Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202318065)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318065

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

02 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Pests in his property and communal areas of the building.
2. Repairs to the floorboards in his property.
We have also looked at the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord and lives in a block of flats. The resident has physical disabilities that the landlord is aware of.
The resident reported there were mice in his flat to the landlord on 31 March 2023 and 13 July 2023. The landlord raised works orders for its pest control contractor to attend the building at the time, but it has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of its repair records or inspection reports related to these visits.
The resident visited the landlord on 3 April 2023 to make a complaint regarding mice in his flat. The landlord offered the resident support so that he could “fund alternative facilities whilst waiting for pest control.” The details of this offer are not known to us as the landlord has not provided any further explanation.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 August 2023 and told it:
1. The property was infested with vermin, and this was impacting his ability to use the bathroom at night.
2. The floorboards in the property were unstable and had caused him injuries. He said gaps between floorboards were allowing insects into the property which were biting him.
3. He wanted the landlord to re-house him or fix the floorboards.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 August 2023 and said it had refused to log his complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process, despite him complaining to it for 6 months. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its process the same day.
The landlord organised for pest control to visit the resident’s property on 3 occasions between August 2023 and September 2023. It found evidence of mice in the kitchen and completed treatments in the resident’s property and the communal electric cupboard. In September 2023 pest control confirmed the treatments were complete and there was no further evidence of rodent activity.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 1 September 2023. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint and said pest control had found active rodent activity in his flat and in the building, but that it had raised pest control jobs and completed treatment in an efficient manner. It also said it could not find any evidence of it refusing to log the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its process.
The resident requested the landlord escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 7 September 2023. He said it had failed to resolve the pest issue and had not acted until it logged his complaint at stage 1 of its complaint process. He also said that a neighbour had reported the pest issue to the landlord prior to his first report in March 2023 but that the landlord had failed to treat the communal building as well as individual flats for pest issues.
The landlord instructed pest control to carry out a further visit to the resident’s property and assess whether it was habitable on 21 September 2023. Pest control attended and found no signs of any fresh rodent activity.
The resident contacted the landlord to chase a repair to the floorboards on several occasions from October 2023 to December 2023. He said insects were getting in through gaps in the floorboards and biting him.
On 16 October 2023, the landlord visited the resident’s property and identified mouse droppings in his flat and requested pest control attend. The resident also contacted the landlord on 6 November 2023 to report sightings of mice as well as mites and fleas in his home. Pest control visited the resident’s property 4 times during November 2023 to complete treatments for mice. It found a number of holes that needed urgent proofing and sent the locations of these to the landlord for it to fill in.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 15 December 2023. It upheld the complaint and said:
1. It had been responsive to reports of pests and raised appropriate works, but the time taken for pest treatment to work effectively varies.
2. It would raise the repair for the floorboard that day.
3. It was sorry for the delay in responding to the complaint.
4. It would offer the resident £280 compensation made up of:
  1. £100 for its management of the pest issue.
  2. £100 for its miscommunication and the delay in the repair to the floorboards.
  3. £80 for the delay in complaint handling.

