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

Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202400857)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400857

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

6 February 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:
    1. Consideration of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
    2. Response to the resident’s reports of a leak, associated repairs, and mould.
    3. Response to the resident’s queries about the payment of a months’ rent in advance.
    4. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has lived at the property with her child since December 2022. She has an assured tenancy. Throughout her correspondence with the landlord in respect of this case, she advised that she has an anxiety related eating disorder, generalised anxiety disorder, social anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
  2. On 20 October 2023 the resident reported damp in the property and cracks in the walls. A contractor attended on 24 October 2023 and carried out a mould wash and repainted. A surveyor subsequently attended on 25 October 2023 and noted various repairs required to the property including the roof, extractor fan and balcony. It strongly advised the resident not to use the balcony under any circumstances.
  3. The resident reported several other issues to the landlord on 13 February 2024. She stated that the property had had leaks for 6 years before her tenancy started in 2022. She mentioned recurrent damp and mould which was affecting her and her son’s health. There had been missed and unconfirmed repairs appointments and the building was unsafe due to rough sleepers and antisocial behaviour. The lift had broken down many times and her request for rehousing had not been responded to.
  4. After contact from the landlord, the resident confirmed on 7 March 2024 that she wanted it to raise her concerns as a complaint. A survey of the property on 12 March 2024 confirmed damp problems due to issues with the roof and the water penetration. It also identified further inspections to be undertaken and repairs to be completed.   
  5. Between 21 March and 17 April 2024 contractors attended, however access could not be gained due to the resident having COVID-19 or due it having given her no prior notice of the appointments.
  6. The resident added to her complaint on 19 April 2024 and stated that contractors had attended unannounced, which had caused her to have panic attacks. She added to her complaint further on 21 April 2024 that upon signing the tenancy, the landlord had incorrectly advised her in respect of payment of a month’s rent upfront. This had put her in financial hardship.
  7. On 29 April 2024 the landlord responded at stage 1 and acknowledged that there had been delays to the completion of the works raised to stop the leak. However, subsequent delays had been due to no access to the property. It stated that the lift issues had occurred between 31 January and 11 March 2024. The rent payment had been agreed during the affordability check with the resident and her rehousing request had been sent to the appropriate team. It offered her £300 in compensation for the delays and poor service and stated that it would a further offer, dependent on the completion of outstanding works.
  8. In expressing her dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response, on 29 April 2024 stated disputed the landlord’s assertions with respect to the appointments and the lift faults. She queried the details it provided on the rent payment. She also stated that she had been chasing repairs for 6 months, October 2023 to April 2024.
  9. The landlord advised the resident on 17 May 2024 that she had been making payments to build up 1 months’ rent in advance. She had an additional £260.86 left to pay and her payments of £25 per month were going towards this.
  10. The landlord advised the resident about its calculations on her rent payments on 17 May 2024. It responded to her complaint on 11 July 2024, acknowledging a further month of delay to the works. It recognised that the resident needed to be informed of appointments in advance and asked her to confirm her availability. It offered her a further sum of £150 in compensation for 1 month delay and poor communication. Thus, its total offer was £450.
  11. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 12 July 2024. She stated that the landlord had not taken the complaint seriously and no attempts had been made to rectify the repairs.
  12. On 16 January 2025 the resident advised this Service that all matters had been resolved. The landlord spoke to the resident on 23 January 2025 and noted that she was happy with the works. She also advised that she had found an alternative property to exchange with.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. In her formal complaint to the landlord the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s response in respect of her request to be rehoused. The landlord responded to this within its stage 1 response and the resident did not escalate this aspect of complaint further. Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. As the resident did not ask the landlord to escalate this matter to its final stage of its internal complaints procedure, the resident’s request to be rehoused is outside the jurisdiction of the this Service. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident stated within her correspondence that there had been a leak since 2022. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focused on the period from 20 October 2023 (the time of the resident’s report of the leak leading to the complaint) and the landlord’s subsequent actions. Any reference to events that occurred prior to this are made in this report to provide context.
  2. Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident advised that the situation had a detrimental impact on her and her son’s health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis and the cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect of the landlord’s actions or inactions on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result.
  3. Following the referral to this Service, the resident stated that she felt discriminated against by the landlord. It is acknowledged that this is a serious allegation. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place in a legal sense. A ruling on whether discrimination has taken place, as a breach of the Equality Act 2010, is for a court to decide. Although the Ombudsman is unable to reach legal findings, we can consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue her concerns using equalities legislation. If the resident would like this to be considered by the landlord, she would need to raise this as a complaint.

