Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202444360)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202444360

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

1 September 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, the associated repairs and her request for compensation for damaged belongings.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. She has lived at the property, which is a 3 bedroom house, since September 2018.
The resident reported issues with damp and mould on 21 February 2024, which the landlord investigated in April 2024. Between May 2024 and November 2024, the resident reported ongoing issues with damp and mould, as well as leaks from her roof.
The resident complained on 28 November 2024 about the landlord’s handling and response to her reports of damp, mould and roof leaks. She said the issues had damaged her personal belongings and property. She requested the landlord resolve the issues and provide compensation.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 30 December 2024. It apologised for delays in responding to the complaint. It said it had not received information requested from its repairs team to provide a formal response. Due to this, it upheld the complaint and said it was escalating the matter to stage 2.
The resident complained on 3 February 2025 that the ceiling in her brother’s bedroom had collapsed due to a leak. She said this had damaged his belongings.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 20 February 2025. It said the roof repairs it completed in July 2024 had not resolved the issue. It said it had arranged an appointment to fix the roof leak on 4 March 2025. It asked the resident to let it know if damp and mould issues continued after it had fixed the leak. It offered the resident £400 compensation and told her to claim on her insurance for her damaged property.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate her complaint. Since submitting her complaint to us, the resident has instructed a solicitor who has sent pre action correspondence regarding the damp, mould and roof repairs at her property. No legal proceedings have been issued at the point of writing this report.
The landlord completed a damp and mould inspection on 31 March 2025, which recommended 7 repairs. The landlord told us that it completed repairs to the roof on 16 May 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has informed us how the issues have impacted their family’s health. Where we find failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, complaints about personal injury are better dealt with by the courts because they will often have the benefit of an independent medical expert who can give evidence on the diagnosis, prognosis and cause of any injury. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or personal injury.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, the associated repairs and her request for compensation for damaged belongings

The resident reported there was mould in her property on 21 February 2024. The landlord attempted to contact the resident on 1 March 2024, but its records show it was unable to reach her.
The landlord completed an inspection on 15 April 2024. It found there was mould on the ceiling and walls. It said furniture would need to be removed from the bedroom to complete a mould clean. The landlord’s records show it completed this on 24 April 2024.
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.
The housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. It was introduced under the Housing Act 2004 and applies to residential properties in England and Wales. This assessment method focuses on the hazards that are present in housing. Tackling these hazards will make housing healthier and safer to live in.
HHSRS identifies damp and mould as a hazard in a residential property. It states that damp and mould can be a threat to health, potentially causing breathing difficulties and asthma.
The evidence shows it took the landlord approximately 2 months to complete an inspection and repair. The time taken to complete an inspection was unreasonable due to the potential hazard the resident reported.
The resident reported on 7 May 2024 there was a leak from her roof. She said this had affected her bedroom ceiling. She also reported there was mould growth in 2 bedrooms in the property.
The landlord’s contractors completed an inspection on 13 May 2024. This identified rainwater penetration on the external walls of all 3 bedrooms. It recommended a roof inspection to identify the source. It also identified mould in the 3 bedrooms and the bathroom. It stated it had identified a category 1 hazard under the HHSRS and recommended further works were undertaken to complete mould washes, as well as installing an extractor fan in the bathroom and passive vents in each bedroom.
The landlord completed mould washes on 24 May 2024 and 31 May 2024.
On 13 June 2024, the landlord inspected the roof and took pictures. There are no notes detailing what this inspection found. A screenshot from the landlord’s records show it marked the roof repairs as completed on 29 July 2024. There are no notes detailing what the repairs were.
The resident chased the landlord for the outcome of its damp and mould inspection on 31 July 2024. There are no notes detailing what the landlord’s response was.
On 13 August 2024, the resident told the landlord that despite the 2 mould washes it had done, mould had started to return in 2 bedrooms. She said its assessor told her she needed an extractor fan, but she had not received an update on if this would be installed.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 28 August 2024. It said mould was coming from somewhere in the roof. It suspected there was mould behind wallpaper and said the ceiling would need to be painted. It said a surveyor would need to investigate the cause of mould growth in the bedroom and stairway.
On 10 September 2024, the resident contacted the landlord. She said she had received no further updates and had ongoing issues with mould. The landlord’s records show at this time there was discussion between the landlord and its contractors around approving a quote to erect scaffolding to the building to allowing a roofing contractor to undertake an inspection and works.
The landlord attended the property on 30 September 2024. Its records state a supervisor would arrange the pending erection of scaffolding and a roof inspection. We have seen no evidence that the landlord followed up on this matter.
