Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202307998)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307998

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

27 March 2024

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:
1. Handling of the resident’s transfer application.
2. Response to reports of damp in the property.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord under a fixed term tenancy agreement which commenced on 28 August 2017. The property is a 1 bedroom first floor flat within a residential block. The resident has diagnosed mental health conditions.
The resident’s application for the property listed him as a single person household. However, by the time the landlord carried out a review of his tenancy in May 2018 the resident’s (then 9 year old) son was also living in the property.
The landlord offers an internal ‘choice based lettings’ transfer scheme for existing residents “in selected boroughs”. This includes the borough in which the resident lives. The landlord’s website says that residents will only be eligible to register for the transfer scheme in specific circumstances. These include needing to move for medical reasons or if their home is “much too small, or too large”. Applicants to the transfer scheme are awarded a ‘priority banding’ of either A (emergency), B (urgent need to move) or C (identified housing need).
The resident submitted an application to join the transfer scheme on 11 October 2019, due to the fact that the property was overcrowded and he required a second bedroom for his son. The application was accepted and he was placed within ‘band C’.
On 14 September 2020, the landlord recorded that the resident’s priority had been increased to ‘band B’ due to the impact of the overcrowding upon his mental health.
On 24 February 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord. He said that:
1. He and his son had moved into the property out of desperation and had been told they could be moved to a bigger place “after a year or so”.
2. He had been registered for the transfer scheme since 2020 and was checking available properties weekly, but there was nothing suitable for him to bid on.
3. He had attempted to move by mutual exchange on 2 occasions but both of these had fallen through.
4. His son was now sleeping on a sofa bed in the living room (which was open plan with the kitchen) and so neither of them had any privacy.
5. This living situation was making him depressed and causing him to experience suicidal thoughts. His son was also experiencing depression and anxiety.
6. There were also issues with ventilation in the flat which had led to damp coming through the ceiling and an infestation of flies – which “after 3 calls still hasn’t been sorted”.
The landlord logged a stage 1 complaint on 1 March 2023. It sent an email to the resident advising it would respond within 10 working days. The landlord defined the complaint as being about “need to move to a 2 bedroom property”, but asked that “if we have missed anything please let us know”.
On 14 April 2023, the landlord emailed the resident regarding his complaint. It apologised for the delay in responding but said that it was still awaiting information it had requested internally.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 5 May 2023. It said that:
1. It was clear the resident and his son were having difficulties, that their current home wasn’t suitable for their needs, and it was sorry they had been overcrowded for so long.
2. It appreciated that its transfer scheme did not provide many opportunities for bidding and that demand far outweighed the number of properties available.
3. Mutual exchange was likely to be the quickest way for the resident to be rehoused, and it was sorry his previous swaps had not come to fruition.
4. The resident could also contact the local authority, or other housing associations, for a wider range of rehousing options.
5. It would like to offer him £100 compensation for the delay in responding to his complaint.
The resident replied the same day, asking to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. He said that he was unable to bid on the transfer scheme as when he logged on to the website it repeatedly told him there was nothing to bid on. He said he had asked the landlord to investigate this previously, but had never received a response. He reiterated the impact the housing situation was having on his health, including giving him suicidal thoughts.
The landlord responded later that day. It said it had asked the relevant department to look into the issues he was having with the website and contact him. It acknowledged the stress the situation was causing him and the impact on his son, but said that escalating the complaint would not alter the information that had been given in its stage 1 response. It suggested he contact the local authority and other housing associations to widen the scope of his search for a new home.
The resident responded advising that he had contacted the local authority, but it had said as he was a tenant of the landlord “it’s out of their hands and won’t help”. In a further email on 17 May 2023, he repeated his request to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 22 May 2023. It said it would respond within 20 working days.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 20 June 2023. It said that it was satisfied with the information and advice the resident had been given in its stage 1 response, which had covered all options available to him. The landlord offered to assist the resident with using the transfer scheme website if he required this.