Events after the landlord’s final response

The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s offer of compensation and requested it consider compensating him for the following:
1. Damage to his laminate flooring caused by the floorboards.
2. The inconvenience caused to him by the landlord’s handling of the pest issue and associated repairs.
3. The exacerbation of his health issues caused by rodents in the property.
4. Financial loss including travel expenses, additional food expenses and an increase in electricity bills.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 24 February 2024 and confirmed the internal flooring in the lounge, hallway and bedroom had been boarded over.
The resident reported pest issues to the landlord again in August 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We are aware that the resident experienced further issues with pests in his property in August 2024. Whilst we understand this has caused him further distress, it is outside the scope of investigation to look at the more recent pest activity because the landlord needs to have the opportunity to respond to this through its complaints process before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. This investigation will cover the period of time from the resident’s first report of pests in March 2023 to the landlord’s final complaint response in December 2023 and any actions it committed to as part of its final response. The resident may be able to make another complaint to the landlord should he be dissatisfied with its handling of his report of pests after December 2023.
The resident has raised concerns about the impact of the pest issue and outstanding repairs to the floorboards on his health. We acknowledge this has been a difficult time for him and the Ombudsman can consider the likely distress and inconvenience any failings by the landlord may have caused, but we cannot determine the specific effect of the landlord’s action or inaction on the health of the resident. Any such claim would be more appropriately progressed through liability insurance or as a civil action through the courts. If the resident wishes to pursue a personal injury claim, he can seek independent legal advice.
We are also aware the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of:
1. A telephone conversation it had with him in December 2023.
2. Heating repairs.
3. Communication relating to his rent account.
These matters were not included in the resident’s original complaint to the landlord, and we have therefore not assessed the landlord’s actions in relation to these as part of our investigation. The landlord must first be given the chance to investigate and respond to these issues before we consider them. The resident can raise a formal complaint with the landlord if he wishes to pursue his concerns further. If he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response, he may be able to then refer the new complaint to us for consideration. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says we cannot investigate matters which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.
The resident also requested the landlord reimburse him for costs he incurred due to increased electricity and food costs, along with reimbursement for damage caused to his laminate flooring. As the resident made this request after the landlord issued him with its final complaint response, it did not have the opportunity to respond to him as part of the complaint. If it has not already done so, we recommend that the landlord considers and responds to the resident’s request that it reimburse him for these costs. It can assess the claim itself or refer it to its liability insurer. The Ombudsman will not comment on the outcome of a claim if one is made to an external insurer as insurers are separate organisations from landlords and we can only look at the actions of social landlords. Should the resident remain unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his request for it to compensate him for damaged items and costs incurred, he can make a new complaint to the landlord.
The resident has also provided us with evidence that the landlord intended to visit his property to repair the floorboards in 2021. However, under paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which we typically consider to be within 12 months of the matters arising. On this basis, we will not investigate matters that occurred in 2021, and this investigation will not focus on the landlord’s handling of repairs to the floorboards at that time. We will consider events from August 2022 onwards, which is 12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord.

The landlord’s policies

The landlord’s pest control policy states it is responsible for the pest control treatment of rats, mice, and fleas within communal areas of a building of flats and in individual flats should there be evidence pests have accessed the building via a communal area or a building defect. The landlord will carry out up to 4 visits to bait and remove mice and/or rats. It will investigate the source of any pest issue and if required, block holes in the resident’s home. The resident is responsible for reporting pest control issues as soon as they discover them. Residents are also responsible for maintaining their property and garden, so they do not encourage pests.
The landlord’s website says it will complete non-emergency repairs within 15 working days.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it will log complaints within 5 working days of receipt and operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states stage 1 complaint responses must be sent within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses sent within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that if a resident wishes to claim compensation, they must do so within 28 days of the incident taking place. It will consider paying compensation where it has:
1. Failed to meet its own service targets, and if a resident has been unable to use a room in their home.
2. Failed to deliver a service which is paid for through a service charge.
3. Not acted reasonably.
4. Damaged personal possessions.

