Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202522884)

Background

1. The resident reported various repairs prior to moving into her first floor flat in 2022. She repeatedly explained the impact these had on her family’s vulnerabilities as her daughter has severe learning disabilities and autism.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. Rotten windows.
   2. Roof leaks.
   3. Damp and mould.
   4. Repairs to the bathroom and kitchen.
   5. Repairs to the front porch.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. Rotten windows.
   2. Damp and mould.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. Roof leaks.
   2. Repairs to the bathroom and kitchen.
   3. Repairs to the front porch.
6. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

7. The landlord failed to address window defects over a prolonged period despite repeated reports, inspections, and acknowledgements that the windows were beyond repair and contributing to damp and mould. It relied on future planned works without providing clear timescales or effective communication. It did not adequately consider known household vulnerabilities or safety risks. The landlord’s £300 compensation offer was insufficient given the circumstances of the case.
8. The landlord repeatedly failed to respond to roof leaks within required emergency and routine timescales. Though it carried out some repairs, it failed to post inspect despite repeated issues. It provided inaccurate information and there was poor record-keeping, lack of oversight, and prolonged inaction.
9. The landlord repeatedly failed to address damp and mould problems and relied on mould washes rather than tackling root causes in line with its policy. It missed multiple opportunities to raise or progress required repairs. It failed to act after identifying Category 2 hazards, and did not consider its obligations under Awaab’s Law when it became aware of a potential material change.
10. The landlord failed to act on repeated reports of unsafe kitchen units and delayed works for 7 months without interim safety measures. It did not address the resident’s concern that her family could not use bathing facilities while bathroom repairs were ongoing.
11. The landlord failed to treat a potentially dangerous rotten porch as an emergency. It did not raise or progress repairs after confirming the defect and omitted the issue from complaint responses.
12. Though the landlord failed to initially log and respond to the resident’s complaint, its stage 2 response recognised its complaint handling failings, and its offer of compensation was in line with our compensation 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.

13. Throughout her complaint, the resident referred to how her living conditions impacted her family’s health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for her to make a personal injury claim for any 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 distress and inconvenience and whether it adequately considered the household vulnerabilities.
14. The landlord’s maintenance policy says it will assess windows every 5 years and replace them if they are beyond repair. It will prioritise double glazing window replacements and thermal improvements to reduce energy costs for the resident. It will advise residents of the timescale for planned works and what will happen next.
15. Before moving into the property in 2022, the resident raised concerns about the thermal inefficiency of the single‑glazed windows and plants growing through the frames. The landlord said it would replace them in the 2023/2024 works programme, which was reasonable at the time. However, it did not then carry out the replacement or explain why plans had changed. This failure to communicate was unreasonable and contrary to its maintenance policy obligations.
16. In 2023, the resident made 6 repair reports about the windows, raising safety concerns for her children and significant heat loss. These reports mentioned continued deterioration. The landlord’s failure to progress the planned replacement, despite its own policy requiring this where windows are beyond repair, was unreasonable. The resident also said she required a safety bar for her vulnerable child but could not fit this due to the condition of the windows. She said she was concerned the windows were so rotten that the glass would fall out if her children touched it and they could fall (from her first floor property). The landlord did not demonstrate consideration of the household’s vulnerabilities or whether there was a need for interim make safe repairs.
17. In 2025, the landlord raised two mould wash orders to the windows. While mould washes can be appropriate as an interim measure, relying on them without addressing the root cause was inappropriate and contrary to its damp and mould policy which says it will proactively tackle the causes of damp and mould.
18. A June 2025 inspection confirmed that the windows were beyond repair and required replacement. Although the landlord said it would contact the resident, it took no action to arrange the works. In August 2025, it told her it would replace them in its 2025/2026 programme. This was an unreasonable delay. Planned programmes do not remove the landlord’s duty to address disrepair contributing to hazards.
19. A further inspection in September 2025 identified a Category 2 HHSRS hazard. The landlord again acknowledged the need for replacement but still did not arrange the work. Given the presence of hazards and the resident’s concerns about safety and thermal inefficiency, its failure to act was particularly concerning.
20. In November 2025, a major works inspection described the windows as “decent” but recommended replacement in 2026/2027. This contradicted its earlier findings and likely caused uncertainty to the resident and undermined her confidence in the landlord’s assessments. The landlord did not provide clear next steps or realistic timeframes, and a potential further 16–month wait was not reasonable in the circumstances. More recently, it has noted that it was in the process of submitting a planning application.
21. In its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, the landlord confirmed the windows required replacement but failed to provide any timeline, contrary to its maintenance policy. The resident had explained in December 2025 she had been sleeping under her daughter’s window for 2 years to ensure her safety as she was concerned she could easily fall out the windows, and the property was extremely cold.
22. The landlord offered £300 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused based on household vulnerabilities. It did not state which specific failing this was for but we have considered the payment related to the windows given this was the repair that the resident felt most affected the household vulnerabilities. This level of compensation did not sufficiently reflect the prolonged delays or the serious impact on the vulnerable household.
23. Over 3 years, the landlord repeatedly acknowledged that the windows required replacement and were beyond repair but took no steps to replace them, or conduct interim repairs. Its repeated assurances were followed by inaction which caused prolonged distress and inconvenience as well as significant detriment to the landlord-tenant relationship. The landlord’s failure to resolve a potential safety issue for a vulnerable household amounts to severe maladministration. Given the extent of these serious repeated failings across an extended period of time, the landlord’s compensation offer was insufficient.
24. We have ordered the landlord to pay £1,000 in line with our compensation guidance for serious failings that had a severe long-term impact. The landlord must also provide the resident with a clear replacement timetable, including a communication plan and milestone deadlines. It should consider if any interim repairs can be done to ensure the safety of the household in the meantime.

