Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202339461)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339461

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

30 September 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 resident’s concerns about the landlord’s:
    1. Calculation of service charges.
    2. Communication about service charges.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property as a shared owner since July 2021. The property is a flat. The landlord is not the freeholder. A managing agent acts on behalf of the freeholder.
  2. On 28 September 2023 the resident complained the landlord had not given him a breakdown of charges when it increased the service charge in April 2023. He wanted the information and compensation for poor customer service.
  3. The landlord responded on 1 October 2023 and said it had sent his request to the service charge team, who would contact him “as soon as possible”. It said if he was unhappy with how the team dealt with the request, he could escalate his complaint to stage 1.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 5 February 2024 and said he had not had a response. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint on 10 March 2024.
  5. The landlord sent a complaint response on 16 March 2024. It apologised for the delay and acknowledged a lack of communication. It said he would receive the information by the end of the week. It offered £180 compensation. The landlord sent the information on 18 March 2024.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint on 22 March 2024. He said there were discrepancies. In its final response on 4 July 2024 the landlord apologised for the delays in sending the information and for an “inadequate” complaint response. It acknowledged the frustration and inconvenience caused. It increased the offer of compensation to £440.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman. He felt the landlord had not been transparent. He said he was waiting for an explanation of the discrepancies.

Jurisdiction

The landlord’s calculation of service charges

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme governs this. When a resident brings a complaint to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why we will not investigate a complaint.
  2. After carefully considering the evidence, in line with paragraph 42.d of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the calculation, apportionment, and introduction of new service charges is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. Paragraph 42.d of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints about the level of service charge or the amount of a service charge increase. The resident may wish to refer this aspect of his complaint to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) who consider service charge disputes.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s communication about service charges

