Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202214972)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214972

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

15 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for:
1. Various repairs at the property.
2. Maintenance of the communal areas.
The complaint is also about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. Sub-letting of a property.
The Ombudsman has considered the complaint handling in this case.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat owned by the landlord on a fixed term tenancy agreement that began in 2017.
The landlord gifted certain items to the resident that were left in situ at the property upon him accepting the tenancy. These items consisted of a gas oven, electric extractor fan and hob.
The landlord’s records showed the resident started to report faults with the oven and balcony door at the property as early as 2019. The landlord arranged a repair of the balcony door. However, it advised the resident the oven had been gifted to him and therefore it was his responsibility to maintain.
The resident started to report loud music from a neighbour property in June 2020. The landlord contacted the resident and sent a noise nuisance letter to the alleged perpetrator; however, this Service has not been provided with a copy of said letter. The resident continued to report the noise issue throughout the forthcoming months and the landlord contacted the alleged perpetrator, who strongly refuted the allegations and stated she was away at the time of the alleged incidents. The resident and landlord continued communications up until October 2020 at which point the case was closed due to insufficient evidence.
On 17 February 2021, the landlord arranged a replacement oven and it visited the property but there was no access. Later, it realised it had made a mistake and cancelled the order as it was the resident’s responsibility to maintain the oven.
On 1 March 2022, the resident reported noise from the neighbour to the landlord. The landlord sent the resident a letter on 25 March 2022 to say it was gathering evidence and it gave the resident specific action points to submit evidence via a noise app and to report criminal activity to the police. Thereafter it would consider appropriate action based on the evidence it had received. By the end of March 2022, the landlord recorded it did not have sufficient evidence to progress the case, and it gave the resident until 9 April 2022 to submit evidence of noise.
On 11 May 2022, the landlord closed the case as it did not receive noise nuisance evidence from the resident.
The landlord’s records of 27 May 2022 showed the landlord wrote to the resident to close the ASB case. Based on the lack of evidence from the resident it was unable to take action against the alleged perpetrator. It told the resident that if he reported further incidents within the next 3 months, it would re-open the case and agree a new action plan with him.
The resident complained to the landlord on 15 July 2022 via his independent housing advisor. He referred to the oven that was not working and he felt it was unreasonable for him to take on responsibility for repairs. The landlord had been out once and charged him £36 for a call out which he felt was unreasonable. He also complained about the poor condition of the communal areas and said that the area had not been cleaned. The resident said there were issues with noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour that included dogs barking, banging doors and litter. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and said it would aim to respond within 10 working days.
The landlord provided evidence of the dates it had attended the property to clean the communal areas between January 2022 to July 2022 on around 16 occasions.
The landlord sent the resident a response at stage 1 of its complaint process on 21 July 2022 as follows:
1. Oven – it explained the oven was gifted to the resident and therefore it was the resident’s responsibility to take over the maintenance. It had previously arranged a repair in error. When it attended the resident was not at home and given the prevailing circumstances, it would cancel the call out charge it had made.
2. Maintenance of communal areas – It advised the resident of the dates the area was cleaned throughout a 6-month period from January 2022 to July 2022 consisting of 16 occasions. It stated it would arrange for the bin stores to be cleaned.
3. ASB – It explained that previously the case had been closed due to lack of evidence. It said the ASB team could contact the resident again to discuss the case and the resident could use the noise app to gather evidence.
The landlord recorded it received the resident’s report of noise nuisance from two neighbouring properties on 26 August 2022. The landlord gave the resident advice and directed him to its website for more information on its ASB toolkit, completion of diary sheets and access to the noise app.
There is a gap in landlord records until 12 October 2022 when the resident requested the landlord to look into the ongoing issues. The landlord asked the resident for further information. There is no evidence that the resident supplied the information to the landlord.
The resident contacted this Service in December 2022. This Service requested the landlord escalate the resident’s complaint and provide a response under stage 2 of its complaints process by 20 January 2023. The resident’s dissatisfaction included allegations a neighbour was sub-letting their home. This was the same neighbour who the resident alleged was causing noise nuisance.
The landlord evidenced it continued to inspect the communal area over the forthcoming months, and in December 2022, it recorded from its inspection an action to remove rubbish from the entrance gate. It also recorded an action to remove tyre marks from the communal floor.
In January 2023, the landlord consulted residents about relocation of the bin store due to ongoing issues and bulk rubbish. It noted it had arranged for the area to be cleaned once a week until the current issue was resolved.
On 5 January 2023, the landlord recorded it had reviewed the case file and it had not received any other reports of a neighbour subletting their property apart from the one it had received from the resident. It had received 3 noise app recordings about people talking loudly in a neighbouring property and it would send an action plan to the resident to confirm the evidence it required, and it then closed the case as it had not received any reports from the resident since September 2022.
On 19 January 2023, the landlord arranged for loose bathroom tiles to be fixed at the resident’s property. It attended to conduct a repair on 14 February 2023 and it arranged further work in the bathroom to a bath panel and the supply of a dehumidifier to dry out the area.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 10 March 2023 as follows:
1. Oven – It explained it had written details of the gifted items on the last page of the tenancy agreement so it was clear from the outset that these items were the tenant’s own responsibility to maintain. The landlord offered to send out its contractor to fix the oven but it would be at a cost to the resident.
2. Maintenance of communal areas – It had obtained funding to conduct work on the bin store area and it was consulting with residents to reach a resolution in relation to improvements and relocation. It had arranged for the area to be cleaned once a week to keep on top of the issues with bulk refuse. It was arranging for the communal floor to be deep cleaned to remove the tyre marks and it would make residents aware that they should not take bikes through the communal area. It upheld this part of the complaint as it said it had been ongoing for some time.
3. Bathroom tiles – An inspection of the tiles had been conducted and additional work had been identified when trying to trace a leak. A bath trap and area that needed to be dried out was found. The landlord applied a stain block to the area, repainted and conducted patch repairs. The work had been completed.
4. Balcony repairs – It had not received a repair report and therefore it arranged a repair appointment for 6 April 2023 to repair loose woodwork. It explained the resident was required to remove the moss from the area.
5. Subletting and noise nuisance – It had not received a report of subletting. It had received some reports of noise nuisance via its noise app of residents talking loudly and it had actioned this. It had not received any further reports since September 2022 and therefore it closed the case and a letter was sent to the resident.
6. The landlord recognised it had delayed in responding to the stage 2 complaint and it offered the resident £60 compensation.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(n) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The landlord’s handling of sub-letting.
This is because there is no evidence the resident’s report to the landlord caused significant adverse effect to the resident.

