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

Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202207981)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207981

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

23 May 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

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Requirement for her to remove her car from the parking area.
    3. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy at the property began on 3 May 1993. The property is a 2 bedroom flat with a private garden. The resident has mental and physical health conditions, including a developmental learning disability. She is unable to read and write. The resident’s solicitor (hereafter referred to as ‘the representative’) acted as her representative in her complaint.
  2. The property is in a cul-de-sac made up of homes owned by several housing associations. The landlord owns some of the parking bays in the area. These are unallocated and operate on a first come first served basis. The external communal areas, other parking bays and the road itself are managed by another housing association.
  3. Vehicle owners can declare their car as ‘offroad’ to the Driver and Vehicle License Authority using a statutory off-road notification (SORN). SORN vehicles do not require valid tax, insurance or MOT. A vehicle cannot be driven or kept on a public road whilst SORN.
  4. There is a long history of allegations between the resident and her neighbours. In July 2020, the landlord obtained an injunction against the resident. This forbid her from “causing a nuisance, annoyance or disturbance” and “harassing, intimidating…abusing or causing distress” to other residents within the locality of the property.
  5. The resident’s representative complained to the landlord on 20 April 2022. They said that the landlord had visited the resident’s property on 6 April 2022 to discuss issues with “parking and ongoing harassment that she was receiving from her neighbours”. They stated that at this meeting, the landlord said it was unable to investigate the resident’s claims. The representative said the resident had also been asked to remove her car, which was SORN, from the parking area. They claimed that several other SORN vehicles in the parking area had not been treated this way. The representative asked for the landlord to provide a single point of contact for the resident and a direct phone number for them. They said they considered this a reasonable adjustment for her disability.
  6. On 30 November 2022, the landlord emailed the resident’s representative. It apologised that it had not correctly logged their complaint. It said it had now done so and would respond within 10 working days.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 19 March 2023. It said that it could find no records relating to its visit on 6 April 2022. The landlord apologised for failing to log the complaint and the significant delay in its response. It offered the resident £200 compensation for this.
  8. On 5 July 2023, the representative asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its process. They said the landlord had not addressed their request to provide the resident with a direct phone number for a single point of contact.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 21 August 2023. It said that its contact centre staff were able to direct calls to the appropriate destination and that it had a ‘duty officer’ who would be able to assist when a case handler was not available. The landlord said that providing a direct contact number for a case handler may cause delays in it responding to the resident and mean that communication was not recorded on its systems. It apologised for failing to address this request in its stage 1 complaint response and offered a further £50 compensation for this.
  10. The representative brought the complaint to the Ombudsman on 26 September 2023. They said they felt the landlord had not made reasonable adjustments for the resident’s disability and had treater her unfairly. The representative said that the landlord had failed to act to protect the resident from ASB. They advised they had obtained an injunction against the resident’s neighbours due to this.

