Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202318346)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318346

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

22 July 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 concerns about:
1. Her rent and service charge.
2. The sign-up process.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident was initially a fixed-term tenant of the property of the landlord. The tenancy began in November 2020. The tenancy was changed to an assured tenancy. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property was a new-build property when the resident moved in and has adaptations to accommodate the resident’s disabilities.
The tenancy agreement required that the resident pay both rent and a service charge. The landlord uses a management company to manage the service of the building. The service charge includes a management fee for the administration of the services.
It is evident that the landlord periodically increased the rent and service charge. On 6 March 2023, the resident raised concerns, which included the following:
1. She voiced her dissatisfaction with the increases. She expressed her opinion that the present rent was now “unaffordable.”
2. She noted that neighbours were paying less rent compared to her.
3. She requested to know what the service charge covered.
4. She also noted that she was being separately charged additional fees for water and for the upkeep of the vent units in the building.
5. She further expressed concerns about the handover process and that she did not consider all the charges were correctly explained at the time.
On 10 April 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns and apologised for the delay in responding. On 17 April 2023, the landlord confirmed it had opened a formal complaint. It advised its service charges team would investigate the matter and respond by 2 May 2023.
The resident subsequently chased the landlord for updates throughout May 2023, without a response. It is evident from the landlord’s internal communications from this period that it was investigating the resident’s rent and service charges.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 23 May 2023, which included the following:
1. It apologised for the delay to its stage 1 response and offered £20 compensation.
2. It explained the need to increase rent and service charges due to rising costs. It noted this was capped at 7% in line with government guidelines.
3. It advised that the initial rent levels were calculated based on the “meterage” of the property.
4. It explained that the heating in the property is provided through a district heating system, which had a separate cost.
5. It noted the resident’s concerns about affordability and signposted her to its financial support team.
6. Regarding her handover process, it noted that the housing officer from that time had left the organisation. It noted, however, that the correct signup and checklist sheets were completed at the time. It nevertheless advised it would report her concerns to its team so they could discuss them with her further.
On the same date, the resident expressed her concern that the response did not address whether her disability had been considered as part of the rent calculation. She also noted she had felt pressured to sign the tenancy agreement. On 26 May 2023, she escalated her complaint, which the landlord acknowledged on the same day.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 23 June 2023, which included the following:
1. It explained that the resident’s rent and tenure type were set at the beginning of the tenancy and that this may differ from other neighbours.
2. It further explained that the rent is set at the development stage prior to assigning it to a tenant.
3. It noted it was unable to discuss the individual arrangements of other neighbours but expressed that it would never discriminate between neighbours based on disability.
4. It reiterated its offer of support regarding affordability.
5. Regarding the handover, it apologised that the resident felt pressured but noted that it had been the resident’s choice to accept.
On 26 June 2023, the resident advised she was not satisfied with the landlord’s response. While it had acknowledged her disability, it had not provided a position as to whether this was considered when setting or raising rent. She also noted that as her property had adaptations for her disability, it was larger than a standard 1-bedroom property. She therefore considered it unfair to base the rent on meterage. She further reiterated that her concerns about additional costs for heating had not been explained to her at handover. The landlord confirmed on 27 June 2023 that it would provide a further response.
On 15 July 2023, the resident expressed further concerns about her understanding the property had been described as “general needs.” She disputed that this was the correct description given that it had adaptations. She also noted her understanding that the landlord considered she was on an ‘affordable rent scheme’, whereas she should be on a ‘social rent scheme’.
The landlord responded to the resident’s further concerns on 3 August 2023, which included the following:
1. Regarding the sign-up process, it acknowledged that the process had been unusual due to the COVID-19 contact restrictions in place at that time. It reiterated it had not sought to pressure the resident into signing and passed her feedback to its lettings team to ensure it learnt from her experience.
2. Regarding affordability, it noted it had conducted an affordability assessment when the resident moved in. It reiterated its offer of assistance from its financial support team.
3. It reiterated that the initial rent levels for each property were set at the development stage, prior to assigning the properties to any tenants. The rent had then been increased in line with government guidelines. It confirmed that it considered the rents had been kept at an “affordable level.” It also provided information about ‘local housing allowance’ levels compared against private rents in the area.
4. Regarding the costs associated with the district heating system, it advised it was seeking government grants to reduce this cost for all residents and would keep her updated.
