Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202435448)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom flat on the ground floor of the building. The resident says he has experienced ASB by his upstairs neighbour since 2022 and that they have made counter-allegations against him during that time. The resident says the landlord has given preferential treatment to his neighbour and that it has not investigated his concerns.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by his neighbour.
   2. the resident’s concerns about scaffolding.
   3. the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. The landlord has provided redress to the resident, which satisfactorily resolves his complaint about the scaffolding.
   3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

4. The landlord did not do enough to investigate the resident’s reports of ASB. It did not work effectively with him to resolve his concerns or manage his expectations about the action it could take. The landlord’s record keeping was poor and its communication with the resident could have been better.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about scaffolding

5. The landlord accepted that it should have given the resident notice that it was putting up scaffolding for roof works. It apologised and provided a reasonable amount of compensation. The landlord tried to minimise the effect on the resident by giving a clear timetable for inspection and completion of the works.

The landlord’s complaints handling

6. The landlord delayed logging a formal complaint. It confused its processes by treating complaints as ASB service requests and failed to carry out an adequate complaint investigation.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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 looked at

7. The landlord acknowledged reports of ASB and counter-allegations by the resident’s neighbour since 2022. We usually investigate the landlord’s actions in the 12 months before the formal complaint. In this case, we can see the resident said he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the ASB as early as 3 April 2023, but it did not log a formal complaint until 9 November 2024. The landlord did not raise a formal complaint at that time. We have commented on this in our findings.
8. We have focussed our investigation on events since 3 April 2023. It is fair to examine the landlord’s handling of ASB from the earliest date supported by the evidence. In its email of 6 November 2024, the landlord reviewed its actions from the start of the resident’s tenancy. It referred to this email in its complaint responses. This means it had an opportunity to respond to the resident’s concerns over the period covered by this investigation.
9. The resident has told us that the previous tenant also experienced ASB and he has provided evidence from 2016. We cannot investigate the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB by other residents that pre-date the resident’s tenancy. Historic reports of ASB can provide useful context and, in some cases, we would expect a landlord to consider patterns of behaviour when deciding how to respond to reports of ASB.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

