Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202331370)

Decision
Case ID	202331370
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Paragon Asra Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	10 December 2025

Background

1. The resident made repeated requests for the landlord to complete maintenance to a tree in her front garden, as it had carried out works to trees in neighbouring gardens but not hers. This led her to raise concerns that she was being treated unfairly. The landlord has now cut back the resident’s tree, but she wants it to be cut down.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Tree maintenance.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Maladministration in its handling of tree maintenance.
   2. Reasonable redress in its handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Tree maintenance

4. The landlord’s communication was often delayed and it missed early opportunities to address the resident’s concerns about being treated unfairly. It appropriately agreed to complete works to the tree, but it did not learn from earlier communication shortcomings. After its final complaint response, the resident had to repeatedly chase for updates, which undermined the landlord’s commitment to putting things right.

Complaint handling

5. There were delays in the landlord responding to the resident’s initial complaint. It failed to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its process in line with its complaints policy and the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaint handling. This created unnecessary barriers to its complaints procedure. It also addressed the resident by her former name in its responses, despite being notified of the change. However, the landlord offered an appropriate remedy during its complaints procedure, which was sufficient to put things right.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of her tree maintenance requests. 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 07 January 2026

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We have recommended that the landlord pay the resident the £220 it awarded for complaint handling failings if it has not already done so. Our findings are made on the understanding that this payment has been made or will be made.

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
31 October 2023	The resident complained that the landlord had declined to complete maintenance to a tree in her garden, while it had carried out similar works to a neighbour’s tree. She said the tree was affecting her daughter’s allergies and asked for it to be removed or cut back.
3 November 2023	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and said that a response would be provided by 17 November 2023.
21 November 2023	The resident chased the landlord for a complaint response. The landlord explained that it was still investigating the matter and would provide a response once the investigation was complete.
29 November 2023	The landlord issued its complaint response and did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It explained that, as the tree was in the resident’s private garden, she was responsible for maintaining it. The landlord acknowledged the delay in issuing its response and awarded £20 for this. In response, the resident questioned why the landlord had completed maintenance to her neighbour’s tree, which was also in a private garden, if she was responsible for maintaining her own. She said this added to her view that she was being treated unfairly.
30 November 2023	The landlord reiterated its position as set out in its complaint response. It declined to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its procedure, stating that this would not change the outcome.
20 March 2024	As the resident told us that the landlord had refused to escalate her complaint, we contacted the landlord on her behalf and asked it to accept the escalation and respond by 27 March 2024.
28 March 2024	We contacted the landlord again as it did not provide a complaint response. We asked that it did so by 8 April 2024.
9 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response and upheld the resident’s complaint. It apologised for failing to escalate her complaint, which resulted in a 4-month delay. It offered £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by this failure. It also said that while the resident was responsible for maintaining the tree, it recognised that it would be unfair to enforce this on this occasion because it had completed maintenance works to the neighbour’s tree. It explained that, at the time of its stage 1 response, not all staff were aware of the works completed to the neighbour’s tree because the situation was sensitive. The landlord said it would arrange for its contractor to contact the resident directly to inspect and quote for the tree works.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate the landlord’s handling of the tree maintenance because she felt she continued to be treated unfairly. She said her neighbours had trees cut back significantly and removed, whereas her tree had only been cut back by an unnoticeable amount, which she said had not resolved the issue she complained about.

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	The handling of tree maintenance
Finding	Maladministration

