Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202337333)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337333

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

28 March 2025

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 reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 2021. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 14 January 2024. He said he was again having to report issues with his neighbour. He said their dog had been barking all day. The neighbour had then begun shouting at 11.59pm. The resident also reported drug dealing at the neighbour’s property and late–night ASB. He said he wanted the landlord to deal with the issues.
The landlord’s case notes indicate that it emailed the resident on 24 January 2024. It requested further information on the noise and asked the resident to collect evidence using a noise app or diary sheets. The notes indicate that the resident declined to provide any information.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 1 February 2024. He said he had made a complaint to the landlord but had not received a response. After several requests from the Ombudsman, the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 7 May 2024. It said:
1. It had been unable to investigate the resident’s reports of ASB, which included noise at unsocial hours and drug dealing. This was due to an absence of evidence provided by the resident.
2. It had attempted to advise the resident on the use of the noise app to gather evidence, but he refused. It had therefore offered the use of diary sheets as an alternative.
3. It advised that the resident report the drug dealing to the police, who would then liaise with it in relation to any specific actions it could consider.
4. It would be conducting a visit of the area to see if it could identify any incidents that it could use to help with its investigation into the resident’s reports.
5. It understood this was not the outcome the resident was looking for. It provided a link to its ASB toolkit so he could understand how it could help with the ASB issues he faced.
6. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint regarding the ASB reports.
7. It apologised for its delay in raising his complaint and that the resident had to involve the Ombudsman to obtain a response.
8. It offered compensation of £200 for its lack of communication.
The resident told the landlord on 8 May 2024 that he was unhappy with the stage 1 response and wanted to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He said the landlord had failed to address the drug dealing and ASB, both of which were its responsibility.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 7 June 2024 to report that he had escalated his complaint the previous month but had not received a response. After contact from this Service on 18 June 2024, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalated complaint the same day. It then issued its stage 2 response on 25 June 2024. It said:
1. It could not uphold the resident’s complaint in relation to ASB because he had not provided any evidence. An officer had called to discuss this with him, but he had hung up on them.
2. It had agreed to send an officer to speak to the resident about the ASB. It had faced difficulties arranging this appointment, but had asked the officer to email him to re-arrange a meeting.
3. It again advised that the resident should report drug dealing to the police, who would then contact the landlord.
4. It appreciated how distressing it could be having to deal with drug dealing and late-night noise and the impact these could have on the resident’s daily life.
5. It acknowledged that he had escalated his complaint on 8 May 2024. Due to an administrative error, it had not escalated the complaint until 18 June 2024. It apologised for this and offered £100 compensation.

