Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202331305)

Decision
Case ID	202331305
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Paragon Asra Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 June 2026

Background

1. The resident lives with her children and 2 therapy dogs. The family live with both physical and mental health vulnerabilities. Her solicitor sent a letter of claim to the landlord in April 2022 outlining issues with damp and mould. The landlord moved the family to temporary accommodation to allow repairs to take place. However, when the resident returned, it was clear the contractor had not done the work it was meant to. This required a further move to temporary accommodation. The landlord then conducted extensive repairs and the family moved back to the property in October 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The damp and mould

5. The landlord delayed beginning the damp and mould repairs and then did not monitor and verify the work had taken place. However, it demonstrated it had taken learning from its earlier failures, accommodated the resident’s temporary accommodation requirements and paid an appropriate amount of compensation.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint until we asked it to. This led to an unreasonable 16 month delay.

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 director 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 28 July 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £850.00. This sum includes the compensation offered as part of the complaint response and is made up as follows: £600 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its handling of the damp and mould £250 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its complaint handling This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 28 July 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
31 October 2022	The resident complained to the landlord. She said it had shortened the duration of the repairs from 4 months to 6 weeks and after 4 weeks, work had barely begun. She asked it to extend the temporary accommodation to ensure it had time to conduct the repairs properly, but it refused. When she moved back the contractors were still painting. She advised the property was dirty, dusty and contained rubbish as did the garden. In addition, she highlighted damage to her rear door, windows and carpets. She stated that both she and her child had disabilities and described the landlord’s handling of the situation as “disgraceful and cruel.”
13 February 2024	Following contact from the resident, we wrote to the landlord and asked that it provide its stage 1 response.
21 February 2024	After receiving the landlord’s stage 1 acknowledgement and its outline of the complaint the resident added further complaint points. She highlighted its handling of the second stay in temporary accommodation, the delayed settlement payment and feeling forced to move back to the property without furniture.
8 March 2024	The landlord issued its complaint response. It apologised for the challenges and inconvenience caused by the repair work and the temporary move. It accepted that the resident did not have furniture for 7 weeks. It acknowledged the frustration this would have caused her, especially given her vulnerabilities, which it was aware of. It offered £500 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused.
20 March 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She indicated that the landlord’s compensation award was too low. She said it had not considered the fact that she had to live in damp conditions because it had not finished the repairs as well as the inconvenience of having to move twice. In addition, she advised it had not considered her and her child’s disabilities, the distress caused, the late emergency payment and having to move back to a property with no furniture.
30 April 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said it had paid the £2,500 settlement 14 days after the solicitors agreed the amount. It acknowledged the delays, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It also acknowledged and apologised that she had to approach us due to the delay in escalating her complaint. It partially upheld her complaint due to the delayed stage 2 response and increased its offer of compensation to £700.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident approached our service. She said the settlement for the repairs was a different matter and that the compensation offered by the landlord was insufficient to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.

 

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	The damp and mould
Finding	Service failure

