Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202421104)

Decision
Case ID	202421104
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Paragon Asra Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	14 October 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 1 bedroom property in a block of flats that has a communal lift. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, but she told us that she has mobility issues.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about:
1. The resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows.
2. The resident’s concerns about faults with the fire alarm and lift.
3. The resident’s request to move.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration in the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows.
2. There was service failure in the resident’s concerns about faults with the fire alarm and lift.
3. There was no maladministration in the resident’s request to move.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of the condition of the windows.

The landlord did not evidence that it kept in regular contact with the resident throughout the duration of the issue in relation to the planned works to the windows. It left the resident living with damaged windows for an extended period and did not evidence that it considered the risk to the resident. It consistently said it would no longer be able to repair the windows but then did not plan to replace them for over a year. It did not consider if it could have offered any temporary solutions while awaiting the planned works.

Handling of the fire alarm and lift issues.

The landlord undertook a thorough investigation of the issues raised in relation to the fire alarm and no found evidence of an ongoing fault with the alarm. However, its communication with residents around the importance of resetting the fire alarm was lacking especially after 6 faults occurred between stage 1 and 2. It then did not respond to the issue in its stage 2 response.
The landlord accepted the lift had been out of order on multiple occasions. However, it attended on each occasion to undertake a repair. It also offered £100 to reflect the inconvenience caused.

Request to move.

The landlord provided the resident with details of the options available to her with regards to moving. It asked her to provide details of why the property was not suitable which it sent to the relevant team. Its response was in line with its policy.

Complaint handling.

The landlord delayed in responding at both stages of the complaints procedure and did not communicate the delay at stage 1. It did not send the stage 1 response to the correct address and did not address all points in the 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 provided by a senior member of staff. 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 11 November 2025
2	Compensation Order The landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £775, made up of: £500 for its handling of the concerns about the windows. £125 for its handling of the concerns about faults with the fire alarm and lift. £150 for its complaint handling. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 11 November 2025
3	Take specific action. The landlord must confirm if it has replaced the windows in the property. If it has not, it must provide a timebound action plan to the resident and us setting out when it will replace the windows. It must also undertake a survey of the resident’s windows and consider if it could undertake any temporary repairs to improve the condition while awaiting the planned works.	No later than 11 November 2025

