Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202420260)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420260

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

28 August 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with being able to access the gas meter to obtain readings and associated repairs to a communal light.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident lives in a 1-bed ground floor flat within a sheltered accommodation scheme, under an assured tenancy which began on 17 March 2022.
4. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
5. The complaint centres around safe access to the resident’s gas meter, which is located in the basement. Access to the basement is via a concrete staircase, which is serviced by a communal light. The basement ceiling is very low, and the resident said that this made accessing the meter very difficult.
6. The resident raised a formal complaint on 1 July 2024. He said:
   1. It was vital for all residents to be able to safely read their meters and provide readings to their utility providers.
   2. Residents had to step onto a “very low-height, dark concrete staircase” which did not have a functional light, in order to access the basement where the meters were located.
   3. He wanted the landlord to assess the risk to residents of making this trip into the basement to read their meters.
   4. He had previously reported these matters to the landlord’s housing repair teams, housing officers, independent living team leader and neighbourhood officers.
7. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 5 September 2024, in which it said:
   1. It apologised for the delay in issuing the complaint response and offered £50 compensation in respect of this.
   2. It upheld the complaint due to delays in completing the repairs to the light on the stairwell and in issuing the complaint response. It offered a further £50 compensation for the delay in fixing the light on the stairwell.
   3. It surveyor had examined the basement on 10 July 2024 and agreed that the “ceiling of the basement [was] very low and anyone who has mobility and disability issues would not be able to access the meters”. The surveyor had also noted that the light was not working on the stairwell to the basement.
   4. It had investigated moving the meters and found that this was not possible, because they are owned by the utility company and not the landlord.
   5. It recommended that residents contact their utility provider and ask for a smart meter to be installed. It said that it could not do this directly “due to GDPR”, as the utility provider would need consent to do this.
   6. Its neighbourhood coordinator was available to support resident’s with contacting their utility provider or to take meter readings for residents in the interim.
   7. It was “unacceptable” that a repair works order had not been raised for the light when it was identified on 10 July 2024. The landlord confirmed that a job had now been raised and was due to be completed on 17 September 2024.
8. The resident escalation his complaint on 7 September 2024. He said:
   1. The stage 1 complaint response had incorrectly assumed that the resident wished to have the meters moved, which he had not asked for.
   2. The stage 1 complaint response had not considered whether residents had previously contacted their utility providers or sought any information about this. The resident said that he had done this and had been waiting for a smart meter installation for several months.
   3. The stage 1 complaint response had not addressed the “neglect” by the landlord’s housing officers, independent living staff and neighbourhood coordinators. The resident also noted that he had raised a separate complaint regarding the absence of the neighbourhood coordinator.
   4. He queried why the light repair had not been raised or scheduled for several weeks after the surveyor visit.
   5. He had not been kept up to date about delays in the complaint response timescales, as the landlord had said it would do in its complaint acknowledgement letter.
   6. The landlord had not acknowledged that his initial complaint was sent on behalf of all of the “senior and disabled residents” of the property.
   7. He was seeking an investigation into the failures of the landlord’s teams to respond to his concerns.
9. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 17 October 2024, in which it said:
   1. It acknowledged that the stage 1 complaint response was flawed as the resident had not asked for the meters to be moved, but this was presented as the primary issue. It also said that the stage 1 response had not acknowledged or checked if residents had previously contacted their utility providers.
   2. The landlord had not asked the utility company about installing smart meters, so it had no basis for saying that this would not be possible due to consent and data protection.
   3. It had responded to the complaint as a singular respondent, as he had raised the complaint. The landlord said it would ask its resident involvement team to get in touch with the resident about supporting more widely.
   4. The delays in issuing its stage 1 complaint response had been addressed in its first response.
   5. Its neighbourhood coordinator had been offered as mitigation in the interim, as they were expected to be on site for at least 4 hours per week and communicate the day and time of this to residents in advance. The landlord gave examples of repairs and works that had been raised by the current neighbourhood coordinator and said that a new person was due to start in the role on 21 October 2024.
   6. It had recognised the need for the neighbourhood coordinator to be more involved in supporting residents and noted that the resident now had contact with the neighbourhood coordinator manager to progress any ongoing concerns.
   7. It understood that the resident was not liaising with his utility provider about the meters. However, in relation to access to the meters, the landlord said that it did not “think [it] took all the actions available to [it] to ensure this was safe”. It gave examples such as ensuring the light was working and confirming that the neighbourhood coordinator was on hand to support residents.
   8. The issue with the light had been resolved on 17 September 2024.
10. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman on 28 October 2024 seeking a further investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. The resident has raised other complaints with his landlord related to the conduct of its neighbourhood coordinators and wider communal repairs and cleaning, including repairs to the kitchen.
12. These issues were not raised as part of the formal complaint that this investigation is considering and will not be commented on as part of this report. Instead, this report will focus solely on the safe access to the gas meter and the associated repair to the communal light on the stairwell. Any references made to these issues are for context only.
13. Part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord was that it had not considered his complaint on behalf of a group of residents living in the property. There has been nothing provided to indicate that other residents in the property have appointed the resident in this case as their representative, nor that he has an agreed mandate to represent the residents in any formal capacity, for example as part of a residents’ association. On this basis, the Ombudsman cannot consider this as a group complaint under the Scheme. It should be noted, however, that any findings in this determination may impact the wider community of residents living in the property, given the issues raised being communal in nature. 