Assessment and findings

Reports of ASB

  1. The landlord’s policy at the time of this complaint said that it would only accept complaints made within 6 months of a matter arising. This was in keeping with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) at that time. Although it is noted that there is a long history of ASB reports made by and against the resident, this investigation has focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from 2022 onwards.
  2. On 31 January 2022, the representative contacted the landlord. They reported that the resident was suffering “harassment” from her neighbours. This included blocking her car in and “taunting” her. The representative contacted the landlord again on 7 February 2022 to say that they were still awaiting its response.
  3. Throughout March 2022, the representative reported further allegations of ASB on the resident’s behalf. These included her car being blocked in and having mud thrown on it, her tyre being slashed, and racial abuse being shouted through the walls of a neighbouring property. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that it logged an ASB case or otherwise appropriately responded to these allegations.
  4. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it is “committed to tackling incidents of antisocial behaviour” and “will take prompt and effective action…aiming to protect the victim, stop ASB and prevent further incidents”. There is no evidence that it followed this approach here.
  5. On 15 March 2022 the representative asked for the landlord to visit the resident to discuss the ASB. The landlord responded on 17 March 2022 advising it was “not able to do a site visit as yet”. There is no evidence that the landlord ever completed this visit.
  6. On 17 March 2022, the landlord also told the representative that it was “fully aware of the issues and there are counter allegations, however the injunction in place needs to be observed”. On 18 March 2022, the landlord informed the representative that it had asked the neighbours to “keep diary sheets with supporting evidence which we may need to use for eviction if [the resident’s] behaviour does not stop”.
  7. This difference in the landlord’s response to these allegations is concerning. It indicated an inclination to immediately believe, and attempt to gather evidence of, reports of ASB made against the resident. Meanwhile, the resident’s own reports were disregarded. This was seemingly based upon the fact that it had previously obtained an injunction against the resident rather than the current circumstances.
  8. The landlord’s ASB policy says that “Support is an essential part of our approach to ASB. [The landlord] also considers how alleged perpetrators who are vulnerable, can be supported, particularly if the ASB is a direct or indirect result of drug abuse, alcohol abuse, mental health or disability”. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and learning disability. Its threats of eviction did not show appropriate regard for these, or the consideration of support its policy commits to.
  9. The landlord has referred to undertaking an ‘equality impact assessment’ prior to taking any legal action. However, this is a legal requirement which only occurs when a case has already progressed to the point of enforcement. Consideration of vulnerability should be embedded throughout the life of an ASB case. Landlords should assess the vulnerabilities’ contribution towards any alleged ASB to ensure its interventions are proportionate and fair. This will also assist landlords in offering relevant support to their residents.
  10. On 21 March 2022 the representative asked the landlord to provide the resident with a direct phone number for a single point of contact. They said that the resident’s learning disability made going through the landlord’s switchboard difficult. Although the landlord responded to the email, it failed to acknowledge this request. The representative repeated this request within the complaint of 20 April 2022. The landlord again failed to acknowledge or respond to it within its stage 1 complaint response.
  11. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained that it would not provide the resident with a direct phone number for her case officer. It said that its main contact centre had appropriate resources in place to assist the resident. The landlord said that it could not guarantee that calls to a direct line would be answered or returned in a timely manner. It also expressed concern that communication that did not come through its contact centre would not be correctly recorded on its systems.
  12. The landlord’s position was reasonable. The resident contacting their case officer directly would risk their call being missed due to sickness, annual leave or even just the officer’s schedule. Calls going via the landlord’s contact centre ensures that they are always appropriately recorded and monitored. It also allows the landlord to offer advice and intervention immediately, even when the case officer is not available.
  13. However, the landlord has not evidenced that it appropriately considered any alternative reasonable adjustments. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it is “committed to ensuring that people are not disadvantaged in accessing our services. As such we will make reasonable adjustments as required”. The representative had made it aware the resident required such adjustments due to struggling with its switchboard. The landlord failed to take appropriate steps to address this.
  14. The landlord’s ASB case records only 1 instance of the resident contacting it directly. All other reports were made by others on her behalf. This is a clear indication that the landlord was not accessible to the resident, yet it failed to acknowledge this – even after the representative brought it directly to its attention. This left the vulnerable resident ‘without a voice’ unable to report, or defend herself against, allegations of ASB.
  15. In April 2022, the landlord provided the resident’s neighbour (who also experiences difficulties reading and writing) with a Dictaphone to verbally log incidents of ASB. There is no evidence this option was considered for the resident at any point, despite her equivalent vulnerability.
