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 (202300437)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300437

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

22 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 reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy, occupying a one-bedroom ground floor flat, where she has lived since 2016.
  2. Between December 2022 and February 2023, the resident reported several incidents of noise nuisance and ASB from the neighbour above her, often in the early hours. She described being woken by shouting and heavy furniture being moved. In March 2023, the landlord acknowledged her reports and asked her to keep recordings of such incidents to substantiate her descriptions.
  3. On 13 April 2023, the resident complained to the landlord. She said she still experienced disruption from the neighbour and considered they created deliberate, purposeful noise above acceptable levels. She suggested insulation, as she believed the flat above was not carpeted. She also reported that the neighbour often left the side gate unlocked and mentioned repeated criminal damage to it, which made her feel unsafe. As an outcome, she wanted to be moved.
  4. On 20 July 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It noted that the resident had already been attempting to move and that she was using all available options and encouraged her to continue to do so in order to increase her chances of a move. It apologised for the delay in responding, acknowledged it should have kept her updated, and offered £110 compensation. It confirmed her reports had been passed to its tenancy solutions team for support.
  5. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on both 28 and 29 September 2023. She said the landlord ignored her need to feel safe and noted it held CCTV of the neighbour damaging the shared garden gate. She wanted her complaint treated more seriously due to her concerns for her safety and the effect the situation had on her mental health.
  6. On 23 January 2024, the landlord issued its final stage 2 response. It apologised for the delay but did not uphold the complaint. It had reviewed a short Noise App recording received on 24 November 2023 where loud music could be heard but with no evidence of its actual duration, and noted its CCTV showed the neighbour leaving their property around an hour after the start of the noise on the recording. The landlord said it had spoken with the tenancy solutions enforcement coordinator who was aware of the reports but had not received any new ones since November 2023 and given this, said it could not take action against the neighbour at present.
  7. In her complaint to us, the resident said the landlord had taken very little action. She said the noise affected her daily life and sleep, and the situation had not improved. She felt forced to move urgently. As an outcome, she wanted the landlord to address and resolve the ASB.

Assessment and findings 

Investigation scope

  1. The resident reported that noise and ASB had been ongoing for several years. We previously considered a case about the landlord’s handling of a complaint by this resident of ASB, with a final response issued in December 2022. That case will not be reconsidered here. In this case, the resident complained to the landlord in April 2023 following some earlier reports, so we will review the landlord’s actions from January 2023 up to its final response in January 2024.
  2. The resident also raised concerns about discrimination. We cannot decide if the landlord breached the Equality Act 2010, as only the courts can make that ruling. However, in this investigation, we will assess whether the landlord treated the resident fairly within the scope of the complaint.
  3. The resident stated that the noise affected her daily life, sleep, and health. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. Because this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts, it will not be considered in this report.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy commits to a “robust victim-centred approach,” promising prompt and effective action. ASB is defined as behaviour causing nuisance or annoyance. The policy requires acknowledgement of persistent noise or intimidation reports within 3 working days.
  2. The landlord says that, to support people who report ASB, it will consider a range of tools to manage ASB and nuisance including investigation, agreeing an action plan, interviewing the alleged perpetrator, mediation and tenancy cautions. It may also look to carry out a victim risk assessment matrix and work with the police.
  3. In March 2023, the landlord asked the resident to submit full recordings of incidents. Having listened to them, it explained that one recording captured normal conversation, not shouting, and another included traffic noise. Assessing whether sounds were daily living noise or ASB was a reasonable first step.
  4. The resident formally complained in April 2023 and followed up with more reports in May and June, including drug use and a police visit, but the landlord’s July 2023 stage 1 response lacked urgency and failed to set out the next steps or address safety concerns. With repeated reports of noise nuisance and of damage to the side gate, the response fell short of the promised “robust, victim-centred approach.”
  5. Following the June 2023 report of drug use, the landlord should have reported any potentially illegal drug use to the police, in line with its stated policy of multi-agency working.
  6. Counter to its policy and despite repeated reports and being aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord did not complete a risk assessment nor agree an action plan and regular timescales for contact. Given her previous reports and her complaint of regular noise nuisance, this was a missed opportunity to build trust and reassure the resident that her concerns were being taken seriously, and to manage her expectations from the outset.
  7. Further reports were made in November 2023 which included issues relating to the side gate. The landlord reviewed a recording made by the resident and noted that the CCTV confirmed the gate remained closed during the weekend of the recording. It added that, as the reported noise source was unclear, its scope for action was limited. Later in November 2023, the landlord again reviewed recordings provided to it, but found nothing which could be formally considered noise nuisance. It explained it needed longer recordings of the noise and offered to refer the resident for anxiety support, which she declined.
  8. The evidence shows that, in December 2023 and January 2024, the landlord and police exchanged emails. The police visited the neighbour on 19 January 2024 and said their behaviour could fall “under the umbrella of anti-social behaviour”. We have not seen evidence that the landlord itself visited the resident or neighbour in 2023, despite such visits being an important element of resolving ASB, and part of the landlord’s policy.
  9. The landlord’s final response focused on the resident’s reports in November 2023, without addressing earlier incidents or actions taken after the April 2023 complaint. It highlighted the lack of multiple Noise App recordings, saying this limited its ability to evidence persistent nuisance. However, the landlord confirmed the police were investigating the matter. The evidence shows that the landlord engaged well with the police from December 2023 onwards.
  10. Overall, the landlord undertook some appropriate steps to investigate and resolve the ASB. However, there were multiple important actions set out in its policy which it failed to undertake and nothing in the evidence explains why. These included risk assessing the resident and the situation, creating an action plan, visiting her and the alleged perpetrator, delaying working with the police, and not responding promptly to the resident’s initial reports in late 2022 and early 2023. In the context of the mental health challenges the resident had told the landlord she was experiencing in relation to the situation, these omissions were a serious failing.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 13 April 2023 which was acknowledged in good time with a response promised by 2 May 2023. While the landlord’s stage 1 response was issued outside its policy timescales, 67 working days after the complaint, it appropriately apologised for this, recognising its error of not making regular contact to explain the delays, and offered £110 compensation in recognition.
  3. The resident escalated the complaint on 28 September 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 23 January 2024. This was 80 working days after the escalation request and again outside its policy timescales, despite the fact that the resident made a further explicit request to escalate the complaint on 29 September 2023.
  4. The landlord failed to escalate the complaint at the earliest point and demonstrated a lack of learning from stage 1. While the stage 2 response did  acknowledge its delay, it failed it recognise the extent of the delay and its apology alone was insufficient to put matters right. As such, the landlord’s poor complaint handling at stage 2 was not adequately remedied.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident £350 made up of:
      1. £250 for the failings identified in its handling of her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
      2. £100 for the delay in its stage 2 response.
    2. Risk assess and create a formal action plan setting out the steps it will take to address the resident’s concerns. It must share this with both the resident and the Service.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman within the timescales above to confirm that it has complied with these orders.