Access to the gas meter

14. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords have a statutory duty to maintain the structure and exterior of its properties and to keep in in repair and good working order any installations for the supply of electricity. Once notified of a defect, landlords must make a lasting and effective repair in a reasonable time.
15. The landlord repair policy says that it will respond to reports in the following timescales, depending on the severity and urgency:
    1. Priority 1 – for emergency work, which the landlord committed to attend and make the issue safe within 4 hours of it being reported. Full emergency repairs will be completed within 24 hours. The policy states that this includes “total loss of power or lighting”.
    2. Priority 2 – for non-emergency repairs, which are scheduled for completion within 15 working days. The policy states that this includes “electrical works”.
    3. Variable timescale repairs – for planned and major works programmes, often including multiple, specialist contractors.
16. The repairs policy also says that the landlord will ensure that its maintenance services are “flexible to the needs of vulnerable tenants”, which it goes on to define as residents over the age of 65, those with chronic illnesses or disabilities, children under 3 years old and care home residents or those in supported housing. The resident’s property consists of supported housing and older residents, some of whom the resident describes as disabled.
17. In response to the resident’s concerns about safe access to the meter, particularly the lack of a functioning light on the stairwell, the complaint responses show that the landlord:
    1. Raised an emergency repair works order on 9 July 2024 to assess the lighting in the stairwell leading to the basement. The contractor reported that there didn’t “appear to be any issues in the block, stairwell or service cupboard all lights on and working as should.”
    2. Completed a repair to the light on the stairwell on 17 September 2024, following the stage 1 complaint response.
    3. Offered for its neighbourhood coordinator to undertake meter readings, on request, from residents if this was required in the interim.
    4. Gave the resident advice to contact his utility provider to ascertain if smart meters were able to be installed to avoid needing to take manual meter readings. It offered the support of its neighbourhood coordinator with this if requested.
    5. Said that it had previously explored the viability of moving the meters to a more accessible location, such as outside the property. It confirmed that its gas team had said that this was not possible.
18. It is acknowledged that the repair to the light on the stairwell was delayed and the landlord recognised this in both of its complaint responses. It apologised for this and offered £50 compensation in respect of this. This was reasonable given the delay and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
19. Similarly, it is noted that the resident has raised concerns with the landlord around the efficacy of its neighbourhood coordinator, however, as set out above, this is the subject of a separate complaint and has not been considered as part of this investigation.
20. The options explored and support offered by the landlord was reasonable in this case, to ensure that residents did not have to access the basement if they were unable to do so. While it would have been preferable for the meters to be moved, these are not owned by the landlord, and this is not something that it can directly implement. Internally, the landlord’s discussions around this appear to relate to both ownership and cost of such action.
21. At the time of investigation, the resident provided footage and photographs showing that the stairwell light was non-functional. The repair was previously marked as complete on 17 September 2024 and the resident referenced this in his stage 2 complaint escalation. On this basis, it is reasonable to conclude that a repair was undertaken successfully and, subsequently to this, has stopped working again. The landlord should investigate this and undertake a repair, within the timescales shown in its repairs policy, if this is the case. A recommendation has been made in respect of this below.
22. Overall, the evidence shows that the landlord rectified the reported fault with the light fitting, albeit this was delayed, and provided a range of support options and advice to residents about how to manage obtaining their meter readings. It apologised to the resident for the delays in repairing the light and offered compensation for this. While it is unfortunate that the meters are located in the basement, it does not appear that the utility provider is able to move these or provide smart meters at this present time.
23. On this basis, the mitigation and redress offered by the landlord is reasonable, given the setup, and therefore the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident, prior to investigation, which resolves this element of the complaint satisfactorily.