6. The resident told us she had asked the landlord to complete maintenance on a tree in her front garden for about 2 years before making her complaint. Under our Scheme, we may only consider complaints raised with the landlord within a reasonable period, normally 12 months. In line with this, we have assessed the landlord’s actions from October 2022 onwards, covering the 12 months before the complaint.
7. In October 2022, the resident told the landlord she felt unfairly treated because it had not responded to an earlier request for tree maintenance works to be completed, while works had been completed to trees in neighbouring gardens. Under the tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible for maintaining the trees in her garden. We cannot comment on any arrangements the landlord may have made with other residents, as we do not know the circumstances of those arrangements due to confidentiality. These arrangements do not necessarily mean the resident was entitled to the landlord completing works to her tree.
8. The resident told us that the tree pollen was affecting her daughter’s asthma. 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.
9. Between October 2022 and January 2023, the resident chased the landlord for updates on at least 4 occasions. The landlord assured her that an outcome would be provided and, on occasion, said the matter had been prioritised as urgent. However, it did not provide her with an outcome until around 3 months later, which was unreasonable. Landlords are expected to communicate effectively to maintain transparency and manage expectations. The landlord’s communication fell short of these expectations, likely causing the resident distress and inconvenience.
10. On 30 January 2023, the landlord advised the resident that a survey had not identified any need for tree maintenance. It offered to install mesh window covers to reduce pollen entering the property, which was appropriate. However, the landlord did not record when the survey took place. Without this information, we cannot confirm that the survey was completed within a reasonable timeframe. This reflects a shortcoming in its record-keeping. Accurate records are essential to maintain transparency and provide an audit trail.
11. On 4 and 18 August 2023, the resident again requested tree maintenance works and reiterated that she felt unfairly treated. It was appropriate that the landlord explained that an inspection completed on 22 August 2023 had not identified any need for maintenance to be completed and reminded her of her responsibilities under the tenancy agreement.
12. Between October 2022 and the initial complaint, the resident contacted the landlord on at least 8 occasions about tree maintenance. She repeatedly said she felt unfairly treated because the landlord had carried out works on trees in neighbouring gardens but not hers. The landlord did not address these concerns. The missed opportunities to do so indicate shortcomings in its communication, which may have prolonged the resident’s distress.
13. On 22 November 2023, the landlord told the resident it could not discuss why a neighbour’s tree had been cut down. This was appropriate due to confidentiality. It reiterated its position in its stage 1 response. However, it did not address her concern about being treated differently, which may have caused her to feel that her concerns were not being taken seriously.
14. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that not fulfilling her requests while completing works to neighbours’ trees caused her to feel unfairly treated. It said it would arrange an inspection and obtain a quote for the works, despite not being required to do so. By going beyond its obligations, the landlord demonstrated a commitment to putting things right for the resident, which we welcome.
15. However, this commitment was undermined by further unexplained delays and communication shortcomings between April and August 2024. During this time, the resident chased the landlord for updates on at least 6 occasions, which likely inconvenienced her. The landlord’s responses were delayed and often lacked clarity, including an admission on 8 August 2024 that the matter had “slipped through the net”.
16. On 16 August 2024, the landlord told the resident that the tree would be cut back rather than removed, following a survey completed by July 2024. The exact date of the survey is unclear, which reflects a further shortcoming in record-keeping and means we cannot confirm that it completed this within a reasonable timeframe.
17. The landlord explained that the tree was healthy and did not meet its criteria for removal, which was appropriate. It also said the works were delayed due to bird nesting season. It would have been reasonable to communicate this decision sooner, particularly as its contractor reported on 24 July 2024 that the resident wanted the tree removed rather than cut back. Earlier communication could have managed expectations and avoided uncertainty. By not doing so, the landlord missed opportunities to reduce the likely distress the resident was experiencing up until the works were completed around 21 August 2024.
18. Based on the failings identified above, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the tree maintenance.
19. Our remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out our approach to compensation. It says that where there have been failures by the landlord which adversely affected the resident, but there may be no permanent impact, compensation of up to £600 may be appropriate to put things right. In line with this, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 in recognition of the failures identified and the likely impact they had on her.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

20. The landlord operates a 2‑stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy aligns with the Code.
21. Under the Code, landlords are expected to provide a response at stage 1 of their complaints procedure within 10 working days of acknowledging the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s complaint response was issued around 5 working days beyond this timescale. It apologised and offered the resident £20 for the delay in its stage 1 response.
22. Under the Code, the landlord should have escalated the complaint to stage 2 when the resident expressed dissatisfaction with its response. It was inappropriate that it did not do so and instead told the resident it would not change its position. It is likely that this caused the resident unnecessary inconvenience, as she had to seek assistance from the Ombudsman to progress her complaint.
23. By the time the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, more than 3 months had passed since the resident first tried to escalate her complaint. This delay was excessive and likely caused her distress. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the failures that caused the delay and awarded £200 to put things right.
24. The landlord addressed the resident by her former name in its complaint responses, despite being notified of the change several years earlier. This indicates a shortcoming in maintaining accurate records. We have recommended that the landlord review its records and ensure it addresses the resident by the correct name in future.
25. In line with our remedies guidance (as referenced above), we find the landlord’s total award of £220 appropriate for the failures identified in its complaint handling, resulting in a finding of reasonable redress. We have recommended that the landlord pay the resident the compensation if it has not already done so.

Learning

Complaint handling

26. The landlord’s complaint handling did not meet the expectations set out in the Code. The landlord may wish to review the training provided to staff to ensure that complaints are appropriately escalated to stage 2 of its complaints procedure if it has not already done so.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. We identified recurring failures in the landlord’s record keeping, including missing details of inspections and inaccuracies in the resident’s information. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate, accessible records that provide a clear audit trail and support oversight of committed actions. The landlord could consider reviewing its record-keeping practices in line with the recommendations in our spotlight report if it has not already done so.

Communication

28. The landlord’s communication was often delayed and lacked transparency, leaving the resident uncertain about its position and requiring her to chase for updates. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance highlights that failures can be avoided when landlords communicate effectively with residents about maintenance requests and timescales for completion. The landlord might want to consider reviewing its approach to communication in line with the recommendations in our spotlight report if it has not already done so.