Paragon Asra Housing Limited — case 202411953

Decision Case ID 202411953 Decision type Investigation Landlord Paragon Asra Housing Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 7 July 2026 Background The resident asked the landlord to explain the role and responsibilities of the neighbourhood coordinator (NC) at the sheltered accommodation where he lives. His enquiries related to how that role supported service delivery at the scheme. What the complaint is about The landlord’s handling of: The resident’s enquiry about the role and responsibilities of the neighbourhood coordinator.

The complaint. Our decision (determination) There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s enquiry about the role and responsibilities of the neighbourhood coordinator. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s enquiry about the NC role within a reasonable timeframe and did not fully address the matter in its stage 1 complaint response.

It later discussed the NC’s responsibilities with the resident and provided a copy of the job description at stage 2. However, it failed to fully acknowledge its earlier failings or the impact of the delays, missing an opportunity to resolve the matter sooner. While these failings caused inconvenience and time and trouble to the resident, they were of short duration and did not affect the overall outcome. The landlord generally responded to the resident’s complaint in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

There was a short delay in it issuing its stage 2 response. It told the resident about the delay and offered to discuss its findings by phone before sending the formal response and there was no detriment caused. 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. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 04 August 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £75 for the inconvenience caused by its handling of his enquiry about the role and responsibilities of the NC.

The landlord must pay this directly to the resident by the due date. It must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. No later than 04 August 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 12 August 2024 The resident complained that there were no contact details available for the NC at the sheltered scheme, which meant residents had to chase communal repairs themselves. He also said the landlord did not respond to his emails about the role and responsibilities of the NC and requested a response to his enquiry.

28 August 2024 The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said: Although the resident said he complained on behalf of all residents, it found no evidence of this and therefore responded to him individually. It relied on residents playing an active role in reporting repairs. It confirmed that it was addressing the reported communal repairs and advised that the NC would oversee this. It provided the contact details for the new NC and apologised for not informing the resident of the staff change sooner.

17 September 2024 The resident escalated his complaint because the landlord had not sent details of the role and responsibilities of the NC to him as requested. He also said that he contacted the landlord 3 times for a response to his complaint. 17 October 2024 The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: While the resident contacted the landlord for a response to his complaint, it provided its stage 1 response within timescales. The resident requested information about the NC role and responsibilities after it issued its stage 1 response and, as such, it had not included this information in its response.

It provided the NC job description and set out the key responsibilities of the role. It also acknowledged that there was a delay in providing this information and apologised for this. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident brought his complaint to us because of delays by the landlord in providing requested information about the role and responsibilities of the NC. 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. Complaint The resident’s enquiry about the role and responsibilities of the neighbourhood coordinator Finding Service failure On 22 July 2024 the resident emailed the landlord with a list of responsibilities for a NC within sheltered accommodation and requested that it reviewed the information. Between 23 July 2024 and 1 August 2024, the resident sent several follow-up emails seeking a response.

On 1 August 2024 the landlord informed the resident that it was considering his request. However, despite the resident continuing to chase a response, it failed to provide a substantive reply, which led the resident to raise a complaint. The landlord’s failure to respond at this point caused inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. In its stage 1 response, the landlord provided the contact details for the new NC but failed to provide details about the role and responsibilities of the NC as requested by the resident.

This was not in line with the Code, which requires landlords to address all issues raised as part of a complaint. The landlord’s failure to do so caused inconvenience to the resident who had to escalate his complaint for a response to his query. On 27 September and 7 October 2024, the landlord discussed the role and responsibilities of the NC with the resident and provided a summary of these. While we understand this was not a copy of the job description itself, the landlord provided sufficient information for the resident to have an understanding of what he could expect from the NC.

The landlord provided a copy of the NC’s job description in its stage 2 response. While this was appropriate, it failed to recognise that the resident had first requested information about the role in July 2024 and had repeated the request in his stage 1 complaint. Although it acknowledged delays in responding, it did not fully identify or address its earlier failings. This represented a missed opportunity to resolve the matter sooner and caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble.

The resident has informed us that he has ongoing concerns about the service provided by the NC. In the interest of fairness, we cannot consider these further concerns. This is because the landlord must have an opportunity to investigate its handling of these reports through its internal complaint process prior to our involvement. Any new issues that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process can be addressed directly with the landlord in the first instance through its complaints process.

In line with our Compensation Guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £75 compensation. This reflects the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident which the landlord failed to fully acknowledge. This also reflects that the delay in providing information about the NC had a limited impact on the resident and did not affect the overall outcome. This is particularly given the resident had already researched the matter and had a good understanding of the NC role by July 2024.

Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding No maladministration The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process, which is in line with our Code. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint promptly at both stages and issued its stage 1 response within the timescale set out in its complaint policy. While the resident said he was complaining on behalf of all residents, the landlord correctly advised him that without evidence of this, it responded to this as an individual complaint.

In the circumstances, this was reasonable. The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued 2 days outside the relevant timescale. However, this was a short delay and there is no evidence that it caused detriment to the resident. The landlord contacted the resident about the delay and offered to discuss its findings by telephone before issuing the formal response. In the circumstances, the short delay at stage 2 did not amount to a service failure. We identified shortcomings in the landlord’s complaint handling relating to its failure to address all the issues raised by the resident in his complaint.

We already considered these failings in our assessment of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries about the NC role and have not made separate findings about them here. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord provided copies of its records for this investigation. The records are detailed and provide sufficient information to understand the nature of the requests, the contact made, and the actions taken, including who carried them out and when.

The tone of the records reflects an appropriate and considerate approach towards residents. Communication Effective communication is essential to delivering good services and managing residents’ expectations. Landlords should have effective processes for handling residents’ enquiries and should respond within a reasonable timeframe. In this case, the landlord should have agreed a timeframe for responding to the resident’s enquiries in July 2024, and either provided the requested information or explained why it needed more time to respond.

This would have helped manage the resident’s expectations and avoid the need for repeated follow-up enquiries.