Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202417044)

Decision
Case ID	202417044
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Paragon Asra Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	17 December 2025

Background

The resident lives with his partner and children in a flat within a block of similar flats. Under the resident’s flat on the ground floor is a communal bin store. The resident reports odours from the bin store are entering his property through pipework and are causing health concerns. At the time of this investigation the issue remains unresolved.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of an odour from the bin store inside the property.
2. Request for a transfer.
We have also considered the handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an odour from the bin store inside the property.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of an odour from the bin store inside the property.

The landlord has not taken proportionate action to address the issue of missed council bin collections. It did not carry out the actions it agreed to undertake in its complaint responses. It also failed to carry out investigations to satisfy itself that the issue was not a hazard and to address the resident’s concerns about the health impact. The issue remains unresolved.

Request for a transfer.

The landlord states it contacted the resident about his housing situation. However, based on the evidence, we cannot determine that it provided appropriate rehousing advice.

Handling of the complaint.

The landlord delayed in escalating the complaint and did not track the actions outlined in its complaint responses to ensure completion. It also delayed in advising the resident it would not consider his complaint again at stage 1.

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 officer. 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 14 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,050 made up as follows: £750 for distress and inconvenience due to its handling of the resident’s reports of an odour from the bin store inside the property. £150 for distress and inconvenience due to its handling of the resident’s request for a transfer. £150 for time and trouble due to its handling of the complaint. 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 paid.	No later than 14 January 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. The inspection 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 bin store including any vents or pipework. Inspects the resident’s property with particular focus on the bathroom. Produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: Whether there are any hazards. The most likely cause of the odour and how it is travelling from the bin store to the resident’s property. Whether further specialist surveys are required eg for the ventilation system. 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 resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works.	No later than 14 January 2026
4	Liaison with the council The landlord must make reasonable attempts to contact the council to resolve the issue with rubbish collection. It should also obtain an update on its application for a dropped kerb and double yellow lines. It may need to consider making a complaint if the council does not respond. It should provide the resident and the Ombudsman with an update on the outcome and any further actions required along with timescales.	No later than 14 January 2026
4	Estate inspections The landlord must review its neighbourhood management policy and estate inspection standards. It must ensure: The timeframes outlined are consistent. Residents are encouraged to attend estate inspections where they have raised issues with communal areas. It monitors compliance with the policy and standards.	No later than 11 February 2026
5	Rehousing advice The landlord must contact the resident to discuss his housing situation and provide rehousing advice. This should include the impact of his arrears on his rehousing applications. It should confirm its advice in writing.	No later than 14 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
25 May 2024	The resident complained that there was a “persistent and severe odour” from the bin store. He said this had prevented him from opening his windows since moving in. He also reported that the smell was coming into the property via the pipework. The resident said that, despite him repeatedly reporting overflowing bins, scattered, rubbish, and missed collection, the landlord had not resolved the issue.
14 June 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said: It had arranged for the bin store to be cleaned and instructed its contractor to maintain “regular cleaning”. The council was responsible for bin collections. Residents should report missed collections to the council. It would remind residents to dispose of rubbish correctly. It would check for gaps in the plumbing. It upheld the complaint. It apologised to the resident for the impact on his living conditions and offered the resident £50 for the inconvenience.
7 August 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. We have not been provided with a copy of the escalation request.
9 October 2024	The resident again asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. He said the landlord had failed to address serious health and safety concerns. The resident said he wanted to move to another property due to the impact on the health and quality of life of his family.
19 November 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: It would repair the bin store doors. It had inspected the bin store and found no unusual bad odour. It would write to residents about proper waste disposal. It had raised an inspection for the vent pipe. The council had not advised it of any issues with rubbish collection or advised that the landlord needed to install a dropped kerb. The resident had not registered for a move. It would contact him to discuss rehousing options. It upheld the complaint due to its lack of communication and delays in repairing the vent. It increased its offer of compensation to £150: £50 for its poor communication. £25 for delayed vent repairs. £25 for its late complaint response. £50 offered at stage 1.
13 June 2025 and 17 July 2025	The resident asked the landlord to raise a further stage 1 complaint. He said he had been reporting the odour from the bins for over 1.5 years. He said the landlord had taken no “meaningful action” to resolve the issue and the property was “almost uninhabitable”. The resident said the issue was a hazard and posed a “serious health risk”. He said his wife had been experiencing respiratory issues. The landlord did not respond to these complaints.
5 August 2025	The landlord re-issued its previous stage 2 response.
September 2025	The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said the landlord had failed to resolve the odour, had ignored his request to be moved, and had mishandled the complaint.

