Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202210685)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210685

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

22 January 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.

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. concerns about the management of the communal parking area;
    2. concerns about trip hazards in communal areas;
    3. concerns about the communal lighting system;
    4. concerns about the operation of the door entry system;
    5. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy. The resident lives in a block of flats. This block shares a communal entry system with the neighbouring property.
  2. The resident has told the Ombudsman that he is a vulnerable adult with a disability.
  3. The resident moved into the property in March 2021. He raised issues with the communal lighting being faulty when this was installed on 30 June 2021. The resident raised further concerns about this on 8 July 2021 and 28 August 2021. He wrote to the landlord on 13 October 2021 to highlight several issues he was having around the estate. He mentioned that he had to disconnect his buzzer due to persistently being called in error on the entry system. The resident also raised issues with uneven flooring in the car park, the drains in the car park and the external communal lighting. The landlord responded on the same day, asking the resident to provide more information due to data protection. There is no evidence this information was subsequently provided to the landlord, or that the landlord followed up these reports with the resident.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 March 2022 to raise a formal complaint. He was unhappy with how the landlord had previously handled his issues. He mentioned the uneven flooring in the communal parking area had not been repaired although a fellow resident had reported this in August 2021. The resident was also unhappy that the car park of the property was being used by people who did not live there, stating that he wished for permits and proper monitoring to take place. The resident raised concerns about the door-entry system being incorrectly wired as well as the outdoor lighting at the property. Finally, he mentioned an issue with a drain in the car park which persistently caused flooding.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 23 March 2022. It said that it had arranged an emergency appointment for contractors to come and inspect the uneven flooring and that it was in the process of raising repairs for the external lights. It also said that it was planning to install a new entry system to alleviate his concerns. It finally said that it would be sending all residents consultation letters about a new parking monitoring service. 
  6. The resident rejected the landlord’s response on 24 March 2022. He felt the landlord had not performed a proper investigation into his concerns and had not addressed all of his issues as:
    1. it had not done enough to stop unauthorised parking and he wanted a barrier erecting at the property;
    2. the letters it had put up about the door entry system were not sufficient and it had failed to act for several years;
    3. the service charge for repairs to the system were unfair due to the landlord’s failure to act on the faulty system;
    4. it had not done enough to repair the uneven flooring after other residents had reported it, and simply cordoning this off was not sufficient.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 10 June 2022. It apologised for the delay in issuing this and offered the resident £50 compensation. It reconfirmed its intention to replace the whole door entry system. It also said it now had instructed a managing company to write to the tenants to explain the conditions of parking and the date this service would be implemented. It confirmed that it had instructed contractors to perform the remedial work necessary to remove the uneven flooring.
  8. The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 18 August 2022 to refer his complaint. He said that the landlord had failed to adequately check the grounds for trip hazards or respond sufficiently to the reports. He also mentioned that since moving into the property, nothing had been done to prevent trespassing. A new company had been appointed to manage the car park but had created issues with friends and families not having the correct permits. The resident reiterated that the signs the landlord put up were still being ignored and the new door entry system had not been delivered. The resident also felt that the landlord had not investigated his concerns about the outdoor lighting, or the drain in the car park. The resident has since contacted the Ombudsman to inform us that the outdoor lighting has now been repaired and the door-entry system replaced.

Assessment and findings

The scope of this investigation

  1. The resident has mentioned that he was unhappy that the landlord had not acted following a fellow resident reporting the uneven flooring in the car park. Whilst this has not been noted for context, this has not been considered as part of this complaint. This is in line with paragraph 42(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern matters raised by a complainant on behalf of another without their authority.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the management of the communal parking area

