Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202103596)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103596

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

28 June 2022


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour.
    2. Request to install a security gate.
    3. Formal complaint about these matters.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat in a block of similar properties.
  2. On 31 March 2021 the resident reported anti–social behaviour (ASB) in his block of flats and its communal area as he suspected a neighbour (Neighbour A) was involved in criminal activity. He also had CCTV footage of unidentified youths, who he thought may be connected to Neighbour 1, urinating in the communal area and vandalising a car that belonged to another neighbour (Neighbour B). He said the police had told him that Neighbour B did not want to press charges regarding the vandalised car and he suspected Neighbour A and Neighbour B were linked. The landlord opened an ASB case that day and contacted the resident for more information. The following day the resident said somebody had been banging his door the previous night, and that CCTV footage showed somebody had been rummaging through the communal bins. The landlord contacted the police to report the resident’s concerns and to make a disclosure request to see if the police held any information about Neighbours A and B.
  3. The following week the resident reported that he had private CCTV footage of a child throwing a stone at his car but was not sure whose child it was. The landlord said it would chase up the police disclosure request and inform the police of the additional information. Later in April 2021 the landlord contacted the resident as it was planning to visit the site with a view to installing temporary CCTV. The resident suggested a security gate instead. The landlord advised him that the police disclosure request had not found any intelligence about Neighbours A and B. The resident said he had had no further issues and that the main issue now was ball games and parking issues. The landlord agreed to write to the other residents to see if they were experiencing any ASB issues and on 4 May 2021 the landlord spoke to the one resident who responded to the letter who said that a gate would stop “random people” parking and stop fly tipping.
  4. On 10 May 2021 two members of the landlord’s staff visited the property. They discussed fitting a gate but said it would mean losing at least one parking spot if a gate was installed. And was also a possible risk to emergency vehicles attending. The landlord noted that there was “no case to support a gate at the moment.” The landlord emailed the resident and explained that it had internally “discussed the possibility of a parking gate and/or working bollards on each parking spot but did not think a gate was feasible and due to lack of ASB evidence there is no grounds for a case at the moment”
  5. The resident responded to say that he would start a petition. He confirmed there had been no more problems with Neighbour A, but another neighbour’s children were causing nuisance kicking balls and that the main problem now was fly tipping and parking, hence the need for a gate. On 13 May 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to explain that after a case review it had been decided to close the ASB case and pass the details to the neighbourhoods team, as there was no high level ASB (as initially reported) and issues like parking and ball games could be dealt with by the neighbourhood department.
  6. The resident contacted this Service to say he was unhappy with how the landlord had dealt with his ASB report and that he wanted it to install a security gate. He said he had originally made a complaint in 2020 and had received no complaint response to date. This Service contacted the landlord to request that it respond to the resident’s complaint or explain why it had not by 27 May 2021. The landlord’s internal emails said there was no outstanding complaint from 2020 and that the recent complaint that the resident was referring to was his reports of ASB in March and April 2021 which had been dealt with within an ASB case rather than as a formal complaint.
  7. The next record of any contact is the resident emailing the landlord on 26 May 2021 asking that the email be considered “a follow up to the previous complaints that that have been made requesting that a controlled gate is installed”. He said this had not been acknowledged. He attached a petition (signed by 10 other residents) that said that the residents “who pay the communal charge” were requesting the immediate installation of gate control to prevent people who do not pay the service charge from parking there and to reduce crime in the area. He also advised that he had previously provided CCTV footage of ASB.
