Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202325751)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325751

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

29 November 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs throughout the property.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a managed move.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. She lived in the property with her two children. It is a 2-bed flat on the first floor of a purpose-built block. The landlord has recorded that the resident has anxiety and depression and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). One of her children has anxiety and is receiving support from Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS).
The resident says that she first reported a leak from her bathroom into her neighbour’s property in 2014. The landlord’s records go back to 2019 only. Between July 2019 and September 2022, the records show that the resident or her neighbour reported a leak from her bathroom into the flat below 15 times. While the landlord undertook repairs at the time, from 2019 operatives recorded that the floor and the toilet were damaged beyond repair and would need to be replaced. The landlord completed works to replace the floor in November 2021.
The ongoing leak caused conflict between the resident and her neighbour. The resident had reported to the landlord that her neighbour had entered her flat without permission in 2016 and shouted at her children about noise. In 2021 there was a further dispute when the neighbour alleged that she was deliberately causing a leak into his property. The resident says that he repeated these allegations in January 2022. The landlord offered mediation, but the resident declined this.
Between November 2021 and May 2023, the resident reported the following additional repairs to her property:
1. The landlord had removed her bathroom radiator, and it needed to be refitted.
2. A leak from the property above in September 2022 had damaged her kitchen ceiling.
3. Broken extractor fans needed to be replaced.
In September 2022, the resident instructed an independent surveyor who inspected the property and reported that:
1. there was evidence of a water leak from the property above to the kitchen ceiling. The ceiling material appeared to be in a deteriorating condition and as it could contain asbestos, it should be removed and replaced.
2. There was black mould in various areas of the property.
3. There was a serious ongoing leak in the bathroom and when the floor covering was lifted it could be seen that the surface underneath was completely rotten and sagged underfoot. There was an underlying issue with leaking concealed pipework in the bathroom.
4. They concluded that “these issues must be addressed appropriately and in a timely fashion to prevent further damage to the property and to the health of the occupiers”.
In October 2022, the resident reported that her toilet had come away from the wall and the floor was caving in. The landlord undertook an emergency repair the same day, and it completed the substantive repair to replace the toilet and floor on 10 November. Between February and June 2023, there were 7 repair appointments that did not go ahead.
On 10 July 2023, the resident again reported a leak from her flat to the flat below. On 11 July 2023, the landlord raised another work order to reattend and check for leaks, but it was not able to access the property on both the 13 July and 7 August 2023. It inspected the property on 6 September 2023 and agreed to replace the bathroom and its flooring, as well as the flooring in the adjacent room.
As the works would be disruptive, it said that the household would need to be temporarily rehoused for the duration of the works. The works did not go ahead as the landlord could not secure suitable temporary accommodation for the resident. She had rejected its offers of hotels and service apartments as unsuitable due to her childcare needs.
On 1 November 2023, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about the repairs and its handling of her ASB reports. The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 1 November 2023 and said that she should receive a response by 15 November 2023. It visited the resident at home on 21 November 2023 to discuss her complaint further.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 17 December 2023:
1. It said that arrangements were underway to fix the resident’s bathroom radiator.
2. Other works would require that the resident moved into temporary housing for 2-3 weeks while they were undertaken.
3. It was looking for a 2 bed decant as a “temporary to permanent” decant arrangement. If it could not find a suitable property, it would arrange for the resident to move into B&B or hotel accommodation for the period of the works.
4. It was investigating ASB reports from the resident about neighbours dumping rubbish in the garden and smoking in the communal area. It had also investigated ASB allegations about another neighbour. The landlord had told both parties the outcome of the investigation and offered mediation. It had investigated a further report by the resident dated 1 September 2023 but concluded that this was related to an earlier ASB report.
5. It would review compensation once it had considered how it was able to progress the case.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response. She asked that the landlord escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 20 December 2023. On 22 January 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said that:
1. It apologised for the discomfort and inconvenience caused by the ongoing repairs.
2. It was in discussion with the resident about a temporary move, or a temporary to permanent move to a new property.
3. It asked the resident to liaise with its team so that it could investigate her reports of ASB more thoroughly. It said that she should direct reports of any potential criminal behaviour to the police.
4. It said that it was dealing with the resident’s fly-tipping reports, and it was taking steps to address this in line with its policy. It could not divulge specific actions due to data protection restrictions.
5. It would review the compensation award once further actions in the case were progressed.

