Paragon Asra Housing Limited (201914106)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914106

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

11 May 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB);
2. the resident’s reports of damp.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant whose tenancy began on 12 June 2017. The landlord has described the property as a one-bedroom ground floor flat. The property is within a conversion and there is an upstairs first floor neighbour.
The landlord’s records show that the resident has a long-term illness but it has not provided details of this. The resident has provided a letter dated January 2020 from his GP that followed up a post–traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) diagnosis.
The tenancy agreement requires the resident not to cause nuisance, disturbance or annoyance to any other person or to ‘make false or malicious complaints about the behaviour of any other person’. The landlord is obliged to take action, where appropriate, in cases of harassment or nuisance. It lists loud music as an example of nuisance and using insulting words as an example of harassment.
The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to repair and maintain the structure of the property, including walls. The resident is required to keep the inside of the property tidy and in reasonable condition and to allow access for the landlord and its contractors to inspect and carry out maintenance and repairs.
The landlord has an ASB policy that shows it will take a robust victim-centred approach. It has two categories of ASB – Level 1 includes serious risk of harm or hate crime (acknowledged within one working day) and Level 2 includes intimidating behaviour and persistent noise nuisance (acknowledged within three working days). It requires the landlord to take a supportive approach to ASB and consider use of a range of tools to manage ASB such as:
1. early intervention strategies, including mediation and warning letters
2. a victim assessment matrix and agreement of an action plan with the resident
3. nuisance investigations, interviews of alleged perpetrators, use of the Noise App and installation of sound recording devices
4. property management transfers ‘in exceptional cases’.
The landlord has a maintenance policy that shows plasterwork and leaks (if not severe) will be classed as ‘Priority 2’ to be completed within 15 working days. It adds that residents are responsible for any repairs required because of their neglect or misuse. With regards to damp, the landlord should repair the structure of the property to eradicate penetrating damp and the resident should take action to prevent condensation (such as mould treatment and keeping properties free of moisture).
The landlord has a two stage complaints policy of 10 working days for each stage. It has a separate compensation policy that allows for three levels of compensation (up to £500) for occasions where the landlord has not met its service targets.
The resident’s complaint primarily concerns an upstairs neighbour who is also a tenant of the landlord. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the neighbour’s tenancy agreement but it would be reasonable to conclude that the same, or similar, tenancy conditions apply.

