Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202440560)

Decision
Case ID	202440560
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Paragon Asra Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	4 February 2026

Background

The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the ground floor of a block. There is a garden at the rear of the block. The garden is fenced off to prevent access to non-residents and is accessed through a communal gate. There is a bike shed behind the fence, and a bin store in front of the fence.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Communal repairs to the:
  1. Bin store
  2. Garden gate
  3. Bike shed
2. The resident’s request for increased compensation following a communal drain blockage.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of communal repairs.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for increased compensation following a communal drain blockage.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Communal repairs

The landlord’s overall handling of the communal repairs was poor. It did not take responsibility for the repairs or monitor its contractor. Further issues were caused by poor record keeping.

The resident’s request for increased compensation following a communal drain blockage

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for further compensation was poor. The level of communication was also poor.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s overall complaint handling was poor, although we acknowledge there were some positive aspects to its handling of the communal repairs complaint.

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	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 04 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid directly to the resident £350 compensation. This is made up of: An additional £100 for the communal repairs. £100 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident in her request for increased compensation following a communal drain blockage. £150 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the landlord’s poor complaint handling.	No later than 04 March 2026
3	Contact order The landlord must contact the resident and explain how it reached the £1,000 compensation amount it offered. It must also decide if further compensation is suitable and explain its position in writing to the resident.	No later than 04 March 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the £1,000 compensation offered on 6 February 2024. If £150 of this has already been paid, it should only pay the remaining £850.
The landlord should consider ways in which it can improve its record keeping and general oversight of contractor repairs.
The landlord’s maintenance policy doesn’t specifically reference gates – it may be prudent to include this when the policy is next revised.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
29 December 2023	The resident raised a formal complaint in relation to the landlord’s handling of a leak. The landlord issued its stage 1 response (12029) on 16 January 2024 where it: Arranged for an operative to attend on 19 January 2024. Offered £150 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble, which the resident accepted.
29 to 31 January 2024	The resident returned from holiday and found “waste” in the toilet which she “found odd.” She contacted the landlord the next day as the toilet was full of toilet paper. A drainage contractor arrived and found a drain blockage. 2 drainage contractors attended the following day and removed more of the blockage.
1 February 2024	The resident reported continued drainage issues on 1 February 2024. The landlord attended the same day and tried to remove the blockage. The resident said this “resulted in excrement up [her] bathroom walls.” The landlord said it would arrange for an environmental clean, however it was unclear if this happened. The resident emailed the landlord’s CEO to complain about the handling of the drainage issue. She: Provided a list of items damaged items she wished to be compensated for, which included the bathroom flooring, and the hallway and living room carpets, after they were flooded with sewage. Said a previous complaint (12029) had still not been concluded – as a plasterer had not attended. The landlord responded the same day and said it would reimburse the resident for the damaged items.
6 February 2024	The landlord emailed the resident and increased its compensation offer to £1,000. But said it had already paid £150 of this and asked the resident which account to pay the remaining £850.
19 February 2024	The resident emailed the landlord and said: She was waiting to hear whether the increased compensation offer of £850 was in relation to the first complaint (12029), or in response to the handling of drainage issues. She had sent a query regarding communal areas on 20 January 2024 but had not received a response.
13 March 2024	The landlord emailed the resident and said the £1,000 compensation was “all-inclusive” to cover everything relating to the bathroom repair issues (handling of a leak and drainage).
8 April 2024	The resident raised a formal complaint in relation to communal repairs. She said: The bin store was in poor condition and had not been repaired, although it was reported in 2023. The garden gate was currently held closed by 3 bricks. The landlord’s head of repairs had visited 2 months earlier. The resident said the head of repairs said she would; get the other matters (bin store and bike shed) actioned and arrange for a metal gate to be installed.
29 April 2024	The resident tried to raise a formal complaint about the amount of compensation offered for items and flooring damaged by sewage.
1 May 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident’s communal repairs complaint, in which it partially upheld the complaint. It said: A bin store repair was raised on 16 October 2023. A contractor had attended on 1 November 2023 but needed more time. A new work order was raised and its contractor secured the bin store on 24 April 2024. Its contractor had attended on 7 February 2024 and 24 April 2024 and completed garden gate repairs. The head of repairs had not authorised a replacement metal gate, however it would meet with residents of the block to assess any potential improvement works. Its contractor had attended on 24 April 2024 and confirmed repairs had been carried out to the bike shed. It apologised for the delays repairing the bin store and offered the resident £100 compensation as she had raised the complaint.
31 May 2024	The resident escalated the complaint and expressed her dissatisfaction with the standard of the repairs on the 2, 7 and 9 May 2024. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 31 May 2024, where it upheld the complaint. It said: It had visited the property and agreed the repairs standard was not acceptable. It fitted a new garden gate on 16 (sic 28) May 2024. Repairs had been booked for 28 and 29 May 2024 to renew the bin store and bike shed. It increased the compensation offer to £200 (which was eventually accepted and paid around the end of December 2024).
24 June 2024	The landlord called the resident and noted the resident: Said there were outstanding issues with the communal repairs. Mentioned a “previous stage 1 case” and she wanted £3,000 to conclude that case.
16 July 2024	After the resident chased for an update in relation to the compensation complaint on 15 July 2024, the landlord emailed her and said it would talk to the staff member that dealt with the complaint (12029).
9 September 2024	The resident completed the landlord’s third-party property damage form to claim on its insurance. However, the landlord emailed the resident and said the claim had been declined in December 2024.
16 January 2025	The resident contacted us in relation to the level of compensation the landlord had offered. In a phone call with us on 27 January 2026 she also confirmed that she: Wanted us to investigate the communal repairs. Did not have her own contents insurance.

