Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202444349)

Decision
Case ID	202444349
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Paragon Asra Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	24 October 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat with her 3 children. She complained to the landlord that it had not completed repairs to address damp and mould in her property. She also complained about the presence of rodents outside her property. She was not happy with the landlord’s final complaint response and asked us to investigate.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlords:
1. Handling of damp and mould repairs.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about rodents.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould repairs.
2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about rodents.
3. The landlord provided reasonable redress to failures in its complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Handling of damp and mould repairs

The landlord delayed beyond the timeframes set out in its policy for completing repairs to resolve damp and mould. It told us that it has now completed all the work but has not provided us with records to support this.

Response to the resident’s concerns about rodents

The landlord appropriately treated the resident’s building for pests around the time of her complaint. It received no further reports or requests from her.

Handling of the complaint

The landlord delayed in acknowledging the resident’s complaint at both stages, did not issue a stage 1 response, and delayed in issuing its stage 2 response. However, it apologised for this in its stage 2 response and appropriately compensated the resident.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failings identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 21 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its handling of damp and mould repairs. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 21 November 2025
3	Communication with resident The landlord must write to the resident and ask if she is satisfied it has completed all repairs outlined in its stage 2 response.	No later than 21 November 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
29 October 2024	We completed our investigation into a previous complaint made by the resident (case reference 202335919). We determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould. This was due to delays in it raising follow-up works and installing a ventilation system following inspections. We ordered it to inspect the property and produce an action plan for resolving the damp and mould.
20 November 2024	The resident complained to the landlord that it had not yet resolved the damp and mould in her property. She said: The mould was getting worse despite the landlord having previously carried out mould treatments. The landlord had not yet installed the ventilation system. She was unable to open her doors to allow air to circulate as there was an issue with mice and other rodents outside the property.
5 December 2024	The resident complained to the landlord again about the continuing presence of mould in her property. She sent it photographs of mould she had wiped away from the windows and complained they were letting rain in. She expressed concerns about the impact of this on her family’s health and sent photographs to show mould had damaged her curtains.
31 December 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident had raised a new complaint on 20 November 2024. It said it would respond by 15 January 2025.
7 January 2025	The landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection of the property. The inspection report made numerous repair recommendations for the landlord to consider to resolve the damp and mould.
3 February 2025	The resident complained to the landlord that it had not yet issued its stage 1 response. She asked it to instead escalate the complaint to stage 2.
21 May 2025	We asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint as it had not yet issued any response.
29 May 2025	The landlord issued a stage 2 response to the complaint. It included a schedule of works to resolve the ongoing damp and mould issues. It said: It should have booked these repair works in 4 months previously. It was sorry for the delay and the distress and inconvenience caused. It offered the resident £400 compensation for this. Its contractors would contact her to arrange the works, which included the installation of a ventilation system. Its pest control contractor carried out a block treatment for the resident’s building over 3 visits. The resident had made no reports since. It asked her to let it know the extent of the issue so it could organise further pest control treatment. It was sorry that it had not issued a stage 1 response, delayed in escalating her complaint, and delayed in issuing its stage 2 response. It offered her £350 compensation for these failings.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as she was not satisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint. She said she wanted it to resolve the outstanding repairs and increase the level of compensation offered. We accepted the resident’s complaint but advised her that our investigation would be limited to the landlord’s handling of damp and mould repairs from November 2024 onwards. This was because we had already assessed the landlord’s actions in this regard up to and including October 2024 in our previous investigation.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Handling of damp and mould repairs
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not looked at

The resident told us that the landlord’s delays in completing the repairs had an adverse impact on her family’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we looked at

