Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202439058)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202439058

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

24 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Requests to be rehoused.
2. Reports of outstanding repairs in the property.
3. Reports of outstanding communal repairs.
4. Reports of pests.
5. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
6. Concerns about contractor conduct.
7. Reports about issues with car parking facilities.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat.
The resident has been diagnosed with CPTSD.
The resident reported water ingress to a electrical intake cupboard on 7 October 2022 which the landlord came out and made safe. The resident then reported water ingress into her flat on 31 January 2023, telling the landlord that water was coming through the electrics in her ceiling. The landlord attended to inspect on 3 February 2023, returning to re-instate the lights in the kitchen, hallway and bathroom. The landlord listed these works as completed on 3 March 2023.
The resident met with the landlord on 28 April 2023 and told it she needed to move from the property due to feeling trapped. She provided medical evidence which it passed for assessment by its independent advisors. In June 2023 the landlord completed its assessment, placing the resident in band C. This said that there was no emergency or urgent housing needs to warrant a move but there was reasonable evidence to identify a lower level of housing need.
The resident complained to the landlord on 26 June 2023. She said that she needed to move immediately and had been suffering with various issues since moving into the flat 8 years ago. She described several problems to the landlord including ASB from neighbours, outstanding repairs in her property and a communal cupboard, rodents, and problems with car parking. She also raised concerns about the contractors the landlord used after an assault that occurred elsewhere.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint on 24 July 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint providing £120 compensation. This consisted of £100 for communal repair delay, and £20 for complaint handling. It confirmed it was undertaking a new medical assessment and provided the resident with information about mutual exchanges. It also answered the other aspects of her complaint but found no fault in its handling of these.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 26 July 2023. She reiterated that she needed to move and that the issues she had reported were all still ongoing. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 24 August 2023. It said that it had organised the communal repairs for 24 August 2023 and scheduled repairs to her kitchen ceiling and electrics for 15 August 2023. It awarded £300 compensation, made up of £200 for repairs delays and £100 because it did not pass on medical information correctly. The landlord reiterated its positions on the ASB, car parking, rodents and staff conduct. It did not uphold her complaint for any of these reported issues.
After the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it completed a new medical assessment which maintained the resident as band C. Both parties continued communicating following this and the landlord agreed to increase its compensation on 20 October 2023. This raised the compensation for the complaint to £700. This consisted of £300 for repair delays, £200 for delay in processing medical information and an additional £200 for distress and inconvenience. It also set out its proposal to aid the resident by helping her undertake a managed mutual exchange with another tenant looking to move.
The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman on 30 October 2023 that she wished us to consider her complaint. To resolve her complaint, she said she would like an increase in the amount of compensation. The resident moved out of the property on 7 April 2024.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused

The landlord’s housing policy has 4 different bands it can assign to residents who require a move. Band A refers to emergency housing need, Band B to urgent housing need, Band C to identified housing need and band D to keyworker or choice plus applicants.
The landlord, throughout the course of the complaint, placed the resident in Band C of its housing register. The landlord’s housing policy outlines what constitutes a Band C. It identifies this as the appropriate band where there is ‘a low level medical or mobility need confirmed by professional review’ and also where there is ‘low level but persistent anti social behaviour’.
The resident provided 6 doctors’ letters to demonstrate the level of her housing need. An independent doctor performs the landlord’s health assessments. They noted that they viewed the resident’s medical documentation when making their decision. This assessment determined that ‘no medical priority accrues on psychiatric grounds in this case on basis of evidence available’. The independent advisor provided this to the landlord on 7 June 2023. The landlord was entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its medical assessors when awarding priority banding.
The landlord acknowledged that there was a delay in passing some of the medical information over for the assessment which resulted in a small delay in its review of the banding. The landlord acknowledged this failing in its complaint responses and subsequently offered compensation for this.
Following this initial banding, the resident sent additional information and supporting evidence. The landlord completed a second medical assessment on 7 September 2023. The resident’s banding remained the same following this. The landlord said it sent this decision to the resident by post on 7 September 2023. The resident never received this. The landlord failed to provide any evidence of postage.
The resident chased the landlord for this on 8 September 2023 and 12 September 2023. The resident has stated that she previously asked the landlord to send all correspondence via e-mail for her own records. The landlord eventually resent this to her via e-mail. The additional 2 weeks of delay likely caused inconvenience to the resident.
However, the landlord was also pro-active in helping the resident to find other ways of moving. It offered her support on using its home-swapping app, as well as later offering to help facilitate a managed mutual exchange with another resident who was urgently seeking a move. This represented good practice from the landlord and demonstrated a resolution focused approach to handling the resident’s requests.
The landlord recognised its failings and the delays these caused. It offered the resident £200 compensation for these. This represented a reasonable offer of redress for the extent of the delays and the adverse impact these would have had on the resident. The landlord’s actions followed the steps it would take according to its allocations policy, and it also acted reasonably in suggesting alternatives to help facilitate a move for the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of repairs

