Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202216244)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216244

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

1 May 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:
1. Repairs to the resident’s boiler.
2. Remedial repairs.
3. The complaint.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of a 1 bedroom, second floor, flat. Her tenancy began in February 2019. She lived in the property with her child. The resident confirmed to us on 15 April 2025 that she had moved out of the property. Her tenancy ended on 10 March 2025.
The resident raised her complaint with the landlord on 3 October 2022. She said in the last 2 years she had issues around a leak. It told her the issue was with her boiler, and it replaced this in July 2022. This did not solve the leak as it worsened and flooded her neighbour’s property. She said:
1. She had made numerous calls as it needed a specialist to get to the pipes.
2. That it said on the weekend, it would replace the living room flooring if it was damaged. However, that day it told her she needed to pull the flooring up and replace it once it replaced the pipes.
3. The flooring was already in the property when she moved in, and she queried why she should pull it up or replace it. It told her many times a manager would contact her and this never happened.
4. She had a 4 year old in her property and had no water or heating. She could not even use the toilet. No one had helped with alternative accommodation, bearing in mind the property was unliveable and against human rights. This had been going on for 2 years.
5. She understood there would be disruptions, but she was forever on hold, and it told her she would get a call back. The lack of heating made her child cold.
6. She wanted it to complete the job, pull the flooring up, replace it and during this time put her in accommodation where she could use the toilet and keep warm. For everyday she was without water and heating since “Sunday AM,” she wanted it to compensate her.
The resident raised her complaint with us on 25 October 2022 and said that the landlord left her with damaged flooring and no hot water or heating. She told us she was out of pocket on her electricity due to it providing electric heaters to keep warm. She said she had lost a day’s work as the landlord sent someone to carry out the repair when they were not able to as the floor was concrete. She told it the floor was concrete, and it needed to re-pipe the flat. To put things right, she said it should replace the flooring, reimburse her for the electricity, and for taking a day’s unpaid leave for it to complete the work which it did not do.
The resident explained to us the following day that she had raised her complaint on 3 October 2022 but had not received a response. She then chased the landlord again on 27 October 2022.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 27 October 2022. It apologised for the delay in repairing her boiler and said it had resolved the issue. It also said:
1. Its compensation policy provided discretion to make offers of compensation where its service fell below expected levels. In line with the policy, it apologised for the substandard service and used its right to repair calculator to compensate the resident. It found that it repaired the boiler after 21 days from 30 September 2022. It offered £50 compensation for this period based on its calculation.
2. It correctly told her that the living room flooring was her responsibility, and it was only responsible for the kitchen and bathroom flooring. However, she was unhappy as the operatives should have checked that it was concrete and not easily accessible. It asked her to provide pictures of the flooring and when she did, it would investigate further.
3. In relation to offering temporary accommodation, under the right to repair, it decanted residents due to redevelopment, improvement works or demolition. It did not apply to repairs, including major repairs, or any other reasons to move. Unfortunately, in her case it made the correct decision as a decant was not necessary.
4. It understood the frustration and inconvenience this caused. It offered a further £50 compensation due to the delay and inconvenience. After reviewing the complaint, it confirmed it upheld the decision. It said it regretted that she experienced the poor service and would like to assure her this was not the service it wished to provide.
The resident responded on the same day and said she would send the photographs of the flooring. She sent these 3 days later. Between November and December 2022, the resident chased the landlord around the works. She said the boxing of the pipes remained outstanding and so did the flooring. She explained she had tried to call the landlord, but the line disconnected, and no one called her back.
The landlord apologised on 12 December 2022 to the resident that the matter remained outstanding. It said it would chase this up for her. The resident then approached us on 26 January 2023 and told us that she had not heard from the landlord. She confirmed it reimbursed her for the heating but had no responded in relation to her flooring. It also had not responded about the days she had taken off work. She told us it had not boxed in the new pipe work and sent a contractor but provided the wrong information.
The resident confirmed to the landlord on 1 March 2023 and to us on 16 May 2023 that the matter remained outstanding. She confirmed to us on 17 May 2023 that she had received the compensation payment from the stage 1 complaint.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 18 May 2023. She said she still had not received a response and the issues remained outstanding.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 19 September 2023 and thanked the resident for providing the images of the damaged living room flooring it requested. It said:
1. In relation to the damaged flooring, the contractors advised that to cap the existing heating system in the fabric of the building, they had to create a hole in the laminate which enabled them to install a new heating circuit. After reviewing the images and discussing with its contractor, it had confirmed that it could attend and make good the damage made to the flooring and restore the flooring to its original condition.
2. It had raised the work and asked a senior member of staff to contact her directly to arrange the appointment to complete the remedial works to the flooring, to ensure that the appointment was convenient for her. It found that it failed to address the service failures she experienced with restoring the heating and hot water at stage 1 as well as the failure to compensate for the costs incurred running electrical heaters.
3. It also identified a delay in the complaint and the resolution to repairing the damage flooring. It apologised that it did not address these at stage 1 and later she had to escalate to highlight the aspects missed.
4. It should have compensated her for the use of the temporary electrical heaters as well as the service failure to reflect the poor service and stress caused to her as well as the delayed response to her complaint.
5. It upheld her complaint, apologised, and offered compensation of £356. It broke this down as:
  1. £126 for the running of the electrical heaters over 21 days.
  2. £40 for missed visits/ failed engineer attendance and work not completed.
  3. £50 for its delayed stage 1 response.
  4. £100 for the service failure/ inconvenience caused.
  5. £40 for the further delays in the case.
The resident responded on the same day and said it had not mentioned the boxing works. The pipes were still on show and had caused issues such as her and her child catching themselves on them when the heating was on. She asked for assurance that it would fix the floor correctly and raised concerns about the amount offered for the missed appointments. She said this did not equate to her daily rate at work. Its offer was unacceptable.

