Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202438376)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202438376

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

31 July 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 reports of:
   1. Several repairs including a bathroom leak and subsequent damage.
   2. Her grandson’s vulnerabilities and support needs.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, living in a 3-bedroom house. The resident lives in the property with her partner and grandson. Her grandson has vulnerabilities including autism.
3. The resident reported a major leak on 23 October 2023. The landlord attended to repair the leak and noted follow-on works were required including retiling, checking the electrical socket, and raising the bath feet. The landlord raised further work orders on 20 November 2023 to renew the kitchen flooring, and on 22 January 2024 to complete repairs to the kitchen and bathroom. It marked the works as completed on 26 February 2024. The resident reported a further leak on 16 May 2024.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 16 May 2024 regarding repair issues with the bathroom and landing, including a leak, wet and rotten flooring and skirting boards, and damaged walls. She was unable to decorate due to the repair issues. She reported poor workmanship and requested a suitably qualified contractor to attend the next day to repair the leak. She wanted compensation for the missed and wasted appointments, the poor response times, and the stress and worry caused.
5. In its stage 1 response on 6 June 2024, the landlord recognised multiple instances where its communication was lacking, appointments were rescheduled without notice, and important information was not relayed back to the landlord by the contractors. It offered £500 compensation for the delays and lack of communication.
6. The resident raised a further complaint on 28 October 2024 about ongoing repair issues with the bathroom and landing floor. She requested compensation for the time and constant failures.
7. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 15 November 2024.
   1. It said it previously issued a complaint response in June 2024 and paid £500 compensation so it would only look at the outstanding issues.
   2. It raised a repair on 16 May 2024 to repair a leak between the wall and the bath. A contractor attended and completed works to resolve the issue. The repair was recalled on 4 June 2024 as the leak was ongoing. It reattended on 6 June 2024 and replaced the shower hose but could not identify any leaks below the bath.
   3. It raised a work order on 25 June 2024 to renew the flooring and skirting in the hallway, which was damaged by the leak. The contractor noted that the bath and bathroom flooring required renewal, and a water leak needed repairing.
   4. It surveyed the bathroom on 1 October 2024 and decided to provide a full bathroom replacement. It attended to make safe the flooring on 21 October 2024 but was unable to complete the work. It rescheduled the appointment for 21 November 2024. It would complete the bathroom replacement in the new year.
   5. It offered £250 compensation for the problems and inconvenience over a prolonged period.
8. On 16 November 2024, the resident escalated the complaint. She said the redress offered was unacceptable due to the lack of understanding of her grandson’s needs, which she had repeatedly advised the landlord of. She said any disruptions can exacerbate her grandson’s condition. She also said the landlord had not acted in line with the Decent Homes Standard or Disabilities Discrimination Act as it failed to resolve the repairs in the first instance.
9. In its stage 2 response on 23 December 2024, the landlord recognised it failed to acknowledge the potential impact that the delays in repairs and multiple visits may have had on the resident’s grandson. It noted that the resident informed it of her grandson’s disabilities on multiple occasions, but it had not formally recorded the information. It said it had no correspondence records of the resident specifying any required adjustments, so it was unable to provide the most effective support. It offered £100 compensation to address the additional impact of the delays and multiple visits due to her grandson’s disabilities.
10. The resident referred the complaint to the Service as she did not think the redress was suitable for the impact on her grandson. She confirmed the landlord had since completed the bathroom repairs as part of a general upgrade, but works to the flooring remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. The resident told the Service that the bathroom repair issues have been ongoing for numerous years. However, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from 28 October 2023 onwards, 12 months prior to when she raised the complaint that completed the landlord’s internal complaint process. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords and subsequently refer to the Service in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
12. The resident reported the landlord’s handling of the repairs had a detrimental impact on her grandson’s health. She added that the landlord’s failure to remedy the repairs in the first instance breached the Disabilities Discrimination Act. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and impact on health because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. Further to this, the Service is not able to make any legally binding decision regarding whether the landlord breached the Equality Act 2010. The resident may wish to seek legal advice or make a personal injury claim if she wants to seek compensation for the impact on her grandson’s health.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of several repairs including a bathroom leak and subsequent damage

13. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for repairs to the fixtures and fittings it has provided and installations for sanitation, including basins, sinks, baths, and sanitary conveniences. The policy says it will complete emergency repairs, which are immediate health and safety risks which could damage the fabric of the building, within 24 hours, and routine repairs within 15 working days. It will complete some repairs as part of a planned programme of work. It considers severe roof leaks, flooding, and burst pipes as emergency repairs, and minor plumbing repairs and dripping or leaking taps or shower units as routine repairs.
14. The repair records show that the resident reported a major leak affecting the bathroom on 23 October 2023. The contractor attended, completed a temporary fix, and noted follow-on works were required. The leak was repaired on 2 November 2023. It is recognised that it is not always possible to immediately implement a full and lasting resolution to a leak as it can be complex to identify the cause and resolve it. In this case, the landlord acted appropriately by promptly attending to complete a temporary repair and reattending to resolve the issue in full in line with its routine repair timeframe.
15. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said the contractor suggested extensive further repairs, but did not inform the landlord. The landlord should ensure it has a suitable system to monitor repairs to completion. It should not be entirely reliant on the contractor informing it of any additional works. It was reasonable that the landlord identified this failure in its response.
16. The repair records show the recommended follow-on work included:
    1. Renewing the backing, refitting the tiles, and sealing the bath.
    2. Raising the bath feet and installing timber underneath to prevent penetrating the floor, as the floor was wet.
    3. A socket needed to be checked due to the amount of water.
17. The resident also reported that the bathroom tiles had severe mould and were loose. The landlord noted the resident refused tiling works and wanted the bathroom to be replaced. Social landlords have limited budgets so are entitled to attempt to complete a repair in the first instance. If it becomes apparent that a repair will not provide a full and lasting fix, the landlord should then consider whether a replacement would be more appropriate.
18. The landlord attended an appointment on 7 December 2023 to raise the feet on the bath to stop them from breaking through the floor. It also attended on 22 January 2024 to check the plug socket was safe after the leak. This was an unreasonable delay following the resolution of the leak on 2 November 2023, as it exceeded the 15 working day timeframe. This is of particular concern as the plug socket repair may have presented a health and safety issue, so should have been handled with greater urgency.
19. It is recognised that the repair records show 2 no access appointments on 29 November 2023 and 19 December 2023. The landlord would not necessarily be responsible for delays caused due to the resident not providing access to the property. However, there is no evidence that it notified the resident prior to the appointments, so she would not have been given the opportunity in advance to accommodate the appointments.
20. The resident reported the landlord completed a further inspection of the kitchen floor and bathroom on 29 January 2024. The resident stated the contractor said the adjoining wall and bath needed to be refitted. We have no evidence of the appointment so are unable to confirm the outcome. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
21. The landlord completed work on 26 February 2024 to replace the subfloor and vinyl in the kitchen, decorate the kitchen ceiling, repair the bathroom light, and complete extensive works to the shower and bath area. It therefore took the landlord 4 months to complete all the works following the leak to resolve the issues in full. This exceeded its response timeframe. While it is recognised that multiple appointments were required to resolve the leak and subsequent damage, some issues with the landlord’s handling of the repairs contributed to the delays.
22. The resident reported a recurrence of the leak on 16 May 2024. Due to the time that elapsed, it is unclear whether this was a continuation of the same issue or a new leak. The contractor attended on 24 May 2024 to cut the pipework and fit a new compression elbow, which left it working correctly. On 4 June 2024, the resident reported the leak was ongoing and the landlord attended on 6 June 2024 to replace the shower hose. There is no evidence of any further reports of a leak, so it appears this work provided a full and final resolution. It can be complex to identify and repair the cause of the leak, resulting in more than one appointment. While it is recognised numerous appointments caused additional distress to the resident’s grandson, there is no evidence to suggest its handling of the leak in this instance resulted in any unwarranted appointments.
23. The landlord raised a work order on 25 June 2024 to repair damage caused by the leak. This included to renew the floorboard and skirting board, which it completed on 4 July 2024. This was within its routine repair timeframe.
24. On 18 August 2024, the resident requested for a surveyor to inspect the bathroom and kitchen due to damage. The repair records show a surveyor attended on 28 August 2024. In its complaint response, the landlord said it surveyed the bathroom on 1 October 2024 and determined it would replace it in the new year. It is unclear why a second survey was required, particularly as there is no evidence of any progress on the repairs between the 2 surveys. This caused an unnecessary delay and additional inconvenience to the resident.
25. The landlord has not provided a copy of either inspection report. We therefore cannot assess the condition of the bathroom or how urgently the bathroom replacement should have been completed. In the absence of such evidence, we have assumed the work should have been completed as a routine repair.
26. The landlord said it would complete interim repairs to make safe the flooring prior to the bathroom replacement. It scheduled an appointment for 21 November 2024 but failed to attend. There is no evidence the landlord rearranged the appointment, despite the resident chasing the issue. This is of particular concern as the landlord committed to attend as part of the complaint resolution.
27. The resident told the Service that the landlord replaced the bathroom between 14 May 2025 and 30 May 2025. The landlord therefore did not replace the bathroom for 7 months after the survey identified such work was required. There is no evidence that the landlord explained the reason for the delay or provided any updates to the resident in the interim. This was unreasonable as the landlord made it seem that it would complete the works at the beginning of 2025. The landlord therefore failed to complete the replacement in good time or manage the resident’s expectations on the reasons for the delay.
28. The resident told the Service that the work to the flooring remains outstanding, and she has not received any further correspondence from the landlord to schedule an appointment. This is an entirely unreasonable delay, and the landlord has failed to take ownership of the repairs. An order has been made below for the landlord to complete the work.
29. In total, the landlord offered £750 compensation for its failings in handling the repairs. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
30. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance, awards of over £600 are appropriate when a failure has a significant impact on the resident. The landlord has therefore offered an appropriate level of compensation for the failings identified at the time of the final response on 23 December 2024. However, it did not complete the bathroom replacement for a further 5 months, and the flooring repairs remain outstanding. As such, the landlord must pay a further £400 compensation for the additional delay.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of her grandson’s vulnerabilities and support needs

