Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202425918)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425918

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

17 June 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 repairs to the property.
The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. The property is a 2-bedroom semi-detached house and the resident took over the tenancy in 1995. During the complaints process the resident let the landlord know that his partner had cancer and was going through chemotherapy.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 29 April 2024. He said it had failed to carry out repairs for 16 months. He said that since December 2022 it had sent 4 surveyors, 2 bricklayers and 2 roofing contractors yet no repairs had been completed.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 13 June 2024. It said that moving forward it would arrange a weekly 15-minute meeting to discuss the case. It also said that it would consider compensating the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused once repairs were almost complete.
The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 21 June 2024. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 8 August, in which it said:
1. it apologised for the difficulties the resident had experienced
2. it acknowledged issues with the repairs process, including incomplete work, insufficient inspections and delays
3. it confirmed that an asbestos survey from 2017 had found no asbestos in the property
4. it would schedule in to review a compensation offer when works were 4 weeks from completion so it could assess the full impact across the whole timeline
5. it provided a summary of repairs and a high level indicative timeline of September 2024 to January 2025 for work to be completed
The resident contacted us on 30 January 2025 and asked us to investigate the complaint. He said that he had received no compensation and work had not been completed.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

The landlord’s maintenance policy sets out the following repair response times:
1. priority 1 – emergency work to be attended to and made safe within 4 hours and rectified within 24 hours
2. priority 2 – non–emergency repairs work to be completed within 15 working days
3. variable timescale repairs (specialist or major works within the home) – the landlord will talk through what it intends to do, agree timescales and project manage the work through to completion
The landlord’s repairs records show that structural concerns with the property were raised in December 2022, and a survey was carried out. A work order was raised to repoint external brickwork and tighten support rods in the loft. A contractor attended on 11 January and 13 February 2023 and said an asbestos report was needed before work could begin. The work order was marked as complete on 7 April. However, the landlord’s notes say it has no records of any work being carried out, which was not appropriate.
On 2 May 2023, a new survey was instructed, which was carried out on 4 May. This found that a specialist test was required to monitor vertical and horizontal movement of the property. A work order was raised on 7 May, however the contractor’s contract ended without it being completed. Another contractor attended on 22 August, which represented an unreasonable delay. On this visit cracks in the walls were found and the report said that underpinning was needed.
A further inspection was carried out on 17 January 2024. The landlord’s records do not show why a further inspection was necessary. This additional inspection may have resulted in unnecessary further delays. The report said that signs of movement were considered minor in nature and were ‘predominantly affecting cosmetic finishes rather than structural components.’
On 14 February 2024, a contractor contacted the landlord’s Repairs team and said they believed it needed to be passed to its Major Works team. On 29 April, the resident raised a complaint. He was unhappy that despite many visits from contractors no work had been carried out. Underpinning had taken place due to subsidence in the past and he said he was concerned that subsidence was happening again.
On 18 May the landlord carried out a further structural inspection. Given the discrepancies between the 2 previous reports, this was a positive step for the landlord to take. However, it was not reasonable that it took 4 months to carry out this further inspection.
This inspection report said that there were visible ceiling cracks, some of which were active and light could be seen coming through the roof in the loft space. There was no vertical cracking below the level of the damp proof course, which it said indicated there was no local subsidence. It noted water stains that indicated possible roof leaks and first floor cracks up to roof level. It concluded that as a whole the structure seemed stable but required remedial work and long-term monitoring.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 13 June 2024, in which it did not provide any explanation for why no work had been completed. Given that it had been 18 months since the issues were raised, it was not reasonable that it did not provide an explanation for the delayed repairs. It committed to arranging a weekly 15-minute meeting for all parties to discuss the case, however no evidence has been provided that these meetings subsequently took place regularly.
An updated survey was carried out on 24 July 2024, which noted further movement in the property and additional work was recommended.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 8 August 2024, in which it said:
1. a job arranged for April 2023 could not be carried out as scaffolding was not arranged – the job was then closed without completion
2. a work order raised in May 2023 for testing, tightening of rods and loft insulation work was not completed before the end of a contract and had to be reassigned
3. the resident said that work was not completed in June 2023 as a contractor did not attend – the landlord found that a work order was issued to a contractor but it had no record of a visit taking place
4. contractors attended in August 2023 without prior notice – more details were needed to complete work and the job was closed