Post complaint

Between February and June 2024, the landlord continued to look for alternative accommodation for the resident. It found a 2-bed maisonette in April 2024, which the resident considered as a temporary option before it offered her a 3-bedroom property as a management transfer in June 2024. The resident has since moved to this property. The resident remains unhappy with the outcome of her complaint as she did not receive compensation the landlord agreed to award her and referred it to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has raised concerns about the impact the situation has had on her family’s health and wellbeing. The Housing Ombudsman cannot decide liability for damages, including claims for the impact a situation has had on a person’s health. Therefore, while we assess the service the landlord has provided and any overall distress or inconvenience this may have caused, the assessment is unlikely to directly assess any reported impact on a person’s health. Any such claim would be for an insurer, or a personal injury claim with the courts.
The landlord and resident have referred to other ASB reports up until May 2022, however the landlord has not provided the records to this Service.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will take prompt and effective action against perpetrators of ASB; aiming to protect the victim, stop the ASB and prevent further incidents. Its policy gives examples of ASB which include intimidation and harassment, aggressive and threatening behaviour and using a property for unlawful or illegal activity.
Under its policy, the ASB complained of by the resident was likely to constitute Level 2: Persistent Nuisance. It says that it aims to acknowledge a report within 3 working days. It says that it will use tools such as a victim risk assessment matrix to assess the impact on the resident. It describes early intervention strategies such as mediation, warning letters, tenancy cautions, family support referrals and the use of acceptable behaviour contracts. It also says that it works to safeguard children, young people, and vulnerable adults from harm.
The ASB policy says that where there are low level disputes, they can be handled under its Neighbour Dispute Policy. The Policy states that if either party is vulnerable or has experienced violent behaviour or harassment in the past or feels threatened by the other party, a vulnerability or risk assessment will be carried out and the case will be dealt with under its Antisocial Behaviour Policy.
The resident has reported that there had been an ongoing issue with her neighbour below, a leaseholder. The landlord has said that this related to an ongoing leak from the resident’s flat to the flat below as well as noise complaints. This has caused friction between the neighbours. In correspondence with her MP copied to the landlord, the resident has described how she has felt harassed and intimidated by her neighbour. She said that she sought to avoid interactions with him and that he has approached her at home and when she has been in her car. She said that he has also obstructed her exit from the building in an attempt to confront her. Historically, the landlord has said it has directed the resident to the Noise App for noise nuisance and to mediation with the neighbour. It had also asked her to contact the police where the ASB could constitute a crime.
This Service asked the landlord to provide its records of the resident’s ASB reports, and correspondence or evidence in relation to her complaints. The records it provided were limited. The Ombudsman is aware, from information provided by the resident, that there was an ASB case opened in April 2022 and closed in May 2022.
Further correspondence from October 2023 between the resident and her MP documents that the resident has reported ASB on several occasions, including a crime reference number and was given an ASB case number, details of both were included in the correspondence. The landlord’s records show that on 5 October 2023 it sent an email to the resident about her ASB reports. It said that it had sent a disclosure request to the police and asked its complaints team to provide further details of the case. The landlord has not provided the outcome of its enquiries to this Service.
The Ombudsman relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence from the time of the incidents complained about. This enables this Service to see what took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case and if it followed its policies, procedures and legal obligations.