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
Given the findings in this case, the landlord should consider undertaking a review of its processes around major works, focussing on the need to consider undertaking repairs where major works are planned for the future.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
16 May 2024	In 2024 the landlord decided to undertake fire safety remedial works in the block where the resident lived. The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 May 2024 to confirm the full extent of the work it would complete, which included the replacement of all the windows within the block.
29 May 2024	On 29 May 2024, the resident made a formal complaint. The key issues were as follows: She had tried to report many issues to the landlord without resolution. The issues included the condition of the windows, frequent lift breakdowns, the fire alarm malfunctioning, and concerns about other residents. The resident had also requested to move homes but had not received a response. Any attempt to resolve her issues had been met with indifference and the landlord had not logged earlier complaints. She had also reached out to her neighbourhood coordinator who had not returned her calls or messages.
30 June 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 30 June 2024. The key points were as follows: It did not uphold the complaint about the neighbourhood coordinators lack of communication. It said the resident had spoken to him on one occasion about the windows and there was no evidence the resident had reached out to him since to discuss any concerns. It said the windows across the scheme were part of a planned improvement scheme. It could not undertake repairs in the meantime due to the availability of parts. It confirmed the lifts had broken down on 31 January 2024, 25 April 2024, 4 May 2024, and 16 May 2024. However, it said the issues were unrelated and were due to wear and tear. It offered £50 compensation to reflect the inconvenience. It had conducted a review of work orders related to the fire alarm going back to November 2023 and had found no reports. It had received no complaints aside from this one from the resident in the last 12 months but offered £20 for the delayed stage 1 response. It did not uphold the complaint about the request to move and said it had shared the resident’s details to its home moves team who had sent her a letter detailing her options.
10 November 2024	The resident escalated her complaint
27 November 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 27 November 2024. The key points were as follows: It confirmed that while the resident had raised issues going back several years, it would only look back over the previous 12 months. With regards to communication with the neighbourhood coordinator, it confirmed the evidence provided by the resident dated back to 2021 but said it was clear the coordinator had responded to the resident and made an effort to be available. It accepted that text messaging differed from its usual communication style and did not allow for out of office replies. To ensure better clarity and support it had encouraged its staff to use communication methods that it could track, share, and document. It accepted that it needed to replace the windows and reiterated its point made in stage 1. It confirmed the replacement would be in summer 2025 as it was finding a contractor. It accepted the lift had broken down regularly and apologised for the impact on the resident. It changed its compensation to £100 to reflect the impact. With regards to its complaint handling and the request for a house move, the landlord reiterated the points it made in its stage 1 response. It offered £50 for its poor complaint handling.
01 December 2024	The resident contacted the landlord again as she remained unhappy. She made the following points: She had to demand a response from the neighbourhood coordinator and said it was not her responsibility to log communication with residents. In relation to the windows, she had reported an emergency repair last week as the window would not close. She asked if the landlord expected her to wait until next summer before the landlord fixed them. She suffered with a physical condition making it difficult to use the stairs when the lift was broken. She said the home was unsuitable for her needs and she felt unsafe in the property.
2 and 3 December 2024	The landlord provided a further response to the resident which said the following: In relation to the evacuation plan, it said it had previously attended to complete assessments due to the resident’s circumstances. It found the resident did not meet the criteria for a house move based on fire regulations as she was able to evacuate in an emergency. It had a plan in place for the windows. There was no common theme to the lift breaking down, but it would attend any further breakdowns. Its housing team were completing an assessment of the resident’s request based on the reasons she wanted to move.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In referring the complaint to us, the resident said she wanted the landlord to complete the repairs and for us to investigate all elements of her complaint.

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	The resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows
Finding	Maladministration

On 13 May 2024, the resident reported that her windows were severely decayed. The block was under investigation for major works, and the landlord requested a surveyor to attend. However, there is no evidence the visit occurred. While the landlord was assessing the block, it should have inspected the resident’s property to understand the specific risks to her and consider if it needed to provide any temporary solutions while awaiting a decision to be made on the major works.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 May 2024 to say that following an inspection of the block, it was going to undertake works in the property that included replacing the windows. It was appropriate of it to inform the resident, and it helpfully gave information on the expected timescale and process for undertaking such major works.
In her formal complaint on 29 May 2024, the resident raised concerns again about the windows. The landlord acknowledged repairs were not possible and noted that it had planned upgrades to the windows. However, given the history of issues, it should have engaged with the resident to assess any risks and understand the impact. Throughout the complaint process, the landlord did not show it considered the specific risks or explored her concerns. Insecure windows are a hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and can contribute to issues like excess cold, damp, and mould. The landlords lack of consideration of this was not appropriate.
Furthermore, while it explained it was due to replace the windows, this would have been an opportunity for it to have provided an update on the expected timeline. The landlord has also not provided evidence to show that it kept in regular contact with the resident between her stage 1 and stage 2 response about the expected timeline of works. Its lack of information throughout the complaint process was not appropriate and showed a disregard to the concerns raised by the resident.
On 24 November 2024, the resident reported that a window had blown open and she was unable to close it. The landlord appropriately attended to complete a temporary fix. However, the resident said, following that, the window still did not close. The landlord responded to say it would complete emergency repairs if the window was unsafe but just confirmed it was due to replace them next summer and took no further action. Again, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it considered the specific risk to the resident or her personal circumstances. Instead, it left the resident with a window that would not close without any timeline of when it would resolve the issue.
Our spotlight report on ‘Learning from Window Complaints’ (August 2025) notes that it is understandable that in some cases, works are more suited to major works rather than one-off replacements. It is also understandable that timescales for this type of work can change for various reasons. This includes contractor availability, and the scope of works needed. However, the risk to the resident’s safety should be a priority and landlords should make sure this is adequately assessed. The landlord has not provided any evidence to satisfy us that it did undertook an adequate assessment in this case.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response it concluded that it would replace the windows in the summer of 2025, over 12 months after the resident had raised concerns about the windows. This is not appropriate, especially given that the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it sought to understand the concerns raised by the resident about the condition of her windows or undertook a risk assessment. This was a further missed opportunity for the landlord to reach out to the resident to discuss her concerns and consider any interim repairs.
Throughout the complaint, the resident raised concerns about lack of communication from her neighbourhood coordinator. In its stage 1 response, the landlord evidenced that it had spoken to the neighbourhood coordinator who said the resident had only reached out once. We have not seen evidence from either party to make a specific determination on this issue. However, the landlord helpfully told the resident to reach out to speak to the coordinator should she wish. It would have been useful though for the landlord to have discussed the resident’s concerns with her so that it could undertake a thorough investigation into the issue.
However, in its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted that communication had not been of the standard it expected and helpfully explained that as communication had been via text message it had meant replies had not been forthcoming when the coordinator was on leave. While that may have been the case, the landlord needs to ensure it has a system in place where it can log all communication with residents. Furthermore, it needs to ensure where staff are on annual leave, it has systems in place to ensure it does not leave residents without support.
It is important to note that the landlord accepted its system of using text had caused issues and explained the learning it had undertaken to ensure better clarity and support moving forward for residents.