5. It noted the resident’s concerns about the term ‘general needs’. It explained that this referred to the tenancy type and was not a description of the needs of the tenant.
The resident replied on the same date and continued to dispute that the property should be described as general needs. She further disputed that affordability had been considered and noted that the property should be a social rent property, not an affordable rent property. The landlord responded and confirmed that the property was on the social rent scheme. It also reiterated its explanation regarding the term ‘general needs’.
Throughout the remainder of 2023 and early 2024, the resident continued to express concern about the levels of the rent and service charges, along with her position that the landlord mistakenly considered the property to be ‘affordable rent’ and ‘general needs’.
On 18 June 2024, the landlord provided an updated response, which included the following:
1. It advised it had reviewed the resident’s service charge and identified that it had been misapplying a charge for insurance. It advised it would refund an amount of £1,352.43 going back to the beginning of her tenancy. It also advised that her rent and service charge would be corrected going forward.
2. It advised that it was seeking records from the managing agent regarding the remainder of the service charge. This included charges for the district heating system. If it found any further mistakes, it would issue a further refund. It advised it would provide an update in 4 weeks’ time.
3. It confirmed the resident was on the social rent scheme and advised it had no evidence the property had ever been recorded as affordable rent or market rent.
4. It offered £600 for “the delays and poor handling of your complaints.” This was made up of:
  1. £300 for the length of time queries were left outstanding.
  2. £200 for time and effort spent in reporting and requesting updates.
  3. £100 for delays in confirming the outcome of the complaints.
In a follow-up email on the same date, the landlord also noted the confusion around the term ‘affordable’. It explained it had been attempting to explain it had assessed whether the rent was affordable for the resident but had not intended this to be taken as it saying the property was under an ‘affordable rent scheme’.
It is evident that around this time, the resident began the process of moving out of the property. Nevertheless, she continued to chase an update on the landlord’s further investigation into the service charges. As of July 2025, the resident has confirmed she has successfully moved to a new property. She has also advised that the landlord never provided her with an update regarding the service charges.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The discussions between the parties continued for an extended time following the landlord’s stage 2 response. Given that these discussions related to the resident’s initial complaint, it is reasonable to consider these events as part of this investigation.
Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has expressed her position that the level of her rent and service charges were too high. The Ombudsman will not usually consider the level of rent or service charges or the level of any rent or service charge increases. These matters are better dealt with through the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) or through the courts. The resident has the option to seek legal advice if this remains a concern. The Ombudsman has, however, considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and whether this was reasonable in the circumstances.

Rent and service charges

Where a landlord receives a query about rent or service charges, it is reasonable for it to provide its understanding of the rent amount and on what basis the rent is being charged. Similarly with service charges, it should be able to explain any charges, the amounts being charged, and the basis on which they are charged.
A major element of the concerns raised by the resident included the type of rent she was paying. In her initial complaint, she noted that the increases had made the rent “unaffordable.” The landlord also referred to the rent as being “affordable” in its various responses. This was an unfortunate choice of words, as it created a great deal of confusion for the parties.
An ‘affordable rent scheme’ is a specific method of calculating rent, which results in higher rent than a ‘social rent scheme’. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord was using the word ‘affordable’ in its general usage and not in reference to a specific rent scheme. Specifically, the landlord was stating that the resident was on a social rent scheme from the beginning of her tenancy. At that time, it had assessed whether she could afford the level of rent under that scheme. It determined that she could.
However, the landlord’s reference to the rent having been “affordable” when the resident moved in created confusion that she was on the incorrect rent scheme. Despite the resident’s repeated concerns about the issue of which rent scheme she was on, the landlord failed to confirm the correct position in either its stage 1 or 2 response. It was not until its further communication in August 2023 that it confirmed that she was on a social rent scheme and attempted to clear up any confusion, some 6 months after the initial confusion was caused. The landlord also failed to signpost her to a specific part of the tenancy agreement to confirm she was on a social rent scheme, which was a missed opportunity to provide clarity.
The landlord caused further confusion by linking the resident to a rent comparison website which used market rent levels. It did so to try to demonstrate the affordability of the resident’s rent. However, her concerns were specifically that she was paying more than neighbours who were also on social rent schemes, and so a comparison to market rent was not helpful. While providing this link was not in and of itself a service failure, it contributed to the overall confusion. Additionally, despite the resident raising her concerns about its relevance, the landlord failed to provide clarity at the earliest opportunity.