Assessment and findings

Various repairs at the property

Oven

The resident accepted the tenancy and signed the tenancy agreement in 2017. The landlord gifted the resident items that included the oven. The landlord noted the gifted items on the resident’s tenancy agreement. The resident reported to the landlord a fault with the oven in 2019 and the landlord refused the repair as it stated it was the resident’s responsibility to maintain. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sets out a landlord’s repairs responsibilities. The repairs for which a landlord is responsible include the exterior and structure of the property as well as the installation of water, heating, drainage, gas and electric. This does not extend to the maintenance of a cooker.
Sometimes, a landlord will accept repairs over and above its statutory duty and the landlord’s tenancy agreement and its repair and maintenance policy gives clear guidance on the items it will repair. Section 4 of the landlord’s tenancy agreement sets out its repair responsibilities to keep the structure, exterior of the property in good working order. This includes for example kitchen and bathroom fixtures, electrical wiring and heating.
In 2021, the resident reported a fault with the oven again. On this occasion the landlord made arrangements to conduct a repair. Later, the landlord realised it had made a mistake cancelled the repair and charged the resident for a call out which resulted in it being unable to access the property.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision not to repair the cooker and charge him for the call out cost and he complained to the landlord. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response towards the end of July 2022. The landlord explained the cooker had been gifted to him and therefore it was the resident’s own responsibility to maintain. The landlord acknowledged its error about the arranged repair and it cancelled the aborted call out charge.
The resident escalated his complaint with the landlord and the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response mid-March 2023. The landlord reiterated its stance to the resident that it did not take responsibility for the oven. However, it did offer to send one of its contractors out to repair the oven, at a cost to the resident.
In summary, the landlord clearly set out to the resident from the start of the tenancy the items that had been gifted to him and it was the resident’s responsibility to maintain the item. It was appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident on each occasion that it would not maintain the cooker under its repair responsibilities.
The landlord mistakenly arranged a repair of the oven. While the landlord initially attempted to recoup a call out charge against the resident, it subsequently withdrew the charge as part of its review at stage 1 of the complaints process. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to take, given its role in the ambiguity in its service provision.
The landlord overall remained consistent throughout the resident’s reports that it did not take responsibility for the maintenance of the cooker and it therefore acted in an appropriate manner. It had no statutory duty to maintain a cooker at the property, or obligation to do so under the tenancy agreement or the landlord’s maintenance policy. The landlord did give the resident an option and agreed to repair the oven if the resident was prepared to pay the cost. This was a reasonable action by the landlord to take in the circumstances and in conclusion, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of requests to repair the cooker.

Balcony and door

There is no correlation between the reports in 2019 and the reports in April 2023. The time frame from the report of the issue by the resident and the landlord completing the repair in 2019 was 12 working days which was an appropriate response under the landlords maintenance policy that states it aims to complete non-emergency repairs within 15 working days.
The resident reported an issue with loose woodwork and moss on the balcony in March 2023 and the landlord arranged a repair appointment at the beginning of April 2023 to repair loose woodwork. It explained to the resident it was his responsibility to remove the moss from the balcony. The landlord acted appropriately in arranging the necessary repair to the balcony. Further, the landlord’s repair responsibility does not extend to remove moss from a structure and therefore the landlord acted appropriately in its advice to the resident. The landlord completed the repair 24 working days later. This was outside the landlord’s target response time of 15 working days as stated within its maintenance policy. However, given it had arranged a mutual appointment to conduct the work, the timeframe would not have had sufficient adverse impact on the resident to determine a service failure on the landlord.