Summary of Events

This Service has not been provided with evidence of when the resident first reported damp in his property. The landlord’s internal records show that the landlord spoke to the resident on 16 November 2018 with a view to carrying out relevant repair works at his home but he had expressed health concerns about being in the property while works were ongoing. It wrote to him on the same day to advise:
1. it inspected his property on 7 August 2018 and works to install new extractor fans (to improve ventilation) were recommended and ordered
2. there was a delay until November 2018 in the contractor receiving the order for which it awarded £50 compensation
3. it had decided that works could take place with the resident in the property so there was no need for the resident to be temporarily moved as he had requested
4. the contractor could carry out works during the week of 26 November 2018.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 December 2018. It advised that it had unsuccessfully attempted contact with him by letter and telephone but had still not been able to arrange a date for mould-related works to be done. It advised it would have to cancel the repairs order on 7 January 2019 if the resident failed to allow access.
The landlord’s records noted on 14 January 2019 that the resident had written to them to advise that he had reported incidents to the landlord but that it had failed to reach a solution. The resident added that there were often one or two banging noises in the night and alleged verbal abuse and explained he had experienced difficulties in using the Noise App. The landlord acknowledged the report on the same day and advised a case had been opened.
The landlord’s records indicate there was a meeting with the resident on 15 January 2019 although it is not clear from the evidence seen by this Service what was discussed. A note was made that the resident had reported mould and that the landlord had been aware of this for over a year and that its contractors would need to re-attend to provide a new quote.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 February 2019 – it reiterated the information in its letter of 16 November 2018 and asked the resident to make contact to arrange works. It added that the contractor had written to the resident on 27 December 2018 and 8 January 2019 to ask that he provide a date when works could take place but there had been no reply. It also made recommendations as to how the resident could reduce condensation levels and offered to meet with him to discuss any problems with his neighbour.
The landlord’s records show the following actions taken between February 2019 and January 2020 in regard to the outstanding repairs:
1. orders were raised on 18 February 2019 to fit a vent in the living room, upgrade the bathroom and kitchen fans and ventilate two cupboards
2. it attempted access on 4 March 2019 but this was unsuccessful and it noted that it had received no replies to telephone calls and a letter which led it to close the order on 11 March 2019
3. it raised damp inspection repairs orders on 12 September 2019, 27 September 2019 and 24 October 2019 with appointments made on each occasion
4. it made an internal note on 1 November 2019 that the resident was causing damage to his property by ‘promoting condensation’
5. it noted internal discussions on 10 December 2019 with a view to arranging another inspection attempt (and taking legal action to gain access if this was unsuccessful)
6. a surveyor noted in December 2019 that access had already been obtained, after a few attempts, and that ‘severe damp and mould’ had been found in the property so it had attempted to engage its damp specialist contractor between November-December 2019
7. it noted on 27 January 2020 that follow on works had been passed to a contractor and they were awaiting a commencement date.
In the meantime, the resident continued to make new reports of loud music or banging noises (or a combination of both) each month from April 2019 to February 2020. He advised the landlord that the banging occurred every morning and had often continued through the night. These included comments by the resident in September 2019 that the landlord had not taken his medical conditions into consideration and in January 2020 that he had experienced verbal racial abuse. In response, the landlord’s records show that it:
1. acknowledged most of the reports and told the resident that it had passed them to its tenancy team (although reports on 9 June 2019, 14 July 2019, 9 November 2019 and 16 January 2020 were not acknowledged)
2. it recommended the resident use the Noise App facility in May 2019 but the resident advised he had been blocked from submitting further recordings
3. it noted its internal records on 10 May 2019 that it suspected the reports were not genuine and that the resident was seeking a management transfer
4. it asked the resident to continue sending diary sheets and recordings on 18 June 2019
5. it told the resident on 1 July 2019 that it was building a case against his neighbour
6. it noted on 5 August 2019 that the resident again advised he had been blocked from submitting Noise App recordings
7. it advised the resident on 1 September 2019 that its tenancy team was working on the case
8. it wrote to the resident on 16 September 2019 and advised that it had investigated ASB on numerous occasions and found no evidence to support the allegations, it told him that his behaviour was deemed to be harassment against his neighbour and recommended he liaise with his GP for support
9. it acknowledged on 27 October 2019 that the resident was now able to submit Noise App recordings.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 February 2020. He claimed that he had been neglected for nearly three years and that he needed the landlord to resolve the ASB.
