Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202331739)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331739

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

15 August 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.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s concern that she should not have been moved to a property with anti-social behaviour (ASB) from neighbours in 2021.
2. The resident’s request to be rehoused.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy at the property, a 2-bedroom 1st floor flat in a 2-storey converted house comprising 6 flats. The resident lives at the property with her 2 daughters, who were aged 10 and 13 at the time of the complaint. The 2 alleged perpetrators’ flats share a communal landing with the resident.
The resident was moved by the landlord to the property in February 2021 as an emergency management transfer. This was because the resident was a victim of sexual assault in the area of her previous address.
The resident reported ASB at the property to the landlord on 28 February 2023. She said she had been suffering from ASB from 2 of her neighbours every day since she moved in. She said the incidents included one neighbour (neighbour A) walking in the communal areas naked and using threatening language of a sexual nature towards women in the block and another neighbour (neighbour B) using racial slurs. The resident raised a concern that the landlord should not have moved her to a property with a history of ASB given her history of sexual assault. The landlord opened an ASB case and asked the resident to continue reporting any ASB to the police as well as to the landlord.
The resident complained to the landlord on 2 October 2023. She said she felt unsafe in the property and wanted the landlord to be accountable for its decision to move her to the property without consideration for the history of ASB at the property. She wanted the landlord to move her. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 11 October 2023. It acknowledged that the priority of her emergency management move was to move her to a property where she felt safer and that it was difficult to guarantee that any property was free from potential issues. It said it had followed its management move process and provided the resident with its home moves team details if she wanted to enquire about moving home.
The resident was dissatisfied with the response as she felt the landlord had not addressed that it had known there was a history of ASB at the property before moving her in. The resident was unhappy that the landlord had failed to offer a solution to her current situation and said she wanted to be moved immediately. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 4 January 2024 and reiterated that it had followed its management move process when it moved her to the property in 2021. It said it had since changed the process to carry out checks to neighbouring properties when considering management moves. It confirmed she was registered for rehousing through the local authority and explained it could not guarantee a timeframe for a suitable property to come available due to limited stock. It offered £200 compensation comprising £150 for the delayed complaint response and £50 for confusion caused by a typing error in the stage 1 response.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and referred the matter to this Service in January 2024. In referring the matter, she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s overall response and said she wanted the landlord to rehouse her as a priority.

Events after the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process

On 18 January 2024 the landlord offered the resident a further £300 compensation taking the total offered to £500. The landlord said this was because although it had followed its process correctly, it acknowledged this was no consolation for the situation the resident found herself in. It also said it would offer additional support to help the resident secure a new home. The resident accepted the offer of compensation.
On the same day, 18 January 2024, the landlord approved the resident’s application for a management transfer. It explained that there could be a long wait and recommended the resident consider a mutual exchange as well as continuing to search for a property with the local authority. It explained it would not provide updates and would only be in contact once a suitable property was found. As of the date of this report, the resident remains on the management transfer list.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In communication with the landlord after the initial complaint was made, and in referring the matter to this Service, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the ASB, specifically with its request for her to continue reporting the ASB. She felt the landlord should already have enough evidence to take action from previous reports. Her dissatisfaction was not raised as part of her complaint to the landlord. The Ombudsman may not investigate complaints that the landlord has not had the opportunity to investigate. Therefore as this issue was not investigated as part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord, it has not been assessed as part of this investigation. However a recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident regarding any current ASB and to confirm if the resident wishes to open a complaint about its handling of the matter.
Throughout the complaint, and in communication with this Service, the resident said the situation has had an impact on her health and wellbeing and that of her family. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more suitable to be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts and has not been assessed as part of this investigation. Instead consideration has been given to the overall distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident and her family.

The resident’s concern that she should not have been moved to a property with ASB from the neighbours in 2021.

