Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202310768)

Decision
Case ID	202310768
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Paragon Asra Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured tenancy
Date	23 March 2026

Background

1. The resident has mobility and mental health difficulties and lives in an assisted living facility. Since 2015 he has been reporting intermittent leaks into his bathroom from a flat above and his shower overflowing and occasionally affecting other rooms. He has also been raising issues with the communal services the landlord provides including grounds maintenance and fire safety. And he reported recurring communal repairs, including a lack of heating, faulty lighting, and problems with the laundry facilities. The resident was dissatisfied with how the landlord handled his various reports of reoccurring issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of leaks in his bathroom causing damp and mould.
   2. Reports about the standard of communal services.
   3. Reports of various communal repairs.
   4. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of leaks in his bathroom causing damp and mould.
   2. Associated complaint.
4. We also found service failure in its handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports about the standard of communal services.
   2. Reports of various communal repairs.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it met its obligations to complete a lasting and effective repair to prevent the leaks from reoccurring. It also missed an opportunity to investigate this issue through its complaint process and it failed to meet its complaint timescales most of the time.
6. Some of the records for the communal service and repair issues were lacking, and this meant the landlord could not show it followed its relevant policies. This also meant we were unable to always assess the reasonableness of its acknowledgements of service failure. However, the landlord took some appropriate actions to put right the impact of its failings, including awarding compensation and applying learning from 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 20 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £650, made up of: £300 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its failings in its handling of the leaks. £150 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble relating to its failings in handing the communal service aspect. £100 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling of repair issues. £100 for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures. The landlord may deduct any payments already made for any of the same issues it identified an impact from its service failure (£35 for the communal service issue, £35 for the repair issue, and £10 for the delayed stage 2 response).	No later than 20 April 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. This must be completed by a suitably qualified person. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.  What the inspection must achieve    The landlord must ensure that the surveyor:  Inspects the shower tray and doors, and for any potential unintentional leaks from above and produce a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out:    If there is evidence of active or potentially unresolved historical leaks and what the most likely cause. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible.  A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the leaks (if the landlord is responsible).  The likely timescales to commence and complete the work, and whether the resident needs to be temporarily rehoused. If the landlord has already completed an inspection report and action plan that meets the criteria above within the past 3 months, we may accept this.	No later than 20 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
29 May 2023	The landlord received the resident’s complaint letter signed by some of the other tenants. He complained that the gardens had not been maintained regularly, including a period between October and March 2023. He asked that he and other residents be reimbursed a portion of their service charge.
22 June 2023	In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it acknowledged problems with the gardening contractors not attending, apologised, and confirmed it was working to restore the service. It also said it would follow up about reimbursing him.
24 July 2023	The resident complained with the support of his MP that the gardeners had still not attended. He added there was a problem with bin bags being left in the communal area because of some tenants’ vulnerabilities and was causing a pest problem. He also reported outstanding problems with the communal lighting. The resident also said he was seeking compensation for living with intermittent leaks into his bathroom since 2015.
1 September 2023	In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it: Confirmed gardening had resumed in June and had been post inspected. Had asked the relevant team to follow up with him about the service charge refund for the gardening. Had appointed its pest contractor, would engage with other residents in person about if there was a problem using the bins, and would take any other appropriate action. Apologised for a delay and lack of response to a fault the resident reported with a communal light and confirmed it would be attended to on 5 September. Awarded £80 compensation, made up of £35 for the failure to deliver the gardening service, £35 for the communal lighting repair delay, and £10 for its stage 2 being delayed. Separately the landlord emailed the resident’s MP with its decision. It also advised that the resident had an ongoing disrepair claim for the leaks and its solicitors were liaising with his representatives.
14 September 2023	The resident asked the landlord to revisit his complaint because it had not considered his photographic evidence of his reported problems (though he did not specify what these were).
19 September 2023	We contacted the landlord asking it to address some aspects that the resident had been raising in emails into which we were copied. This included concerns about its response to the leaks. He was also unhappy about its management of communal services, including the gardening and a fire safety concern relating to a mobility scooter. He also raised recurring repair issues to do with communal heating, lighting, and laundry services.
10 October 2023	In its second stage 1 response, the landlord said it: Had broadened the scope of its investigation beyond the 12-month timescale its complaints policy states it may consider issues to 24 months. Was unable to go into detail or award compensation for the leaks, damp, and mould problem because of the ongoing disrepair case. It said it could though comment that it had inspected the property on 26 April and raised repairs for a glass canopy and light but acknowledged delays in doing these. Had inspected the grounds and communal areas and found them to be to the required standard. Had received no reports within the last 2 years of issues with access to the laundry or heating failures that had not been addressed at the time and within its repair timescales. Apologised the communal lighting repair had not been fixed as further work had been identified and once it had been completed it would award compensation.
20 December 2023	We asked the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint because he had copied us into emails where he expressed ongoing dissatisfaction that he had not received compensation for the leaks. He was also unhappy with the communal services and recurring repair issues.
22 January 2024	The landlord responded at stage 2 to the second complaint. It said it: Agreed with its initial response to the gardening. Had reviewed its repair records and found that recent laundry repairs were responded to within its timescale, and that a recurring problem with communal heating had not left residents without heating for a long time. There had been no reports from the resident of a leak since December 2022 or a mould problem since 2021. It had contacted the neighbour above in January 2023 about a suspected leak from their flat but they refused access and the case has since been closed. The resident had not allowed access for a visit in October relating to the leak and his solicitors had recently contacted advising it the disrepair claim had been stopped in December 2023. The problem with the communal light had reoccurred twice after contractors had confirmed they had fixed it and said they had booked an appointment for the following week. It would investigate reports about the mobility scooter and would take appropriate action if a fire hazard was found. The relevant team would contact him directly about the refund of the service charge he paid for the period over the summer of 2023 that the grounds maintenance service was not provided.
After the complaints process ended	The resident reported a recurrence of the leak from his shower tray/doors in July 2024. He advised us recently that this continues to be a problem. He also informed us that there was a problem with the pipework from the flat above that is yet to be addressed. The landlord gave no recent updates on the situation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman because he was dissatisfied that the landlord did not award compensation for the recurring leak problem. He was also generally unhappy with its handling of the communal services and communal repairs. He advised he is seeking compensation.

