Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202100556)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100556

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

20 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff and the issuing of a tenancy caution.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
It should be noted that the resident has previously brought a separate, antisocial behaviour (ASB) case (202009915) to this Service in which the determination found failings in the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of ASB and for its associated complaint handling. This case is referenced in the summary of events for context only and does not form part of, nor is considered an extension of, this investigation.

Summary of events

On 18 January 2021, the landlord sent an email to the resident regarding allegations made against him relating to his behaviour towards staff and/or contractors over the last year and false allegations he had made against its staff members. The landlord arranged a meeting for 4 February 2021 to discuss the reports, as a previous meeting, scheduled for 20 January 2021, was declined due to the resident feeling unwell.
An email exchange took place on 19 January 2021 in which the resident asked the landlord to provide details of what the allegations were. The landlord replied by reiterating that the complaints related to false allegations he had made against its staff members and his alleged behaviour towards staff and/or contractors over the last year, which had been brought to its attention. It said the meeting had been scheduled to make him aware of the allegations, make him aware of the impact the allegations were having, and to allow him to respond to the allegations. The resident wanted to know specifically what the allegations were and by whom they were made. The landlord advised that it was not appropriate to provide specific details via email as it usually discussed these in the meetings. Following the meeting, it said it would provide a document summarising the allegations.
As the resident did not wish to participate in the meeting until he had been provided with details about who specifically had made the allegations against him, the landlord sent an email on 25 January 2021 that provided a summary of the alleged incidents (specific names of staff members were excluded). The landlord concluded by asking the resident to let it know if he wished to meet with it to discuss the allegations or, alternatively, if he did not wish to meet with the landlord, it asked he provide his comments in writing before the 30 January 2021.
On 2 February 2021 the resident provided his response to the allegations made against him, believing them to be false and motivated by revenge due to a previous complaint submitted to the Ombudsman, in which one of the members of staff conducting this investigation, who he said had made some of the allegations against him, had been heavily involved. He added that he had been subject to a campaign of abuse and victimisation by members of the landlord’s staff, having been accused of a large number of baseless allegations with the threat of eviction. The resident therefore asked the landlord to investigate his complaint accordingly.
On 5 February 2021, the landlord noted that the resident had provided comments in relation to the alleged incidents. The landlord informed the resident that these would be reviewed as part of its investigation and the landlord would continue to keep him updated. It confirmed that the investigation would be concluded based on the alleged incidents reported and his corresponding comments.
On 6 February 2021 the resident asked the landlord why a member of staff, who had made a number of the allegations against him, was conducting the investigation. He also asked how the landlord would ensure an independent and objective investigation is carried out.
On 12 February 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to inform him that it had reviewed his response to the allegations and wanted to arrange a meeting to discuss further.
On 17 February 2021, the landlord assured the resident that the two members of its staff who were conducting the investigation into the allegations made against him were doing so in an in the attempt to resolve the issue, which was within their remit and role to do. In a further email from the landlord on 18 February 2021, it clarified that it was not the case that the member of staff the resident had said had made the allegations against him was now carrying out the investigation. It explained that it would not be acceptable for a staff member who had made the allegations to then be investigating the claims.
In the landlord’s stage one complaint response of 19 February 2021, it explained that it had investigated the resident’s concerns regarding staff members’ conduct and found no failure in service on the basis that:
1. Part of its investigation process into the allegations made against a resident is to discuss these with the accused so that they can respond to any allegations made, as part of its duty to conduct an objective investigation. The landlord said that it had been actively attempting to schedule a meeting with the resident but had been thus far unsuccessful. However, it confirmed it had received correspondence from the resident via email in which he had given his response to the allegations; this, it confirmed, would not be addressed in this response as it was still under investigation and had yet to be concluded.
2. The two members of staff in question had not made any of the allegations against the resident and were thereby best placed to carry out the investigation objectively.
The landlord sent a further email on 25 February 2021 again asking about the resident’s availability to discuss the allegations. In the resident’s response of the same day, he asked that the members of staff who had made the allegations against him be removed from any involvement in the investigation; until then, he said he would only respond to written statements and questions.
The landlord escalated the complaint to stage two of its complaint procedure on 26 February 2021, following contact from the resident which said that the landlord was not addressing his concerns.
On 5 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that an official tenancy caution had been issued to the resident on the basis that he had refused to engage with the landlord on several occasions and therefore it had concluded its investigation based on the information available, which included the reports received and the resident’s response to the allegations. The basis for the issuing of the caution was based on Ground 12 and Ground 14 of Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988, as well as being a breach of the tenancy conditions under his tenancy obligations as stated in 3.4 (nuisance) and 3.6 (racial and other harassment).
The resident submitted a further formal complaint on 6 March 2021, in which he accused two of the landlord’s members of staff of making false and malicious allegations against him, which resulted in a tenancy caution being given without evidence nor proof of the allegations. The resident reiterated that he would not meet nor discuss the allegations as he maintained that a number of them were from a member of staff that was involved in a previous Ombudsman case. He asserted that he had asked for details of who had made the allegations so he could provide a defence, but the landlord had failed to do so. He said no evidence had been provided to him except for anecdotal accusations from members of staff, believing the aforementioned staff member was hiding behind this anonymity. He asked that the tenancy caution be withdrawn and an apology be given.
In the landlord’s stage two complaint response of 12 March 2021, it said that it had a duty to investigate claims that were made about the resident’s behaviour, and that the staff members who conducted the investigation were best placed to do so. It said that it tried to arrange a meeting with the resident to gain an understanding of the accusations but was unsuccessful. Therefore, the investigation was carried out using the correspondence from the resident, which it affirmed was in line with its process. As such, the landlord did not agree there was any service failure, adding that the staff members acted professionally and dealt with the matter seriously. Furthermore, it did not agree that the staff member breached the landlord’s code of conduct.
The landlord concluded by offering the resident mediation, to help repair the evident breakdown in the relationship between him and its staff. This was stated as the landlord’s final response.
In the landlord’s later correspondence to the resident, dated 21 April 2021, it said that it had reviewed the reasons behind issuing the resident a tenancy caution and maintained that the reasons for the notice being issued were supported by concerns raised by several members of staff over the last 12 months. Moreover, the landlord repeated that the concerns raised were not raised by the named member of staff the resident had identified. The offer of mediation was reiterated in the letter’s closing paragraph.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

