Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202505348)

Decision
Case ID	202505348
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Paragon Asra Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a house with his wife and son.  His wife is disabled and requires the use of an electric wheelchair. He complained that the landlord did not take suitable action to address his reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour. He was unhappy with its response to his request for an electric vehicle (EV) charger.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of ASB and harassment by a neighbour.
   2. Request to install an EV charger.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of ASB and harassment.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The request to install an EV charger.
   2. The associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. We have found:

The landlord’s handling of ASB and harassment

7. The action the landlord took in response to the alleged ASB and harassment was reasonable. However, it did not agree an action plan with the resident or keep adequate records to show what it had done to resolve the issue. That said, its offer of £300 compensation and agreement to open a new ASB case to investigate was appropriate to put things right.

The request to install an EV charger

8. The landlord clearly communicated to the resident why it was not able to approve his request to install an EV charger. Though there were some minor delays in providing its response we did not consider these significant enough to constitute a failing.

The landlord’s complaint handling

9. The landlord handled the resident’s complaint in line with its policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Though there was a minor delay in initially acknowledging the complaint this was not significant enough to constitute a failing. Its decision not to respond to part of the resident’s complaint was in line with the acceptable reasons set out in the Code.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £300 as offered in the final complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress for its handling of the ASB and harassment is made on the basis that this compensation is paid to the resident.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 April 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. He said It had not taken action to resolve the ASB he had reported experiencing from his neighbour. He said this included shouting abuse at him and his family, blocking his car, having her family send threatening messages and spreading false rumours about him. The neighbour had sublet her house to her daughter, which he had provided proof of, but it had not acted on this tenancy breach. It had not responded to the issues he raised about car parking or his request for an EV charger.
22 May 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it had offered mediation in relation to the alleged ASB but this had been declined. It said it had made an information sharing protocol with the police and did not consider the information provided met the criteria for ASB. It said if the resident provided further evidence of the alleged ASB it would review this. It stated the alleged tenancy breach by the neighbour not occupying their property was a closed matter and it would not respond further. It said the parking spaces were allocated by the property developer as part of its conveyancing plan. It could not reallocate car parking spaces and apologised it gave him incorrect information about this previously. It apologised for the delay in responding to his request for an EV charger and said it would respond in the next 10 working days. It offered £150 compensation in recognition of its delays and the resident needing to contact it multiple times.
28 May 2025	The resident escalated his complaint. He said: The landlord had ignored several of his emails about the reported ASB and it had not considered the evidence he had as part of its stage 1 response. He remained unhappy with its refusal to look at the alleged tenancy breach by his neighbour. The landlord was ignoring its responsibilities under the Equality Act by not addressing his request to relocate the car parking and install an EV charger.
23 June 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said based on the evidence provided it had created an ASB case which it would investigate further. It apologised it had not actioned this previously. It reiterated that car parking spaces were assigned as part of the conveyancing plan and its previous response was accurate. It said it could not make his neighbour swap car parking spaces with him. It stated its major works team had contacted him about the EV charger on 12 and 13 June 2025. It was waiting for him to provide further information to action his request. It offered £300 compensation comprising £200 for distress and £100 for its handling of the reported ASB.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said he wanted an apology from the landlord, additional compensation for distress, and for it to take meaningful action to resolve the reported ASB.

 

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Reports of ASB and harassment by a neighbour
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not investigated

10. Several of the resident’s allegations of ASB were that his neighbour was parking in the spaces in front of his property, which she had previously let him use due to his wife’s disability. His tenancy agreement makes no provision for parking. There is also no service charge attributed to parking in the car park. As such, the complaint does not extend to the occupation of the property set out in the tenancy agreement. The resolution of the parking issue is therefore outside of our jurisdiction. However, we have considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.
11. As part of the alleged ASB the resident referred to events where he says the neighbour or members of her family acted threateningly to other people outside of his household. It is not clear that all these people are tenants of the landlord nor have we seen that he has any authority to act on behalf of them. As such we will not be commenting on these incidents in our investigation.
12. Following the landlord’s stage 2 response it created an ASB case around 1 July 2025 to investigate the resident concerns. He told us he is unhappy with its handling of this case. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first through its complaint procedure. There is no evidence the resident raised a separate complaint about its handling of the ASB case that it created in July 2025. Therefore, we have no power to investigate this issue.

