Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202322523)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322523

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

20 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge queries.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat which is part of a scheme of 24 flats. The resident pays a variable service charge.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 February 2023 to notify her the service charge was increasing from 1 April 2023. The letter set out how the charge was calculated.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 March 2023 and said the charge included some services that were either not delivered or in place. These included charges in relation to:
1. Fire equipment and fire safety maintenance.
2. Emergency lighting contract repairs.
3. Communal electricity.
4. Communal window cleaning.
5. Rubbish disposal.
The landlord acknowledged the email on 3 March 2023 and said the resident would receive a response within 5 working days. After no response, the resident chased on 23 March 2023 and subsequently raised a formal complaint which was acknowledged on 12 April 2023.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response 5 months later on 10 September 2023. It said:
1. The fire safety maintenance contract is for servicing and maintaining fire safety measures. Fire equipment covers any repairs needed for smoke alarms, vents, fire panels and other fire safety equipment in the shared areas.
2. The emergency lighting contract/repairs was for any repairs or work in the shared areas of the building.
3. The communal electricity cost had increased due to unit cost and not due to repairs failure.
4. Window cleaning was a new service provided to the scheme.
5. The rubbish disposal charge was applied correctly.
6. The charge for service charge examination fees was the amount auditors charged the landlord to examine the accounts at year end.
7. It apologised for the delays responding to her query and offered £240 compensation made up of:
  1. £50 for lack of communication.
  2. £190 for the delayed complaint response.
8. The service charges were estimated, and actual costs will be reflected in the year end accounts for September 2024.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 September 2023 and said:
1. The scheme had none of the fire equipment listed by the landlord in its stage 1 complaint response.
2. The scheme had communal lighting, but she was not aware of any emergency lighting.
3. It had been reported communal lights were on 24 hours a day and this had still not been repaired months after it was raised.
4. A number of residents had queried the need for window cleaning as this service had not been provided in the previous 20 years.
5. The scheme did not have any additional rubbish bins.
6. The landlord should visit the scheme.
The resident contacted us on 30 September 2023 after receiving no response. She escalated her complaint with the landlord on 3 December 2023 after further contact with us. The landlord acknowledged the escalation the next day. It sent its stage 2 complaint response on 15 March 2024. It said:
1. It apologised for the delays in:
  1. Responding to the complaint.
  2. Visiting the scheme.
2. It acknowledged elements of the service charge were incorrect. It said:
  1. There was no fire safety maintenance contract as there was no fire equipment in the building. It would remove the charge when the year-end accounts were completed in September 2024.
  2. It had repaired communal lights on 12 March 2024 and would recalculate the service charge cost.
  3. Window cleaners attended every 6 months to clean communal windows. It felt the £38.41 charge per visit was fair and reasonable.
  4. It would remove the bulk rubbish charge from the 24/25 budget and there was no charge for bin hire in 23/24 and 24/25.
3. It offered £400 compensation made up of:
  1. £200 for delayed acknowledgement and response to the stage 2 complaint.
  2. £200 for the issues not being fully investigated at stage 1 and the resident having to chase the issue.
4. It had learned from the complaint and would:
  1. Ensure relevant service areas provided its service charge team with up to date and accurate information.
  2. Ensure communal repairs were completed as soon as possible.
  3. Improve its complaint handling.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaint process

The resident emailed us on 20 March 2024 and said she:
1. Was dissatisfied with the time the landlord had taken to investigate the issue.
2. Did not feel the window cleaning was good value and was unhappy residents had not been consulted.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 September 2024 and said it had over-estimated how much the service charge would be for 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024. It refunded £128 to the resident’s service charge account on 2 October 2024.
The landlord has since removed the incorrect charges and updated its internal system. It has issued revised accounts to residents for charges from 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Any dissatisfaction regarding the reasonableness, liability, or the methodology used to calculate service charge contributions requires a decision by a court or tribunal service. Should the resident remain dissatisfied with this matter, we must advise this would fall outside of our jurisdiction and is within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The resident may wish to seek legal advice should she wish to discuss the matter further. Such matters will not form part of this investigation. However, we can consider if the landlord’s overall communication with, and responses to the resident were appropriate, fair and reasonable.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge queries

