From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202228944)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228944

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

17 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Concerns about repairs following the end of the defects period.
    2. Request for CCTV.
    3. Request for information about a travel card and car club.
    4. Request for a prepaid envelope.
    5. Request for a notice for their car park space.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property as a shared owner since November 2022.
  2. At the end of the defects period, on 18 March 2023, the resident raised concerns about a lack of holes for dishwasher pipes and damage to a kitchen unit. He asked when the builder would install CCTV. He said he could hear traffic noise through a bedroom window. He raised concerns about ventilation. He said he had not received a travel card and had no information about car club membership. He said someone was parking in his space.
  3. The landlord acknowledged a complaint about damage to a kitchen unit on 25 April 2023. On 29 April 2023 the resident told the landlord there were other issues he had complained about. These included CCTV, water bills from before he moved in, a gap around the front door, extractor fans not working, a travel card, information about the car club, and his parking space.
  4. In its complaint response on 2 May 2023 the landlord said the resident had raised the lack of holes for a dishwasher as a defect, but the builder said it was not a defect. It said as the resident was unhappy, it arranged work, but he was not happy with the quality of the work. It said its contractor had now completed the work. It said there had been no error.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 2 May 2023. He said he wanted the landlord to sort all issues he raised in his email on 29 April 2023. He said the second operative the landlord sent had not fixed damage to the unit.
  6. The landlord responded to the resident’s email of 29 April 2023 on 11 May 2023. On the holes, it agreed the workmanship was messy, but said the location made it difficult to see. It suggested fitting a seal. It said the CCTV was the responsibility of the managing agent. It asked the resident to send it the water bills. It said the builder inspected the door and did not accept there was a defect. It said noise through a window was not a defect, and it would not do an acoustic test. It said the resident did not raise the extractor fans at the end of defects visit, and it was not something it could now raise with the builder. It said it had contacted the managing agent about the travel card and car club. It said parking spaces were a matter for the managing agent.
  7. The resident responded on 14 May 2023 and said fitting a seal was not a solution and he needed compensation. He said he had asked the agent to install CCTV. He asked the landlord for an address to send the bills. He said he would get the gap around the door tested. He said some fans were not working and this happened before the defect liability period ended, so the landlord or builder were responsible. He wanted to know when he would hear about the travel card and car club. He said he had sorted the problem with parking.
  8. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 3 July 2023 and asked it to respond to the escalation request.
  9. In its final response on 2 January 2024, the landlord apologised for the delay in responding. It said if the resident did not want a seal fitted, it would refund him the cost of work he arranged. It said CCTV was the managing agent’s responsibility. It said it would send him a pre-paid envelope for the bills. It said the door gap was within reasonable tolerances. It said he needed to service the fans, but it would arrange to inspect the ventilation. It said the travel card was the builder’s responsibility. It said the car club was now operational and provided information. It apologised for the delays in responding and for a lack of communication. It offered £350 compensation.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is set out in the Scheme. When the Ombudsman receives a complaint, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why we will not investigate.
  2. In line with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The resident’s request for a notice for their car park space.
  3. Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that have not exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
  4. In his complaint escalation, the resident told the landlord he had sorted the issue with the parking space. Because of this, the landlord did not respond to this in its final response and this complaint did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints procedure. This means the Ombudsman will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Concerns about repairs following the end of the defects period