The landlord completed a further mould clean on 16 October 2024.
The evidence shows the resident contacted the landlord on 2 occasions in November 2024. She said during this time roof slates were missing, and she had still had no scaffolding erected or a repair completed.
The resident complained by email on 28 November 2024. She said she first reported issues in February 2024, but despite multiple attempts, the situation remained unresolved. She said the condition of her property had worsened and black mould was affecting the health of her household, 3 of whom suffer from severe asthma. She complained that engineers had repeatedly failed to attend scheduled appointments and others had refused to complete mould washes until the root cause was resolved. She said mould had damaged her furniture, such as her wardrobe and she had to throw away mould damaged clothing.
The resident explained she had moved out of her room in April 2024 to allow works to take place and she had been occupying the living room since then. She said this had caused frustration, as the other members of her household were confined to their rooms. She said that an assessor had inspected her property in May 2024, but the landlord had not implemented the subsequent recommendations, as the assessor “apparently” never reported his findings. She said a second surveyor attended in September 2024. After she chased an update 6 weeks later, the landlord told her the assessor had resigned without submitting a report.
The resident also said that since she first reported an issue with her bedroom, there was evidence of significant decay to her roof. She said the attic was exposed to the outside and she had found roof tiles in her garden. She explained that heavy rain had caused damage to the property, including cracks on the walls. She said every time it rained large amounts of water entered her brother’s bedroom. She explained this was affecting his health and he had suffered 4 asthma attacks since the issue started. She asked the landlord to immediately fix the roof to prevent further water ingress and to determine the root cause of the mould. She also asked it to redecorate rooms damaged by the issues and to provide compensation for damaged belongings.
We have seen no evidence of any missed appointments, or the resident reporting missed appointments to the landlord prior to her complaint. The resident did not provide details on when the landlord failed to attend arranged appointments.
We have also seen no record that the landlord told the resident to move out of her room while it completed mould washes, or that it advised her she could not move back into her room following it completing this work in April 2024.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 30 December 2024. It said it had not received the necessary information it had requested from its repairs team in order to answer her complaint. Due to this, it had escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2.
The landlord’s repair records show the resident contacted it on 30 January 2025 to report her roof was still leaking. She said this was causing severe mould. The landlord’s notes show it identified the issue had been raised previously in May 2024 and noted the matter was “never repaired”.
On 2 February 2025, the resident reported that part of the ceiling in her brother’s bedroom had collapsed.
The resident complained to the landlord on 3 February 2025. She said she had reported on 30 January 2025 that she thought a bedroom ceiling was going to collapse. She said since the ceiling collapsed her brother had nowhere to sleep. She explained that the roof continued to leak and had created an unsafe living environment. The resident said she had raised this with the landlord, but it said it could not help her with finding her brother a safe space to stay. She said the landlord attended that day to inspect the bedroom but left after only taking pictures. In addition to her complaints about the ceiling, the resident complained the landlord had missed an appointment arranged in December 2024 for 3 February 2025.
The resident also complained the ceiling collapse had caused significant damage to the bedroom. She explained this had damaged personal belongings, including a phone and clothing.
The landlord’s repair’s policy states that it will attend to emergency works within 4 hours and fix with 24 hours. Its policy includes severe roof leaks as an emergency repair.
The landlord’s repair records show that it initially attended the reports of the ceiling collapse as an emergency appointment. It attended on 3 February 2025 and following its visit, it raised a repair to refix the broken ceiling. Pictures taken on 31 March 2025 show the landlord had only completed work to make the ceiling safe by covering the hole with plastic sheeting. We have seen no evidence the landlord complete repairs to the ceiling.
However, there is insufficient evidence to support the landlord was aware of an imminent risk or circumstances that made any of the resident’s rooms unsafe or uninhabitable. The resident’s reports from 30 January 2025 that the ceiling was about to collapse are uncorroborated. However, there is evidence the landlord had not proactively and effectively addressed reports of substantial water ingress to the property from 9 months prior and so was aware of the general risk to the condition of the property based on the ongoing need for repairs to take place.
The landlord was also updated by the resident in November 2024 of the worsening effect of damage to the roof. There was also a lack of evidence to show what the landlord did following its visit on 3 February 2025 to make safe the room following the ceiling collapse. The lack of action to effect repairs to stop water ingress and record keeping to show what the landlord was doing to keep the property safe and habitable given the issues the landlord knew about, was unreasonable.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 20 February 2025. It apologised that the resident had to chase up repairs. It acknowledged the resident had reported a roof leak in May 2024. It explained it needed scaffolding to complete the repair. It said it completed repairs on 29 July 2024 but unfortunately it had not repaired the leak adequately. It said it had booked a repair appointment for the roof for 4 March 2025.