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	Reports of an odour from the bin store inside the property.
Finding	Maladministration

The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to maintain communal areas in the block. The resident pays a service charge for communal cleaning however the landlord has not provided a breakdown showing whether this includes cleaning of the bin store.
The landlord has advised it raised the missed bin collections with the council several times between March 2024 and June 2024. The council stated its refuse wagons were struggling to access the site due to parked vehicles and a lack of a dropped kerb.
The landlord states it has applied to the council for a dropped kerb and for double yellow lines to address the parking issues but that the council is not engaging. We have asked the landlord to provide evidence of its communications with the council and the application for a dropped kerb and yellow lines. It has not provided this evidence. We cannot therefore determine that it has made reasonable efforts to resolve this issue.
The resident has reported on several occasions that the odour was having an impact on the health of his family. He has stated that the issue is a health hazard and that his wife had developed breathing difficulties.
We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. The investigation of personal injury or damage to health are more appropriately addressed by an insurance claim or a personal injury claim through the courts. However, the landlord should reasonably have addressed the resident’s concerns about the health of his family. It did not do so until November 2025, after the complaint was escalated to the Ombudsman. This was inappropriate.
In its stage 1 response the landlord said it had arranged for its contractor to clean the bin store and to do this regularly going forward. It also said it would write to residents about correct rubbish disposal.
The landlord has not evidenced that it undertook cleaning of the bin store during the period considered by this investigation or that it wrote to residents about correct rubbish disposal during this period. It has demonstrated that in September 2025 it carried out an inspection and found a “very strong and unpleasant odour” due to unemptied food waste bins and excrement behind the bins. It therefore arranged for deep cleaning of the area which took place in October 2025. This was outside the timeframe of our investigation and so has not been considered as part of our assessment.
The landlord also said in its stage 1 response that it would check for gaps in the “plumbing or pipes”. We have seen no evidence that it carried out any inspections of pipework within the resident’s property or bin store. Given the resident’s concerns that the issue constituted a health hazard, it should have carried out inspections to satisfy itself whether this was the case.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had inspected the bin store and found no bad odour. We asked it to evidence this inspection but it has not done so. Its neighbourhood management policy states it will inspect bin stores in blocks of flats on a quarterly basis. Its neighbourhood inspection standards state it will do so monthly for blocks of flats with more than 3 storeys. It is not clear why the policy and standards differ. We have asked the landlord to provide evidence of any estate inspections it completed. It has only demonstrated inspections in March 2024 and January 2025. This is not in line with its policy.
The landlord said it had raised a repair for the bins store doors in October 2024 but that specialist tools were required. There is no evidence that this repair was carried out and the landlord noted almost a year later that the doors were “faulty”.
The landlord also stated within its stage 2 response that it had raised a repair for the bin store vent. Internal emails show it raised a repair but that this was cancelled on 19 December 2024 because the contractor did not service communal systems. It did not raise a further repair. This was a failing to do as it said it would.
In its stage 2 response the landlord stated the council had not made it aware of any issues with collections or that a dropped kerb was required. This was incorrect. The council had told it 5 months earlier that it was missing collections due to parking issues and lack of a dropped kerb. That the landlord provided incorrect information was inappropriate.
The resident has experienced clear distress and inconvenience because of the landlord’s handling of his reports. He has expressed distress due to concerns over the impact on the health if his family. He has also explained that the family’s use and enjoyment of the property were reduced due to the smell which had spread through the property. The resident reports his children do not want to use the bathroom due to the smell and that 2 of the bedrooms cannot be used.
We note that the landlord does not appear to have taken any significant action until it was made aware the resident had escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman. It has failed to resolve the issue reported by the resident and failed to carry out the actions it agreed to undertake in its complaint responses. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of an odour from the bin store inside the property.
In total the landlord offered the resident £150 for its handling of the odour from the bin store. This is not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
Our remedies guidance states that compensation of £600 to £1,000 is appropriate where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £750 for distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of this issue. This includes any compensation previously offered by the landlord.