The landlord responded to the resident on 27 February 2020. It advised that:
1. it had not received any contact from a neighbour whom the resident had stated could corroborate the noise report but it would review any new recordings provided by the resident
2. it had not received any information from the Police
3. it had already advised the resident that the best option for a move was likely to be a mutual exchange given the potential desirability of his property if he allowed the landlord access to complete damp repairs
4. medical information received to date had not led to a change in the resident’s housing priority as it did not establish that the resident had a medical need to move
5. it would be able to award a discretionary housing banding so the resident could bid for an alternative property if he were to allow it to complete damp repairs.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 April 2020 – it said that this was in response to various emails sent by the resident. It referred to its reply of 27 February 2020 and advised that:
1. it could not move him because it had not received evidence of his ASB claims
2. it had repeatedly tried to access his home to complete works
3. it had visited the neighbour’s property and found it was carpeted and its investigations found no noise transference between the flats
4. damp and mould works had been identified some time previously but the resident had not allowed the contractor access to complete them which was a breach of his tenancy
5. it had received medical letters but neither of them allowed for a medical priority as they did not show that the property was impacting his medical condition; it added it was willing to offer a discretionary banding so he could bid for an alternative property.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 May 2020 to express continued dissatisfaction on the grounds that:
1. the landlord had made assumptions about ASB on the basis that the neighbour’s property was carpeted
2. he is sensitive to noise and the situation was unbearable
3. the landlord’s investigations only led to it passing on the report to his neighbour which made the situation worse
4. the landlord had only recently offered a discretionary banding.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 15 May 2020 and advised it of his concerns that the landlord was unwilling to consider his evidence because there was not CCTV footage available.
The resident wrote to his MP on 7 June 2020 and said that the landlord had incorrectly reported that he had not allowed access to contractors. He advised that he had allowed surveyors to attend his property but had heard nothing since.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 9 June 2020. It stated it had reviewed its handling of noise reports and concluded that:
1. there was no service failure as it had done all it could in response to the noise reports
2. while the resident had permitted home visits, it had not allowed the landlord’s contractors to carry out repairs
3. as the landlord had not been provided with evidence such as Police reports, it could not proceed with action against the alleged perpetrator.
The resident wrote to this Service in mid-July 2020 and early August 2020 and mentioned that works had taken place to his property during late July 2020 (the resident contacted this Service some months later to report that some of his personal items had been damaged as a result of the damp and during the works).
The resident has continued to report loud music and banging noises since the internal complaints process ended. The resident has made new reports each month from July 2020 to March 2021, sometimes linking these to racial discrimination. In response, the landlord noted the following actions:
1. it acknowledged the resident’s ASB reports in July 2020, August 2020, September 2020 and December 2020
2. it asked the resident on 27 July 2020 to provide recordings in a different format and to provide diary sheets and Noise App recordings on 31 December 2020
3. it organised a re-activation of the Noise App facility on 5 January 2021
4. it reviewed the Noise App records in January 2021 and was only able to locate recordings from 1 February 2020 and 1 March 2020 (which it noted was loud music into the early hours); it added that a previous case had been closed on 16 January 2019 with a recording that had nothing on it
5. it wrote to the resident on 12 January 2021 and advised that a previous case had been closed and that a new case had been opened but this would only be able to consider new events rather than historic evidence (it signposted the resident to its website and information on how to submit diary sheets and recordings)
6. it reviewed its ASB case file on 19 January 2021, recording that this was a long-standing issue but the resident may need to be warned given he had not permitted access for repairs and had been witnessed boiling water on the stove which the landlord suspected contributed to damp in the property.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 March 2021. He asked why his ASB evidence had been ignored and why the landlord had not followed through on its offer to re-house him.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s MP on 19 March 2021. It advised that it had never received any evidence of racial abuse and that the resident could now use the Noise App again but it had not received any recordings since March 2020 (it noted it had stopped his access for a period as he kept sending recordings that were unclear or only contained everyday noise).
When the resident approached this Service, he added that items of his had been damaged by the damp that had been present in his property in the past.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