Complaint	The resident’s concerns about the lift and fire alarm
Finding	Service failure

Prior to the resident raising her formal complaint, the evidence shows there had been 1 fault reported with the fire alarm on 19 September 2023 which the landlord attended to the following day as an emergency repair, in line with its repairs policy.
Following the complaint, the landlord appropriately reached out to its contractor and confirmed it had looked back as far as November 2023 and there had been no works raised with regards to the fire alarm. Furthermore, it said it had also looked at the works orders raised for the resident’s specific flat dating back to January 2022 and again found no work orders raised. It was therefore reasonable of it not to uphold the complaint at that stage.
However, given the resident’s concerns and its lack of evidence of any faults, it may have been useful for the landlord to have reached out to the resident to discuss exactly what her issue was.
Internal emails with the Neighbourhood Coordinator show the issues with the fire alarm were primarily due to the resident’s not resetting their own alarms within individual properties. While the landlord cannot be held responsible for that, it would have been useful for it to have written to the residents to remind them of the importance of resetting the alarms after they went off. Yet there is no evidence to show that it did such a thing. Nor did it do so when further faults were reported.
Between the stage 1 and stage 2 response, there were 6 reported faults with the fire alarm, not made by the resident. On each occasion the landlord attended in line with its repairs policy to investigate the fault. The evidence shows each fault was unrelated. It was therefore reasonable of the landlord to not consider that there was an ongoing fault with the fire alarm at that time.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns about the fire alarm at stage 2 of the complaints process. The landlord addressed each reported fault in line with its policy and there is no evidence of an ongoing issue with the alarm. However, it should have provided a response to the resident at stage 2 following our Complaint Handling Code.
In the resident’s formal complaint, she also raised concerns about the frequency of the lift breaking down. The evidence shows that prior to the formal complaint the lift had broken down 4 times in the previous 6 months. On each occasion the lift was out of action for a couple of days. The landlord communicated the fault to the resident and attended to complete the repair within its published timescales. Furthermore, it appropriately informed the resident after it had completed reach repair to confirm the lift was back in action.
In its stage 1 response the landlord confirmed each fault was unrelated and caused by wear and tear. While any fault is inconvenient, the landlord had repaired the lift on each occasion. The landlord appropriately accepted that the breakdown of the lift had caused an inconvenience to the resident and offered £50 compensation to reflect this. This offer was reasonable in the circumstances.
In her request to escalate the complaint, the resident explained she had mobility issues and found it difficult to use the stairs. While the lift breakdown was inconvenient, evidence shows the fire brigade had previously assessed the resident and confirmed she could use the stairs. However, recognising the overall impact, the landlord increased its compensation offer to £100 and issued an apology.
Furthermore, it looked to reassure the resident that it would attend any future faults in line with its repairs policy.

