Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202427151)

Decision
Case ID	202427151
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Paragon Asra Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	23 December 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom maisonette with her 3 children. She raised concerns about mice in her property in 2024. Correspondence indicated that the mice could have been entering the property through communal pipework.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation, and associated repairs.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation, and associated repairs.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s reports of a pest infestation, and associated repairs

We found that the landlord failed to communicate appropriately with the resident throughout the duration of the issue, which caused her time and effort. The landlord did not address its communication failures in its complaint responses and missed an opportunity to adequately put things right. The landlord has also failed to evidence that it has resolved the substantive issue.

Complaint handling

We found that the landlord missed an opportunity to escalate the resident’s complaint at an earlier date and delayed unreasonably in providing its stage 2 acknowledgement and response. The landlord did not adequately put this right for the resident.

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 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £550 made up as follows: £500 to recognise any distress, inconvenience, and time and effort caused to her by the failures in its handling of her reports of a pest infestation, and associated repairs. £50 to recognise any distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failures in 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 20 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 someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. 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 whole of the property and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards The most likely cause of the pest infestation 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 20 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
7 June 2024	The resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said she had reported mice in her property on 26 February 2024 and the landlord raised a job to fill entry holes. She said the operative who attended did not complete the work and the issue had been ongoing for nearly 3 months. She said she had contacted the landlord 3 times to raise a recall repair, but nobody had got back to her. She asked to be compensated for the delay.
26 June 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It upheld the complaint and said: an operative attended to carry out pest proofing on 24 April 2024, which was a joint visit with a pest control specialist who oversaw the work it had reviewed the job completion photos and agreed that the entry holes were not filled properly it had forwarded the issue on to the repairs manager to investigate further with its contractors it had booked a follow-up inspection with the resident it was sorry for the delays in the work being completed, and for the inconvenience and frustration caused it offered the resident £200 compensation in recognition of these failures.
4 August 2024	The resident submitted a new complaint form to the landlord. She said the pest remedial works were still incomplete and she was still awaiting the compensation the landlord had offered at stage 1. She said she had phoned the landlord twice in July 2024 to chase the issue but had not received an update.
24 September 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the remedial works had still not been completed and she felt the landlord was offering a poor service by not responding to her. She requested more compensation in recognition of the further delays.
19 November 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It upheld the complaint and said: its records showed that the works were completed on 11 October 2024 it had decided the best course of action was to complete a further inspection and it had provisionally scheduled this for 22 November 2024 pest issues were the resident’s responsibility to resolve, but it understood that works were agreed by its repairs team it apologised for the delays in resolving the issue it was sorry for the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint it was looking at a more structured approach to monitoring complaints to prevent future delays and had passed relevant learning on to its repairs team it had offered a total of £350 compensation, made up of the £200 offered at stage 1 and a further £150 for the additional failures identified at stage 2.
23 November 2024	The resident responded to the landlord’s stage 2 decision and said that she was unhappy with the apology and the level of compensation offered. She said the root cause of the pest infestation was in neighbouring flats, and the landlord needed to resolve the wider issue.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said that the repairs were still outstanding. She wanted the landlord to complete the repairs and review the compensation it had offered.

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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation, and associated repairs
Finding	Maladministration