Section 3.4 of the resident’s tenancy agreement states that a resident should:
1. “Not…cause or allow members of his/her household or invited visitors to cause a nuisance or annoyance to neighbours or other tenants of the [landlord]…, or to employees, agents or contractors of the …[landlord].”
Section 3.6 of the resident’s tenancy agreement states that a resident should:
1. “Not … commit or allow members of his/her household or visitors to commit any acts or form of other harassment whether on the grounds of race, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation or disability or otherwise which may interfere with the peace and comfort of, or cause offence to, any other tenant, member of his/ her household, visitors, neighbours, employees, agents or contractors of the…[landlord] (acts of harassment include but are not limited to any injurious word or deed and acts of or threats of violence).”
The landlord’s ASB policy outlines a range of tools that could be used to manage ASB, which includes writing to the perpetrator, interviewing the perpetrator, mediation, and the issuing of tenancy cautions. Moreover, in order to support people who complain of ASB, the landlord will consider the following measures (this is not an exhaustive list):
1. A full investigation and evidence gathering
2. An interview with the alleged perpetrator(s) (this could be done without mentioning the witness depending on the nature of the complaint)
3. Interventions that may help resolve the issue (for example, mediation services and working with partners to try to resolve the case)

Scope of investigation

It is noted that the resident has claimed that the staff members’ actions and/or inactions were retaliatory in nature as a result of another case he had submitted to the Housing Ombudsman Service relating to ASB. The resident has also claimed that the member of staff who was central in the aforementioned ASB case was the same member of staff who had made the allegations against him in this case and had thereafter issued the tenancy caution. He has accused this member of staff of being discriminatory and prejudice toward him, and also believed that the member of staff was making the allegations against him in order to intimidate and silence him.
For clarity, this Service cannot determine whether discrimination or prejudice has taken place, as these are legal terms which are better suited to a court to decide; nor can this Service establish if the allegations made against the resident are true or false. Rather, this Service will consider, and make a determination on, whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of misconduct by its staff and decide whether or not the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in the Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
Furthermore, in the resident’s correspondence to this Service, dated 8 April 2021, he has asked that we also consider the landlord’s response to complaints relating to the landlord’s failure to consult with residents regarding the procurement of new service contracts, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to formally recognise a residents’ association, and the landlord allegedly giving false and misleading information regarding his enquiry about the landlord breaching a contract. As these issues have not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, it is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond accordingly.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff and the issuing of a tenancy caution

