Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202328580)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328580

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

9 June 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:
   1. Reports of incorrectly sized communal bins.
   2. Reports of poor standard of cleanliness and smells in the bin room, chutes, and bins.
   3. Reports of pest control issues.
   4. The complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant in a 1 bedroom first floor flat in a 2 storey building. His tenancy started in September 2019.
3. The resident raised concerns around the refuse bins in the bin store of his building in April 2023. The landlord ordered new bins and between July 2023 and September 2023 it tried to arrange the delivery of the bins. There were delays due to some administrative issues such as an invoice holding payment for 1 bin rather than 2. The landlord’s supplier delivered the bins on 11 September 2023, however they delivered incorrect bins. The landlord explained that the supplier did not supply the required bins so it would have to source them and ensure they met the correct safety standards.
4. The resident raised his complaint with the landlord on 15 September 2023. He said he first reported his concerns in April 2023 to the landlord, and on several occasions after. He said there were longstanding problems requesting new bins suitable for the bin chute cupboard from the landlord. This caused issues with pest control and was a health and safety matter.
5. The resident asked the landlord to include concerns about the cleanliness and sanitation of the bin room, chutes, and bin on 3 October 2023.
6. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 18 October 2023. It acknowledged the length of time the issue remained outstanding was unacceptable and apologised. It explained:
   1. It had recently ordered a 1100 litre bin for the 2 bin chutes and installed it. It was aware the resident had concerns that the bin was not adequate, so it had a supervisor visit the site. They confirmed that the bin site was not large enough to accommodate 2 large bins.
   2. The bin had to meet certain safety regulations, as well as fit the lorries that collected and emptied it. The current bin fit both criteria. They took a video to show that it collected from both chutes and as such it considered the matter resolved.
   3. As a result of its investigation, it confirmed that it needed to ensure when problems of this nature occurred, it needed to rectify them quicker, and said it upheld the resident’s complaint.
7. The resident escalated his complaint on the same day and said unfortunately significant amount of rubbish was still missing the existing bin underneath the chutes. The rubbish landed on the floor and as such he did not consider the matter resolved.
8. The landlord emailed the resident on 30 November 2023 and apologised for the lack of communication. It said it missed his initial escalation and apologised for the frustration caused. It said it:
   1. Had solved the issue and proved the solution worked as its video showed the rubbish falling into the bin with no issue. It said it also arranged for the cleaners to pick up any spilled rubbish should there be any. The bin in the space was the correct size and shape and was fully functioning.
   2. If it were to escalate to stage 2, there was no other option for it to investigate, to solve the issue. While it appreciated his frustrations with it and its communication, it had resolved the actual issue of the bin.
9. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 December 2023. It said it partially upheld the resident’s complaint. It apologised as the issue was outstanding for a long period of time, and he had to chase to have it resolved.
10. The landlord:
    1. Reiterated its position at stage 1 in relation to the adequacy of the bins. It said the bin room was not large enough to accommodate 2 large bins. It also said it was reasonable to expect objects could fall between the gaps of the chutes if residents did not fasten refuse bags or deposited loose items in the chutes.
    2. Said in relation to his reports of poor cleanliness in the bin room, chutes and bins, and reports of unacceptable levels of smells from the area of the bins. It said understandably, bins may produce a noticeable odour due to the nature of what they held. While it remained dedicated to maintaining the cleanliness of its communal spaces, the smell that emerged from the bins was a common issue faced by everyone.
    3. Explained despite regular pickups, and diligent efforts in keeping the bin storage area clean, this was a natural occurrence which often happened when organic matter began decomposing. Nonetheless, it continued to encourage all residents to do their part in keeping odours to a minimum.
    4. Said it understood that he spoke with an estate service inspector, and they clarified that in the unlikely event that rubbish ended up outside the bins due to improper use of the chutes, the landlord directed the cleaners to pick up any rubbish. Its team provided the most up to date picture from their last clean, and this showed that the area was clean and free from any rubbish.
    5. Said it believed the changed it had made would end the issues raised. It asked him to continue to liaise with his neighbourhood co-ordinator if there were any further issues with the bins or if there was evidence of residents not disposing of their rubbish correctly.
    6. Apologised for the delay at stage 2. It acknowledged the delay was unacceptable and said it did not respond to his complaint within its service level agreement set in its complaints policy. It awarded £100 compensation for the time and effort the resident had spent chasing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. The resident raised concerns with us on 3 June 2025 about smells at the main entrance of the building. The resident did not raise this issue within the original complaint referred to us. Our scheme says we cannot consider matters which have not exhausted a landlord’s complaints process unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure. We have seen no evidence that this issue has completed the landlord’s complaints process or of a complaint handling failure in relation to this issue. As such we shall not consider it within this investigation.