It took the landlord almost 2 months to attend the resident’s property following her initial report of a pest issue. However, the landlord’s records show that the resident requested a joint visit with a pest control contractor after the work was raised, so the job was rescheduled. The landlord also categorised the job under a variable priority, which its repairs policy sets out is not bound by the same 15-working day timescale as routine repairs. The landlord therefore acted reasonably in the circumstances.
In her original complaint, the resident referred to 3 calls she had made to the landlord to request a recall repair visit. The landlord has not provided evidence such as call records to demonstrate that it progressed the resident’s concerns. This caused time and effort to the resident and was unreasonable.
The landlord did not acknowledge or explain its communication failures in its stage 1 response. Contact from the resident following the stage 1 response suggests that the landlord did not take learning forward with regards to its communication, as the resident highlighted further occasions on which she had called the landlord and received no update. This was unreasonable and caused further time and effort to the resident. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it was taking her concerns seriously.
The landlord attended to inspect the property on 1 July 2024 but was unable to gain access. It rearranged with the resident for 15 July 2024, which was within a reasonable timescale. It identified several remedial works from the inspection, including to fill several entry holes and seal areas of the kitchen.
According to its records, the landlord did not complete the identified works until 11 October 2024. This was 3 months after the inspection took place. The completion notes show that the work was categorised as routine and therefore should have been completed within 15 working days as per the landlord’s repairs policy. This was an unreasonable delay, the reasons for which were not explained to the resident. This caused unnecessary distress and time and effort to the resident, who said in her escalation request that she had contacted the landlord to chase an update on several occasions following the inspection.
The landlord again failed to acknowledge or address the communication failures raised by the resident in its stage 2 response. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain the reasons for it failing to keep the resident informed throughout the process. However, it did highlight learning it had taken from the complaint in relation to attending appointments when agreed.
It was reasonable for the landlord to raise a further inspection in recognition of the resident’s ongoing concerns. It completed the inspection on 22 November 2024 and found that all remedial work had been completed to a satisfactory standard. However, the landlord’s records show that she requested a further recall repair visit from the landlord on 13 February 2025. The resident has since told us that the work is still incomplete. As it is unclear exactly what remains outstanding, we have ordered the landlord to attend the property and complete a further inspection.
There is no evidence that the landlord took action to investigate the root cause of the pest infestation at any point throughout the duration of the issue. The landlord’s pest control policy says that it is responsible for pests in maisonettes where there is evidence that the pests have accessed the building via a communal area. As the resident reported concerns over the pests originating from neighbouring flats, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate this.
Given the further delays and additional failures identified in this report, the £350 offered by the landlord at stage 2 cannot be considered reasonable redress. Our remedies guidance suggests awards of between £100 and £600 for failures that adversely affected the resident with no permanent impact. The landlord’s awarded figure is within this range but does not adequately recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the identified failures.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a total of £500 in recognition of these failures. This amount is inclusive of the £350 already offered and adequately reflects the distress, inconvenience, and time and effort caused to the resident by the identified failures.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord provided its stage 1 acknowledgement within 5 working days of receiving the resident’s initial complaint. This was appropriate and in line with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), 2024 edition.
The landlord’s complaints policy and the Code set out a 10-working day timeframe to respond to complaints at stage 1. The landlord provided its stage 1 response 11 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. This was a minor delay of 1 working day that likely had minimal impact on the resident. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident about any potential delays to manage her expectations.
The landlord missed an opportunity to escalate the resident’s complaint at an earlier date. There is no evidence that it responded to her website form submission on 4 August 2024, in which she expressed dissatisfaction with its stage 1 response. She attempted to escalate the complaint again on 24 September 2024, and the landlord did not provide a stage 2 acknowledgement until 18 October 2024. This was 18 working days later, which was outside of the timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code. This was inappropriate.
The landlord then provided its stage 2 response 2 working days outside of the 20-working day timeframe set out in its complaints policy and the Code. Again, this was only a minor delay, given the delays that had already occurred in its complaint handling, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to write to the resident prior to issuing its response to manage her expectations.
The landlord tried to put things right at stage 2 by acknowledging and apologising for the failures in its complaint handling. It also highlighted learning and set out practical action it was taking as a result. This was reasonable, but the as the landlord failed to address the minor delays in its complaint handling, we have made an overall finding of service failure.

Learning

The landlord’s complaint responses were thorough and clearly set out learning it had taken from the complaint. The landlord set out practical action points relating to both its repairs process and its complaint handling. This was positive and showed a commitment to preventing similar failures from recurring.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping was generally positive. However, the landlord did not provide up to date contact records to evidence any action it had taken in response to the resident chasing updates on the issue. While this did not largely impact our ability to assess its actions, doing so would have been appropriate.

Communication

The landlord’s communication throughout the issue was poor and the landlord missed opportunities to manage the resident’s expectations and provide updates on several occasions. Doing so may have avoided additional time, trouble and frustration caused to the resident.