Post complaint

The resident confirmed to us on 7 December 2023 that the flooring remained outstanding. Also she said the landlord’s contractor’s suggestion on fixing the flooring would only move the problem to another location. She raised concerns about the quality of the boxing that the landlord did complete, and said it remained outstanding in her child’s room. She said she wanted it to replace the flooring.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident raised concerns about loss of earnings due to appointments for repairs. This is not something we consider, and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice about this. This is because we would usually expect a resident to provide access to a landlord for repairs to their property as it forms part of their tenancy obligations. We can however consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her loss of earnings.
The resident raised concerns with us about the level of workmanship around boxing works completed by the landlord. This did not form part of her original complaint, or the complaint which exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. Our scheme says we may not consider complaints which have not exhausted a landlord’s complaints process. As such we will not consider this issue within this investigation.

Repairs to the resident’s boiler

The evidence shows that there was a leak from the resident’s boiler which caused concerns with her neighbour’s property. The landlord attended and fixed the issue in September 2022 and this took 21 days. The evidence suggests that the repair required the landlord to cut a hole in some lino. The resident has since told us that the damage she complained about was to her living room floor. The landlord then provided the resident with temporary heating and said a temporary move was not necessary. This led to conversations between the parties around liability for the flooring.
The resident then raised her concerns about boxing of pipes following the landlord’s stage 1 response. However, it is unclear how this relates to the original repair issue raised by the resident.
The landlord’s compensation policy says where it cannot complete qualifying repairs under the right to repair within an agreed timescale, residents have a right to request a second contractor to complete the work. Where the contractor also fails to complete the work within the agreed time it will acknowledge the inconvenience caused and pay compensation. It says £10 compensation is payable. Another £2 per day is payable for every extra day, up to a maximum of £50. Its policy also says it will offer £20 for each missed appointment.
The landlord acknowledged there was a delay in repairing the resident’s boiler and offered her compensation of £50 in its stage 1 response for its handling of the repairs to her boiler. It also acknowledged that it should have compensated her for her added electrical costs for using the temporary electrical heaters. It compensated her for this in its stage 2 response and offered her £126 for this over the 21 days. It also offered her £40 in relation to missed appointments. It offered a further £100 for any inconvenience caused. In total it offered the resident £316 compensation around the issues with the boiler. Its offer of compensation was in line with its compensation policy.
This is because it appropriately identified failings in its approach, and offered some adequate redress for the length of time its actions/inactions caused the resident a level of detriment and for the failings it identified.
Despite this however, there were failings in the landlord’s approach which it did not recognise. For example, it has not shown that it ensured that the property had a reliable supply of hot water, or that it made alternative arrangements to allow the resident access to hot water. The landlord has also not shown that it kept her updated around the repairs or the delays to the repairs to the boiler and this was inappropriate.
The resident also expressed concerns to the landlord about an inability to use the toilet. It is unclear if this was a service request or that she had raised this matter earlier with the landlord. As such we cannot comment on this specific issue.
Although it appropriately provided her with temporary heaters, she told it in her complaint on 3 October 2022 that both her and her child struggled to keep warm while the heating was not functional. This was another opportunity for it to consider whether the property remained habitable, and if it needed to provide the family with temporary accommodation while it completed the repairs.
We asked the landlord to provide any evidence of correspondence with the resident where it set out any steps it would take to address her concerns about the repairs. It told us it could not provide any such evidence. This highlights concerns with both the landlord’s record keeping and communication. This is because it should ensure it keeps accurate records of communications with residents, and should be proactive in keeping residents informed especially with issues that concern them. The failure to do so was inappropriate.
In summary, although the landlord acknowledged several failings and offered compensation, there were still some issues it did not recognise. It did not show that it provided alternative access to hot water. There were also issues with its record keeping and communication. Based on this we find that there was maladministration.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will offer compensation where it has not acted reasonably. It has 3 categories for its compensation payments. The landlord offers up to £20 for what it considered to be low level of inconvenience caused. It paid between £20 to £100 for medium levels of inconvenience, and £100 to £500 for high level so of inconvenience. It defines high level of inconvenience as serious or prolonged service failures or loss of facilities resulting in severe stress, disruption, inconvenience, or loss of income.
The landlord’s offer of compensation for the repairs to the boiler fall within the high level of inconvenience and we consider this reasonable based on the loss of amenities. This also falls within the category of maladministration within our remedy’s guidance. However, in line with its policy as it has not acted reasonably around its communication and has not demonstrated it provided alternative access to hot water, we have ordered that it pay the resident added compensation.