Bathroom tiles

The landlord arranged work to the loose tiles on 19 January 2023 and conducted the repair 14 February 2023. The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy states it aims to complete non-emergency repairs within 15 working days. While the landlord conducted the repair 3 working days in excess of its policy, this was not a disproportionate delay, and as such this would not cause a sufficient detriment to the resident so as to constitute a service failure by the landlord or cause distress or inconvenience to the resident through an adverse impact.

Maintenance of communal areas

The resident first reported his concerns to the landlord about the communal areas in July 2022. The landlord explained in its stage 1 complaint response to the resident the dates and number of times it had cleaned the area of 16 occasions over a 6-month period.
The resident continued to raise issues and the landlord registered a stage 2 complaint and responded mid-March 2023. The landlord continued with its regular inspections of the area. The landlord had obtained funding to conduct work on the bin store area and it sought resident’s views through its consultation process in order to reach a resolution that would involve improvements and relocation of the bin store area. The resident was advised of the landlord’s plans, and in the interim, the landlord had arranged for the area to be cleaned once a week to keep on top of the issues of bulk refuse.
The landlord also arranged for the communal hallway to be cleaned including the removal of tyre marks. It also agreed to make residents aware they were not permitted to take bikes into the communal areas. The landlord upheld this part of the resident’s complaint in recognition the issues had been ongoing for some time.
Through its actions and in response to the resident’s complaint the landlord evidenced it had maintained the bin store area regularly and had taken proactive measures to make improvements to the communal areas when it arranged consultations as part of enhancements to the area. While the landlord recognised the issues had been ongoing for a while, the evidence suggests the landlord fulfilled its tenancy agreement obligations by taking reasonable care to maintain communal areas around the property.

Noise nuisance and ASB

The resident reported noise from loud music to the landlord as early as June 2020. The landlord responded to the resident and alleged perpetrator and later closed the case due to insufficient evidence to progress the matter.
In March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord about noise nuisance from a neighbour. The landlord registered the case and recorded it would monitor events and that the resident would need to submit evidence via its noise app. By the end of March 2022, the landlord stated it did not have sufficient evidence to progress matters, and at the end of May 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise him it would close the case. The landlord told the resident he could report any new incidents, and if this was within the next 3 months, it would reopen the case and agree a new action plan.
The resident complained to the landlord in July 2022 and the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response towards the end of July 2022. The landlord reiterated it had closed the ASB case due to lack of evidence.
The resident continued to report noise nuisance to the landlord in August 2022 and the landlord gave him advice on the type of evidence it required to progress matters, which included diary sheets recordings and using its noise app.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it had received some reports of noise nuisance via its noise app of residents talking loudly and it had actioned this but it had not received any reports since September 2022 and therefore it had closed the case and a letter was sent to the resident.
The landlord is required to consider each report of noise nuisance or ASB and decide on reasonable and proportionate actions based on the evidence of noise nuisance or ASB. The landlord has divided ASB into two categories; level 1 ASB which is serious and hate related incidents and level 2 which includes persistent nuisance including noise. As the resident’s noise reports were not persistent in nature, it was reasonable for the landlord to close the case in the absence of evidence to substantiate persistent noise. However, before the landlord closed the case, it considered the resident’s reports and made the alleged perpetrator aware of the noise reports, it monitored the situation and only when it received insufficient evidence did it close the case. This was a reasonable course of action to undertake as a preventative measure to manage any escalation.
The landlord gave the resident appropriate advice to complete diary records of the alleged incidents, it gave the resident advice on the type of evidence it required and advised him to use its noise recording app. While the resident did use the app to record some incidents, it was insufficient evidence for the landlord to take proportionate action against the alleged perpetrator and therefore it closed the case with an option to re-open it within 3 months if the resident could provide the required evidence. As such, the landlord’s handling of complaints of ASB reports from the resident were appropriate and proportionate throughout the complaint timeline and in accordance with its policies and procedures.

Complaint handling

The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 15 July 2022 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint and said it would respond within 10 working days. The landlord sent its complaint response to the resident on 21 July 2022; 4 working days later and therefore within the landlord’s 10 working day target response time.
The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted this Service for assistance in December 2022. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord and requested the resident’s complaint was escalated to stage 2 of its complaints process and to provide the resident with a response by 20 January 2023. However, the landlord did not provide the resident with its stage 2 complaint response until 10 March 2023; 3 months later. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code is prescriptive on timescales for landlord’s to respond to complaints. Section 5.13 of the Code states “The landlord must respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason” There is no evidence the landlord informed the resident it was delayed. Therefore, it was inappropriate that the landlord did not comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and this is a failure by the landlord.
The landlord did, however, recognise its delayed response, apologised to the resident and offered £60 compensation. This amount of compensation was reasonable to reflect the extent of its failing and is aligned to the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. By acknowledging its error and reasonably compensating the resident, the landlord appropriately put things right for the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of various repairs at the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of maintenance of the communal areas.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of resident’s reports of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should compensate the resident £60 for its complaint handling failure if it has not already paid this amount.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the order within the timescale set out above.