Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202424705)
|
Decision |
|
|---|---|
|
Case ID |
202424705 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Paragon Asra Housing Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
29 April 2026 |
Background
- The property is a flat in a block containing other flats. The resident reported brown stains appearing in her bathroom in February 2024. The landlord thought the leak came from a flat above. The landlord had difficulty contacting the resident of that property. The leak continued and the damage caused became worse.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
- The resident’s reports of a leak causing damp and mould at the property.
- The complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found that there was:
- Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak causing damp and mould at the property.
- Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
Reports of a leak causing damp and mould at the property.
- The landlord delayed and communicated poorly during its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
The complaint
- The landlord failed to conduct a robust investigation of the resident’s concerns and delayed slightly in providing its complaint responses.
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:
|
No later than 27 May 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £600 made up as follows:
The landlord must pay this directly to the resident and provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. It may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made. |
No later than 27 May 2026 |
|
3 |
Specific action order The landlord must consider the resident’s request for compensation for items damaged in the bathroom as a result of its maladministration and provide us and the resident the reasons for its decision.
|
No later than 27 May 2026 |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|---|---|
|
Prior to 10 September 2024 |
The resident complained to the landlord. She said a leak had been going on since February 2024 and the delays in dealing with it had caused damage to the bathroom. The bathroom ceiling had collapsed and she could not currently use the bathroom. |
|
10 September 2024 |
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and apologised for the delay in doing so. |
|
24 September 2024 |
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the delays in repairing the leak which, it said, was now resolved. It offered her £150 in compensation |
|
13 October 2024 |
The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. She said that the problem had not been resolved. An operative had attended on 7 October but had carried out no works. The toilet leaked, there was damp and mould. She said £150 was not enough to cover her expenses and compensate her for the distress and inconvenience she had suffered. |
|
18 October 2024 |
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. |
|
15 November 2024 |
The landlord asked for a 10-working-day extension to complete its stage 2 investigation. |
|
29 November 2024 |
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for the further delays. It apologised and increased the compensation offer to £250. It also offered her £50 to cover damage to bathroom items which were lost because of its failures and £50 towards the costs of heating. |
|
17 March 2025 |
The resident confirmed that she wanted the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. She said the repairs were not complete and the landlord had refused to compensate her for damaged items. |
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 |
Reports of a leak causing damp and mould at the property. |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- The landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response that the resident first reported a spreading brown patch on her bathroom wall and damp and mould in her bathroom on 26 February 2024. The landlord’s contractor attended. They believed that the problem was caused by a leak from the flat above. The occupier of the flat above, (the neighbour) was away at the time for 3 months. The contractor therefore cancelled the next appointment.
- The landlord’s policy says it will deal with emergency repairs within 4 hours. It will deal with priority 2 repairs within 15 working days. It says that some complex repairs will be treated as “variable timescale repairs”. These will usually be repairs where a structural engineer is required. Where this occurs, it says it will agree timescales and project manage the works through to completion. The policy also says that, where a property only has one toilet, as in this case, making this usable will be an emergency priority.
- The repairs in this case seem to have been, in essence, a priority 2 case with elements of variable timescale repair.However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord made a formal decision to treat the case as a “variable timescale” case. Nor have we seen evidence that it agreed timescales or communicated with the resident effectively. In any event, we would have expected the landlord to have dealt with this repair as soon as possible as it involved damp and mould. It does not seem to have done so.
- The landlord arranged for an asbestos test to be carried out on 11 March 2024. We have not seen the results. There were clearly concerns that asbestos was present in the bathroom. We would have expected to see, where asbestos might be present, properly kept records and, if necessary, prompt action taken. We have not seen evidence of this.
- Throughout early 2024, the resident was understandably frustrated by the lack of progress. We do not hold a landlord responsible for a failure to meet a policy commitment when it is impossible to do so. The landlord could not gain access to the neighbour’s flat when they were away so was not responsible for delay caused by this. At this stage, the leak does not appear to have been severe and so waiting was appropriate.
- However, we do note that its communication, based on the evidence supplied, was inadequate. This contributed to the poor outcomes in this case. The landlord admitted, at stage 1 and stage 2 of its complaints process that this was the case and said it had taken steps to improve it. For that reason, we have not made an order that it should do so.
- We also note that the landlord failed to investigate other possible causes of the leak during the early part of 2024. This caused delay as, when it did gain access to the neighbour’s flat in April 2024, it transpired that this was not the source of the leak. The landlord then investigated other potential causes.
- The landlord arranged for a CCTV survey of the building’s soil stack which took place on 23 May 2024. This found that it was “barely functioning” due to a heavy buildup of limescale. It also found that roots had entered the drains. These problems were resolved on 14 June 2024, more than 3 months after the resident’s initial report.
