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

Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202342452)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342452

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

28 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Request for replacement windows.
    2. Reports of repairs to the back door.
    3. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a house owned by the landlord. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. The resident reported her back door would not lock to the landlord on 6 October 2023. It completed works but reattended in January 2024 for the same issue and said it needed to fit a new door. On 30 January 2024, she asked when it would replace the windows after it surveyed the property in late 2023.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 30 January 2024 about the ongoing issues with her windows, the broken back door, and other outstanding repairs. It responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 16 February 2024, confirming it would not replace her windows. It provided a date for replacing the back door and offered compensation totalling £300 for repair delays and poor communication.
  4. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 16 and 20 February 2024. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response about the windows as she was sure its surveyor told her they needed replacing. She raised further concerns about the ongoing door issues on 27 March and 2 April 2024.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 3 May 2024. It apologised for the ongoing issues with repairs and maintenance. It explained why it would not be replacing the windows following an inspection from a senior surveyor. It said it had ordered the replacement back door and booked a provisional works date of 15 June 2024 if the door had arrived. It apologised for complaint handling delays and offered additional compensation of £400, comprising:
    1. £100 for repair delays.
    2. £100 for its delayed complaint response.
    3. £200 for its lack of communication.
  6. This brought the landlord’s total offer across both complaint responses to £700.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint and the issues raised and brought her complaint to this Service for investigation. She is looking for it to complete the necessary repairs and provide an increased offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has continued to report further issues with both the windows and back door after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues that have completed the landlord’s formal complaints procedure. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to our involvement. This report will focus on the landlord’s handling of the window replacement and repairs to the back door up to the landlord’s final complaint response of 3 May 2024.
  2. We note the resident made a new stage 1 complaint. It is open to her to escalate any remaining complaint points to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process and raise a new complaint with this Service if she dissatisfied with its response.

Window replacement

  1. Following contact with the landlord asking for an update about window replacements on 30 January 2024, the resident complained on the same day. She said its surveyor had described the windows in the property as blown and in bad condition. She said she felt misled by the surveyor.
  2. The landlord investigated this internally and found the scheduled renewal year for the windows to be 2032. It found it had raised a repair for misted windows on 28 November 2023 which it attended. It surveyed again on 2 February 2024 and reported the windows did not need changing. It checked its contractor’s system and found no evidence to the contrary.
  3. In the landlord’s complaint response of 16 February 2024 it explained it had conducted a management investigation of the survey at the heart of the resident’s complaint. It found its surveyor conducted the inspection appropriately and in line with its standards.
  4. The landlord explained its policy was to replace windows every 30 years, meaning the resident’s windows were due for replacement in 2032. It encouraged her to report any issues with her windows in the usual way and it would complete repairs as normal. It concluded that following its survey in February 2024, the windows were in an acceptable condition and did not need replacing.
  5. The landlord’s complaint response was fair. It investigated the complaint internally and reinspected the property to ensure it could provide a factual response. Its approach was in line with its repairs policy, which says it will pre-inspect repairs to see if the need is in the best interests of the landlord and resident to achieve a sustainable repair solution. In this instance, its inspection showed that there was no need to replace the windows.
  6. In the resident’s escalation request of 16 February 2024 she claimed the landlord’s surveyor was lying about the window replacement. She said the most recent surveyor did not touch the windows and she disputed its position of the windows being in an acceptable condition.
  7. On 23 February 2024 the resident contacted the landlord for clarity as she said it had measured the window frames. She said the metal frame was rotten, but it had told her she would not get new windows. She asked it to call her to discuss this but there is no evidence it did so. It would have been good practice for the landlord to call her and discuss the issue. While it was clear in its stage 1 response, there was clearly some confusion for the resident which it could have resolved by way of a telephone conversation.
  8. However, the landlord did take steps to ensure it was providing her with the correct response in an internal email on 6 March 2024. It asked the senior surveyor for more information, and it confirmed the windows were not due for renewal until around 2032. It said any current issues would have to go through the repairs team. On 13 March 2024, it spoke to the resident and noted that she had agreed with it that there were no blown window units. She told it that her main issue was the amount of condensation on the windows in winter. This was a positive action and helped to find her exact concerns.
  9. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 3 May 2024, it said it could find no evidence that the original surveyor promised the resident new windows. It confirmed there was no current need for immediate window renewal. Its response to this point was brief. However, it had no new information to provide following its stage 1 response, so this was reasonable in the circumstances.
  10. Overall, the landlord handled the resident’s requests for replacement windows fairly and in line with its repairs policy. It showed diligence in investigating her claims against its original surveyor internally on more than one occasion and found no evidence that it had promised to replace the windows. Despite this, it surveyed again in February 2024 to check it had made a fair decision. As such, a finding of no maladministration is appropriate for this complaint element.