  8. On 18 June the resident reported another incident of ASB and the landlord contacted the parent of the child involved. On 20 June 2021 this Service requested that the landlord contact the resident as he was still awaiting a response to his complaint. On 28 June 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that its repairs team would contact him with a date for a surveyor to attend to “see what we can do”. The resident contacted the landlord several times in July 2021 and was told it was still awaiting a quote from its contractor. Following further contact from this Service, the landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 22 July 2021. It said its repairs team had arranged to get a quote for the gate to be installed but could not provide any timescales. It also confirmed that the resident did not pay a service charge for parking and provided a breakdown of his service charges and signposted him to its service charge team for any related queries. The resident escalated the complaint on 28 July 2021 as he said he had been told he would be contacted by a surveyor and had not been and that nothing was being done to progress the case.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord twice in August 2021 to ask for updates as nobody had contacted him. In September 2021, following contact from the resident, this Service requested that the landlord provide a stage two complaint response to the resident. On 6 September 2021 the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had escalated the complaint and would provide a response within 15 working days. On 28 September the landlord apologised that it was over 15 working days but it was awaiting a response from the repairs team as to what date the gate would be installed. On 5 October 2021 this Service told the landlord to provide a stage two complaint response within 5 working days.
  10. On 6 October 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to say the quote the contractor had provided for the gate was for around £45,000 so it would need to go to another team and would issue a full stage two response “once the quote is approved so that I can ensure we have the fix in place and confirm that we are moving forward with the installation” On 15 October 2021, in its stage two complaint response the landlord apologised that it had ”taken a long time to move forward” and said there had been issue with receiving information internally and apologised for that. It said it had now received two quotes for the gate and due to the amount they had been passed to its Planned Maintenance Team. It said it would then “contact all the residents as services charges will be affected and we also need to contact the leaseholders.”
  11. On 12 November 2021 the resident contacted the landlord again for an update on the gate installation. On 15 November 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to say it would not be installing the gate due to the costs involved. It advised him to contact the neighbourhoods team about what other solution could be found to the ASB instead of a gate.
  12. The resident contacted this Service as he was unhappy with how the landlord had dealt with the request for the gate and the reports of ASB. He also questioned the value for money of the service charge, if the money was not being used to keep residents safe.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 39 (i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the part of the resident’s complaint that refers to the level of service charge is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider. Paragraph 39 (i) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in his opinion ‘concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. Any mentions of service charges in this assessment are there purely to provide context and it has not been included in our decision on this complaint.
  2. The resident has also made the Ombudsman aware that he has video footage of new incidents of alleged ASB at the property that he has recorded since the landlord’s stage two response was issued in October 2021. This information is noted, however it is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to the reports of ASB and to any subsequent complaint made about its handling of the ASB reports through its internal process before the Ombudsman becomes involved. This is in line with paragraph 39 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.” This report will assess how the landlord responded to the residents reports of ASB that were made during the period of March to October 2021. 