ASB Reports

The Ombudsman considers complaints about how a landlord has responded to reports of a problem. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the alleged perpetrators amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably.
The resident has made regular noise nuisance reports about his upstairs neighbour and has on occasion alleged racial abuse. Evidence seen by this Service indicates that the resident has reported these issues since shortly after he moved into the property and the landlord has advised that it investigated ASB reports prior to the period covered by this complaint – these matters have not been considered through the landlord’s internal complaints process so are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident began to consistently report ASB again from April 2019 – he made reports on at least a monthly basis until February 2020 that the upstairs neighbour was playing loud music and was intentionally making loud banging noises at unsociable times of the day. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that it will class regular noise nuisance as ‘Level 2’ ASB and that it will acknowledge the report and consider a victim assessment matrix and agreement of an action plan with the resident. Although the landlord acknowledged most reports made by the resident and offered to consider his evidence, it has not demonstrated that it considered any of the other actions it was obliged to such as completion of a victim assessment and agreement of an action plan – this was inappropriate.
The resident’s reports often contained information about the impact the noise nuisance had on his health and drew the landlord’s attention to medical information he said he had provided. The landlord has also confirmed that it was already aware that the resident had a long-term illness. However, it has not demonstrated that it considered the resident’s health and potential vulnerability; the only action it appears to have taken in this regard was to recommend in September 2019 that he speak to his GP. The landlord therefore did not meet its ASB policy obligation to provide a victim-centred approach.
The landlord’s ASB policy also requires it to consider investigation methods such as interviews, diary sheets and Noise App recordings. The landlord regularly invited the resident to continue providing evidence to it between April-October 2019 and has advised that it visited the upstairs property in the past (and confirmed that carpets were present). However, there is no evidence during April 2019 to February 2020 that the landlord assessed the evidence provided by the resident. Further, the landlord has not shown that it considered further investigation methods such as visiting the property, installing its own sound recording equipment or interviewing the alleged perpetrator of the noise – this was inappropriate.
The landlord made an internal conclusion in May 2019 that the reports from the resident were unlikely to be genuine but has not demonstrated how it reached this view beyond noting that the resident had been moved from a previous address due to a similar situation. This was unreasonable as, based on evidence seen by this Service, the landlord had not investigated the resident’s new reports so was not in a position to decide that they were false. Further, its subsequent review of a recording from March 2020 established that there was loud music into the early hours of the morning but this evidence does not appear to have caused it to change its approach or to have taken the potential ASB up with the neighbour.
The landlord was also inconsistent in the advice it offered to the resident. It asked the resident to continue submitting evidence on several occasions and told him in July 2019 that it was building a case against his neighbour but also advised him in September 2019 that his reports were deemed to be harassment. Although the landlord advised that it had reviewed previous reports, there is no evidence that it investigated the new reports so it was unreasonable that it determined that these new reports were vexatious or intended to harass the upstairs neighbour.
Further, it advised him to continue using the Noise App facility to submit recordings despite it having already suspended his ability to use this service – there was confusion on this during May to September 2019. This was unreasonable and evidently caused uncertainty to the resident as to whether the landlord was progressing his ASB case. This recurred when the resident reported new incidents from July 2020 as the landlord again asked the resident to provide recordings but did not record that it checked the Noise App facility until January 2021 when it re-activated the resident’s use of the App.
The resident has made comments within some of his reports that he believed there was a discriminatory element to the ASB and has said that he has been subject to racial verbal abuse. The landlord appears to have done no more than acknowledge these reports. Based on evidence seen by this Service, the resident has not mentioned any specific incidents but given the reports by him were potentially of a ‘Level 1’ category within its own ASB policy, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate these further by interviewing the resident to obtain more details – its failure to offer this was unreasonable and again did not demonstrate that it was victim-centred.
It is of concern that the landlord has indicated that it would not consider the racial abuse reports without information from the Police. While this may have been a criminal offence and the landlord can rely upon information provided from Police investigations, it was inappropriate that it failed to consider its own potential to investigate in order to determine whether there had been a potential breach of tenancy by the neighbour. It meant that it lost an opportunity to collect evidence that may have corroborated the resident’s reports and could have led to it implementing an early intervention strategy or possible tenancy enforcement action.
The resident has expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord has failed to move him from the property. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that it is only obliged to consider a property transfer in exceptional circumstances. Given the noise nuisance reports have not been evidenced to date, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that this was not an exceptional case and advise in its complaint responses that it was not able to move him. Its advice for the resident to explore the mutual exchange option was similarly reasonable.
The resident made further ASB reports to the landlord after he exhausted the internal complaints process. These matters have not been considered through the landlord’s complaints process but it is of concern that the landlord has failed to acknowledge some of his reports, again contributed to some confusion about whether the resident was able to use the Noise App facility and again failed to complete a victim assessment or an action plan.
In summary, the landlord has not met its obligations in its handling of the resident’s noise nuisance and racial abuse reports between April 2019 and February 2020 and July 2020 and March 2021. It should have considered conducting a victim assessment, agreeing an action plan with the resident, potential means of investigation and early intervention strategies but has failed to do so.