What we have investigated

13. The resident told us the harassment began around the start of 2025 when the neighbour moved back into the property. At some point around January 2025, following an incident where he said she had shouted at him and his family outside their house, he sent her a letter asking her to stop harassing him and his family. There is no evidence he involved the landlord at this time.
14. From the available evidence the resident first contacted the landlord in relation to the problems he had with his neighbour on 8 February 2025. He said that his family’s relationship with the neighbour had deteriorated, and she was harassing them. However, the only harassment he specified was she was preventing them from using the parking space in front of their property, which she had previously agreed to swap due to his wife’s disability. The resident’s email was requesting it swap his and the neighbour’s car parking spaces as a reasonable adjustment. The landlord’s ASB policy does not list car parking disputes as an example of ASB. It defines “harassment” for the purpose of its policy as verbal or physical violence, bullying and/or attacks on property. As such the issue he described in his email would not have met these criteria.
15. It is not clear how the landlord initially responded to the resident’s email on 8 February 2025. However, on 26 February 2025 it agreed to meet with the resident to discuss the issues. He told us that around 1 March 2025 another resident had informed him the neighbour was falsely saying he had taken her to court and tried to get her evicted. It is unclear whether he told the landlord about this at the time.
16. The landlord’s meeting with the resident took place on 4 March 2025. Though the resident told it on the same day he would start keeping a diary of events we have not seen any evidence he provided this to it before his complaint. Though both parties confirm this meeting happened and the landlord agreed to meet with the neighbour to discuss the issues there are no records of the meeting itself. It is unclear if the landlord was treating this as an ASB case at the time. There is also no evidence that it agreed an action plan with the resident, as it should have in line with its ASB policy, or that it completed a risk assessment.
17. The resident reported on 5 March 2025 he had received a threatening message from a member of the neighbour’s family (who did not live at her property with her). The landlord advised him to pass the message to the police, it confirmed it would discuss this and the other allegations with her. This was reasonable and proportionate action in line with its ASB policy.
18. The resident contacted the landlord several times between 5 and 24 March 2025 to request an update. He did not allege any further ASB had taken place during this time and indicated the neighbour had not been living at the property for extended periods. It responded on 24 March 2024 to confirm it had met with the neighbour and informed her “she cannot continue with her behaviour” and she had agreed not to engage in threatening behaviour.
19. We have not seen any records of the landlord’s meeting with the neighbour. Though it later said it had provided a written warning to her and offered mediation (which she refused) we have not seen evidence of this which is a record keeping failure. That said these steps were consistent with its ASB policy.   
20. From 24 March 2024 up until his complaint on 30 April 2024 there is no evidence the resident reported further ASB. During this time the landlord responded to him on 16 April 2024 to say it was looking at moving the car parking spaces to resolve the issue. In his complaint he said the landlord had not taken action to respond to the harassment from the neighbour which he said included shouting abuse, sending threatening messages, spreading false rumours and preventing him from using the parking space. Apart from the parking issue we have not seen he provided evidence to the landlord that any of the alleged ASB was ongoing following its meeting with the neighbour. 
21. The landlord told the resident on 2 May 2025 that as he had said the alleged harassment was being dealt with by the police it would not take further action until it was advised by them. As part of its stage 1 response of 22 May 2025 it said it had asked the police for further information under an information sharing protocol and considered from this it did not meet its criteria for ASB. This was in line with its ASB policy which says it will work with the police to resolve alleged ASB.
22. As part of the landlord’s stage 1 response, it also told the resident it could not reassign the parking spaces. It stated the original housing developer had assigned specific parking spaces to each property as part of their conveyancing plan. It apologised that it had originally told him it would look at relocating the parking spaces and explained that its housing officer did not have this information available. It reiterated this position in its stage 2 response. We have seen evidence from the landlord which supports that its explanation about the conveyancing plan was accurate. As such, we consider its communication with the resident about his concern was reasonable.
23. The resident did not provide the landlord with an evidence file of the alleged ASB until his escalation request on 28 May 2025. There is no evidence he reported new, specific allegations of ASB between this and its stage 2 complaint response on 23 June 2025. In its stage 2 response it told the resident that having reviewed the ASB file it would open an ASB case to investigate. This was appropriate action for it to take.
24. The landlord offered the resident £300 in relation to its handling of his reports of ASB and the associated distress. This was in line with our remedies guidance and was proportionate to put right the failings we saw as part of our investigation.     

Complaint	Request to install an EV charger
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not investigated

25. As with the previous complaint part the resolution of parking issues is outside of our jurisdiction. Therefore, we have only considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.

