Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202445075)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202445075

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

24 September 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 a leak, damp, mould, and associated work including a bathroom light and kitchen floor.
2. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s request to be rehoused.
   2. The complaint.

Background

3. The resident lives with her dependant daughter in a 1-bedroom flat situated on the 2nd floor of the building. This is on an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord that began in May 2014. The resident informed us she has eczema, ADHD and suffers from migraines. She told us her daughter has asthma and eczema, and she believes their health has been impacted by the damp and mould at the property.
4. The resident told us the recent issues of damp, mould and the floor started 2 years ago as a result of a leak from an upstairs flat. The landlord’s available records relating to the issues start on 27 May 2024 when it attended the property to check the resident’s report of the “kitchen floor sinking”. Its notes state the floor had slightly dipped next to the skirting board. It requested a surveyor inspection. On 17 June 2024 the landlord completed emergency work to trace and make safe a leak from the upper flat. It also attended the resident’s home to make safe the bathroom light fitting and ceilings. The landlord followed up and applied a mould wash in the bathroom around July 2024. The landlord attended the upper flat on 24 December 2024 to complete additional work to bathroom tiles that may have contributed to water penetration. This work was completed on 22 January 2025.
5. The resident contacted us on 7 February 2025. She was concerned about the property condition which she believed was affecting the health of her and her daughter. The resident said the property was uninhabitable. The resident then raised a complaint with the landlord on 12 February 2025. The landlord logged a stage 1 complaint and acknowledged it on the same day. However, it failed to send a stage 1 complaint response to the resident.
6. On 13 March 2025 the resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints procedure as it had not responded to her stage 1 complaint. She wanted the landlord to complete remedial work and pay her compensation in recognition of her distress and inconvenience. She also asked the landlord to move her. The landlord’s records of 27 May 2025 showed it arranged to investigate the kitchen floor. On the same day it noted a “red alert – mould returned front room leading to mushroom growth”.
7. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 3 June 2025. It upheld her complaint, apologised, and acknowledged it had not sent her a stage 1 complaint response. It told her it would arrange a damp and mould inspection and at the same time inspect the floor, repair the bathroom light and it would ask its moves team to contact her. It offered compensation of £150 for its delay in its complaint response and £50 for its failure to organise a damp and mould inspection. Its total compensation offer was £200.
8. The landlord carried out a floor inspection on 11 June 2025, however, it did not note its findings other than a request for a further inspection by its surveyor. This inspection was arranged for 2 July 2025; it is unclear whether this was a pre-arranged appointment, and it did not gain access.
9. On 15 June 2025 the landlord’s records refer to further investigations in the flat above. We do not have evidence to determine what this entailed or whether it did take place. The landlord tried to arrange work with the resident on the same day. It wanted to remove a section of the damaged bathroom ceiling so that it could inspect the area above the ceiling. The resident had lost confidence in the landlord’s co-ordination and completion of all works. She therefore asked for a nominated officer to oversee outstanding works. We do not have evidence that the landlord organised for the resident’s request to go ahead.
10. The landlord arranged to replace the bathroom light on 16 June 2025. The work was not completed as it noted the resident’s concerns that a leak from the upper flat was still ongoing. The landlord agreed to resolve the light issue once the leak had been resolved.
11. The resident recently told us she had not accepted the landlord’s offer of compensation. She said the leak remains ongoing; she can hear “liquid running across the property,” and she has been without a light in the bathroom since June 2024. The resident wanted a plan of action for works, a response to her request to be moved, for it to appoint a nominated officer to oversee completion of works and effective communication going forward.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

12. The resident raised concerns that the damp and mould issues have impacted on her and her daughter’s health. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.
13. Our investigation starts from May 2024 and continues beyond the stage 2 complaint response date given the evidence suggests the landlord’s agreed actions during the complaint process are incomplete. This timeline is consistent with the complaint timeline.