The resident has said that she reported ASB on several occasions to the landlord by telephone. While the Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s account, in the absence of evidence of this, such as call logs, the Ombudsman cannot make a finding in relation to this. However, the evidence provided by the parties detailed above does show that the resident had reported ASB to the landlord on 3 occasions during the period of this investigation but that the landlord does not have records of this. It has not provided copies of ASB case records, where it has told us that it has opened a case. This information would have allowed our investigation to corroborate the landlord’s complaint investigation findings and explanations.
The landlord should have systems in place to keep accurate records of ASB reports, responses, and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to show the actions a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records shows that the landlord’s processes are not working effectively.
Where a case is opened, the landlord should have evidence of correspondence with the resident to record this. It should prepare an action plan to manage the resident’s expectations, it should show that it carried out a proper risk assessment to establish the impact on the resident. These initial steps would assist the landlord to consider which interventions would be the most effective in managing the ASB reported. Where a landlord decides the threshold for opening an ASB case has not been met, this should be recorded documenting the reasons why and what advice the resident had been given.
What evidence we do have, provided in the landlord’s complaint responses, show that the police had been contacted by the resident, but they took no further action and said to the landlord that the matter would be best resolved by mediation.
A landlord’s interventions to address ASB are not dependent on police action. It would have been open to the landlord to meet with the resident to discuss next steps after the police had said that they would take no further action. The landlord’s complaint response said that it had offered the resident mediation, but she declined it, after which it closed the case.
Had the landlord completed a risk assessment, a higher score may have ruled out the option of mediation, particularly as the resident had described the impact of interactions with her neighbour on her mental health. Further, there may have been other tools that the landlord could have used instead to address the ASB, such as an Acceptable Behaviour Contracts or exploring no-contact mediation such as shuttle or online mediation as an alternative. There is no evidence to show that this was either considered or offered.
The landlord’s complaint responses also says that the ASB complained of in relation to the neighbour below was related to the leak which it had previously addressed with the neighbour. It noted that recent reports were related to these “historic issues”. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 outlines that when responding to reports of anti-social behaviour, agencies must consider the effect that such behaviour has on victims and witnesses. It also says that agencies should recognise and consider the debilitating impact that persistent or repeated anti-social behaviour can have on victims, more so over a period. The landlord’s response does not show that the impact of the resident of the ongoing ASB from her neighbour was considered, which was a failing.
The complaint response also said that “if the behaviour from the neighbour continues and escalates to violence, we strongly recommend you report this to the police as they are better equipped to handle such issues.” In the Ombudsman’s view, this response was inappropriate. The landlord should seek to address ongoing ASB at an early stage, before it escalates. The evidence provided by the landlord does not support that it did this. Its dismissive approach left the resident feeling distressed and inconvenienced.
The Ombudsman does not consider that the landlord could have investigated the resident’s ASB complaint adequately, as part of its complaints process, without records being in place.
This Service therefore finds that there was maladministration relating to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £300 in recognition of the adverse effect its failings are likely to have had on the resident and her family.
The landlord has since informed this Service that it is currently developing a new ASB policy, alongside revised working procedures and an action plan. It has said it has restructured its service by forming a specialist ASB team. It says that it “believes this restructuring will address the identified issues and significantly improve our service to residents.’ It is positive that the landlord has identified shortcomings in its service delivery and is working to implement improvements.

