Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202323154)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323154

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

30 May 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
1. The service provided by the managing company.
2. Anti-social behaviour.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder (100%), his lease is with the landlord. The property is a 1 bedroom second floor flat. The landlord is the head leaseholder of the property; and all the flats within the resident’s block but is not the freeholder of the building. The freeholder of the building selected a managing agent to manage the building when the site was in development stages. The landlord is required under its lease with the freeholder to pay management and maintenance costs to the management company. For the purposes of this report this company will be referred to as the managing agent.
From the evidence provided, the resident had historically complained about a neighbour to the landlord since 2020. A tenancy warning was issued to the neighbour in May 2020. The landlord opened a further ASB case on 26 July 2022, as the resident had made allegation of noise nuisance against the same neighbour who was a tenant of the landlord, further reports of cannabis use were also made. The landlord sent the neighbour a tenancy warning letter on 2 September 2022 and carried out a joint visit with the police where it noted a smell of cannabis but was unable to pinpoint where it was coming from. In April 2023, the landlord suggested the resident consider a community trigger, it advised that it was difficult to take action against the neighbour as the nuisance reported was not “persistent”. The resident made further reports in May 2023, that the neighbour was tampering with the shutter to the car park and that he witnessed them vomiting out the window. The landlord sent a further warning letter to the neighbour.
In addition to the above issue being reported directly to the landlord, the resident raised several concerns to the managing agent since November 2022. These included:
1. The lift being out of use for a long time.
2. The roller shutter to the car park being out of service more often than it was in use due to people breaking it constantly.
3. The bike storage being vandalised and was yet to be fixed.
4. The front door to the block not shutting properly.
5. Pigeons nesting on the roof.
6. The building being in a general state of poor condition.
7. The increase in the heating charges (the resident raised this in January 2023).
The managing agent responded to the resident’s concerns about the above and continued to liaise with him up until his complaint.
The resident emailed a complaint to the landlord on 31 July 2023 about the poor service he was receiving from the managing agent. He gave examples of the service failures and said in general he was “very disappointed and dissatisfied”. The resident advised he had initially complained to the managing agent but was advised to complain to his landlord.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 5 September 2023. This included:
1. It confirmed the action which had been taken in the examples the resident had raised about the car park shutter, the bike stores and the pigeons.
2. It said it had been liaising with the managing agent on the issues raised and had been assured repairs were in the process of being made or there was not enough money in the budget to complete some of the replacements needed.
3. It acknowledged the managing agent had not always provided the best service but advised the resident was still required to pay the service charge as per his lease agreement.
4. It confirmed it would meet the resident on site, with the managing agent to identify all outstanding issues.
5. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £50 compensation for some service failures.
6. It offered a further £30 compensation for the delay in responding to the complaint.
The resident requested his complaint be escalated on 7 September 2023. He said the response only covered some of the issues and listed the below as being omitted:
1. People smoking cannabis.
2. Smoke nuisance.
3. The heating charge increase.
4. The condition of the building getting worse.
5. The use of the CCTV.
On 25 September 2023, the landlord increased its offer of compensation at stage 1 to £130 as it had failed to include all the points the resident had raised.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 December 2023. This included:
1. It confirmed that cannabis use was a legal matter for the police to handle, and it had no authority to act against the usage of illegal substances.
2. It apologised that the resident was not specifically told about the increase to the heating but said letters would have been sent about any change to service charges.
3. It confirmed the CCTV was working, but footage was unable to be provided to prove this due to data protection.
4. It said a lot of the resident’s repair complaints had now been actioned, including the car park, it advised the bike stores remained insecure, and the resident should claim his stolen bike on the building insurance with the managing agent.
5. It confirmed the internal decoration would be included for the upcoming year.
6. It said multiple signs had been put up about cannabis use but advised it would raise a case when reported alongside the police.
7. It confirmed it was the liaison between its residents and the managing agent.
8. It upheld the resident’s complaint and said, despite some aspects being the responsibility of the managing agent, it should have more efficiently managed the issues between itself and the managing agent to get the matters resolved.
9. It offered £50 compensation to reflect the delays in its stage 2 response.
Evidence of a further group complaint about the service provided by the managing agent, was sent directly to the managing agent on 18 February 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