Complaint handling

24. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint policy in which it commits to responding to resident complaints in the following timescales:
    1. Stage 1 – 10 working days.
    2. Stage 2 – 20 working days.
25. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out a number of key principles that landlords are required to adhere to in the management of complaints. This includes the following:
    1. Landlords must operate a two-stage process without any additional or informal stages as this causes confusion and delay.
    2. Landlords must respond to complaints within the timescales in the Code. This is 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is to avoid extending the complaint process or delaying access to the Ombudsman.
    3. Landlords must not extend the timescales for responding to complaint by more than 10 working days. In cases of extensions this must be clearly explained to the resident and the Ombudsman’s details must be provided.
26. The evidence in this case shows that the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 48 working days after receipt. Its stage 2 complaint response was issued 28 working days after receipt. In both cases, these responses were issued over the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaint policy and by the Code. Furthermore, the resident said that he was not kept updated about the delays to issuing the complaint response, and there is evidence of him chasing a response, at both stages.
27. Taking together the delays in issuing a complaint response and the lack of communication and updates in the interim, this was a failing, which caused the resident additional time and trouble in pursuing the matter to completion.
28. The evidence shows that the landlord apologised for the delay in issuing its stage 1 complaint response and offered the resident £50 compensation in respect of this. There is no evidence that the landlord offered any redress for the lack of communication regarding the delays, or the lateness in issuing its stage 2 complaint response.
29. On this basis, there has been a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order and recommendation have been made in respect of this below.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves his complaint about the landlord’s handling of his reports of issues with being able to access the gas meter to obtain readings and associated repairs to a communal light satisfactorily.
31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there has been a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

32. Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation for the additional time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failures. If the landlord has paid the £50 compensation it offered in its stage 1 complaint response in respect of complaint handling (or any part of it), it may deduct this from the amount ordered above. The landlord must pay this compensation directly to the resident and not apply it to his accounts, unless he requests this.
33. Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to undertake a review of this case to:
    1. Ascertain the reasons for the delays in issuing its complaint responses and why the resident was not kept informed.
    2. Identify any learning from the complaint handling in this case.
    3. Provide a schedule showing how it will implement any learning identified, which may include process changes or staff training, in a period not exceeding a further 6 weeks.

Recommendations

34. The landlord should:
    1. Progress the resident’s new repair request for the light in the stairwell to the basement, in line with the timescales in the maintenance policy.
    2. Continue to liaise with the resident and the relevant utility providers to explore other options to make obtaining meter readings more accessible, without the need for mitigation by the landlord.