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	Landlord’s handling of communal repairs
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s maintenance policy says:
1. Emergency repairs are to be attended and made safe within 4 hours and rectified within 24 hours.
2. Non-emergency repairs are to be completed within 15 working days.
The resident’s tenancy agreement (signed with her previous landlord) says the landlord will keep in good repair:
1. Any… garage, store, shed or outhouse included as part of the premises.
2. Boundary walls and fences.
3. Communal areas.

Bin store

The resident chased the bin store repair on 20 January 2024 which she said was raised on 15 October 2023. The landlord said its contractors had attended on 1 November 2023. However, it was unclear exactly what the contractors did. After the resident chased, there was no evidence the landlord took any action for over 2.5 months. This was despite the resident also mentioning the bin store to the landlord’s head of repairs on 2 February 2024. The landlord therefore missed 2 opportunities to act in January and February 2024. The lack of action was a failing and led to the resident’s formal complaint on 8 April 2024.
The landlord used its complaints process to update the resident, which was reasonable. It said its contractor had secured the bin store on 24 April 2024. However, there was no evidence to show it raised repairs for this, or that it had secured the bin store, which was a failing.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said an old pallet was put against a broken area of fencing in the bin store and tied on with a bin bag. It also said it had visited (unclear when) and agreed the repairs were unsatisfactory. It was positive the landlord the landlord acknowledged the bin store repairs were unsatisfactory. And it tried to put things right by arranging for the bin store to be renewed.
We could not determine exactly what repairs the landlord’s contractor carried out to the bin store. However, the resident called the landlord on 24 June 2024 and said she wanted the bin store to be the same colour as the bike shed and fence. The landlord’s surveyor attended on 1 July 2024, which was reasonable. However, after no update the resident chased on 15 July 2024, which caused her inconvenience. Emails between the resident and landlord mid July 2024 said repairs to the bin store were completed. However, it was unclear what work was completed, or when this was. It should not have taken approximately 9 months to repair the bin store to a satisfactory standard. This was an unreasonable delay.

Garden gate

The resident contacted the landlord’s estate services on 20 January 2024 after her key broke trying to get lock the gate. She said the gate had been repaired numerous times and requested a new metal gate. After no action, the resident also raised it with the landlord’s repairs team on 29 January 2024. The evidence showed the landlord visited on 7 February 2024, within its policy timeframe for non-urgent repairs, and removed the broken key. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident to manage her expectations around a new gate around this time. The failure to do so led the resident to raise a formal complaint on 8 April 2024.
Following the complaint, the evidence showed the landlord’s contractor attended on 24 April 2024, in line with its non-urgent repair policy. The contractor installed a chain and padlock on the gate to make it more secure. The landlord then used its complaints process to acknowledge gate repairs were “sub-standard” and “unsightly”, which was reasonable. It then installed a new gate on 16 (sic 28) May 2024, which was also reasonable.

The resident called the landlord on 24 June 2024 and raised concerns with the new gate. The landlord’s surveyor attended promptly on 1 July 2024. The resident said the surveyor agreed the work had not been completed to a good standard. After no update, the resident chased on 15 July 2024. She emailed again on 19 July 2024 and said the gate had been repaired again, but there were still issues. In response, the landlord raised repairs and its contractor attended on 8 August 2024. It was positive the landlord made efforts to repair/replace the gate. But overall, it should not have taken 4 months to repair the gate to a satisfactory condition. This was a failing.

