Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202319979)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319979

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

28 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of foul smells in their property.
2. Complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord and occupies a 1-bedroom first-floor flat. The landlord has told the Ombudsman it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded on its system for the resident.
The resident first reported an intermittent foul drainage smell in their kitchen to the landlord in April 2012. A contractor attended the property, but the issue was not resolved and the resident asked the landlord to investigate further. However, the matter was not addressed at the time.
The evidence suggests that the foul smell was next reported to the landlord on 24 May 2021. The resident said that, having examined the cupboard under the kitchen sink, they believed the smell was coming from an open, uncapped wastepipe. They asked the landlord for a drain cap to cover the pipe in order to reduce the foul smell. On 22 October 2021, they advised the landlord that the cap was proving ineffective in resolving matters. They asked that the redundant wastepipe be removed and the resulting holes in the wall be filled when the contractor attended to other drainage matters in November 2021. They contacted the landlord again on 17 April 2022 to advise that this had not been done.
On 28 May 2022, the resident complained to the landlord as the foul smell was coming into their bedroom, bathroom and kitchen. They said the landlord had not done anything to address the problem, which they had first reported over 10 years ago. They said they had told the landlord on many occasions that they no longer had a phone and that email was their only form of contact. They noted that it had not replied to their email of 17 April 2022 and had ignored the difficulties they were experiencing. They asked that the gutters be cleaned and the drains checked. They also sought compensation for the landlord’s failings, as a result of which the resident was subjected to “a sickening foul smell for over a decade”.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 21 June 2022. As well as addressing other unrelated matters, it stated:
1. Its contractor had been in regular contact with the resident and had resolved most issues.
2. There were 2 previous repairs raised for the smell in the property in June 2021, but both were “no access” visits. This had been raised again and a letter to confirm the appointment would be sent to the resident.
3. The contractor was responsible for maintenance and repairs to the guttering. It was aware the resident had reported these matters directly to the contractor and the works were being arranged.
The resident replied to the landlord on 21 June 2022 to escalate their complaint to stage 2. They repeated that they had told both the landlord and contractor on multiple occasions over many months that they no longer used a phone. They asked that their records be updated accordingly and clearly noted that they could only be contacted by post or email.
The resident disputed that there was no access in June 2021 and requested any correspondence relating to those appointments. They said the contractor had attended in November 2021 but did not have a ladder long enough to reach “the clogged and mossed up gutters at the rear of the property or the redundant pipe that was causing a foul smell”. The resident confirmed these works had since been completed. However, they were still seeking compensation “for the very long delay in addressing these issues and in particular the nuisance of long-term exposure to a foul drain smell”.
Thereafter, on or around 23 June 2022, the landlord’s surveyor identified damage to the rear cast iron soil stack and suggested installing a collar around this “to prevent further damage or leaks”. The resident also advised that, when the redundant wastepipe to the kitchen was removed, the other end was not sealed, “leaving a broken open pipe”. They continued to report issues with foul smells in their property and complained about the outstanding repair to the soil stack on 5 December 2022, asking the landlord to address this at stage 2.
The landlord’s stage 2 response, dated 11 January 2023, stated:
1. It had reviewed the property’s repairs and complaints history but could not locate reports of a foul smell prior to June 2021. It asked the resident for any reference numbers for complaints or repairs so it could investigate further.
2. Regarding the no access appointments, the attending operative could not contact the resident before arriving as the resident did not use a mobile phone.
3. Where the contractor was unable to make contact by phone to arrange a visit, a letter would be sent confirming the appointment. However, this may have been ineffective due to recent postal strikes. It would update its system to show that, going forward, appointments should be confirmed by email to ensure the resident was aware when an operative would be attending.
4. When the contractor attended, they found the repair had been raised incorrectly as the description of the issue and works required was wrong. They detailed the work needed and asked the landlord to raise a new works order.
5. An appointment to complete further work to the guttering had been booked for 18 January 2023.
6. It accepted and apologised for the avoidable delays in completing the repairs. It was aware the resident did not use a mobile phone, so its system should have been updated for it and its contractors to reflect this.
7. It also apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint.
8. It offered compensation totalling £210, comprising:
  1. £200 for the repair issues.
  2. £10 for the delay in providing its complaint response, calculated at £2 per day from the response due date of 6 January 2023.
On 14 March 2023, the resident confirmed to the landlord that “the final source of foul odours was addressed by the stack pipe repair on 14 February 2023”. The landlord replied on 17 March 2023, apologising for the time it had taken to fix the problem and the frustration caused to the resident. It offered additional compensation of £350, calculated at £50 per month for the 7 months it took to resolve the issue. It said it would add the details to the lessons learnt on the complaint file so that, in future, it got to the root cause quicker and fixed the matter. It told the resident this would also be fed back to its repairs management so it could be picked up with the contractor in their next meeting.