The landlord did not provide a copy of the resident’s lease agreement or its service policy at the time the resident complained. However, the service charge policy was updated in February 2024 and says:
1. Leaseholders pay a variable service charge where the charge is estimated at the start of the year.
2. At the end of the year a final account of costs incurred is made. Costs in excess of the estimate will be charged to residents. If costs are lower than the estimate, residents are refunded.
It was appropriate the landlord wrote to the resident to advise of the service charges for the following financial year in February 2023. Following the landlord’s acknowledgement of the resident’s query, she would have expected to receive a response by 10 March 2023. Failing to provide the resident with any update caused her inconvenience by chasing it on 23 March 2023. This led to the formal complaint.
The evidence showed the landlord made enquiries in relation to the service charges in May 2023. However, there was no evidence of any urgency in investigating the query, and no evidence the resident was given any update, which was unreasonable.
We are aware from other complaints determined by our service that the landlord had issues with its complaint handling. The landlord has told us this was due to staff shortages. In this case the stage 1 complaint response was sent over 6 months after the resident’s initial email. While this was an unacceptable delay, it was positive the complaint response tried to address the resident’s query and tried to put things right by offering compensation.
The day after the stage 1 response the resident emailed the landlord and said she was “dissatisfied by the response” and challenged some of the costs. Given the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 at this point, however there was no evidence it did so. This was a failing and led the resident to contact us a couple of weeks later.
An internal landlord email dated 23 November 2023 showed the landlord made further enquiries in relation to the resident’s points. However, it was unclear what prompted this, and it was over 2 months after the resident’s email of 11 September 2023 which was slow. There was also no evidence to show that the resident was updated during this time, which was a failing.
After the resident contacted the landlord to escalate the complaint on 3 December 2023, the landlord showed a degree of urgency in trying to address her query. Internal landlord emails in January 2024 show the landlord tried to arrange a scheme visit. It then visited on 7 February 2024 and noted:
1. It did not see any fire services equipment.
2. There wasn’t any emergency lighting apart from in the bin store adjacent to the property.

While it was positive the landlord visited, this was 11 months after the resident’s query, and 5 months after the resident had suggested it visit, which was slow. There was no evidence the resident was updated following the visit. This led her to contact us on 8 March 2024 after the landlord sent the 2024/2025 service charges which contained the same issues the resident had queried in relation to the 2023/2024 charges.

After contact from us in March 2024, the landlord followed up the February 2024 visit. It visited the scheme again on 12 March 2024 and completed some communal light repairs. It then sent its stage 2 complaint response 3 days later in which it offered compensation and said it would amend the service charges, which was appropriate. It was positive the landlord identified learning and improvements it would make going forward.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries has been poor. It:
1. Did not identify it had charged residents incorrectly before sending the notification letter to the resident in February 2022.
2. Did not identify it had charged residents incorrectly before sending its stage 1 response.
3. Did not visit the scheme for nearly a year after the resident’s first email query.
4. Only appeared prompted to act with any degree of urgency after contact from the resident or us.
5. Was so slow in responding to the query that the same charges queried by the resident showed on her projected service charge figures for 2024/2025.
6. Has been poor in its communication with the resident which has caused her to chase on multiple occasions.
Given the failings identified, it was appropriate the landlord offered the resident a total of £640 compensation in recognition of its response to the resident’s query, and its handling of the complaint. Having considered both our remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy, the landlord has made an offer which makes up for its failings. A finding of reasonable redress has therefore been made.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident, with respect to its response to the resident’s service charge queries, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendation

The landlord should pay the resident the £240 compensation offered at stage 1, if it has not already done so.