It explained that it considered the roof leak was the cause of damp and mould within the resident’s property. It said it would be unable to confirm this until it had fixed the leak. It asked the resident to let it know if the issues continued after it repaired the roof. If the leaks persisted it could arrange a specialist survey. It said it last completed a mould wash on 17 October 2024. The landlord said the resident should put in a service request if she wanted another. It said when it had completed all repairs, she could raise a service request for “decorating to be done.”
In the response the landlord also apologised it had not attended appointments. It said it would address this failing with its contractor to reduce the occurrence of missed appointments. It said in regard to her damaged property, its policy stated she should claim on her home insurance.
In relation to the roof repair, the evidence does not support that the landlord completed a repair on 29 July 2024 as set out in its complaint response. The evidence from that time was that the resident was chasing a repair following this date, and that no scaffolding had been erected or repair completed. The landlord’s repair records support no scaffolding had been erected and that the complaint response was inaccurate.
The landlord’s response that the roof leak was likely the cause of the damp and mould was supported by its inspections. The landlord’s response did not explain or offer apology for its failure to sort the issue, despite identifying the roof leak as the source of the ongoing damp and mould problems.
The response also set out that the resident should update the landlord if, after fixing the roof, it turned out not to be the source of the water ingress causing damp and mould. Given the delays, chasing and frustrations the resident had to this point in order to get any proactive measures to fix the roof, it was entirely inappropriate for the landlord to place the responsibility to provide updates as to the efficacy of its proposed actions back upon the resident. It is reasonable to expect it would have a process to check and assess whether it had fixed the problem. This is especially the case given the extent of its failings to date.
In relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, the landlord’s response did not address the resident’s concerns that it had not acted on recommendations from its damp and mould inspection. The evidence shows the landlord completed an inspection on 13 May 2024. However, its inspection report shows this was completed on 15 November 2024. This supports the resident’s statement that the landlord’s surveyor never submitted his findings, as his report was dated 6 months after his visit.
The inspection in May 2024 recommended the landlord install an extractor fan and passive vents. However, we have seen no evidence the landlord followed up on these recommendations or explained or offered redress for the delay as part of the complaint response. This was unreasonable.
It was a failure that the landlord did not follow up on the recommendations from its May 2024 inspection or review its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. Its response left this element of the resident’s complaint unresolved, causing her further distress and inconvenience.
In addition, the landlord placed responsibility for identifying if further mould washes were required back upon the resident. Given its delays to date and the damaged caused to the property as evidenced by the ceiling collapse, it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to have demonstrated grip and urgency and conducted its own inspection of the property to ascertain if mould treatment was required whilst awaiting the roof being fixed, rather than ask the resident to raise a service request.
In relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s claim for damaged belongings, its compensation policy states where a resident’s possessions are damaged through building failure, which is not covered by their own insurance, it will pay compensation if it can be shown that it was at fault.
In this circumstance, there was a prolonged period where the landlord had failed to take action to resolve the leak into the property. It is reasonable to conclude the leak from the roof caused the ceiling in the property to collapse. Furthermore, that landlord could have reasonably foreseen that left untreated, and without effective repair, the property was likely to continue to be damaged by the leak that led to the ceiling collapse.
In these circumstances it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to direct the resident to its liability insurers to make a claim for the damage caused by the ceiling collapse.
We have not been provided evidence that the landlord attended on 4 March 2025 to complete roof repairs as promised in its final response. Its records show that it obtained a new quote for repair on 20 March 2025, following a visit on 12 March 2025. In its communication with us, the landlord told us it completed roof repairs on 16 May 2025, over 12 months from when the resident first reported a leak.
The landlord’s repair policy states that it aims to complete routine repairs, such as leaking roofs within 15 working days. However, it also states that there are variable timescales for specialist or major works, which may require multiple visits or multiple trades.
Given the complexity of roofing repairs, it is reasonable to assume not all roof repairs are classed as routine. The duration of such projects can vary due to various factors, such as requiring scaffolding and the type of repair required. However, in such circumstances landlords are expected to act diligently, maintain clear communication with residents, and ensure that necessary repairs are completed as promptly as possible.
The length of time taken for the landlord to complete repairs to the roof was excessive and unreasonable. During this time, the resident had to continually chase the landlord for updates and there is no evidence that it took a proactive approach to fixing the leak. It is reasonable to conclude that the delay in it completing repairs resulted in part of a ceiling collapsing.
