Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202319954)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319954

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

30 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:
   1. The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
   2. The associated complaint handling.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

3. The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property was a 3-bedroom house. The resident had young children living in the property.
4. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 24 February 2023. She was unhappy that it had booked repairs for 15 March 2023 as she felt it was too far away. She was concerned with the property condition during this time as she noted this impacted the household’s health and wellbeing. The resident said she had removed the flooring in the hallway due to the damp and mould, which would result in additional costs to replace. She also said she paid increased costs to heat her home due to the property condition. The resident said she felt the landlord had “let her down”. She also noted issues with a toilet repair raised incorrectly and lack of accuracy on the damp meter used during an inspection.
5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 18 March 2023. It said:
   1. The resident first reported damp and mould issues on 11 July 2022, which it inspected on 21 July 2022. It found significant damp throughout the property. It noted the cause was either due to a leak from the downstairs toilet or by the external ground level being too high.
   2. It raised works to its contractors to address both issues. It arranged and later cancelled an appointment for 23 August 2022. Its contractors put the works on “hold” and then attended on 24 November 2022. However, it could not gain access to the property, and it was unclear if it had notified her of this appointment.
   3. It raised a new repair job to lower the external pavement and driveway. It post-inspected the works on 29 December 2022 and found damp remained an issue.
   4. It inspected the worsening damp issues on 31 January 2023. It identified the damp occurred due to moisture entering the walls from a long-term leak in the downstairs toilet.
   5. It would complete further works on 21 March 2023 and 22 March 2023. This was to remove and renew the damp wall, skirting and ducting in the downstairs toilet. It would then replace the bathroom flooring afterwards. It had also arranged a follow-on appointment for any outstanding decorating works on 13 April 2023.
   6. It apologised for its unreasonable delays, the distress caused, the service received and its poor communication. It said it would review its multiple failures to learn from the complaint. It would also monitor the works to check it had completed this on 22 March 2023.
   7. It offered her £250 compensation for the inconvenience caused to her. It also asked her to provide costs of any decorative works needed after its appointment on 13 April 2023. It would then consider how much it could reimburse her before she purchased any items.
6. The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 25 May 2023. She was unhappy with the ongoing damp and mould issues and that it had not yet completed the repairs promised. She explained she did not have any flooring or skirting boards and noted that she had a young family living in such conditions. She also said she had run a dehumidifier since 28 April 2023, but she had to turn this off due to the high cost of running this.
7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 17 August 2023. It apologised for its delayed response and for not completing the repairs in April 2023. It acknowledged the impact caused to her and her family. It said it had completed a structural inspection of the property on 10 July 2023. It said it needed to complete complex works through its major works team. It would therefore need to decant her during the repairs, and its major works team would provide her further updates about this. It offered her £370 compensation. This consisted of £200 for the repair delays, £100 for the impact caused, and £70 for its delayed response.
8. The resident escalated her complaint to us. She remained unhappy with the outstanding repairs and the costs incurred to heat the property and run the dehumidifier. The complaint became one we could investigate on 11 June 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

9. The resident said that the landlord’s response to the damp and mould reports impacted the household’s health. We are not medical experts so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord. This includes any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.