The landlord’s housing allocations policy says that, in all agreed management transfers, the resident will be entitled to one reasonable offer of a property. The policy further notes that it reserves the right to refuse a high-risk applicant nominated by the local authority due to locally specific circumstances. However its policy does not include any similar vetting process for management transfers.
In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged that it did not complete checks on neighbouring properties when allocating properties on emergency management transfers. It said its priority was to move the resident away from their current situation and that it would be difficult for it to guarantee that a property had no issues. It explained there was a shortage of properties for management moves due to the low number of properties available and the urgency to move a resident in these circumstances.
The landlord was correct when it said it had followed its policy in placing the resident in the property in 2021 through an emergency management transfer. However this investigation has found that it was unreasonable, in these circumstances, for the landlord to have applied a one size fits all approach. It is unreasonable that the resident’s history of sexual assault was not considered when this property was offered to her, regardless of what its policy said, given the evident history of ASB at the block. This is of particular note as the ASB from neighbour A included reports of shouting in communal areas about sexually assaulting women. It is understandable that this would be distressing for the resident and it is unreasonable that the landlord failed to consider this or at least tell the resident about the possibility of ASB in the block. This would have allowed her to make an informed decision about the suitability of the move.
It was misleading of the landlord to have said it was difficult for it to guarantee the property had no issues when the evidence shows the landlord was aware of the history of ASB at the block. It was unreasonable that the landlord applied such a rigid approach to its policy and this was a failure.
Furthermore, the landlord’s safeguarding policy notes that all staff have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of customers. The policy also says the landlord expects its staff to use professional curiosity in establishing what “being safe” means to its customers and how that can be best achieved. In this case it is reasonable to conclude that the ASB from neighbour A, including shouting about sexually assaulting women, would have been intimidating to the resident because of her history of sexual assault. The landlord’s failure to consider the resident’s vulnerability was in direct conflict with the responsibilities and approach outlined in its safeguarding policy and this is a failure.
In its stage 2 response the landlord reiterated that it had followed its policy correctly but said it had since changed the process using the feedback from this case. It said the relevant team would now complete checks of neighbouring and surrounding properties before recommending a property for a management move. It said this should reduce any potential risks to the residents involved. It is positive that the landlord used the feedback from this complaint to implement a change to its process. However it is noted that no change has been made to the policy available on its website. Without amending its policy, it is unclear how the landlord hoped to implement this change. The landlord must ensure its current policies include this change and an order has been made below to reflect this. The landlord must also consider how it can reassure the resident that it will take her vulnerabilities into account in any future moves and an order has been made below in this regard.
In her communication with the landlord, the resident outlined on multiple occasions that the situation was having a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing and that of her daughters. She said the situation had caused her to have time off work unpaid due to stress and that it was affecting the whole family’s ability to sleep. She said her eldest daughter was suffering with her mental health whilst struggling to study for her GCSEs and her younger daughter had started wetting the bed due to the anxiety the situation was causing. There is no evidence of the landlord making referrals to any relevant support agencies until, on 29 January 2024, the resident said that she was worried she may end up dead or in prison as a result of the situation. In response to this comment, the landlord offered to refer the resident to tenancy support as it was concerned about what she had said. It is unclear from the evidence if this referral ever happened as the resident told the landlord the only thing that would help would be to be rehoused. It is unreasonable that the landlord failed to offer any referrals to support agencies at an earlier stage given the impact the situation was having on the resident and her family and this is a failure.
The landlord did not offer any compensation for this element of the complaint during the formal complaints process. However on 18 January 2024 it offered the resident £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the overall situation the resident was in. It is unclear from the evidence what prompted this additional offer but it is noted that the resident had informed the landlord that she did not accept its stage 2 response and would be escalating the issue further. Although it is positive that the landlord reviewed the compensation offer and increased the amount offered, the landlord should have used its complaint process to offer this remedy at an earlier stage and so this remains a failure.
As outlined in this Service’s remedies guidance, an offer of £300 equates to a failure which adversely affected the resident where the landlord failed to appropriately acknowledge its failures. This offer is considered proportionate to the failures outlined in this section. However it is noted that it was unfair that the resident had to repeatedly assert her dissatisfaction with the situation and threaten an escalation of the complaint to receive a remedy that was proportionate to the failure identified. This has been addressed below in the assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling.
In conclusion, although the landlord followed with its housing allocations policy when placing the resident in the property, it failed to demonstrate flexibility or discretion in its application of the policy. It also failed to jointly consider its obligations under its other policies, such as its safeguarding policy. It was unreasonable that the landlord failed to consider the impact that the ASB may have on the resident given her history of sexual assault. This investigation has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter and orders have been made below regarding its implementation of the new policy.

The resident’s request to be rehoused.

