Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Paragon Asra Housing Limited (201911811)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201911811

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

10 May 2021


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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be re-housed.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The Ombudsman would expect that complaints about a landlord’s standard of service, actions or omissions are made within a reasonable period; this is normally within six months of the matters arising. This is because the passage of time poses challenges in investigating historical events. Therefore, whilst some historical information may be included for context, this investigation focuses on events from January 2019 onwards, this being six months prior to the resident raising her stage one complaint.
  2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and occupies a two-bedroomed property. Her tenancy commenced on 7 August 1995. The tenancy agreement confirms that four occupiers were permitted at the property.
  3. The resident made an application with the landlord for rehousing in 2011 and was awarded “urgent” priority banding as the property was lacking a bedroom for her household. It is evident that she was not rehoused and she raised a complaint, which was concluded with a stage two final complaint response from the landlord in September 2015. This complaint was also referred to this Service in April 2018 and was the subject of an Ombudsman’s Determination in August 2018.
  4. The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 1 July 2019 in which she expressed dissatisfaction with being housed in her current property. She said that it had housed her there since 1995, in the knowledge that there was a history of ASB in the area. The resident stated that the landlord had previously admitted to losing her transfer document for a new property and not rehousing her, but it had not admitted to failing in its duty of care to her.
  5. The resident relayed that she had been subjected to ASB but had been let down by the landlord and the local authority, who had removed her from its waiting list for a new property. She contended that it was refusing to rehouse her and her family and had never asked her where she wanted to move to. The resident asked to be moved to a new property as soon as possible.
  6. After issuing a holding response to the resident on 30 July 2019, the landlord issued a stage one complaint response to her on 20 August 2019. It referred to her historical complaint it had previously responded to her about in September 2015, where it had offered her a discretionary management move. The landlord explained that this was a one-time offer of a high priority move which would be the first available property of its available stock, which could be located anywhere in London or the Midlands.
  7. The landlord noted that it had not received a response to this offer and, due to the length of time elapsed, its processes had since changed, and it referred her to use Homeswapper by contacting its customer services team to secure alternative housing. Regarding any instances of ASB, it provided the details for how to report these and urged her to do so to enable it to track them. The landlord confirmed this concluded its response to her complaint at stage one. 
  8. The resident emailed the landlord later on 20 August 2019 to express her dissatisfaction with its response. She reiterated that her complaint was that it “failed [her] under the umbrella of duty of care”. The resident explained that her initial complaint, referred to by the landlord in its stage one response was about her “housing transfer, regarding ASB”. She was unhappy that it had previously offered a transfer to a property in the Midlands which was impractical for her employment and her children’s schooling. The resident added that, regarding her previous reports of ASB, “there should have been an exchange of information with partnership working” which had not occurred and referred to ASB she alleged to be perpetrated by her ex-partner. The landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation request later that day.
  9. On 8 October 2019, the resident emailed the landlord to chase a response to her complaint. The landlord replied the next day to advise it would send a letter out by recorded delivery and confirmed that the “interaction” was not a complaint, as her historical complaint had already been considered at both stages of its procedure and directed her to her historical complaint response which it enclosed.
  10. On 2 and 3 December 2019, the resident emailed the landlord to chase a response to her complaint, reiterating that her complaint was about its “failure of duty of care…under the Police Reform Act 2002”. It replied on 3 December 2019 to advise that there was no complaint open for her, referring again to her historical complaint
  11. The resident emailed the landlord on 4 December 2019, describing a recent report she had made to the police about ASB from her neighbours who were not tenants of the landlord. She repeated that she had been experiencing ASB over the last 25 years and that the landlord had failed her in its duty of care. The landlord replied later that day to reiterate that her historical complaint had been responded to and explain its ASB process, confirming that in cases of ASB not involving its tenants, it would refer the resident to the police. It offered to send her copies of its previous responses to her complaints.
  12. The resident replied to the landlord later on 4 December 2019 to re-assert that her complaint was that it had failed its duty of care to her by not rehousing her earlier. She insisted that it respond to this complaint. It replied to her the next day to enclose its historical final response to her complaint and stated that it had investigated her reports of ASB in the complaint. The landlord asked for clarification if this was incorrect and referred her to the complaint response for her options for rehousing. The resident replied later that day to ask that it open a new stage one complaint about the issues she had recently detailed.
  13. The resident and the landlord entered into an email exchange between 25 June and 18 August 2020 in which she requested her complaint be escalated. On three occasions it asked for specific details of her complaint to which she referred it back to her previous contact from 1 July 2019 onwards alleging its failure in its duty of care to her over the previous 25 years when she experienced ASB. The resident highlighted that the landlord had confused her recent complaint with her historical complaint.
  14. The landlord emailed the resident on 19 August 2020 to say that she had contacted it about reports of ASB; however, it had no evidence of current ASB. It again referred to its historical complaint response which it stated showed her historical reports of ASB had been fully investigated. The landlord asserted that it had responded appropriately to her “on numerous times” and urged her to report any new ASB of which it was unaware.
  15. The resident subsequently sought the intervention of the Ombudsman and we wrote to the landlord on 24 September 2020 to explain that she was seeking a response to her complaint about its duty of care to her, and not about its handling of ASB. It emailed her the next day to ask her to provide details relating to her complaint.
  16. The resident replied to the landlord on 27 September 2020 when she expressed her dissatisfaction with its misspelling of her name and gathered that this represented “unconscious bias” on its part. She described her historical experiences of ASB at her property and highlighted ways in which it had responded unsatisfactorily. She inferred that this amounted to a lack of duty of care on its part.
  17. The landlord responded on 28 September 2020 to apologise for its misspelling of her name and attributed this to an error, rather than unconscious bias. It stated that it had investigated the ASB issues she referred to in her previous email and confirmed that its complaints procedure had been exhausted. 
  18. In a telephone to this Service on 22 April 2021, the resident clarified that her complaint was not concerning the landlord’s handling of ASB but instead was about its duty to rehouse her.