10. On 3 April 2023, the landlord emailed the resident about a report of noise nuisance from his flat. The resident denied causing nuisance by playing music and said the allegations were part of a pattern of malicious behaviour by his neighbour. He said malicious allegations were a breach of the tenancy agreement.
11. On 9 May 2023 and 19 May 2023, the landlord contacted the resident, acknowledged his right to enjoy his home, and explained why it had raised concerns about noise levels. It addressed his concerns about malicious allegations and his neighbour’s role on residents’ committees. The landlord said it would investigate if the neighbour’s complaints were false. It took a balanced approach to the resident’s concerns and managed expectations about possible action. The landlord reasonably treated the neighbour’s reports of noise nuisance as legitimate because they had provided noise recordings. It applied its thresholds appropriately to decide on proportionate action at that time.
12. The landlord’s records do not evidence any new reports of ASB between 19 May 2023 and 24 April 2024. The landlord emailed the resident on 24 April 2024 to say it was sorry to hear about “ongoing issues” with ASB by his neighbour. It did not say what “ongoing issues” it was responding to. We cannot confirm if/when the resident had reported ASB or say whether the landlord acknowledged the report(s) in line with the timescales set out in its ASB policy, because the landlord has not kept adequate records.
13. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will log and acknowledge the most serious reports of ASB within 1 working day and all other reports within 3 working days. The landlord did not log an ASB case and provide a formal acknowledgement until 2 May 2024, which was 8 working days after its email of 24 April 2024. The resident was not inconvenienced by the delay, as the landlord telephoned him on 25 April 2024 to discuss his concerns. The landlord should make sure that it logs an ASB case at the earliest opportunity, so it can document all activity, progress its investigation and take prompt action in response.
14. After it opened an ASB case, the landlord completed a risk assessment, as suggested under its ASB policy. This helped establish the severity of the behaviour and the impact on the resident. The landlord’s ASB file refers to a report of “verbal abuse” by the resident’s neighbour, but no further information is provided. The case was assessed as “level 1”, being the most serious category of ASB. The lack of information about the details of the report means that we cannot fully investigate whether the landlord’s response was proportionate.
15. The landlord’s internal emails show that it discussed what action it could take, including writing to the perpetrator and looking into the resident’s suggestion that this was a pattern of behaviour by his neighbour that had affected other tenants. The landlord took the report of ASB seriously, and it appropriately considered how best to investigate, but it did not follow-through on some of its agreed actions.
16. The landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour about the ASB on 16 May 2024 and invited her to a telephone meeting on 24 May 2024. The landlord tried to contact her on that date, but it was unable to reach her. The neighbour did not return the landlord’s call and there is no evidence that it reached out to her again. The landlord did not make reasonable efforts to contact the resident’s neighbour to investigate the reported incidents. As this formed part of the action plan communicated to the resident, we would have expected the landlord to make more than one attempt at contact.
17. The resident made 2 further reports of ASB on 2 May 2024 and 28 May 2024. He said items had been left in his letterbox and on his porch. He believed this was deliberate intimidation and harassment by his neighbour. There is no evidence that the landlord investigated these reports.
18. There is no evidence that the landlord investigated historic reports of ASB against the resident’s neighbour, even though it noted that this may provide relevant context. If the landlord later concluded that it was not necessary or proportionate to do so, this should have been recorded on its systems and clearly communicated to the resident to manage his expectations. The resident also provided details of someone he said could corroborate his reports and offered to participate in mediation. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the witness, or responded to the resident’s proposals, before it closed the case.
19. The landlord did not work effectively with the resident to investigate and address his concerns before it closed the case on 30 July 2024. It should have reviewed all reports of ASB since the case was opened, decided what action was appropriate, and communicated this to the resident before closing the case. Its failure to explain its response left the resident feeling that it was not taking any action to assist him. The landlord’s internal emails said that it would be difficult to justify further action without additional evidence and that it should write to the resident to request this. There is no evidence that it did so.
20. The landlord’s ASB policy refers to a range of tools for managing ASB, some of which are aimed at preventing and discouraging ASB. Early intervention strategies include mediation, warning letters and the use of acceptable behaviour contracts. Not all interventions will be appropriate in every case.
21. Formal or escalated action was not the only option available to the landlord to help manage the situation. The landlord was aware of a history of allegations and counter-allegations, and it could have considered informal interventions aimed at improving the relationship between the parties. The landlord may have determined that such action was disproportionate in the circumstances but its consideration of this is not evidenced in its records.
22. After the case was closed, the evidence shows the landlord contacted the resident by email on 25 September 2024, asking to speak to him about the issues he was facing. It is not clear what prompted the landlord to reach out at that time. The resident said a meeting was unnecessary, as the landlord had not investigated the issues he was concerned about. The landlord sent 2 more emails offering a meeting, but the resident did not respond to the first email, and he declined the second invitation. We cannot determine whether the landlord’s response was appropriate overall, as we do not know what the reported issues were that it was responding to.
23. In emails to the resident on 25 and 31 October 2024, the landlord apologised for his experience of disjointed communication. It said it was unable to share references to historic cases involving other tenants. The landlord said it would like to meet with the resident. It also said it was awaiting a date to meet with his neighbour to discuss his complaints, and to consider mediation. There is no evidence that the landlord had contacted the resident’s neighbour about a meeting or mediation since its letter of 16 May 2024.
24. The email of 31 October 2024 was the first time the landlord explained its processes to the resident in detail and set out the threshold for taking action. This should have happened before the case was closed. The email did signpost the resident to other sources of help, including the local authority, which did demonstrate a desire to support the resident beyond its own direct involvement.
25. In November 2024, the landlord exchanged emails with the resident and reviewed its actions since 2022. It reasonably advised that it was unable to take further action or open a new case, as there had been no new reports of ASB. It said that the information previously provided did not meet the threshold for ASB, as defined by its ASB procedure. If this was the landlord’s decision, the resident should have been told this when it considered his reports in April and May 2024.
26. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord failed to keep adequate records and delays in logging and acknowledging reports of ASB mean we cannot fully assess how reports were handled. The landlord did not follow through on agreed actions to investigate the ASB and it did not communicate effectively with the resident to address his concerns. The landlord closed the case without clearly explaining what it would and would not do, without requesting further evidence, and with inadequate records of its processes and decisions.
27. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident and to pay him £250 compensation to recognise the time and trouble he took to pursue his concerns and the distress and inconvenience he experienced. This amount is in line with the recommended range set out in our remedies guidance, where a resident has been adversely affected by the landlord’s failings.