  1. The landlord does not currently have a policy that lays out how it manages the communal parking area. It has provided the Ombudsman with a parking monitoring process which states that it ‘sets out steps to be taken to consult with our customers and decide on the best option to implement parking control on the scheme’. There is no evidence however that this process has been followed in the timeline of this complaint.
  2. The resident reported that he was unhappy with trespassers frequently using the car park. He mentioned he had taken it upon himself to clear the parking area but wished for the landlord to implement means to manage and control entry to the car park. The landlord (in its stage 2 complaint response) said it had instructed a new management company to manage the area and would be asking them to write to all the residents and outline the conditions of parking and the date this service would be implemented. This was a fair course of action from the landlord. However, the landlord has not provided evidence that this action has been followed up on.
  3. The landlord did acknowledge that it had failed to properly instruct the new management company when they started management of the property. This failure led to unauthorised use of the car park and meant that residents could not properly report any problems.
  4. The resident also reported issues relating to flooding in the communal car park. He believed this was caused by drains overflowing. The landlord failed to acknowledge this in its complaint responses and does not appear to have taken any action to inspect or rectify the issue.
  5. The landlord’s failures in handling the resident’s concerns led to distress and inconvenience for him. For these failings, the landlord should pay him £200 compensation. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures at this level for situations when there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.
  6. The landlord should, if it has not already, write to the resident outlining its policy for the management of the car park, how to obtain the correct validations for the car park and how he can report any issues he may encounter. It is recommended that the landlord publish a parking policy that all residents can access so all are aware of the conditions of using the car park.
  7. The landlord should also contact the resident to discuss his concerns about the drains in the car park and treat this in line with its repairs policy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about trip hazards in communal areas

  1. The landlord’s repair policy has several different timescales for completing repairs. At priority 1, this is within 24 hours. At priority 2, non-emergency repairs, this is within 15 working days. For variable timescale repairs (specialist or major works), the landlord says it will talk through what it intends to do, agree timescales and project manage the work through completion.
  2. It took the landlord approximately 8 and a half months from the resident first reporting the uneven slabs for the first time to it completing the necessary repairs. The resident has mentioned this was raised before by another tenant but as they were not part of this complaint, this has not been considered. Although there was a data protection issue stemming from the resident’s original e-mail to the landlord, what the resident reported was still a health and safety hazard and the landlord did not act for a significant amount of time. The Ombudsman would expect, given the nature of the issue, for the landlord to follow this up, either by attempting to contact the resident on more than one occasion or by performing its own inspection.
  3. The repair involved a tree surgeon due to the cause of the uneven flooring being the growth of roots of a nearby tree. Given this, it is reasonable that the landlord treated this as a variable timescale repair. In the meantime, the landlord inspected on 24 March 2022 and cordoned off the area containing the uneven flooring on 5 April 2022. These appear to have been fair actions to take considering the nature of the repairs.
  4. In its complaint responses, the landlord outlined what it was doing in order to complete the repairs. Although it did not provide timescales, it still offered a plan of action to the resident with the broad details of the repairs it would be performing. These actions were also fair from the landlord.
  5. The landlord’s failure to act upon issues first raised with it in October 2021, especially given the issue was a health and safety one, represented maladministration. Its delay in acting caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience and for this the landlord should pay him £100 compensation. 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the communal lighting system

  1. The resident has reported several issues with the lighting system. These included both indoor and outdoor lights. The resident, in particular, raised issues with the external lighting of the property. The resident reported this lighting was overly sensitive and was turned on so frequently that it disturbed him. The landlord would have been expected to deal with this repair in line with its repair policy detailed previously in this determination.
  2. The landlord has responded to concerns about the indoor communal lighting within good time, following its repair policy in the process.
  3. The landlord said however in its stage 1 response that it raised repairs for the external lights. Although it said it had raised a repair job, it has not provided evidence it performed any inspections, completed work, or contacted the resident about this at the time. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that the landlord has since completed the repairs. Nevertheless, there was a significant delay and this was outside of the timescales the landlord details in its repair policy. The landlord has not provided any evidence detailing its reasons for the delay.
  4. The resident has not referenced this in escalating his complaint to stage 2. However, the resident’s escalation of his complaint was completed on the date that the landlord informed him it was raising a repair. It was not unreasonable therefore that the resident did not mention this when escalating his complaint. The landlord should still have fulfilled the commitments that it made in its stage 1 complaint response.
  5. The landlord’s failure to adequately respond to the resident’s concerns and the delay in completing the necessary work represents maladministration. For this failing, the landlord should pay the resident £200 compensation. The Ombudsman believes this is a fair amount for the time and trouble and inconvenience the landlord’s failure to act has caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the door entry system

