Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202203572)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203572

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

11 September 2023

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:
   1. Response to the resident for its failure to gain permission to access the resident’s garden.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and occupies a one bedroomed flat.
3. The gardens of 3 neighbours border the resident’s garden.

Summary of events

4. The tenancy agreement states that contractors acting on behalf of the landlord will give at least 24 hours’ notice of any works to the resident’s property or adjoining property.
5. The landlord’s code of conduct for contractors’ states that it requires contractors to explain the work they are there to do, work to the highest standard, not damage property and inform the resident of arrangements to return if the work has not been completed.
6. The landlord refers to a 2 stage complaints process. It also operates a process called ‘Stage 0 Service requests’ where a resident’s concerns may be resolved at ‘point of contact’ if appropriate. Stage one complaints will be responded to within 10 working days, but if more time is needed the resident will be regularly updated on the reasons for this. If the resident is dissatisfied, they can ask for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2. Stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 15 working days and the resident will be kept informed if more time is needed with reasons for this.  If a complaint is upheld, the landlord will offer an explanation, apology, or other action, including a compensation payment.
7. In July 2020 the Ombudsman published its Complaint Handling Code (the Code) setting out good practice for effective complaint handling, which should be accessible, timely, responsive, fair and seek early resolution. The Scheme states a member must maintain a complaints procedure in accordance with any good practice recommended by the Ombudsman, including the Code. Members must also manage complaints in line with its published procedures or within a reasonable timescale.
8. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that compensation may be a sum of money. The amount will be reasonable and proportionate reflecting the level of inconvenience, disturbance, stress, or annoyance on the resident and how much of which it has been responsible for, taking into account the time taken to resolve the problem. The policy includes a table setting out how compensation is assessed.
9. The resident stated on 7 August 2020 the landlord’s contractors, whilst working in his front garden, damaged his plants and left waste materials. In an email he sent on the same day, he asked the landlord for an apology, and compensation for the damage and removal of the waste.
10. On 10 August 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to say its contractors had attended his property again and damaged a hawthorn bush planted by him, in his rear garden. He asked to be compensated for the damage.
11. In emails on 11 August 2020, the resident provided the landlord with costings, photos of the damage and receipts. He said it was responsible as its contractors had worked on windows to the front and fencing to the rear of his property. In emails of 11 and 12 August 2020, the landlord confirmed his emails would be investigated and actioned if necessary. It also indicated it had not engaged the contractors, who it believed had been engaged by another resident.
12. On 14 August 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to say its contractors had:
    1. Trespassed in his garden without giving him notice or first getting his permission.
    2. Installed a fence panel in the wrong boundary position with one neighbour (A) reducing his garden space.
    3. Removed hawthorn plants marking the boundary with a second neighbour (B), which he had planted (when the contractors had previously removed a fence panel between his garden and neighbour B).
    4. Removed coppice wood on the boundary with neighbour B, which he had laid to secure the gap whilst the hawthorn was being established.
13. On 14 August 2020, the resident sent photos of the damage and new fence panel; updated the costs of the plant damage; and gave the landlord a deadline to remove the new panel, which he stated he would remove if it did not. He received an email from the landlord on 17 August 2020 confirming his latest email had been sent to the complaints team and the contractors for response but it did not respond to his request for the new panel to be removed. In an email on 18 August 2020, the resident confirmed he had removed it, and he asked the landlord to restore the boundary with neighbour B and any future works be pre-arranged with him. The landlord emailed on 19 August 2020 to confirm his email had been added to his case.
14. On 22 August 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to ask that his complaints about plant damage and trespass be escalated to stage 2 of its complaints policy as it had not responded at stage one. He also said that he had spoken to his neighbour, who confirmed he had not hired contractors, so his view was the landlord was responsible for the damage and trespass.
15. The resident emailed the landlord 5 times over 5 weeks requesting, an update of his August 2020 complaints and any intended works.
16. The resident contacted his councillor, who on 2 September 2021, and made a complaint to the landlord about a number of matters including:
    1. The events from 7 to 14 August 2020.
    2. The lack of response to the resident’s complaints.
    3. The lack of apology for the trespass or compensation for his plants after he had sent photos and receipts.
17. The councillor advised the impact was an unaffordable financial loss and resident frustration at the lack of response.
18. The landlord confirmed to the councillor on 6 September 2021 that a response would be provided within 10 days. On 30 September 2021, after the councillor requested an update the landlord responded, on the same day, to say it was still gathering information and it provided a further update on 12 October 2021 to confirm new information had led to more delays.
19. A stage one response was issued on 20 October 2021:
    1. It apologised for the delay.
    2. It agreed to reimburse the resident for the cost of the plants destroyed.
    3. It apologised for the damage caused whilst work had been carried out to the fence.
20. In an email on 21 October 2021 the councillor asked the landlord to confirm the fencing work in the rear garden would not take place as the resident had planted up the gap in the boundary with neighbour B.
21. On 28 October 2021, the resident asked for his complaints to be escalated to stage 2. The resolution he sought was:
    1. £67.15 for the plant damage.
    2. £100 for each complaint (7, 10 and 14 August 2020) which he said had not been substantively responded to for over a year.
    3. An apology for the trespass on 14 August 2020.
    4. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the trespass and boundary change attempt on 14 August 2020.
    5. A written assurance that the landlord would not trespass in his garden or seek to alter the rear garden boundary with neighbour A and its contractors would not undertake any fencing work.
22. The resident received a payment of £67.45 from the landlord for his plants in November 2021. In his email of 12 November 2021, the resident said this dealt with one of his resolutions and he expected the stage 2 response the following week in line with the landlord’s policy.
23. Following an exchange of emails between 12 and 19 November 2021, the landlord confirmed it had escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 and apologised for the delay. It explained it had sought clarity from this Service. The resident clarified the matters he was escalating were separate unresolved matters that had not been considered by this Service.
24. A stage 2 a response was issued on 24 November 2021:
    1. It apologised for the plant damage and reimbursed the resident £67.45.
    2. It accepted its contractors had trespassed and prior consent or notice should have been given.  It confirmed the contractors were sorry and it would not happen again.
    3. It had confirmed with its contractors that the fence panel would not be installed. It apologised for the inconvenience caused.
25. A note was added to the landlord’s I.T system that tenants are to be given 24 hours advance notice if the landlord needed to carry out repairs or gain access to a property.

