Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202447334)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202447334

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

18 August 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 about a leak.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. On 11 December 2024, the resident reported a leak from the flat above into his property. He said it had been ongoing for weeks.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 31 December 2024 about the leak. He said that on reporting it, the landlord told him it was coming from the building roof and it had raised work urgently. The resident said the landlord had not completed repairs.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 14 January 2025. It said it was not able to attend the roofing issues within an emergency repair timeframe because it required scaffolding. The landlord confirmed it was large scale work and it was waiting for a start date for scaffolding. It said it would compete all internal redecoration and making good once it repaired the roof.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on the same day. He said the response was unsatisfactory. The resident also requested an action plan.
  6. The landlord provided its final response on 21 February 2025. The landlord confirmed the repair fell outside of its response repair timeframes. It said due to the scope of roof repairs there was usually a 60-day extension of time granted to complete the repair. The landlord said it had requested the works as a priority. It said it did not have an action plan yet and it would be updating the neighbourhood coordinator. It apologised for its delay responding at stage 2.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident told us that during rainfall water leaked from the flat above into his property. He said this had caused mould. The resident wanted the landlord to repair the roof, and remedy the damage caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told us that the leak had been ongoing for a few years. The Ombudsman will usually not investigate complaints which were not raised with the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period (which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising). This investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report about a leak on 11 December 2024 which was addressed in the landlord’s final complaint response on 21 February 2025.
  2. Some of the issues raised to us by the resident were not part of his complaint on 31 December 2024 or happened after the end of the complaints process. This includes damp and mould at the resident’s property and a leak happening after the repair. The scope of this investigation centres on the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. Any issues or requests after that time should be raised as new complaints with the landlord before the Ombudsman can potentially investigate these.
  3. In raising his complaint to the landlord and Ombudsman, the resident mentioned issues that his neighbour was experiencing with the leak, damp and mould. This report will not consider matters raised by the resident on behalf of another. This is because there was no evidence that the resident was acting with authority on behalf of his neighbour when raising his complaint. The landlord advised the resident in its stage 1 response that his neighbour could make a complaint if they wished to. This complaint response from the landlord is addressed to the resident as an individual and addressed his reports only.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a leak

  1. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord was responsible for keeping the roof in good repair and in proper working order. The resident reported water leaking into his property on 11 December 2024. We have not seen records of the resident’s calls with the landlord. However, the resident reported in his complaint to the landlord on 31 December 2024 that the landlord confirmed on 16 December 2024 that it had raised works on 9 December 2024 following previous reports from neighbours. We have not seen evidence of the works ordered, including when the work was raised with its contractors.
  2. The landlord’s complaint responses confirmed that it was not able to attend to the resident’s report as an emergency because scaffolding was required. It said the work fell outside of its usual responsive repairs timeframes, which its maintenance policy states is 15 working days. It said this was due to the large scale of the work needed, including obtaining quotes. This was a reasonable response and in line with its maintenance policy. The policy says variable timescale repairs are major works which typically required multiple trades, multiple visits, or a tender process. Given the landlord had confirmed scaffolding and quotations were required, it was reasonable for it to consider this a variable timescale repair.
  3. The landlord confirmed to us that it completed all repairs to the roof on 18 March 2025. This was an overall timeframe of 66 working days from the resident’s report. In its final response, the landlord told the resident that there was usually a 60-day extension granted to complete the repair. We have not seen anything in the policies provided to confirm this. While the repair was completed within this timescale, there was no evidence the landlord told the resident about its expected timescales for repair from the outset to better manage his expectations.
  4. The resident told the landlord the leak was affecting his home. The extent of the leak into the resident’s property is unclear. However, there is no evidence to demonstrate the landlord assessed the impact of the leak on the resident’s property or if it needed to take action to contain this. Operative notes provided by the landlord for a repair visit on 21 February 2024, to determine the impact of the leak, referred to the flat the leak was coming from and another flat. It did not reference the resident’s flat. There was also no evidence of the landlord considering if any temporary repairs would be suitable in the interim, or if it needed to take any action to mitigate the impact of the leak during the winter months.
  5. The landlord’s complaint responses confirmed that all internal redecoration and making good will be done once the roof has been repaired. This was a reasonable response in order to fully put things right for the resident. The resident has told us that the leak has continued and its causing damp and mould. The landlord has confirmed the repairs were completed in March 2025, and a damp and mould inspection at the property on 8 April 2025 stated no damp, mould or leak reported or identified at the time of survey. Therefore, it is not clear if this is a new leak, or a reoccurrence of the previous one indicating an issue with the repair. As such, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to address the resident’s further concerns.
  6. While it was frustrating for the resident that the landlord could not act immediately to resolve the issue, the landlord provided the resident with the reasons it was unable to resolve the issue immediately and explained the process it was taking in order to complete the repairs in line with its maintenance policy. However, there was no evidence of the landlord assessing the impact of the leak on the resident’s property at the time. It also had not considered if there were any actions it could take to reduce any impact on him while waiting to start the substantive repairs. As such, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a leak.

Complaint handing

  1. The resident escalated his complaint on the same day as receiving the stage 1 response. However, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not include information on how the resident could escalate the matter to stage 2 if he was not satisfied with the response. This was not in line with the Code which states landlord’s must confirm this in writing following completion of stage 1.
  2. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 14 January 2025. The landlord acknowledged this within 4 working days on 20 January 2025. This was within the timeframes in its complaint policy. This says it will acknowledge a request within 5 working days.
  3. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 21 February 2025. This was 24 working days after it acknowledged the escalation request. Its response did not meet the timescales in the landlord’s complaints policy. This says it will respond within 20 working days from acknowledgment.
  4. There was no evidence the landlord followed its complaints policy in keeping the resident informed and updated when the response took longer than 20 days. The resident took the time and trouble to follow up on 21 February 2025.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its stage 2 complaint response and offered an apology. It did not explain the reason for the delay. While the delay was short in duration, this caused the resident inconvenience, and the time and trouble of following up on his complaint. The landlord’s compensation policy says it can provide £10 per week for delays in responding to complaints outside of timescales. It says consideration will be given to the time and efforts by residents to follow up their complaints.
  6. Overall, the landlord did not provide a reason for the delay at stage 2 and failed to provide the required information in its stage 1 response. As such, its apology did not fully remedy its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
    1. pay the resident £75 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by failings found in its handling of the resident’s reports about a leak.
    2. pay the resident compensation of £25 for the failures in its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to contact the resident about his reports that he is still experiencing a leak into his property. It should consider if it needs to raise a new complaint about the resident’s further dissatisfaction with its handling of the issues following the end of the complaints process.
  2. The landlord to review the information it is providing in its stage 1 responses to ensure this is inline with the Code and includes information about escalating complaints.