Assessment and findings

Policies

  1. The landlord’s allocations policy confirms that it considers management transfers in cases where a resident or member of their household is at risk of significant harm from someone not living in their household. Supporting evidence of this risk is required from the police, the chair of a safeguarding panel, Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Committee, through a PEEP assessment or vulnerability matrix. If a management transfer has not been completed within six months, the risk to the resident must be re-confirmed by the relevant agency. 
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it is better able to address reports of ASB when appropriate evidence of the incidents is provided and it expects residents to “make use of all the resources available to them to provide this evidence” and meet with its staff as required. This also states that not complying with either of these responsibilities is likely to lead to the landlord endings its efforts to tackle the ASB.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy confirms that it deals with reports about ASB through its ASB procedure and not through its complaints procedure. This also states that it will not reopen a previous complaint once it has provided its final decision and it will not consider a complaint about a transfer or housing allocation unless it failed to follow its allocations policy. The policy also precludes the landlord from investigating complaints made more than 12 months after the events without a “good reason” for not making the complaint at the time.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage complaints procedure, where it aims to respond within ten working days at both stages.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be re-housed

  1. There was no evidence of the resident formally applying for rehousing to the landlord or stating her reasons for requiring a move, nor was there evidence provided of a need for a management transfer, as per the landlord’s allocations policy, above at point 20. Therefore, the landlord responded reasonably in its stage one response on 20 August 2019 by suggesting she contact it to use the Homeswapper service.
  2. There was no evidence of the resident subsequently engaging with the landlord to formally apply for rehousing or report any recent specific failure in its implementation of its re-housing procedures. As such, there is no evidence of a failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request to be re-housed.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The resident made repeated attempts to request the landlord investigate her complaint about it failing in its duty of care to her; however, it was not always clear in which specific ways she believed it to have done this. A duty of care may encompass many issues, and therefore for an investigation into this to take place, the specific issues must be identified. It is noted that on multiple instances, on 4 December 2019 and between 25 June and 18 August 2020, the landlord asked the resident for clarification of the specific points of dispute remained. As her response centred on reference to historical ASB issues, it was reasonable for it to state in its subsequent replies that, in accordance with its complaint policy above at point 22, the issues had already been responded to.
  2. While the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request on 8 October 2019 for her complaint to be escalated to the final stage, there is no evidence of it providing a response at the final stage of its complaint procedure, as per its complaints policy above at point 23. There was also no evidence of it contacting her to explain why her complaint would not be considered at the final stage. This was a failure on its part to act in accordance with its complaints policy, above at points 21 and 22.
  3. In the landlord’s responses to the resident on 9 October 2019 it made no reference to her complaint replied to at stage one on 20 August 2019 and, on 3 December 2019, it said that there was no current complaint for her, again not recognising that it had responded to her recent complaint at stage one. There was also no evidence that it responded to her subsequent request on 5 December 2019 for it to open a new stage one complaint, whether to register the complaint or explain why another complaint would not be considered. These were failures on its part to act in accordance with its complaints policy.
  4. While the landlord did seek clarification of the resident’s issues on 4 December 2019 and between 25 June and 18 August 2020, it missed an opportunity on 9 October 2019 to clarify with her on any specific recent issues she was complaining about in connection with her stage one complaint responded to on 20 August. This would have enabled it to clarify its position on the matter earlier and minimise further involvement from the resident.
  5. In recognition of the landlord’s failure to not clarify its position or seek clarification from the resident on her issues sooner, it should pay £100 compensation to her. This is to recognise the likely amount of time and trouble experienced by the resident in pursuing her complaint. This award is in line with our remedies guidance where there has been a “failure which had an impact on the complainant but… may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant”.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request to be re-housed.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

  1. There was no evidence that the landlord failed to adhere to its allocations policy.
  2. The landlord did not progress the resident’s complaint in accordance with its complaints policy, did not recognise that it had responded to her recent complaint at stage one of its process, and did not make efforts to clarify the issues the resident wanted it to investigate at the final stage of its complaints procedure.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. The landlord is to pay compensation of £100 to the resident within 28 days in respect of the complaint handling failures.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should carry out complaints handling refresher training with staff to ensure that complaints are handled in accordance with its policy. This includes guidance on how to gather information from a resident in support of their complaint.