5. the landlord had noted that the resident had obstructed a contractor from entering the loft in November 2023 – it acknowledged that a report had been misinterpreted and access had not been denied
6. the landlord incorrectly told the resident that loft insulation work had been completed in February 2024
7. the resident chased for updates several times during March and April 2024
8. a work order was raised on 26 April 2024 for a drain survey to establish if there were any faults that could cause structural movement – this was completed in May 2024 and while minor repairs were identified, these would not have caused structural movement
9. it acknowledged there had been issues with the repairs process
10. it had reviewed its records and found that an asbestos survey had been completed in May 2017 which found no asbestos – it said this report should have been reviewed by its contractors
11. it would schedule in to review a compensation offer when works were 4 weeks from completion
12. it provided a schedule of repairs and a timeline which indicated work would be completed between September 2024 and January 2025
On 28 August 2024, the resident was contacted by a company contracted by the landlord to find a property for him to move into temporarily. It said it had been asked to find a rental property for around 4 months. On 9 September, the landlord told the resident it had cancelled current plans to move him out as its plan was not achievable. It did not provide him with an updated plan or schedule of works, which was not appropriate.
On 30 October 2024, the landlord told the resident that contractors had submitted tenders and it expected an update in the next week. It did not contact him again until 8 November, which was not in line with the expectation set. It said that it had reviewed the tenders and was preparing a report with recommendations that would need to be signed off. On 18 November, it told him it could not guarantee repairs would be progressed before Christmas.
On 20 November 2024, the resident said that he wanted the landlord to make a compensation payment within 5 days. It responded on 22 November to say it could not compensate him within this timeframe and needed to have a full remediation plan in place first. Given the time that had passed since the stage 2 response, the resident’s request was reasonable and the landlord should have looked to make an offer of compensation at this stage.
The landlord’s contractor tried to carry out a survey on 13 December 2024, however the resident had left a note on the door to say he had gone to a hospital appointment with his partner. It said he had accepted the appointment and had not cancelled it. While we appreciate that this may have caused a further small delay, we have seen no evidence of the landlord rearranging this appointment, which was not appropriate. On 22 April 2025, the resident told us that he had received no communication from the landlord since 23 December 2024 and no work had been carried out. He also let us know that the landlord had not carried out emergency work to the roof and there was now damp in the property.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the property. It has failed to act in line with its maintenance policy. While there is no specific timeframe given for major works, the policy says it will agree timescales and project manage the work through to completion. There is no evidence any work has been completed in 2 and a half years, which is not reasonable.
The landlord carried out many inspections but failed to carry out any of the work recommended in the reports. Its failure to act has led to further deterioration of the property, allowing damp into the resident’s home.
Despite the landlord recognising in August 2024 that there had been failures in its handling of repairs, it still failed to take ownership of the problems after this. It made commitments to carry out repairs and pay compensation to the resident, neither of which it has done.
There is currently not conclusive evidence of subsidence, as the inspection reports have not reached the same conclusions. However, there was previous subsidence which required underpinning. Therefore, it is understandable that the structural issues would be concerning for the resident, especially at a time when his partner was undergoing cancer treatment. And, as the inspections have not ruled out subsidence, the resident has been left with uncertainty for a prolonged period. Despite being aware of the resident’s circumstances, the landlord has not demonstrated that it has taken these into consideration when handling the repairs.
When considering the combination of failings relating to this aspect of the resident’s complaint, a greater compensation amount has been decided as appropriate in these circumstances. When deciding an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered along with the impact of the resident being unable to have full enjoyment of the property for a prolonged period.
When considering the landlord’s repeated failings and the impact this would have had, a rental based compensation of 10% has been decided as appropriate in these circumstances. The landlord has confirmed the weekly rent was £134.57 until 31 March 2024 and £144.93 from 1 April 2024. 10% of the earlier rent is £13.45 and 10% of the later rent is £14.49.
When deciding an appropriate timeframe for compensation, the landlord’s first failing occurred on 11 January 2023, when a contractor did not carry out work as it incorrectly said an asbestos test was required. As such 126 weeks between 11 January 2023 and today’s date has been decided as a reasonable timeframe in these circumstances. £13.45 multiplied by 64 weeks plus £14.49 multiplied by 62 weeks equals £1,759 (rounded up) in rental compensation to acknowledge the loss of enjoyment of the resident’s home.
It is important to explain that the above calculation is not exact and as such, the Ombudsman has made a further order for compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. When considering the significant failings mentioned, and the serious impact they had on the resident, an additional compensation amount of £750 has been decided as appropriate to acknowledge the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident.