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	Leaks
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not looked at

7. There is a long history of the resident reporting recurring leaks from the flat above and from his own shower. Residents are expected to make complaints to their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still happening. And while the evidence is available to reach an informed decision. We also expect residents to refer complaints to our service within a reasonable time which is usually 12 months from receiving a stage 2 response. Although it was apparent that the resident had been reporting the problem over a long time, it was not evidenced that he had exhausted the landlord’s complaints process prior to the complaint he referred to us. Therefore, this investigation has focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from May 2022. This period was investigated by the landlord when responding to the resident’s complaint.

What we have looked at

8. Under the landlord’s tenancy agreement and repairs policy, it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the property’s structure and interior components. This includes ceilings, walls, and installations such as bathroom fixtures, including the resident’s shower.
9. It is undisputed that the resident reported a leak affecting his bathroom ceiling from the flat above in May 2022, although we have seen no repair logs relating to this event. The landlord advised in its final response that it was aware of a suspected leak from the flat above and had made unsuccessful attempts in January 2023 to investigate. Again, we have seen no records relating to this. We have though seen repair logs showing the resident made 2 reports in November and December 2022 that his shower had overflown. We have also seen he reported a leak from his toilet on 30 January 2023. And that a leak was found coming from a glass canopy from outside in mid-February 2023.
10. The landlord had responsibility to investigate and attempt to put right the cause of the leaks. Under its repair policy it aimed to attend to emergency repair issues, such as burst pipes, in 4 or 24 hours and to non-urgent issues, such as minor plumbing repairs, within 15 working days. It states that some more complex issues may take multiple visits. We acknowledged in our spotlight report on damp and mould that identifying and putting right the cause can require many investigations. And that sometimes there may be more than one cause.
11. Repair logs show that the landlord attended in February 2023 and repaired a valve to stop the leak on the toilet within its routine timescale. This was in line with its policy for minor plumbing repairs. It also applied silicone to the glass canopy to stop water ingress in March 2023. This was again completed within the landlord’s non-urgent timescale. The logs also show the landlord attended to the 2 shower leaks (in November and December 2022) within its emergency timescale. It carried out interim measures, including using a dehumidifier and making electrics safe. This was in line with its obligations to reduce any immediate risks to the resident or property.
12. On both occasions the operative diagnosed the same cause of the shower leak. This was that the waste pipe was too small and a waste pump was faulty. They recommended follow on works to modify the waste pipe and replacing the pump. It would have been reasonable and in line with the landlord’s obligations to renew the pump and to consider the operative’s recommendation to improve the waste pipe. Or it could have explored alternative ways if it did not agree with the recommendations. There is no evidence that the landlord completed follow on repairs. It cannot then show that it met its obligations to repair and maintain the resident’s shower, which is a failing.
13. The surveyor appointed to inspect the property as part of the pre–action protocol for the resident’s disrepair claim reported in May 2023 finding evidence of leaks, including:
    1. Water ingress from a glass canopy over the resident’s front door.
    2. The shower doors not fully closing.
    3. A leak from the flat above (although it was unclear if this was active at the time of the inspection).
14. The surveyor also identified and photographed some minor areas of mould in the hallway, bathroom, and bedroom. This finding contradicts the landlord’s response that it was unaware of any damp and mould, on which it based its decision not to uphold this aspect of the complaint.
15. Although the landlord was not beholden to the findings and recommendations of the resident’s surveyor, it was obligated to complete its own investigations and appropriate repairs. This includes finding interim solutions to improve conditions for the resident, such as applying mould treatments. Other than a further repair to the glass canopy, marked as completed on 18 October 2023, there is no evidence available to show that the landlord investigated or addressed the other possible recurring leaks during the period in question. This could mean the landlord failed to complete the required investigations or repairs, completed them but failed to provide its records, or did not keep appropriate records at the time. Whichever is the case, it represents a service failure. Because without accurate and complete records, the landlord cannot demonstrate that it met its obligations to investigate and resolve the resident’s reports.
16. The records show that the landlord attempted to inspect the property in September 2023 and, as the landlord advised in its complaint response, again in October 2023. Both were unsuccessful. It is not evident if and how the landlord communicated with the resident about the purpose of the inspection. However, we have also seen no disagreement from him that this happened. We are unable to hold the landlord responsible for a delay where a resident is not available for a pre-arranged inspection. It is also a condition of his tenancy agreement to allow it to complete inspections and repairs. We would though expect to see evidence that it was doing everything it could to progress any outstanding matters or repairs after this point, which we have not seen it did.
17. Around 6 months after the complaints process ended the resident reported that his shower had overflown again. According to the records the landlord’s operatives attended in June and July 2024 and reported finding no leaking pipework but that the shower had “dysfunctional parts” (including the pump) and recommended it be refurbished. Although how the landlord responded to this later report is outside the scope of this investigation, we have considered the recurrence in the context of the events he complained about. We find that it is more likely than not that the landlord did not attempt a lasting repair to prevent the shower from leaking. This was a deviation from its obligations to maintain and repair. The resident also advised us that the leak from the flat above has not been resolved. Although we are unable to speculate, we can say that the landlord provided no records showing if and how it dealt with this leak, which as stated above, is a failing.
18. In view of the above, we have made a finding of maladministration and ordered the landlord to take actions to put things right. This includes paying compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident from the reoccurring leaks over the year and a half period we looked at. The amount we have ordered is within the range (£100-£600) our remedies guidance recommends for adverse impacts. In reaching this amount we considered the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Complaint	Communal services
Finding	Service failure