  1. The previous door entry system to the building covered both the resident’s block and the neighbouring block. This led to problems for the resident with visitors to the neighbouring block often calling the resident’s property by mistake. Due to the nuisance of this, the landlord agreed to disconnect the resident’s buzzer from the system.
  2. To prevent the incorrect use of the intercom system, the landlord put up notices on two occasions. As this failed to stem the incorrect use of the system, the landlord investigated modifying the system but found this was not possible. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that the system was not a good one and had caused inconvenience for residents. The landlord then committed to replace the whole entry-phone system to stop the inconvenience this was causing.
  3. The landlord cannot be held responsible for members of the public using the intercom system incorrectly. It initially signposted the correct way to use the system and later committed to replacing the system after its initial fix did not work. In its stage 1 response, it said this would take place in the 2022/23 financial year, whilst in its stage 2 complaint response it said it expected this work to be completed by August 2022.
  4. The landlord has now completed this work. It has not provided the date this work was completed however it amended its commitment to the 2023/2024 financial year and fulfilled this. Whilst these steps were fair for the landlord to take, the delay in completing the repair created additional distress and inconvenience for the resident. The delay has also led to the resident’s intercom being disconnected for additional time and he has outlined the inconvenience this caused. This delay therefore represented maladministration from the landlord in its handling of the issue.
  5. The resident also mentioned that he was unhappy about being charged for intercom repairs as part of his service charge, since he felt these stemmed from the landlord’s failure to fix the system. There is however no evidence that these charges have been incorrectly added to the resident’s fixed service charge.
  6. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the communal door entry system. It recognised that it was a poor system, put up additional signage to prevent misuse and committed to replacing the system. However, it failed to do so in the timescales it initially promised to the resident.
  7. For this delay, the landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will respond to a complaint at stage 1 within 10 working days, and 15 working days at stage 2. If the landlord feels it needs an extension to provide its complaint response, it advises residents that it will contact them.
  2. At stage 1, the landlord received the resident’s complaint on 7 March 2022 and provided its response 8 working days later. Whilst this was inside the timescales specified by the landlord’s policy, its response failed to properly provide the resident with the correct referral rights for escalating the complaint. It did not provide the resident with any information about escalating to stage 2 or contacting the Ombudsman. This could have unfairly blocked the resident from accessing the complaints procedure.
  3. At stage 2, the landlord took 52 working days to provide its response, significantly outside of the complaints policy timescales. The landlord offered the resident £50 for this delay within its final response.
  4. The landlord failed in its complaint responses to address several issues which the resident had raised. The issue with the drain in the communal car park was not addressed in either response whilst its commitment at stage 1 to repair the external communal lights was not followed through. The landlord also failed to review or provide an explanation to the resident why it delayed acting on these issues until March 2022 when the resident had first reported these in October 2021. This again represented a failure on the part of the landlord.
  5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The landlord should pay the resident £100, inclusive of its previous offer of £50. This is in recognition of the delay at stage 2, the failure to provide the correct referral rights at stage 1 and the failure to address all issues the resident raised.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the management of the communal parking area.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about trip hazards in communal areas.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the communal lighting system.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the door entry system.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident £700 compensation, consisting of:
  1. £200 for its failure relating to the management of the communal parking area fairly;
  2. £100 for its failures relating to the trip hazards in communal areas;
  3. £200 for its failure relating to the communal lighting system;
  4. £100 for its failures relating to the door entry system;
  5. £100 for the failure in its handling of the associated complaint (inclusive of the £50 it has already offered).
    1. Apologise to the resident.
    2. Write to the resident outlining its policy for the management of the car park, how to obtain the correct validations for the car park and how the resident can report any issues he may encounter.
    3. Contact the resident to discuss his concerns about the drains in the car park and treat this in line with its repairs policy.
  1. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this letter.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord publish a parking policy that all residents can access so all are aware of the conditions of using the car park and what to do if they have any problems.