Response to the resident’s reports of a leak along with associated repairs and mould

  1. The resident reported damp and cracks on the walls on 20 October 2023. The landlord’s maintenance policy states that it will compete non-emergency repairs within 15 working days. This includes leaking roofs and blocked gutters. The landlord responded appropriately and arranged for a mould wash to take place 2 working days later (24 October 2023) to address the existing mould. To address the cause of the leak, it arranged for a surveyor to attend the following day, 25 October 2023. The surveyor confirmed that there was water entering the property due to a repair issue. It also identified that the bathroom extractor fan needed to be replaced, as did the balcony flooring which was unsafe.
  2. The resident submitted a complaint on 13 February 2024 as no work had taken place. She explained that the mould had spread within her son’s bedroom, the living room and balcony area. She outlined her concerns about the conditions on her and her son’s health and the lack of fresh air as they could not use the balcony.
  3. Despite the required repairs having been identified in October 2023, the landlord did not raise any repairs until 19 February 2024, around 4 months later, when it did so in respect of the defective guttering. It requested that once this job had been completed, the balcony would need to be repaired. Despite raising the work to the guttering, there is no evidence that this was actioned at the time or in line with its maintenance policy.
  4. Another survey was carried out on 12 March 2024, which confirmed water ingress due to an issue with the roof and guttering. The surveyor also identified that the fuse in the kitchen extractor fan needed to be replaced. It provided appropriate advice to the resident of ways to help improve ventilation and requested that the landlord provide an industrial dehumidifier.
  5. Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe, warm and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved. Hazards are set out in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of the HHSRS. In addition, the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions.
  6. Although the landlord had carried out a mould wash in October 2023, it was aware that the cause of the water ingress had not been resolved. In addition, despite the surveyor’s request, this Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord replaced the fuse in the extractor fan or provided a dehumidifier to help tackle the damp. This was not reasonable given the findings of the surveyor, the confirmed water ingress and the health concerns raised by the resident. As such, the landlord missed an opportunity to reduce potential hazards and help improve the ventilation and living conditions for the resident.
  7. The landlord arranged for a contractor to attend on 21 March 2024 to repair the source of the leak. The resident advised that she had asked the landlord to cancel this as she had COVID-19. Despite her request, the contractor attended, and the resident declined access. The resident made the landlord aware on 4 April 2024 that, due to her vulnerabilities, she needed prior notice of contractor appointments. The landlord’s maintenance policy states that contractors will confirm appointments prior to attendance. As such, the resident’s request was in line with what the landlord should be doing as standard in respect of carrying out repairs.
  8. Despite this, the Ombudsman has seen evidence that contractors attended on 5 occasions after this time, without giving the resident prior notice: 9 April, 17 April, 23 April, 8 May and 20 June 2024. This lack of advance notice, led to the resident advising that she had suffered panic attacks as a result and to all but one of the appointments being ineffective. The appointment on 8 May 2024 was able to go ahead but only because the resident happened to have a friend over at the time.
  9. The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals and to advance equality of opportunity for all. The landlord is required to comply with the provisions for public bodies under the Act. In addition, the Social Housing Regulator’s Transparency, Influence and Accountability Standard sets out that landlord’s must understand the diverse needs of residents, including those arising from protected characteristics and assess whether their services deliver fair and equitable outcomes for residents.
  10. Given the known vulnerability of the resident, the landlord would be expected under both the Act and Standards mentioned above to demonstrate that it had taken steps to ensure that it understood her needs, and reflected this  in its services communications to her. Throughout the correspondence seen in this case, the landlord demonstrated a repeated lack of concern and appreciation for the resident’s vulnerability and the impact its failures to give notice of appointment had on her.
  11. Within her correspondence, the resident had advised the landlord that some of her belongings had been damaged by damp and mould. The Ombudsman’s guidance on complaints which may involve insurance claims recommends that landlords signpost or facilitate a claim on its own insurance policy for any damaged belongings. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged this concern or advised the resident in respect of submitting an insurance claim in respect of damaged items. This was unreasonable and was a missed opportunity to assist her and try to put things right.