The landlord’s handling of repairs throughout the property

The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will respond to emergency repairs such as a burst pipe within 4 hours to make safe. It will look to rectify the problem within 24 hours. It will complete non-emergency repairs within 15 working days.
The policy says that major or planned works may require multiple visits, using multi-trade skills or several special-order parts. Consequently, they are likely to fall outside of the target response timescales for completion. Where planned works are necessary, the landlord will discuss with the resident what it intends to do, agree timescales and project manage the work to completion.

Bathroom

The records show that the resident has been reporting a leak and damp in her bathroom for several years and that the landlord has repeatedly attended to repair the leak. Records from 2019/20 show that on more than one occasion, operatives recommended that the landlord replace the flooring and toilet due to the ongoing leaks, as repairs would only be a temporary measure. There was later an issue with the bath overflow fitting.
It is not clear, from the landlord’s records, that when operatives reported that the bathroom needed replacing in 2019, it raised these works at the time. It replaced the floor and the toilet 2 years later in November 2021, but the issue resurfaced in October 2022 when the same works were undertaken.
Given the recurrence of the issue, it would have been prudent for the landlord to have undertaken a thorough inspection at an earlier stage to find the cause of the leak. However, there is no evidence of attempts by the landlord to thoroughly discuss the issues with the resident and her neighbour, evaluate the situation, and find a resolution. This was particularly important as the leak became the subject of a neighbour dispute, with the leaseholder of the downstairs flat alleging that the resident was deliberately causing the leak. The landlord’s short-term focus led to repeated visits and the issue staying unresolved for longer than necessary.
The landlord’s notes show that there were surveyor inspections in March and June 2023, but it has not provided records of these inspections to this Service. Keeping an accurate audit trail is an important part of a landlord’s service delivery. The landlord should have systems in place to keep clear records of any repairs so that it can satisfy itself and the resident that it took all reasonable steps when handling a repair.
As highlighted earlier in the report, there were also several instances when contractors did not attend as arranged. The landlord’s contractor code of conduct says that it will “inform you immediately if they are unable to keep the appointment” and “Inform you of the arrangements to complete the works if it has not been possible to complete the works in one visit.” However, on these occasions contractors did not attend for pre-arranged appointments without giving prior notice to the resident and with no notes to explain why, which was unreasonable.
The landlord did not address this effectively with its contractors or put measures in place to prevent recurrence. The resident’s case would have benefited from better monitoring of contractors, instead the landlord missed an opportunity to properly oversee the progress of the works.
The landlord has said that, on occasions, there had been problems with gaining access to the property. Some of the emergency call outs were reported by the leaseholder neighbour below where there had been a leak. The resident has said that she is a single parent who worked unsocial hours and was not always available to allow access to the property at short notice. However, there were other appointments that were arranged without the resident being notified of them, and they were marked as “no access” which was unreasonable.
While the landlord planned to undertake the full works in December 2023, it could not go ahead with them while the resident remained living in the property. The landlord was in discussion with the resident about a temporary move between September 2023 and February 2024, but the resident declined the offer of an air bnb or a hotel for the duration of the works because of her childcare commitments.
While it is a fundamental part of the Ombudsman’s role to consider whether a landlord has acted appropriately in response to a repair request, this will often require an assessment of how the resident’s own actions may have contributed to the situation.
The resident felt that the only resolution to this issue could be securing permanent alternative accommodation. This Service does not question the resident’s reasons for declining a temporary move, however any delays in works because of this were beyond the control of the landlord.

Extractor fan

There were delays in installing the extractor fans in the resident’s property. The records show that this job was raised in March 2023 following a surveyor’s inspection but was still outstanding in March 2024. The records show that contractors missed several appointments to install the fans, but no reasons had been provided for this. There were also some “no access” appointments recorded. Although the works may have fallen outside of the landlord’s target response times for completion, a delay of 12 months is unreasonable, even taking into consideration difficulties with access.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that it will implement all reasonable remedial repair solutions and improvements to eradicate damp including, managing and controlling condensation. It says that a key point of its policy is to enhance the living conditions of its residents. The resident had reported condensation, a damp smell in the property and mould growth around her windows. Working extractor fans were likely to have improved the conditions in the property by reducing excess moisture and improving ventilation. The delays to these works would have negatively affected the resident’s confidence in the landlord and their commitment to improving the conditions in her home

Radiator

The resident first reported that the radiator was hanging off the bathroom wall in November 2021. In January 2022 contractors removed it from the bathroom while it undertook works to the wall. There was no access to the property when an appointment was arranged in June 2022. However, there were also appointments in May and July 2022, but contractors did not attend, and no reason has been provided for the missed appointments, which was unreasonable. Two further appointments were missed by contractors when the landlord raised the works again in December 2023, with no reasons provided for this. The contractors completed works in or around March 2024, however in correspondence with the resident, the landlord conceded that they were done to a very poor standard.
Overall, there was a delay of 2 years in completing the radiator repairs which was unreasonable. It is possible that the lack of a radiator in the bathroom may have contributed to the damp conditions as there was no heating source to mitigate the effect of the leak.

Kitchen ceiling

The resident reported a leak from the flat above causing damage to her kitchen ceiling on 1 September 2022. The landlord raised a work order but there was a delay of 6 months in arranging an appointment. It then cancelled an appointment on 9 March 2023 and then on 30 March 2023 with no notes explaining the reason for this. There were other problems with access to complete the works in April 2023 as the resident was not in, after which the repair was closed. However, given the concerns raised by the independent surveyor about the kitchen ceiling, which would have been made worse following the leak from the property above later in September 2022, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered what other steps it could take to gain access to the property or to assess the risk to the property and the household.