31. It is evident from the repair records that the resident had informed the landlord numerous times over several years about her grandson’s vulnerabilities when reporting repairs. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not update its records to reflect this. In its final response, the landlord said it had now formally recorded the vulnerabilities in its system. While it is appropriate that the landlord has taken steps to rectify the issue, it had numerous opportunities to identify that its records were not up to date at an earlier time.
32. The landlord noted in its complaint response that the resident had not explained any specific adjustments that her grandson required during repair visits. While this is true, there is also no evidence that the landlord took any steps to establish such information. Still, it was appropriate that the landlord identified in its final response that autism can impact individuals differently so it would be unable to provide the most effective support without clear communication about any specific accommodations her grandson required. There is no evidence to confirm whether the landlord has subsequently discussed this with the resident to ensure it can provide the best level of support. A recommendation has been made below to address this if the landlord has not done so already.
33. It is evident from the resident’s reports that the repeated appointments had an increased impact on her grandson. The landlord should attempt to limit the number of appointments to reduce the impact. It can achieve this by accurately briefing the contractors on the works required and grouping multiple repairs into one appointment where possible. In this case, it does not seem it has made best use of the appointments, resulting in repeated visits.
34. In its stage 2 response. the landlord offered £100 compensation to address the impact of the delays and multiple visits on her grandson. While this compensation is appropriate to reflect the administrative error, it does not proportionately reflect the impact on the resident. However, the landlord’s responsibility for the failing is somewhat mitigated as it was unaware of the resident’s grandson’s specific needs and required accommodations. It should pay the resident an additional £100 to reflect the impact on her grandson.
35. The landlord should also review its process to ensure when a resident reports vulnerabilities, it updates its records and confirms what adjustments it can make.

Determination

36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of several repairs including a bathroom leak and subsequent damage.
37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of her grandson’s vulnerabilities and support needs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

38. In addition to the £850 compensation already offered, the landlord must pay the resident, within 4 weeks of this determination:
    1. £400 for the delays in completing the bathroom replacement and flooring repairs.
    2. £100 for the impact on her grandson due to the landlord’s failure to record his vulnerabilities.
39. The landlord should provide the Service with evidence of the total payment of £1,350. This must be provided within 4 weeks of this determination.
40. The landlord must complete the necessary repairs to the flooring. It should provide a copy of the repair records as evidence that it completed the repairs. It must use its best endeavours to ensure it starts the work within 4 weeks of the date of this determination. The landlord must provide documentary evidence that it has commenced the works.

Recommendations

41. The landlord should review its process to ensure when a resident reports vulnerabilities, it updates its records, identifies any support needs, and confirms what accommodations it can make.
42. If it has not done so already, the landlord should arrange a call or meeting with the resident to discuss how it can accommodate her grandson’s needs in the future. It should ensure it records this information and adheres to it where relevant.