We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202421662)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421662

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

28 July 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. This complaint is about the landlords:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports about issues with his gas, heating, and hot water.
    2. Actions towards the resident following a Prohibition Order from the local authority.
    3. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident held an assured tenancy.
  2. Throughout the complaints process, the resident has communicated through a representative. For the sake of clarity, In this report, we have used ‘the resident’ to refer to both the resident and representative.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 January 2022 to inform them that he was unable to register for utilities and had no heating or hot water in the property. The landlord advised the resident to speak with his neighbours to determine which meter was for his property. The resident raised a further report about his utilities on 31 January 2022. The landlord visited the property on 2 February 2022 and attempted to help the resident set up his account but was unable to complete this. It escalated this internally but did not provide any follow-up to the resident. The resident reported the lack of utilities in the property again on 12 May 2022 and 28 September 2022. The resident reported further issues with his boiler on 13 December 2022. The landlord attended on the same day but was unable to gain access to the property.
  4. The local authority contacted the landlord on 3 January 2023 to report that the resident had no heating or hot water. It said that it would take further action if the landlord did not undertake the necessary repairs. The landlord visited the property on several occasions but was unable to gain access to inspect. The local authority followed this up on 15 February 2023 and sent a Prohibition Order to the property on 3 March 2023. A Prohibition order can be issued under the Housing Act 2004, to address severe housing hazards in residential properties. They impose restrictions on the use of premises, parts of premises, or specific room. The local authority issued this due to the resident’s lack of heating and hot water. The resident contacted the landlord to end his tenancy on 11 April 2023, giving his keys back on 3 May 2023.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 29 January 2024 to raise a complaint. he said the property was unfit for human habitation at the beginning of the tenancy and that it failed to provide him with information about energy suppliers and meter readings. He also complained that the landlord had failed to respond properly to his reports about a lack of heating and hot water. Finally, he also complained that the landlord had failed to follow its procedures and treat him fairly after receiving the Prohibition Order from the local authority.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 14 March 2024. It partially upheld his complaint. It offered him £50 compensation for a failure to follow up with him when it was aware of his issues with the energy supply. The landlord said, however, that it provided the resident with the correct information about setting up his supply and who to contact. The landlord also said that the local authority had sent the Prohibition Order to the wrong address, so it was unaware of this before the resident moved out. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked it to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 11 April 2024.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 5 November 2024. It apologised for the delay in sending its response and offered him £25 compensation for this delay. However, it also said that it had followed its repair and gas processes correctly and mentioned several appointments where the resident failed to allow access to inspect the boiler. It did not uphold any further aspect of his complaint.
  8. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint on 7 November 2024. He remained unhappy with the landlord’s complaint responses and felt the landlord had failed to follow the correct processes after receiving the Prohibition Order. He also felt the landlord had failed to respond appropriately to his reports about not having heating or hot water. To resolve his complaint, the resident would like the landlord to reinstate his tenancy.

 

Assessment and findings

The scope of this investigation.

  1. The resident has raised complaints about issues that began when he first moved into the property in March 2021. The Ombudsman expects that any issues the resident wishes to complain about are raised in a reasonable period of time from when the issue arises. In this instance, there is no evidence that the resident raised any concerns about the state of the property or the landlord’s actions from when he first moved in until raising his complaint in 2024. This investigation has therefore begun from when the resident began to make regular reports about his gas, heating and hot water in January 2022.
  2. The resident also raised a previous complaint about the landlord’s handling of the end of his tenancy in June 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint on this matter on 20 July 2023. There is no evidence the resident escalated this complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure. Since the landlord dealt with this in a previous complaint and this was never concluded through the landlord’s complaint procedure, the Ombudsman will not consider the landlord’s handling of the ending of the resident’s tenancy as part of this investigation.
  3. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice or speak with the Energy Ombudsman if he feels that the energy company was at fault for any of the issues he experienced with his meter, and subsequent lack of hot water and heating. The Ombudsman does not have the authority to make any findings in relation to the actions of his energy supplier. 
  4. The resident may also wish to seek independent legal advice or speak with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) if he feels there were any failings from his local authority in relation to the sending of legal notices to the landlord. Again, in this instance, the Ombudsman only has the authority to comment on actions undertaken by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about issues with his gas, heating and hot water