Assessment and findings

Response to the resident for its acknowledged failure to gain permission to access the resident’s garden.

26. The landlord accepted its contractors trespassed on the resident’s garden when works were carried out on 14 August 2020. The resident was not given 24 hours’ notice of the work as required by the tenancy agreement. The landlord’s code of conduct for contractors was not complied with as notice about the works was not provided. It would have been appropriate and reasonable to discuss and agree the intended works with the resident in advance. Its failure to communicate effectively and proactively with the resident meant he was put to time and trouble, and expense, to put right its contractors’ work.
27. At stage one, the landlord’s actions in agreeing to reimburse the resident with a payment of £67.45 for his destroyed plants and its apology for the damage its contractors had caused was appropriate. At stage 2, its acknowledgement its contractors had trespassed, confirmation it would not happen again along with an assurance the fence panel would not be installed and giving him options should he change his mind about the fencing work was reasonable.  Its apology for the inconvenience was satisfactory in the circumstances.
28. After the stage 2 decision, the landlord made a system note that tenants are to be given 24 hours advance notice if it needs to carry out repairs or gain access. This showed it was learning and taking steps to avoid such incidents happening in the future.
29. The resident has described the impact of the trespass. He had been anxious about further trespass causing more distress to him and further damage to his property. There was a financial impact to him of replacing his damaged plants. He was inconvenienced by the change in his boundary reducing his garden area. He was put to the time and effort of removing the wrongly positioned fence panel himself when the landlord failed to.
30. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it aims to provide an excellent service to customers and it is committed to ensuring concerns are responded to. By not complying with this commitment, trespassing and not progressing the resident’s complaints proactively, the landlord has negatively impacted the landlord resident relationship and particularly, the resident’s trust and confidence in his landlord.
31. The complaints in August 2020 resulted in the resident sending a number of emails to his landlord seeking compensation, the restoration of his borders, and assurances it would not trespass again without first making arrangements with him.  The landlord’s poor communication caused the resident distress and inconvenience from when he first raised complaints in August 2020 as well as his frustration in pursuing the matter for 13 months before he involved his councillor.
32. The landlord’s delay in not providing assurances to the resident about its intentions for future garden works or that it would not trespass again was unacceptable. This assurance was not provided until 14 months after the resident first raised the matter. This caused inconvenience, frustration and uncertainty for the resident.
33. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord considered compensating the resident for the impact on him following the trespass. It has acknowledged failings and made some attempts to put things right, but it has failed to address the detriment to the resident. It is reasonable to conclude on the evidence that the resident experienced inconvenience, distress, disappointment, and a loss of trust and confidence in his landlord. There was a service failure by the landlord.

