Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202205293)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205293

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

07 December 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 regarding the landlord’s;
   1. Handling of the repair of a leak.
   2. Handling of the repair of the communal entrance door.
   3. Handling of the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour.
   4. Communication with the resident regarding rent arrears.

Background

2. It is noted that the resident has an advocate who made contact with both the Ombudsman and the landlord on her behalf. For clarity this report will refer to “the resident” when talking about contact made by either the resident herself or her advocate. The resident has occupied the property since June 2010 under an assured tenancy.
3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 23 December 2021. She stated the communal door had been broken for several months which compromised her safety. She advised of long term issues with antisocial behaviour which had been reported several times but nothing had been done. She stated she had been harassed by the landlord about arrears. Lastly she advised of a leak that had been looked at three times and never rectified. The resident requested compensation, explanations for the lack of action, an apology and confirmed of when repairs would be completed.
4. The landlord provided its stage one response on 14 January 2022. It confirmed that multiple jobs had been raised for the communal door as it appeared the lock was not working. The landlord attended on 22 November 2021 and established that parts were needed so the job was rebooked for 16 December 2021. The lock was repaired that day and all tenants were provided with new keys. The landlord confirmed two jobs had been raised regarding the leak, the first was an emergency on 9 September 2021, the operative attended and found the toilet cistern to be overfilling, the valve was adjusted and the landlord believed this rectified the issue. The second job was raised on 24 November 2021, the job was booked on 15 December 2021, upon attendance the operative was unable to gain access. The job was rebooked and completed on 24 December 2021. The landlord stated that the resident had been involved in 5 antisocial behaviour cases since March 2020, one of which was open and under investigation. The landlord confirmed it had reviewed the resident’s rent account and found the level of contact to not be disproportionate. It went on to advise it had reviewed a call between the resident and itself regarding the arrears and the operative was found to have handled the call appropriately. The landlord acknowledged that the experience had by the resident could have been better and offered £50 compensation which was to be paid to the resident’s rent account.
5. On 4 February 2022 the resident requested the complaint be escalated to stage two. She advised that the communal door had issues since she moved in and had only been fixed after she had reported the issue and said she had an advocate supporting her. The resident reiterated that she found the level of contact regarding the rent account disproportionate. Regarding the leak, the resident stated, the lack of access had been due to a faulty intercom. She stated that the leak was not to do with the cistern overflow but the kitchen sink. She advised that neighbours within the block had been tormenting her about the leak. The resident went on to advise the stage one response did not address the ongoing, long term, antisocial behaviour and stated that there were ongoing incidents with neighbours which evidence had been provided for but nothing had been done. The resident advised of a landlord staff member who she had previously reported antisocial behaviour to but no outcomes or recommendations had been taken from them. The resident advised of drug dealing within the block and stated that the landlord had not effectively communicated with the police regarding any of these matters. The resident asked for the context of the 5 antisocial behaviour cases mentioned in the stage one response and details of what support was being offered to her.
6. The landlord provided it’s stage two response on 9 March 2022. It confirmed that it had checked repair logs back to March 2019 and had only found one other repair to the communal door. It apologised if other repairs had been reported and not passed on to it’s repairs team. The landlord confirmed the leak had been repaired and no further issues had been reported. It sign posted the resident to report any further issues with it’s repairs team. The landlord reiterated that an investigation had been completed and the level of contact regarding the rent arrears had not been disproportionate. It advised that if an arrangement was put in place and maintained there would be no need for further contact regarding the arrears. The landlord provided a link to a “community trigger” and advised the resident to activate this which would allow all parties to come together, discuss the antisocial behaviour and create an action plan. The landlord further confirmed that the resident had been sent a letter in February 2017 advising that both the landlord and the police had investigated allegations of harassment and no substantive evidence had been found so the case had been closed. The case had been reviewed in April 2018 and again no evidence was found. The landlord confirmed, since its last review, numerous cases had been opened in relation to noise, verbal abuse and harassment, each had been investigated and on each occasion there had been insufficient evidence to allow any further action to be taken. The landlord confirmed it had been in contact with the resident and support had been provided relating to how she could collate evidence. The landlord advised that it would refer the case to the Community Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference but cautioned that it would be up to the chair to decide it the case met the threshold to discuss. The landlord sign posted the resident to report any drug dealing to the police and advised that it had requested extra patrols from the neighbourhood policing team which had yielded no evidence.
7. The resident brought a claim for disrepair and discrimination to County Court in which a ruling was made and settlement reached on 13 November 2023. The claim and settlement included the defective communal door and persistent overflow problem. The discrimination portion of the claim was struck out.
8. The resident remains dissatisfied and by way of resolution would like the landlord to pay significant compensation for time and trouble along with the stress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

9. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
10. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 41(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint sit outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the repair of a leak.
    2. The landlords handling of the repair of the communal entrance door.
11. Paragraph 41(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgment on the merits was given. As such the Service will not seek to investigate the landlord’s handling of the repair of a leak or the repair of the communal entrance door, as it appears that these were matters which were already decided on by the County Court and a settlement has been reached.
12. With this in mind, this investigation will only consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about ongoing antisocial behaviour as well as the landlord’s communication with the resident regarding their rent arrears.

Scope of investigation

13. The Ombudsman was sorry to learn of the impact the reported antisocial behaviour has had on the resident and the mental and physical impact that has been described. This service does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health. However, it is beyond the Ombudsman’s expertise to determine whether this was impacted by the landlord’s action (or inaction). Issues such as this are better suited to a court to decide. Often when there is a dispute over whether a health issue had been caused or made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should therefore seek legal advice.
14. The Service will, however, assess how the landlord responded to the reports made by the resident regarding how this was affecting her health and wellbeing, and whether its response was reasonable and proportionate in all circumstances of the case. This service can also review whether the landlord followed its own policies and procedures, the law and industry best practice in its response to the ASB reports.
15. Information provided to this investigation indicates the disturbances reported by the resident from various neighbours in her block cover a considerable period, and she has advised the Service that they are continuing. While this is of concern, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the issue from 23 June 2021, that being 6 months prior to the resident’s initial complaint in December 2021 and the final complaint response, issued in March 2022. However, events reported, and actions taken by the landlord outside of this period may be referred to in this report for context.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about ongoing antisocial behaviour