10. When we investigate a complaint, we ask for the landlord’s records. Landlords must keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of its actions. In this case, the landlord has not provided us with its repair records. The only information related to its repair records is from an internal email gathering information for its stage 1 response and within the complaint response itself. We have not seen the original evidence from where the landlord took this information from.
11. Due to the lack of evidence provided, we cannot establish whether its response included all the available records held on its system. It is also unclear when it raised the repairs, and the priority it assigned to each repair job. We therefore cannot assess whether it acted appropriately in response to the damp and mould reports. Similarly, we cannot assess how it handled the resident’s concerns with the incorrect repair and inaccurate damp meter readings taken as the landlord has not provided such records. This is a record keeping failure. Given the lack of evidence, we have assessed its handling based on the information within its complaint response and the resident’s submissions.
12. The landlord’s maintenance policy explains its repair priorities and the relevant timescales for it to respond to the repair by. For emergency repairs, it will attend and make safe the issue within 4 hours and resolve this within 24 hours. For non-emergency repairs, it will complete the repair within 15 working days. It also has variable timescale repairs which include repairs which are complex, requiring multiple visits or multi-trade operatives. For such repairs, it will communicate the works needed and agree the timescales with the resident, and project manage the works to completion.
13. The landlord’s damp and mould procedure explains how it will respond to such reports. Following a report, it will arrange a surveyor’s inspection and record its findings on a pre-inspection form. Its surveyor will update residents proactively throughout any required repairs, logging all communication on its system. Its surveyor will then check the quality of the works. It will later contact residents after 6 weeks and a further 6 months to check the success of the works. If needed, it will complete a further inspection and arrange further works to resolve the damp and mould issues.
14. Within the stage 1 response, the landlord said the resident first reported damp and mould on 11 July 2022. It said she had reported damp patches and crumbling plaster on her walls. It said that its surveyor inspected the property on 21 July 2022. It therefore acted in line with its damp and mould procedure by arranging a timely inspection.
15. However, the landlord has not provided a copy of its pre-inspection form which it should have completed, in line with its procedure. We therefore cannot see what it found during the inspection, and whether the works raised were proportionate to its findings. We also cannot assess whether it completed a full investigation into all possible causes of the damp and mould. This is a failing.
16. The landlord said the cause of the damp was due to two factors. This was possibly due to a leak on the downstairs toilet causing the wall to absorb moisture. It was also possibly due to the external ground level being too high causing damp internally. It said it raised works to its contractors to address both repairs, but it is unclear when it did so.
17. In line with the landlord’s maintenance policy, we acknowledge that such repairs would likely fall under its variable timescale repair category. Its policy states in such cases, it would agree the timescales with the resident and manage the works until completion. However, it explained that it later did not complete the works and acknowledged its poor communication with the repair.
18. The landlord said it did not complete the works due to its contractor cancelling an appointment, attending another without notifying the resident to provide access and issues with its resourcing. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its poor service and poor communication. It also appropriately acknowledged this was its own error, showing it took accountability for its failings.
19. There is no evidence provided to confirm when the landlord cancelled the job after the failed appointment on 24 November 2022. It is also unclear when it later raised and completed the new repairs job to lower the external pavement and driveway. It said it post-inspected this on 29 December 2022, but it is unclear whether this was after or on the same day as completing the works. It is therefore difficult to assess what happened.
20. Nevertheless, it took over 5 months for the landlord to complete the ground levelling works since identifying the issue on 21 July 2022. During this time, the resident continued to experience concerns with damp and mould. It is a failing that there is no evidence to show whether it considered the safety or impact caused to the resident during this time.
21. In line with the landlord’s damp and mould procedure, it should have updated the resident regularly while awaiting the repairs. It should have also recorded such contact on its system. However, the landlord has not provided any communication logs or records of contact attempts made to her during this time. We therefore cannot conclude that it did so and therefore whether it acted appropriately in line with its procedure. Its lack of communication would have understandably caused her avoidable distress and inconvenience.
22. During the post-inspection on 29 December 2022, the landlord found that the damp remained an issue. However, there is no evidence that it progressed the toilet leak repair, despite identifying this contributing factor in July 2022. It is unclear why it did not do so. Instead, it took a further month for it to reinspect the property on 31 January 2023. It said it found the same issue with the downstairs toilet leak causing the damp.
23. By repeating the inspection without completing the repairs already identified, this would have added unnecessary delays in addressing the damp and mould at the property. This would have also understandably caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