25. The landlord’s maintenance policy requires it to resolve severe roof leaks within 24 hours and non‑emergency roof leaks within 15 working days.
26. The resident reported uncontainable roof leaks in July 2024. She referred to safety concerns including a bowed ceiling and an unusable child’s bedroom. A roofer did not attend to inspect for 4 days which was outside of its 24–hour obligation for severe leaks. This was a failure to follow policy at a point where it was aware of foreseeable risks.
27. The landlord erected scaffolding in August 2024. This was outside the 15–day timeframe for non‑emergency roof repairs. The works were not effective as the resident reported further leaks into the bedroom in September 2024. This indicates that any repairs done were inadequate albeit this was not specifically reported again until a year later.
28. A September 2025 inspection confirmed there were leaks in the same locations as the previous year and that further scaffolding and repairs were necessary. The resident continued to report the leaks in October 2025. Internally, the landlord said it had raised a roof repair in October 2025, but we have seen no evidence it had done so. This indicates poor record‑keeping and a failure by the landlord to oversee repairs.
29. The landlord inspected again in November 2025 and identified roof and chimney leaks affecting a child’s bedroom and the lounge. The landlord then raised a ladder inspection. However, in January 2026, the contractor reported that it required a scaffold. This shows that no roofing work had been progressed for the previous 2 months despite active leaks and known vulnerabilities in the household.
30. In its November 2025 stage 1 response, the landlord incorrectly stated that it had raised a repair, when it had actually ordered an inspection. This again demonstrated a lack of oversight. At stage 2, in December 2025, the landlord acknowledged prolonged issues and poor communication but maintained that it was taking the appropriate “technical approach”. This was unreasonable given that there was no meaningful progress to diagnose and stop leaks during the complaints process and the resident had to chase it for updates.
31. While the landlord apparently took some initial steps to inspect and erect scaffolding in 2024, its repeated failure to resolve the leaks from August 2025 onward was unreasonable. The need for scaffolding does not excuse its prolonged inaction. Given the delays, repeated leak reports, poor record‑keeping, and inadequate communications, we find that there was maladministration by the landlord. We have ordered the landlord to pay £500 to the resident, in line with its compensation policy for high‑impact failures and our compensation guidance for failings that had an adverse impact. The landlord must also complete a new inspection and provide the resident with the resulting report and schedule of works.

