Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202340217)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340217

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

8 April 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. On 30 January 2024 the resident reported damp and mould in his property. The landlord raised an order for a mould wash to be completed. 
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 12 February 2024 and said he had reported damp and mould for 5 years, which had not been resolved. He said it was making his family ill.
  4. On 14 March 2024 the landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint. It confirmed a damp and mould inspection was scheduled for 20 March 2024, and repairs would be initiated if necessary. Additionally, it apologised for the delay in acknowledging the resident’s complaint and assured him that measures had been implemented to avoid similar delays in the future. As compensation for the delays related to the damp and mould, it offered £100, along with £50 for the delay in logging the complaint.
  5. On 18 March 2024 the resident asked to escalate his complaint, saying he was unhappy with the compensation offered. He reported expenses of £750-£800 for gas, resulting from the increased use of heating to manage the property’s conditions over the last 3 months. His escalation request was acknowledged on 19 July 2024.
  6. On 22 March 2024 a damp and mould survey was carried out. The resulting report indicated that loft insulation had been upgraded and recommended that the landlord reassess the ceilings’ thermal efficiency, which might be susceptible to cold bridging in a year. The surveyor proposed using a mould wash in the 3 bedrooms and completing an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) for the radiators in the kitchen and bedrooms to verify they provided sufficient heat for those areas.
  7. On 20 August 2024 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. This response stated that after reviewing the damp and mould reports from the past year, appointments for mould washes had been arranged but were either cancelled or access was denied. The landlord provided the dates of requested mould washes and found no failures in service. Furthermore, it was confirmed that the sizes of the radiators were checked in accordance with the surveyor’s recommendations and deemed adequate.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He asked us to investigate the landlord’s handling and the level of compensation he was offered.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said that he has reported issues with damp and mould for 5 years. We expect residents to raise formal complaints with the landlord within a reasonable timeframe after they became aware of the issue. While the resident may have reported issues previously, it is not evident that a formal complaint was raised prior to the complaint in February 2024. This assessment, therefore, focuses on events from January 2024. This is the date that the resident raised new reports of damp and mould, which led to his complaint in February 2024.
  2. The resident stated that the damp and mould worsened his family’s health. We have considered the landlord’s response and the distress and inconvenience the resident reported experiencing. However, claims relating to health are better suited to an insurance claim or through the courts. The resident should seek independent advice if he believes the landlord’s actions have affected his health.

 

 

Damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s damp and mould policy confirms that it will conduct effective investigations and implement reasonable remedial repair solutions and improvements to eliminate damp, including managing and controlling condensation. While the policy does not specify timescales for responses, the landlord’s maintenance policy states that it will address emergency repairs within 24 hours and non-emergency repairs within 15 working days.
  2. The resident reported damp and mould on 30 January 2024. The landlord raised a repair for a mould wash with a target date of 31 January 2024. The landlord’s repair records show that a mould wash was completed on 14 February 2024, 10-working days outside of its target timeframe. However, the landlord confirmed that the resident cancelled the appointment, and as such, the landlord was not responsible for the delay.
  3. Though the landlord appropriately arranged mould washes, this action only provided a temporary fix for the situation. It did not address the underlying issue. According to its damp and mould policy, the landlord was required to inspect to identify the root cause of the issue. This inspection was only initiated following a complaint from the resident. It is unclear why the inspection was not scheduled until 22 March 2024, which was 38 days after the January 2024 report and 27 days after the resident’s complaint, an unreasonable and unexplained delay.
  4. In its stage 1 response on 14 March 2024 the landlord acknowledged that it had delayed in addressing the issue and offered £100 compensation. This was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy, which suggests compensation amounts of up to £100 for service failures and/or a problem not being resolved within a reasonable timescale. It also appropriately confirmed the steps it was taking to address the issue. 
  5. The inspection in March 2024 confirmed the loft insulation had been upgraded that month and made the following recommendations to:
    1. Complete a mould wash to all 3 bedrooms.
    2. Monitor the effects of the upgraded insulation (in 12 months).
    3. Undertake an EPC for the kitchen and bedroom radiators to ensure they provided sufficient heat.
  6. On 11 April 2024 the landlord initiated a further mould wash based on the surveyor’s recommendations. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that its contractor attempted to access the property twice in April 2024: first, without success, and second, when the resident denied entry. The resident said he requested the mould washes were cancelled until his complaint was resolved. This added to the time taken to complete the mould wash, which was outside of the landlord’s control.
  7. An engineer attended on 6 June 2024 to check the radiators as per the surveyor’s recommendation. It was confirmed that the radiators were sufficient, and therefore, no further action was needed. The inspection was delayed by 3 months following the March 2024 survey, and there was no explanation for the delay or any evidence indicating that the landlord updated the resident.
  8. In his complaint, the resident noted an increase in heating expenses associated with the damp and mould in the property. Given the concerns raised, we would expect the landlord to have addressed this within its complaint response. While it was not evident there was a responsibility to reimburse these costs given there were no repair issues identified, it was a failure that it did not and a missed opportunity to set out its position, manage the resident’s expectations, potentially resolving the complaint at an earlier opportunity.
  9. In summary, we have identified a delay in the landlord’s confirmation that the radiators adequately heated the kitchen and bedrooms. The landlord also failed to address the core of the resident’s escalation request regarding the financial impact he said was caused by increasing heating costs. Therefore, we have found a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould and have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 to reflect the impact this had on the resident. This order replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £100 compensation at stage 1.

Complaint handling

  1. On 12 February 2024 the resident submitted a complaint, which was acknowledged by the landlord on 22 February 2024. This acknowledgment was 3 working days beyond the landlord’s 5-working-day acknowledgment period outlined in its complaints policy.
  2. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 14 March 2024. It noted the delay in the acknowledgment of the complaint and offering an apology. It also offered £50 in compensation for the delay. However, despite recognising that the complaint was not acknowledged until 22 February 2024, the stage 1 response was issued an additional 5 working days beyond the 10-day response timeframe, which the landlord did not address.
  3. In the stage 1 response, the landlord assured the resident that it had taken steps to improve its complaint handling to avoid similar delays in the future. Despite this assurance, the delays persisted.
  4. On 18 March 2024 the resident requested to escalate the complaint. After not receiving acknowledgment of the escalation request, the resident followed up with the landlord on 28 March 2024.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 July 2024, 37 working days after the escalation request was made, which was significantly outside the 5-working-day timeframe for acknowledging such requests.
  6. A stage 2 response was issued on 20 August 2024, 108 working days after the escalation request, a considerable departure from the landlord’s 20-working-day response time. The landlord has not shown that it is providing holding responses or requested more time to complete the complaint investigation, as outlined in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code emphasises the importance of clear communication and timely updates to residents during the complaint process. The landlord’s handling of the complaint resulted in an unreasonable prolongation of the resident’s complaints process.
  7. The landlord failed to acknowledge the delays between the escalation request and the stage 2 response, showing a lack of accountability and indicating that the measures it said to have implemented at stage 1 were ineffective.
  8. As a result, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The landlord is ordered to pay £200 in compensation, which replaces the previous £50 compensation offer made at stage 1. This increased compensation reflects the landlord’s failure to adhere to its complaints policy over an extended period and its failure to learn from the outcomes. An order to review its complaints handling failures in this case has been made on this below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified.
    2. Pay the resident £400 compensation, comprised of:
      1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the damp and mould. This replaces that landlord’s previous offer of £100. If the £100 has already been paid, it should be deducted from the total amount.
      2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £50. If the £50 compensation has already been paid, it should be deducted from the total amount.
    3. Review the failures in handling complaints in this case. Identify what went wrong and outline the steps that have been taken or will be taken to prevent similar issues in the future with a particular focus on how it will address complaints at the earliest opportunity.