  12. The landlord acknowledged within its stage 1 response of 29 April 2024 that following the survey in October 2023, it had not raised a repair until February 2024 (the guttering), a delay of 4 months. It apologised for this. It stated that contractors had attended but had been declined access by the resident. It offered a total of £300 compensation, made up as follows:
    1. £200 for the delay of 4 months (October 2023 to February 2024) in respect of the work needed to address the leak, which had impacted the internal works and balcony. This was on the basis of £50 per month.
    2. £100 for the poor service the resident had received.
  13. Despite acknowledging a failure, it did not address the resident’s concerns about the contractor appointments.
  14. The landlord advised the resident on 31 May 2024 that there had been a delay in completing the replacement guttering as its contractor had been unable to access the scaffolding tower until the following week. This Service has seen an internal note from the landlord from 21 May 2024 to note that this job had been marked as completed and closed incorrectly. As such, the landlord was not transparent with the resident as to the reason for the delay in carrying out this repair.
  15. The landlord did not know when the downpipe would be replaced so it chased its contractor on 20 June 2024. The contractor advised that it was due to attend that afternoon. It is concerning that the landlord had not been aware of this and had no oversight of what work was taking place and when. In addition, there is no evidence that the resident had been given prior notice of this. As such, she declined access. The landlord made a subsequent internal note that it was “lost for words” in respect of the resident’s refusal. This was inappropriate and the resident had made her requirement and the reasons for this, clear on a number of occasions. In addition, the landlord failed to recognise that her request was within the standards outlined in its maintenance policy.
  16. Within its stage 2 response (11 July 2024) the landlord acknowledged that the repairs had not been resolved but stated that this was because the resident had declined access. It offered a total of £150 compensation, made up as follows:
    1. £50 compensation for the 1 month delay between May and June 2024 in arranging the appointment.
    2. £100 to acknowledge that there had been a lack of communication following the stage 1 response.
  17. It again did not acknowledge its failure in respect of giving notice of the appointments and unreasonably put the blame for these not going ahead on the resident. For the landlord not to ensure prior notice was given demonstrated that it lacked an appreciation of the resident’s specific needs and of the impact the repeated unannounced appointments were having. It also demonstrated a repeated lack of compliance with its policy.
  18. When failures are identified, as in this case, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  19. The total compensation offered by the landlord for the leak and associated repairs was £450. This was based on it having delayed the leak repair by 4 months (October 2023 to February 2024). The landlord considered that as it had arranged contractor appointments from February 2024 onwards, it was no longer responsible for the repair being outstanding. This overlooked its failure to follow its maintenance procedure and consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and give her prior notice of appointments. As such, this Service considers the landlord’s failures to have continued beyond this time. It is noted that the leak was not resolved until after the completion of the internal complaints procedure (November 2024). This was 13 months after the resident reported it. As such, the compensation offered, which was based on failures over 4 months, was not sufficient.
  20. By not taking appropriate steps to reduce the mould or carry out repairs in a timely manner, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had considered the potential hazard posed by damp and mould. Throughout, the landlord demonstrated a lack of appreciation of the resident’s vulnerabilities and failed to ensure that it had considered her needs. It did not act in accordance with its maintenance policy in providing notice of appointments and showed no awareness of this requirement. In addition, its consideration of compensation was not reasonable. As such, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak along with associated repairs and mould.
  21. To acknowledge the impact caused to the resident by the failures which occurred over 13 months, compensation of £600 has been ordered. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there were failures which had a significant impact on the resident. In determining this amount the Ombudsman considered the distress caused to the resident over the time period of not only living with the ongoing leak but also in respect of her repeated requests to be informed of appointments not being acknowledged.

