Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202509212)

Background

1. The resident lives with her partner. She has several long‑term health conditions. She uses a wheelchair, and experiences ongoing pain and fatigue. Her partner is also unwell. She reported a leak from her heating system in January 2025 and was unhappy with how the landlord handled her reports.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a leak from the heating system.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the heating system.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the heating system

4. The landlord delayed repairing the leak and failed to communicate effectively, following the stage 2 response.

Landlord’s handling of the complaint

5. The landlord recognised its failure to manage the complaint in line with its policy and out Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It offered suitable redress in line with its policy and out remedies guidance.
    

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident told us the leak negatively impacted her and her partners health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for an injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for the distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

7. The landlord’s maintenance policy says it is responsible for hot and cold-water pipework, drainage and heating systems. It will attend an emergency repair within 24–hours when the issue immediately affects a resident’s health, safety or security. The resident reported a leak from the heating system on 2 January 2025. She said the leak was close to the property’s electric box. Therefore, it was appropriate the landlord attended within the 24‑hour timescale.
8. The landlord cleared blockages in the heating pump pipework. The kitchen sink and washing machine were also affected as they shared the same drainage pipework. Therefore, the landlord raised another job for a plumber to investigate. In the meantime, the resident contacted the landlord again on 6 January 2025 to report that the heating system was still leaking. She said this caused her difficulties because she used a wheelchair and it affected her ability to move around the property.
9. The landlord’s maintenance policy says it will complete non‑emergency repairs within 15–working days. The policy also says its maintenance service is flexible for vulnerable residents, including those with a disability. It says it will adjust repair priorities and the level of service when needed, taking account of the resident’s needs and the seriousness of the situation. This allows the landlord to vary its usual repair timescales where appropriate.
10. Therefore, it was appropriate the landlord considered her disability and showed flexibility within its 15–working day timescale. It attended on 15 January 2025, which was within 7–working days. It cleared the kitchen sink blockage but said it needed a heating engineer. This was because the leak was still coming from the heat pump on the heating system.
11. There is no evidence the landlord raised the follow-on work for a heating engineer, this was not appropriate. The resident had to contact the landlord again on 5 and 18 February 2025 as she was still experiencing a leak from the heating system. She said it was still impacting her use of the property, given her disabilities, and she was frustrated at the lack of communication. While it was positive the landlord attended the same day, she had already been waiting 24–working days since 15 January 2025 for the follow-on work. This was unreasonable and not in line with its repairs policy.
12. When the landlord attended on 18 February 2025, it confirmed it needed a CCTV survey to investigate the blockage on the heating system which was causing the leak. The resident was frustrated when the landlord arranged further repair visits but did not resolve the leak. She said these repeat visits were causing disruption to her work and ability to rest.
13. A CCTV survey on 8 April 2025 confirmed dirt was blocking the drainage pipework. The landlord cleaned the accessible pipes. However, the survey recommended the landlord needed to access the connected pipework on the heating system. These pipes were behind the kitchen units. The landlord needed to clean the heating pipework to resolve the leak.
14. When the resident received no further communication, she made a complaint on 22 April 2025. She asked for an update again in May 2025. She said was still experiencing a leak and had to use a new towel every day to soak up the water. Although the landlord’s service standards commit to timely communication, the landlord did not update the resident. She had been reporting the leak since the 2 January 2025. It was impacting her use of the property, given her disability and there was no clear plan by the landlord to resolve the root cause of the leak. This was unreasonable.
15. On 10 June 2025, the resident said how distressing and upsetting she was finding the situation. She explained that while the water was not pouring out of the heating system, it was leaking every 24 to 48–hours. She needed to clean up water daily. The landlord attended on 19 June 2025 and said it needed a heating engineer because the blocked pipes were behind the heating system. It should already have known this. A survey on 8 April 2024, along with earlier repair notes, confirmed the heating system pipework was causing the leak. Had the landlord reviewed this information, it could have arranged the correct trade sooner. Its lack of oversight was unreasonable
16. A heating engineer cleared the heating system pipework on 11 July 2025. However, it discovered the pipework was tilting the wrong way and would continue to cause possible leaks. The landlord needed to remove the kitchen units so it could reroute the pipework to stop the leak. The leak had been ongoing since January 2025, and the resident confirmed the leak continued to occur following the appointment in July 2025. She continued to have to clean up the water daily causing further distress and inconvenience. This was an unreasonable amount of time, especially as the landlord knew about the resident’s disabilities and how it was impacting her.
17. Under the Equality Act 2010, landlords have a duty to consider the needs of disabled residents and take proportionate steps to avoid them being disadvantaged. The landlord should have considered if it needed to make any reasonable adjustments for the resident. It missed the opportunity to demonstrate that it had considered this duty. It could have considered prioritising the work to remove the kitchen units and repair the pipework to reduce the disruption for the resident. This failure contributed to the resident’s ongoing distress and undermined her confidence in the landlord’s ability to resolve the leak effectively.  
18. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to stage 2. She also contacted the landlord on 19 August 2025 to express her disappointment that the pipework was not rerouted during the appointment on 18 August 2025. The landlord had not removed the kitchen units to access the pipework, which meant the root cause of the leak remained unresolved. The resident said this was frustrating and inconvenient, as she and her partner had already moved their belongings to enable the work. She explained that this disrupted her working environment and caused physical strain. She also requested an increase in compensation as the ongoing situation continued to affect her.
19. The landlord booked another appointment for 20 August 2025. The resident moved items away again. However, the contractor completed no work as the right detail was not on the job ticket. The resident told the landlord this caused more disruption to her work, her health and caused inconvenience and distress. She chased the landlord to try and understand what was happening.
20. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the lack of organisation and the delay in coordinating the repairs. It apologised for this in its stage 2 response. It also apologised for the lack of communication. To put it right the landlord scheduled the work to remove the kitchen units and reroute the pipework for 16 October 2025. It said this would involve all trades required to complete this work. This gave the resident reassurance that it took her concerns seriously and was committed to complete the full repair.
21. The landlord’s compensation policy does not cover personal injury claims. Therefore, it was appropriate that it told the resident how to make an insurance claim. It was also positive it acknowledged and apologised for the distress and inconvenience it had caused. It did this by replacing the compensation offered at stage 1 to reflect the increased impact the delay had on her use of the property given her disabilities. It increased the total to £475 from £200 it offered at stage 1. This was proportionate and reflected the high‑impact set out in its compensation policy. It was reasonable that the landlord looked outside its policy to offer £50 reimbursement for towels and £80 increased energy costs the resident requested. The £475 compensation together with the £130 reimbursement made a total of £605. This was a reasonable offer of redress in line with its policy.
22. However, the resident contacted the landlord on 23 October 2025 to confirm the work completed to reroute the pipework on 16 October 2025 had not resolved the leak. She continued to chase the landlord about this 8 times from October to December 2025. She said contractors attended but did not complete any work. This caused her further distress and inconvenience. The landlord replied 3 times but was not clear on what was causing any further delays or future timeframes. This contributed to the frustration she experienced. Its approach was unreasonable.
23. On 18 December 2025, the landlord resolved the leak by adjusting the discharge tray and amending the pipework. This was 2–months after the landlord issued its stage 2 response and nearly 12–months since she first reported the leak. This highlights a continued failure to act promptly despite the delays and inconvenience the resident had already experienced. The resident had to request management help to get the issue resolved. The landlord has not provided any reasonable explanation as to why there was an additional delay. It was unfair of the landlord not to provide updates or timeframes for when it would complete the work. Especially given the matter was delayed and it recognised earlier failings in its approach.
24. The landlord failed to learn from its previous mishandling of the issue and in doing so further weakened the landlord and resident relationship. Because of this, we have found maladministration and decided that additional compensation is appropriate. Taking the £605 already offered, the landlord should pay an additional £200. This amount reflects the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced following the stage 2 response when she waited for the landlord to resolve the leak. This aligns with the landlord’s compensation policy which awards compensation for high impact. It is also in line with our remedies guidance, where a failure has had a significant impact on the resident. 

