Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202403086)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403086

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

27 March 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:
   1. handling of reports of damp and mould and various repairs.
   2. complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord in a 2-bedroom ground-floor flat. The tenancy commenced in September 2019. She occupies the property with her three young children, one of whom has asthma, which the landlord is aware of.
3. On 4 December 2023, the landlord surveyed the property. It found the bedroom and living room windows were not watertight, there were leaks down the wall, and the living room window did not lock. It also identified that the kitchen sink needed replacing. On 18 December 2023, the resident reported damp and mould in the property. She also reported repairs to her bathroom. On 21 December 2023 the landlord treated the mould and fitted a new bath panel.
4. On 5 January 2024 there was a leak from the flat above. The landlord resolved this and inspected the resident’s property on 8 January 2024. It found mould in the bedrooms and kitchen. It recommended various repair works and a new extractor fan in the bathroom. In addition, it recommended a mould wash throughout.
5. On 16 March 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. She said it was not effective to have thermal boarding under the windows and felt the mould could still grow behind this. She also questioned what the landlord was doing about the other areas in the property. She said she had reported damp and mould since she moved in and felt that the situation was affecting her children’s health. She added that the property was overcrowded and wanted the landlord to offer a safer solution to resolve the damp and mould or move her. On 20 March 2024 the landlord acknowledged the complaint and said it would respond to her by 5 April 2024. The next day, the resident said that the windows, kitchen vent and kitchen sink had not been repaired, and she had chased these since Christmas. On 12 April 2024 the landlord replaced the kitchen sink.
6. On 23 May 2024 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process. In summary, it said:
   1. It understood the critical nature of this situation, given the health issues affecting her children.
   2. It raised an emergency repair on 6 January 2023 to address a leak from the flat above, which was resolved.
   3. A mould treatment was carried out on 1 March 2024, and it had scheduled further treatments.
   4. On 6 March 2024 it installed thermal boarding under the windows to address the mould issue.
   5. It had tried to contact the resident to carry out a post-inspection but was unable to make contact.
   6. The resident reported the kitchen sink repair on 4 December 2023, which was completed on 12 April 2024. It apologised for the delay.
   7. It has not previously raised the repairs to the windows and kitchen vents and its contractor would contact the resident to complete these.
   8. It was committed to supporting her efforts to find a new property and attempted to contact the resident on several occasions to discuss her concerns and left voicemails each time.
   9. It would offer £210 compensation, comprised of £150 for the prolonged delay in addressing the damp and mould and kitchen sink repair and £60 for the delayed complaint response.
7. The same day, the resident told the landlord that she was unwilling to accept any compensation as the problem had not been resolved. She disputed that the landlord had tried to contact her about her concerns and said she had evidence that the mould work should be carried out along with the ventilation and windows. She was concerned that the mould would be masked rather than removed and felt the thermal boarding works had been done incorrectly. She repeated her concerns about the risk to her children’s health and added that she had constantly chased the landlord to get these matters resolved.
8. On 16 July 2024 the landlord carried out window repairs to the property. On 17 September 2024 it inspected the property again. It found that although there were no elevated moisture readings, there was a ‘must smell’ under the kitchen sink cupboard and no extractor fan in the kitchen. It added that there was no damp and mould in the bathroom and bedrooms and no evidence of water penetration or external defects. It recommended a further intrusive inspection and for it to complete any necessary plumbing repairs and/or a mould wash. On 7 October 2024 the resident informed the landlord that damp and mould was still present and it had not addressed the bathroom ceiling repairs.
9. Following contact from this Service, the landlord issued its stage 2 final response on 6 December 2024. In summary, it said:
   1. Its inspection on 17 September 2024 found the property in good standing with no visible evidence of mould.
   2. There was a suspected leak within the void behind the kitchen units. These works were partially completed on 7 October 2024, and it would arrange to fit a double-glazed unit and an extractor fan to the kitchen.
   3. It would arrange for a contractor to repair the bathroom ceiling.
   4. It would offer a further £160 compensation, comprised of £100 for the delays in completing the bathroom ceiling repairs and £60 for its delayed stage 2 response.
10. The resident asked this Service to investigate the complaint. She said there was still mould in the property, and the compensation did not cover the damage caused. She felt the landlord was arranging appointments without properly consulting on her availability and said that repairs, including the kitchen extractor fan and double-glazed unit, were still outstanding. She said the situation had affected her child’s health and added that the landlord had told her that the mould may return as the property was overcrowded.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. The resident said in her complaint to the landlord that she had reported damp and mould in her property since she moved in. While this may be the case, under the Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period (usually within 12 months) of the matters arising. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme. Therefore, this investigation is focused on the landlord’s actions and handling of reports from December 2023 when regular reports began to be made.
12. The resident has also said that the damp and mould problems affected her children’s health. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the damp and mould within the property and the household’s health. The resident, therefore, may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if they consider that their health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any errors by the landlord.
13. Additionally, this Service recognises that the resident felt that the landlord was responsible for damage caused to her possessions due to its handling of her reports of damp and mould. However, it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine cause, liability, or negligence for damage to the resident’s possessions. The resident would, therefore, need to claim through the landlord’s liability insurance.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and various repairs