The resident was not happy with the compensation offered as they felt this did not reflect “the very long term nature of the problems”, which dated back to 2012. They duly referred their complaint to the Ombudsman and asked us to investigate on 15 November 2023. They have told us that they suffered nausea “from breathing in the noxious fumes” in their flat for over a decade, but the landlord’s compensation offer was only based on a limited recent period of delay.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The evidence shows that the foul smell was first reported to the landlord in April 2012. While the historical issues give context to the complaint, this investigation has not considered events prior to May 2021. Under paragraph 42.c of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident raised a formal complaint about this issue to the landlord until 28 May 2022. Therefore, we have considered events from 12 months before this date onwards, which is broadly reflected in the above timeline.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that the longstanding exposure to foul smells in the property has made them unwell. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, unlike a court, we cannot establish what caused the health issue, or determine liability, and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts.

Reports of foul smells

While the Ombudsman recognises the difficulties sometimes associated with investigating reports of foul smells, these are more relevant to the historical reports of foul smells made in 2012. By May 2021, the resident’s reports related to specific repairs in their property that they believed were causing the smells, specifically an uncapped wastepipe under their kitchen sink and, later, the damaged soil stack pipe.
The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property, including drains, gutters and external pipes, in good repair. It is also responsible for keeping in good repair and proper working order any installations for sanitation and the supply of water, including basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems and wastepipes.
The landlord’s maintenance policy provides timescales for responsive repairs based on the level of priority to be given:
1. Emergency repairs to be attended to and made safe within 4 hours and rectified within 24 hours.
2. Non–emergency repairs to be completed within 15 working days.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, highlights the importance of good record keeping practices. It is vital for the landlord to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. It should have appropriate systems in place to keep records of repairs and monitor the outcome of contractor appointments so that it can demonstrate its actions and interventions. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision-making at the time. 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.
In this case, the landlord did not provide the Ombudsman with evidence of the resident’s reports in 2021 – these were provided by the resident. Nor has it evidenced the steps it took to address those reports at the time. For instance, we have not seen the landlord’s or its contractor’s communications with the resident ahead of the no access appointments referred to in its stage 1 response. While records suggest that a contractor subsequently attended on 4 and 5 November 2021, it is not clear what work was carried out. Similarly, the Ombudsman has not seen repair records to show when the wastepipe to the resident’s kitchen was removed, if/when the other end was capped, or when the soil stack pipe was repaired.
The landlord’s internal email of 9 June 2022 indicated that no works orders had been raised with the contractor regarding the foul smells reported by the resident since the no access appointments in June 2021. This demonstrates a failure by the landlord to take timely and reasonable steps to address the resident’s emails of 22 October 2021 and 17 April 2022, in which they continued to report foul smells from the wastepipe under the kitchen sink.
The evidence suggests that the wastepipe under the resident’s kitchen sink was removed at some point prior to the stage 1 response. This was a delay of over 7 months from the resident’s request for removal of the pipe in October 2021. However, the resident’s email of 23 June 2022 stated that a contractor had advised that the other end of the wastepipe was not sealed. In the absence of any repair records, it is unclear if the landlord dealt with this. Therefore, it has been recommended that the landlord inspect this to ascertain if any further work is needed to address the resident’s concerns in this regard.
There was also a delay of over 7-and-a-half months in completing the repair to the soil stack pipe. This was first identified on or around 23 June 2022, but the work was not carried out until 14 February 2023. This was compounded by the fact that, when the resident chased this repair on 25 October 2022, the landlord claimed that the planned works at their property had been completed on 19 July 2022. The resident chased again on 21 November 2022 and was advised further repair jobs had been raised and it would keep them updated. No updates were forthcoming and the resident raised a further complaint on 5 December 2022. This highlights the missed opportunities for the landlord to address the outstanding repairs.
Multiple contractor attendances were required because there was confusion over the repair to the soil stack pipe. This is reflected in the contractor’s email of 15 December 2022, in which they suggested that “the stack pipe that was diagnosed as broken in June 2022 … was actually a broken waste pipe that was repaired on 06/07/2022” and they recommended a drain cap. It appears that they were confusing the repair of the soil stack pipe with the wastepipe in the resident’s kitchen, which highlights the landlord’s failure to properly manage these repairs. Consequently, on 4 January 2023, the contractor reported to the landlord that “the description of works raised was incorrect” and they would re-attend once the details of works submitted were approved. This was an avoidable delay in resolving the issue and prolonged its impact on the resident.