Remedial repairs

The tenancy agreement says that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the flooring. It says that the resident is responsible for keeping the floors covered with an appropriate floor covering.
The resident raised concerns about damage to her living room flooring. The landlord explained that to complete the repairs to the boiler it needed to create a hole in the flooring. Although the flooring was the resident’s responsibility, as the landlord’s contractor damaged it to carry out a repair, we would expect the landlord to repair the flooring. It reasonably offered to do so in its stage 2 response.
The resident also raised concerns about a lack of boxing for the pipes following the works. She expressed her dissatisfaction about this on several occasions and raised health and safety concerns for both her and her child. The landlord explained to us that it did not usually take on responsibility for boxing works. However as a goodwill gesture it decided to do so.
It is unclear when the landlord decided it would complete the boxing works. However, it did complete the works, and this was positive of the landlord, despite the resident expressing her dissatisfaction with the workmanship. The landlord however failed to communicate effectively with the resident around this. It should have explained to her when she raised the issue between November 2022 and December 2022 that it did not usually assume responsibility for this. It should also have identified who was responsible for the boxing. The failure to appropriately communicate was inappropriate.
Between the stage 1 and 2 escalation, the resident repeatedly chased the works between November 2022 and December 2022. The landlord often delayed in responding to her and this was inappropriate. This also raises concerns with the landlord’s communication.
In summary, the landlord appropriately offered to make good the resident’s flooring after it realised that its contractor had damaged it to complete the works. It also positively decided to take responsibility for completing boxing to the resident’s property due to her concerns for both her and her child burning themselves. Despite the positives, there were however failings in its approach. It also did not appropriately communicate around responsibilities for the boxing works. Based on this we find that there was a service failure by the landlord. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident added compensation.

The complaint

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It says it will acknowledge both stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. Its complaints policy adopts our definition of a complaint and says it is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, or lack of action by the organisation.
Within her complaint the resident raised concerns in relation to human rights. The landlord did not address this issue within its responses and this was unreasonable.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response 3 working days late. There is however no evidence that this caused the resident significant distress.
The resident then raised expressions of dissatisfaction with the landlord between November 2022 and December 2022. The landlord has not shown that it recognised these and this was unreasonable. We would expect it to deal with any new issues as a stage 1 complaint or escalate the resident’s current complaint if dissatisfaction related to ongoing concerns raised in the stage 1 response. Its failure to recognise and respond to the expressions of dissatisfaction promptly were not in keeping with its policy.
The resident then escalated her complaint formally on 18 May 2023. The landlord has not shown that it acknowledged the resident’s complaint within a reasonable time and this was unreasonable. It then provided its response over 2 months late. The delay was unreasonable and not in keeping with its policy.
The landlord acknowledged the delay in its complaint response and apologised. It offered the resident £50 to put things right. While this goes some way in putting things right, we do not believe it goes far enough. This is because we do not believe it appropriately reflects the length of the delay, nor does it consider its failure to recognise the resident’s expressions of dissatisfaction. Based on this we find that there was maladministration. We order the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of repairs to resident’s boiler.
2. Service failure with the landlord’s handling of remedial repairs.
3. Maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology around the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £766. This is inclusive of its offer of £366 and if it has paid this to the resident previously, it should deduct this from the total of £766. We break this down as:
  1. £466 for its failure to show it provided alternate access to hot water and lack of communication around the repairs and delays.
  2. £150 for its handling of the remedial repairs.
  3. £150 for its complaint handling failings.
3. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.