  1. The lease agreement says the resident has an obligation to keep the property in good repair.
  2. The home user guide says that during the defects liability period, the builder is responsible for fixing faults in their work for a period of 12 months from the date it completed the property. It says if the resident finds any problems with their home during this time, they should contact the landlord, who will work with the builder to put things right.
  3. It says just before the end of the defects liability period, the landlord will arrange an end of defects inspection. It says during the inspection, the resident can point out any defects, which will be noted and will be scheduled to be rectified. It says some items raise may not be defects. The defects liability period ended on 28 March 2023.
  4. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 20 February 2023. He said the property should have holes for pipes in the dishwasher space, which were missing. He said it was something the builder should have done. He said he had received an email from the landlord saying it had raised the issue to the builder and the builder would contact him. The resident contacted the Ombudsman again on 16 March 2023. He said the landlord had sent an operative, who damaged his kitchen by making holes in the wrong place. He said he reported this to the landlord, but they had not responded.
  5. The landlord did an end of defects inspection on 18 March 2023. During this, the resident raised concerns about the dishwasher connection, damage caused to a kitchen unit by the landlord’s operative, a gap around the front door, and traffic noise through a window. He asked how to check whether the extractor fans were working and when he would get information about a travel pass and the car club.
  6. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 22 April 2023 and asked it to investigate the complaint about holes for the dishwasher. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 25 April 2023.
  7. On 29 April 2023 the resident told the landlord he had raised other issues during the end of defects inspection, but the builder did not do anything. These included damage to a kitchen unit, a gap around a door, and extractor fans not working.
  8. In its complaint response on 2 May 2023 the landlord said the flats had a space for a dishwasher, but the builder did not need to leave holes for piping in case there was no need for a dishwasher. It said the resident raised this as a defect, but the builder refused it and said it was the homeowner’s responsibility. It said as the resident was unhappy, it arranged for an operative to attend. It said as the resident was unhappy with the work done by its operative, it arranged for a contractor to attend, who completed the work. It said it did not uphold the complaint as there was no error.
  9. In its response, the landlord said the builder did not accept the lack of holes was a defect. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on whether this was a defect. This is because the Ombudsman has not seen the build specification. However, it is reasonable to say that the builder would not pre-drill holes before the resident took possession of the property, unless it provided a dishwasher. This is because the position of any holes may vary depending on the appliance. When the resident expressed his dissatisfaction, the landlord went beyond its responsibilities and arranged work. When the resident was unhappy with the work done, the landlord arranged a second appointment. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances.
  10. The resident escalated his complaint. He said he was not satisfied with the response and wanted the landlord to sort out all issues raised in his email on 29 April 2023. He said the contractor had made the holes but could do nothing to fix the damage caused. He said the landlord had not met its responsibilities.
  11. On 5 May 2023 the landlord told the resident it was investigating the points he raised on 29 April 2023. The landlord sent a response on 14 May 2023. It said the holes between the dishwasher compartment were not pre-drilled when the builder did not provide a dishwasher. It said the holes drilled by the first operative were messy, but the location made them difficult to see. It said it would not replace the panel because it was an integral part of the kitchen. It offered to fit a seal around the hole. The Ombudsman has found this was reasonable because the landlord offered a proportionate solution to damage that was not on day-to-day view.
  12. The landlord also said what was a “genuine defect” was set out in the build contract. It said the builder inspected the door during the end of defects visit and did not accept there was a defect. It said the gap was acceptable and met NHBC standards, and building control had inspected it. It said noise through a window was not a defect under the build contract, and it would not do acoustic tests. It said the resident did not raise this as a defect at the inspection. It said because of this, it was not something it could raise with the builder. It said the maintenance of ventilation was now the responsibility of the resident and he might be able to raise any problems through the ventilation warranty.
  13. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on whether there were defects with the door, windows, and ventilation. It is also not within the Ombudsman’s expertise to decide whether a door meets fire regulations. This is the responsibility of the fire service. However, the Ombudsman has seen that the resident clearly raised ventilation during the end of defects inspection. Because of this, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the builder about this when the resident complained, even though the defects liability period had ended.
  14. The resident responded the same day. He said a seal was not the solution he was looking for and if the landlord would not fix the damage, he wanted compensation. He said the builder had told him there was no problem with the doors at the inspection but did not confirm whether “the gap was acceptable”. He said he hoped it was not a fire hazard, and he would get it tested. He said he raised the ventilation at the inspection. He said 1 fan was checked and was working but the builder told him to check the rest and raise any problems. He said he found some fans were not working. He said this happened before the defect liability period ended so the landlord or builder were responsible.
  15. On 3 July 2023 the Ombudsman contacted the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s escalation request. The landlord sent its final response on 2 January 2024. It said if the resident did not want it to fit a seal it would reimburse a reasonable cost for work he arranged. It said the gap under the door was within reasonable tolerances and met building regulations. It said the resident needed to service the extractor fans himself in line with the manufacturer’s warranty. However, it said it would arrange to inspect the ventilation system. It said because of the delays in providing updates, it offered £300 compensation. This amount related to all points the resident had complained about.
  16. Overall, the Ombudsman has found this was a reasonable response and there was reasonable redress in the handling of the resident’s concerns about repairs following the end of the defects period. This is because the landlord acknowledged there had been a significant delay in providing updates and apologised for this. It also offered a reasonable amount of compensation for the delay. On the specific issues, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord offered a reasonable solution to the reported damage to the kitchen unit. Although the Ombudsman cannot decide whether there were defects, the landlord provided a clear position on the reported defects with the door and window. It also offered to inspect the ventilation, which was reasonable in the circumstances, as it did not need to do.
  17. In September 2025 the resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord did not inspect the ventilation system as agreed in its final response. Because of this the Ombudsman recommends the landlord contacts the resident to arrange to inspect the ventilation system.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for CCTV