19. Under his tenancy agreement the resident is required to pay towards some costs of running and maintaining the building through a service charge. This includes grounds maintenance and fire safety.
20. The main and recurring aspect the resident complained about was with the frequency of the grounds maintenance service. He was dissatisfied with how often the gardens were maintained. He said there were no visits for 3 months over winter 2022 and none for 2 months before he complained in May 2023. He was also unhappy with other things, such as residents not being able to use the communal bins because of their age. And that a mobility scooter was being charged in the hallway and may cause a fire hazard.
21. According to the landlord’s neighbourhood standards policy, it completed regular inspections of its properties and neighbourhoods. The frequency of the landlord’s inspections was dependent on the property type and number of stories of a building. It would also aim to act promptly when residents raised concerns about the standard of communal services it provided.
22. We were unable to establish from the available evidence how frequently the landlord should have completed inspections at the resident’s property. However, based on the policy’s minimum requirement it should have been at least on a quarterly basis. There was no evidence shared of any inspections being completed prior to the resident’s initial complaint. As such, it has not demonstrated it was following its policy in completing regular inspections of the resident’s building and communal spaces, which is a failing.
23. The evidence shows that the landlord did take some appropriate action in response to the resident’s concerns and feedback, in keeping with its policy. This included:
    1. Acknowledging, apologising, and awarding compensation for its failure to provide gardening services for some time in 2023. The compensation of £35 was within the range (£20-£100) its policy states it may pay for medium impacts caused by its failure resolved within a reasonable timeframe.
    2. Agreeing to explore the problem with the bins through resident engagement and appointing a pest contractor in the meantime.
    3. Agreeing to investigate the fire safety concern, which records show was completed on 23 January 2024. There was no reference to or photograph of a mobility scooter being found in the communal space.
    4. Completing inspections of the grounds and communal spaces, which the records showed it continued to do on a near monthly basis after the end of the complaints process.
24. It was positive that the landlord took accountability for not providing gardening services and sought to put things right. However, we were unable to fully assess the reasonableness of its response because the records and its explanations were lacking detail. The landlord gave us no records showing how frequently it was required to provide the grounds maintenance service. However it did state in its responses that gardening services were suspended over the winter months, which is in keeping with other social housing providers. As such we find this a reasonable explanation for the 3 months the resident reported there were no gardening services over the winter of 2022. The landlord also sent no logs showing when the grounds were attended to during the period concerned. Or evidence that it reimbursed the resident as it said it would.
25. The lack of evidence means we have not been able to establish with certainty how long the gardening services were stopped. This means we are unable to conclude how much of his service charge the landlord should have reimbursed him. We have therefore decided to award compensation of £150 for the distress and inconvenience arising from the landlord’s failures. In deciding the amount, we gave regard to the resident’s weekly contribution to gardening services which was in the region of £2.50. And that the gardening services may have been suspended for as long as 12 weeks (between March 2023 and July 2023). This may mean the resident paid £30 for services not received. We have also awarded compensation for the time and trouble he was caused from chasing the reimbursement up.

Complaint	Communal repairs
Finding	Service failure

What we have not looked at

26. The resident complained that the laundry facilities were unavailable for a period in 2020. We saw no evidence that he complained about this issue at the time. And as explained earlier, we expect residents to refer a complaint to the Ombudsman within a reasonable time. Using the available evidence and the fact the landlord applied its discretion to look beyond its usual 12-month time limit, we have considered repair issues from early 2022.