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

  1. The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy has two categories of ASB; Level 1 includes serious and hate related incidents such as hate crime and violence. Level 2 includes persistent nuisance such as threats of violence or harassment, vandalism, and using the landlord’s housing for unlawful illegal activity. It aims to acknowledge level 1 ASB within one working day and Level 2 ASB within three working days.
  2. The landlord’s website also explains that it considers some things to be neighbour disputes rather than ASB. Its neighbour dispute leaflet explains that it will not normally take action with neighbour disputes such as parking disputes and one–off parties. The landlord’s website also gives guidance on fly tipping and advises residents to report it via its general online reporting form. The landlord will then remove the items within two weeks and if known, will charge the person responsible for the cost of its removal.
  3. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the situation affecting his property would have been distressing for the resident in view of the behaviour reported and the length of time this has been going on for. It is important to be aware that it is outside the role of the Ombudsman to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not. Rather, our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal obligations, ASB policy and industry best practice and whether its response was fair in view of all the circumstances.
  4. The landlord has a Tenancy Solution team who deal with any reports of ASB from its residents and when a resident reports alleged ASB it is expected to follow its ASB policy to investigate the report and if necessary take action. When the resident reported ASB on 31 March 2021, the landlord acted appropriately and in line with its ASB policy by opening an ASB case, categorising the ASB as being at Level 2 and contacting the resident that day to acknowledge and discuss his report. When the resident reported additional alleged ASB the following day and again on 6 April 2021 the landlord acted appropriately by adding that information to the case.
  5. The landlord then took appropriate steps to investigate the ASB reports, which included reporting the resident’s concerns to the police, viewing CCTV footage that the resident had provided, making an information disclosure request to the police about possible criminal activity by Neighbours A and B and discussing ASB prevention options such as installing temporary CCTV.
  6. In order to try to build an ASB case, the landlord sought find out the views and experiences of other residents by writing to them to ask if they had experienced any ASB and by contacting the resident who replied to the letter and advising them that she would check whether a gate was a feasible solution to the ASB. When the police disclosure request determined that there was no intelligence of any criminal activity by Neighbours A and B, the landlord informed the resident of this and checked whether there had been any further concerns about Neighbours A and B and noted that there were no concerns and the main issue at that point was parking, fly tipping and ball games.
  7.  The landlord classes parking and ball games as neighbour disputes rather than ASB so it was appropriate for these issues to be dealt with by the Neighbourhoods Team. Fly tipping could be reported via the landlord’s website and therefore it was not appropriate for the ASB case to be kept open to deal with that issue either.
  8. When the resident made a new report of ASB involving a child vandalising a bollard in June 2021 the landlord acted appropriately by opening a new ASB case, and contacting the parent of the perpetrator. The resident had some concerns about the landlord disclosing to the parent that it was his CCTV footage that the landlord had seen and had also reported that the parent was now dealing directly with the owner of the parking bollard. The case notes say that the case was closed due to lack of engagement from the resident but there is no evidence that the case was dealt with inappropriately.  As the landlord acted appropriately whilst responding to the resident’s reports of ASB in March, April and June 2021 there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the residents reports of antisocial behaviour.  

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to install a security gate.