14. The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of this matter. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, the Service assesses whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
15. The landlord’s repairs policy states that non-emergency repairs, such as repairs to kitchen units and windows, will be completed within 15 working days. Its damp and mould procedure states that when a resident reports damp and mould, it will book a pre-inspection and raise appropriate works to resolve the source of the problem. It adds that it will keep residents updated throughout the ongoing repairs. Upon completion of the works, the landlord will check to ensure all completed works are to the expected standard. After 6 weeks, it will contact the resident and ask whether the works have been successful. If the problem has returned, it will revisit the issue. If overcrowding is noted at the property, the landlord will discuss options for more suitable accommodation or provide relevant signposting advice to the resident.
16. The landlord’s repair records indicated that a survey of the property was carried out on 4 December 2023 where it identified repairs to the bedroom and living room windows. However, its records were not entirely clear about what work was carried out. It said that the windows were reported as completed on 5 December 2023, however, there are no notes about what work took place. Furthermore, photographs provided to this Service of ‘before’ and ‘after’ work suggested that only the top living room window was repaired on this date. Moreover, the resident told the landlord in April 2024 that the windows had not been repaired, and she had been chasing this since Christmas. It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude that the landlord failed to carry out the entirety of the window repairs within its policy timescales. By not doing so this this would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who lived with inadequate windows for a period of time.
17. During this December 2023 survey, the landlord also identified that the kitchen sink drainer was bent. It said the bowl had a ‘big dip’ in the draining side and the sink would need replacing. However, the landlord did not replace the sink until 12 April 2024, over 4 months later. This was again outside its policy timescales and would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident, who was left without a properly functioning sink for a considerable time, which may have affected her ability to use it.
18. On 18 December 2023 the resident reported damp and mould in the property as well as a broken bath panel. In response, the landlord acted appropriately by carrying out a mould wash of the affected areas and fitting a new bath panel, which it did so promptly. Additionally, it acted fairly by inspecting the property shortly afterwards on 8 January 2024. At this inspection, the landlord found damp and mould in the bedrooms, which it said was likely caused by a lack of insulation in the cladding under the windows. It also identified 2 blown windows in the main bedroom and a ‘small area’ of mould behind the washing machine in the kitchen, which it attributed to a lack of ventilation. To resolve these issues, a number of repair recommendations were made, including a further mould wash and insulation in the bedrooms. However, there was no evidence that the landlord acted on these recommendations within a reasonable timescale.
19. Indeed, the landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged that it had not previously raised the issues with kitchen ventilation and blown windows. Its failure to raise and complete the recommended remedial works within its policy timescales meant the resident had to live with damp and mould for longer, and the adverse effect on the resident was likely significant, given the household’s circumstances. Furthermore, this caused time and trouble for the resident as she had to chase the landlord for updates.
20. On 1 March 2024, the landlord attempted to carry out a mould wash, which appeared to be prompted by the resident. This was almost 2 months after its January 2024 inspection. It is recognised that the landlord’s records indicated a mould wash was carried out earlier than this. However, there is no evidence of when this took place or who initiated it, and the landlord’s internal notes showed it was also unclear about this. In addition, its stage 1 response said that on 6 March 2024, it installed thermal boarding under the windows to try and address the mould issue. While this was a reasonable step and the resident did not dispute this, this Service has seen no evidence of when this actually took place. This indicates issues with the landlord’s repairs record keeping and a recommendation is made below.
21. It appeared many of the relevant repairs were carried out between May and July 2024. This was several months after the landlord’s January 2024 inspection, and the resident had already raised some of these concerns, such as the window repairs, as early as December 2023. These were unreasonable delays, and the evidence indicated that the onus was often on the resident to progress matters.
22. On 17 September 2024 the landlord carried out another inspection of the property. It noted a ‘musty smell’ under the sink cupboard, which it said may be due to water escape and recommended further investigation. It was also noted that there was no extractor fan in the kitchen. It is unclear if and when a further investigation took place or why the landlord did not address these matters sooner, particularly as the landlord previously inspected in January 2024 where it recognised a lack of ventilation in the kitchen. The resident informed this Service in March 2025 that she did not have an extractor fan in the kitchen. She also explained that the mould had returned in her bedrooms and was still present under the kitchen worktops.
23. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report entitled “Damp and mould: It’s not lifestyle” outlines that ‘landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner.’ It continues that ‘landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly to manage resident’s expectations.’ In this case, the household was left exposed to damp and mould for a prolonged period because of the landlord’s inability to satisfactorily coordinate necessary remedial works and act promptly on recommendations made. Further, the adverse effect caused to the resident is more significant given the fact she occupies the property with her children, one of whom has asthma.
24. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she felt the landlord was arranging appointments without properly consulting on her availability. While there is no evidence to support this, it is concerning that the landlord has not provided this Service with any call logs or records. While it is acknowledged that it provided this Service with a few internal emails that suggested calls were made to the resident, there is no meaningful evidence to support the claim made in its stage 1 response that it attempted to contact the resident on several occasions to discuss her concerns as well as attempting to arrange a post inspection. Furthermore, the resident disputed these assertions in her escalation request, and the landlord did not rebut this. This suggested there were likely communication issues on the landlord’s part, and there was no evidence that it kept the resident adequately updated throughout the ongoing repairs, contrary to its policy.
25. The resident explained that the landlord told her that the mould would return due to the property being overcrowded. Although the landlord adequately addressed this in its stage 1 response by providing appropriate advice and signposting, it is noted that an inspection carried out in January 2025 stated that there was ‘an issue with overcrowding’. It added that this was a ‘contributing factor’ to the mould returning and that its ‘homemoves’ team would need to discuss the resident’s housing options. Given the circumstances of this case, the landlord should complete an action plan in relation to the damp and mould, taking into account the suitability of the resident’s current accommodation.
26. Overall, the landlord’s handling of damp and mould and various repairs in the property was unsatisfactory. There were a series of failures that had a detrimental impact on the resident, and the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to put right the failures identified in this report. There were prolonged delays in addressing the damp and mould and delays in various repair works such as the kitchen sink and bathroom ceiling. In addition, not all failings were identified and therefore not put right. Moreover, some repairs such as the kitchen fan and double-glazed unit appear outstanding. This amounts to maladministration. This Service’s remedies guidance suggests awards from £600 compensation should be considered where the adverse effect was significant. Because of this, orders are made below for remedy in line with this guidance.