  16. Within the complaint, the representative referred to the landlord visiting the resident on 6 April 2022. They alleged the landlord told her it was “unable to investigate claims against the neighbours”. Whilst the Ombudsman does not dispute this account, the landlord was unable to find any records of this visit, as explained in its stage 1 complaint response. This means that this Service cannot reasonably draw conclusions as to what was discussed.
  17. On or around 21 June 2022, the representative sent the landlord a video taken by the resident. This showed 2 neighbours verbally abusing, insulting and mocking her. On 24 June 2022, the landlord appropriately opened an ASB case and made a safeguarding referral for the resident.
  18. The landlord met with the 2 neighbours featured in the video on 27 June 2022. It said that although the neighbours “presented a counter narrative” it sent warning letters to make them aware that their behaviour was “not acceptable”.
  19. The resident has said that “I feel that I need to take pictures and videos of all the incidents that are happening otherwise I fear that no-one will believe me”. This feeling is understandable when it took such a video for the landlord to finally act after several months of reports.
  20. On 19 August 2022, the resident and her solicitors obtained an injunction against the 2 neighbours featured in the video. A third neighbour was also named on the injunction, but it is unclear if they are a were a tenant of the landlord. The injunction contained the same terms as that which the landlord obtained against the resident in July 2020.
  21. It is concerning that the resident felt it necessary to pursue an injunction herself and indicates a loss of confidence in the landlord. This is reflected in her witness statement for the proceedings which describes how she felt “no one seems to take the incidents seriously as I have had allegations and an interim injunction made against me”. However, this Service has not seen any evidence that the resident, or her representative, had reported further incidents to the landlord since that of 21 June 2022 – which the landlord had appropriately addressed.
  22. Once it became aware the resident had obtained an injunction, the landlord referred the case to the ‘Community Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference’ (CMARAC) on or around 5 September 2022. However, CMARAC decided the case did not meet its threshold for acceptance. The landlord also gave advice to the resident’s neighbours about activating the local authority ‘community trigger’. There is no record of it offering this same advice to the resident or her representative at any point. This is further evidence of the landlord’s uneven approach.
  23. There is no evidence of any further incidents reported by the resident or her representative prior to the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 19 March 2023. In this response, the landlord defined the complaint as the resident being “unhappy with the handling of her ASB case”. However, it failed to appropriately address this. Its response referred only to the 6 April 2022 and did not comment upon its handling of the ASB reported before and since that date.
  24. On the same day as the stage 1 response, there was an incident in the cul-de-sac where the resident was “reversed into” by a neighbour’s relative. This led to a physical altercation between the resident, the resident’s daughter and several members of the neighbour’s family. The resident’s daughter and the neighbour both reported this to the landlord and gave differing accounts of events. The landlord appropriately requested information from the police, who had attended and viewed CCTV of the incident. It recorded it would decide “next steps” based upon this.
  25. On 28 March 2023, the resident’s support worker contacted the landlord. They said that on 26 March 2023 the resident’s car windows had been smashed by persons unknown. They said the resident had spoke about self harming and sleeping in the train station as she did not feel safe in the property. The landlord explained that it was not able to provide emergency accommodation. It appropriately advised that the resident should approach the local authority for this if she felt unsafe. The resident was provided with temporary accommodation by the local authority later that day.
  26. The landlord attended a ‘professionals meeting’ arranged by the resident’s support worker on 11 May 2023. This was to discuss the ASB and whether it was safe for the resident to return to her property. The landlord has not provided any minutes of this meeting to this Service. At some point after this meeting the resident returned to the property.
  27. On 8 June 2023, the police informed the landlord that they would not be taking any action over the incident of 19 March 2023. They said this was due to “lack of victim participation”. Police decision making is informed by the criminal burden of proof – beyond reasonable doubt. This is far higher than the civil burden of proof (on the balance of probabilities) which would apply to any action taken by the landlord.
  28. As such, whilst it is reasonable for the landlord to give weight to the police’s decision, it is not appropriate for it to follow it with no further consideration. There is no evidence that the landlord considered whether it should take any action of its own, despite having access to CCTV footage of the incident.
  29. Instead, the landlord said the resident had the option to pursue a breach of the injunction she had obtained. It said that, were this proven, it could use it in any future possession proceedings. This was inappropriate and amounted to the landlord asking the resident to legally prove ASB on its behalf. The landlord’s policy says it will “effectively tackle all incidents of ASB where the perpetrator is a tenant or leaseholder, a member of their household or a visitor”. This commitment is not nullified by private proceedings that a resident may have undertaken.
  30. In summary, the landlord has failed to evidence that it responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of ASB. Despite repeated reports by her representative, it did not open an ASB case until the resident provided video evidence of her being verbally abused. It then failed to appropriately investigate a serious incident on 19 March 2023. Despite repeated requests, the landlord failed to consider reasonable adjustments for the resident’s learning disability. This left her struggling to contact it directly and relying on third party support to do so. This represents maladministration.