16. The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as conduct that might cause harassment, alarm, distress, nuisance, or annoyance. This includes racially motivated “hate behaviour”; persistent noise; intimidation; aggression; and misuse of drugs. It divides ASB into two categories – “Level 1 Serious and hate related incidents” and “Level 2 Persistent nuisance”.
17. The policy sets out an extensive “range of tools” to manage the behaviour and a series of measures to support those on the receiving end of that conduct. These tools and measures include writing to and interviewing the perpetrator; mediation; referral to other agencies; working with police; installation of CCTV and security measures; injunctions; possession proceedings; and “in exceptional cases” a management transfer. The policy places a responsibility on residents complaining of ASB to provide “appropriate evidence of the incidents and nuisance they experience”.
18. While the landlord can take legal action against the perpetrator, it is more likely to try other actions first, as possession proceedings will often be the landlord’s last resort.
19. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 October 2021 to report noise nuisance from her neighbours. She reported people going in and out of the properties at all hours, slamming doors and having parties. She stated that she felt harassed by the neighbours as they were looking through her keyhole. The landlord responded advising the resident to download the noise app to allow her to send evidence to the landlord. The landlord also noted that the noise was likely household noise and no proof or sound recording had been submitted so the case would be marked no further action. Advising the resident to download and use the noise app was practical advice. Landlords are expected to follow an evidenced based approach to ASB, to ensure their services are fair and an efficient use of resources. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to require evidence of the reported nuisance in order for it to proceed with appropriate action.
20. The Service is aware that even though the case was assessed to be marked no further action, the landlord did open an ASB case the same day. This was appropriate. The landlord has made the Service aware that it incorrectly reopened an old case instead of creating a new case, the landlord has advised that this was an error and would not be normal procedure.
21. On 26 November 2021, the landlord stated it had tried to contact the resident numerous times and had received no response. The landlord spoke with the resident on 29 November 2021 and she advised neighbours had been having parties without permission. As this was being dealt with under another open ASB case, discussed below, this case was closed. Again, it was reasonable for the landlord to require evidence of the reported nuisance in order for it to proceed with appropriate action. As no evidence had been provided it was appropriate for the landlord to close the case.
22. On 12 October 2021 the resident made a report to the landlord regarding a neighbouring flat. She reported that residents had been harassing her and shouting abuse at her. She stated that she could not record the harassment as evidence because the neighbour was too quick. The landlord opened an ASB case the following day, this was appropriate. The landlord acknowledged that the events reported were historical, it responded the following day and provided the resident with a diary sheet. It asked her to record all future incidents on this as evidence. This was a practical solution to gain evidence, given that the resident had advised she was unable to record the harassment as it happened. It also would have been practical for the landlord to advise the resident to report any abuse or harassment to the police. The Service is aware that this advise was given in a later telephone call discussing the incident on 15 November 2021.  
23. The Service is aware that this case remained open throughout the internal complaints process. In its stage two response the landlord advised the resident to activate a “community trigger” and provided her with the link to do this. It advised that this would allow all partners to come together to discuss an action plan. This was practical and appropriate advice. The landlord also stated it would refer the case to the Community Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference. This allows for vulnerable adults to be discussed, managed and signposted and was again appropriate action to take.
24. The resident made a further report, via phone call, on 15 November 2021. She advised that a neighbouring property had a party on 7 November 2021 which had spilled out into the communal garden. She advised that the party goers had verbally abused her. The landlord contacted the neighbour on 16 November 2021 to discuss the allegations. The landlord advised the neighbour that the communal garden was not to be used in this way and that this was a violation of the tenancy agreement. This was swift and appropriate action to take.
25. Ultimately, during the considered time period, the resident made three reports of antisocial behaviour. All three were dealt with appropriately with reasonable and practical actions being taken by the landlord. One each occasion the resident was provided with time and support to provide evidence. This was the appropriate action to take and as no evidence was provided it would not be reasonable to expect the landlord to take further action. As such a finding of no maladministration will be made. As no maladministration was found, no compensation will be ordered.

The landlord’s communication with the resident regarding their rent arrears

26. In both its stage one and stage two responses the landlord confirmed the contact regarding arrears had been reviewed by a team manager. It found the contact to be proportionate on the basis that the arrears continued to increase due to non-payment of rent. It was appropriate for the landlord to review the contact on the account.
27. In its stage one response, the landlord advised that a call back between the resident and the landlord had been reviewed and the operative was found to have handled the call in the appropriate manner and attempted to offer support. This was an appropriate and practical approach by the landlord.  It showed that the landlord was taking the complaint seriously and conducting a thorough  investigation.
28. In its stage two response the landlord advised the resident that making and maintaining a payment plan that reduced the arrears would negate the need for further contact regarding the arrears balance. This was appropriate and practical advice.   
29. It is appropriate for landlords to take a proactive approach in the recovery of arrears. This would include early intervention in an attempt to stop arrears increasing and promote tenancy sustainment. The landlord should treat the resident fairly and be mindful of their circumstances, particularly when there are outstanding issues with a benefit award. The landlord referred the resident to its in house tenancy sustainment team for assistance with housing benefit and discretionary housing payment applications. This was appropriate and a practical solution.
30. Ultimately, the landlord has evidenced that it took the resident’s complaint seriously and conducted a full investigation. The outcome of that investigation found no service failure. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence which contradicts the outcome found by the landlord, as such a finding of no maladministration will be made. As no maladministration was found, no compensation will be ordered.

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 41(c) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the repair of a leak is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
32. In accordance with paragraph 41(c) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the repair to the communal entrance door is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour. 
34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s communication with the resident regarding rent arrears.