The resident first asked to be rehoused by the landlord in September 2023. In response, the landlord explained that the current ASB case did not meet the criteria for a management transfer. The landlord’s housing allocations policy says a management transfer may be considered if a resident or household member is at risk of significant harm such as from serious domestic abuse or as a victim of hate crime. It further says it would require supporting evidence from the police or other external agency and that it may also consider transfers on receipt of official medical documentation detailing why the current property is unsuitable for the resident.
The evidence shows the ASB reported at the time, although distressing for the resident, did not meet this criteria and so the landlord acted appropriately in rejecting the resident’s request for a management transfer. It did say it would confirm this decision with senior staff members in case her history could be taken into account when considering her for a move but that there were no guarantees. In its stage 1 response the landlord confirmed the resident could contact its home moves team with regards to her options to be rehoused through the council. There is no evidence of it responding directly to her request prior to this, however this investigation is satisfied that the landlord offered a clear answer to the resident’s request.
In response to the resident’s request to be rehoused, the landlord:
1. Provided contact details for the relevant team for the resident to discuss her options for moving home in its stage 1 response.
2. Recommended the resident apply for a mutual exchange in an email conversation on 6 November 2023.
3. Confirmed the resident’s current status on the local authority housing register in its stage 2 response.
4. Accepted the resident onto its management transfer list on 18 January 2024.
5. Managed the resident’s expectations at each point of contact that there would likely be a long wait for a suitable property to come available.
These were all reasonable steps in handling the resident’s request to be rehoused and they were all taken in a timely manner.
It is unclear from the evidence what prompted the landlord to accept the resident onto its management transfer list in January 2024 following its previous refusal to do so. In its email to the resident on 18 January 2024 the landlord said it would offer any additional support available to it to help the resident secure a new home, but it did not explain specifically what this meant. Although it is positive that the landlord agreed to offer additional support and accepted the resident onto its transfer list it would have been reasonable for it to explain the reasoning behind this and what had changed since it last considered her request. In the absence of evidence this investigation has not been able to draw a conclusion on the matter. However, it is recommended that the landlord consider how it can use its complaints process to achieve lasting solutions rather than waiting for complaints to escalate before exploring any alternative options or solutions.
In conclusion, the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policy in explaining the resident did not meet the criteria for approval to its management transfer list in the first instance. The landlord later reconsidered its decision and approved her application and although it is unclear what prompted this decision, it ultimately offered the resident a solution she had sought through her initial complaint. This investigation has found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident regarding her status on the management transfer list since it has been 8 months since she was accepted onto the list.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It responded to the stage 1 complaint within these timescales however failed to meet the stage 2 target. The resident escalated her complaint on 12 October 2023 and the landlord issued its response on 4 January 2024, 57 working days later (accounting for the bank holidays over the Christmas period).
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged and apologised for this delay and said it needed to do better in future to ensure communication is more effective around complaints. It offered £150 compensation in recognition of the delay.
It also offered £50 for confusion caused by a typing error in the stage 1 complaint. The landlord had incorrectly said the resident had been living at the property since 2011 rather than 2021 and the resident felt this had impacted on their investigation. The landlord reassured the resident that this was only a typing error and had no bearing on its assessment or the outcome of the complaint.
These were proportionate offers in line with this Service’s remedies guidance which equates offers of this amount to failures which had an adverse effect on the resident but caused no lasting impact.
The landlord failed to adequately address the level of compensation required to resolve the complaint satisfactorily and only did so 14 days after the complaint had exhausted its internal complaints procedure. For this reason an order for an additional £50 compensation has been made in recognition of the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the lateness of the offer of compensation.
In conclusion, although the landlord acknowledged and compensated the resident for its delays in handling the complaint in its stage 2 response, it failed to offer a proportionate amount to resolve the complaint overall within its complaint process and only did so 2 weeks later. Therefore, this investigation has found service failure with regards to the landlord’s complaint handling and an order for an additional £50 compensation has been made below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern that she should not have been moved to a property with ASB from the neighbours in 2021.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident the £500 previously offered, if not already paid.
2. Pay the resident an additional £50 in recognition of the time and trouble caused as a result of its complaint handling failures.
3. Update its housing allocations policy, procedure or process map or similar relevant policy to ensure the changes to the management transfer process are included. The updated document should specifically note that it considers local circumstances of properties prior to making offers for management moves. To comply with this order, the landlord must consider the following:
  1. If the policy, procedure or process map has already been updated, the landlord should provide an updated copy of this policy to the resident and this Service and ensure the version available on its website is updated.
  2. If the landlord’s governance structure restricts it from amending the policy, procedure or process map within 4 weeks then this Service will accept a draft version of the amendments as evidence of compliance. The landlord should then confirm to this Service a timescale by which it expects to publish the amended version, which should be no longer than 12 weeks from the date of drafting the amendments.
4. Write to the resident confirming how it will consider her needs and vulnerabilities when a suitable property is offered through its management transfer list. A copy of the email or letter must be shared with this Service.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident regarding any current ASB and to confirm if the resident wishes to open a complaint about its handling of the matter.
The landlord should contact the resident to update her on her status on the management transfer list.