handling of a resident’s ASB reports) the landlord later prepared in December 2021, it explained that following the report it had interviewed the neighbour, but was unable to find any evidence of ASB. It explained it was unable to section off the garden, due to it being communal, and all residents were encouraged to use it respectfully. It said it had given support to the resident to obtain blinds, but this was declined. It said it thought mediation would be an appropriate intervention, but the resident did not pursue this option.
8. The resident sent a complaint on 10 August 2021. She said that the ASB she had been reporting was ongoing, and “For details of incidents of antisocial behaviour, please refer to my emails sent to PA over 2 years for each and every incident.” She referred to a range of issues, such as her neighbour standing next to her windows and doors, talking loudly on the phone next to her window, using her address for his post and food deliveries, leaving food in the communal areas which attracts pests, and said that she was sometimes disturbed by his music or TV noise. However, she did not provide dates or times, or similar details for these issues.
9. The landlord sent its stage one response on 14 September 2021. It explained that it had assessed whether a fence would be suitable to prevent the neighbour looking into the property, however, it was not practical and would block sunlight, so it had advised the resident to put net curtains up instead. It said it offered mediation but she had declined. It could not take further action but she could contact it if any further ASB occurred.
10. The resident emailed the landlord on 17 September 2021 requesting the complaint to be escalated to stage two. She did not believe the ASB issues had been appropriately assessed, she was dissatisfied that the landlord had taken no action against her neighbour and she wanted the fence to be installed.
11. An internal email on 24 September 2021 stated “there is no evidence of intimidating behaviour or the references to food being delivered. She has sent in a picture of some bits of bread in the garden which would not constitute ASB”.  It also said it could not put up a fence as a surveyor had determined it would restrict light into the resident’s flat and be a fire safety risk.
12. The landlord sent its stage two response on 7 October 2021. It acknowledged the range of issues the resident had raised as ASB (including the neighbour having food delivered to the resident’s door) but explained that her reports had not been deemed to be ASB. It reiterated that it had assessed the suitability of a fence, but found it was not appropriate. It explained how she could escalate the complaint to this Service.
13. An internal email on 1 November 2021 stated the resident had requested a community trigger review, this took place on 10 December 2021. The review concluded that all agencies had taken reasonable actions, based on the evidence provided by the resident. The landlord was to remind all residents to use the garden respectfully, and the resident was to reconsider mediation. 

Assessment and findings

14. The landlord’s ASB policy states:
    1. Intimidating behaviour is classed as level two ASB and will be acknowledged in three working days.
    2. It will use a variety of tools to manage ASB including writing to the perpetrator, interviewing the perpetrator and mediation.
15. The landlord’s online ASB information states “a neighbour dispute is a private disagreement between neighbours. Our policy is not to get involved.”
16. The resident has provided us with a copy of a letter from her doctor, explaining how the ASB has impacted her health. Unfortunately, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts.
17. In her first complaint to the landlord, in August 2021, the resident explained that she had been reporting ASB by the neighbour for two years. She described a wide range of incidents, but did not say when these had happened. The Ombudsman expects formal complaints to be raised with a landlord about an issue within a reasonable period of the issue arising. A reasonable time period is usually considered to be around six months. The evidence provided for this investigation shows only two reports of ASB in 2021, the one referred by the police in June, and the resident’s report in August. As these are the only reports made within a reasonable timeframe before the formal complaint in August 2021, this investigation centres on the landlord’s response to and handling of those matters only. Reference to earlier matters in the background is for context only.
18. As suggested by the police in June 2021, the landlord assessed the suitability of installing a fence to prevent people looking into the resident’s property. This was determined not to be a viable option as the garden is communal; this was a reasonable decision as the landlord has to consider the impact of its actions on other residents. A contractor had also concluded the fence would increase fire safety risks and reduce the light entering the resident’s property; the landlord made this assessment and informed the resident of the decision within an appropriate timeframe. Furthermore, installing a fence would be considered an ‘improvement’ to the property (not something a landlord is usually obliged to do) restrict access to part of the communal garden, involve costs, and could not reasonably be said to be a proportionate solution.
19. The resident then reported that her neighbour had left food outside her window and talked loudly on the phone. In response to the reports the landlord interviewed the resident and determined the actions were not ASB, offered mediation, which the resident declined, and offered to support the resident in obtaining curtains for more privacy. All these actions were in line with the landlord’s policy and it attempted to support the resident even though it had determined the reported behaviour was not ASB. The landlord also cooperated with the police and other relevant authorities and the community trigger determined that the landlord had acted appropriately.
20. The resident stated in her complaint that she had sometimes been disturbed by music and similar noise from the resident. That type of report could potentially be considered to be ASB. However, there is no evidence of the landlord receiving such reports from the resident in the period considered in this investigation.
21. Overall, the landlord acted reasonably and its response was proportionate to the nature of the reports it received. It appropriately investigated the issues in accordance with its ASB policy, liaised with other services and managed the resident’s expectations by clearly explaining its position regarding the nature of the reports, and the feasibility of a fence.

Determination (decision)

22. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

23. The landlord acted in line with its ASB policy and determined the reports made by the resident not to be ASB so could not take further action.