Damp

It is not disputed that the landlord attended the resident’s property in August 2018 to assess the presence of damp. It acknowledged in November 2018 that it had delayed in the job being passed to its contractor, awarded £50 compensation and proposed a week when it could carry out works. The resident asked to move address due to the works but the landlord was not obliged to do so. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer redress for its delay and to offer to complete works while the resident was in the property given the planned repairs were to install new extractor fans
The landlord made further attempts to organise access for the completion of damp-related works during December 2018 and January 2019 by a combination of telephone and letters. The landlord noted in January 2019 that its contractors would need to attend again to quote for the works required given the passage of time but it was reasonable that the landlord continued to make pro-active attempts to progress repairs.
Based on evidence seen by this Service, the resident did not respond to confirm when he would be able to offer access. Nevertheless, the landlord raised repairs orders in February 2019 but closed the order in March 2019 due to a lack of response to its noted attempts by telephone and letter to organise access. The further attempts by the landlord and its contractors to gain access to complete works demonstrate that it was resolution-focused and it was reasonable for the landlord to close the repairs order after multiple unsuccessful attempts.
The landlord has evidenced that it made further attempts to inspect the property during September-October 2019 with records made of it scheduling three appointments. Internal emails in December 2019-January 2020 indicate that a surveyor had gained access during November 2019 and that a job had been passed to its contractor from whom they were awaiting a commencement date. It was appropriate for the landlord to re-inspect the property given around nine months had passed since it had last raised the repairs order.
However, it is of concern that there is no record of the contractor providing a date for repairs to commence between January 2020 and July 2020. The landlord advised in its complaint responses of April 2020 and June 2020 that it had attempted to gain access to complete repairs. However, no evidence has been provided to this Service of any attempts made by the landlord’s contractor to gain access between November 2019 (when the surveyor attended) and July 2020 (when the resident advised that repairs had commenced). It was unreasonable that the landlord failed to progress repairs during this period, particularly given its November 2019 assessment that the property was suffering from ‘severe damp and mould’.
The landlord has suggested that the resident was responsible for worsening his living conditions through his use of the kitchen. This Service has not been provided with any evidence – such as a surveyor’s report – to show how it reached this view. In any case, even if it suspected the resident was responsible for contributing to the damp issue, it was unreasonable that it has not evidenced that it attempted to gain access or considered tenancy enforcement action to rectify what it had established to be a ‘severe’ problem.
In summary, the landlord made reasonable attempts to gain access to install improved ventilation to the property during November 2018 to March 2019. However, after a further survey, it was unreasonable that it has not demonstrated that its contractors sought to gain access to the property between November 2019 and July 2020 despite it being aware of the severity of the damp problem.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of ASB
2. the resident’s reports of damp.

Reasons

The landlord did not investigate the resident’s ASB reports appropriately during April 2019 to February 2020 and July 2020 to March 2021. It failed to consider his evidence, make attempts to collect its own evidence and take actions it was obliged to consider under its ASB policy.
The landlord has failed to demonstrate that its contractors attempted to gain access to the resident’s property during November 2019 to July 2020 despite being aware of a severe damp problem.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord to pay compensation totalling £350 to the resident comprised of:
1. £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to him by its service failures in the handling of his reports of ASB
2. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to him by its services failures in the handling of his reports of damp.
The landlord to make contact with the resident to:
1. determine whether any ASB from the upstairs property is ongoing
2. if so, consider conducting a victim assessment, agreeing an action plan and conducting a nuisance investigation in line with its ASB policy.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord to write to the resident to signpost him as to the process for him to claim for possessions that he has reported were damaged by damp and the subsequent works to his property during July 2020.
The landlord to ensure relevant staff are reminded of the obligations within its ASB policy to consider the range of tools and measures it has to manage ASB and support complainants.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to these recommendations to this Service within eight weeks of the date of this report.