Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202334047)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat in a block of flats. She began reporting both noise nuisance from multiple dogs in a neighbouring property, and antisocial behaviour (ASB) from this same neighbour in August 2023. The landlord logged an ASB case in November 2023, then began dealing with the resident as an ASB complainant in January 2024. The landlord collected evidence of the noise nuisance and then took enforcement action against the neighbour. The neighbour moved out of their property in December 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord’s communication with the resident was not consistent over the life of the ASB case, and the failings it identified did not cover all of the periods when it was not supporting the resident as an ASB complainant. There were also periods where the landlord did not effectively safeguard the resident’s wellbeing. As such, the compensation offered was not sufficient to put things right.
7. There were lengthy delays in the complaint progressing at stage 2. Multiple attempts by the resident to express dissatisfaction following the stage 1 response were not identified as reasonable requests to escalate the complaint. The landlord caused confusion by logging the complaint at stage 2 twice under different reference numbers.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not considered

8. We are aware that the resident had requested compensation, partly for both missing out on employment opportunities due to the distress caused by the ASB, and because this issue had negatively impacted her mental wellbeing. We do not consider claims for loss of opportunity in any legal sense, because it requires finding of breach of contract or negligence. The courts deal more appropriately with these, and also with any claims of impact on health as they have the required expertise to make these determinations. We can however assess compensation more generally in terms of any distress and inconvenience caused.

What we have considered

9. The landlord’s ASB policy confirmed that reports of persistent noise nuisance and harassment were treated as ‘Level 2- Persistent nuisance’, and that these reports would be acknowledged by the landlord within 3 working days. It also outlined the different ways that it could tackle ASB, such as using early intervention strategies and working with partner agencies. It also said that it would work to safeguard vulnerable adults from harm.
10. The landlord’s safeguarding policy gives more detail on what is meant by safeguarding. It explained that staff should use professional curiosity in establishing what being safe means to each resident, and how this best can be achieved. It also says that 2 principles that underpin adult safeguarding are supporting residents to make the best decisions they can, and to collaborate with agencies who may be better placed to prevent harm.
11. We can see that the resident began reporting the ASB to the landlord in August 2023. In its stage 1 response in October 2023 the landlord said that it had notified relevant authorities about the animal welfare and these agencies did not report any concerns. This is supported by evidence that the landlord was in contact with both the RSPCA and the local authority’s Environmental Health Department (EHD) prior to its stage 1 response.
12. However, the landlord’s statement that it had taken all the actions it could have done was incorrect. We cannot see that it acknowledged the resident’s reports within 3 working days. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the neighbour about the reports of noise nuisance and verbal abuse towards the resident at this stage, nor that it had explored the feasibility of any other intervention or risk assessment.
13. Once the ASB case was logged on 30 November 2023, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her concerns until 18 January 2024. We can see that the first few reports on the case are counter-allegations of ASB (made by the neighbour, about the resident) between November 2023 and January 2024, and it is unclear whether, when the case was first logged, the resident had been logged as the alleged perpetrator, and vice versa.
14. It is understandable in neighbour disputes that both parties can make allegations about the other, and that both need to be heard and supported while the facts are established. However, in November 2023 it already knew that the resident had logged a complaint about its handling of this issue, and it should have kept her updated and provided an action plan in her role as an ASB complainant.
15. From January to August 2024 the landlord did manage the case effectively, using a range of tools available to challenge ASB. It referred the noise nuisance to EHD more formally in an effort to collect evidence of the noise. It promptly responded to have rubbish removed from a garden after the resident reported it had been spread there intentionally.
16. Between April and June 2024 the landlord escalated action against the neighbour’s tenancy, sending 2 warning letters, and then telling the neighbour that their tenancy would not be renewed when it expired later that year. It also demonstrated good customer service by keeping the resident updated on these developments, and encouraging contact between her and EHD.
17. After the stage 2 response was issued the landlord began to consider applying for an injunction as an interim measure. While it did initially keep the resident updated on this, a handover to a different member of staff coincided with a fall in the standard of its ASB case handling. This injunction ultimately did not go ahead, but we cannot see that the landlord  confirmed this to the resident. The landlord also confirmed to us it did not have evidence of any contact with the resident from 19 September 2024 to when the neighbour’s tenancy ended on 5 December 2024. During this time the resident continued to report ASB.
18. The landlord missed opportunities to safeguard the resident during the earlier stages of the complaint. On 11 October 2023 the resident said she required some degree of mental health support from the landlord. Later on 3 November 2023 the resident described being in a mental health crisis to the landlord. During this time we cannot see evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to check on her wellbeing, nor if it considered if any referrals could be made to external support services.
19. Much like with the more general ASB case handling, the landlord’s efforts to safeguard the resident improved from January 2024 onwards. In a call on 24 January it checked if she was connected with mental health services, and that she was aware of who she could contact in a crisis. It called the resident to check in again in May 2024 after she had expressed being highly distressed, and encouraged her to contact the Crisis line. At this time the landlord also made referrals to a support coaching service for victims of ASB, and to have this case added to the agenda of a multi-agency risk meeting. These are examples both of it taking the time to understand what safety meant to the resident, and making appropriate referrals to more specialised services.
20. While, at stage 2, the landlord acknowledged not opening an ASB case for the first 3 months after the resident first stated making reports it missed the chance to identify the additional failings above. Though there were periods where the landlord’s handling of the ASB was good, on balance its offer of £300 compensation was not sufficient. In addition to the learning order, we have ordered that this be increased to a total of £450 in line with our compensation guidance. This is to reflect the periods where possible interventions were not considered by the landlord, and it was not keeping the resident updated, as well as the considerable impact the ASB had on the resident.

21. The Code in place (at the time of the complaint being considered at stage 1) required landlords to issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of a complaint being logged, and to issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days of a complaint being escalated. Later during the landlord’s consideration at stage 2 our Code had been updated to give landlords an additional 5 working days to acknowledge a complaint at both stages. These timescales were mirrored in the landlord’s complaints policy.
22. The Code also makes clear that if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, then it must be progressed to stage 2.
23. The complaint was promptly acknowledged at stage 1, and the full response was issued within its timescales.
24. As stated above, as early as 3 November 2023 the resident contacted the landlord’s complaints team directly and reported that the substantive issue was not resolved. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to consider escalating the complaint at this point. However, it did not do so and the resident had chase this on a number of occasions in April and May 2024.
25. Once the landlord had acknowledged the complaint at stage 2, it created confusion by doing so again a month later, this time with a different reference number. This is reflected in an internal email dated 3 June 2024 in which a member of staff asks for clarification, as they believed that the complaint was already being considered at stage 2. This led to further delays in the progress of the complaint.
26. Following this, the stage 2 response was not issued until 7 July 2024. These further delays meant that it took a total of 170 working days for the complaint to complete stage 2. This is considerably outside of the timescales set out in the Code.
27. The landlord missed an opportunity to demonstrate learning as it did not acknowledge these delays, nor that it logged the complaint at stage 2 twice. As such, in addition to the learning order we have awarded £150 compensation. This is in line with our compensation guidance for cases where there were both delays lasting months and  significant complaint handling errors.

Learning

28. We have asked the landlord to complete a learning review. It failed to follow its safeguarding and ASB policies for the first few months that the complaint was live. The landlord acknowledged failings but it needs to know why these events occurred to avoid repeating similar failures in future.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord’s record keeping was sufficient to be able to investigate the complaint.

Communication

30. The landlord’s communication on the ASB was inconsistent with evidence of a lack of communication for the periods from August to December 2023 and from September to December 2024. Its complaint communication was poor and confusing from November 2023 until June 2024.