25. The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the April 2024 edition.
26. The landlord has a published complaints policy that complies with the Code in respect of timescales and complaint definition.
27. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 22 April 2025 within 11–working days. This was outside its policy timescale of 5–working days. When the resident did not receive a response, she asked us for help. We contacted the landlord on 5 August 2025 and asked it to provide a response by 13 August 2025. The landlord responded on 11 August 2025, which was 66–working days after its acknowledgement and significantly outside its policy timescale of 10–working days. The delay caused inconvenience for the resident because she chased the landlord and approached us for assistance.
28. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 14 August 2025, and the landlord acknowledged this within 2–working days in line with its policy. When extending its stage 2 response, the landlord didn’t notify her within the required 20 working day period. Instead, it issued the extension on the 33rd working day, after the deadline had passed. This did not meet the Code and caused avoidable inconvenience. The landlord then issued its response within 5–working days of the extension, which was within the 20-working day target.
29. There were delays in the landlord acknowledging the initial complaint and providing responses at both stages of its complaints process. However, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for these delays. It also offered a total of £180 in compensation for its complaint handling failures. This is in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance. Therefore, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

30. The landlord said it would implement learning for its complaint handling in its stage 1 response. It is positive the landlord acknowledged this. This should include ensuring it acknowledges delays when they occur. It was positive it offered appropriate redress in line with its policy our remedies guidance when it had failed.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. The landlord’s record keeping was thorough and enabled it to provide clear responses to the resident complaint.

Communication

32. The landlord could improve its communication with residents by providing timely updates on the progress of repairs and inspections. The resident experienced prolonged periods without updates, which likely contributed to distress and escalation of the complaint.