We explained in our previous investigation (case reference 202335919) that the landlord had been aware since March 2024 that it should install a ventilation system in the property. By the time of our determination in that case in October 2024, it had still not installed the system. By the time of its response to the complaint in this case in May 2025, it had still not installed the system. This ongoing delay was not in keeping with its damp and mould policy which required it to proactively tackle the causes of damp and mould.
The landlord also delayed in implementing the recommendations arising from its damp and mould inspection in January 2025. These recommendations included ventilation solutions, mould treatments and associated decorative work, minor repairs to windows and brickwork, a bath panel replacement, and that the landlord carried out further roof investigations. The landlord should have attended to all of these issues within 15 working days of the damp and mould inspection in line with its maintenance policy. It failed to do so. It had not carried out any of the work or investigated the roof by the date of its stage 2 response 4 months later.
Within its stage 2 response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for the delays in installing the ventilation and completing the work identified by the damp and mould inspection. It offered the resident £400 compensation which, in line with our Remedies Guidance, was a reasonable amount of compensation in the circumstances for distress and inconvenience.
The landlord also included a schedule of proposed work within its stage 2 response. It told the resident its contractors would be in contact with her to arrange appointments. In line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), the landlord should have tracked and actioned these repairs promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident. Had it done so, we would have found it provided reasonable redress to the resident’s complaint. However, due to the lack of records it provided us with during our investigation, we cannot say with certainty when, or if, it has completed all the work.
The landlord told us that it had completed all the outstanding work by 19 August 2025.It provided us with records and evidence to show its contractor installed a ventilation system on this date. However, it did not provide any supporting evidence in relation to the other repairs, which were due to be completed by a different contractor. This included the mould treatment, various repairs and further investigation of the roof. It also said in the stage 2 response it would “overhaul” the back door and assess the condition of the resident’s windows. We asked it during our investigation for any records or supporting information to show this work was completed, but it did not provide this. We therefore have no evidence, other than its assurance, that it completed any work other than the ventilation system.
Overall, we have found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould repairs. It appropriately apologised to the resident for its delays in completing the repairs in its stage 2 response and offered a reasonable amount of compensation. However, it appears to have taken a further 3 months before it completed all the work, which exceeds the 15 working day timeframe set out in its repairs policy. Its lack of records, other than in relation to the ventilation, mean we cannot be satisfied this further delay was reasonable. In line with our Remedies Guidance, we order it to pay the resident £300 compensation for distress and inconvenience due to this additional delay.
In determining if we should make a repair order, we have relied on the landlord’s assurance that it has completed all outstanding repair work. We asked the resident to let us know if it had not done so, but we have not heard back from her. We have therefore not ordered the landlord to carry out any further inspections or works at the property. The resident has previously complained about the number of inspections and appointments which she found particularly inconvenient to accommodate due to the nature of her job. We therefore do not want to make an order that will cause her unnecessary inconvenience if there are no outstanding repairs.
Instead, we have ordered the landlord to write to her and ask whether she is satisfied it has completed all the repair work it listed within its stage 2 response. If she is not, it should take action to resolve any outstanding issues in line with the timeframes set out in its maintenance policy.

Complaint	Response to the resident’s concerns about rodents
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord is responsible under the tenancy agreement for maintaining the building and communal areas, and for carrying out certain repairs within the resident’s property. If rodents or other pests are nesting in the building, accessing communal areas, or getting into resident’s properties due to repair issues for which it is responsible, it should take action to resolve this. However, it is not responsible for resolving environmental issues, such as an increase in squirrels around the outside of the building, unless it is found they are nesting or gaining access inside it. Where a resident reports concerns about pests, we would expect it to investigate and determine if it is required to act.
The resident complained on 20 November 2024 that there were mice and other rodents, including squirrels, outside her property. The landlord provided us with a record of an inspection of the building by its pest control contractor from the week before this (14 November 2024). The record states that the resident told the pest controller she was “hearing noises only”. The landlord told us that after this initial visit, the pest controller carried out 2 follow-up visits and on both occasions the resident declined its services.
We do not know the date of these follow-up visits. We only know that they were completed before 29 May 2025 as the landlord referred to them in its stage 2 response. We asked it during our investigation for any records it held, but it was only able to provide the record of the initial visit. We have made an observation about its approach to record keeping in the learning section at the end of this report.
The landlord said in its stage 2 response that the resident made no further reports about pests following the block treatment. We saw no further reports within the evidence we reviewed. For example, when the resident contacted the landlord in January 2025 to chase her complaint response, she referred to the ongoing damp and mould issues but raised no concerns about rodents.
Within its stage 2 response the landlord asked the resident to let it know the extent of the pest issue so it could organise further treatment. This was reasonable. We have seen no evidence that the resident made any further reports to the landlord. However, if she remains concerned about rodents or other pests, she should report this to the landlord.
Overall, we are satisfied that the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about rodents was reasonable and there was no maladministration.

Complaint	Handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord failed to comply with its complaints policy and the Code for the following reasons:
1. It should have acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days. It took 27 working days to do so.
2. It should have issued its stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. It failed to issue any stage 1 response, leading to the resident asking it to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
3. It should have acknowledged the escalation request within 5 working days and issued its stage 2 response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. It failed to send any acknowledgement. It took 80 working days to issue the stage 2 response and only did so after we intervened and told it to respond.
We are satisfied that the landlord provided reasonable redress to these failings through its stage 2 response. It apologised to the resident for its failure to issue a stage 1 response, its delays and its “lack of communication” with her. It acknowledged that she spent time and trouble contacting us and asking us to intervene. It offered her £350 compensation for these failings. It said this amount was in line with guidelines contained in its compensation policy and our Remedies Guidance, which it was.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We have found through our casework that inadequate record keeping can cause confusion and delays for landlords when attending to repairs. It can also hamper our investigations. We have explored this in more detail in our Spotlight report ‘Repairing Trust’ (May 2025). In this case the landlord’s poor records contributed to our maladministration finding as it did not provide us with sufficient evidence to show it had completed all the outstanding damp and mould repairs. We also found that its records of pest control treatments were incomplete.

Communication

The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that its communication with the resident about her complaint was poor. However despite this, we have seen no evidence that it followed up with her at a later date to see if she was satisfied that all the repair issues that formed part of the complaint had been resolved. It should have given there were numerous outstanding issues at the time of its stage 2 response, which is why we have ordered it to do so now.