The landlord’s repairs policy has 3 timescales. For priority 1 repairs – which it described as ‘emergency work’ – it says it will attend and make safe within 4 hours and rectify any issues within 24 hours. At priority 2 – which it describes as ‘non-emergency repairs’ – it says it will complete work within 15 working days. For ‘variable timescale repairs’ – which require multiple visits, trade skills or special parts – it will agree timescales with the resident.
The repair that the resident reported was water ingress from the property above. This damaged her ceiling and the light fixtures in her property. The resident first reported this on 31 January 2023. The landlord did not complete the necessary remedial works until 10 November 2023. This was a period of just over 9 months. This was significantly outside of the timescales the landlord sets out in its repairs policy given they would be considered priority 2 repairs.
It took the landlord until 15 September 2023 to fully restore the electrics and 10 November 2023 to complete the redecoration works. This was a significant delay.
The landlord failed to organise a follow-up appointment to redecorate following its appointment in February 2023. The landlord should have done so to make good any damage caused by the water ingress and not left the resident to wait as it did. The landlord’s failures in this instance undoubtedly caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience.
The landlord believed that earlier electrical works completed on 3 March 2023 had rectified the problem. It did not raise a new job until 3 July 2023 shortly after the resident informed it that she was still suffering from an electrical fault (when she raised her complaint). The landlord still took around 2 and a half months before it attended her property. This again represented a service failure.
Some delay was outside the landlord’s control. It tried to arrange an appointment to complete the electrical work in August 2023 but the resident was unable to provide access until September 2023. This was because she had to arrange support for when the landlord’s contractors were attending.
The landlord recognised its failures in performing the repairs in line with its policy. It upheld the resident’s complaint, offering her £300 for delays with these and the communal repairs (assessed below). The landlord also provided the resident with an additional £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience she experienced throughout the complaint.
This level of compensation was within a range that the Ombudsman would recommend where there has been a failing that adversely affected a resident. Given the length of the delay and the inconvenience this caused to the resident, the landlord’s compensation award was a reasonable offer of redress.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of communal repairs

The landlord is not the freeholder of the block. The freeholder of the block has a managing agent who takes responsibility for the arrangement of communal repairs. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a Third-Party Responsibility Sheet for the block which demonstrates that it is not responsible for carrying out any communal repairs or decorations.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord asking for more information about the communal repairs. It failed to provide information about this, instead providing evidence to demonstrate that these were not its responsibility.
Whilst the repair obligation may not have fallen on the landlord, it nonetheless decided to undertake the works to the electrical intake cupboard. In its stage 2 complaint response, it suggested that this was because the cupboard damage was caused by a flat it was responsible for.
The resident informed the Ombudsman that she first reported this repair to the landlord on 6 October 2022. Without the landlord’s full repair records, the Ombudsman is unable to determine exactly when the landlord was first aware of the matter and what caused any delay.
The evidence available to the Ombudsman demonstrates the landlord was originally due to resolve the water damage on 2 May 2023. However, due to the original contractor’s contract coming to an end, the landlord did not attend to survey the problem until 10 July 2023. The landlord performed the outstanding remedial works and plastering on 9 August 2023 and 24 August 2023.
There was some confusion as the landlord’s correspondence of 20 October 2023 said it was arranging the repairs, and it confirmed to the resident on 27 October 2023 that it had completed the communal decoration works. We therefore assume that works must have completed between these 2 dates. This meant it took the landlord several months to complete the communal cupboard repairs.
The landlord’s handling of the communal repairs and the delay in completing these clearly represented a failure in service. However, it did recognise this in its complaint responses, and it included these failures in the offer of compensation it made for the repairs (£300) and the distress and inconvenience payment (£200). As the damage was confined to a communal cupboard and did not adversely affect the resident, this was a reasonable offer of redress given the limited impact on the resident.

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

The landlord does not have a policy on pest control. Nor is the responsibility for dealing with pests mentioned in the resident’s tenancy agreement. The landlord has however said that the responsibility for pest control falls on the freeholder and their managing agent.
Given this, it is unclear why the landlord undertook pest control works at the property. The landlord had its contractor attend on 2 August 2023 to inspect. Following this, it put down rat boxes to contain the problem, with the contractor taking these away on 14 August 2023.
When the contractor completed the work on 14 August 2023, they told the landlord that the problem was now under control. They added that it was imperative that the landlord undertake preventative measures to ensure that another rat infestation did not occur.
It is unclear what actions the landlord took following this advice. The landlord told the contractor that the managing agent would arrange any future treatment since this was their responsibility. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence that it contacted the managing agent to discuss the problem or to pass on the contractors’ recommendations of preventative measures.
The resident e-mailed the landlord on 4 September 2023 and 12 September 2023 raising new reports of rodents in the block. There is no evidence the landlord undertook any action in relation to this or contacted the managing agent to forward the reports to them.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of pests. Although it pro-actively took on the pest treatment work, it failed to perform follow-up preventive treatments as per the recommendations from its contractors. It instead said this was the responsibility of the managing agent but did not communicate with them. When the resident reported further sightings of pests, the landlord failed to act on these or forward these on to the correct party. For these failings, the landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble caused to her.

