Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202421014)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421014

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

17 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the installation of a new front door;
2. Response to the resident’s reports of an odour from the front door;
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy that started on 17 November 2023. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the first floor.
The resident reported on 5 January 2024 the front door was not secure. The resident described the door lock as flimsy and said it did not provide sufficient security.
On 1 March 2024, the landlord installed a new front door to the resident’s property.
The resident complained on 5 March 2024 about the condition of the property. The resident also said her health was affected from a chemical smell from the front door.
The landlord provided its Stage 1 complaint response on 25 March 2024. Relevant to this complaint the landlord:
1. Apologised for any inconvenience and frustration experienced with the condition of the front door.
2. Said it had sent the fire and Improvement works surveyor (FIWS) the information and pictures provided by the resident.
3. Signposted the resident to its insurance team following her report the smell from the front door had impacted her health.
4. Partially upheld the complaint for its delay in repairing the front door and poor communication.
5. Awarded £100 compensation for the time and trouble experienced by the resident.
The resident escalated her complaint on 28 May 2024. The resident said the FIWS had not been in contact as promised and she had been unable to contact him. In addition, the smell from the front door continued.
The resident provided a medical letter on 11 July 2024. The letter said the smell from the front door frame was affecting the resident’s health and had been present for months.
On 30 July 2024, the landlord provided its Stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said:
1. Communication with FIWS
  1. The FIWS did call the resident on 1 May 2024 regarding the front door installation. The FIWS said he would visit if he was in the resident’s area. The landlord explained that was the reason the visit was not carried out.
  2. The front door was installed on 1 March 2024.
2. Fumes
  1. The contractor reattended on 16 April 2024 and found plastic bags and tights taped to the fire door frame.
  2. The operative installed plastic quadrant around the frame and sealed the perimeter with fire acoustic mastic and white silicone. The smell from the silicone would last around 2 days.
  3. The neighbourhood coordinator (NC) confirmed a smell was present. As a resolution, she agreed to attend with neutralising spray.
  4. The resident refused the offer of the spray. Instead the resident advised she would contact the local council’s environmental services.
3. Complaint handling
  1. It was sorry for the delay in handling the complaint.
  2. This was due to an increase in complaint volumes and staff changes.
  3. The compensation award was increased to £150. This was broken down as: £100 offered at Stage 1 of the complaint process and £50 for its complaint handling delays.
  4. It was committed to preventing such delays happening again.
After the complaint process ended:
1. The resident’s Member of Parliament (MP) wrote to the landlord on 20 September 2024. The MP said the council’s pollution team had visited the resident on 22 August 2024. The pollution officer could not detect the smell reported by the resident.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to us. The resident provided a picture of the condition of the door when she first moved in and said the smell had reduced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of complaint

Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or inaction have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, the investigation will consider the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.

Handling of the installation of a new front entrance door

It is understandable that this situation is likely to have caused frustration and distress to the resident. The resident’s feelings are understood and it is not disputed that dealing with such situations is stressful. However, our role is to consider whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and to the formal complaint was fair and reasonable. This is in all circumstances of the case and in accordance with its policies and its obligations under the tenancy agreement and any relevant legislation.
The tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s responsibilities for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good repair and good working order. This includes the front door.
The landlord’s repair records show before the resident moved into the property it was aware of the poor condition of the front door. The landlord’s void inspection records show in August 2023 it assessed the front door and the architrave to the frame needed to be replaced. Before a property is allocated it should meet the lettable standard and have a secure front door with suitable working locks.
The picture of the front door contained in the post inspection records on 10 November 2023 does not show all of the front door. The picture only shows a handle of the front door. The resident provided us a photo of the front door with a damaged handle. The resident told the landlord in January 2024 the front door was not secure. Later in March 2024, the resident said the front door does not have the same locking mechanism as her neighbours.
The landlord’s maintenance policy says it will respond to repair reports within 15 working days. The landlord did not act in line with this as it took until 1 March 2024 before the front door was assessed and a new front door was installed on 1 March 2024. Given the property had been assessed to have met the landlord’s lettable standard, the resident experienced an unreasonable delay in the landlord’s response and assessment of the condition of the door. The landlord has not explained why it took so long to do so especially as the resident was reporting security concerns with the front door.
Shortly after the front door installation, on 6 March 2024 the resident complained the door had not been correctly installed. The resident said the front door was not sitting flush within the frame and there were gaps. The landlord assessed there was a poor finish to the work carried out by the contractor and 20mm gaps from the wall. The landlord took until 19 March 2024 before it accepted its contractor had not carried out the work to an acceptable standard and issued a recall notice. This represented an unacceptable delay to the work being rectified and caused distress to the resident. Had the landlord acted sooner, this may have reassured the resident her concerns had been heard and were being taken seriously.
Before the contractor reattended, there were difficulties arranging a mutually convenient appointment with the resident. The resident advised her intercom was not working. The evidence shows this may have contributed to a missed appointment with the contractor. The resident became frustrated with the lack of action which led her to contact her local councillor to intervene on 3 April 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord in its Stage 1 complaint response to recognise the inconvenience and frustration experienced by the resident and apologise for this.
It was reasonable for the landlord in its complaint review to explain why its FIWS had not carried out the visit to the resident’s property. The landlord explained the visit was not carried out as the FIWS was not in the resident’s area. We expect landlords to keep resident’s informed and manage expectations. Had the FIWS contacted the resident once he realised, he was unable to conduct the visit, this would have demonstrated good customer care and the resident would have been aware of any next steps.
We expect landlord to take any reports of fire safety seriously and act to minimise any safety risks to residents. The landlord’s fire safety policy sets out it will comply with central government guidance relating to the inspection of fire doors. While the landlord acknowledged the installation of the front door did not meet the required standard it did not act with sufficient urgency to address this. There is no evidence it assessed any risk to the resident or considered the impact to her. This was not reasonable and caused further distress to the resident
The contractor reattended on 16 April 2024 to resolve the gaps in the frame and the architrave. Overall it took around 5 months, from the start of the resident’s tenancy in November 2023 to 16 April 2024 for the landlord to install a suitable front door. This was not reasonable as it caused uncertainty, distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord in its complaints review assessed it had not delivered an appropriate level of service to the resident. For this it apologised and made a compensation award of £100 for the time and trouble experienced by the resident. Our Remedies Guidance policy sets out when residents experience a failure in service that has impacted the resident, appropriate compensation awards are between £100 to £600. The landlord’s compensation award was not proportionate for the failings identified in the installation of the door and the distress caused. The resident also experienced further inconvenience as further appointments had to be arranged for the contractor to reattend before the fire door had the appropriate fire protection and security.
Overall, the landlord acknowledged a failure in service in regard to the front door installation in its complaints review. However, the apology and offer of redress was not enough to put things right for the resident. The landlord’s contractor had to attend on 2 separate occasions before the front door was correctly installed with the appropriate locking mechanisms. The landlord’s delay in addressing the resident’s concerns about the security of the front door caused inconvenience and distress to the resident. The landlord also failed to ensure the front door was compliant with fire safety requirements. For those reasons a finding of maladministration has been made and an additional award of £300 has been made in recognition of the service and communication failures experienced by the resident.