Summary

Overall, while there was a period of delays that were beyond the control of the landlord, there was also a significant period in which the resident was able to accommodate the repairs, but that the landlord did not take reasonable steps to resolve the problem. The landlord also had opportunities to provide updates following the resident’s requests but did not do so. In the circumstances, this amounted to maladministration.
In both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, the landlord sought to put things right for the resident by appointing her a named officer who liaised closely with the repairs service to follow up on works and to investigate housing options. The allocated officer was proactive and met with the resident and provided her with regular updates on progress with the complaint. It is likely that this would have gone some way towards reassuring the resident that matters were in hand.
In its complaint responses, the landlord apologised for the delay in repairs and said that it would review compensation once the matter had concluded. This Service has asked the landlord to confirm whether it had offered the resident compensation outside of its internal complaints procedure but has received no response. While this Service acknowledges that this was most likely an oversight, in the absence of this information, this Service concludes that no redress was offered.
The delays had a significant impact on the resident and her household. The property was damp, and the resident has described how her son was not able to use his room because of this. The lack of a heater in the bathroom and working extractor fans is likely to have contributed to the damp conditions.
The resident’s already difficult relationship with her neighbour further deteriorated because of the ongoing leak. The resident has described how she was fearful of the neighbour, and that this had triggered her daughter’s anxiety.
The Ombudsman therefore orders the landlord to pay the resident the amount of £600 in compensation for her distress, inconvenience, time and trouble because of the landlord’s delays in resolving the damp, mould, leak and other repairs in the property. This is in line with our remedies guidance which allows financial redress of between £600 and £1000 where there has been maladministration that has had a significant impact on the resident.
The award recognises that there were aggravating factors which increased the impact on the resident, including the presence of children in the home and the fact that the occupiers had health conditions, but also mitigating factors such as problems with access. In addition, the landlord put the works on hold, with the agreement of the resident, while a move to a temporary to permanent property was considered.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). The evidence gathered
during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that
recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider
the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless the landlord
can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a managed move

The landlord’s allocations policy says that management transfers take place outside of the landlord’s usual lettings process. It may consider a management transfer if:
1. a tenant or a member of their household is at risk of significant harm from someone not living in their household, or
2. a household is unable to evacuate the property in case of an emergency, or
3. where there is medical evidence detailing why the current property is unsuitable related to their medical condition.
In its complaint responses, the landlord outlined its policy on management moves and informed the resident that she did not meet the threshold or criteria for a management move currently. The landlord provided information about other steps the resident could take to find alternative accommodation such as bidding for properties and a mutual exchange. The landlord told the resident that there would be forthcoming changes to its allocations process which would allow for a banding review. It did offer to secure alternative temporary to permanent accommodation for the resident to allow works to start in the property. The landlord’s response was reasonable and in line with its policy.
Following the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, the resident provided more information in support of her request. The landlord then approved her application for a management transfer, and it offered her a permanent move in July 2024. She has since moved to the new address.
The landlord followed its policy in its response to the resident. Social landlords have a limited housing stock, and it must allocate it fairly to those most in need. The Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management move.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint request within 5 working days and aims to resolve it within 10 working days. If the resident is unhappy with its response at stage 1, they should request a review within 28 days and the landlord will respond within 20 working days. The policy says if the complaint is complex, it may take longer to resolve but it will keep the customer informed and provide regular updates.
The resident has referred this Service to a complaint she made in 2021 that she says the landlord did not respond to. We have not included this with our investigation as it relates to a separate complaint made 3 years ago, however we would remind the landlord of its responsibility to comply with its own policies and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“The Code”) in logging and responding to complaints within its published response timescales.
The landlord took reasonable steps to address the issues the resident raised by appointing a named officer to co-ordinate the response and by visiting her at home. It communicated effectively with the resident throughout the complaint, keeping her updated as to its progress. However, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint outside of its target response timescales by a month and no reason was given for this, which was unreasonable, and it did not offer redress for this to the resident for this in its complaint response. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 response within its target timescales.
In both its complaint responses, the landlord said it would review compensation once it had completed the works to her home. There is no evidence that it did this and, while this may have been an oversight, its failings likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident as she had an expectation that she would be compensated for the service failings acknowledged by the landlord in its responses. The Ombudsman therefore finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint and orders that it pays compensation of £100.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs throughout the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for a management move.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must arrange:
1. For a senior officer to write a letter of apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. To pay the resident compensation of £1000 which includes:
  1. £300 for the likely distress, inconvenience, time and trouble because of the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports.
  2. £600 for the likely distress and inconvenience, time and trouble because of the landlord’s handling of the repairs in her property.
  3. £100 for the likely distress, inconvenience, time and trouble because of the landlord’s complaint handling failings.
3. Confirm with this Service once payment has been made.