Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202448549)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202448549

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

11 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. damp and mould at the property.
2. anti-social behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident has held an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, since December 2018. The property is a 1-bedroom, ground floor flat and the resident lives with her child. The landlord is aware that the household is vulnerable.
On 12 November 2024 the resident asked the landlord to respond to her reports of damp and mould at the property, and ASB from her neighbour. The landlord responded that it had opened 2 service requests in response to her email.
On 26 November 2024 the resident raised a complaint. She said:
1. the landlord had inspected the damp, but there was no clear repair plan. She said mould was all over the property and she had discarded furniture and belongings.
2. the health of the household was worsening, and she had developed asthma since living at the property. She said years previously her health had been impacted completing a repair which should have been the landlord’s responsibility.
3. she had not heard from the landlord’s ASB team, the ASB was impacting her mental health, and the property was unsafe.
4. she wanted to be moved into a different property.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 December 2024. It upheld the resident’s complaint and assigned her a neighbourhood co-ordinator. It said it would:
1. consider temporarily rehousing her whilst damp and mould repairs were completed, following contact with the damp and mould team.
2. investigate her reports of ASB, including issuing a possible notice and enforcement to her neighbour.
3. consider soundproofing her property.
4. refer her for tenancy support.
5. pay her £300 compensation consisting of:
  1. £100 for the failure to address the ASB.
  2. £100 for the damp and mould issues in the property.
  3. £100for the concern and distress caused.
On 12 December 2024 the resident escalated her complaint. She said:
1. the landlord had shown a consistent pattern of delays, empty promises and a lack of meaningful action. She said she had raised complaints but had been denied repairs and assistance.
2. she had found service requests from 2020 in which she had raised concerns about damp and mould. She said at the time the landlord offered her £650 to compensate her for damaged items, which she rejected. She said she had undertaken renovations herself several years ago, at a personal cost.
3. the issues had been exacerbated by the ASB, which had been ongoing for 6 years.
4. she rejected the offer of £300. She wanted a better compensation offer, a clear plan of action and a discussion around relocation to a different property.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 February 2025. It reiterated its position at stage 1 and said:
1. it had not taken any meaningful action in relation to the damp and mould.
2. it would undertake a survey as soon as possible. The resident would be contacted by contractors directly. It would raise and monitor repairs.
3. the resident’s point about events in relation to damp and mould from 2020 took place over a year ago and so it could not review them within the complaints process. It advised the resident to consider a legal disrepair claim.
4. it offered the resident an additional £100 for the distress caused from the damp and mould failures, taking the total compensation to £400 over the two complaint responses.
The landlord temporarily rehoused the resident in June 2025 to complete damp and mould works. The resident raised a new complaint to the landlord in this month about its handling of the alleged ASB, the quality of the repair and its communication in respect of her vulnerabilities. The resident told this Service in August 2025 that the repairs had been completed but that she was sofa surfing due to the ASB. She wants a higher amount of compensation and for the landlord to act in response to the ASB.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said that the landlord’s response to her reports of damp and mould and ASB impacted the household’s health. We are not medical experts so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. However, where we have identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
The resident told this Service that she had been reporting damp and mould in the property, and ASB from her neighbour for years. She has also referred to her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to events that occurred after the internal complaints procedure. It is not possible for this Service to conduct a thorough and effective investigation of events dating back to 2018. This investigation will consider events from 2024. It will focus on the landlord’s response to issues raised in the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 9 December 2024. Any more recent issues raised in the resident’s new complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint to this Service if needed.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property