Response to the resident’s reports of an odour from the front door

The resident reported a smell from the front door. The resident described the smell as chemical and strong. The resident also said she found the smell unbearable. It was reasonable the NC attended the property in June 2024 to try to identify the smell. The landlord’s records show the NC assessed the smell and recorded it smelt like glue.
The contractor told the landlord fumes would not come through the front door. The FIWS undertook a joint visit with the contractor on 5 July 2024. Neither officer could detect a smell from the front door, frame or within the property. These were reasonable actions to assess whether a hazard was present in the property. It was also reasonable for the landlord to rely on the assessment of professionals who had attended the property especially as it had received a medical letter advising the resident was being affected by fumes from the front door.
It was reasonable for the landlord to check the materials used by its contractor to see if it would cause the fumes complained of by the resident. After the complaint process, ended the council’s pollution officer visited the resident and did not identify a hazard from the front door. The resident also told us the smell had reduced.
Ultimately, the landlord has undertaken reasonable enquiries and checks when it assessed whether a hazard was present in the resident’s property. A hazard was not identified which required the landlord to take action. For those reasons a finding of no maladministration has been made.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint procedure says it will respond to complaints at Stage 1 within 10 working days and within 20 working days at Stage 2.
The resident complained to the landlord on 5 March 2024. The landlord provided its Stage 1 response on 25 March 2024. The landlord took 14 working days which was just outside its published complaint handling time scale of 10 working days.
The resident escalated the complaint on 28 May 2024. The landlord took until 2 July 2024 to acknowledge the complaint. The landlord’s complaint procedure says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 days of receiving the complaint. This is in line with our Complaints Handling Code. The landlord took 25 working days to acknowledge the complaint. This is not reasonable as the complaints process should improve the tenant and landlord relationship. The delay likely undermined this as this caused uncertainty as to whether the landlord was progressing her complaint.
The landlord provided its Stage 2 complaint response on 30 July 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord to meet its published complaint handling timescale of 20 working days.
In its complaints review, the landlord acknowledged its delay in escalating the complaint to its Stage 2 complaint stage. The landlord apologised and explained it had received an increase in its complaint volumes. The landlord went on to say it was committed to improving its complaint handling. For its complaint handling failings the landlord apologised and made a compensation award of £50. While the landlord recognised its delay in progressing the complaint, the compensation offer did not adequately reflect the impact to the resident or the inconvenience experienced. Our Remedies Guidance says for such failures a compensation award between £50 to £100 is appropriate. Considering the time taken to escalate the complaint to its final stage, this delayed the resident receiving its final decision on the complaint. An order has been made below to increase the compensation award by an additional £50 to £100.
Overall, for the landlord’s complaint handling service failures, a finding of service failure has been found. The landlord delay in progressing the complaint though its complaint stages caused frustration and distress to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the installation of a new front door.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of an odour from the front door.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Write to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident overall compensation award of £500. This includes the £150 it awarded during its complaint process. This is broken down as an additional:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to install a new front door.
  2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
If the landlord has already paid the £150 it has already offered to the resident it can offset this amount from the £500 ordered above and pay the remaining balance to the resident
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the above timescales.