Back door replacement

  1. The resident reported issues with her back door not locking on 4 occasions between 6 October 2023 and 5 January 2024. On each occasion, the landlord attended within its emergency repair policy timescale of 24 hours. It could not access the property on 2 of these occasions. On 11 January 2024, its operatives requested it replace the back door due to the condition of the lock and the door itself. This was fair as it had previously completed repairs but recognised that these were not effective in the long-term.
  2. On 30 January 2024 the resident chased an update on the replacement door. She raised this as an ongoing concern as part of her complaint on the same day. The landlord raised works for a new back door after receiving these communications. Its operatives already asked it to do this on 11 January 2024. It is unclear why it waited over 2 weeks to do this instead of raising works upon receipt of the operative’s comments.
  3. The works to replace the door would fall under the landlord’s repairs policy for variable timescale repairs due to needing to order a replacement door. However, it did not keep the resident updated as per its repairs policy. After this, it arranged an appointment for 23 February 2024 to complete door works.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 16 February 2024, it provided a history of its repairs to the door including the times it could not access the property. It gave the appointment date of 23 February 2023 to replace the back door. It offered compensation totalling £300 for 4 separate repairs issues, inclusive of the back door, comprising:
    1. £200 for delays in resolving the issues.
    2. £100 for its lack of communication.
  5. The landlord did not give a breakdown of that compensation. Therefore, as it covered 4 different issues, it is fair to attribute £50 of the delay compensation and £25 of the communication compensation to this complaint element. This brings the landlord’s offer to £75 relating directly to back door repairs.
  6. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and naming necessary improvements) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, which are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  7. This compensation offered of £75 was fair considering its good first response to issues and the minor delays in raising works to replace the door.
  8. In her complaint escalation request, the resident expressed frustration with the landlord’s claims that it could not access the property. She said it attended in the morning before she was available.
  9. The landlord attended the property as arranged on 23 February 2024. However, it did not fit a new back door as it said it would. Instead, it rehung the existing door and completed repairs to the hinges and frame. It measured for a new door and noted the rotten condition of the existing door. The resident called it on the same day to ask for an update on when it would be fitting a new door. As this was an integral part of its stage 1 complaint response, her frustration at a further delay was understandable.
  10. On 7 March 2024, the landlord said internally that it ordered a new door on 23 February 2024 after taking measurements. It is unclear why it ordered a door on this date when its records state it had done this already on 30 January 2024. While it would have fallen under its variable repairs timescale, it failed to keep the resident updated or show good organisation of the repair.
  11. The resident asked the landlord for an update on 19 March 2024 as it had not contacted her since the appointment on 23 February 2024. It spoke to its contractor, who said they needed to recall the works. As such, it raised a new repair for the replacement back door. While this was outside the landlord’s control, it failed to monitor the progress of works and only asked for a status update following the resident’s contact. This was not in line with the communication of updates outlined in its policy.
  12. The landlord’s contractor attended 2 further appointments on 15 and 29 April 2024. At both appointments, the contractors took pre-work photographs but did not complete works. On 29 April 2024, the contractors took new measurements for the door as they decided to change the unit to a PVC door and frame due to its condition. It ordered the new door, and this had a 4-to-6-week lead time for arrival.
  13. The contractor’s decision to change to a PVC door and frame was understandable for a long-term solution to the ongoing issues. However, they made this decision 3 months after the landlord first raised works for a replacement door. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have surveyed the door and come to a quicker decision about the replacement.
  14. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 3 May 2024 it apologised for the inconvenience caused by ongoing issues in the property. It acknowledged the stress and frustration experienced by the resident. It provided a provisional repair date of 15 June 2024 for the replacement back door. It said it would contact her if this changed. It offered compensation totalling £300 across 3 separate repairs issues. Again, it did not give a breakdown and, as such, we can contribute £100 of this to the back door replacement, comprising:
    1. £34 for repair delays.
    2. £66 for lack of communication.
  15. Alongside its offer of compensation, the landlord noted the failures in its communication and coordination of works. It said it would follow repairs through to resolution.
  16. Overall, the landlord’s response, apology and acknowledgement of lessons learnt were reasonable. However, its £100 compensation offer was low. This offer would be in line with “low level” impact in its compensation policy. However, the delay is more in line with its “medium level” impact. It defines this as an issue which caused significant inconvenience to a resident and took multiple attempts to resolve. An offer around £200 would be more appropriate and in line with our published remedies guidance.
  17. There is no evidence to show the landlord completed works as expected on 15 June 2024. However, evidence appears to show it replaced the door on 27 August 2024 with follow-up works needed. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to complete these repairs, if it has not done so already.
  18. Overall, the landlord’s initial handling of the back door repairs was reasonable. However, when it came to replacing the entire unit there were clear and obvious failures. Its communication with the resident was poor and it did not effectively monitor the works. Its total compensation offer was £175 which did not reflect the level of impact on the resident or the almost 7–month wait she faced for a replacement door. As such, we have made a finding of maladministration and ordered further compensation of £175 in line with our remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will formally acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days. It will aim to respond within 10 working days of acknowledgement. At stage 2, it will acknowledgement escalation requests within 5 working days and respond within 20 working days of acknowledgement. At both stages, it can extend its response time and will keep the resident informed.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 31 January 2024, within 1 day of receiving it. This was good practice. It said it would respond by 14 February 2024. It missed this date but provided the response on 16 February 2024. While outside of its policy response time, this was a minor delay.
  3. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 16 and 20 February 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge this request. She called to chase it on 23 February 2024 and emailed on 5 March 2024 to ask why it had not escalated her complaint.
  4. The landlord called the resident on 6 March 2024 and apologised for the delay in contacting her. It acknowledged her stage 2 escalation request on the same day. It said it aimed to send a response by 3 April 2024. However, it did not do this, nor did it agree an extension to its response time as outlined in its policy.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident on 3 May 2024. This was 40 working days after its acknowledgement email but 53 working days after her first request to escalate. This far exceeded its policy response time.
  6. In its response, the landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the resident and the inconvenience caused as a result. It said it was reviewing its internal processes to ensure it could respond to complaints in a prompt and efficient manner. It offered compensation of £100 for its delay complaint response.
  7. In this case, the landlord’s apology, compensation offer, and review of internal processes showed a good adherence to our dispute resolution principles and showed genuine efforts to put things right and learn from outcomes. Its compensation offer exceeded its policy of offering £10 per week for delays in responding to complaints outside of target timescales. As such, consider a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for replacement windows.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of replacing the resident’s back door.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant. In our opinion it satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £350, comprising:
      1. £175 previously offered in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses for delay in replacing the back door.
      2. £175 additional compensation for the impact of back door delays identified in this report.
    2. Contact the resident and arrange an inspection of the back door to ensure it has completed all required works. If it has not done so, it must provide an appointment for completing these.
    3. Write an apology to the resident for the failures identified in its handling of replacing the back door.
    4. Provide proof of compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord pay the compensation amount of £100 for complaint handling, if it has not done so already as this recognised genuine elements of service failure and we make the sufficient redress finding on that basis.
  2. We also recommend the landlord carries out the follow-up repairs to the new back door, if it has not done so already.