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

Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202300282)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300282

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

24 June 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:
    1. Request for a mutual exchange (MEX).
    2. Reports of repairs identified during the MEX process.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The landlord is a housing association. The resident was an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom house (property 1). She applied for a MEX to another landlord property, a 3-bedroom house (property 2), on 29 December 2022.
  2. A pre-exchange inspection of property 2 happened on 24 February 2023. This found several outstanding repairs, some of which the landlord was not responsible for fixing. These needed to be completed to an acceptable standard before the MEX could be approved so the application paused whilst this happened.
  3. The resident complained about the delay in completing the MEX on 8 March 2023. She said contractors failed to attend appointments at properties 1 and 2 and she did not receive promised call backs. She said it had been ongoing for 5 months and was stressful.
  4. The outstanding repairs in property 2 (that were not the landlord’s responsibility) were completed and later approved by an inspector on 21 March 2023. Other repairs that the landlord was responsible for remained outstanding. The resident signed a new tenancy agreement for property 2 on 6 April 2023 and the MEX was completed on 26 May 2023.
  5. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 30 May 2023 and acknowledged delays completing the MEX. It also acknowledged failed call backs and that an inspection form had been lost. It said the MEX took place at the earliest opportunity following a further inspection. It offered £150 compensation for this and £80 for complaint handling delays.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 9 June 2023, saying she missed 6 days off work and the compensation did not recognise this.
  7. The landlord carried out further repairs to property 2 between 28 July and 15 August 2023. It issued a stage 2 response on 14 November 2023 and reiterated its stage 1 position in respect of the MEX. It also apologised for delays carrying out repairs and the inconvenience this caused. It said all repairs had been arranged. It awarded £900 compensation for delays completing the MEX, repair failures that arose during this process, and communication failures, including the delay in replying to complaints.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In her contact with us, the resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of repairs carried out in property 2 after she had moved in. However, these issues were not raised as part of the complaint under investigation here. As a result, they are not addressed in this report. Instead, our investigation is focussed on the specific repair issues identified during the MEX process and raised as part of the formal complaint. If the resident has ongoing concerns about the quality of other repairs, she may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord and then refer it to us if necessary.

Landlord’s handling of the MEX

  1. The resident told us she applied for a MEX on 21 November 2022 but the records show the application was submitted later (evidence suggests her initial application was rejected). Following this, she needed to provide various identity and financial documents to support her application. In addition, both properties needed to be inspected to identify any outstanding repairs and to confirm they were compliant with gas and electrical safety regulations. This is because the landlord needed to be satisfied the properties were in reasonable condition and there were no outstanding repairs. The landlord’s policy says it aims to complete these checks within 42 days. This meant the landlord should have approved or rejected the application by 9 February 2023.
  2. Records do not show when the resident provided the necessary supporting evidence. Although the resident complained about failed contractor appointments, we have not seen evidence of this at property 1. Internal emails from the contractor dispute that they failed to attend. However, there is evidence of a failed visit at property 2 in January 2023. Whilst this wouldn’t have resulted in the resident taking time off work unnecessarily, it would have delayed the MEX process and caused her inconvenience.
  3. The landlord has acknowledged that an inspection report was lost. The resident said the inspection happened in January 2023 but we have not seen evidence to confirm the date of the original inspection. Nevertheless, another inspection was needed and evidence suggests this did not happen until 31 March 2023, causing further delay.
  4. After the inspection of 31 March 2023, the landlord was able to approve the application, and it did so shortly after within a reasonable time. The resident signed a new deed of assignment on 6 April 2023, less than a week after the inspection.
  5. Within its complaint responses the landlord recognised delays and failures during the MEX process but did not address the resident’s complaint about failed contractor visits. Overall, it awarded £900 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by failings, but did not provide a breakdown of this sum. For the purposes of this investigation, we have allocated £400 of this to failings identified as part of the MEX process.
  6. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will consider paying compensation if it has failed to meet its own targets. It recommends awards of between £100 and £500 for serious or prolonged service failure resulting in severe stress, disruption and inconvenience. It does not allow for payments to be made because a resident took time off work (reflecting our own remedies guidance). Important checks and inspections needed to be carried out before the MEX could take place and, while these may have been inconvenient, the resident would be expected to facilitate them if she wanted the MEX to go ahead.
  7. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  8. Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, £400 compensation is considered reasonable. It recognised the 2-month delay in completing the MEX and the time and trouble expended by the resident as a result of the initial inspection report being mislaid. This award is in line with our remedies guidance for when there has been a failure that adversely affected the resident, with no permanent impact. Whilst the landlord should also have addressed the resident’s complaint about failed contractor visits, and offered an explanation, the compensation it has awarded is sufficient to also recognise this failure.
  9. Therefore, we find the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of the MEX. A recommendation is made for the landlord to pay the resident the £400 compensation, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord. 

Landlord’s handling of repairs

  1. The inspection of property 2 on 24 February 2023 identified missing kitchen units, damaged plaster in the bedroom, and that the bath panel needed decorative work (in addition to repairs that were the responsibility of the existing resident). The landlord accepted responsibility for these. Its repair policy says these are Priority 2 repairs which should be completed within 15 working days.
  2. Although the landlord raised a repair to fix the kitchen cupboards on 20 March 2023, it does not appear this happened before the MEX was completed. Its repair policy says incoming tenants can accept a property in its current condition and evidence suggests the resident was happy to do so. However, the landlord should have completed the outstanding repairs it was responsible for within 15 working days of the resident moving in.
  3. While the MEX was completed on 26 May 2023, the landlord told us it did not raise repairs to the kitchen cupboards, plaster in the bedroom or outstanding work in the bathroom until 7 July 2023. The resident should have expected repairs to be completed on or around 19 June 2023, but this did not happen until between 28 July and 15 August 2023. This was outside the 15 working day period the landlord aims to complete repairs within and was a failure in service.
  4. We have not seen details of when the resident raised dissatisfaction with the time taken to carry out these repairs. However, the landlord apologised for the delay carrying out repairs that arose from the MEX in its stage 2 response. It awarded £400 in recognition of this. Its compensation policy says it can make awards of between £20 and £100 for a succession of service failures that were not resolved within a reasonable time frame. The award of £400 exceeded both this guidance and our own remedies guidance for when there has been a failure that has had an adverse impact on the resident, again with no permanent impact. Therefore, we find the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of the delay carrying out repairs also, and a recommendation is made in that regard.

Landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord should, therefore, have replied to the stage 1 complaint by 22 March 2023, but it did not do so until 30 May 2023. This was a failure in service.
  2. This failure continued as the resident should have expected a response to her stage 2 complaint on 7 July 2023, but this did not happen until 14 November 2023. This was significantly outside the time frame the landlord aims to respond to complaints within and caused the resident stress and inconvenience. 
  3. The landlord openly acknowledged these failings within its complaint responses and offered £100 compensation for them. This was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance as we have detailed above. We would expect to see an award of between £50 and £100 when there has been a service failure resulting in delays resolving a matter. Therefore, we find the landlord has provided reasonable redress in respect of its delay responding to the resident’s complaints.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s:
    1. Request for a MEX.
    2. Reports of repairs identified during the MEX process.
    3. Associated formal complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £900 previously offered for the failures identified it this report, if it has not done so already. This recognised genuine elements of service failure and the reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this being paid.