Bike shed

The resident said the bike shed was visible to non-residents of the block and asked if it could be made more secure on 20 January 2024. After no action, the resident said she mentioned the bike shed issue to the landlord’s head of repairs on 2 February 2024. As above, no action was taken. This was a failing and led to the formal complaint on 8 April 2024.
The landlord used its complaints process to provide an update. It said its contractor had attended on 24 April 2024 and “carried out repairs…and added more stability to the structure… [and it was] now secure.” There appeared to be a communication breakdown here as the resident requested the bike shed be made more secure against theft, not structurally more secure. The landlord’s stage 2 response said the bike shed was made secure by “using numerous unmeasured planks of wood nailed across the back and sides of the bike shed” which it agreed was not acceptable. However, it was positive the landlord tried to put things right and arranged for the bike shed to be renewed on 28 and 29 May 2024. Again, it was unclear what exactly was done. Emails between the resident and landlord in July 2024 said repairs to the bike shed had been completed (unclear when or what).

Communal repairs summary

Overall, the landlord’s handling of the request for communal repairs was poor. The landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is ultimately responsible for the repair, regardless of whether it outsources the work to a contractor. With that in mind, the landlord should have done more to follow up with both the resident and its contractors rather than leaving it to the resident to chase for updates, which was a failing.
The landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right. But the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. There was therefore maladministration. A further £100 compensation is ordered (in addition to the £200 already offered) in recognition of the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident from October 2023 to August 2024.

Complaint	Landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for increased compensation following a communal drain blockage
Finding	Service failure

Scope of investigation

On multiple occasions between February and July 2024 the resident made it clear she was dissatisfied with the amount of compensation the landlord had offered following the blocked communal drain. There was no evidence the landlord provided complaint responses at either stage 1 or stage 2. We can only consider issues which have been acknowledged and addressed in the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Therefore, we will not comment on the landlord’s handling of the drainage issues in the first instance, or whether the amount offered was reasonable. But, in the interests of fairness, we will assess how the landlord handled the resident’s request for increased compensation. This is because the landlord had multiple opportunities to address this as a separate complaint, but did not do so.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for increased compensation following a communal drain blockage

The evidence showed that following the landlord’s compensation offer, the landlord:
1. Missed 3 opportunities (April, June and July 2024) to respond to the resident’s request for an increased offer of compensation.
2. Was poor in its communication with the resident.
3. Could have considered referring the resident to its insurer earlier.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for increased compensation has been confusing, delayed, and unreasonable. There was therefore service failure. An order of £100 compensation is made in recognition of the time and trouble the resident has spent chasing the issue. The landlord must review the circumstances of the compensation offer. It must then contact the resident and provide its position on whether it believes the amount offered was reasonable.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s complaint procedure says it will respond to complaints at Stage 1 within 10 working days and within 20 working days at Stage 2. However, we are aware that the landlord had a shortage of staff to deal with complaints around the time the resident complained.
It was positive the landlord responded to the communal repairs complaint broadly in line with policy. It was also positive it identified learning and shared the complaint with its contractor. However, the complaints process was an opportunity for the landlord to monitor the communal repairs. There was no evidence it did so, which would have been reasonable. This could have resolved the issues for the resident at the earliest opportunity.
The resident also tried to complain about the handling of the drainage issue on 1 February 2024. But no formal complaint was raised. She tried to complain again on 29 April 2024 in relation to the compensation offer, but no complaint was raised. She then chased in June and July 2024, which were further missed opportunities for the landlord to raise a formal complaint. Given the landlord’s failure to monitor the communal repairs, and to raise complaints, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order of £150 compensation is appropriate to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Learning

As commented on above, it was positive the landlord shared the complaint with the repairs service to ensure they learn from the failure to follow up on the bin store repair.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Landlords should keep good records. This enables it to effectively manage any issues raised by its residents as well as fulfilling its obligations as a landlord. Neither we nor the landlord can properly investigate and respond to complaints without accurate and comprehensive records. The lack of records mean that it has not been possible to fully understand what the landlord did or why, which has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation of this issue. Some examples of this are:
1. No evidence of the initial contact in relation to the poor condition of the bin store reported in October 2023.
2. It was unclear when, or what, repairs were carried out to the bin store on 1 November 2023, 24 April 2024, around May 2024, around July 2024 following the surveyor’s visit.
3. It was unclear when, or what, repairs were carried out to the bike shed on 24 April 2024, around May 2024, around July 2024 following the surveyor’s visit.

A recommendation has been made in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Communication

The landlord’s overall communication with the resident has been poor. The evidence showed the resident has had to chase for responses on multiple occasions and long delays between contact.