  1. The landlord’s maintenance policy states that when a resident moves into a property they need to ‘contact an electricity and gas supplier to arrange a supply’ in their name. Following this, the landlord will attend to uncap the gas meter and have the boiler re-commissioned.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy says that for emergency repairs, it will ‘attend and make safe within 4 hours and rectify within 24 hours’. The landlord includes ‘no hot water’ and a ‘total loss of heating (October-March)’ as emergency repairs. For non-emergency repairs, the landlord will aim to complete repairs within 15 working days.
  3. The resident first contacted the landlord on 13 January 2022 to inform it that he was unable to register his meter with the gas company. The landlord provided the resident with advice on this date, asking him to check with his neighbours to try and find the correct meter for his property. It is unclear if the resident ever undertook these actions. Considering the landlord was not responsible for setting up the energy supply, the landlord’s actions in this instance were fair and in line with its obligations.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord again to report that he was still unable to set up his utilities on 31 January 2022. The landlord attended to help the resident with setting up his utilities on 2 February 2022. The landlord spoke with energy suppliers but was unable to resolve the problem. The landlord’s internal notes following this appointment requested that a member of staff follow this up to help the resident resolve the issue.
  5. The landlord, however, failed to follow up on this. It failed to contact the resident to undertake any further investigations or offer additional support in dealing with the meter. Whilst the responsibility for setting up utilities is not the landlord’s, considering the resident had no hot water or heating, it should have treated this as a serious issue. The landlord’s failure to take any action following this appointment represented a failure in its handling of the matter.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord again on 12 May 2022 following its failure to contact him. This contact mentioned he had no gas supply, hot water or heating in the property. The landlord failed to respond to this e-mail. Considering the resident was informing the landlord of no heating and hot water, the landlord should have recognised the severity of the situation and treated this with the appropriate seriousness.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response states that it performed a boiler service on 13 July 2022. The landlord has provided no evidence of this appointment, or that the resident had working hot water and heating facilities in the property. The landlord’s complaint responses indicate that it believed the resident had set up his utilities by this time. However, there is no evidence to support this.
  8. Only 2 months after this, the resident again contacted the landlord on 28 September 2022 to inform it of his ongoing troubles setting up his utilities. He also asked the landlord if it could provide the serial number for his meter to help him set up his energy supply. The landlord took over a month to respond, providing the resident with information on how to obtain the meter’s serial number. Whilst it was good of the landlord to provide the information the resident requested, the landlord’s response time again fell outside of what the Ombudsman would consider a reasonable timeframe.
  9. Following this, on 13 December 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that the boiler had begun flashing and now showed a red light on the display. This suggests that the resident had now connected his gas however there is no evidence demonstrating if or when this happened. The evidence is unclear if this is a continuation of the problems the resident was previously reporting, or if this was a new repair issue with his heating and hot water.
  10. The landlord treated this as an emergency repair and attended on the same day to come and inspect the boiler. The contractor’s notes from this date state that they were unable to gain access to the property to inspect the boiler. The landlord’s attendance, in line with its repair policy timescales, was reasonable.
  11. The local authority then became involved and wrote to the landlord on 3 January 2023 to reiterate that the resident remained without heating and hot water. The local authority chased the landlord for updates on the repairs on 15 February 2023. When chasing, it also mentioned that it had served a notice on the landlord on 20 January 2023. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this notice. We are therefore unable to confirm if the local authority had served any notice to the landlord on this date.
  12. Throughout this period, the landlord attempted to visit the property to inspect the boiler but was unable to gain entry to perform these inspections. This happened on 4 occasions. The landlord was unable to access the property on 3 January 2023, 10 February 2023, 15 February 2023 and 24 February 2023. On each occasion it appears the resident was not at the property to provide access. For the appointment on 15 February 2023, the landlord had arranged for the resident to stay at home for the day to ensure access to the property. However, the landlord was still unable to gain access despite this arrangement.
  13. The landlord generally raised these appointments on the same day it received reports. Its actions were in line with the timescales specified in its repair policy. As part of his tenancy agreement, the resident should allow the landlord’s contractors access to enable them to perform repairs.  Given its efforts to inspect the boiler and heating system, the Ombudsman is unable to find any failings in this aspect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports.
  14. The landlord’s records demonstrate no further repair reports or contact with the resident between 24 February 2023 and 11 April 2023, when the resident informed the landlord that he wished to end his tenancy. The local authority sent a prohibition notice to the landlord regarding the lack of heating and hot water to the resident on 3 March 2023. The landlord disputes that it ever received this, stating that the local authority sent this to an incorrect address. The Ombudsman has investigated the landlord’s actions following this notice under a separate heading in this investigation.
  15. It remains unclear from the available evidence if the resident ever had a functioning boiler or heating system in the property. It is also unclear if the December 2022 reports about boiler issues were related to the original issue or if this was a new repair issue reported.
  16. As mentioned above, the landlord’s maintenance policy states that setting up utilities is the resident’s responsibility. However, the resident continued to report to the landlord that he was struggling to set up his gas connection, resulting in no hot water or heating in the property. The resident reported this for over a year, and the landlord took very few steps in response.  The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it considered any additional steps to help the resident with the problem.
  17. The landlord should have considered whether it needed to take additional action or if the resident required additional support. The landlord’s failure to consider steps it could take to help the resident resolve his problems represented a significant failing by the landlord. The landlord’s failure to do so undoubtedly caused the resident distress and inconvenience and contributed to the resident having no heating and hot water for longer than necessary.
  18. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord itself recognised that its communications with the resident had fallen short of its expected standards and offered the resident £50 compensation for this failing. Whilst it was good practice for the landlord to acknowledge its failings and offer compensation, this offer is not large enough considering these failings. The landlord often took a significant period to respond to the resident, and at times failed to respond entirely. Despite the serious nature of the resident’s reports, the landlord also failed to consider what additional steps or support it could offer.
  19. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about issues with his gas, heating and hot water therefore represented maladministration. For the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings, the landlord is also ordered to pay the resident £400 in compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which recommends figures in this region where there has been a significant failing that ‘adversely affected’ the resident.