7. The resident’s solicitor sent a letter of claim to the landlord on 11 April 2022 outlining issues with damp and mould in the property. The landlord visited in May 2022 and issued its report and proposed schedule of works to the solicitor on 5 May 2022. The timeframe for the inspection and report was appropriate.
8. The landlord moved the resident and her family into temporary accommodation on 1 September 2022. On 21 September 2022, the resident returned to collect mail and reported that no work had taken place. Under its repairs policy, the landlord should have actively managed and monitored the progress of major works through to completion. After receiving this update, it should have visited the property to assess progress against the schedule. The absence of any evidence that it did, indicates a failure to comply with its policy and likely left the resident feeling unheard.
9. After her visit to the property in September 2022, the resident told the landlord she was concerned that it would not complete the repairs before she was meant to move back. It refused her request to extend the temporary accommodation, it said it would finish the repairs on time. The resident moved back to the property on 5 October 2022. She told the landlord that the contractors were still painting and the property was in a poor state of cleanliness. As a result, she felt unable to unpack the boxes containing her belongings. The evidence indicates that the landlord had unfairly dismissed the resident’s concerns about the work, which led to avoidable distress and inconvenience.
10. The landlord has provided little records for the period between 5 October 2022 and May 2023. Its surveyor returned on 12 May 2023 to assess the resident’s concerns about the repairs that had taken place. This was a period of 7 months from when she first raised her concerns. The delay was excessive and unreasonable.
11. The surveyor reported that all ground floor walls were still wet, that the property had a strong smell of damp, external rendering and pointing had not taken place and the standard of decoration was “very poor”. The surveyor concluded that the contractor had not undertaken the damp repairs agreed on the schedule of works.
12. Landlords are responsible for their contractors and the work they undertake. As previously mentioned, the repairs policy required the landlord to monitor the repairs while they were taking place. The surveyors evidence confirms this did not happen. It also demonstrates considerable flaws in how the landlord signed off on the completed repairs. Overall, the failures here were significant and directly impacted the resident and her family.
13. The landlord’s lack of oversight and delayed survey led to the resident moving back into a damp property for a period of 10 months. She found this particularly distressing and told the landlord that it had greatly impacted on her and her daughter’s health. The landlord had been aware of the family’s vulnerabilities throughout the process, which has increased the seriousness of the identified failures.
14. We recognise the resident’s comments about her health and the impact she advised the landlord’s actions had. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
15. The landlord moved the resident and her family into temporary accommodation for a second time on 15 August 2024. This was additional time and trouble on top of the previous move, which for a family of three and 2 dogs was considerable. The resident had particular requirements for the temporary accommodation which included a private garden, space for her therapy dogs, carpets and parking. The landlord accommodated her requirements and available dates for moving, which was appropriate. The high standard of the temporary accommodation would have likely helped lessen the impact of the move.
16. Throughout the second set of repairs the landlord conducted regular interim inspections to monitor the work. It also produced interim reports with photographs. This demonstrated that it had taken learning from its earlier errors which was appropriate.
17. The landlord completed the repairs and signed off the property on 20 October 2023. It informed the resident, but she refused to move back to the property until her solicitor and the landlord’s solicitor had settled the disrepair claim. The landlord agreed to extend the temporary accommodation until 28 October 2023. However, the solicitors had still not reached a settlement figure by then. This led to the resident booking further temporary accommodation herselfthat resulted in a cost of £900. The landlord maintained that it had not approved the booking and that the resident was responsible for payment. Due to the conflicting version of events from all parties, we are unable to make a findingof maladministration by the landlordon this point. We are aware that the landlord eventually agreed to pay the additional costs.
18. The resident returned to her property on 30 October 2023. She confirmed the repairs were to a high standard and that she had received proactive communication throughout the process. This indicates further learning by the landlord, which was appropriate.
19. On 10 November 2023, the solicitors agreed a settlement amount of £2,500 for the resident’s disrepair claim. The settlement came with a request for payment within 14 days. On 11 November 2023, the landlord sent an internal email requesting payment. The payment did not take place. The resident spent further time and trouble pursuing the landlord through her MP. On 29 November 2023 the landlord informed the MP it had paid the money to the solicitor. The landlord was aware the resident was waiting on the payment so that she could purchase furniture. The 4-day delay in payment, while short, was unreasonable. There was a further delay in payment due to the resident’s solicitor, which was beyond the control of the landlord.
20. At stage 1 the landlord offered £500 compensation for its failures associated with the repairs. It increased its offer to £700 at stage 2. However, the additional £200 included a portion for the delayed stage 2 response, but the landlord did not clarify how much. We have therefore assumed £100 for the delay. This leaves £600 for the errors and impact associated with the repairs.
21. In line with our compensation guidance, we are required to consider any settlement payment as part of our investigation process and compensation award. Overall, we find that the settlement figure combined with the landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable in the circumstances.
22. However, we have made a finding of service failure. This is due to the landlord not specifically acknowledging the errors during the first set of repairs and recognising the impact on the resident and her family. While its actions show that it had learnt from its mistakes, not providing a comprehensive written explanation and apology resulted in it not fully putting things right for the resident. The landlord must now apologise to the resident for these failings.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Severe maladministration

23. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy which is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in its timings and definition of a complaint. It will acknowledge complaints at stage 1 and 2 within 5 working days. It will send its stage 1 response within 10 working days and stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledgment. It can extend its response time at both stages by a further 10 or 20 working days.
24. The resident complained to the landlord on 31 October 2022. In her email she stated that she was making a formal complaint. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint or respond. After contact from the resident, we wrote to the landlord on 13 February 2024 and asked it to provide its complaint response. In its acknowledgement email to the resident on 19 February 2024, it quoted her complaint word for word. This is evidence that it had received the complaint communication in October 2022.
25. The landlord provided its response on 8 March 2024, which was 1 year 4 months after the resident had made the complaint. The timescale was excessive and represented a significant failure to comply with the Code and its own policy. Not responding to the resident likely left her feeling that her complaint and the issues she had raised were not important to the landlord.
26. In the stage 1 response the landlord did not acknowledge the fact that it had not responded to the complaint or that we had to ask it to respond. The Code requires landlords to acknowledge and apologise for their errors. The landlord’s ongoing noncompliance with the Code was inappropriate.
27. The resident escalated her complaint on 20 March 2024, the landlord acknowledged the escalation request 11 days outside of its target. The ongoing delays were unreasonable. Having not received the response as expected, the resident contacted us. We again contacted the landlord and asked it to provide its complaint response, which it did.
28. As discussed above we have assumed a £100 award of compensation for the delayed stage 2 response. Due to our observations, we have made an additional award of £150 compensation. This amount is in line with our compensation guidance where the complaint response was delayed by months, affecting timely resolution of the dispute.

Learning

29. It would be beneficial for the landlord to understand why it did not respond to the resident’s original complaint. We would therefore advise that it examines the steps that led to the error to prevent such occurrences taking place in the future.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. There were significant gaps in the landlord’s record keeping surrounding its early inspections and complaint handling. Also, the resident provided several pieces of key information for our investigation, rather than the landlord. The landlord should endeavour to keep contemporaneous records of all correspondence it has with residents.

Communication

31. The landlord’s communication with the resident was inconsistent. Our spotlight report on repairs identifies effective communication as a “common theme” essential for an effective repairs service. Poor communication often leads to delays, confusion, and a breakdown in trust. The landlord may wish to review this guidance if it has not done so recently.