The landlord’s handling of pests in the resident’s property and communal areas

It is vital for landlords to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision-making at the time. If the Ombudsman investigates a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies.
The landlord has not been able to provide a copy of its repair records or any reports relating to works or inspections it completed in response to the resident’s reports of mice in the building prior to 4 August 2023. Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord and the resident disputing it acted in response to his reports of pests, the Ombudsman has concluded the landlord failed to respond appropriately and in line with its policy at the time. This means there was a 6-month delay from the resident’s first report to the landlord taking effective action to resolve the pest issue. This was a failure by the landlord which would have caused the resident distress.
The Ombudsman understands that the mice infestation will have been a very difficult and distressing experience for the resident. However, our assessment is limited to the landlord’s obligations and whether it followed these. It should be noted that it can take multiple attempts to resolve mice infestations and treatment may take time to be effective. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord.
The resident has also said that his neighbour reported mice in the building before he first reported the issue to the landlord but that it did not act at the time. We acknowledge what the resident has said but we have not seen evidence to confirm the pest issue was reported previously and we can only base our decisions on the available evidence. The landlord would not be expected to share information about a neighbour’s report with the resident due to confidentiality. Our investigation has focused on the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his reports of pests and whether it acted fairly, in line with its legal obligations, policies and procedures and industry best practice.
The landlord considered decanting (temporarily re-housing) the resident in July 2023. This was positive given the distress the pest issue was causing him. However, the landlord took no further action until September 2023 when it requested pest control determine whether the property was habitable. The landlord was entitled to rely on these findings to support it with its decision on whether to decant the resident, however it took longer than it should have to do so. Furthermore, the landlord has not shown evidence it communicated the outcome or reasons for its decision to the resident. This was a failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a decant which caused him further distress.
The resident has also requested the landlord reimburse him for travel expenses due to him staying with family members and friends whilst the pest issue was ongoing in his property. Although we have found a failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s request for it to decant him, we have found no evidence that the property was uninhabitable. On this basis, the landlord is not responsible for reimbursing the resident travel costs he incurred whilst the pest issue was ongoing.
When the resident reported the pest issue again to the landlord on 4 August 2023, it acted appropriately by requesting its pest control contractor attend to the property to carry out a course of treatments. This was in line with its own pest control policy. The landlord has said it completed proofing works to the building, including fitting rat valves and clearing the overgrowth in the garden. Although it has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of its repair records, the resident has not disputed that this work has been done and so it is reasonable to conclude it took place. The action the landlord took at this point demonstrated it was working towards resolving the issue of mice in the resident’s property and acting on the recommendations of pest control. This was in line with its pest control policy.
When the landlord has made an offer, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess whether the offer is fair and reasonable. Given the landlord’s failure to provide accurate records to demonstrate it acted after the resident’s first pest report and before August 2023, we do not find the amount the landlord offered adequately reflects the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by its actions, which amount to maladministration. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which sets out our approach to compensation, we have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation. This should replace its original offer of £100 for its handling of the resident’s reports of pests, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the floorboards

The resident told the landlord there were gaps in the floorboards and that they were unstable in August 2023. The landlord failed to raise a repair until December 2023. This was an unreasonable delay by the landlord and not in keeping with its published timescales for non-emergency repairs. The delay would have caused distress to the resident.
The resident also reported that insects, mites, and fleas were entering his property through gaps in the floorboards on a number of occasions. However, there is no evidence the landlord sought to investigate the resident’s concerns. The landlord should have inspected the issue within 28 days when it was first notified and recorded its findings and actions. This was a failure by the landlord which caused the resident further distress.
The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for its handling of his reports of repairs to the floorboards. Whilst it is positive that the landlord attempted to put things right, given its overall delay in raising the repair and its failure to address the resident’s concerns that insects, mites and fleas were entering the property through the gaps, we do not consider this amount adequately reflects the distress and inconvenience the resident would have experienced as a result of the landlord’s actions. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as referenced above, we have found service failure by the landlord and made an order for it to pay the resident £200 compensation. This should replace its original offer of £100 for its handling of repairs to the floorboards, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord acknowledged its failure to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint within its published timescales and offered the resident £80 compensation. This offer of compensation made by the landlord adequately reflects the distress and inconvenience the resident would have experienced as a result of the delay to his complaint.
However, the landlord failed to log the resident’s initial complaint when he visited it in person on 3 April 2023. The resident also contacted the landlord on 4 August 2023 and raised concerns with its handling of the pest issue and the impact on his health, but the landlord failed to identify this as a complaint at the time. This was not in keeping with its own complaints policy and prevented the resident from accessing its complaints procedure.
Therefore, in line with our remedies guidance, we have made an order below for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by this error which, along with the delay in complaint handling, amounts to service failure by the landlord. The landlord should pay the resident a total of £180 compensation in recognition of its overall failings in complaint handling. This should replace its original offer of £80.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests to the property and communal areas of the building.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the floorboards in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings highlighted by this investigation in its handling of pests in his property and communal areas of the building The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
2. Pay the resident the following compensation:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of pests.
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the floorboards.
  3. £180 for the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its complaint handling.
  4. If the landlord has already paid the resident compensation it offered in its complaint responses, this may be deducted from the overall total. However, additional compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account, unless otherwise agreed by the resident.
The landlord should provide this service with evidence to confirm it has complied with the orders above within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord responds to the resident’s request for it to reimburse him for damage caused to his laminate flooring, additional food costs and increased electricity bills, if it has not already done so. The landlord should confirm its decision to the resident in writing, including the reasons for the decision.