Leak, damp, mould and associated work including a bathroom light and kitchen floor.

14. The landlord is obligated to resolve leaks and keep the property free from mould and damp and fit for human habitation as per the Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘the Homes Act 2018’). The landlord is obligated to respond to repairs within a reasonable timescale under the Homes Act 2018 and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
15. The landlord’s maintenance policy states it will carry out responsive repairs as either emergency work within 24 hours or non-emergency work within 15 working days.

Leak and associated work, including the bathroom light

16. In mid-June 2024 the resident reported her concerns to the landlord of a leak affecting her home. The landlord arranged to trace and make safe the leak as an emergency repair on the same day. It believed the cause of the leak was from the seal around the bath in the upper flat. It completed this follow-on work 3 days later which we consider to be a reasonable timeframe.

 

17. At the same time, in mid-June 2024 (on a separate emergency works order) the landlord attended the resident’s home to make safe a bathroom light and ceilings at the property. Its records show it checked the ceilings and noted that they were safe. There is some confusion between the landlord and resident’s understanding regarding the bathroom light. The resident told us the landlord left the bathroom light out of order. She supported this with a photo (date and location unknown) of a light switch with tape on it stating, “do not use”. The landlord’s records suggest a new light bulb was required and so it left the casement off the light fitting for the resident to change the bulb.
18. Given the resident had a different version of events and there is no landlord evidence to confirm its communication with the resident on this point, we cannot establish what happened. The landlord arranged a mould treatment in June 2024. Its records indicate the work should have been completed in July 2024, however, we do not have the evidence to confirm the date this work was completed.
19. We expect landlords to keep robust records to support an effective repairs service. Without good records, the landlord will find it difficult to evidence it fulfilled its repair obligations. The landlord should refer to our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) for best practice.
20. The resident had ongoing concerns that the leak, damp, mould, and associated work had not been resolved despite work up to January 2025 that included the work to the upstairs flat that the landlord believed would resolve any water penetration issues. She contacted us in early February 2025 for advice. The resident then raised a complaint with the landlord in mid-February 2025, however, the landlord failed to provide a stage 1 complaint. We will expand more on this within the complaint handling section.
21. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 in mid-March 2025. The landlord responded with its stage 2 complaint response at the beginning of June 2025. It upheld her complaint and offered her £50 compensation in recognition that it delayed in its damp and mould inspection. However, it did not provide a thorough response that explained its investigation or reasons for delays. We will expand more on this within the complaint handling section.
22. The landlord’s stage 2 response told her that it would arrange an inspection of the property and arrange to fix the bathroom light. It also said its moves team would contact her. The landlord’s lack of proactive action in managing the case was inappropriate and of concern given there were vulnerabilities and ongoing concerns about a leak, damp, mould, and associated work throughout the property.
23. We expect landlords to consider the individual circumstances of residents, including any health vulnerabilities, when responding to reports of leaks, damp, and mould. This includes assessing whether a decant is appropriate and ensuring timely communication throughout the process. The landlord did not evidence it risk assessed the property in line with the Housing, Health, and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The landlord’s failures caused additional delays, distress, and inconvenience to the resident.
24. The resident’s most recent reports suggest that there remains a water penetration issue for which she wants a plan of action and a nominated officer to oversee work. The resident’s suggestion is not unreasonable in the circumstances. We have therefore made an order for the landlord to inspect the property and confirm the outcome of the inspection including its action plan and timescales to address any outstanding work.

