Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202406708)

Decision
Case ID	202406708
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Paragon Asra Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	10 April 2026

Background

1. The resident moved into his newly built home in October 2022, and the landlord carried out an end of defects inspection in November 2022, during which bathroom defects were identified. In June 2023, the resident complained that the defects had not been resolved. He asked for the works to be completed and for compensation. the landlord apologised, cited delays due to contractor changes, and offered compensation, but the resident escalated his complaint as the repairs remained outstanding. In its final response, the landlord confirmed that some works were still incomplete, offered further compensation, and said it was arranging the remaining repairs.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Bathroom defect repairs.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of bathroom defect repairs.
   2. Reasonable remedy in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Bathroom defect repairs

4. The landlord did not complete the works within a reasonable timescale and, and it did not fully compensate the resident in the manner it had said it would.

The complaint

5. The landlord did not meet its stage 2 timescale but provided a reasonable remedy by acknowledging the delay, apologising, and offering compensation.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £900 to reflect the incomplete compensation it said it would pay for the period the works remained unresolved. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payments by the due date.	No later than 08 May 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 June 2023	The resident complained to the landlord that it had not completed bathroom defect repairs, despite him reporting the issues 6 months earlier. He asked the landlord to complete the outstanding works and to provide compensation.
10 July 2023	The landlord said that defects were identified in November 2022 but acknowledged that little progress had been made to resolve them. It therefore arranged for a new contractor to attend. The landlord apologised and offered £500 compensation. It also said it would reimburse the cost of any additional internal damage to the bathroom that the resident later reported, subject to him providing a quote.
6 December 2023	The resident declined the compensation and escalated his complaint as the repairs remained outstanding.
14 March 2024	At stage 2, the landlord confirmed several works remained incomplete and it was arranging their completion. It, changed its compensation to £100 for each month the work remained unresolved.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said that although work to the bathroom had been carried out issues remain unresolved or have since returned. He wants the landlord to complete the repairs.

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	Bathroom defect repairs
Finding	Service failure

What we have not investigated

6. In his correspondence with us, the resident complained about the quality of the works the landlord had subsequently completed, and that the same or new issues had arisen or reoccurred. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. The resident needs to raise these as complaints with the landlord. If he remains dissatisfied after receiving the landlord’s final response, he may bring the matter to the Ombudsman as a new complaint.