The landlord’s maintenance policy explains its repair priorities. For non-emergency repairs, it will complete a repair within 15 working days. It also has variable timescales for complex repairs requiring multiple visits or multi-trade operatives. For such repairs, it will communicate the works needed and agree the timescales with the resident, and project manage the works to completion.
The landlord’s damp and mould procedure explains that following a report, it will arrange a surveyor’s inspection and record its findings on a pre-inspection form. It says the surveyor will update residents proactively throughout any required repairs, logging all communication on its system. Its surveyor will then check the quality of the works.
The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under this Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled. This Service cannot assess whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act, but we can decide whether a landlord has had due regard to its duties under the Act.
It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. It ensures residents receive accurate information. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, it also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 November 2024 asking for an update on a damp and mould inspection at her property. It’s clear from the resident’s email and the landlord’s subsequent responses that she had reported the issue previously. However, there is no evidence of any reports of damp and mould within the landlord’s records in the year 2023 to November 2024. The information provided by the landlord is very limited and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances. This was a failing in its record keeping.
On 16 November 2024 the landlord raised a service request for the resident. It told her its contractors would contact her within 5 working days. A contractor contacted the resident within this timeframe and booked a damp and mould inspection for 26 November 2024. The landlord acted on its commitment to progress the service request, which was reasonable.
However, the landlord has not provided a copy of its inspection form. We therefore cannot see what it assessed during the inspection or whether it raised any follow-on works. We cannot assess whether it completed a full investigation into all possible causes of the damp and mould. Also, it would have been appropriate and in line with its procedure for it to have updated the resident regularly while awaiting the repairs and recorded this on its system. The landlord has not provided any record of contact attempts made to her during this time. These were failings.
On 26 and 27 November 2024 the resident raised a complaint. She said the contractors had inspected, but she was unclear on a repair plan. She said the whole property was covered in mould, and that the contractors had said that it would likely return if treated. She said she had to discard furniture, objects and clothing and that she was constantly having to clean the walls. She said that the health of the household was suffering as a result.
By the time the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 9 December 2024, it had still not undertaken works or clarified a repair plan for the damp and mould. This was a failing when assessed against the damp and mould procedure, which states that it would update residents throughout any required repairs.
It offered the resident £100 for its poor response. For the purpose of this investigation we have apportioned £50 for concern and distress for each substantive issue £50. It upheld the resident’s complaint and said it would consider temporarily rehousing her whilst it refurbished her property. It did not say when it would update her by and it did not follow-up with her after this response, which was a failing.
It was not until 16 January 2025, after the resident had escalated her complaint, that the landlord provided her with a property damage and personal injury form. It said these forms would enable its insurance teams to review and action her damage claims. It was also on this date that the landlord confirmed it would only focus on the events in the preceding year. It was reasonable for the landlord to have confirmed its position and provided this information, but it would have been appropriate and likely reduced frustration for the resident had it done this in its stage 1 response.
On 6 February 2025 in the stage 2 complaint response the landlord agreed it had not taken any meaningful action to address the damp and mould. It offered the resident a further £100, taking the total compensation offered to £250 for its failings in this area. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its poor service and try to put things right through an offer of financial redress. The landlord did not provide reasoning for its calculations or refer to its compensation policy. In light of the fact it had still not put things right for the resident, the financial redress offered was not proportionate to the distress caused.
It agreed to undertake a new damp and mould inspection but did not provide a timescale, which was unreasonable. Also, by raising a new inspection without completing the repairs already identified in the first inspection, it likely added unnecessary delays in addressing the damp and mould at the property. This would have also understandably caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord failed to meaningfully consider the resident’s vulnerabilities in its response to her reports of damp and mould. The resident spoke at length about the poor health of the household in her complaints. Aside from providing its insurance details, it did not consider the impact to the resident and whether it should have regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010. This was unreasonable in the circumstances.

Events after the internal complaints procedure

Communication between the landlord and the resident after the stage 2 complaint response shows that some further delays were due to the landlord trying to find a female surveyor to be present, as a reasonable adjustment for the resident. A delay for this reason is understandable and was communicated to the resident, which was reasonable.
However, it was not until 5 weeks after the stage 2 response that the landlord completed a new survey. It then took until June 2025 for the landlord to temporarily re-house the resident to facilitate necessary repairs. This was 6 months from when the service request was ‘officially’ raised, but correspondence suggests that the resident had been reporting damp and mould for a longer period. This was an unreasonable delay well beyond the timescales in the repairs policy, which was a failing.
The landlord’s submissions to this Service show that it reviewed its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould sometime after the internal complaints procedure. It identified unreasonable delays, a failure to respond to the vulnerability of the household and disproportionate compensation. This reflective practice is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to learn from outcomes.

