Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202446531)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat with a balcony. She has previously reported that repairs are needed to the balcony door.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. Repairs to the balcony door.
   2. Rodents.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the balcony door.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rodents.
   3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord did not carry out repairs to the balcony door in line with its policy. While it highlighted that it had not completed repairs in an appropriate time, the compensation offered in its stage 2 response was not enough to remedy the resident’s concerns.
6. The landlord acted in line with its policy when the resident reported that rodents were entering the property.
7. The complaint was not handled in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. There were delays at both stages of the complaints process. The landlord identified some but not all of these and provided some compensation in line with its policy.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

8. The resident’s tenancy agreement and the landlord’s maintenance policy say that repairs to the external doors are the responsibility of the landlord. The landlord’s maintenance policy says that a repair to an external door should be completed within 15 working days.
9. The resident first reported concerns about the balcony doors on 27 December 2023. The landlord attended on 9 January 2024. This was within the 15 working days allowed under its policy. It identified that a new door was needed and measured up for this.
10. The landlord attended again on 17 May 2024 and 22 July 2024. It is not clear what work, if any, it completed during these visits, but it did not replace the door until 22 June 2025. This was 18 months after the resident first reported issues.
11. It is not clear why the landlord took so long to repair the door, as it identified that a new door was needed and took measurements for this on 9 January 2024. A further entry from the repair records on 26 November 2024 states that the door has been ordered and should be fitted as soon as possible. On 12 February 2025 the landlord’s contractor reported that the door that had been ordered was the wrong size and would need to be reordered. This is a failing.
12. The repairs to the door took much longer than the 15 days given in the landlord’s maintenance policy. These delays were in part caused by the landlord’s failure to order the correct size door, though this does not seem to be the only reason for the delay to the repair. There is no evidence that the landlord adequately updated the resident about the ongoing repairs. This is also a failing.
13. The resident contacted the landlord throughout the period she was waiting for repairs and advised it that the situation with the door was getting worse. The landlord did not properly respond to the resident’s reports and this is likely to have caused her to think it did not take her concerns seriously. This is likely to have damaged their relationship.
14. The landlord provided a total of £425 compensation during its complaints process for the delays in repairing the door. The landlord’s compensation policy says there are low, medium and high impact failings but explains that compensation should be based on the specific circumstances of the complaint.  As it does not have set compensation bandings, the compensation offered will be assessed against our own compensation guidance. A payment of £450 is in line with a maladministration finding in our guidance.  It is appropriate when there has been a failing which adversely affected the resident and which the landlord has not appropriately remedied.
15. Had the landlord repaired the door within a reasonable time of the stage 2 response being issued this would have been an appropriate remedy. But it did not complete the repair for another 3 months. The landlord’s offer of compensation is not enough considering the additional distress and convenience this caused the resident. The landlord must make a payment of £525 to reflect this, this is inclusive of the payments it has already made.

20. The landlord’s pest control policy says that the landlord is responsible for pest control issues when there is evidence that the pest has gained access to the property because of a building defect. It says the landlord will arrange up to 4 visits to resolve an issue with rats or mice. It does not set a time frame for attendance.
21. The resident reported her concerns about pests to the landlord on 24 May 2024 and again on 27 February 2025. The landlord’s pest control contractor attended within a reasonable timeframe on both occasions. There was no evidence of a significant rat or mice issue in the property on either of these occasions and no further work was needed. A possible entrance hole was blocked and bait was put down on one occasion.
22. This shows that the landlord took the resident’s reports of rodents seriously and acted quickly and in line with its policy. The issues identified were resolved and there was no further action needed.

23. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages of the complaints process. It says it will provide a response within 10 working days of acknowledgment at stage 1 and within 20 working days of acknowledgment at stage 2.
24. The resident raised her complaint on 31 July 2024 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day. This was in line with its policy. It provided a stage 1 response on 22 October 2024. This was after 59 working days and so was outside its policy timescale. This is a failing.
25. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 2 December 2024. The landlord provided an acknowledgment of this request on 10 January 2025. This was outside of its policy timescale. This is also a failing.
26. On 14 January 2025 it told the resident it would provide a response by 17 February 2025. It provided its stage 2 response on 5 March 2025. This was outside the time allowed in its policy and was after the date it told the resident she would have her response by. This is a further failing.
27. The landlord identified that its complaint responses were late and offered £25 compensation for the delayed stage 1 response and £50 compensation for the delayed stage 2 response. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our compensation guidance.
28. The landlord identified that it did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request within the 5 days given in its policy and apologised for this when it acknowledged the complaint. It did not comment on this in its stage 2 response or provide compensation to the resident for this. The delay of over a month between the resident asking to escalate her complaint and receiving an acknowledgement for this is likely to have caused her to think her complaint was not being taken seriously by the landlord. This would have been made worse when the landlord did not provide a response by the date it gave the resident.
29. Our compensation guidance says that when the landlord has acknowledged some failings and has attempted to remedy them we may award additional compensation. As the landlord did not identify all the failures at stage 2 of its complaints process, it should make a payment of £125 to the resident. This includes the amounts already offered by the landlord for its failures in complaint handling.

Learning

30. The landlord did not handle the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy and it should ensure that it does so in future. It should also ensure that it identifies all failures in its complaint responses.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. The landlord did not provide comprehensive records of the visits made by its contractor or the works that were carried out as a result. This has meant that the reasons for the delays to the repair are unclear. The landlord should take steps to ensure it keeps more accurate records and provides them to us when requested.

Communication

32. The landlord did not properly update the resident on the reasons that the repair was taking so long. It should ensure that residents are properly updated when there are delays in completing repairs.