The landlord’s treatment of the resident following a Prohibition Order from the local authority

  1. The landlord does not have a policy that states how it will act if it receives a notice, such as a Prohibition Order from a local authority. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman would still expect to see a landlord responding to this in a reasonable timeframe to complete any necessary repairs. The Ombudsman would also expect the landlord to demonstrate that it considered the resident’s welfare and whether it was appropriate for them to remain in the property.
  2. In this instance, the landlord has said that it was unaware of the Prohibition Order due to the local authority sending this to the incorrect address. The landlord’s evidence and internal records demonstrate no awareness or mention of this until after the resident had moved out of the property.
  3. The first evidence available to the Ombudsman that mentions this notice is communication from the resident to the landlord on 29 June 2023. This was several months after the resident had left the property. There is no available evidence to suggest that the resident mentioned this noticed to the landlord when ending his tenancy. If the resident had mentioned it to the landlord, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to take the appropriate actions in light of the notice.
  4. Based on the information available, there is no evidence the landlord was made aware of the order by either the resident or the local authority before the resident ended his tenancy. As there was no evidence it received the Prohibition Order, we cannot say it should have treated him differently after it was issued by the local authority. We have therefore found there was no maladministration by the landlord

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy has 2 stages. At stage 1, the landlord says it aims to provide its complaint response within 10 working days. If a resident is unhappy with the stage 1 complaint response, they can escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. At stage 2, the landlord aims to provide its stage 2 response within 15 working days. The landlord also says that on occasion it may be unable to provide responses within these timescales. But it says if this is the case, residents ‘will be kept informed and regularly updated’.
  2. The resident made his complaint to the landlord on 29 January 2024. The landlord provided its stage 1 response 33 working days later on 14 March 2024. This fell outside of the timescales specified in the landlord’s complaints policy and represented a small failure in service from the landlord.
  3. Following the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, the resident sent a number of queries to the landlord on 11 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s comments and said on 19 April 2024 that it would be in touch once it had a chance to review these. It said it would respond to him by the end of the following week. The landlord failed to respond further or to fulfil its commitment to respond to him by the end of the following week.
  4. The resident then contacted the landlord on 14 May 2024 to ask for the process to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its process, which the landlord again failed to respond to. The landlord’s failure to respond to either of these e-mails represented a failure to fairly handle the resident’s complaint and delayed his ability to refer his complaint to the Ombudsman.
  5. The resident then again requested that the landlord escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 13 June 2024. The landlord failed to provide its complaint response until 5 November 2024. This was a total of 103 working days. This fell significantly outside of the 15 working day timescale the landlord committed to in its complaints policy. This again represented a significant failure by the landlord.
  6. The landlord’s policy says it will keep residents informed and updated in instances where it is unable to respond within the times quoted in its complaints policy. The landlord failed to keep the resident properly informed at either stage 1 or stage 2 of its complaint responses. At stage 1 it failed to communicate any delays to the resident prior to his own chasing. At stage 2, the landlord sent a 10-day extension letter to the resident on 11 July 2024 but failed to fulfil its commitment to provide a response within a further 10 working days. The landlord’s failure to fairly and openly communicate with the resident regarding delays again represented a failing from the landlord.
  7. The landlord itself recognised that it had fallen short in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It offered him £25 compensation in its stage 2 complaint response for these failures. Considering the length of the landlord’s delays, this is not a large enough offer of redress. The landlord also failed to explain or adequately address why it failed to escalate the resident’s complaint on more than 1 occasion, and why it failed to follow up on deadlines it set.
  8. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint, therefore, represented maladministration. The landlord is also ordered to pay the resident £225 in compensation. This is inclusive of the landlord’s previous offer of £25 made in its stage 2 complaint response. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which recommends figures in this region where there has been a failure which ‘adversely affected’ the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about issues with his gas, heating and hot water.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s treatment of the resident following a Prohibition Order from the local authority.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this letter the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident £625 consisting of £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports about issues with his gas, heating and hot water and £225 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the associated complaint. This is inclusive of any offers previously made by the landlord in its complaint responses.
    2. Apologise to the resident for any failings identified in this report.
    3. Provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has completed the above.
  2. It is ordered that, within 10 weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord undertake a review of this case. The landlord should review its actions and consider how it would support a resident who had been reporting to the landlord that they had no heating and had been struggling for 12 months to set up utilities. The landlord should share this report with the Ombudsman. It should also consider sharing a copy of this, and the findings of the Ombudsman’s investigation, with the local authority so it can examine how they can ensure that the landlord receives any future Prohibition Orders.