Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202118970)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118970

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

14 June 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of a theft at her property.
   2. The associated formal complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a maisonette in a communal building.
3. On 1 October 2021 the resident informed the landlord that a theft had occurred in her property while a removal company sub-contracted by its building contractor were clearing items from a bedroom.
4. The resident described the missing items and informed the landlord that she had contacted the police. She was concerned that the landlord and its contactor had not properly followed their safeguarding policies and procedures prior to allowing the sub-contractor access to the property.
5. The landlord sent an initial complaint response to the resident on 18 October 2021. The landlord explained that the theft was a matter for the police to investigate and advised the resident to contact her home contents insurance provider for compensation for her stolen items.
6. The landlord issued its final response to the complaint on 6 January 2022. This followed an escalation request where the resident described her dissatisfaction that the initial response had not addressed her concerns relating to safeguarding polices. The landlord informed the resident that its building contractor had polices and procedures in place to safeguard tenants when employing sub-contractors.
7. In a telephone call to this Service on 6 January 2022, the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint as:
   1. The same landlord staff member wrote both the stage one and stage two complaint responses.
   2. The complaint responses did not properly address the elements that she had raised in her complaint and escalation request.
   3. She believed that the landlord’s contractor did not have suitable safeguarding policies in place at the time of the alleged theft, and only put the policies in place after the incident occurred.
   4. As the contractors were working on behalf of the landlord, the landlord should take responsibility for any failures in their safeguarding policies.
8. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the landlord review its safeguarding policies, confirm that security checks for contractors only started after the incident took place, and to pay suitable compensation for the stolen items and distress caused.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

9. The landlord’s safeguarding policy describes its aims as “protecting an adult’s right to live in safety, free from abuse and neglect” and “organisations working together to prevent and stop both the risks and experience of abuse or neglect”
10. The landlord’s maintenance policy includes a contractor’s code of conduct. This states that “[the landlord] expects contractors it employs across a range of projects, to treat its customers, staff and any other affected party, fairly, consistently and with respect, at all times. Contractors are expected to deliver a quality standard of workmanship at all times. In return, there is an expectation that the contractor will be treated in a courteous manner, and is able to work without undue interference”.
11. The landlord’s building contractor’s subcontractor terms documents also include a code of conduct that the contractor expects the subcontractor to adhere to: In relation to safeguarding, the code states as follows:
    1. The [subcontractor] undertakes that in performing its obligations under any Appointment it shall, and shall procure that the [subcontractor’s] People ensure that anyone who is engaged with young people or vulnerable adults understand their safeguarding duties. The [subcontractor] will comply with all applicable laws in relation to safeguarding, any applicable statutes, customer requirements or regulations and any safeguarding Policy published by the contractor from time to time which the [subcontractor] is deemed to have received. For the purposes of this code of conduct safeguarding means: protection from abuse and neglect; promotion of health and development; and ensuring safety and care.
12. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one of its process within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 15 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
13. The complaints policy goes on to state that “If the complaint investigation and/or resolution is particularly complex, we may on occasion need longer than [ten or]15 days to resolve. In these instances, the customer will be kept informed and regularly updated on the reasons for this”.

Scope of investigation

14. On 8 November 2011 a representative wrote to the landlord on behalf of the resident. The representative informed the landlord of the effect on the resident’s health caused by the alleged theft and the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of the theft.
15. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s representative’s comments regarding the resident’s health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts as a personal injury claim. This is in line with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.
16. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and how the landlord responded to her concerns about her health.

