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

Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202441243)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202441243

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

16 July 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 residents:
    1. Reports of leaks in the property.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 2-bed house owned by the landlord. She has reported having mobility issues and asthma.
  2. The resident reported a leaking water pump to the landlord on 8 July 2024. It wanted to raise emergency works but she was not home, so it recommended that she call back when she was in the property. She reported it again on 9 July 2024 and it attended to repair the issue. She made further reports on 3 October 2024 and reported a leak from her kitchen tap on 24 December 2024.
  3. On 16 December 2024, the resident complained to the landlord about the leak from the water pump. She said this was an ongoing issue. She said it had not repaired her ceiling from earlier leaks and reported black mould present on it.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 31 January 2025. It gave a history of repairs and said it attended her 8 July 2024 report on the following day. It confirmed works from her 3 October 2024 report remained outstanding but said it had passed the remaining works to its contractor. It offered £500 compensation for the impact of the delayed repairs.
  5. The resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 1 and 4 February 2025. She said she wanted the water pump removed and an alternative solution found. She asked it for specific details of the required works due to her work commitments and refused its compensation offer as she felt it was inadequate due to increased electricity usage, damage to personal items, and injury following her slip on the water from the leak.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 11 March 2025. It said it completed repairs to the water pump on 10 February 2025, and she had not reported further issues since this date. It referred her to its insurer for her personal injury and damage claims. It explained it could offer £2.74 a day for electricity usage relating to the dehumidifier and calculated this to total £284.96. It offered this on top of its stage 1 offer of £500, bringing its total compensation offer to £784.96.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her repairs and offer of compensation and brought her complaint to this Service for investigation. She is seeking removal of the water pump and an increased offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told the landlord and the Ombudsman that she was injured when falling due to the ongoing leak. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights into the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element to the resident’s complaint is better dealt with via the court.
  2. The Ombudsman has already investigated a complaint from the resident about leaks. The landlord sent its final response in the earlier case in June 2024. We will not consider any matters already investigated, so we will restrict this investigation to events after June 2024 and up to the landlord’s final response in March 2025.