Incorrectly sized communal bins

12. The landlord acknowledged that there were concerns with its handling of this issue. We found that there was a delay of around 7 months between April 2023 and October 2023 before the landlord provided a solution it found was effective in addressing the resident’s concerns. The landlord acknowledged that there was a delay and apologised for this. It also explained the learning it took from the experience. Its actions were appropriate.
13. While there was a delay in the landlord replacing the bins, some of these were outside of its control. For example, the fact that the invoice its supplier provided only charged for 1 bin rather than the 2 it ordered. It also explained that it knew in March 2023 that the bins it ordered were incorrect, but the customer services team at its contractors were confused and this led to the delivery of the incorrect bins.
14. Despite this however, there is no evidence that the delays, and the fact the bins remained outstanding caused the resident significant detriment. This is because the resident explained in an email on 28 July 2023 that the landlord hired private waste contractors and bins while its order remained outstanding. This meant that the resident still received the required services and could properly dispose of his waste. It is however unclear what occurred between 11 September 2023 and October 2023 when the landlord replaced the bins.
15. After the landlord replaced the bins, it provided evidence to show the appropriateness of the new bin. It gave the resident video evidence that both individual and bagged rubbish that went through the chute, went into the bin rather than the floor. This was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take. The resident however remained dissatisfied as he said there was evidence that some items still ended up on the floor. The landlord looked to remedy this by explaining it had asked its cleaners to clean any such items.
16. The landlord also explained in its response, that the bin had to meet certain safety regulations and requirements to allow refuse collectors to empty it. It also explained that the storeroom was too small to fit 2 bins. It is unclear why the bin room could now not house 2 bins, as the landlord explained internally that it did so previously. However, as the evidence provided demonstrates that the current bin did cover items falling out of both chutes in the building, we find this reasonable. It also explained to the resident that it was reasonable to expect that items may fall down the gaps between the chutes and the bin.
17. As the landlord evidenced the bins covered the chute and contained the rubbish, explained how it aimed to deal with any fallen rubbish on the floor by having its cleaners attend daily, and also explained that it was reasonable to expect some rubbish on the floor, but it would clean this daily, we find its actions reasonable. Although there was a delay in the landlord replacing the bins, there is also no evidence this caused the resident any detriment. Based on this we find that there was no maladministration.

Poor standard of cleanliness and smells in the bin room, chutes, and bins.

18. In its response, the landlord provided the resident with a reasonable explanation about what may cause the issues around the smells in the bin room, chutes, and the bins. It identified that the nature of the items going into the bins would inherently lead to bad smells. It also highlighted that there were regular refuse pickups, and it tried to keep the area clean to avoid such issues. We consider its actions reasonable around this issue.
19. The landlord’s records also show that it completed regular inspections of the cleanliness of the building, including the bin room. At each of the inspections completed between May 2023 and September 2024, the reports provided show that it found the bin room at least met its specification around its cleanliness. On other times, the reports found that the cleanliness of the bin room was very clean. This meant that they found the bin room disinfected, clean, clear of litter, leaves and rubbish according to the report, supporting the statements made in its response.
20. We understand that the smells coming from the bin room may have caused the resident frustration. However, based on the evidence provided, we find that there was no maladministration.

Pest control issues

21. The resident said that the items dropped on the floor in the bin room led to incidents of pests and vermin. The landlord has provided us with evidence that it completed pest inspections monthly since 2022. It also said that it raised preventative pest control treatments against, rats, mice, and ants for both external and internal communal areas. On the majority of occasions, its inspections found that the building was clean, and that there was no evidence of any pests. It however found a rat on 1 occasion, but this was not in the bin room, but by a boundary by some allotments.
22. Based on the evidence, there is nothing to substantiate that any dropped items in the bin store led to any pest control issues. Based on this, we find that there was no maladministration.

The complaint

23. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It says it will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
24. The landlord told the resident that it would provide its stage 1 response by 17 October 2023. In line with its complaints process, it was due to respond by 6 October 2023. It then provided its response on 18 October 2023, 8 working days later than it should have. This was inappropriate and not in keeping with its policy. It is unclear why it told the resident it would provide its response later than it should have.
25. The resident then escalated his complaint on the same day as the landlord’s stage 1 response. As such it should have provided its response on 22 November 2023. It acknowledged that it missed the resident’s original escalation request on 30 November 2023 and this was appropriate. It then escalated his complaint and responded on 21 December 2023. As such it delayed its response by 21 working days.
26. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its complaint handling at stage 2. It however did not recognise the delay at stage 1. It offered the resident compensation of £100 for its complaint handling failings. While it did not directly acknowledge the delay in its stage 1 complaint handling. We consider that the amount of compensation offered is sufficient redress for the failings at both stages of its complaints process. Based on this, we find that there was reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme we find that there was no maladministration with:
    1. Reports of incorrectly sized communal bins.
    2. Reports of poor standard of cleanliness and smells in the bin room, chutes, and bins.
    3. Reports of pest control issues.
28. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the housing Ombudsman’s scheme we find that there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s complaint handling.