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a theft at her property

17. From reviewing the resident’s complaint and escalation request and the landlord’s responses it is clear that the landlord as it did not address all the elements of the complaint raised by the resident in its responses. The landlord correctly informed the resident that the theft would be a matter for the police. This was appropriate as the police are bet placed to investigate criminal matters. It was also reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to her own contents insurer in the first instance. The resident has confirmed to the Ombudsman that her insurer will not accept her claim as she voluntarily allowed the contactors into her property. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to suggest that she contact her insurer initially to see if she could make a claim.
18. The landlord also informed the resident of the security checks which had been undertaken on operatives who would be undertaking the outstanding work at the property. However, the landlord made no comment on what checks were made by its contractor prior to allowing the sub-contractor access to the property. It did not say whether it was satisfied it had followed its safeguarding policies, and it did not confirm what information was given to the resident relating to insurance prior to the removal work going ahead.
19. The resident is arguing that the landlord should be held liable for the actions of its contractors and sub-contractors and should pay compensation accordingly for items stolen by the sub-contractors. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to assess whether the landlord’s contractors stole items from the resident’s property as this would be a matter for the police to determine. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have investigated the resident’s liability claim or referred the matter to its liability insurer to investigate and respond to. The landlord should now refer the resident’s concerns to its liability insurer or pass on the insurer’s details so the resident can contact the insurer directly to register a claim.
20. This lack of information has caused clear inconvenience to the resident, who had to pursue the matter through the landlord’s complaint process before bringing the complaint to this Service. Therefore, in order to resolve the complaint, the landlord should write to the resident to provide the requested information, and also award suitable compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its lack of clarity.
21. The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website) suggests a payment of £250 to £700 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration by a landlord, but where there may be no permanent impact on a complainant. As an example for when this level of payment should be considered, the guidance suggests “repeated failure to meaningfully engage with the substance of the complaint, or failing to address all relevant aspects of complaint, leading to considerable delay in resolving complaint”. Therefore, a compensation payment of £250 is reasonable in the circumstances.

The landlord’s complaint handling

22. As part of her complaint to this Service, the resident stated her dissatisfaction that the same staff member wrote both of the landlord’ complaint’s responses. While the stage one and stage two reports were written by the same staff member, the stage two response states that “whilst investigating your complaint, I have had my stage one response decision reviewed by Senior Management”.
23. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that at stage two of its complaints process, the complaint review was undertaken by the landlord’s Assistant Director of Property Service and Repairs. The Assistant Director informed the complaint handler of their decision, which was passed on to the resident in the stage two response.
24. Therefore, while both responses were written by the same staff member, the stage two review was undertaken by a senior staff member not previously involved in the complaint.
25. However, the landlord did not follow its published complaint timescales during stage two of the complaint process. The stage two response was provided 51 working days after the escalation request, 36 working days later than its published timescale. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it contacted the resident to inform her of a delay or to agree a new target date for the response. Moreover, the stage two response did not address the delay or apologise to the resident. Therefore, there has been service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling and compensation should be paid in view of the distress and inconvenience this would have caused to the resident.
26. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (which is available on our website) suggests a payment of £50 to £250 in cases of service failure resulting in some impact on a complainant. As an example for when this level of payment should be considered, the guidance suggests “failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact”. Therefore, a compensation payment of £100 to recognise the delay in providing the stage two complaint response is reasonable in the circumstances.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a theft at her property.
28. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated formal complaint.

Orders

29. For the reasons set out above, the landlord is ordered to pay to the resident:
    1. £250 for failures in its handling of her reports of theft from her property.
    2. £100 for failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.
30.  The landlord should provide the resident with details of how to contact its liability insurer to make a claim for the cost of her stolen items.
31. It is further ordered that the landlord write to the resident and provide her with information relating to:
    1. What security checks are undertaken by its contractors for its subcontractors and whether this was correctly undertaken in respect to the subcontractor who removed the items from the bedroom.
    2. Whether it was satisfied that both it and its building contractor correctly followed their safeguarding policies and how it reached this decision.
    3. What information should be provided to residents relating to taking out insurance for items removed by contractors and/or subcontractors, and whether this information was given to the resident prior to the removal work at her property going ahead.
32. The landlord should carry out these actions within four weeks of the date of this report.