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

The landlord’s ASB policy says that it ‘continuously works to develop ways of preventing and discouraging ASB by using a range of early intervention strategies including mediation, warning letters, tenancy cautions, family support referrals, and the use of acceptable behaviour contracts including positive requirements’.
The policy also says that ‘support is an essential part of our approach to ASB’. It lists several ways in its ASB policy that it can act to support witnesses and victims. These include actions such as agreeing an action plan with the victim, interviews with the alleged perpetrator, and offering support to the victim. It says that it is able to interview alleged perpetrators without revealing who made the reports.
The resident mentioned several issues to the landlord which would fall under the category of ASB. These included verbal abuse, racial abuse, deliberate scratching of her car, and the leaving of dog mess on her doorstep.
The landlord told the resident, as well as the councillor supporting her, that it required more evidence to action against the perpetrators. Whilst this was reasonable, the landlord should have done more to discuss with the resident how she could record evidence and what it could do in response. Given her concerns about reprisals, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have offered her support and reassurance that it could take action without revealing who made the reports.
The landlord could have done more to pro-actively investigate the resident’s concerns. There is no evidence that it spoke with other residents in the block, liaised with the managing agent, considered how it could gather evidence (for instance, through CCTV or block visits) or interviewed the resident. It failed to take any such action or demonstrate that it considered doing so.
The landlord did offer to refer the resident to its Tenancy Support Team which, according to its stage 1 complaint response, she declined. This was a reasonable offer from the landlord and represented good practice in line with its ASB policy.
Overall, the landlord’s failure to consider actions it could take to investigate the resident’s concerns represented a failure in service. A resident’s fear of reprisal, especially when suffering from vulnerabilities, should not prevent the landlord from fully investigating the reports or drawing up an action plan. The landlord also could have considered performing a formal risk assessment to consider if the resident was at risk of harm due to the ASB.
The landlord lacked evidence, or the identity of alleged perpetrators, to take any enforcement action. Nevertheless, it did not make sufficient attempt to investigate the reports, particularly given the serious nature of the allegations. For this service failure, the landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of concerns about contractor conduct

When raising her complaint, the resident questioned the landlord about what actions it had taken after a heating engineer sexually assaulted a resident. The perpetrator of this assault was an operative from an organisation whose services the landlord had contracted.
The landlord’s hiring practices and decisions on which contractors they choose to work with are not matters that fall under the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. We are unable to make any decision in regard to the landlord’s decision to maintain its contract with this company nor its hiring or firing of specific members of staff.
The landlord did advise in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses that the member of staff had been dismissed from their position and that the police had investigated the matter. It also said that it, along with the contractor, had taken relevant steps to ensure the safety of residents moving forward. In its stage 2 complaint response, it also notified the resident that the operative concerned was not employed by the department of the organisation that the landlord had a contract with.
The resident felt that the information the landlord provided was not sufficient. She wanted to know if the member of staff had been placed on the sex offender register. The landlord informed the resident that this was not information that it had or would be able to obtain. This was a reasonable response from the landlord given this was a police matter and the operative was not its member of staff.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about contractor conduct. It provided clear information to the resident about the situation and was open about what information it could provide.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about issues with car parking facilities

The landlord’s third-party responsibility sheet demonstrates that the management of the car park is the responsibility of the freeholder and its managing agent. The resident’s tenancy agreement also makes no mention of a car parking space.
This meant that the landlord was unlikely to be responsible for parking enforcement or other actions in relation to the misuse of the car parking facilities. The resident needed to report any problems with the car parking facilities to the managing agent and the landlord appropriately informed the resident of this in its stage 2 complaint response.
The resident reported that neighbours had been misusing the car park, that her car parking space had become smaller and that wooden posts had been put up which she felt were a safety hazard.
All of these would be matters that the resident would need to raise with the managing agent. The landlord was not responsible for amendments to the size of the car parking spaces or the erection of wooden posts.
When the resident raised these complaints, the landlord contacted the managing agent to discuss the problems the resident was experiencing. The managing agent informed the landlord that the spaces had not changed size, and that there was a single bay it had lined out which was not actually a car parking space. The landlord also informed the resident in its stage 2 complaint response that the car park was managed by the managing agent so any further problems would need to be reported to it.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about issues with car parking was therefore fair and there was no maladministration. Despite not being responsible for the facilities, it spoke to the managing agent to obtain an answer and signposted the resident appropriately if she had any further problems with the car parking facilities.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Requests to be rehoused.
2. Reports of outstanding repairs in the property.
3. Reports of communal repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of pests.
2. Reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about contractor conduct.
2. Reports about issues with the car parking facilities.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord:
1. Apologises in writing for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pays the resident £300 compensation, made up of:
  1. £150 for the time and trouble caused to her by the failings in its handling her reports of pests;
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failings in its handling her reports of ASB.
3. Provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has done so.

Recommendations

The landlord should re-offer the resident the £700 it awarded on 20 October 2023. Our findings of reasonable redress are based on this amount being paid to the resident.