Conclusion

The resident told the landlord that the situation had a significant impact on the health and wellbeing of the household. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould because:
1. its record keeping was poor. There were noticeable omissions in the landlord’s repair records, as highlighted throughout this report.
2. there was at least a 6-month delay in addressing the issue. This was significantly outside the timescales in the repairs policy.
3. the landlord failed to meaningfully consider the household’s vulnerabilities.
With consideration of our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £600 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified. The landlord can reduce the compensation by the £250 already offered in the complaint procedure if it can evidence it has already paid this.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from the neighbour

The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will take prompt and effective action against perpetrators of ASB, aiming to protect the victim, stop the ASB and prevent further incidents. Its policy gives examples of ASB which include intimidation and harassment, aggressive and threatening behaviour and using a property for unlawful or illegal activity.
Under its policy, the ASB complained of by the resident was likely to constitute level 2: persistent nuisance. It says that it aims to acknowledge a report within 3 working days. It says that it will consider a full investigation and evidence gathering, an action plan agreed with the victim and the installation of noise monitoring equipment. It will consider using tools such as a victim risk assessment matrix to assess the impact on the resident. It describes early intervention strategies such as mediation, warning letters, tenancy cautions, family support referrals and the use of acceptable behaviour contracts. It also says that it works to safeguard children, young people, and vulnerable adults from harm.
On 12 November 2024 the resident emailed the landlord asking for an update on the “numerous” emails she had sent it about her upstairs neighbour’s noise nuisance. She said the landlord had said it would help her, but she had not received an update. Although it is reasonable to conclude that the resident had reported ASB, there is no evidence of these reports or responses from the landlord in the 12 months prior to her email. This has prevented our Service from identifying when the issue began, which constitutes a significant record keeping failure by the landlord.
On 16 November 2024 the landlord raised a service request for the resident. It told her a neighbourhood officer would contact her within 5 working days. The landlord did not contact her within this timeframe, so she requested an update on 26 November 2024. The resident said she wanted to move property as it was not safe. The landlord did not adhere to its commitment. This delay was unreasonable.
On 2 December 2024 the landlord’s neighbourhood team emailed the resident advising it had tried to telephone her to discuss the reported ASB. It told her it wanted to support her, and in the meantime, it advised her to report any suspected illegal behaviour to the police. This communication was reasonable, but it reflects poor record keeping that there are no primary telephone call records either for the missed call, nor for any subsequent calls between the landlord and the resident.
In the stage 1 complaint response the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint about the ASB and offered her £150 compensation for its failings. It said the neighbourhood team had since spoken to her on the telephone and that to address the ASB it would investigate, consider a possible notice to the alleged perpetrator, consider soundproofing her property and refer her for further tenancy support. It was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged its failings and took steps to try to put things right for the resident.
However, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s request to move property, which was an oversight. It would have been reasonable for it to have discussed the resident’s options and confirmed its position on this.
There is no evidence that the landlord took any further action following the stage 1 complaint response. The resident escalated her complaint on 12 December 2024 advising that she had been reporting the neighbour’s behaviour for 6 years. She reiterated her frustration on 17 January 2025, in response to the complaint handler’s introduction email. The resident said she had sought medical help due to the impact on her mental health. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not investigated or actioned any of its commitments by this stage.
The stage 2 complaint response made no mention of the reported ASB. The resident asked if she was waiting for a response on this element. It is clear from the correspondence that she was frustrated. The landlord replied that it would ask its teams to contact her and urged her to liaise with her neighbourhood coordinator. That the landlord failed to respond to this element of the complaint was unreasonable.
By 7 February 2025 there is no evidence that the landlord had:
1. completed a thorough investigation into the reported ASB.
2. conducted a risk assessment.
3. meaningfully considered soundproofing the property, despite agreeing to do so.
4. liaised with the alleged perpetrator to pursue mediation, warnings, acceptable behavioural contracts or notices.
5. otherwise considered any of the strategies outlined in its ASB policy.
In completing risk assessments and focusing on the harm caused, landlords can ensure that they can put measures in place at the first opportunity and reduce the impact of the ASB. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered the impact on the resident given the resident’s vulnerabilities, as well as regular communication with the resident using her preferred method, at an agreed frequency. These were failings.