Similarly, on 13 January 2023, the landlord advised that the soil stack pipe was included in the works to be carried out on 18 January 2023. However, the resident pointed out that the works listed by the landlord related to the downpipe and guttering, and the soil stack pipe was a separate repair. The landlord then said it would include the repair to the soil stack “although this has been raised as a job before”. It is unclear why this repair was then not completed at the appointment on 18 January 2023.
The delays in carrying out the repairs to the wastepipe in the kitchen and the soil stack pipe were unreasonable and excessive against the timescale of 15 working days provided in the landlord’s maintenance policy. As above, the resident repeatedly chased for these repairs and reiterated their concerns about longstanding issues with foul smells in their property. The impact of the issues on them would therefore have been apparent to the landlord.
The delays in completing repairs were compounded by the landlord’s poor communications with the resident. For example, there is no evidence that it responded to their emails of 24 May 2021, 22 October 2021 and 17 April 2022. There were also issues with its communications regarding contractor appointments. The landlord’s poor communication caused the resident additional frustration, and may have led to them feeling that their concerns were not being taken seriously.
It is not clear from the available evidence when the resident first notified the landlord that they no longer used a phone and required all communications by post or email. However, it is noted that the landlord did not dispute the resident’s assertions, in their emails of 28 May and 21 June 2022, that they had advised it of this “on multiple occasions over many months”. In fact, in its reply of 22 June 2022, it accepted that the resident might not have been aware of the no access appointment on 19 July 2021 because the contractor had attempted to make contact by phone.
Despite the landlord’s assurance that its system and contractors had been updated to reflect the fact the resident did not use a phone, the contractor’s email to the landlord of 4 January 2023 stated there was still a phone number on the resident’s record, so their operatives would normally try calling before they attended. Meanwhile, the resident continued to report instances where the contractor attended without confirming the appointment by email – for example, on 1 July and 29 December 2022 and 6 February 2023. Records also suggest a no access attendance by the contractor on 15 November 2022, and it is not clear if advance notice of this appointment was given to the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 response did not provide reasonable redress to the resident as the repair to the soil stack pipe remained outstanding and, therefore, it reserved its offer of compensation in respect of this aspect of the complaint. That said, its compensation offer of £200 for the repair issues at the time demonstrated a commitment to putting things right.
There was a marked improvement in the landlord’s handling of matters following the stage 2 response. For instance, it actively sought to address the resident’s further concerns about the repair carried out to the soil stack pipe on 14 February 2023. Its communications were sympathetic and solution-focused and, ultimately, it obtained an explanation from the contractor that allayed the resident’s concerns.
Overall, we have found maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the repairs associated with foul smells in the property because:
1. It failed to keep and/or provide to the Ombudsman records relating to the resident’s reports of foul smells in their property and the steps it took to address the related repair issues.
2. There was a delay of over 7 months, from October 2021 to June 2022, in removing an uncapped, open wastepipe from the resident’s kitchen.
3. There was a further 7-month delay, from June 2022 to February 2023, in completing the repair to the soil stack pipe.
4. Multiple contractor attendances were required due to poor record keeping, appointments were missed due to no advance notice being given to the resident, and there was confusion over the works needed.
5. The landlord’s communications with the resident were poor and it failed to respond to their emails on several occasions. Further, the contractor repeatedly failed to arrange appointments by email and continued to attempt phone contact even though the resident had advised they no longer used a phone.
The landlord has offered compensation totalling £550 – £200 for the repair issues identified in its stage 2 response and £350 thereafter for the frustration caused as a result of the time it took to fix the soil stack pipe. While these awards reflect high impact under the landlord’s compensation policy, the level of compensation does not, in the Ombudsman’s view, fairly or proportionately reflect the impact of its maladministration on the resident. Therefore, we consider it appropriate to award additional compensation based on our remedies guidance.
The landlord’s multiple failings and the longstanding issues with foul smells in the property caused the resident a significant amount of distress, frustration and inconvenience over a 21-month period, from May 2021 to February 2023. In all the circumstances, fair and proportionate redress would fall squarely in the higher range of awards for maladministration, which applies where there was a failure that had a significant impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy provides the following timescales for dealing with a complaint, which are consistent with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”):
1. Acknowledgement of complaint and escalation request within 5 working days.
2. Stage 1 response within 10 working days.
3. Stage 2 response within 20 working days.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint on 31 May 2022, within 2 working days, and said it would provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days. However, while the acknowledgement was timely, the stage 1 response was issued 14 working days later. This was a relatively short delay and there was no evident distress or inconvenience caused to the resident as a result. However, it would have been good practice for the landlord to inform them in advance that it would need more time to respond.
