Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202405076)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405076

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

31 January 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Request for a managed housing transfer.
2. Reports of noise nuisance.

Background

The resident lived in the property as an assured tenant between February 2015 and November 2024. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat.
On 30 January 2024, the resident asked the landlord to review his housing needs. He said his home was not suitable because of his mobility. He said he had to use a step ladder to reach meters and there was a risk he could fall. He said he had provided evidence from medical professionals supporting a move.
On 5 April 2024, the resident told the landlord he wanted to appeal against the decision not to rehouse him. He said the landlord had not taken his needs and hazards in his home into consideration. He said his disabilities had worsened since moving to the property.
The landlord dealt with the resident’s appeal as a complaint. In its response on 1 May 2024, it apologised for the delay in replying. It said it used criteria to decide on rehousing and the resident’s evidence did not give him priority. It acknowledged this was not the answer he wanted and gave him details of other options, such as mutual exchange and registering with a local authority.
The resident escalated his complaint on 8 May 2024 as he disagreed with the decision. He said the landlord had dismissed his support letters and was aware of the risks of falls. He also said the landlord was allowing a new neighbour to have a large dog in the upstairs flat, which would cause more problems for him.
On 17 May 2024, the resident reported noise nuisance from his neighbour.
In its final response on 5 June 2024, the landlord said it had considered correspondence from his GP, occupational therapist (OT), and social worker when reviewing his housing priority. On the meters, it said the OT had reported that the electric meter was accessible, but the gas meter was difficult to access. It said installing a smart meter could be a solution, but the resident would need to contact his utility provider about this. On the reported noise nuisance, it said it would contact the resident for further information.
Following the complaint response, the landlord opened an anti-social behaviour (ASB) case on 6 June 2024. On 7 June 2024, the resident’s social worker told the landlord the resident did not want to take the ASB case further. The resident confirmed this on 29 June 2024 and the landlord closed the ASB case.
On 7 October 2024, the resident gave the landlord notice of his intention to leave the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman has noted that the resident originally made a request for a housing transfer in May 2022. In investigating this complaint, the Ombudsman will look at the landlord’s actions in the 12 months before the resident made a complaint in April 2024. This is because under paragraph 42.c of the scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider matters that the resident did not bring to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.

The landlord’s handling of a request for a managed housing transfer

The landlord’s allocation policy says it is committed to letting properties in a fair and transparent way. It says the landlord will support existing residents who are in housing need. The policy says the landlord will assess applicant’s housing priority using a banding scheme. It will consider medical needs, current housing status, social circumstances, welfare needs, and support needs.
The allocation policy says the landlord offers management transfers in “extremely limited circumstances,” including where a resident is at risk of significant harm due to abuse and violence and where it has found that a resident is unable to evacuate the property during an emergency. It says it will also consider a management transfer following receipt of a medical report from an OT or medical practitioner. This report needs to detail medical diagnosis, why the current property is unsuitable, and any future housing needs.
It is the Ombudsman’s view that the position taken by the landlord in its allocations policy is reasonable. This is because the landlord’s ability to give a management transfer is limited by the vacancies in its housing stock, and the size, type, and location of vacant properties. To manage requests, it is reasonable for the landlord to have criteria that it can use to assess priority in a fair and consistent way.
The resident asked the landlord to review his housing needs in May 2022. The landlord responded and said he did not meet the eligibility criteria because it had already adequately housed him in a ground floor property. It acknowledged his medical conditions, but said he could not achieve anything better than ground floor accommodation. This request is outside the scope of this investigation, and because of this the Ombudsman will not comment on whether the landlord acted reasonably. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider any changes since May 2022 when responding to a new request.
On 30 January 2024, the resident told the landlord he wanted it to reconsider his housing needs. He wanted it to consider his safety as he said he had to use a step ladder to access the meters, which he said could not be moved because of the property’s age. He said he had previously provided the landlord with support letters.
The resident chased the landlord for a response on 12 and 19 February 2024. Records provided by the landlord say it spoke with the resident about his application on 19 February 2024. The Ombudsman has found there was a slight delay in communicating with the resident about his request.
On 5 April 2024, the resident told the landlord that he wanted to appeal the decision not to rehouse him. He said the landlord had not considered his needs and the hazards in his home. He wanted the reasons the landlord would not rehouse him in writing.
The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of a communication from the landlord setting out its decision. The resident asked for the decision in writing, which implies the landlord had not provided a written response and had instead spoken to him about its decision. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to put details of an important decision in writing, so it could be clear with the resident and have a copy for its own records. However, as it is unclear whether the landlord put this in writing, the Ombudsman cannot determine whether there was a failure by the landlord on this matter.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction on 16 April 2024 and told him it would deal with it as a complaint. On the same day, the resident sent an email to the landlord about a survey it had done at his property that day. He said the surveyor had told him the property was not suitable for his disabilities and medical needs. The Ombudsman has not seen a report showing the findings from this appointment. Because of this the Ombudsman cannot comment on what the survey found. However, the Ombudsman has noted that when considering a managed transfer request, the landlord’s allocation policy does not say it will consider the view of surveyors. Because of this, it is unlikely that the landlord would consider the findings of the survey as part of the managed transfer request.
In its complaint response on 1 May 2024, the landlord apologised for the delay in sending a response. It said it was sorry the resident’s home was causing him inconvenience and upset. It explained how it assessed applications and said it had correctly assessed his request for a management move using the information he had provided. It also explained options available to him, such as home swapper and registering with a local authority. It said its home moves team could help with questions about options.
The Ombudsman has found that this was mainly a reasonable response at this time. This is because the landlord explained how it assessed his application and gave information about other housing options available to him, and how it could help. However, the response did not include anything about the resident’s concerns about the meters and risks of falls.
The resident escalated his complaint on 8 May 2024. He said the landlord had dismissed support letters and the risks from falls. He said the landlord was now allowing a large dog to live upstairs, which was creating more issues for him.
In its final response on 4 June 2024, the landlord said it had considered medical documents, including correspondence from the resident’s GP, OT, and social worker. It said it had given the resident advice on finding other accommodation and again explained the options available. On the electric and gas meters, it said the resident’s OT report said the electric meter was accessible, but the gas meter was difficult to access. It suggested the resident contact his utility provider to ask them to install a smart meter.
The Ombudsman has seen a letter from the resident’s GP, dated 6 October 2022, which refers to the resident’s concerns that it was difficult for him to move around his flat due to his back, knee, and ankle pains. The Ombudsman has not seen other information supporting medical evidence or information from the OT about the property. Because of this the Ombudsman is not able to comment on the supporting evidence but has noted that the landlord said it used it in its assessment of housing need.
On the location of the gas and electricity meters, this would usually be a matter for utility providers. Because of this, it was reasonable for the landlord to suggest the resident contact the utility company. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the location of meters would not be a reason to move a resident to another property.
Overall, the Ombudsman has found the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its allocations policy. There were some minor communication failings but the effect of these was minimal. Because of this, the Ombudsman has found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to a request for a managed housing transfer.

The landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance

The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy says it is committed to tackling incidents of ASB through a “robust victim-centred approach.” It says it will take prompt and effective action against perpetrators.
The policy says ASB is conduct that can cause nuisance or annoyance to a person. Examples include persistent noise nuisance, such as loud music, persistent shouting, and animal noise such as dogs barking. It says it will acknowledge reports of persistent noise nuisance within 3 working days.
The landlord says to support people who report ASB, it will consider actions including investigation, agreeing an action plan, interviewing the alleged perpetrator, and interventions such as mediation.
The tenancy agreement says residents are not to allow any pet at the premises to cause a nuisance, and not to keep a pet without the written consent of the landlord and where there is no private garden.
When the resident escalated his complaint on 8 May 2024 he said the landlord had let the flat above him to a new neighbour, who had a large dog. He was concerned about this and the effect it could have on him.
On 17 May 2024, the resident told the landlord about noise from his neighbour. He said this was affecting his health and he wanted this adding to his complaint. He said this was another reason the landlord should move him.
The landlord referred the resident’s complaint about noise to its tenancy support team on 23 May 2024. It noted it might be beneficial for the resident to use the noise app so it could decide whether the noise was acceptable or not.
In its final response on 4 June 2024, the landlord told the resident it had involved the tenancy solutions team, who would contact him for further information. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord’s response to the first report of noise nuisance was slow, as it was 12 working days after the resident made a report.
Records show the landlord opened an ASB case on 5 June 2024 and contacted the resident on 6 June 2024. On 7 June 2024, the resident’s social worker told the landlord the resident did not want to take the case any further. The resident confirmed this on 29 June 2024. He told the landlord he had decided not to go forward because of possible repercussions. He said he had made it clear that he did not want mediation.
On the neighbour’s dog, the Ombudsman cannot comment on whether the neighbour had written permission from the landlord but has noted that the resident said there was no private garden. Considering the terms of the tenancy agreement, the Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to give permission for a dog in these circumstances.
Overall, the Ombudsman has found the landlord acted reasonably in response to the reports of noise nuisance. There was a delay in the acknowledgement, but the landlord then referred the report to the tenancy support team, who opened an ASB case. When the resident said he did not want to go forward with the case, the landlord closed the case. The resident said he was concerned about repercussions. In a case like this, where the landlord was aware of the resident’s wider concerns and vulnerabilities, it might be reasonable for a landlord to investigate this further. However, the resident said he did not want to engage and was not interested in mediation. In these circumstances, there was little the landlord could do. Because of this there was no maladministration in the handling of reports of noise nuisance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of a request for a managed housing transfer.
2. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of noise nuisance.