28. The resident told the landlord on 14 November 2024 that he was unhappy scaffolding had been erected without notice. In its stage 1 complaint response of 19 November 2024, the landlord accepted that the resident should have been told beforehand. The landlord took responsibility, apologised for the service failure and provided information about the planned works. It said it would raise the issue with its contractor and offered the resident £100 compensation. This was reasonable and appropriate. The landlord showed that it wanted to learn from the complaint to improve its service and to put things right for the resident.
29. The resident contacted the landlord again on 25 November 2024 to ask why the scaffolding had been put up so early when works had not started. The landlord replied on 27 November 2024 with the inspection date and target timeframe for the repair. It said that the duration the scaffolding was in place would not affect the level of the resident’s rent. The landlord gave accurate information from its repairs policy and an up-to-date timetable for inspection and repair. It also reassured the resident that his rent would not increase as a direct result of the time the scaffolding was in place. The landlord’s response was prompt, accurate and reasonable.
30. The landlord upheld its decision at stage 2 of its complaints process, which was reasonable because there was no further service failure. Planned works can involve several contractors and subcontractors. Coordinating them sometimes requires scaffolding to be put up well before work starts. We would expect a landlord to begin work within a reasonable time, but there is no evidence of an unreasonable delay here. The landlord put up the scaffolding on 14 November 2024 and by 27 November 2024 provided the resident with a clear timetable for inspection and completion of the works.
31. The £100 compensation offered was in line with the range set out in our remedies guidance where service failure has affected the resident for a short duration. The landlord has provided redress to the resident that satisfactorily resolves his complaint about the scaffolding.
32. The landlord has provided us with a copy of its scaffolding process. This does not currently mention giving notice to residents, except in cases where access is required. We have also recommended that the landlord consider amending its scaffolding policy/process to state that that all affected properties will be informed before the landlord puts up scaffolding.

33. The resident said the scaffolding issue should not be included with his ASB complaint because they were separate matters. The landlord included the scaffolding complaint in its stage 1 response to be efficient, and it did not cause the resident any inconvenience. The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns properly and the resident was not disadvantaged by combining the two issues in one response.
34. The landlord’s records show that on 5 April 2023 it referred the resident’s concerns to its complaints team and said he wished to complain. There is no evidence that the landlord raised or responded to a formal complaint at that time. The resident repeated that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions when he next reported ASB in April 2024. Again, no formal complaint was raised. The landlord failed to raise and respond to the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint at the earliest opportunity.
35. The landlord’s records contain an email to the resident from 4 September 2023, attaching a “response” and requesting the resident’s bank details. We do not know whether this was a complaint response, as it is not clear from the landlord’s records. The lack of adequate record keeping has hindered our ability to fully investigate the landlord’s complaints handling.
36. The landlord was correct when it told the resident that responding to service requests and reports of ASB are separate processes, but its own responses confused the two. The landlord raised a formal complaint on 9 November 2024. It said the resident was clearly unhappy but that it was appropriate that his recent correspondence had been dealt with as service requests. This was incorrect. The resident’s emails of 24 April 2024 and 28 October 2024 clearly complained about how his ASB reports were handled. Those emails should have been logged as formal complaints, in line with the requirements of the landlord’s complaints policy.
37. The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses pointed to its email of 6 November 2024 as evidence that there was no service failure. That was inadequate, as the complaints process required a fresh investigation separate from the ASB response. The landlord missed the chance to identify service shortfalls and to learn from the complaint, and it failed to address its earlier finding of “disjointed communication”.
38. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling. The landlord failed to treat the resident’s repeated expressions of dissatisfaction as formal complaints at the earliest opportunity. Its record keeping was poor, and it confused its processes by treating clear complaints as service requests. It then failed to carry out an adequate complaint investigation.
39. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident and to pay him £150 compensation for the time and trouble taken to pursue his complaint. This amount is in line with the range set out in our remedies guidance where a landlord’s failings have adversely affected a resident. 

Learning

40. The landlord did not follow its policy to raise a complaint in response to an expression of dissatisfaction with its service. It should reflect on what went wrong to make sure that a complaint is raised at the earliest opportunity, where matters cannot be informally resolved with a resident.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

41. There were some gaps in the landlord’s records that have made it difficult for us to fully investigate the resident’s complaint. The landlord should make sure that it keeps full, accurate and easily accessible records, including all notes and correspondence, about reports of ASB and the action it has taken in response.

Communication

42. The landlord’s communication with the resident could have been better. It should have been clear about its role in managing ASB and the action it could take based on the evidence provided. It should have made greater efforts to contact the resident’s neighbour and updated the resident on the progress of its investigation. The landlord should examine whether it can learn from our findings to improve its communication with residents in response to reports of ASB.