  1. The landlord’s service charge policy says the landlord charges leaseholders a variable service charge in line with the lease agreement. It says a variable service charge is where it estimates the charge at the start of the year.
  2. The lease agreement says the landlord will calculate the service charge part of rent before the beginning of the account year. The landlord will review the rent each year, including service charges, and following the review will serve a notice on the resident specifying the amount payable.
  3. The landlord sent the resident a notice of a service charge increase on 24 February 2023. This showed the service charge increased from £88.33 to £240.98 per month. The Ombudsman has not seen details of how the landlord calculated the increase.
  4. The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 September 2023 and apologised that it had not finalised the accounts. It was reasonable for the landlord to update the resident. However, as this was 6 months after the increase, it is the Ombudsman’s view that there was an unreasonable delay in finalising the accounts and giving information about why there had been a significant increase in the service charge.
  5. The resident complained on 28 September 2023 that the landlord had not given him a breakdown of the increase. The landlord responded on 1 October 2023 and told the resident it had passed his request to the team that dealt with service charges. It said the team would respond “as soon as possible”. The Ombudsman has looked at the way the landlord dealt with the complaint later in this report. However, it is the Ombudsman’s view that sending a vague holding response was a service failure. This is because the landlord should have provided a clear timescale, especially as 6 months had passed since the service charge increase. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to use the timescale it uses for complaint responses. Or, as it was an information request, the 20 working days that apply to freedom of information requests.
  6. On 5 October 2023 the resident told the landlord he had received a letter saying he would not receive the information until the end of the year. He said this was not good enough and he was going to take the matter to the Ombudsman. The landlord responded on 6 October 2023 and said it had sent a reminder to the service charge team and asked him to give it a week.
  7. The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 December 2023 and said it was still working on the accounts for the year ending 31 March 2023 and was hoping to complete them by 31 December 2023.
  8. The Ombudsman has seen no further contact until the resident told the landlord on 5 February 2024 that he was going to contact the Ombudsman. On 10 March 2024, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the complaint. The landlord contacted the resident on 11 April 2024 and said it was still waiting for the information. It apologised for the “unacceptable” delay. It said it would contact the resident the next week at “the very latest”.
  9. Records provided by the landlord show it contacted the managing agent on 11 April 2024 and asked it for a full budget breakdown. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord asked the managing agent for the information before this date. The managing agent sent the requested information the same day. Because of the lack of evidence of an earlier request, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord did not ask the managing agent for the information before the Ombudsman contacted it. This was a failure by the landlord to meet the commitments it had made to the resident.
  10. The landlord sent its complaint response on 16 April 2024. It acknowledged a lack of communication about the request and the time it had taken. It said it had requested a breakdown from the managing agent and would have the information by the end of the week. It offered £100 compensation for the delay and £50 for poor service and a lack of communication.
  11. The landlord sent the information on 18 April 2024, which was over a year after it sent the original notice. The resident escalated his complaint on 22 April 2024. He said he was unable to read the information in the document the landlord sent and asked for it in a different format. On 24 April 2024, the resident raised what he said were discrepancies in the information provided.
  12. In its final response on 4 July 2024 the landlord apologised for the delay in sending the information. It said it had escalated the discrepancies to the managing agent and would ensure the resident received an explanation. It said the resident’s concerns about transparency were valid. It said there had been improvements to the service charge team and it aimed to respond quicker to queries. Because of the time taken to respond, it offered a further £200 compensation for poor service and lack of communication, making a total of £350 compensation for failures in its communication about service charges.
  13. Overall, the Ombudsman has found there were failures by the landlord in the way it dealt with the request for information. The Ombudsman accepts the landlord may not have had the information available at the time it sent the notice of an increase. However, it took the landlord over a year to send the information about what was a significant increase, and the landlord only appears to have acted after contact from the Ombudsman.
  14. The landlord told the resident in October 2023 it had asked the service charge team to send the information to the resident. However, there is no evidence the service charge team took any action until 11 April 2024. There is also no evidence the landlord kept the resident updated. This caused inconvenience for the resident, who was concerned that the charge was incorrect.
  15. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s final response and has found it was reasonable redress in the circumstances. This is because the landlord apologised and recognised the inconvenience caused. It accepted there had been a lack of transparency and said it was working to improve the responsiveness of the service charge team. It said it would contact the managing agent about the discrepancies the resident had raised. It also offered a reasonable amount of compensation for the failures in its communication.
  16. However, in September 2025 the resident told the Ombudsman that the information he finally received was difficult to understand as it had abbreviations and errors. He also said that there was an outstanding discrepancy about window cleaning costs that the landlord had not resolved. Because of this, the Ombudsman recommends the landlord reviews its communication on enquiries about service charges to ensure they are in Plain English. The Ombudsman also recommends the landlord contact the resident to discuss his specific concerns about the service charges.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the landlord. The policy says the landlord will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond within 10. It says when a resident escalates their complaint, it will send a final response within 20 working days.
  2. Records provided by the landlord show the resident complained on 28 September 2023. He said the landlord had not given him a breakdown of service charges. He wanted the information and compensation for poor customer service. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this was a clear expression of dissatisfaction, and the resident could have reasonably expected the landlord to deal with it as a complaint. However, records show the landlord dealt with it as a service request and did not follow its complaints policy.
  3. On 5 October 2023 the resident told the landlord he had not received the information. He said he expected the information immediately and if he did not receive this he would go to the Ombudsman. This was a second clear expression of dissatisfaction. The landlord responded on 6 October 2023 and asked the resident to allow it another week to provide the information.
  4. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 10 March 2024 and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 12 March 2024 and sent its response on 16 April 2024. This was 26 working days later and was a failure to follow the complaints policy.
  5. In its complaint response the landlord apologised for the delay and offered £30 compensation. The landlord did not acknowledge that it should have raised a complaint in September 2023. Because of this, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the compensation was insufficient in the circumstances.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint on 22 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 25 April 2024 but did not send its final response until 4 July 2024. This was 56 working days after the escalation request and was another failure to follow the complaints policy. In its final response, the landlord apologised for the way it had dealt with the complaint at stage 1 and 2 and increased the offer of compensation to £90.
  7. Overall, the Ombudsman has found there were significant failures in the landlord’s complaint handling, which amounted to maladministration. This is because the landlord twice failed to raise a complaint following clear expressions of dissatisfaction in September and October 2023. Once the landlord finally raised a complaint, it did not follow the timescales in its complaints policy and only responded after contact from the Ombudsman.
  8. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s final response and has found the compensation was insufficient. Although the landlord apologised for the delays and recognised inconvenience caused, the compensation was not reasonable considering the failure to follow its policy. Because of this, the landlord must pay the resident £150 compensation for the failures in its complaint handling. This is inclusive of the £90 already offered.

Determination

  1. In line with paragraph 42.d of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the calculation of service charges is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In line with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord on its communication about service charges.
  3. In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord on its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must pay the resident £150 compensation for the failures in its complaint handling, within 4 weeks of the date of this report. This is inclusive of the £90 already offered. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with this order.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord:
    1. Reoffers the £440 compensation offered in its final response if it has not already paid it to the resident.
    2. Reviews its responses to enquiries about service charges to ensure they are in Plain English.
    3. Contact the resident to discuss his concerns about the service charges.