Assessment and findings

Transfer application

The landlord’s allocations policy sets out the criteria which it uses to award priority banding on its transfer scheme. The criteria for ‘band B’ (urgent need) includes “medical needs confirmed by professional review” and “a welfare need where a tenancy has become unsustainable”. The policy also notes that a banding of B is the maximum that it will award for overcrowding within the resident’s borough.
The criteria set for ‘band A’ (emergency need) focuses largely on households which are under occupying their property, face a “serious” external threat or have a high medical need which means their current property could potentially endanger life (such as being unable to evacuate in the event of a fire).The landlord’s decision to place the resident in band B, based upon a combination of the overcrowding and associated health impacts, appears reasonable and in keeping with its policy.
The landlord is only able to advertise and offer vacant properties that it has available to it. A lack of supply of suitable properties cannot be considered a failure on its part. Whilst this Service is sympathetic to the difficulties experienced by the resident due to overcrowding, it is evident that the landlord appropriately considered these when increasing his priority banding in September 2020. It is difficult to envision any further action the landlord could have taken to assist the resident without disadvantaging other residents in similar circumstances.
Whilst the landlord’s allocations policy does allow it to offer a ‘management transfer’ outside of the usual transfer process, this is not designed to alleviate overcrowding – with the policy stating that management transferees will be offered “a property of the same bedroom size as they currently occupy”. This would therefore not provide an appropriate solution for the resident and his son even if they had met its requisite criteria.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response explained that there is a national shortage of housing, with long waiting lists to be housed, and acknowledged that its internal transfer scheme “does not provide many opportunities for bidding”. Due to this it appropriately signposted the resident the local authority and other social housing providers.
It is noted that the resident advised he had previously approached the local authority which claimed that it was unable to assist him due to the fact he was a tenant of the landlord. However, the local authorities allocations policy states that “where a social housing tenant is deemed to be a qualifying person to be on the Housing Register as they have a reasonable preference or agreed as exceptional circumstances they will have their housing need assessed but may be awarded less preference where their Landlord also has a transfer scheme to assist tenants who need to move”. As such the resident may wish to contact the local authority again to explore this option further.
The landlord also encouraged the resident to continue pursuing a mutual exchange as this was “likely to be the quickest route” to rehousing. It took reasonable steps in checking the resident’s account on the mutual exchange website, to ensure that this was active and his advertisement of his property was visible.
It is clear, from his correspondence with the landlord, that the resident and his son have experienced a significant impact on their health and wellbeing due to overcrowding and the living arrangements this necessitates. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response appropriately acknowledged that the resident and his son were “having difficulties in your home and it’s not suitable for your needs” expressed its regret that the situation had “been ongoing for so long”. However, the stage 2 complaint response failed to mention the “stress and upset” caused by the living situation – despite this being part of the complaint as defined by it.
The resident also stated in both his original complaint and during later emails that the situation was causing him to have “suicidal thoughts”. The landlord’s website contains a webpage on mental health. This lists a range of indicators that “someone is experiencing a mental health issue” which includes “suicidal thoughts and tendencies”. It says that when interacting with an individual with mental health issues it is important to “listen to what they have to say and acknowledge their concerns”. A section titled “getting the right help” recommends encouraging those experiencing mental health issues to contact their GP – who can refer them to relevant professionals.
The landlord failed to follow its own advice in its dealings with the resident. Considering the nature of his comments, and the fact they were made on more than 1 occasion, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider carrying out a welfare visit to the resident and signposting him towards his GP or mental health services to seek support. Research undertaken by the mental health charity ‘Mind’ found that as many as 1 in 3 residents in social housing has a mental health condition. In the context of such prevalence, it is vital that landlord staff do not become ‘desensitised’ or complacent and remain vigilant and alert to potential risks and safeguarding concerns.
In summary, the landlord appropriately prioritised the resident’s transfer application in keeping with its allocations policy, and gave him appropriate advice about seeking a move through alternative methods. However, it failed to appropriately acknowledge the resident’s mental health issue or evidence any consideration of signposting to support or checking on his welfare.

Damp

Within his complaint letter, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with damp coming through the ceiling of the property and that it was “full of flies”. He said he had reported this to the landlord on 3 occasions, but it still had not been addressed.
When providing information to this Service for this investigation, the landlord stated that it had no record of “repairs reported in relation to damp and mould and the infestation of flies” at the property prior to the complaint.
However, the landlord’s repair records show that a repair was raised on 9 January 2023 when the tenant reported that “living room ceiling has water damage plaster and paint is peeling”. On the balance of probabilities, this is the same damp issue to which the resident referred in his complaint. The works order for this repair is recorded as ‘cancelled’ with no evidence of a further order being raised.
In order to corroborate the resident’s claim that he reported the damp multiple times, this Service requested copies of the landlord’s contact records with the resident over the period prior to his complaint. The landlord failed to provide these. The landlord has not, therefore, offered evidence to refute the resident’s claim that he reported the damp/flies on 3 occasions, despite being given the opportunity to do so.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint acknowledgement failed to include this matter in its definition of the resident’s complaint. Although, it did invite the resident to correct it “if we have missed anything” – which there is no evidence of him doing. Nor did the resident raise the matter again when escalating his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. This provides some limited mitigation for the landlord’s oversight.
However, the Ombudsman’s ‘Complaint Handling Code’ (the Code) is clear that “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint”. Considering the severe impact damp and pest infestations can have upon residents’ occupation of their homes, it is a significant failure that the landlord did not address this as part of its complaint responses or arrange for an inspection to be carried out.
On 5 March 2024, the landlord advised this Service that it had now arranged appointments for both a surveyor and pest control to attend the property in relation to the damp and flies. As such, this investigation will make no further orders in respect of this.