24. In the stage 1 response, the landlord said it would complete works to resolve the damp in the downstairs toilet on 21 March 2023 and 22 March 2023. This would have been over 8 months since the resident’s first report of damp and mould. However, it later did not complete the works as agreed. There is no evidence to show what happened and why it did not or could not do so.
25. While the landlord said it would monitor the works in March 2023, there is no evidence to suggest that it did. There is also no evidence to show whether it communicated any delays to the resident during this time. This is a further failing. The landlord therefore did not learn from its mistakes and failed to put things right for the resident. It should have kept her updated with the progress of the works and reasons for any delays at the earliest possible opportunity. By not doing so, this caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
26. The resident included her concern with the outstanding repairs in her complaint escalation in May 2023. We would expect the landlord to consider such concerns with urgency and escalate the repairs appropriately. However, there is no evidence provided to show that the landlord looked into this until 3 July 2023. Internal emails suggest that it inspected the property on 10 July 2023. It has not, however, provided us with any records of what it found or what it proposed to do to resolve the issues.
27. The landlord provided us with a copy of an inspection report from its major works team which it completed on 16 August 2023. The report showed damp and mould throughout the property. This included photographs of rotten skirting boards and no flooring in some of the rooms. In its stage 2 response on the following day, it said it had passed the works to its major works team to manage. It explained that the property required “very complex” works. As such, it said it needed to temporarily move (decant) her to another property while it completed the repairs.
28. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise the need for a decant and to explain that it would provide further information about this. It also apologised for not completing the promised repairs and the impact caused to the resident and her family. However, at the point of its final response, the resident had experienced damp and mould issues for over 13 months.
29. It is concerning that throughout this time, the resident told the landlord that she had a young family and that their health was suffering. Neither the resident or landlord could definitively conclude that the health issues occurred due to the damp and mould. However, being notified of the situation should reasonably have prompted the landlord to make further enquiries with her. It could have assessed whether the property condition posed a health and safety risk to the resident. It also missed an opportunity to ensure its internal systems were up to date with relevant information of any vulnerabilities or underlying conditions within the household. Its failure to do so was not appropriate.
30. Additionally, due to the lack of records provided, it is unclear how extensive or widespread the reported mould was. Nevertheless, the landlord noted that the resident reported mould as well as the damp wall in July 2022. As such, it should have considered interim measures to manage the damp and mould. We expect landlords to complete a mould wash as a timely action to ease the visible signs of mould and minimise the resident’s discomfort. However, there is no evidence that it did this during this time. The landlord’s lack of action was therefore not appropriate.
31. The landlord acknowledged failings in its communication within its stage 1 response. However, its continued lack of updates after this meant that it failed to learn from its mistakes and to put things right for the resident. Similarly, it apologised for the delayed repairs within its initial response, but the resident experienced further delays after this.
32. The landlord offered the resident £550 compensation in total for its response to the reports of damp and mould. This included amounts towards the delays itself, any inconvenience and the impact caused to the resident. It was reasonable for the landlord to make an offer; however, we do not consider that the amount of compensation was proportionate in the circumstances. From the evidence we have seen, we do not consider that it reflected the impact caused by its delayed repairs.
33. The resident had experienced damp and mould issues for over 13 months at the point of its final response. The landlord knew the property condition caused her significant distress, including having a young family living in a home without flooring and reporting health concerns. It continued to provide minimal communication and failed to evidence that it acted in line with its policies and procedures. It ultimately had to decant the resident to complete the “complex” works to resolve the issues she had lived with for a sustained period of time.
34. Considering the above, the landlord’s compensation offer was not proportionate to the failings identified within this investigation. The landlord should therefore pay a further £700 compensation to the resident. This is to reflect the level of distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of damp and mould. It should also pay the £550 offered previously, if it has not already done so. The total offer of £1,250 is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for repeated failings, causing a significant impact to the resident.
35. We have not made any further orders related to the property condition itself. This is because the landlord decanted the resident to another 3-bedroom property in April 2024. The resident later permanently took over the tenancy at the decanted property in July 2024. We recommend that the landlord considers its lettable standards guidance in relation to the property. This is to ensure the property meets its criteria before reletting, if it has not already done so.