Events post internal complaints procedure

The landlord spoke to the resident on 26 June 2024 about alleged attempts from neighbours to “bully him out of his property”. On 20 August 2024 the resident reported further instances of harassment. The landlord opened an ASB case file the same day and sent an action plan on 17 September 2024.
We spoke to the resident on 6 March 2025. He said that the ASB had settled down. He felt the drug dealing was still taking place but was not as bad as before. He said the landlord had told him to report the issue to the police, which he had, and was then told by the police to report it to the landlord. He told us he had previously given the landlord crime reference numbers, but no action was taken. Most recently he said he had spoken to the police about drugs and the associated smell at the end of February 2025. He also said the smell of drugs (from next door) “stinks”. As a result, he said he cannot have his windows open and has had to buy fans to cool his house down in the summer. He also advised that the neighbour was banging and tapping on the walls causing him sleep disturbance. He confirmed he has tried using the noise app. He found it did not record the noise he was experiencing, and said he had explained this to the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy states that it is committed to tackling ASB through a robust, victim–centred approach. It gives a number of examples of ASB, including:
1. Persistent noise nuisance from loud music, persistent shouting, excessive volume from TV or radio, animal noise such as dogs barking.
2. Intimidation and harassment.
3. Using the landlord’s property for unlawful or illegal activity, such as drug use or dealing.
4. Misuse of alcohol or drugs on the landlord’s property that causes a nuisance to others.
The policy divides ASB into 2 categories. Serious hate–related incidents are category 1 and persistent nuisance are category 2. The landlord states it will acknowledge reports of each within 1 and 3 working days respectively. To discourage ASB it states it will employ early resolution strategies, including mediation, warning letters, tenancy cautions, family support referrals, and the use of acceptable behaviour contracts. The landlord commits to work with its partner agencies to ensure early intervention in reported cases of ASB where appropriate. The policy lists additional tools the landlord will use to manage ASB, including interviewing the perpetrator, nuisance investigation, victim risk assessment, installation of noise monitoring equipment, use of the noise app, and agreeing an action plan.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will consider compensation where a customer has incurred financial loss or where there has been a service failure. The landlord categorises its compensation payments into 3 bands depending on the impact caused. One instance of mild inconvenience is categorised as low impact with a payment amount of up to £20. A succession of service failures is categorised as medium impact with payments of between £20 and £100. High impact is described as serious or prolonged service failure causing severe stress, disruption and inconvenience. Payments in this category are between £100 and £500. The policy states that the compensation is not automatic. The landlord’s main aim is to remedy the problem by issuing vouchers, apologising, or changing a process to put things right.
The resident’s report of ASB in his complaint on 14 January 2024 met the landlord’s definition of ASB and the examples given in the policy. Because it was in relation to persistent nuisance, it would have met the category 2 definition. The landlord should therefore have contacted the resident within 3 working days. However, it took it 8 working days to contact him, indicating a failure to comply with its ASB policy.
The landlord’s notes on that first contact are minimal. It said it asked the resident for more information on the noise. The notes do not clarify what answers the resident gave, and therefore failed to accurately record the circumstances of the case. We would expect the notes to provide clear information on the type of noise the resident was experiencing, how often it was happening, at what time of day, and what impact the noise was having on him. There is also no evidence in the notes that the officer explored the resident’s allegations about drug dealing. Detailed and robust notes are essential in ASB cases to support effective action planning and decision making.
The same notes also indicate that the resident declined to use the noise app to collect evidence. However, the notes do not offer any further context on the resident’s reasons for this decision, which the landlord should have explored and recorded. The resident told us he had tried the noise app but that it did not record the noise he was experiencing. There is no evidence that the landlord made sufficient attempts to explain the use of the noise app to the resident, including the type and level of noise it would be expected to detect. Demonstrating or clearly describing the use of the app may have eliminated any barriers or concerns regarding its use. The landlord could also have offered alternatives, such as timed visits or the use of noise monitoring equipment as stated in its ASB policy. Its first contact with the resident therefore failed to fulfill its aim of providing a victim–centred approach. This resulted in no action being taken and likely left the resident feeling frustrated and unheard.
The landlord failed to take any further action in the case until we approached it and asked that it provide a stage 1 response. This was unreasonable and likely left the resident feeling that his report of ASB had been ignored. The landlord then called him on 10 April 2024. As with the previous call, the notes are minimal and are solely concerned with the resident’s refusal to use the noise app. The landlord again did not record any details about the noise or demonstrate that it offered any alternatives to the noise app. Instead, it told the resident that without using the noise app it would be impossible to resolve the case. The notes indicate the resident then hung up. We can understand that he felt frustrated after being re-offered a solution that he had already refused. We acknowledge that resident should assist the landlord to collect evidence as stated in its policy. However, the landlord must show that it has explored all options and demonstrate that it has listened to the resident to understand what might work best for him. Its evidence does not show this, indicating an additional failure to provide a flexible and victim–centred approach.
In an internal email on 10 April 2024, the officer who had made the call referenced above shared the outcome internally with the team manager. The manager commented that the case was “very difficult to resolve if they were not given the evidence”. They went on to ask the officer to visit the perpetrator’s property the next time they were in the area and said “at least then we can document we have looked into this further”. Though conducting a visit was an appropriate course of action, these comments demonstrate a lack of urgency and care for the experience of the resident. Further, the comments indicate that the landlord was more concerned with how its investigation looked than with undertaking a thorough investigation into the reports.
The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that the visit took place. Again, there is no indication that there was any further action until we contacted the landlord to ask that it provide a stage 2 response. This demonstrates an unacceptable and continued failure to engage with the resident. It also indicates further failures to adhere to its ASB policy.