32. The landlord’s 2022 damp and mould policy requires it to proactively tackle the causes of damp. Where it identifies complex works, it will provide weekly updates. The 2025 policy update further requires the landlord to give the resident a start date and estimated completion date within 5 working days of a surveyor visit.
33. The resident reported damp and mould from 2022 and repeatedly said that the leaking windows and roof contributed to this throughout 2023. The landlord carried out mould washes in October 2023, January 2025 and April 2025 but did not address the underlying cause. This was contrary to its damp and mould policy. This reactive approach was unreasonable.
34. At the June 2025 inspection, the resident reported that the main bedroom lacked adequate plaster and insulation, causing cold walls and damp. The landlord told her this was her responsibility to redecorate. This was unreasonable. The landlord must maintain plaster in a reasonable condition under its maintenance policy and is responsible for tackling the causes of damp and mould as per its damp and mould policy.
35. In her August 2025 complaint, the resident reported worsening damp and mould. The landlord did not carry out a damp and mould survey for a month. This was unreasonable and will have left the resident uncertain about whether the landlord intended to resolve the reported problem.
36. The landlord’s subsequent damp and mould survey carried out in September 2025 noted damp and mould at the property as a Category 2 hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The surveyor also identified that it needed to complete works to the roof, windows and ventilation to address the issue. However, despite formally identifying a health and safety hazard, the landlord did not raise any repair orders, nor did it put in place any interim measures, such as further mould washes, pending more substantive works. The landlord failed to address an identified hazard and exposed the resident and her family to ongoing risk.
37. In October 2025, the landlord carried out a major works inspection and recorded damp and mould as “n/a”. This was unreasonable and a missed opportunity to adequately monitor the damp and mould. At the time of the inspection, it had not completed any of the works identified in the September 2025 survey. The resident has confirmed that damp and mould remained present in the property. Recording the issue as “n/a” did not reflect the known condition of the home and represented a further missed opportunity. Neither the September nor October inspections resulted in it raising repair orders which was a significant failing.
38. A further damp and mould inspection took place in November 2025. This again identified damp and mould and confirmed that the previously recommended roof and window works remained outstanding. While the landlord’s decision to continue monitoring the condition of the property was appropriate in principle, this did not lead to effective follow up action. It failed to provide the resident with confirmed start and end dates for the works within 5 working days of the surveyor’s visit, as required by its own policy.
39. The landlord’s November 2025 stage 1 complaint response said it would “seek an update”. It did not use the complaints process to set out a clear plan of action or indicative timescales for resolution. It was unreasonable for the landlord to repeatedly inspect and identify damp and mould without progressing repairs or implementing mitigating measures to reduce potential harm.
40. Throughout this period, the resident regularly chased the landlord for updates and timescales. This caused avoidable distress and inconvenience. The prolonged lack of action, coupled with poor communication, contributed to a significant breakdown in the landlord-tenant relationship, particularly as the resident felt the landlord was not taking sufficient regard of the safety and health of her family.
41. From 27 October 2025, Awaab’s Law introduced statutory duties for landlords to assess emergency or significant hazards promptly and take actions within specific timeframes. Where a hazard was already known but a material change occurs, the landlord must investigate within 24 hours of when it has grounds to believe there could be an emergency hazard. If there is a significant (but non-emergency) hazard, it must investigate within 10 working days, provide a written summary of its investigation within 3 working days of that investigation concluding, and start make safe works within 5 working days of the investigation concluding.
42. On 2 December 2025, the resident escalated her complaint, stating her daughter had gone to hospital with breathing difficulties that she believed were due to damp and mould. As the landlord already knew a hazard existed from its September 2025 inspection, it would have been reasonable to treat this as a material change requiring action under Awaab’s Law. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it assessed, triaged, or inspected following this report. This was a significant and concerning failure.
43. In the December 2025 stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged prolonged damp and mould issues but stated that it was taking a “technical approach”. This was unreasonable as it had already identified the necessary works but had taken no meaningful action to complete them.
44. In January 2026, we notified the landlord of a potential material change and that Awaab’s Law might apply. The landlord has not evidenced that it took any further action, demonstrating a continued failure to meet its obligations under both its own damp and mould policies and Awaab’s Law statutory requirements to consider potential hazards.
45. The landlord repeatedly failed to act on known damp and mould and relied on short-term treatments instead of addressing root causes. It did not follow its communication responsibilities under its damp and mould policy and failed to consider its obligations under Awaab’s Law when a potential material change occurred. Despite identifying hazards and the need for significant repairs, it took no effective action and missed multiple opportunities to investigate and resolve damp and mould for what it knew was a vulnerable household. These failures amount to severe maladministration.
46. We have ordered the landlord to investigate the potential hazard, confirm the outcome and set timeframes for any necessary works. We have also ordered £800 compensation in line with our compensation guidance for failings that had a significant impact on a resident.