Complaint handling

34. The resident emailed the landlord to complain after each of the 3 separate incidents in August 2020 to which he received 4 acknowledgement emails giving him differing messages regarding which team was handling his complaints.  The varying information caused confusion and a lack of confidence in the landlord for the resident.
35. The landlord breached its own complaints policy and the Code by not dealing with the resident’s 3 complaints as stage one complaints. The Code states if enquiries are needed to resolve the matter, the issue must be logged as a complaint. The landlord did not log the complaints but advised the emails had been forwarded to the repair’s maintenance team and the complaints team. There is no evidence to show either team contacted the resident directly to acknowledge or respond to his complaints. This was a missed opportunity to resolve this matter at an early stage and rebuild its relationship with the resident.
36. In the absence of a stage one response, the resident was put to time and trouble by sending 6 emails to the landlord from August 2020 to August 2021 requesting a response. This repeated contact from the resident did not prompt the landlord to proactively engage its complaints procedures. Its delays and failure to progress the complaints were a complaint handling failure.
37. The landlord did not respond to the resident in line with its complaints policy. The responses to the resident only improved when his councillor contacted the landlord on his behalf.
38. The stage one response was not sent within 10 working days. The resident was not kept informed of delays or regularly updated on the reasons for the delays. The failure to update and explain the delays to the resident was not in line the landlord’s policy or the Code. The resident had expressed frustration at the lack of response to his complaints. Following the councillor contact, the landlord replied on the same day to provide the reasons for the delay. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have provided a new timeframe for the decision and to have proactively shared this information earlier with the resident, in line with its policy and the Code.
39. The stage one decision was issued on 20 October 2021, approximately 7 weeks after the complaint was made by the councillor and 14 months after the resident made his 3 separate complaints in August 2020. This is not in line with its own complaints policy and resulted in a delay in the resident being able to exhaust the complaints process and to bring his matter to this Service for investigation. This delay was unreasonable.
40. The stage one response did not address the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s complaint handling following his August 2020 complaint and follow up emails not being fully responded to. This was a failure as the Code states landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
41. No appeal rights were set out in the stage one letter. This was a failure as the landlord was in breach of the Code as the response must confirm details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2 if the resident is not satisfied.
42. Following the resident’s stage one feedback the landlord took 3 weeks to confirm it had escalated his complaint to stage 2. The Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord explained the reasons for the delay and apologised but these actions were not made in good time. The delay was a breach of its own policy resulting in a delay to a potential stage 2 resolution and a delay in the resident being able to bring his matter to this Service for investigation. This delay was unreasonable.
43. The resident’s stage one review mainly concerned the landlord’s complaints handling and their lack of response. Its stage 2 response failed to deal with this issue. It breached its own policy and the Code by not providing a definitive response to all the points raised. It also breached the Code by not confirming in writing at the completion of stage 2 the decision on the complaint and details of any outstanding actions. This was a failure by the landlord.
44. The stage one and stage 2 responses were dealt with by the same person within the landlord’s team. This was inappropriate and does not allow for a new review of the complaint. This is in breach of the Code which states the person considering the complaint at stage 2 must not be the same person that considered the complaint at stage one and it was a failure of its complaints management.
45. The resident has said that he felt stressed, exhausted, and depressed by repeatedly following up his concerns with the landlord.  The resident was inconvenienced for over one year and was put to time and trouble in pursuing this matter. The resident also experienced disappointment and frustration.
46. No apology or financial redress has been provided for the impact on the resident of the landlord’s complaints handling. It has failed to consider and address the detriment to the resident. This amounts to maladministration by the landlord.

Determination (decision)

47. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident for its failure to gain permission to access the resident’s garden.
48. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

49. The landlord acted reasonably with the payment to replace the plant and the apologies given. The written assurances about future works and the system note to give residents advance warning of works were positive actions. The landlord provided no financial redress for its failures or evidence of it considering the impact on the resident.
50. The landlord did not deal with these complaints in line with its own complaints policy or the Code. There were missed opportunities for an early resolution because of the landlord’s delays.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

51.  The landlord is ordered to take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:

1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £375 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by the failures highlighted in this report. The compensation must be paid to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
   1. £75 for the landlord’s handling of the trespass
   2. £300 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.
2. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.

Recommendations

52. It is recommended the landlord review its complaints policy and consider any changes in line with the Code.
53. It is recommended that the landlord considers additional training on complaint handling to prevent these failures reoccurring.