Complaint handling

27. The landlord’s complaint policy states that when it first receives a complaint, it will formally acknowledge it in writing within 5 working days and aim to agree on a solution with the resident within 10 working days from the date of acknowledgment. At stage 2 it states it will respond within 20 working days. It adds that if the complaint is exceptionally complex, it may take longer than 20 working days to resolve. In such cases, it will keep the resident informed about the reasons for the delay and provide regular updates.
28. It took the landlord over 2 months to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1. This was contrary to its policy timescales. Nevertheless, it recognised this delay and affect this likely had on the resident and apologised. In addition, it offered £60 compensation for the delay. This was fair, and the Ombudsman considers that its offer of compensation was satisfactory in putting things right for this delay.
29. However, it took the landlord over 6 months to respond to the complaint at stage 2. This was despite the landlord acknowledging the resident’s escalation request on 10 June 2024 and advising her that it would respond by 9 July 2024. Although the landlord contacted the resident on 9 July 2024 and agreed to an extension on the complaint, there was no evidence that it provided regular updates in line with its policy. This caused time and trouble for the resident, who chased the landlord for a response on more than 1 occasion and contacted this Service for assistance. Furthermore, the delay was considerably outside of the landlord’s policy timescales.
30. Although the landlord apologised for this and awarded a further £60 compensation in its stage 2 final response, the Ombudsman considers that this offer did not reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident. Its offer of £60 compensation was identical to its stage 1 offer despite the delay at stage 2 being much longer and the adverse effect likely being greater. Further, this demonstrated a lack of learning on the landlord’s part, given there had already been a delay at stage 1. This amounts to service failure, and an order of compensation has been made below.

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of damp and mould and various repairs.
32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

33. The landlord must do the following within the next 4 weeks:
    1. Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £770 comprised of:
       1. £150 for the prolonged delay in addressing the damp and mould and kitchen sink repair as offered in its stage 1 response if it has not done so already.
       2. £100 for the delays in completing the bathroom ceiling repairs as offered in its stage 2 final response if it has done so already.
       3. £120 compensation for the delays in responding to the complaint as offered in its stage 1 and 2 responses if it has not done so already.
       4. A further £350 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and various repairs.
       5. A further £50 for the adverse effect caused by the complaint handling errors identified in this report.
    3. Write to the resident to set out a schedule of works for the outstanding repairs to resolve the damp and mould, including the double-glazed unit and kitchen extractor fan. It must also investigate under the worktops as outlined in its January 2025 inspection. The schedule must provide timescales for completion.
    4. Provide an action plan in relation to the damp and mould, taking into account the suitability of the resident’s current accommodation.
34. The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendation

35. The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report of Knowledge and Information Management (available at: KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).