When a complaint is made about accusations of discrimination and prejudice by members of a landlord’s staff, a landlord would be expected to conduct a fair and objective investigation, take appropriate action where necessary, and clearly relay its findings to the complainant.
In this case, the resident’s main concerns related to the accusations made by the landlord’s staff and contractors, as part of a complaint made against him, and the impartiality of the staff members who were tasked to conduct the investigation into the said allegations. Considering this, the landlord would, therefore, have to satisfy itself that, one, it investigated the resident’s claims objectively and, two, that the members of staff who were conducting the investigation into the allegations of ASB were best placed to do so.
When the resident raised his concerns on 2 February 2021 as part of his complaint, the landlord investigated accordingly and clarified its conclusions as part of the complaint process, which found no evidence of discrimination, bias, or prejudice against the resident. The landlord has duty of care to its staff and contractors to investigate any reports of ASB allegedly committed by its residents, in accordance with its ASB policy. The landlord had received a number of reports of ASB carried out by the resident over a period of time, which it was duty-bound to investigate. However, if a resident believes that reports made against them were in some way false or malicious, the opportunity to challenge and respond should be given as part of the landlord’s investigation, to ensure a fair and balanced approach.
The landlord did provide the resident with ample opportunity to respond to the accusations, as per its obligations, by scheduling two meetings on 20 January and 4 February 2021 in order to discuss the accusations further. When it became apparent that the resident would not engage in the meetings, the landlord reasonably adapted its stance – that it would not usually provide information of the reports via email until a meeting with the accused had taken place – and gave the resident the opportunity to respond in writing, having provided a summary of the alleged incidents on 25 January 2021.
What is more, even after providing his response in writing on 2 February 2021, the landlord offered to schedule further meetings with the resident on 12 and 25 February 2021, yet these, too, were declined by the resident.
Therefore, the landlord had adhered to its obligations outlined in paragraph 22, whereby it had given the alleged perpetrator the opportunity to respond to the accusations, so it could collate enough evidence and information in order to make a determination. Ultimately, the landlord provided the resident with enough opportunity to respond and, because the resident did not fully engage with the process, the landlord had no option but to conclude its investigation based on the information it had gathered, which resulted in a tenancy caution being issued to the resident.
That said, as previously mentioned, the resident had also raised concerns about the impartiality of the members of staff who were conducting the investigation into the accusations made against the resident. He maintained that one of the staff members investigating was also a staff member who had made some of the accusations against him and asserted that the staff member’s motivations were questionable because of a previous Ombudsman case. Of course, if this were the case, it would put into question the landlord’s ability to conduct an impartial and fair investigation and therefore it would be incumbent on a landlord to ensure this was not the case.
Similarly, it is noted that the resident’s frustration with the process was because of the landlord’s apparent lack of transparency. Specifically, the resident was dissatisfied that the landlord would not provide specific details regarding who made the allegations about him.
In certain situations, although frustrating for the accused, a landlord can and should provide anonymity for complainants where it is deemed necessary. Though the landlord did not specifically name the members of staff that had made the accusations, as was reasonable for it to do, it assured the resident, on numerous occasions, that his belief that one of the staff members investigating the claims was also one of the staff members who made some of the accusations was incorrect. Moreover, in the landlord’s stage two complaint response of 12 March 2021, and in prior correspondence, it explained the reasons why the two members of staff were best placed to carry out the investigation objectively, considering their positions in the organisation.
As such, the landlord had demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s concerns of bias seriously, it had acknowledged and investigated them, and clearly explained its position in this regard, which found there was no evidence to support the resident’s claims. This Service is, therefore, satisfied that the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of misconduct by its staff and there was no service failure by the landlord.
Furthermore, the fact that the investigation resulted in a tenancy caution being issued was reasonable because it followed the completion of an investigation into the allegations, which was conducted in accordance with its obligations to both its staff, contractors, and the resident, and is a tool the landlord can use to help manage ASB.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff and the issuing of a tenancy caution.

Reasons

The landlord has demonstrated that it has took the resident’s concerns regarding its staff conduct seriously and investigated accordingly.