Complaint handling

Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means a landlord can fix problems quickly, learn from its mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will acknowledge a complaint in writing within 5 working days of it being received. It will then aim to send its stage 1 response within 10 working days. If necessary, it can agree an extension with the resident. At stage 2, it says it will provide a final response within 20 working days. Again, it may extend this deadline if it agrees this with the resident.
The resident raised his complaint to the landlord on 29 April 2024. The landlord sent an acknowledgement letter on 1 May, in line with its policy timeframe. This letter said it aimed to response by 16 May but would update him if it needed more time. On 26 May the resident chased the landlord as he had not yet received a response or any update, which was not appropriate.
The resident chased the landlord again via email on 30 May 2024, and on 3 June visited its office. On 3 June, the landlord spoke to him and apologised for the delay. It said it was working to get a response to him that week. However, on 10 June the resident visited the office again as he had still not had a response. It was not appropriate for him to have to visit its office to chase up a response.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 13 June 2024, 29 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. This was not in line with its complaints policy and represented an unreasonable delay.
The resident spoke to the landlord on 21 June 2024 and asked for the complaint to be escalated. The landlord acknowledged this request in writing on 25 June, saying it would respond by 22 July. The resident contacted the landlord on 22 July to say that he had not had a response as promised. It was not appropriate that the landlord did not update the resident when it was unable to meet its deadline. On 23 July it agreed an extension with the resident and on 24 July said it would respond by 8 August. It sent its stage 2 response on 8 August, in line with the extended deadline.
At both stages of the complaint the landlord said that it would consider making a compensation offer once repairs were almost completed. It said this was so that it was able to consider the full impact on the resident. This is an approach we sometimes see landlords take, and it can be reasonable, if the landlord follows through with the commitments made in its final response. However, in this case, the landlord has not completed the repairs 10 months after its stage 2 response. Furthermore, we have seen no evidence that it has offered the resident any compensation, which is not appropriate.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. Its stage 1 response was delayed and the resident had to chase the landlord, and visit its office, in order to get an update. At stage 2 the landlord also did not update the resident within the deadline it set, leading the resident to have to chase it again. It committed to carrying out work and making an offer of compensation, which it has not done.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £300 to recognise its complaint handling failures. This award has been made with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance in mind.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the property
2. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident total compensation of £2,809 broken down as follows:
1. £1,759 rental based compensation for the loss of enjoyment of the home due to the landlord’s handling of repairs
2. £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings relating to the landlord’s handling of repairs
3. £300 in relation to complaint handling
The landlord to arrange for its Chief Executive to apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
The landlord to provide us with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of this report.
Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord to provide evidence it has carried out the following actions:
1. arrange an up to date inspection of the property – an appropriately qualified specialist should conduct the inspection.
2. confirm in writing to both the resident and this Service:
  1. the work required to address the internal and external issues, its planned approach to work and a schedule of work including timeframes for completion
  2. the measures it will put in place to monitor any ongoing movement in the property
  3. the landlord to arrange for a senior manager to be the single point of contact for the resident to oversee and coordinate the repairs
Within 12 weeks of this report the landlord to carry out a case review to understand what led to its failings in this case and identify the steps it will take to ensure these failings do not happen again. A copy of this review should be provided to this Service.

Recommendations

If there are any unforeseen delays in carry out repair work, the landlord should consider additional rental based compensation for continued loss of enjoyment of the home.
The landlord to meet with the resident to explain the decant process and answer any questions he may have about this.