What we have investigated

26. The resident first made a query about installing an EV charger on 4 April 2025. On 16 April 2025 the landlord told him it would need further information in writing about what he wanted to install. He responded to this on the same day.
27. The resident complained on 30 April 2025 that he had not had a response. The landlord told him on 2 May 2025 it had passed his request to its relevant team to respond. We have not seen a specific policy or procedure from the landlord to explain how it responds to EV charger requests. However, we do not consider 11 working days was an unreasonable timescale for it to provide an update.
28. As part of the landlord’s stage 1 response it apologised that there had been a delay in responding to the resident’s EV charger request. It said it would respond in the next 10 working days. It contacted the resident about this on 12 June 2025, 14 working days later. Whilst this exceeded the timescale it gave we do not consider this delay was so significant it constitutes a failing.
29. The landlord told the resident on 12 June 2025 it could not approve the request to install an EV charger. It said it would normally only agree to this where there was a driveway or garage for the property. It explained, though it could consider this where there was an allocated parking space, it could not approve this if cables were trailing over public pathways.
30. Following further contact by the resident the landlord responded again on 13 June 2025. It told him it needed to base its decision on where the parking spaces were currently, rather than where he had asked it to move these to as part of his complaint. It advised him if the company installing the EV charger could evidence that it could bury the cables to prevent these trailing over pathways it would reconsider his request. There is no evidence he responded to the landlord with this information. The landlord reasonably communicated why it could not approve his request to install an EV charger.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

31. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. It responds to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with the Code.
32. The resident complained on 30 April 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 13 May 2025, 8 working days later. It apologised at the time for this delay. Whilst this exceeded the timescales of its policy and the Code it was not a significant failing and its apology was appropriate.
33. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 22 May 2025, 7 working days after its acknowledgement. This is in line with its policy and the Code.
34. The landlord advised the resident that the matter in relation to his neighbour subletting her property was closed. It told him before it issued its response it would not respond to this as the issue had already been through court proceedings. We have also seen from his own account of events he was aware of the issue in January 2024, more than 12 months before his complaint. In line with its policy and the Code these are acceptable reasons for refusing to consider a complaint.
35. The resident escalated his complaint on 28 May 2025, which the landlord acknowledged on the same day. It issued its stage 2 response on 23 June 2025, 18 working days later. This was in line with the timescales of its policy and the Code. 
36. The resident said he was unhappy the landlord did not review the ASB file he had prepared before it issued its stage 1 response. He said he offered to provide this on 19 May 2025 but it did not respond so he could not provide this until his escalation request. Its complaint policy says requests for services such as responding to alleged ASB will not be addressed through its complaints process. We have not seen he made this evidence available to the landlord before his complaint. As such, in line with its complaints policy we would not have expected it to investigate the issue of whether the alleged ASB was occurring and respond to this as part of its complaints process. It advised the resident in its stage 1 response he should send in the evidence of the alleged ASB. Once he did it agreed in its stage 2 response to open a ASB case to investigate the issue further. This was reasonable action for it to take as part of its handling of this complaint.    

Learning

37. From the ASB policy provided, though the landlord was required to agree an action plan with the resident reporting ASB, it did not clearly state if a risk assessment was required. It only listed a risk assessment as a tool it could use to manage ASB. The landlord should consider if its current policy provides sufficient guidance to its staff on when they should complete a risk assessment and how to effectively assess this.
38. Our understanding from the resident’s account of events is that the landlord offered a total of £300 to put things right. However, its stage 2 response did not make it clear whether the £300 was meant as a reconsideration of its previous offer of £150 at stage 1 or a separate offer of compensation in addition to this. Whilst we consider an offer of £300 to be a reasonable remedy the landlord should clarify its compensation awards, so it is clear whether any stage 2 offer in place of its any offer earlier in its complaints process or in addition to it.   

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

39. As set out previously the landlord’s records of its initial handling of the alleged ASB were limited. It is important the landlord maintains a robust record of contacts and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. Keeping a clear record of any alleged ASB and any action taken from this will allow it to demonstrate whether its actions were reasonable and proportionate.

Communication

40. There were several occasions where the resident requested an update and the landlord did not respond. Whilst we do not consider the landlord’s response times were overall unreasonable it should consider how it manages resident’s expectations of how quickly it will be in a position to respond. If it considers a resident is making unreasonable demands on its service, it should make sure that it manages this consistently in line with its policies and procedures.