Response to the resident’s queries about the payment of a months’ rent in advance

  1. On 21 April 2024 the resident raised her concerns in respect of an additional £25 she was paying per month to build up 1 month’s rent in advance on her account. She felt she had been incorrectly advised by the landlord, which had resulted in this additional payment being in effect for longer and resulting in financial hardship.
  2. The landlord addressed this within its stage 1 response (29 April 2024) and stated that during the affordability check in 2022, it had agreed that the resident would pay £141 up front and then the remainder of the months’ rent in advance, in £25 instalments.
  3. The resident escalated the complaint and clarified that her query was that the landlord had recently informed her that the £141 she had paid, did not count towards the months’ rent in advance. She queried what this payment had been for if it had not been put towards building up 1 months’ rent payment.
  4. The landlord confirmed the position on 17 May 2024 and explained that the resident was still building up the 1 month’s rent in advance, and she had paid £489.02 towards this. As such, there was £260.86 left to pay before the account would have 1 month’s rent in advance.
  5. Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure (15 November 2024) the landlord advised the resident that after her payment of £25 in December 2024, she would have paid 1 month’s rent in advance and then this additional payment would stop.
  6. Although the landlord should have responded to this at stage 2 (its complaint handling has been addressed separately below), the information it provided the resident was clear and it appropriately addressed her concerns. As such, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about the payment of a month’s rent in advance.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2–stage complaints policy. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and aim to respond within 10 working days from the acknowledgment. At stage 2, it will send an acknowledgment within 5 working days. It will subsequently respond at stage 2 within 20 working days from the date of the acknowledgment. If additional time is required at either stage, it will keep the resident informed. It states that reports of ASB will not be treated as a complaint but may become complaints if not handled properly. It will not consider complaints about incidents older than 12 months, with exceptions considered on a case-by-case basis.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy mirrors that of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code and states that it considers a complaint to be an expression of dissatisfaction about its standard of service, actions or lack of action. The resident’s email from 13 February 2024 clearly expressed her dissatisfaction with a number of issues, including the leak, repair issues, the rent payment, the communal lift and ASB. As such, the landlord should have treated this as a complaint as per its complaints policy. Instead, it took until 6 March 2024 to ask the resident if she wanted it to raise the concerns as a complaint (the resident confirmed this). This was not appropriate and was contrary to the complaints policy and the Code. This caused an unnecessary delay in the landlord’s complaint response at stage 1.
  3. The landlord did not respond to the stage 1 complaint in line with its complaints policy or the Code and as she had received no response, the resident added to her complaint on 4, 19 and 21 April 2024. None of her subsequent complaints were acknowledged by the landlord.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 29 April 2024 was 53 working days after the resident’s initial complaint. This was significantly outside of the landlord’s 10 working day response timeframe. It did not acknowledge this delay, nor did it offer any apology or compensation to the resident.
  5. The stage 1 response did not include any reference to the resident’s concerns about ASB. Although separate from its complaints procedure, the landlord failed to evidence that it had responded to this report by way of raising an ASB case or signposting her to appropriate external agencies.
  6. In respect of the resident’s concerns about the lift breaking down, the landlord only responded in respect of incidents with the lift in 2024. As the resident had submitted her complaint in February 2024, it was not appropriate for the landlord to only have investigated issues with the lift from 2024. It acknowledged that the lift had not been working between 31 January and 11 March 2024. Despite this, there is no evidence that it considered offering compensation or a refund of part of the resident’s service charge to acknowledge the lack of amenity over this period. This was not appropriate.
  7. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response on 29 April 2024. As such, the landlord should have escalated the complaint to stage 2, as per its complaints procedure. Instead, it responded to some of her concerns informally the following day (30 April 2024). It stated that it had only investigated the lift issue since January 2024 as it had thought that was the resident’s complaint. It committed to investigate the lift over the last year.
  8. The resident continued to chase the repair issues and on 6 June 2024 she expressly requested that the complaint be taken higher. The landlord acknowledged this on 13 June 2024 and advised that it would respond at stage 2 within 20 working days. It failed to appreciate that it should have escalated the complaint on 29 April 2024.
  9. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 2 on 11 July 2024. This was 51 working days after the resident had expressed her dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response. It did not recognise this delay which stemmed from its failure to escalate the complaint until the resident had expressly requested this.
  10. The stage 2 response only addressed the resident’s concerns about the delay in carrying out repairs. Despite advising that it would consider the complaint about the lift breaking down further, it failed to do so. This Service has seen records of repairs carried out to the lift between May 2023 and November 2024. This should have been fully addressed as part of its complaint response.
  11. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was poor. It failed to recognise the resident’s initial complaint and escalation requests. This led to delays in it responding to the issues. It also failed to address all of the matters complained about via its complaints procedure. Due to the failures identified there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. To acknowledge the impact of this on the resident, compensation of £250 has been ordered. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s request to be rehoused is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak along with associated repairs and mould.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about the payment of a months’ rent in advance.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this case.
    2. Pay a total of £850 compensation to the resident. This includes the landlord’s previous offer of £450. Payment must be made directly to the resident and not offset against a rent or service charge account. The compensation is made up as follows:
      1. £600 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failures in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak along with associated repairs and mould.
      2. £250 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
    3. Confirm to the resident and this Service what action it has taken following the resident’s reports of ASB in February 2024. The landlord should also check that the resident is satisfied with any action taken in respect of this and remind her of her option to submit a complaint should she remain dissatisfied.
  2. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 8 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
    1. Conduct a thorough inspection of the lift and advise the resident in writing about any works required for a permanent solution to the frequent faults.