Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202232297)

Decision
Case ID	202232297
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Paragon Asra Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	25 November 2025

Background

The resident complained about the installation of extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen. She also asked the landlord to replace a missing internal door.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request to install extractor fans and replace an internal door.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to install extractor fans and replace an internal door.
2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Extractor fans and internal door

The landlord completed a survey and offered to install a fan in the kitchen window. When the resident challenged its placement, it completed additional surveys, relied on the professional opinion of its surveyors, and considered alternative solutions.
There was no evidence to show that the internal door had been missing since 2006 as stated by the resident. While the landlord’s policy was unclear on responsibility for the replacement of internal doors, its response was appropriate.

The complaint

The landlord acknowledged a delay in providing its stage 1 complaint response and offered proportionate 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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord re-offer to install the kitchen extractor fan in the window or proceed with the options from the most recent survey, if accepted.
We recommend the landlord should consider replacing the internal door, taking into account any fire risks, damp and mould, heat retention, and discuss with the resident whether a recharge would be appropriate.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
29 March 2023	The resident complained to the landlord about multiple outstanding repairs. She was unhappy with the installation of extractor fans through the bathroom and kitchen windows and requested that they be fitted through the wall instead. Whilst the landlord installed the fan in the bathroom window, she declined to have the fan fitted in the kitchen window. She also raised an issue with a missing internal living room door. She said it had been missing since 2006 when she moved in and asked it to replace the door at no charge to her.
30 March 2023	The landlord acknowledged the complaint.
28 April 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the delay and offered £20 compensation. It noted a repair order for ventilation works was raised on 6 June 2022. Its contractor reported that the resident did not want the fans fitted through the windows. Although it considered installing the fan through the wall, it found this was not possible. It arranged another surveyor to inspect the property for a second opinion on 6 June 2023. It stated that internal doors were typically the resident’s responsibility and that she accepted the property condition via mutual exchange. It had no record of agreeing to install a new door and requested further information.
27 July 2023	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
18 August 2023	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, stating it could not meet the resident’s request to fit the extractor fans through the wall. It explained it made its decision after the second survey, discussions with its repairs manager, and a review of inspection reports. It apologised for raising her expectations and explained that drilling into the property’s fabric posed issues. It also reiterated that the internal door was the resident’s responsibility and confirmed it would not raise a repair.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and referred the matter to us. She said the internal door was missing when she moved in and believed she was not responsible for replacing it. She also noted other flats in the building had extractor fans installed through the wall. To resolve the complaint, she wants the internal door replaced at no charge to her and the fans installed through the wall.

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	Request to install extractor fans and replace an internal door
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not considered

The resident reported several repairs, including issues with a PIV unit, chimney capping, damp and mould, and a balcony floor crack. She told us that these have been resolved and did not require investigation by us.

What we have considered

The resident told us that the internal living room door and kitchen extractor fan remain unresolved. Our investigation has, therefore, focussed on these matters.

Extractor fans

The resident reported issues with damp and mould in her flat. As part of the inspection, the landlord requested a specialist ventilation report. The survey was completed on 20 April 2022 and recommended installing extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen. The contractor fitted the bathroom fan in the window but did not complete the kitchen fan as the resident asked for wall installation. The contractor asked the landlord multiple times to confirm with her whether to proceed with window installation.
On 11 November 2022, the landlord advised the resident that drilling through the wall was difficult, even though it had previously considered it as an option. In its stage 1 response, it confirmed that a surveyor would inspect the flat for a second opinion. The report stated that because the bathroom extractor fan was working, it could not authorise fitting fans through the wall. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it discussed the matter with its repairs manager and reviewed the inspection reports. It concluded that it could not meet the resident’s request for wall installation and apologised for creating false expectations.
The landlord complied with its repair policy, as the works required a variable timescale for specialist repairs. It is responsible for maintaining extractor fans and reasonably relied on professional advice, agreeing to install fans in the window, and considering alternatives when requested. It later completed another survey to explore ventilation improvements and suggested alternative options demonstrating its commitment to resolving the matter.
The landlord could have explained in more detail why wall installation was not possible and reassured the resident that the window installation was sufficient to resolve the issue.
That said, we have found no failings in the landlord’s handling of the installation of extractor fans. We have made a recommendation that it re-offer to fit the fan in the kitchen window.

Internal door

The resident states that she complained to the landlord that her living room door was missing when she moved in via a mutual exchange in 2006. In its stage 1 complaint response, it asked her to provide more information as it had found no record of this. It explained that internal doors were the resident’s responsibility and that she accepted the property condition at the time of the mutual exchange. Its stage 2 response repeated that the door was her responsibility. She told us that the landlord offered to fit a door but would recharge her. We have seen no evidence that it made an offer to do this.
The landlord’s maintenance policy does not clearly state responsibility for replacing an internal door, referring only to components and damage. That said, missing and damaged internal doors are generally the responsibility of the resident. Its response that she accepted the property condition at the time of the exchange was poor, given this was in 2006. However, we expect residents to raise complaints with their landlords when the events occur, usually within 12 months. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
The landlord’s policy states that it should assess fire safety risks and that internal doors must close properly and not be removed or wedged open. Although we did not consider damp and mould in this investigation, the resident reported the flat is cold and does not retain heat, which may contribute to damp and mould. Installing an internal door may help prevent heat loss and improve conditions. While we have found no failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to replace the door, we have made a recommendation in relation to this.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. This is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 1 but responded outside its policy timeframe. It offered £20 compensation for the delay, which was reasonable and aligned with our remedies guidance. It issued the stage 2 response within the expected timeframe and addressed all points raised. Although the resident said she raised the complaint before referring it to us, we found no evidence she did so before our intervention.

Learning

Policy

The landlord’s maintenance policy is unclear on responsibility for replacing an internal door, mentioning only repairs to damage, handles, locks, and hinges not full replacement.

Communication

Communication with the resident was limited, and the landlord could have been more proactive after contractor reports and postponed works.