The associated complaint handling.

36. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords must respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of the date of acknowledging and logging the complaint. Landlords must also respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy aligns with the Code.
37. The resident made her complaint on 24 February 2023. The landlord took 16 working days to provide its stage 1 response on 18 March 2023. This was 6 working days beyond the timescale set out in its policy and the Code. While only a minor delay, it did not acknowledge its failing within its response. This was not appropriate.
38. On 25 May 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord later provided its stage 2 response on 17 August 2023. It therefore took 59 working days to respond, which was 39 working days beyond its target timescale. The landlord acknowledged this failure and offered £70 for its delayed response. This was appropriate to reflect the time and trouble experienced by the resident due to this.
39. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response, it referred to relevant dates about the repairs. However, it incorrectly noted some of the dates within this, compared to an internal email listing the correct dates. For example, the response noted the resident’s first report of damp and mould was in July “2023” when this was in 2022. This was confusing. The landlord should review its responses before it provides this to residents to ensure that it provides high quality and accurate information.
40. The resident’s complaint included concerns with the running costs of the dehumidifier. It is unclear whether the landlord provided the dehumidifier to her or not. If it provided this, its compensation policy states it will pay for the running costs. She also said she struggled to pay the costs of increased gas and electricity to heat the home due to the damp. Despite the landlord noting this as the main aspect of her complaint, it did not respond to this issue in its stage 1 response. This was not appropriate.
41. When the resident escalated her complaint on 25 May 2023, she repeated her concerns with the cost of running the dehumidifier. She said she could not afford to run this any longer. On the same day, the landlord offered her £100 compensation to help allow her to run the dehumidifier. While this was appropriate, it later did not address the concerns about the affordability and increased bills within its stage 2 response. It also failed to consider whether the £100 offered was proportionate for the full costs of her increased bills.
42. The Code outlines that landlords must respond to all points raised in the complaint. The landlord’s responses were therefore not compliant with the Code. As such, it was a complaint handling failure that the landlord did not fully address the resident’s concerns within its responses. It missed an opportunity to investigate her concerns and put things right for her. For example, by referring her to its tenancy sustainment team to assess her affordability and offer help and support to her.
43. Within the complaint, the resident also told the landlord that the property condition impacted the household’s health and wellbeing. While part of its compensation offers included amounts towards the “impact” caused to her, it did not consider the resident’s health concerns. In line with the landlord’s compensation policy, it will investigate such claims through its insurers. It is a failing that it did not provide details of how to do this. This was a missed opportunity to allow an independent investigation into her concerns about their health.
44. In addition to the landlord’s offer of compensation, it said it would consider any extra decorating costs that the resident may incur. This was appropriate at the time as it showed it was sympathetic and wanted to put things right for her.
45. Overall, the landlord appropriately acknowledged and offered compensation to put right the impact caused by its delayed stage 2 response. However, it did not address the extent of its complaint handling failures. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling for the following failings:
    1. Its delayed stage 1 response.
    2. Its handling of the resident’s concerns about their health.
    3. Its handling of her concerns with the affordability of her heating costs.
    4. The inaccurate dates listed within its initial response.
46. Considering the above, the landlord should pay a further £75 compensation to the resident. This is to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the above failings. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for failings which did not cause any long-lasting impact to the resident. The landlord should also provide the resident with details of how to make a claim to its insurers about her health, if she wished to.

Determination

47. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
48. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the associated complaint handling.
49. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

50. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination, we order the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing regarding the failures identified within this investigation. It should include specific examples within this.
    2. Pay the £620 compensation offered within its complaint responses if it has not already done so.
    3. Pay a further £775 compensation to the resident. It should pay this directly to the resident and not her rent account. This consists of:
       1. £700 for its response to reports of damp and mould.
       2. £75 for its complaint handling.
    4. Confirm its position regarding paying the resident further compensation for increased gas and electricity costs or whether it believes the £100 offered was proportionate. It should provide this information in writing to the resident and include the reasons for its decision.
    5. Provide details of how to make a liability claim to its insurers for the resident’s reported health concerns. It should provide this in writing and offer reasonable support if requested.
51. The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance with the orders within the period set out above.

Recommendations

52. The landlord should consider its lettable standards guidance in relation to the property. This is to ensure the property meets its criteria before reletting, if it has not already done so.
53. The landlord should review its responses before providing this to residents to ensure that it provides high quality and accurate information.