Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202422993)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422993

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

12 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of fly-tipping and waste in communal areas, and communication with the resident.
    2. Complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a ground floor bedsit, and the tenancy began in January 2022. The landlord has noted the resident struggles with her mental health.
  2. On 27 March 2024 the resident reported concerns about the location of the communal bins as well as rubbish and other materials, left by the front door and bins.

The landlord did not respond to the resident. This led the resident to contact the landlord on further occasions and report more incidents of dog poo and rubbish piling up. On 25 June 2024, she emailed the landlord about furniture being left in the communal driveway and asked it to move the waste. She also asked that the previous issues were investigated and removed as it was causing a smell to enter her property.

  1. The resident complained about the waste issues on 29 June 2024. She said that she had not received a response to her previous contact and asked the landlord to address the situation.
  2. On 2 August 2024 the landlord’s response apologised for the lack of communication following the resident’s request to remove the bulk waste. It explained that this service was not included in the service charge which was why it was not arranged, and acknowledged she should have been told this. It explained that it had visited the site on 28 June 2024 and no bulk items were present and it was clear. It confirmed that to improve the situation, it had installed a secure bin store on 8 July 2024. The landlord awarded £25 compensation for the poor communication.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 August 2024. She explained that:
    1. She was told conflicting information about the bulk waste removal.
    2. She did not understand the purpose of sending photos as no action was taken.
    3. She did not think residents should be charged for waste removal, and the landlord should charge the guilty residents.
    4. She disagreed that there was no waste present on the landlord’s visit of 28 June 2024.
    5. The new bin area had not been installed.
    6. She did not feel the level of compensation reflected the impact on her.
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 4 September 2024, apologised for the lack of communication and explained the reason for this. It confirmed it had contacted the resident about the bin installation which was now complete. It acknowledged it had failed to act quickly following her reports of waste and fly-tipping, and confirmed what action had since been taken. It offered the resident £100 compensation for the delays and impact caused by the experience.

Events following the landlord’s final response

  1. The resident contacted us on 12 September 2024. She explained she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint and felt her concerns were overlooked at stage 2. She also advised that she was provided with inconsistent information, and that the landlord responded outside its complaint timescales.
  2. The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 May 2025 in response to a letter from the resident on 5 September 2024 where she raised questions about the final response. The landlord responded to the points raised and offered her £30 compensation as an apology for the delay in responding to her and the failure to address the points in its stage 2 response. The resident told us on 8 May 2025 that she would not accept that offer until after the outcome of our investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In the escalation request, the resident raised concerns about what services the service charges she pays for includes. This was not raised in the initial stage 1 complaint and was not addressed by the landlord in the stage 2 investigation.  As the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to this within its complaints policy, we have not included this in our investigation. If the resident remains concerned about the services received as part of her tenancy agreement, we would encourage her to make a further enquiry about this with the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of fly-tipping and waste in communal areas, and communication with the resident

  1. The landlord did not provide a policy regarding its management of reports of fly-tipping. Its neighbourhood inspection standards were put in place to ensure that areas shared by its customers and their neighbours are clean, safe and well maintained. It states it will carry out neighbourhood inspections every 6 months and respond promptly to concerns and issues raised by customers. It monitors its performance and scores the area based on the inspection results.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that residents are responsible for communal areas including shared gardens, paving and parking areas. It states that the landlord will not allow any sort of annoyance or nuisance and where appropriate, will take action within its powers to deal with these issues. It also advises that residents must put all refuse in appropriate bin bags and rubbish must be place in appropriate bins. Any other rubbish must be organised to be removed by the resident.
  3. The resident reported her concerns about rubbish in the communal parking area on two occasions in March and April 2024. The landlord did not respond and has not provided evidence that it took any action following the reports. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s reports and act on the information provided to it.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 April 2024. She advised that the issues first reported on 27 March 2024 remained outstanding, and further rubbish had been added. She asked the landlord to request the residents to remove the waste they left, or organise a bulk waste removal to clear the area. The landlord responded on 30 April 2024 and provided a case reference number. Whilst it was appropriate that it acknowledged the email, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain what the case reference number was for. It also asked the resident to provide photos and advised that her neighbourhood officer would be in touch within 3 to 5 working days. The resident sent photos that day. There is no evidence that the landlord acted on this information or contacted the resident as it agreed. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to attend the area to assess the issue raised in the reports.
  5. On 13 May 2024, the landlord completed its 6-monthly neighbourhood inspection. The report provided has scored the visit as unacceptable. The landlord has not provided any details of what actions it took following this inspection. The landlord’s policy was not clear on what it would do following a failed inspection. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to update the resident on any planned actions given her previous enquiry.
  6. On 20 June 2024 the resident emailed the landlord asking it to remove bulk waste left on the property. She provided photos demonstrating this issue. The landlord acknowledged the report and advised it would update the case, and the request would be picked up by the neighbourhood officer. Evidence shows that the resident updated the landlord on 25 June 2024 that items were still there and obstructed access to the driveway. The resident was distressed by the condition of the area because it was causing her property to smell when she opened her windows. She also raised concerns that this may cause issues with rodents. The landlord did not respond to this request which was not appropriate, particularly because of the effect this was having on the resident.
  7. The resident raised a formal complaint as she had not received any response from her requests, and the issues were still outstanding. Following the landlord’s stage 1 response on 2 August 2024, and the resident’s escalation on 3 August 2024, the resident told the landlord on 7 August 2024 that the new bin store was complete. She asked if all residents in that block could be sent communication about how to use the bin store. Whilst the landlord did not respond directly to this letter, it did respond to the requests in its final response letter on 4 September which was reasonable.
  8. In summary, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s initial service requests about the mess in the communal area which was not reasonable. It failed to take reasonable actions after receiving photos of the area showing the state of the bin and wider courtyard. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to visit the property to further understand the problem and its effects and try to identify who’s rubbish it was. Although the stage 1 response referenced a site visit on 28 June 2024, we have no evidence to support this.  The landlord has not evidenced any actions it took after its neighbourhood inspection completed on 13 May 2024. This was not appropriate because the resident explained the inconvenience and impact it was having on her.
  9. In its final response of 4 September 2024, the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for the failings identified, however we have found that this is not reflective of the impact on the resident. This is due to the resident needing to repeatedly chase the landlord, the delay in it attending to the issue and the impact on the resident regarding the smell entering her property. Consequently, we have made a finding of maladministration and order the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance.

Handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint procedure. In its complaints policy says that it will do the following:
    1. Acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days from the acknowledgement.
    2. Acknowledge a request for review of a complaint within 5 working days, and respond at stage 2 within 20 working days from acknowledgement.
    3. Update the resident if there are any delays in responding within the timescales set out at stage 1 and stage 2, explain the reasons for the delay and keep them informed.
  2. The resident complained on 29 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged her complaint and confirmed what it was about on 3 July 2024 which was appropriate.
  3. The landlord called the resident on 19 July 2024 apologising for a delay in responding to her complaint. It agreed with the resident to respond within 10 working days. This was not appropriate as this occurred 2 working days after it had agreed to respond to the resident. In line with its policy, the landlord should have notified the resident as soon as it identified it would be unable to respond within its timescales.
  4. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 2 August 2024 which was appropriate as it was in line with the agreement it had made with the resident on 19 July 2024. In its response, it identified the delay in responding to the reports of waste and fly-tipping by the resident, and apologised for the inconvenience this caused.
  5. The resident requested a review of the complaint on 3 August 2024 and this was acknowledged on 6 August 2024 which was appropriate. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 4 September 2024, within 20 working days which was appropriate. In its response, the landlord failed to respond to the following points raised by the resident in her request for an escalation which was not appropriate:
    1. She was told conflicting information about the bulk waste removal.
    2. She queried the purpose of sending photos as no action was taken.
    3. She did not think residents should be charged for waste removal, and the landlord should charge the guilty residents.
    4. She disagreed that there was no waste present on the landlord’s visit of 28 June 2024.

In line with the Housing Ombudsman Code, it would have been appropriate to respond to these points in its stage 2.

  1. Overall, we have found that the landlord acted inappropriately by not contacting the resident within 10 working days to agree an extension in responding at stage 1. However, the landlord acknowledged its failure in the stage 1 response and apologised to the resident. In its stage 2 response, the landlord did not acknowledge points raised by the resident in her escalation which was not appropriate.
  2. The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 May 2025 and acknowledged failures in its handling of her complaint. Although this occurred after the landlord’s final response, we have considered it given the link to the complaint we have investigated. It responded to the outstanding points not addressed in its stage 2 complaint and offered the resident £30 compensation for its complaint handling. While it is positive that the landlord made an offer of redress, this offer was made 170 days after its final complaint response. We expect this to be done within its complaints process. Therefore, we have made a finding of service failure and ordered the landlord to pay the resident £80 compensation. This is inclusive of the £30 offered to the resident on 8 May 2025.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of fly-tipping and waste in communal areas, and communication with the resident
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord for its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
    1. Written to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Paid the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience to the resident by the landlord’s handling of reports of fly-tipping and waste. This is inclusive of the £100 awarded during the complaint procedure.
    3. Paid the resident £80 compensation for the impact its complaint handling had on the resident. This is inclusive of the £30 compensation offered by the landlord on 8 May 2025.

The compensation ordered by the Ombudsman should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against arrears where they exist.