The resident states that he had experienced issues with the managing agent and landlord for several years, concerning the service provided. This investigation has focussed on events in the year prior to the resident’s first formal stage 1 complaint response. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
Paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of the rent or service charge increases. Part of the resident’s complaint relates to the increase in service charges. While the Ombudsman can consider how the landlord handled the resident’s complaint about service charges, it does not have the jurisdiction to consider whether the service charges or the increases were reasonable, as that would be a matter for the First Tier Tribunal. This aspect of the resident’s complaint is therefore outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Within his complaint, the resident mentioned a leaking sky light on the 4th floor of the building and water ingress into other properties, as an example of the service being provided by the managing agent. To be clear this report will not investigate matters which do not directly impact the resident. This is not a group complaint and although the resident believes his sentiment is shared by others, he is not acting for other residents in any formal capacity.
Paragraph 35(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “a complaint is duly made when it has exhausted, or the Ombudsman has decided it has exhausted, the members internal process for considering complaints”. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 6 December 2023.This Service asked the landlord to provide evidence related to this investigation to assist with the assessment and determination. However, the information it provided contained evidence of activity that goes beyond its final stage 2 complaint response, and therefore beyond the scope of this investigation. It is, however, prudent for some elements of the additional evidence to be considered and referenced in the report; where it provides clarity on activity that is within the scope of this report. Where this occurs, it is noted.

Service provided by management company

There is a superior lease between the landlord and the freeholder of the block within which the property is located. The freeholder appointed a managing agent which is responsible for providing services to the block, including the maintenance and the provision of repairs. According to this superior lease dated 2014, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance to the property. In this case this means under the superior lease the landlord is responsible for the internal of the resident’s property, including the front door. The lease between the landlord and the resident, says the resident takes over the responsibility to repair and maintain the property.
The superior lease states that the managing agent is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the common parts, this includes, the car park gate shutter, the bike store, the decoration of the corridors, and the general condition of the building. The superior lease also says that the landlord is to enter into a heat services agreement with the managing agent. It therefore does not have control over the heating bills. The resident’s main concerns were regarding the service provided by the managing agent, the condition of the building, or what the service charges covered. The resident provided evidence that he initially complained to the managing agent and escalated his complaint to the Property Ombudsman. As the resident’s lease is with the landlord, not the managing agent, the Property Ombudsman directed the resident to this Service. According to its website, the Property Ombudsman is able to consider complaints about the managing agent on behalf of the freeholder, head leaseholder or residents’ management company. The situation is complicated by the development’s ownership structure. The information seen shows the managing agent was appointed by the freeholder. In other words, it is not the landlord’s agent.
Taking the above into consideration, when the resident raised concerns about the service being provided it would be reasonable to expect pro-active engagement from the landlord with the managing agent and raise these concerns on behalf of the resident. In such situations such as this, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to ensure that there are effective communications between all parties. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord was in communication with the managing agent once the resident made his complaint.
Given the time the resident spent pursuing his complaint, it is understandable that it would have caused him frustration, distress, and inconvenience. The Ombudsman is satisfied however, that the landlord took reasonable steps to engage with the managing agent to obtain the information up until the point it provided its stage 2 response.
This Service finds that there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the services provided by the managing agent. This is because it appropriately liaised with the managing agent who was responsible for the maintenance of the building and updated the resident appropriately.

Anti social behaviour

Having considered the information supplied to this investigation, it is important to note that it is not this Service’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it had received and whether it had followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account all of the circumstances of the case.
When a landlord receives reports of antisocial behaviour, it is required to investigate those reports. This may include speaking to any witnesses, reviewing incident diaries, and liaising with the police or other agencies where appropriate. After reviewing the evidence gathered, the landlord would then determine the most appropriate action on a case-by-case basis. In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve a case of antisocial behaviour or a tenancy breach can be limited and may not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome. It is therefore important to consider whether the landlord has acted in line with good industry practice when responding to any reports.
It is evident from the information provided that the resident complained to the landlord and managing agent about another resident within the block who was a tenant of the landlord. His complaints included noise nuisance, playing loud music and the smoking of cannabis.
While it is reasonable to allow the police to take the lead on any criminal investigation, and it is noted that the landlord signposted the resident to the police about drug use, the Ombudsman would still expect a landlord to carry out its own evidence gathering alongside a police investigation. This is because a police investigation will not always result in action being taken, and there is action a landlord can take, depending on the evidence available to it, which does not require any police involvement. The landlord took a stance that is had no authoritative power regarding cannabis use, it is not evident that it considered if this was deemed as a nuisance under the terms of its tenancy agreement with the neighbour.
In addition to the above, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations in actions it could take following his reports. The resident had reported music being played loudly and provided noise app recordings, however the landlord’s record indicate it did not deem this to be ASB as it was at a reasonable hour. No evidence has been seen to demonstrate that the landlord advised the resident of this, failing to manage his expectations on the action it would take.
It is noted that the noise reports were not persistent, however the landlords case records of what was reported built up a picture of a pattern of behaviour. In May 2023, the managing agent made it clear it had sought advice from its legal team with regard to action it could take against the landlord due to the actions of its tenant. The landlord sought legal advice as it noted the ASB to be “reoccurring” but not persistent, this was reasonable and demonstrated that the landlord not only recognised the impact the neighbour’s behaviour was having on the resident, but also understood the potential severity of the wider impact on its lease.
It is noted that the resident complained about this neighbour vandalising the car park gate, this seems to have been picked up amongst the several issues ongoing between all 3 parties. The landlord provided evidence of its investigations with the neighbour, who denied the allegations made against them. The landlord appropriately advised the resident in writing on 15 September 2023 on how to gather evidence, including diary sheets it provided. No evidence of these being completed has been provided.
The resident’s complaint including the use of CCTV, as he believed the landlord or managing agent could view the CCTV to prove his allegations against his neighbour. This point seems to have been misunderstood as the landlord’s stage 2 response said it could not release CCTV to the resident. Although the managing agent advised the resident in July 2023, of the CCTV systems restrictions on viewing, the landlord could have detailed this in its final response to avoid any further mis communications.
Overall, the landlord responded to the residents reports of ASB in a timely manner, it provided evidence of its investigation and updated the resident accordingly. The situation is made complicated with the third party (managing agent) also being involved. A finding of service failure has been made as the landlord failed to effectively manage the resident’s expectations of the actions it could take, and it failed to demonstrate that it considered drug use as nuisance under the terms of its tenancy agreement. This resulted in the resident becoming increasingly frustrated with the landlord as he felt it should be taking action against his neighbour.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and details of lessons learned) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This service will also consider the resulting distress and inconvenience, and the resident’s circumstances will be taken into account.
The landlord offered the resident £50 for some of its service failures in its stage 1 response. This figure is in line with our Remedies guidance, which suggests amounts of £50 to £100 in cases where there were minor failures by a landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and/or fully put them right. In this case the landlord’s offer of compensation does not quite reflect the detriment to the resident and is not quite proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation, therefore the landlord has been ordered to pay a further £50 to the resident.

Complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy, states that it operates a 2 stage complaint process. It states that at stage 1, it will agree a resolution with the resident within 10 working days. If the resident escalates a complaint to stage 2, then a response will be provided within 20 working days. At both stage 1 and stage 2, the policy states that if the complaint is particularly complex, the landlord may need longer than the prescribed timescales to resolve it. In these instances, it says the resident will be kept informed and regularly updated on the reasons for this.
The resident first made a complaint on 31 July 2023; the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 5 September 2023. This was 26 working days in total, 16 outside of its policy timescale. It also failed to provide a full response at this initial stage, resulting in the resident spending time and trouble escalating his complaint. It is noted the landlord increased its offer of compensation to reflect this failing once the complaint had escalated. It did not however, evidence any learning from this within its complaint investigation. In addition, its stage 2 response was also outside these timescales. It provided its stage 2 response 64 working days after the resident requested to escalate his complaint on 7 September 2023. Although the landlord acknowledged these delays within its complaint responses, it gave no reason for them which is not reasonable. The landlord failed to demonstrate its learning from its acknowledged service failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
It is evident the resident sent his complaint into the managing agent initially, meaning his complaint process was longer than that is included in this investigation. Although it is noted the landlord has an agreement with the managing agent, it was not evident that complaints made by its residents were monitored. A recommendation has been for the landlord to consider having adequate monitoring processes in place to ensure its general oversight of operational matters, including complaints.
In summary, the landlord provided both its responses outside of its policy timescales, resulting in a protracted complaint process for the resident. No reason for the delays was given, which amounted to an avoidable 60 working day delay. It failed to provide a full response at its initial stage and failed to demonstrate any learning within its complaint process. Due to the length of the delays, a finding of maladministration has been made. When a landlord acknowledges that something went wrong, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to put things right and offer a proportionate level of redress for the circumstances of the case. The landlord offered the resident a total of £130 for the delays. An amount of £250 has been ordered to reflect the time and trouble by the resident spent pursuing his complaint with the landlord. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance, where a landlord has made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the services provided by the managing agent.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £350 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £100 for its service failure identified in response to the residents reports of ASB.
  2. £250 for its failures identified in its complaint handling.
This compensation replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £130. The landlord must pay this compensation directly to the resident and not apply it to his rent account or similar, unless the resident requests this. If the landlord has paid its previously offered compensation of £130, or any part of it, it may deduct this from the amount ordered above.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must initiate and complete a management review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan that must be shared with this Service outlining at minimum its review findings in respect of:
1. Its intention and a timescale to review its oversight of its complaint processes with a particular focus on improving its overall timescales to respond, its communication with residents about any delays and how it captures any learning from complaints.
2. The information provided to residents reporting ASB, to ensure clear information can be given to ensure residents understand what actions are available for the landlord to take in the circumstances.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider its monitoring processes in place to ensure it has adequate general oversight of operational matters, including complaints from its residents about the managing agent.
It is recommended the landlord seek advice about advocating on behalf of its residents’ their complaints about the managing agent with the Property Ombudsman.
The landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and managing agents, published in March 2022 with regards to the above recommendations.