  1. The Ombudsman has not seen a document setting out who is responsible for CCTV. However, the lease agreement between the landlord and builder make it clear the builder is responsible for maintenance of “common areas,” and that a managing agent will act on its behalf. Common areas include entrance halls, stairs, lobbies, stores, and lifts. Because of this, it is reasonable to suggest that the managing agent is responsible for CCTV in common areas.
  2. During the end of defects inspection on 18 March 2023 the resident said a parcel had been stolen and he was waiting for the builder to install CCTV. On 29 April 2023, the resident said the managing agent had warned residents not to leave parcels in the post room. He wanted to know when CCTV would be installed.
  3. On 11 May 2023 the landlord told the resident that installation of CCTV was a matter for the managing agent. It said as it was not the freeholder, it had no power over the communal areas.
  4. The landlord did not refer to CCTV in its complaint response on 14 May 2023, but when he escalated his complaint the same day, the resident said he wanted the landlord to address all the issues he raised on 29 April 2023.
  5. The Ombudsman has found the landlord provided a clear response setting out who was responsible for the installation of CCTV. In his escalation on 14 May 2023, the resident said as it was not the landlord’s responsibility he had reminded the managing agent to install CCTV. The Ombudsman has seen that the resident appeared to accept the managing agent was responsible.
  6. In its final response on 2 January 2024 the landlord said it had told the resident that CCTV was the responsibility of the managing agent. It said it had noted the resident had asked the managing agent to install CCTV and it would also ask them.
  7. Overall, the Ombudsman has found the landlord provided a reasonable response and there was no maladministration. There was a delay in the final response, but the landlord acknowledged this and offered £300 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of a request for information about a travel card and car club

  1. The home user guide says a hire car company will run a car club on site. It says further information on how to apply will be available once the company installs the first vehicle. It gives details of who to contact.
  2. The Ombudsman has not seen a document setting out who is responsible for issuing travel cards. However, the lease agreement between the landlord and builder makes it clear that a managing agent will act on behalf of the landlord in relation to estate services. Because of this, it is reasonable to suggest that the managing agent is responsible for the arrangement of this.
  3. During the end of defects inspection on 18 March 2023 the resident said he had not received a travel card or details of the car club. He raised this again in his email to the landlord on 29 April 2023.
  4. The landlord did not refer to the travel card or car club in its complaint response on 14 May 2023, but when he escalated his complaint the resident said he wanted the landlord to address all issues raised on 29 April 2023.
  5. On 11 May 2023 the landlord told the resident the managing agent had not given it details of the travel card, but it had chased it up and would let the resident have details as soon as it received them. It said it had also raised the car club. The resident replied the same day and asked the landlord to let him know how long it would be before he heard more.
  6. The resident chased the landlord for an update on 2 June 2023. The landlord responded on 6 June 2023 and apologised for the delay. It said it had chased the managing agent. Records show the landlord chased the managing agent about the car club on 22 December 2023. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence the landlord chased this earlier. This was a failure.
  7. In its final response on 2 January 2024 the landlord said the travel card was an obligation for the managing agent and it suspected it would be provided on completion of the entire development, but it would check. It said the car sharing scheme was operational and gave details.
  8. Overall, the Ombudsman has found there was a failure. This is because there is no evidence the landlord chased the managing agent for details between May and December 2023. However, the landlord acknowledged the delay and offered £300 compensation in its final response. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this was reasonable redress.
  9. In September 2025 the resident told the Ombudsman that he had not been given information about the travel card. Because of this, the Ombudsman recommends the landlord contacts the managing agent to ask them to provide information on the travel card to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of a request for a prepaid envelope