Leaks into the property

  1. Following the resident’s report of a leak from the water pump on 8 July 2024, the landlord tried to raise emergency works. However, she was not home to facilitate an appointment. It told her to call back when she was home. She called back on 9 July 2024, and it attended the same day. It completed repairs by way of replacing an incorrect washer and installed a dehumidifier to help dry the property out.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy categorises repairs as emergency or non-emergency. It will attend emergency repairs to make safe within 4 hours and rectify the issue within 24 hours. It will complete non-emergency repairs within 15 working days. It classes burst pipes as emergency repairs and minor plumbing repairs, dripping or leaking taps and shower units as non-emergency repairs.
  3. While the landlord was unable to attend on the 8 July 2024 due to the resident being away from the property, it attended promptly to rectify the issue on 9 July 2024. This was in line with its repairs policy.
  4. The resident made a further call to the landlord about leaks on 25 July 2024. However, it noted that she ended the call when it asked more questions about damp and mould. There is no evidence that it took any action after this. It would have been good practice for the landlord to try further communication with the resident about her contact. However, after this she made no further contact attempts until 3 October 2024.
  5. On 3 October 2024, the resident reported an uncontrollable leak from the shower pump. The landlord raised emergency works and attended on the same day. It contained the leak with a towel and described it as very slow but constant. It noted that she did not want to turn off the water to the pump because it would affect the overall water pressure in the property. It said it needed to install a new pump.
  6. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of 3 October 2024 was prompt and in line with its repairs policy. However, it did not raise works for a new shower pump until 8 October 2024, 5 days later. It reattended to assess the required works on 16 October 2024 and completed the installation of a new shower on 15 and 22 November 2024. This was 33 working days after raising works and exceeded its policy repair time of 15 working days.
  7. The operative provided notes to the landlord following the completed works on 22 November 2024. It said the electrical shower blew due to poor installation. It removed the damaged electrical shower and installed a new one. It also completed works to provide a water supply from the water cylinder directly to the shower pipe and isolated the old pump pipe. The operative left the shower and cylinder in working order with no leaks. This was a positive step. However, it is concerning that previous operatives had completed poor quality works when considering the history of the complaint.
  8. In the resident’s complaint of 16 December 2024, she said the pump the landlord installed in November was leaking. She reported black mould and outstanding repairs on her kitchen ceiling. She asked the landlord to act immediately, or she would pursue legal action.
  9. The landlord shared the resident’s complaint with its repairs team on the same day. It raised further works and its contractor attended the property on 23 December 2024 to complete repairs. They found a fault in the shower pump. It replaced this again and resolved the issue. While at the property, it checked the water cylinder and ceiling for leaks and found no issues. It attended to her reports of a leak within its non-emergency policy timescales
  10. On 24 December 2024, the resident said she used her kitchen tap which caused the kitchen to flood. There is no evidence the landlord acted upon this report. While it had received several reports of similar issues, it should treat each one with individual importance. Therefore, its decision not to attend was unreasonable.
  11. The landlord raised repairs to address mould in the property on 2 January 2025. When it attended it found no mould but acknowledged the leaks had been ongoing for a long time. As this can create the risk of mould developed, it raised a survey of the property. It completed this on 17 January 2025 and found the source of the kitchen ceiling issues to be exposed pipework underneath. It found some mould growth on the plasterboard surrounding this area and raised works to rectify the issues.
  12. On 23 January 2025, the resident reported that the water pump was still leaking. It raised works and allocated them to its contractor for attendance on 10 February 2025. This appointment was within its repairs policy timescale of 15 working days for non-emergency works.
  13. In its stage 1 complaint response of 31 January 2025, the landlord acknowledged the delay of 12 weeks between the resident’s report of a leak in early October 2024 and the final replacement pump installation on 23 December 2024. It said it had a lot to learn about the management of its contractors and the time allowed to elapse before it followed up on works. It said there had been a responsive approach rather than a more managed one.
  14. The landlord offered the resident £500 compensation in respect of the high impact the issue had on her and her son. It said this recognised the occasional delays in responding and failing to successfully resolve the problems, despite trying to do so. It apologised for the stressful experience she had faced.
  15. The landlord’s stage 1 response was fair and appropriate. It apologised and recognised where it had failed and what it needed to learn from. While its compensation policy does not set out the amounts it will offer, it does categorise impact as low, medium, or high. It classed the impact on her as high, meaning there was a serious failure which had taken a considerable amount of time to resolve. This would have had a major impact on her lifestyle and enjoyment of her home. The amount offered was in line with this and the remedies guidance published by this Service for a failure which adversely affected the resident.
  16. In her escalation request of 1 February 2025, the resident said she felt it was unfair for her to have to live in a property with constant leaks. She said she wanted the landlord to remove the water pump and find another solution. She was unhappy that it had not told her about the exact works needed and when it would complete them. She felt the compensation offer was insufficient as it did not cover damage to property, her injury and electricity usage for the dehumidifier.
  17. On 10 February 2025, the landlord attended the resident’s property as arranged and completed works to replace the shower pump. This was within policy timescales and was the final repair ahead of its stage 2 complaint response. However, it took over 4 months to complete repairs to an acceptable standard and its operatives noted poor workmanship on some repairs. This was not reasonable and if it had completed works to a good standard during the first appointments, it may have avoided a new complaint.
  18. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it apologised for the injury the resident suffered after slipping on the water leak. It provided an injury claim form for her to complete and return to its insurance team. It also signposted her to her contents insurer or its insurance team for damage to her personal items. It offered compensation of £284.96 for electricity usage, in addition to its stage 1 offer of £500.
  19. The landlord’s decision to signpost the resident to her home contents insurer or its own insurance company for personal injury was in line with its compensation policy. The policy states it encourages residents to take out home contents insurance for their furniture, decorations and personal possessions, to insure them against accidental damage, loss, fire or water damage. It also says it will pass any claim for compensation in relation to impact on health to its insurers. Therefore, its decision to provide her with the claim form was reasonable.
  20. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and naming necessary improvements) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. This Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, which are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  21. In this case, there were failures in the landlord’s handling of the repair which it acknowledged in its complaint responses. The compensation offered in its complaint responses was fair and in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance. It showed leaning from the complaint by acknowledging its failure to act proactively, rather than reacting to her reports. As such, a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate in the circumstances.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. When it first receives a complaint, it will acknowledge it in writing within 5 working days and aims to provide an outcome within 10 working days of acknowledgement. When a resident escalates a complaint to stage 2, it will acknowledge it within 5 working days and provide an outcome within 20 working days. At both stages, it can extend the response timeframe and keep the customer updated.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy says it can make payments for poor complaint handling. For example, it will provide £10 a week for delays in responding outside of its policy timescales. However, it will consider the time and effort from a resident to follow up their complaints.
  3. Following receipt of the resident’s complaint of 16 December 2024, the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 17 December 2024. This was within its complaints policy timescale. However, it did not respond within 10 working days, and the resident approached this Service for support. We wrote to the landlord and asked it to provide a stage 1 complaint response by 21 January 2025. We wrote to it again on 24 January 2025 as it failed to respond and gave a new deadline of 31 January 2025.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response to the resident on 31 January 2025, 30 working days after acknowledging her complaint. This exceeded its policy response time for stage 1 complaints. It did not apologise for this delay, nor did it make any offers of compensation in line with its compensation policy. This was not reasonable as the evidence shows she chased it for a response during the 30 working days.
  5. After receiving the resident’s complaint escalation request on 4 February 2025, the landlord did not acknowledge this until 24 February 2025. This was 14 working days later and exceeded its 5 working day acknowledgement policy timescale.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 11 March 2025, 25 working days after she requested escalation of the complaint. While this was a smaller delay than at stage 1, it did not acknowledge either delay in its stage 2 response. It again failed to apologise or compensate for the delays in its complaint handling.
  7. Overall, there were clear failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. There were avoidable delays in the complaints process and the landlord did not apologise for these. It did not offer redress in line with its compensation policy. As such, a finding of service failure is appropriate, and we will make orders for financial compensation and an apology.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant. In our opinion it satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £70 for the delays in responding to her complaint at stage 1 and stage 2 of its complaints process.
    2. Write an apology to the resident for the failures identified in its complaint handling.
    3. Provide proof of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the total sum of £784.96 which it has offered to pay across all complaint responses if it has not done so already, as this recognised genuine elements of service failure and we make the sufficient redress finding on that basis.