Complaint handling

After the resident wrote to it, on 24 February 2023, the landlord appropriately logged this as a complaint and acknowledged it within the 5 working days its complaints policy allows. However, following this, it failed to contact the resident again until it emailed him on 14 April 2023 – by which point the deadline for its stage 1 complaint response had already passed.
In this email, the landlord offered an appropriate apology for the delay, and explained that this was due to it awaiting internal information relevant to the complaint. However, there is no evidence that it contacted the resident again until it provided its stage 1 complaint response on 5 May 2023. The landlord’s records show that it received the information it was awaiting on 29 April 2023. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident at this time and provide details of when it expected to be able to provide its stage 1 response.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord apologised again for the delay in responding to the complaint and offered the resident compensation of £100 for this. This represented a reasonable offer, in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for instances of service failure, such as minor delays to complaint handling.
After receiving the stage 1 complaint response, the resident immediately requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. The Code states that “if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage one it must be progressed to stage two of the landlord’s procedure, unless an exclusion ground now applies”.
Whilst the landlord cannot be said to have breached this requirement, it is concerning that it attempted to dissuade the resident from escalating his complaint stating that “escalating the complaint will not change the information that has been provided to you at stage 1 as the investigation will remain the same”.
The purpose of a stage 2 complaint investigation is to allow the complaint, and stage 1 response, to be reviewed by a second, independent, complaint handler. It is not appropriate for landlords to attempt to dissuade residents from exercising their right to escalate their complaint, where they remain dissatisfied. This risks obstructing residents’ (in particular the most vulnerable) access to a final complaint response, and by extension their ability to refer their complaint to this Service.
The landlord did appropriately escalate the resident’s complaint, following his further email on 17 May 2023. However, this represented a 7 working day delay from his initial request, which was caused solely by its efforts to dissuade him.
The landlord again failed to provide its complaint response within the time frame required by its complaints policy. The stage 2 response was emailed to the resident on 20 June 2023 – 23 days after he had requested to escalate his complaint. There is no evidence the landlord made the resident aware in advance of this delay and it was not acknowledged or explained within the response itself.
In summary, whilst the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was delayed significantly beyond the 10 working day timeframe, it provided a reasonable explanation for this, apologised and made an appropriate offer of compensation. However, the landlord’s attempt to dissuade the resident from escalating his complaint unreasonably delayed his stage 2 complaint in being logged. The landlord then provided its stage 2 complaint response late, with no acknowledgment of, or apology for, this. A finding of service failure has been reached due to this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of damp in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord appropriately prioritised the resident’s transfer application in keeping with its allocations policy, and gave him appropriate advice about seeking a move through alternative methods. However, it failed to appropriately acknowledge the resident’s mental health issues or evidence any consideration of signposting to support or checking on his welfare.
The landlord failed to appropriately investigate the residents reports of damp and flies in the property both before, and as part of, his complaint.
Whilst the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was delayed significantly beyond the 10 working day timeframe, it provided a reasonable explanation for this, apologised and made an appropriate offer of compensation. However, the landlord’s attempt to dissuade the resident from escalating his complaint unreasonably delayed his stage 2 complaint in being logged. The landlord then provided its stage 2 complaint response late, with no acknowledgment of, or apology for, this.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £700 composed of:
  1. £100 for the service failure in its handling of his transfer application.
  2. £400 for the maladministration in its response to his reports of damp in the property.
  3. The £100 offered in its stage 1 complaint response for delays in its complaint handling – if not already paid.
  4. A further £100 for the service failure in its complaint handling identified by this report.
2. Review its training provision regarding recognising and communicating with residents with mental health issues – including use of regular ‘refresher sessions’, to ensure customer facing staff are appropriately knowledgeable and confident. Following the review the landlord should advise this Service of:
  1. Relevant training input received by new staff as part of their induction.
  2. Relevant training delivered to its customer facing staff within the financial year 2023/24.
  3. Relevant training planned for its customer facing staff within the financial year 2024/25.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord consult with the resident’s local authority to confirm whether:
1. The resident can be accepted onto the local authority’s choice based lettings scheme.
2. A ‘reciprocal let’ can be considered in accordance with the local authority’s allocations policy.