  1. On 29 April 2023 the resident told the landlord he was receiving water bills from before he moved to the property. He said he returned a few but was now getting letters from debt recovery agents.
  2. The landlord did not refer to the bills in its complaint response on 14 May 2023, but when he escalated his complaint the same day the resident said he wanted the landlord to address all issues raised on 29 April 2023.
  3. On 11 May 2023 the landlord told the resident that he should send it the bills. The resident replied on 14 May 2023 and said he could not find the address on the landlord’s website. He asked it to send him the address.
  4. In its final response on 2 January 2024 the landlord said it would send him a pre-paid envelope, so he did not incur any postage charges.
  5. Overall, the Ombudsman has found the landlord provided a reasonable response and there was no maladministration. This is because it provided a reasonable solution in the circumstances. There was a delay in the final response, but the landlord acknowledged this and offered £300 compensation.
  6. In September 2025 the resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord did not provide him with a pre-paid envelope. He said it was no longer a problem as the letters stopped coming. However, because it did not follow up on what it said it would do, the Ombudsman recommends the landlord contacts the resident to apologise for this.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says when it receives a complaint, it will acknowledge it within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. It says when a resident escalates their complaint, it will send a final response within 20 working days. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  2. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident complained directly to the landlord. Instead, the resident contacted the Ombudsman on 20 February and 16 March 2023. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 22 April 2023 and asked it to respond to a complaint about the kitchen unit.
  3. The landlord sent an acknowledgement on 25 April 2023 and a complaint response on 2 May 2023. This was in line with its complaints policy.
  4. When he escalated his complaint on 3 May 2023, the resident referred to an email he sent on 29 April 2023. He asked the landlord to respond to the points in that email, as well as the issue with the kitchen unit.
  5. The landlord did not send a complaint response but on 11 May 2023 sent an email that referred to all the points the resident raised on 29 April 2023. The resident responded on 11 May 2023 and expressed his continued dissatisfaction with some parts of the response.
  6. The resident emailed again on 31 May 2023 and said it was more than 15 days since he escalated his complaint. He said he would wait until the weekend and would then contact the Ombudsman.
  7. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 3 July 2023 and said the resident sent an escalation on 14 May 2023. We asked the landlord to respond by 31 July 2023. Following further contact from the resident about a lack of response, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord again on 21 December 2023.
  8. The landlord sent its final response on 2 January 2024. This was almost 8 months after the escalation request. The landlord apologised for the delay in its response and offered £50 compensation.
  9. Overall, the Ombudsman has found there was a failure by the landlord in the way it dealt with the complaint that amounted to maladministration. This is because the landlord did not respond to the escalation request, made on 14 May 2023, until January 2024. The Ombudsman twice asked the landlord to respond. Because of this, the £50 compensation offered for complaint handling failures was insufficient. The landlord must pay the resident £150 compensation, inclusive of the £50 already offered.

Determination

  1. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord on its handling of the resident’s:
    1. Request for CCTV.
    2. Request for a prepaid envelope.
  2. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord on its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  3. In line with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord on its handling of the resident’s:
    1. Concerns about repairs following the end of the defects period.
    2. Request for information about a travel card and car club.
  4. In line with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, the resident’s request for a notice for their car park space is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. The landlord must pay the resident £150 compensation for failures in its complaint handling. This is inclusive of the £50 compensation previously offered for complaint handling. It must pay compensation directly to the resident within 4 weeks and not offset it against any arrears.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord:
    1. Reoffers the £350 compensation offered in its final response if it has not already paid it to the resident.
    2. Contacts the resident to arrange to inspect the ventilation system.
    3. Contacts the managing agent to ask them to provide information on the travel card to the resident.
    4. Contacts the resident to apologise for not sending him a pre-paid envelope.