In an internal email chain on 20 June 2024, there was apparent uncertainty as to whether a visit had been undertaken, and if so, by whom. Had the landlord kept accurate records, it would have been aware of this. Additionally, the staff member responsible for the resident’s area said they had only recently taken over and were not aware of any complaints or issues raised. This is further evidence of poor record keeping and information sharing, indicating silo working and inadequate communication.
In the same email chain on 20 June 2024, the landlord’s complaints team asked that it was informed what actions were planned so it could include this information in its (stage 2) response. This shows a reactive approach with the aim of providing the Ombudsman with information, rather than a routine investigation of the resident’s reports to help resolve the issues. The landlord must be proactive in its approach. It is unreasonable and inappropriate that it only initiated actions when the Ombudsman contacted the complaints department.
The landlord contacted the resident on 26 June 2024. During the conversation he said:
1. He was continually getting letters from a different neighbour asking when he was moving out. This was causing him a lot of “frustration” because he did not want to move out.
2. He was also getting phone calls from people posing as the landlord and telling him he had to leave the flat. He believed one of the people doing this was his neighbour.
3. He had informed the police about both issues but no action had been taken.
4. He believed that a member of staff from an external housing organisation was conspiring with his neighbour against him. This staff member had been banned from the area and the police were aware.
5. He was fed up with the bullying and attempts to remove him from the house. He was very unhappy with the current situation.
It is positive that landlord recorded more extensive notes of its conversation with the resident. However, it has not provided any evidence to show that it undertook any investigation into these additional reports of ASB and harassment. More than 6 months after the resident’s first report of ASB, the landlord had not carried out a risk assessment, produced an action plan, or shown that it had written to or visited the alleged perpetrator. It also had not demonstrated any attempt to conduct partnership working with other agencies such as the police. The landlord’s lack of actions was inappropriate and unfair to the resident, causing him undue stress and inconvenience.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 20 August 2024 about the neighbour throwing items into his garden and throwing stones at his wall until 3am. The officer categorised the ASB as fly-tipping, and risk assessed it as “level 3 – standard risk/environmental harm”. There was no mention of the stone throwing in its assessment, which would presumably constitute harassment and not fly-tipping. Failing to categorise the ASB correctly would have impacted on the landlord’s decision–making process when considering the most appropriate course of action.
Following the report, the relevant officer contacted the resident on either 20 or 23 August 2024 (the records are not clear). They advised they would be on leave between 27 August 2024 and 2 September 2024, but would send an action plan in the meantime. However, the landlord did not send the action plan until 17 September 2024, around 4 weeks later, which was a failure to fulfil its commitment. The further delay without any update was unreasonable and would have been frustrating for the resident. The landlord also failed to provide a copy of the action plan to this Service.
Due to the failures outlined above, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. In summary, it failed to offer a victim–centred approach. Rather, its approach was passive and driven by contacts from the Ombudsman and its own complaints team. It omitted to implement any of its early intervention strategies or make use of other tools listed in its ASB policy. Overall, the investigation was ineffectual and unfair on the resident. This caused a deterioration in his confidence in the landlord and its processes.
The landlord offered compensation for complaint handling but not for its handling of the ASB investigation. Due to the failures highlighted above, and the significant timescales involved, we have made an award of £500 compensation, which is in line with the landlord’s policy.
The additional amount of compensation we have ordered is also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website), which sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance recommends awards of this level where there has been a serious failure by the landlord, which had a significant impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2–stage complaints procedure. It will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. At stage 2 it commits to providing a response within 20 working days. If it is unable to meet either of these timeframes, it states it will keep the resident informed and provide regular updates.
The landlord did not acknowledge or respond to the resident’s complaint or notify him of any delay it was experiencing. This was a failure to comply with its own policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). Further, we had to contact the landlord on 6 occasions between 18 March 2024 and 20 April 2024 before it issued its stage 1 response on 11 April 2024. When it did respond, it did not initially attach the complaint response to the email sent to the resident, requiring him to chase it further. He finally received a copy on 7 May 2024. In its attempts to put things right for the resident, the landlord offered £200 compensation for its communication failures.
When the resident escalated his complaint, the landlord acknowledged this internally but did not provide an acknowledgement to the resident. It again did not provide a response until contacted by the Ombudsman. This indicated ongoing communication failures and silo working within and/or between departments. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 25 June 2024, 5 working days after being contacted by the Ombudsman. In the response it acknowledged that it had failed to respond to the resident’s escalation within the appropriate timescales and offered a further £100 compensation.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its complaint handling failures at both stages of its process. It also offered compensation to put things right for the resident. But for these steps, we would have found maladministration in how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint. However, the £300 compensation offered is considered an appropriate amount and in line with our remedies guidance. We have therefore found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology from a senior manager to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology must meet the criteria highlighted in the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
2. Pay the resident £500 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its handling of his reports of ASB. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears.
3. Contact the resident to discuss the current situation and any ASB he is experiencing. It must then decide if it needs to open a new ASB case. If it does, the landlord must conduct a risk assessment and produce an action plan detailing next steps and associated timescales. It must share evidence of both documents with the resident and the Ombudsman. If the landlord does not open a new ASB case, it must provide an explanation of its decision to this Service.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the time limits specified.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £300 compensation it offered him for the errors in its complaint handling. This is in addition to the £500 ordered above. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this payment is made.