Complaint	The resident’s request to move
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s managed move policy explains that a managed move outside of the normal choice based lettings agreements would be where it was no longer safe for a resident to remain in the home. This could be where the home is no longer suitable due to a medical need. The landlord does not keep its own waiting list for properties and residents who wish to move to another property must register with the local authority.
In her formal complaint the resident said she had requested a property move but not received a response to her request. The landlord has not provided any evidence of the resident’s request or that it had responded to her, which suggests a record keeping issue.
However, the landlord wrote to the resident to explain her options with regards to housing following her formal complaint. In the letter it helpfully explained how the resident could start a request to move. The information provided was in line with its managed move policy.
In the resident’s request to escalate her complaint she said she had made a housing application to the local authority but had not got anywhere. She said she had requested a letter from the landlord but not received a response. While the landlord cannot be held accountable for the actions of the local authority it confirmed in its stage 2 response that it had not found any evidence to show that the resident had requested a managed move or any documentation from the local authority. We are unable to make a determination either way in relation to this due to a lack of evidence from either party to support the claim.
However, the landlord helpfully explained that if the resident thought the property was unsuitable, she could explain her reasons why and it would refer the request onto the relevant team.
The resident responded on 1 December 2024 and explained why she thought the property was no longer suitable for her needs. The landlord confirmed on 3 December 2024 that it referred her request to the relevant team who would undertake an assessment. Given the resident’s concerns this response was reasonable and in line with the action the landlord said it would take.

Complaint	Complaint Handling
Finding	Maladministration

The resident raised a formal complaint on 29 May 2024, and the landlord acknowledged the complaint, in line with its complaint policy, on 4 June 2024.
It provided its stage 1 response on 30 June 2024, 9 working days outside its 10 working day published timescales. However, it did appropriately apologise for the delay in its stage 1 response and offered £20 compensation.
The landlord sent the response to the incorrect address which led the resident to chase a response on 4 and 22 August 2024. Despite chasing, the landlord did not resend the response until 9 October 2024. However, this was also sent to the incorrect address meaning the resident did not receive the response until 31 October 2024. The landlord needs to ensure it holds accurate records for the resident. Not doing so in this instance caused the resident a significant delay in receiving the outcome of her complaint.
Ther resident escalated her complaint on 10 November 2024. The response was due on 27 November 2024; however, the landlord wrote to the resident on 20 November 2024 to say it needed an extension until 11 December 2024. This request was in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which specifies that where a response will be late, the landlord must communicate any delay to the resident prior to the response due date.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 27 November 2024. In the response it appropriately apologised and offered a further £30 for its complaint handling to reflect the delay.
In the resident’s response she raised an issue with other residents in the block, however the landlord did not investigate or provide a response on this issue. The landlord must ensure it responds to all elements of a complaint, not doing so denied the resident the opportunity of pursing the issue through a 2 stage complaints procedure.
In her formal complaint, the resident said she had previously raised other complaints but not had a response. The landlord advised the only record it could find of a complaint was in 2022 when it had responded formally. It helpfully asked the resident to provide evidence if she wished to dispute this. Given the lack of evidence of any other complaints, it was reasonable of the landlord to ask for evidence. As the resident did not provide any it was appropriate of the landlord to not uphold that element of the complaint

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

In this case, the landlord’s record keeping was quite extensive. However, it was clear that where its staff use text messages to communicate with resident’s, this communication was not logged onto its system which caused us to not be able to complete a full investigation into the resident’s concerns about communication with the neighbourhood coordinator. The landlord must consider this and reiterate the importance of logging all communication with residents to its teams.

Communication

The landlord’s communication in this case was lacking, and it should consider implementing changes that include keeping residents regularly updated where major works are planned.