Complaint	Request for a transfer.
Finding	Maladministration

Within his complaint the resident asked the landlord to move him to another property due to the impact of the odour on the health and quality of life of his family.
The landlord’s managed move policy outlines the circumstances in which it will assist a resident to move outside of the normal choice-based lettings process. It states it will consider a managed move when it is not safe for a resident to remain in their home and they are at significant risk of harm. The policy does not provide for managed moves due to repair issues. It is unlikely therefore that the resident would qualify for a manged move.
In its complaint response the landlord said it would contact the resident to discuss his rehousing options. While it had tried to telephone the resident 2 weeks prior to issuing its stage 2 response, we have seen no evidence that it tried to contact him afterwards. The landlord states it provided housing advice by email. However, we have not seen this email so cannot determine whether the advice provided was appropriate.
We acknowledge the resident has rent arrears which affect his eligibility for a mutual exchange and may also impact a social housing register application. While the landlord has discussed his arrears with him, it would have been reasonable for it to make this clear so he could address the issue and improve his chances of rehousing.
As we cannot determine that the landlord provided the resident with appropriate rehousing advice, we have found maladministration in its handling of his request for a transfer.
Our remedies guidance suggests compensation of £100 to £600 is appropriate where there has been a failing which adversely impacted the resident. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay £150 compensation for distress and inconvenience in relation to this issue.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
It took the landlord 13 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. While this only slightly exceeds the 10-working day timeframe in its policy and the Code, it failed to apologise for this.
The landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to the resident’s first stage 2 escalation request which he made in August 2024. This was a complaint handling failing. It did however later acknowledge this and offer the resident £50 compensation. This was proportionate.
It took the landlord 29 working days to respond to the resident’s second stage 2 escalation. This exceeds the 20-working day timeframe in the Code and its own policy. It did however apologise for this and offer £25 compensation. This was proportionate.
Within its stage 2 response the landlord outlined several actions it would take. However, it did not complete these actions. The Code requires landlords to track any actions outlined in complaint responses through to completion. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not do so.
In June 2025 the resident told the landlord he had not received a response to a stage 1 complaint made on 11 February 2025. We have not seen a copy of the original complaint. The landlord did not respond to the resident.
On 17 July 2025 the resident again asked the landlord to log a stage 1 complaint. He said the issue with the odour was ongoing. The landlord did not log or respond to this complaint. Instead on 5 August 2025 it re-issued its previous stage 2 response. It did not however explain that it would not be considering the resident’s stage 1 complaint or why. This was a failure to adhere to the requirements of the Code.
Following several complaint emails from the resident, the landlord advised him on 25 September 2025 that he had exhausted its internal complaint process and signposted him to the Ombudsman. While this was appropriate, it should have given this advice following his attempts to make further stage 1 complaints in February 2025 and July 2025. That it did not do so was unreasonable.
Overall, the landlord failed to track the actions outlined in its complaint responses to ensure they were completed. It delayed in escalating the resident’s complaint, and in advising the resident it would not consider his complaint again at stage 1. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation for time and trouble due to its handling of the complaint. This includes the compensation previously offered.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord has been unable to provide evidence of all the actions it states it has taken in this case. This indicates shortcomings in its record keeping.

Communication

We did not find specific issues with the landlord’s communication with the resident.