Kitchen floor

25. The resident raised an issue with the kitchen floor. It is unclear of the date. However, the landlord attended at the end of May 2024. Its notes state there was a slight dip in the floor due to an ongoing leak from the flat above. It requested a surveyor inspection.
26. We understand it is not always possible to identify the cause of the issue on first visit and therefore the landlord’s actions to arrange an expert inspection were appropriate. However, it has failed to evidence it followed through with this commitment as we do not have a record of a surveyor’s inspection of the kitchen floor. This was inappropriate.
27. The resident raised her further concerns about the flooring with the landlord in mid-March 2025. When the landlord responded to her through its stage 2 complaint in June 2025, it did not acknowledge its previous failure to follow through on the need to arrange an inspection from a specialist. It told her it would arrange an inspection, however, at the end of May 2025, she had to raise the issue again with the landlord. It inspected the floor in mid-June 2025, however, it did not record an outcome other than it required another inspection by an expert surveyor. The landlord arranged the surveyor inspection at the beginning of July 2025, however, it noted no access was available. It is unclear whether the visit was pre-arranged with the resident.
28. In conclusion, the landlord was notified of an issue with the kitchen floor in May 2024 when it noted a surveyor inspection was required, however, there is no evidence of it following through with its commitment. It failed to acknowledge its failures within its complaint response resulting in further resident chase ups. The landlord arranged to inspect again (May 2025) but there was no evidence it prearranged an appointment with the resident, and the inspection did not go ahead. It is of significant concern that more than a year after the resident’s initial reports there remained no evidence that the landlord had completed the survey. The landlord’s inactions were inappropriate causing delays, distress, and inconvenience to the resident.
29. The landlord’s lack of co-ordination of works and its lack of communication with the resident is a recurring theme throughout the complaint. There is no evidence it had a grip on the outstanding issues or that it had made attempts to resolve the follow on works in a timely manner. Landlords must ensure that residents are kept informed of inspection outcomes, planned works, and any delays. Follow-up visits and aftercare should be scheduled to confirm that issues have been resolved. The landlord’s failure to carry out a timely inspection and manage follow on works effectively caused additional delays, distress, and inconvenience to the resident.

Conclusion: leak, damp, mould, and associated work

30. The landlord dealt with the initial reports of a leak in a timely manner. However, the landlord did not follow through on the actions it identified at the initial stages, nor those actions it confirmed as required in its complaint responses. The resident expressed her concerns about outstanding work to resolve a leak and the bathroom light recently This leads us to conclude that the issues complained about remain outstanding. In total there have been significant delays so far of 14 months. In particular, the landlord failed to:
    1. Inspect the property using suitably qualified persons in a timely manner and co-ordinate any follow-on works.
    2. Communicate its actions and keep the resident updated.
    3. Provide us with full records.
31. Where the landlord has attempted to put things right for the resident, we consider our Dispute Resolution Principles of:
    1. Be fair.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.
32. Given the significant failures and impact caused to the resident by the landlord’s delayed inspection and the landlord’s failure to resolve ongoing issues, we are not satisfied the landlord fully acknowledged the extent of its failures. Neither did it put things right for the resident through its compensation offer of £50. Further, there is no indication that the landlord has conducted an inspection of the property and satisfied us that it has resolved the full extent of issues for the resident. For these reasons we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak, damp, mould, and associated work at the property.
33. We have made orders that reflect the landlord’s significant failures. This includes compensation of £1200 in recognition of the prolonged delay in inspecting the property and completing remedial work. This sum includes £400 in recognition of the resident’s distress and inconvenience. This amount of compensation is aligned to our remedies guidance for failures causing significant delays – in this case of approximately 15 months (June 2024 to the point of determination). The landlord’s record of mushroom growth in May 2025 and the resident’s ongoing concerns of a leak further demonstrates the significant impact on the resident.
34. We have also ordered the landlord to appoint a nominated officer to oversee any outstanding work to completion. The landlord must conduct an inspection of the affected properties to trace and repair any leak. This includes identifying associated remedial works to fix the bathroom light, resolve damp and mould and the kitchen floor. The landlord’s inspection should risk assess the property against the resident’s individual needs to determine whether it is reasonable for the resident to stay at the property during completion of work.