What we have investigated

7. The resident moved into his new‑build property on 28 October 2022. The landlord carried out an end‑of‑defects inspection on 22 November 2022 and identified multiple bathroom defects, including defective silicone, water damage, cracked fittings and finishes, and concerns with the shower screen and tiling. In January 2023, the resident reported that no defects had been remedied. The landlord told the resident at delays were due to disputes with the developer’s contractor.
8. The resident’s property handover documents state that the defects period ran from 5 July 2021 to 5 July 2023. However, the landlord told the resident that the defects period ended in December 2022, and it carried out an end‑of‑defects inspection in November 2022. This did not align with the handover dates. However, this did not appear to have a clear impact on the outcome, as the landlord accepted by its subsequent actions that all identified works needed to be addressed, whether within or outside the initial defects period.
9. In February 2023, the landlord told the resident it gave the developer 20 working days to arrange the repairs and said it would complete the work itself if no action was taken. In March 2023, it told the resident the developer remained responsible but was unwilling to carry out the repairs. The landlord began the works and apologised for the delay. In June 2023, the resident complained to the landlord that defects remained outstanding in both bathrooms, requesting compensation and work to be completed.
10. In its stage 1 response on 10 July 2023, the landlord said the developer had initially agreed in April 2023 to carry out the repairs but had not completed everything by June. It confirmed it had then taken over and arranged a contractor inspection for July 2023. It expected repairs to be completed by August 2023. It acknowledged the delays, apologised and offered £500 compensation.
11. The landlord’s records support its explanation that it took steps to progress repairs with the developer. After becoming aware in June 2023 that defects remained unresolved, it appointed its own contractor and carried out an inspection on 12 July 2023. In the circumstances, it was appropriate for the landlord to step in and arrange the works itself. However, the July inspection report has not been provided, and it is therefore unclear which defects were identified or what works were considered necessary at that stage.
12. The resident rejected the £500 compensation in July 2023. The landlord then reiterated its commitment to complete the works and offered compensation of £100 for each month they remained outstanding. Silicone renewal took place in October 2023, and the landlord visited on 1 November 2023 to discuss the remaining defects. On 30 November 2023, the resident reported that some issues remained outstanding, including a broken shower screen and incomplete tiling to the ensuite wall.
13. Internal emails from December 2023 show inconsistencies in the landlord’s understanding of whether works had been completed. While it believed most works were finished (and the evidence suggests it had told the resident this), it acknowledged the risk of water damage from the original defects and continued to chase its contractor. It instructed further tiling works. The resident reported issues with toilet fixings and escalated his complaint on 6 December 2023, disputing that repairs were complete.
14. Further inspections took place in January and February 2024. The resident reported ongoing water leaks and damage. The landlord offered remedial options but said full re‑tiling was not required. In March 2024, it said the remaining issues were cosmetic, although repairs were still needed. The resident repeatedly chased the offered £100 monthly payments between October 2023 and March 2024, as works remained outstanding.
15. In its stage 2 response dated 14 March 2024, the landlord acknowledged that some original defects remained unresolved. These included defective silicone, cracked skirting, and a leak from the bath.
16. Repairs continued throughout 2024. These included the replacement of tiles, shower screens, grouting, and toilet fixings. Several repair attempts did not fully resolve ongoing water ingress. Final remedial works, which included renewed wall tiling and broader bathroom repairs, were completed in December 2024. Some delays towards the end of 2024 were due to access issues and the time taken to agree the standard of replacement tiles and alternative shower screens. However, given the length of time the repairs remained outstanding (at least some of which had been identified in November 2022) these factors alone do not account for the extent of the delay, and nothing else in the evidence clearly explains it either.
17. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had made £100 payments for January 2024 and February 2024. It said the payments stopped in March 2024 because it was awaiting a response from the resident to arrange the works proposed in February 2024. No further compensation was offered. However, the landlord had confirmed in its response that “the agreement of compensation was … for every month the works were outstanding, which were originally raised and deemed as a defective matter, we would offer £100 per month”. As at least some of the original works were not completed until December 2024, it is unclear how the landlord justified ending the compensation payments at an earlier stage.
18. Overall, this was clearly a complicated situation for the landlord and undeniably a frustrating one for the resident. The developers were responsible for resolving the defects, but in the face of their reluctance or inability it was appropriate for the landlord to accept the responsibility. Having done so it should have worked to complete the work in a reasonable timescale.
19. The landlord accepted in its complaint responses that it had not done that. It offered compensation and committed to resolve the remaining issues. It took a further 9 months for it do son (March 2024 to December). The work appears to have been somewhat complex in parts (such as the water ingress), and some of the delay at the end of 2024 was outside its control, but nothing in the evidence accounts for the full extent of the delay. The further time taken clearly added to the resident’s frustration and inconvenience.
20. The £500 compensation the landlord initially offered was reasonable at the time it was made when considered against our guidance for a complaint and circumstances of this scale and nature. The resident declined that, and its subsequent offer of £100/month until the work was resolved was also reasonable, but only if taken to the point when the work was actually complete (which is what the landlord had specified). The landlord did not do that. Accordingly, it cannot be said to have reasonably remedied the complaint.

. Complaint	The complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

21. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy states that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, issue a stage 1 response within 15 working days, and issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days. The policy also states that, if it cannot meet these timescales, it will contact the resident to explain the reason for the delay. At the time, this approach did not align with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, the landlord has since updated its complaints policy, and it now aligns with the Code.
22. The resident complained on 26 June 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 10 July 2023, 11 working days later. This met the landlord’s timescale.
23. The resident escalated his complaint on 6 December 2023. On 10 January 2024, the landlord apologised for the delay and said it required more time to respond because it was waiting for further information. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 March 2024, 69 working days after the escalation. This was outside the 20‑working‑day timescale. The landlord acknowledged the delay, apologised, and offered £120 compensation.
24. Overall, the landlord met its stage 1 timescale but did not meet its stage 2 timescale, which was a shortcoming. It informed the resident that it required more time to respond, acknowledged the delay, apologised, and offered compensation. This was a reasonable remedy in the circumstances.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord should consider reviewing the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management to reinforce the importance of accurate record keeping, clear audit trails, and effective monitoring of repairs, so that it can demonstrate what actions were taken, track outstanding issues, and provide consistent and reliable information to residents.
26. One of the key shortcomings in this case relates to how the landlord offered compensation. The landlord can also consider reviewing the Ombudsman’s recently published Compensation Guidance when determining compensation in future complaints.