Car in parking area

  1. A map of the cul-de-sac provided by the landlord shows that it owns some of the available parking bays. Other parking bays and the road itself belong to other housing associations.
  2. On 18 March 2022, the landlord told the resident’s representative that it had received complaints about the resident storing a SORN car in one of its bays. It said that it did not allow residents to keep SORN on its land. Whilst the resident’s tenancy agreement is silent on this point, this was drafted before the merger which created the landlord. The landlord’s current tenancy agreement does contain a clause prohibiting the parking of untaxed vehicles on its land.
  3. This is a reasonable position considering the risks associated with vehicles in unroadworthy condition being kept in communal parking areas. It also prevents unallocated parking bays being ‘taken over’ for extended periods by such vehicles.
  4. In their complaint, the representative claimed that the landlord had not taken similar action regarding other SORN vehicles within the cul-de-sac. It is not clear whether these vehicles were parked in bays belonging to the landlord.
  5. Regardless of this, the landlord had identified the resident’s car as being SORN through complaints from neighbours. The landlord therefore cannot be said to have unfairly targeted the resident. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord would not have taken the same action in response to reports of other SORN vehicles on its land.
  6. In summary, the landlord’s requirement for the resident to remove her SORN car from its land was reasonable and there is no evidence that it treated her unfairly in making this.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy explains that it operates a 2 stage process. It says it aims to provide its response within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This mirrors the timeframes contained in this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code)
  2. The resident’s representative made the complaint on 20 April 2022. They chased this up with the landlord on 14 November 2022. The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to appropriately record the complaint and apologised for this. It then logged the complaint on 30 November 2022.
  3. The landlord did not provide its stage 1 complaint response until 19 March 2023. This was 75 working days after it had logged the complaint and 231 working days after the representative had originally made it.
  4. The landlord has not accounted for the delay between it logging the complaint and issuing its stage 1 response. The response was based entirely on the fact it did not have any evidence of a meeting on 6 April 2022. This cannot reasonably be considered to have required such a lengthy period to establish.
  5. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for failing to log the complaint and its “significant delay in responding”. It offered the resident £200 compensation due to this. The landlord’s compensation policy says that awards of “£100 plus” can be made for “serious or prolonged service failure”. The landlord’s offer was appropriate under this policy considering the lengthy delays.
  6. On 5 July 2023, the resident’s representative emailed the landlord asking to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The landlord failed to acknowledge this. The representative emailed again on 21 July 2023 repeating their request. The landlord logged the stage 2 complaint on 28 July 2023.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 21 August 2023. This was 36 days after the representative first requested to escalate the complaint, and 24 days after they repeated the request. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the representative, or the resident, to agree to an extension to the 20 working days time frame. The landlord failed to acknowledge this delay in its stage 2 complaint response.
  8. The Code says that within a stage 1 complaint response “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint”. The landlord failed to do this. Its response did not address its handling of the wider ASB or the SORN car. It also failed to respond to the request for a direct phone number as a reasonable adjustment.
  9. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord did apologise for failing to address the request for a direct phone line at stage 1. It offered £50 compensation for this. However, it failed to acknowledge the other matters. Although the representative did not mention these in their escalation request, it would still be reasonable to expect the landlord to identify this as part of its stage 2 investigation.
  10. In summary, although the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress for delays in its stage 1 complaint response, it failed to acknowledge the delays at stage 2. Whilst the landlord acknowledged that its stage 1 response had not addressed the request for a reasonable adjustment, it failed to identify other key aspects of the complaint which it had not addressed. This represents maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its requirement for the resident to remove her SORN car from the parking area.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £1,200 composed of:
      1. The £250 offered during its complaints procedure, if not already paid.
      2. A further £800 for the maladministration in its handling of her reports of ASB.
      3. A further £150 for the maladministration in its complaint handling
    2. Apologise to the resident for its handling of her reports of ASB between January 2022 and August 2023. Due to her difficulties with reading, the Ombudsman requests that the landlord deliver the apology verbally if practicable.
    3. Discuss with the resident, or her representative, what reasonable adjustments it can put in place to enable her to communicate with it effectively without the assistance of a third party.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, in accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to review its procedure to ensure that it carries out an appropriate vulnerability assessment with alleged perpetrators of ASB at the earliest opportunity. This should be used to inform case management decisions and identify any reasonable adjustments required.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service.