The stage 1 response was not consistent with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. It provided incomplete and inaccurate information – that there were 2 incidents of no access in June 2021 – and, therefore, did not provide a fair assessment of the complaint or demonstrate learning from outcomes. It also failed to consider the resident’s request for compensation and made no other attempt to put things right, which was unsatisfactory.
Further, in that response, the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns that it had not dealt with their reports of foul smells in their property for over a decade. That is not to say that it ought to have investigated a complaint that dated back so many years. Even if the response focused on more recent events, acknowledging the history and extent of the issue would have been a positive step towards rebuilding the landlord-tenant relationship. However, combined with the lack of a compensation offer, this contributed to the resident’s feeling of being ignored.
The landlord then failed to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 following receipt of their email of 21 June 2022. The resident raised a further complaint on 5 December 2022. After they pointed out that their previous concerns had not been addressed at stage 2, the landlord accepted this as a stage 2 complaint. It is noted that, in considering escalation of the resident’s concerns at this stage, the landlord asked for a copy of their email requesting escalation in June. This further highlights the poor record keeping identified as part of the substantive complaint above.
The stage 2 escalation was acknowledged on 6 December 2022 and the resident was advised that a response would be sent within 20 working days. In fact, the stage 2 response was issued 24 working days later. Again, it would have been courteous for the landlord to have given the resident advance notice of the delay. While this was a relatively short delay against the 20-working-day timeframe provided on 6 December 2022, it was over 6 months after the resident initially sought to escalate their complaint in June 2022.
The stage 2 response was a better reflection of the Dispute Resolution Principles in that the landlord accepted and apologised for certain failings and offered compensation as a means of putting things right. However, it did not demonstrate that it had carried out a sufficiently robust investigation into some of the points raised by the resident in their stage 2 escalation of 21 June 2022 and the further complaint of 5 December 2022. For example, it had had ample time to ask the resident for evidence of their earlier reports of foul smells in order to respond to this aspect of the complaint. Also, it did not address its handling of the wastepipe under the kitchen sink. Furthermore, there was no indication of lessons learnt from its findings. The landlord therefore missed an opportunity to reassure the resident that it had put measures in place to prevent a reoccurrence of their experience.
While the landlord accepted and apologised for the delay in providing its complaint response, it failed to address the significant delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2. Therefore, its offer of £10 compensation was inadequate to put things right for the resident, who had expressly requested compensation for its failure to operate within the timescales of its complaints procedure.
The landlord’s email of 17 March 2023 demonstrated a sincere and sympathetic approach to resolving the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged “how frustrating it is that a simple matter took so long to address” and sought to put things right by way of its additional compensation offer and assurance that learning would be taken away from this case. This was consistent with the Dispute Resolution Principles and acts as a good example of how the resident’s complaint ought to have been dealt with at each stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure. However, the increased offer cannot be considered reasonable redress as it was made over 2 months after its stage 2 response.
In all the circumstances, it is appropriate to find maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling on this occasion. This is because there was a prolonged failure to address the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its complaints procedure, which caused a significant amount of frustration and inconvenience to the resident. Therefore, we consider a high impact payment is justified under the landlord’s compensation policy. This is also in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of foul smells in their property.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its failings in this case, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £950, which comprises:
  1. £800 for the frustration, distress and inconvenience caused as a result of its multiple failings in the handling of the resident’s reports of foul smells in the property.
  2. £150 for its complaint handling failures.
  3. These sums should be paid directly to the resident and must not be offset against any arrears.
  4. If already paid to the resident, the landlord should deduct from the total compensation payable under this order the sums of £210 offered on 11 January 2023 and £350 offered on 17 March 2023.
3. Ensure its records accurately reflect the resident’s up-to-date contact details and preferences, including the removal of any phone numbers no longer in use, and obtain confirmation from its relevant contractor(s) that their records are also correct.
The Ombudsman orders that, within 12 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must carry out a review of its handling of the repair issues and complaint in this case. A report detailing the outcome of the review should be submitted to the Ombudsman and should identify:
1. What went wrong, what it has learned from the resident’s experience, and what it will do differently to avoid the same happening again.
2. Any changes (or planned changes) to its processes and practices to ensure it deals with repairs effectively and without delay. This should include, but is not limited to, consideration of its communications with the contractor, appropriate oversight and monitoring of issues.
3. Any staff training needs to ensure complaints are dealt with in a reasonable and timely manner.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident, using their preferred method, to arrange an inspection to check that the pipework was appropriately sealed after the removal of the wastepipe under the kitchen sink.