  1. During the investigations into the resident’s ASB reports in March and April 2021 ASB the resident requested that a security gate be installed. After visiting the building, the landlord concluded that a gate was not a feasible option due to having to lose parking space to accommodate it and potential problems with emergency vehicles accessing the site. The landlord was not obliged to fit a gate as although it is required to maintain the building it is not required to carry out improvements and a gate would be seen as an improvement. The landlord gave valid reasons for not installing a gate and it explained its reasons clearly to the resident.
  2. Once the resident sent a signed petition to the landlord on 26 May 2021 requesting that a gate be installed, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged receipt of the petition and responded to it, even if it ultimately maintained its earlier decision. However, there is no record of the landlord responding to the petition, until, following contact from this Service, one of its officers emailed the resident on 28 June 2021 to say that its repairs team would contact him to arrange a date for a surveyor to visit to “look at what we can do”. As the landlord failed to contact the resident until a month after he had submitted the petition, and then only did so following contact from this Service. In view of this miscommunication there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request to install a security gate.
  3. The landlord could have done more to manage the resident’s expectations by giving timescales for its investigation into the possibility of installing a gate and explaining that it may decide not to install it although it was obtaining quotes for the work. However, the landlord failed to do this and this resulted in the resident contacting the landlord several times during July and August 2021 to ask exactly when either a surveyor or contractor would be visiting to provide a quote, and each time the landlord was unable to provide an answer. The landlord’s stage one complaint response issued on 22 July 2021 also failed to give a timescale for when a quote would be received or when any additional work would take place. This was further service failure by the landlord.
  4. The landlord advised the resident of the quote for the gate around three months after the landlord had originally agreed that a surveyor or contractor would provide a quote which was a long time for the resident to be waiting. There was then a further delay while the landlord reviewed the quote internally and asked for additional quotes in view of the amount involved. It was appropriate for the landlord to obtain further quotes as the cost of fitting and maintaining the gate would ultimately be passed on to residents through their service charges and the landlord had a responsibility to provide good value for money and seek the most competitive price for any major works. However, the landlord should have explained at an earlier stage that more than one quote might be needed to manage the resident’s expectations.
  5. Although the landlord’s decision not to install the gate was reasonable due to the high costs involved and the effect it would have on parking, there was considerable service failure in how it responded to the resident’s request to install a security gate, before it made its final decision. In recognition of this service failure and its effect on the resident this Service believes that compensation of £250 is appropriate. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which suggests amount of between £250-£700 for cases where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration that includes a complainant repeatedly having to chase responses, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. It is noted that the resident told this Service that he had originally made a formal complaint in 2020 that the landlord had not responded to. The landlord was not able to find any record of an outstanding complaint from 2020. It has provided the Ombudsman with information from the resident’s ASB report on 31 March 2021 till its stage two response on October 15 2021 and in the absence of any further evidence, this is the time period that this assessment will cover.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it at stage one of its complaints process it aims to “agree a solution with our customer within 10 working days. If the complaint is particularly complex, we may on occasion need longer than 10 days to resolve. In these instances, the customer will be kept informed and regularly updated on the reasons for this” and that “If the customer is not happy with the decision they have received from us at Stage 1, they have the right for this to be reviewed at Stage 2. A definitive response will be provided within 15 working days following a thorough investigation of the points raised. If the complaint investigation and/or resolution is particularly complex, we may on occasion need longer than 15 days to resolve. In these instances, the customer will be kept informed and regularly updated on the reasons for this.”
  3. The landlord’s complaint policy states that there are some circumstances where a matter will not be considered a complaint, including complaints about neighbour nuisance and antisocial behaviour as it “is not a complaint about our service. It will be dealt with under our Neighbour Dispute or Antisocial Behaviour Policy. Therefore, it was reasonable that the resident’s initial ASB reports in March and April 2021 were not registered as formal complaints and were instead investigated as ASB reports, as this was in line with its complaints policy. However, once this Service contacted the landlord on 13  May 2021 to say that the resident had told us that he was unhappy with how the landlord had dealt with his ASB reports and his request for a gate to be installed, the landlord should have registered this as a formal complaint and responded to it in line with its complaint policy’s timeframes.
  4. The landlord did not issue its stage one complaint response until 22 July 2021, and only after further requests from this Service. This was over two months after this Service originally asked it to provide a response which is unreasonable as it is far outside the 10 working day time frame stated in its complaints policy and the landlord had not kept the resident informed of the delay, as per its policy either. 
  5. Once the resident had escalated his complaint on 28 July 2021 the landlord should have acted in line with its complaints policy and provided a stage two complaint response within 15 working days and kept him informed and updated of any delays in providing it. However, the landlord failed to do so. Following requests from this Service the landlord eventually escalated the complaint on 6 September 2021 and provided its stage two complaint response on 15 October 2021 which was far outside the 15 working day response time stated in its complaints policy and outside the 20 working day response time that this Service recommends. The stage two complaint response was also provided by the same officer who had provided the stage one complaint response which is not appropriate as in order to be fair to the resident a different officer should review the complaint at stage two of the complaints process. This was further service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
  6. This Service believes that in recognition of the repeated service failure in complaint handling and its effect on the resident it is appropriate that the landlord award compensation of £250. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, which suggests amounts within the range of £250-£700 for cases where there are significant failures to follow complaint procedure, escalate the matter or signpost the complainant.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request to install a security gate.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £500 compensation. This is comprised of £250 for its service failure in its response to the resident’s request to install a security gate, and £250 for its failures in complaint handling.
  2. As a security gate is not a feasible option due to the costs involved, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident within four weeks of this decision to discuss what other options may be available to it such as CCTV and/or parking bollards, and to respond to any further reports of ASB that the resident has made if it has not already done so.
  3. The landlord is ordered to review this case to see what lessons can be learned from it. The landlord should share the findings with this review with the resident and the Ombudsman. The review should be carried out within eight weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord provides complaint handling training to any employees who may be involved in investigating complaints.