47. The landlord’s maintenance policy for non-emergency repairs, including to kitchen units and worktops, says it will attend within 15 working days. It will do emergency repairs, including burst pipes and leaks, within 24 hours. Complex repairs are done within timescales agreed with the resident, and the landlord will project manage up to completion.
48. In early 2023, the resident reported defects to her kitchen cupboards. The landlord raised a repair, but it is unclear whether it completed this. Its record-keeping was poor. She also reported bathroom tiles coming away from the wall. Although the evidence does not confirm when the landlord completed this repair, the lapse of time until further relevant reports suggests it carried out some works at that point.
49. In August 2025, the resident reported her kitchen units had significantly deteriorated. She said that cupboard doors were hanging off and broken beyond repair, preventing her from fitting safety catches and placing her children at risk. The landlord did not respond to this report, which was unreasonable and contrary to its repair obligations. A November 2025 inspection identified that the kitchen cupboards required overhaul and there was a need for safety locks, replacement worktops, and additional fire safety measures.
50. The landlord’s December 2025 stage 2 response acknowledged the prolonged kitchen delays but did not put any timescales in place or progress the work. The resident said the landlord did not complete kitchen repairs until February 2026, representing a 7 month delay from the August 2025 report. This was well outside policy timeframes.
51. In October 2025, the resident also reported serious bathroom deterioration, including tiles falling from the walls, mould, and water leaking behind the tiles and under the bath. She stated she could not use the bathing facilities, and the issue was affecting the downstairs neighbour.
52. The landlord carried out a major works inspection and an asbestos test in October 2025. It was reasonable for the landlord to await asbestos results before commencing intrusive bathroom works. A November 2025 inspection noted that bathroom works were underway, and contractors submitted completion photos shortly after. Given the range of works necessary and the need for the asbestos test, the bathroom repairs were done within a reasonable timescale of around 6 weeks.
53. However, the potential impact of losing bathing facilities was significant, particularly given the presence of vulnerable children in the household. The landlord did not acknowledge in either complaint response the period during which the resident said she could not use the bathing facilities. Although its repair records indicate it requested the contractor leave the bath connected, there is no evidence that the landlord considered whether temporary accommodation was needed even after the resident reported that the bathing facilities were out of use.
54. The landlord delayed completing kitchen repairs over several months and did not respond reasonably to the resident’s concern that her bathroom was out of use during October to November 2025. We have ordered it to pay compensation of £300 in line with our compensation guidance for failings that had an adverse impact on a resident.

55. The landlord’s maintenance policy says it will resolve emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 15 working days.
56. In her August 2025 complaint, the resident reported that the wooden frame of the front porch was rotting and at risk of collapse, raising concerns that it could fall onto her children. Given the potential safety risk involved, it would have been reasonable and in line with its policy for the landlord to treat this as an emergency repair and take immediate action to make the area safe. The landlord failed to do so.
57. The landlord inspected the porch in November 2025 and found it to be rotten in multiple places, requiring repair. Despite identifying the issue during its own inspection, it did not raise a repair order, nor did it address the porch concerns in either its stage 1 or stage 2 complaint responses. This demonstrated poor oversight, a failure to act on known disrepair, and a missed opportunity to use the complaints process to put things right.
58. We find maladministration and have ordered an inspection and compensation of £200. This is in line with our compensation guidance for failings that had an adverse impact.

59. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the landlord must acknowledge a complaint or an escalation request within 5 working days. It must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request. The landlord’s complaints policy is in line with this.
60. The landlord failed to log, or respond to, the resident’s August 2025 complaint and sought support from us and her local MP in getting a response. Its stage 1 response was 3 months late. The landlord acknowledged this delay.
61. The landlord sent its stage 2 response within the appropriate timescale. It apologised and offered £250 compensation for its complaint handling and communication failures. This was a reasonable offer and in line with our compensation guidance for complaint handling failures that had a significant impact.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

62. This case demonstrates that the landlord’s repair and customer management records lacked essential detail, making it difficult to track progress or identify patterns of recurring issues. Inspections often noted problems but did not trigger follow up action, resulting in missed opportunities to revisit and address ongoing leaks, damp, and window deterioration. The landlord did not make effective use of the information it already held to move repairs forward, prioritise risk, or ensure timely intervention. Strengthening its knowledge management processes through accurate record‑keeping, consistent inspection follow‑up, and better use of existing evidence will be essential to preventing similar failures.

Communication

63. The resident repeatedly had to chase for updates and the landlord acknowledged poor communication without improving its approach. Failures to provide timely, accurate information and to follow up on promised updates contributed significantly to the issues escalating. The landlord needs clearer, more proactive communication processes to