Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202422829)

Decision
Case ID	202422829
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Paragon Asra Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	23 January 2026

Background

The resident asked the landlord whether it knew their neighbour was running a business from their property before and during their tenancy. They also wanted to know what evidence the landlord relied on to conclude a business was not being run from the neighbour’s property. They were unhappy with the landlord’s response and referred the complaint to us.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Enquiry about their neighbour running a business.
2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiry about their neighbour running a business.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Enquiry about their neighbour running a business

The landlord did not provide regular updates whilst it was investigating the resident’s enquiry and, at times, gave unclear answers which left them uncertain as to whether the issue had been thoroughly investigated.

Complaint

The landlord repeatedly extended its response time to the complaint, and its reasons for this were unclear. It was also unclear whether this meant it could not have answered the complaint sooner and within the timescales set out in the Complaint Handling Code.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 20 February 2026
2	Compensation The landlord must pay the resident £250 made up as follows:  £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s enquiry  £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by 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 paid as offered in its complaint responses.	No later than 20 February 2026
3	Learning order The landlord must write to the resident and set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.	No later than 20 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
27 January 2024	The resident reported to the landlord that their neighbour had been running a business from their property since 2018. The resident asked if the landlord was aware of this when their tenancy started in January 2022.
24 February 2024	The resident chased the landlord for a response.
2 April 2024 to 8 April 2024	The landlord told the resident it found no evidence the neighbour had run a business from their property. The resident asked what evidence the landlord had relied on and whether it knew about the neighbour’s business at the start of the tenancy.
10 April 2024 to 30 April 2024	The resident chased the landlord for an update on 3 occasions.
11 May 2024	The resident complained that it had not answered their enquiry.
16 May 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
31 May 2024	The landlord explained to the resident it needed to extend the due date to respond to the complaint. It said it would respond by 14 June 2024.
14 June 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said it found no evidence the neighbour was running a business from the property and could not fully answer the resident’s enquiry due to data protection. It acknowledged it could have responded sooner to parts of the enquiry and offered £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
20 June 2024	The resident escalated the complaint because they were unhappy with the landlord’s response. The landlord acknowledged this on the same day.
19 July 2024 to 8 August 2024	On 3 occasions the landlord set out it would need to extend the due date to provide its stage 2 response.
19 August 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said that there was no evidence the resident’s neighbour was running a business from the property when the resident started their tenancy. It said it investigated the enquiry, found no business registered to the neighbour’s property, and apologised for sending the stage 2 response late.
6 September 2024	– The landlord provided a further response about the complaint. It said it had caused a delay in responding to the resident’s enquiry. It added that it had referred to data protection but later found this was not relevant. The landlord reviewed its compensation offer of £100 and explained it was split into £50 for its complaint handling failures and £50 for its delay in responding to the resident’s enquiry.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said they were unhappy the landlord had said data protection prevented it from answering parts of their enquiry. They said it delayed its response to them by 7 months and that it had delayed responding to their complaint. They wanted the landlord to answer the enquiry clearly, explain what it had done to investigate their enquiry, explain what data protection training it runs for staff, and for it to revisit the outcome of its investigation into their enquiry. They wanted compensation for the delay of 7 months.

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	Enquiry about the neighbour running a business
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

The resident questioned the landlord’s reliance on data protection to withhold part of its response to their enquiry. They wanted it to improve its knowledge of data protection and explain what training it runs. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) handles concerns about how organisations manage data. It may be better placed to assess whether the landlord applied data protection correctly, as this falls outside of our remit. We have not investigated this issue further.

What we did investigate

The landlord does not have a policy that sets out a timeframe that it would respond to enquiries from residents. In this case, it had taken 44 working days and 3 emails from the resident before it responded to their initial enquiry. The delay was unreasonable in the circumstances.
The resident said they felt the landlord had not answered their enquiry. The landlord said the resident raised the enquiry after it had closed an earlier antisocial behaviour investigation, and it signposted the resident to another team to respond to their enquiry. The resident found this response inconsistent, as the landlord previously said it had already investigated and answered their enquiry. The landlord said it would further investigate this, which was reasonable.
The resident chased the landlord for an update about their enquiry on 3 occasions and raised a complaint. They asked the landlord to confirm if there was evidence the neighbour was not running a business, if it had knowledge of the neighbour’s business before their enquiry, and before the start of their tenancy.
There was a lack of updates from the landlord whilst it was investigating the enquiry. This was unreasonable.
In the landlord’s complaint response, it explained that running a business from one of its properties would require permission. It investigated the enquiry using the resident’s information and the government’s central company register and found no evidence that the neighbour was operating a business in the property. After the resident escalated the complaint, the landlord confirmed it had no evidence the neighbour was running a business when the resident’s tenancy began. It had therefore addressed the resident’s enquiries.
The landlord recognised it had not communicated appropriately with the resident whilst it was investigating their enquiry and when it responded to them.
Since the complaint response, the landlord offered £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the delay. The landlord took some steps to put things right. However, it did not set out any learning from the complaint, and it failed to recognise all the communication failures identified in this investigation.
Considering our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the failures set out under the summary of reasons of this report and set out what lessons it has learned from them. This is inclusive of any compensation it already offered.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days, and the resident should receive a stage 1 response within 10 working days. At stage 2, the resident should receive an acknowledgement within 5 working days, and a formal response within 20 working days. If it needs more time to respond it will keep the resident updated.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint and explained it needed an extension before it provided its stage 1 response. This was in line with its complaint policy.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation in line with its complaint policy and the Code. It explained to the resident that it needed an extension to respond to the complaint on 3 occasions.
However, the evidence does not show the reasons given on each occasion, whether the landlord explained them to the resident, or whether those reasons prevented it from answering the complaint sooner. This is a failure of its record keeping. It has made it difficult to assess whether its extensions were in line with the Code which says a landlord must decide if an extension is needed when considering the complexity of the case. An extension must be no more than 20 working days without good reason and that it clearly explains its reasons.
In the landlord’s complaint response, it had not recognised any failings in how it handled the complaint and did not offer redress for the distress and inconvenience caused. This was not in line with our dispute resolution principles.
Since the complaint response the landlord explained there were failures in how it handled the complaint, however it had not set out what these were. It made an offer of compensation for £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. However, this did not recognise the failures set out under the summary of reasons of this report.
Considering our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the complaint handling failures identified in this report and set out what lessons it has learned from them.

Learning

The landlord missed an opportunity to identify learning points to address in its complaint responses. It would have been in line with our dispute resolution principles of putting things right and learning from outcomes for the landlord to set out areas of learning to the resident within its internal complaints procedure.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Our Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) Spotlight report recommends that landlords keep clear records. Landlords who keep accurate records can meet their obligations and provide us with information for a thorough investigation. The landlords evidence of the complaint was unclear. This impacted our ability to assess its actions.

Communication

Our Attitudes, Respect and Rights Spotlight report recommends that landlords provide proactive updates to resident, especially where there are delays. In this case, the resident chased the landlord for responses to their enquiries and their complaint which likely caused inconvenience for them.
The landlord had not proactively communicated with the resident about the substantive issue and had not provided a clear response to their enquiries from the outset, which likely contributed to their distress when expecting an accurate response.