Post internal complaints procedure

On 11 February 2025 the resident told this Service that she had reported repeated incidents of domestic violence, drug use, and disturbing noise including noises of a sexual nature to the landlord. She said this had caused extreme distress for her and her child. She said the lack of effective action had left her unable to sleep for months at a time.
The resident continued to report ASB to the landlord in February 2025. While the landlord did respond to some of the resident’s reports of ASB, the landlord’s communication with the resident was not always clear and consistent. If the landlord was unable to take any further action, it should have informed the resident and explained the reason why. Some correspondence suggests she was given noise recording equipment by the landlord during this month. The limited records have prevented us from assessing when this equipment was provided or whether it was meaningfully actioned.
The resident made a new complaint to the landlord in June 2025 following the disclosure of further incidents and updates on her household’s mental health. This complaint is currently with the landlord. In August 2025 the resident told this Service that she had been sofa surfing with her child due to the ongoing ASB from the upstairs neighbour. She said she had been trying, with the help of social services, to move out of the area.

Conclusion

Overall, we have found severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB because:
1. the poor record keeping has prevented this Service from identifying a timeline of reports of ASB, which has made it difficult to assess its response to the resident.
2. it failed to investigate the reports of ASB in line with its policy, provide an action plan to the resident or explain the steps it had taken to try and resolve her concerns of ASB.
3. it failed to undertake a risk assessment for all parties at the start of the reported ASB and at significant milestones and in doing so, it failed to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
4. it failed to consider or utilise any of the tools outlined in its ASB policy to stop the ASB or to prevent further incidents.
5. it failed to address her complaint at stage 2 or in response to her request for a final response.
As outlined in this report, the resident has emphasised the impact of the reported ASB on the health of her household. She told this Service that the housing situation has left her devastated and at times in acute crisis. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £1,000 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. This is in line with the level of redress outlined in our remedies guidance in cases where there are a series of significant failures which have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident.
We have also ordered the landlord to undertake a review of its actions in response to the resident’s reports of ASB. As part of this review, it must outline the actions it has taken to address the resident’s reports of ASB. It must share this written review with the relevant staff, the resident and this Service.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond at stage 1 of its complaints process within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. It states that it will acknowledge escalation requests within 5 working days. The policy is compliant with the Code.
At stage 1 the landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident within the prescribed timescales, which was appropriate.
It took the landlord 17 working days to formally acknowledge the resident’s escalation request. While this was not an excessive delay, it did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay in its response. The resident experienced the inconvenience of a delayed complaint response without appropriate recognition, or redress. This was unreasonable.
As mentioned previously, the landlord failed to provide the resident with a stage 2 response about her reports of ASB. This was a complaint handling failure in accordance with the Code. Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling for the reasons outlined above. This is because the failings adversely affected the resident but there was no permanent impact. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £150 for its complaint handling failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB from her upstairs neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. provide a full apology for the errors identified in this report. This must be made by the CEO.
2. pay compensation to the resident of £1,750 broken down as follows:
  1. £600 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. £1,000 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of ASB.
  3. £150 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
3. the landlord must pay the compensation directly to the resident. It can deduct the £400 previously offered in its complaint responses from the total compensation if it can evidence it has already paid this.
4. undertake a review of its actions in response to the resident’s reports of ASB. As part of this review, it must outline the actions it has taken to address the resident’s reports of ASB. It must share this written review and learning with the relevant staff, the resident and this Service. The review should also include reference to its record keeping.
The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within 28 days.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contact the resident to discuss her options for moving home, if it has not done so already.