Rehousing

35. When the resident raised a complaint, she asked the landlord to consider rehousing due to her concerns about the property condition. The landlord responded at stage 2 in early June 2025. It told her its moves team would contact her. The landlord’s lack of records on rehousing means we cannot establish what action, if any, the landlord took to answer the resident’s request for rehousing. However, the resident recently told us the landlord did not provide a response to her rehousing request.
36. As previously stated, the landlord had an obligation to resolve the situation under the Homes Act 2018 and assess whether she needed to be moved out. There is no evidence the landlord followed through with its commitment to contact her about rehousing. It is therefore reasonable for us to conclude that the landlord failed to follow through with its commitment to contact the resident about rehousing and provide her with a response to her request. On this basis, we have determined maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.
37. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident for its failure, compensate her £100 for the distress and inconvenience and respond to her request for rehousing. This amount of compensation is aligned to our remedies guidance for failures causing adverse impact on the resident. We have also ordered the landlord to contact the resident (if it has not already done so). The landlord must provide written confirmation to the resident and us to confirm the outcome of its discussions including any agreed follow up actions.

Complaint handling

38. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 12 February 2025. The landlord logged and acknowledged the complaint the same day, however, the landlord failed to send its stage 1 complaint response to the resident.
39. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords must issue a full response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged.
40. The landlord’s failure to respond to the stage 1 complaint caused additional delays, time and trouble in the resident having to pursue her complaint.
41. The resident escalated her complaint in mid-March 2025 due to the landlord’s failure to respond to her stage 1 complaint. The landlord sent its stage 2 response to her at the beginning of June 2025.
42. The Code states:
    1. Landlords must issue a final response at stage 2 within 20 working days of the complaint being acknowledged.
    2. Landlords must decide whether an extension to this timescale is needed when considering the complexity of the complaint and then inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 20 working days without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident.
43. The landlord delayed in its response by nearly 3 months. There is no evidence it agreed an extension of the timeframe with the resident. The landlord’s inactions were therefore inappropriate.
44. The landlord recognised its delayed stage 2 complaint response and offered the resident compensation of £150. This amount of compensation is at the higher end of what we expect to see where there have been delays in the complaint response timeframe. While we are satisfied the landlord recognised this element of failure and put things right for the resident, it did not reflect upon its lack of thorough investigation to explain its failures, nor did it recognise the full extent of its complaint handling failures in its lack of a stage 1 complaint response. However, its offer of £150 compensation does reflect the landlord’s full failures, and it is aligned to our remedies guidance. Given we are not satisfied the landlord recognised the full extent of its complaint handling failure, we have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
45. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident for its complaint handling failures, review the complaint and inform us how it will learn from its failures.

Determination

46. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there is maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak, damp, mould, and associated work including a bathroom light and kitchen floor repairs.
47. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there is maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.
48. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there is service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

49. Within 4 weeks the landlord should apologise in writing at a senior level to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
50. Within 4 weeks the landlord should pay the resident £1450 (including the £200 it has already offered) in relation to:
    1. £1200 for its handling of a leak, damp, mould, and associated work including a bathroom light and kitchen floor repairs.
    2. £100 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.
    3. £150 complaint handling.
51. Within 6 weeks of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Arrange an inspection in relation to investigating a leak, damp/mould, and the kitchen floor. It should risk assess the property in line with HHSRS requirements and the resident’s individual needs. This will include its action plan and timescales of how it intends to resolve any issues identified during the inspection. The landlord should appoint a nominated officer to oversee any work to completion. The inspection outcome, including the action plan, is to be provided to both the resident and this Service.
    2. Respond to the resident’s request for rehousing and provide her with its decision. The landlord must provide written confirmation to the resident and us to confirm the outcome of its discussions including any agreed follow up actions. This should include evidence of how it has reached its decision in compliance with its allocations policy and or decant policy.

.

52. Within 6 weeks the landlord should reflect upon how it will learn from this complaint (including its record keeping and complaint handling) and provide its report to evidence its commitment to improvements.
53. The landlord should reply to our Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.