The evidence shows that a surveyor completed a disrepair inspection on 31 March 2025. This highlighted 7 repairs were required, which included the installation of a bathroom extractor fan and passive vents in each bedroom. This confirms that the landlord did not take the actions recommended from its inspection in May 2024. Except for the roof, the matters identified during the survey in March 2025 are yet to be dealt with by the landlord at the time of this report.
In summary the evidence shows the landlord’s failings in the case were considerable. There was an unreasonable delay in it completing roof repairs, it failed to follow up on or implement recommendations from its damp and mould inspection and it missed appointments. It also failed to consider the resident’s claim for damaged belongings in line with its policy or respond to all issues the resident raised. Its failings caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period.
When a failure is identified, as in this case, our 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, we take 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.
In its final response, the landlord acknowledged it had failed to provide a satisfactory service and offered the resident £350 compensation. This broken down was £100 for impact, £200 for delays in roof repairs and £50 for missed appointments. The amount of £350 was not proportionate to the scale of the delays or the impact this had on the resident. Its offer is significantly below what our remedies guidance suggests is an appropriate offer of compensation where the landlord’s failings have had a significant impact on the resident.
There is no evidence the landlord took any learning from its failures, it did not put things right through its complaint responses, and there remain outstanding matters in need of repair. Therefore, the landlord’s failures lead to a determination of severe maladministration. The landlord is ordered to pay £1,500 compensation for the distress an inconvenience caused by its failings.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident complained on 28 November 2024. The landlord did not send a response until 30 December 2024. This was 10 days outside of the time allowed by its policy.
The landlord apologised in its stage 1 complaint response for the delay. However, it did not address the resident’s complaint. Instead, it explained that it had not received the information it needed from its repair team to respond to the complaint. Due to this, it had escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2.
In line with paragraphs 6.3 to 6.6 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlord must issue a full response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. Landlords can decide if an extension to this timescale is needed and if so, it must inform the resident of the expected delivery timescales. This must be no more than 10 working days without good reason. Landlords must also provide a complaint response when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed.
In addition, in line with paragraph 6.7 and 6.9.g, of the Code, landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition, provide clear reasons for any decisions and provide details of how the resident can escalate a matter to stage 2 if they are not satisfied with the response.
In order to provide the resident with an efficient and functioning complaint process, if the landlord could not respond to the resident’s complaint within 10 working days, the Code requires it to notify the resident it required an extension. It is then required to set out when it would respond by and if it could not respond by this date, to inform the resident and provide a new expected response date. Once the landlord could provide a response to the complaint, it should have responded to this in full and explained how the resident could escalate her complaint if she was dissatisfied.
However, in this case, the landlord failed to respond to the complaint and instead escalated this to stage 2 without the resident’s requesting or agreeing to this. This was unreasonable, as the landlord effectively denied the resident access to a 2 stage complaint’s policy. She had no opportunity to challenge the landlord’s response through its complaint process.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 20 February 2025. This was 37 working days after the complaint was escalated to stage 2 and 17 days outside of the timescale its policy required it to reply by. In its response, the landlord apologised for the delays and offered £50 compensation. However, it failed to identify or apologise for its failures in its handling of it stage 1 response.
The landlord’s offer of compensation was lower than our remedies guidance suggest is an appropriate offer of compensation where the landlord’s failings have had an adverse effect on the resident. In this situation the landlord had acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but it has failed to address the detriment to the resident. Its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
The landlord’s failures lead to a finding of maladministration. An order for £150 compensation has been made for the resulting distress and inconvenience these failings caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, the associated repairs and her request for compensation for damaged belongings.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
Provide the resident with a written apology, from the Chief Executive, for the failures identified in this report.
Pay the resident compensation of £1,650. The landlord may deduct any amount already paid as part of its internal complaints process. This is comprised of:
1. £1,500 for the failures identified in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated repairs.
2. £150 for failures in its complaint handling.
The landlord must provide the resident with assistance with making a claim via the landlord’s liability insurers for the damage to her personal belongings, should the resident wish to do so. The landlord should provide us with copies of any emails, notes, or letters to evidence this.
The landlord is ordered provide the resident and the Service with a schedule of works setting out the remaining works required following its inspection on 31 March 2025, together with redecorating the areas damaged by damp, mould, or leaks. The works must commence no later than 4 weeks after the date of this report and it must set out when it aims to complete all the repairs by.
Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided to the Service within their respective deadlines.