- However, this did not resolve the leak which persisted. The resident reported that the leak had not been resolved 3 times between 17 June 2024 and 12 August 2024. On 12 August, she also reported that water from the leak was entering electrical fittings and light units in the bathroom. The landlord’s contractor attended and attempted to enter the flat above but the neighbour was, again, away. The landlord attended and found that there was no risk as the interior of sockets were “bone dry”.
- On 13 August 2024, the resident reported that the bathroom ceiling was bowing. The landlord sent a contractor to carry out repairs. This was complicated by the fact that they said that they could not carry out works as asbestos required removal. As stated earlier, the fact that asbestos was still present when a test had been commissioned in March 2024 is something which we have not seen explained.
- On 17 August 2024, the resident reported that the bathroom ceiling had collapsed. The contractors attended and made the bathroom safe but advised the resident not to use the bathroom as it was not safe due to possible asbestos contamination.
- The landlord offered the resident alternative accommodation for the period when she had no bathroom ceiling as was appropriate. However, she refused this offer and continued to live at the property as she was entitled to do. The initial works took 5 days.
- The resident seems to have complained formally in August or September 2024. We have not seen the complaint itself but the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 10 September. In the complaint response of 24 September, the landlord apologised and said that the works had now been completed.
- In her complaints she asked the landlord to compensate her for items damaged by the flood in the bathroom. The landlord passed her claim to its insurers which refused to compensate her because she could not provide proof of purchase.
- Our guidance on compensation says, “There may be times when no evidence [of cost of damaged items] is available. This might include where items have been damaged, but the resident has not retained any proof of purchase. We must satisfy ourselves that, on the balance of probabilities, a resident incurred costs or suffered financial loss but has not been able to evidence this. Where it’s not possible to provide a reasonable estimate, we may say a landlord should pay an amount in recognition of the fact the resident has incurred costs which would not have arisen but for its maladministration.”
- We believe that it is clear,, on the balance of probabilities, that the resident’s property would have been damaged when her bathroom ceiling collapsed. We cannot say what the value of these items was. We have ordered the landlord to pay a sum to the resident for these items. She has already submitted a list to its insurer.
- Unfortunately, the records show that the works were not completed to the required standard. The landlord carried out further works in early 2025 to stop the toilet from constantly flushing and to remedy damp and mould.
- Overall, this was a case where the landlord failed to meet its policy commitments to carry out repairs promptly. It failed to act with sufficient haste regarding the asbestos and allowed a leak to cause the ceiling in the bathroom to collapse.
- The landlord offered the resident some compensation. It offered £150 at stage 1 and raised this to £350 at stage 2. However, this was not sufficient, given the length of the delay and the adverse impact on the resident, to remedy the failures we have found. For that reason, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident a sum in line with our guidance on compensation.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are:
- The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales which says that landlords should provide a complaint response within 10 working days of a complaint. It must provide a stage 2 response within working 20 days of a request for a stage 2 review.
- The policy also says that the landlord can ask for a maximum of 20 extra working days to deal with complex complaints which require further investigation. It must acknowledge complaints and escalation requests in writing within 5 working days. Its definition of a complaint also complies with the Code.
- The Code also contains guidance on how complaints must be investigated. Landlords must carry out robust investigations which reach reasoned and reasonable results.
- In this case, we do not know when the resident complained but the landlord accepted that its acknowledgment was late according to the Code. It said that this was because it had been working on a backlog of emails. It is not clear how long the delay was.
- The landlord then provided its stage 1 complaint response on 24 September 2024. This response came 10 days after the acknowledgment, which was late and must, therefore have been late itself. As the problem was still going on at this time, this delay may well have had a significant impact on the resident.
- The complaint response also stated that the problem with the bathroom had been solved when this was not the case. This is evidence that the complaint investigation was not robust as its conclusions were not accurate, as the Code requires.
- The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 13 October 2024. The landlord acknowledged this request 18 October 2024. This was 4 working days later. The landlord’s policy says it will do so within 3 working days, but this is not required by the Code and there was no detriment to the resident.
- The landlord then provided its stage 2 complaint response on 29 November 2024. Before doing so, it requested an extension of 10 days on 7 November 2024. The stage 2 complaint response came 34 days after the escalation request, so this was slightly outside the required timeframe but not by enough to cause the resident significant distress or inconvenience.
- Altogether, the landlord’s complaint handling fell below the standard set out in the Code. We have therefore ordered the landlord to make amends by way of apology and a compensation payment in line with our guidance on compensation.
Learning
- We encourage landlords to visit the library of resources on topics such as complaint handling, repairs, knowledge and information management, and Awaab’s Lawon our website.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord’s records provided to us do not explain why any suspected asbestos was not identified and removed at an earlier stage. The landlord should consider the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management for accurate record keeping.
Communication
- The landlord accepts that its communication was poor. It says it has taken steps to improve it. It should bear in mind the potential distress caused by poor communication.