What we have looked at

27. The landlord held itself to the same repair timescales for communal repairs as those cited earlier. Within his complaint correspondence the resident raised a few repair issues. His main dissatisfaction was that some repairs were recurring, including the heating failure/inadequacy, faulty dryer, and some communal lights were not working.
28. According to the repairs policy, some need more than one visit to resolve. We also recognise that some issues are more complex than others to identify and remedy and may involve a process of elimination. Or take more time because parts are needed. It is therefore not an indication of a failure that some of the repairs took multiple attempts and visits. In such cases, it would be reasonable to expect records to show that the landlord was meeting appropriate timescales and, where a repair attempt failed, was looking for different solutions than those previously attempted.
29. Records show the landlord responded to 5 reports of the boiler and radiators intermittently not working in the winter of early 2023 within its emergency repair timescale. This was in line with its repair policy for a failure of heating over winter months. Each occasion the operative recorded the heating was restored and an effective solution appears to have been found, even though it took several visits. Problems with the communal heating then recurred from late September 2023, though the repair logs indicate not all floors were always affected. Again, the records show the landlord responded to the 4 reports made up to the end of December within its emergency timescale. And that each time the engineer attempted a repair and left the heating/radiators working.
30. There was though one occasion, in mid-2024, where the landlord’s engineer reported having recommended at a previous visit (on 29 December 2024) to replace a valve but it had not been actioned. Not arranging the follow-on work represents a service failure. Although this may have caused the resident some inconvenience, we agree with the landlord’s response that there was no lengthy period of time that residents were left without heating. Because records show that, like others before, the engineer attending in late December 2023 confirmed heating was restored. However, it was a missed opportunity to attempt a lasting repair sooner. This was a short fall in the landlord’s service but we saw no evidence it had a significant impact on the resident.
31. The landlord also dealt with non-urgent issues, such as repairs to one of the communal dryers, reported on 8 April 2022 and repaired on 4 May 2022, within its 15 working day timescale. Further repairs were completed to a dryer, although it is not evidenced if it was the same one, in late November 2023 (for it not working) and mid-February 2023 (for the door being loose). Both were recorded as being completed within the routine timescale. The evidence therefore shows that the landlord met its repair obligations.
32. Where the landlord acknowledged it had deviated from its policy timescale was in the handling of the resident’s report of a faulty communal light. Records show that between mid-April 2023 and mid-December 2023 the landlord’s operatives attended to call outs of defective communal lights on 4 occasions. It is not clear if these were the same lights failing or different ones. In any event, the landlord acknowledged in its responses that its engineer had not been able to fix a recurring problem. It also recognised that the resident had told it that the problem with lights flashing was impacting his health conditions. As such, it was appropriate to take actions to put things right.
33. The compensation it awarded of £35 was within its range for medium impacts. We find that this amount was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience the flashing lights would have had on the resident. So, we have ordered compensation of £100 in place of its original award, which is in keeping with the landlord’s compensation policy. It is also within the range (£50-£100) of our remedies guidance for service failure that has been short-lived.
34. Although the landlord took some reasonable actions, the lack of detail in its light repair logs means we have not been able to fully assess its actions and timeliness of them. We were also unable to see when it completed a lasting repair. Although the landlord has not demonstrated it met its repair obligations, we also note the resident has not reported that this continues to be a problem. As such, we find it is more likely than not that this issue was resolved.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

35. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out its 2 stage complaints process that aligns with the requirements of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It must acknowledge complaints and escalations within 5 working days. It must then respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2. If the landlord needs more time, it will let the resident know and give a revised timescale of no longer than 20 working days. The policy excludes cases that are already in legal proceedings or once legal papers have been served. It also states it will take appropriate steps to put things right if it finds a failure and will look for learning.
36. We find the landlord did follow its policy in the first complaint in acknowledging the resident’s complaint and escalation within its published timeframes. And it also responded to the second stage 2 complaint within the right time. The landlord took accountability for delays in repairs and with the first stage 2 response and took some appropriate steps to put things right. Records show it took learning from its failings in the communal services aspect, including the need for regular planned visits, which we saw it then completed.
37. While the above is true, the landlord deviated from its policy in many ways. Such as not issuing its 3 other responses within its timescales because it:
    1. Was 4 working days over its stage 1 timescale in taking from 29 May until 22 June 2023, and without informing the resident of the need for more time.
    2. Took 8 working days longer to respond to the resident’s escalation on 24 July 2023 at stage 2 (on 1 September 2023) without asking the resident for an extension.
    3. Exceeded its stage 1 timescale for the second complaint, raised on 14 September 2023, by 7 working days responding on 10 October 2023 without first informing the resident of a delay.
    4. Did not send any acknowledgements for the second complaint.
38. We saw evidence that the resident chased up responses on a couple of occasions, which may have been avoided had the landlord followed its process.
39. The landlord initially declined to investigate a complaint about the damp and mould issue because the resident had engaged the disrepair pre-action protocol. Although this is a precursor to legal proceedings, it is not the same. It could then have escalated the resident’s complaint and provided a position on whether there had been service failures. Even if it had considered pre-action as the same as legal proceedings, by the second complaint the landlord had been advised that the disrepair claim had been closed. It must then have addressed if there had been any failings identified and, if so, taken appropriate steps to put things right. That it did not was a missed opportunity to remedy the impact of the failings we found, including awarding compensation, and to learn from mistakes.
40. Given the above failings, we have ordered the landlord to take action to put things right, including paying compensation for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident.

 

 

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

41. We found the repair record keeping in this case at times poor, particularly its actions and decisions around the leak repairs.
42. We also saw some good record keeping, such as the heating repair logs, which showed what issue was reported and when, and what repair was completed and when. We also found that the landlord improved the standard of its records for its grounds and communal spaces inspections significantly after the resident’s complaint. We encourage the landlord to look for consistency in how it records and maintains its repair and maintenance logs.

Communication

43. It was apparent from the records that the landlord found the level of contact from the resident at times challenging to deal with. At one point in late 2023 it recorded having received 56 emails from him over a short period and which were copied to multiple people and organisations. We recognise this would have been difficult for the landlord to deal with and decide how to action. It was also likely time consuming for the resident to send and may have been frustrating when he did not receive responses.
44. We would not expect the landlord to respond to each email individually, but to have a strategy in place to deal with the resident’s contacts. And to give regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010, as its complaints policy states it should. We saw some evidence that it did take some proportionate actions to manage the resident’s contact. It made him aware of the impact this was having on the service. It also offered to meet with him in person to discuss his issues.
45. We encourage the landlord to consider some of the recommendations we made in our 2024 spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights, on how to improve complaint handling for vulnerable residents.