Another source of confusion in this case has been the term ‘general needs’. It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that there are several categories of social housing properties, including ‘general needs’, ‘supported living’, or ‘temporary accommodation’ (amongst others). Where a general needs property has had adaptations carried out, the adapted property does not have its own category and remains under the umbrella of ‘general needs’.
We have not been provided with any evidence to suggest that the property was not general needs, and so the landlord’s repeated position that the property was general needs was reasonable. However, it is evident that the resident continued to have a different understanding. While the landlord continued to repeat its position that the property was general needs, it failed to provide additional clarity, which could have helped the resident understand further.
In addition to confusing terms, there were also some specific queries raised by the resident as part of her complaint. The resident referred to her neighbours’ rent in comparison to hers. She also considered that because her neighbours had openly discussed their rent with her, this should allow the landlord to be able to provide information relating to the neighbours. In its responses, the landlord made it clear it was unable to discuss the specifics relating to individual neighbours’ circumstances. In the absence of formal specific permission being provided directly by the neighbours, this approach was reasonable and in line with its data protection responsibilities. The landlord did, however, explain that the circumstances of each property had been considered and there may be reasons for differing rent amounts. It also provided more general information for the calculation of rent for various types of property in the building. This level of detail was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident also asked whether her disability had been considered as part of the rent calculation. The landlord provided information to confirm it had recorded the resident’s disability on its systems. It also explained that increases in rent were based on the caps allowed by government guidance. It failed, however, to specifically address whether the resident’s disability was a factor in any calculation, despite her asking several times. This was a failing and a missed opportunity to provide clarity.
The resident also noted that the landlord had explained that the ‘meterage’ of the property had been used to calculate the initial rent. She noted that her property was slightly larger than the average property, as it had been built to allow for disabled access. She therefore queried why it was fair to charge a disabled person more by using a meterage-based calculation. Once again, the landlord failed to specifically address this concern. While it explained that the rent levels were set at the development stage and that it would not have offered her the property if it was deemed the rent was too high for her, it did not specifically answer her question. This was a further missed opportunity to provide clarity.
The resident further noted that she was being charged separately for costs relating to the water/district heating system. She considered there was no basis for these costs, as her tenancy agreement only referred to rent and a service charge. The Ombudsman understands that it is common practice for separate charges in such instances and makes no comment on the validity of the charges. However, while the landlord explained the purpose of the costs and its efforts to reduce the cost, it did not clarify the basis on which they were charged, despite the resident asking multiple times. The landlord failed to signpost the resident to relevant policy or section of the tenancy agreement or otherwise provide a position on how it was able to levy the charges. This was a failure to answer the resident’s complaint, which added to her distress.
Similarly, the resident’s initial complaint noted a request for a breakdown of the service charge. She also noted concerns about the value for money she was receiving. While the landlord appropriately noted it would raise concerns with the management company about the quality of the services provided, it failed to offer a breakdown of the charges in both its stage 1 and 2 responses. It was not until June 2024, over a year after the resident made her complaint, that the landlord addressed the service charge calculations. At this time, it identified that there had been overcharges. While it appropriately refunded these amounts, this could have been identified significantly earlier had the landlord properly addressed the resident’s complaint in the first instance.
The landlord also noted it would review the full service charges and update the resident within 4 weeks. However, despite repeated requests for updates from the resident, it failed to do so. It explained some of the delay had been due to difficulties obtaining the records from the management agent. However, it is reasonable for landlords to have robust record-sharing processes in place with managing agents. Where records are held up, the landlord should escalate its request and keep the resident informed throughout. It is not evident that the landlord did this, and to date, no meaningful update has been provided. This has further frustrated the resident and has damaged the landlord-tenant relationship.
In its communication in June 2024, the landlord identified that there had been delays to its responses and that the resident had to expend time and effort chasing answers. It offered a total of £500 compensation in recognition of these failings. Had the landlord resolved all of the resident’s concerns at this point, this amount of compensation would have been appropriate. However, as identified above, there are answers from her initial complaint that are still outstanding. Additionally, the landlord set an expectation it would provide an update regarding the service charges, which it failed to meet. This caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
A finding of maladministration has therefore been made. An order for £700 compensation has been made to reflect the impact caused to the resident. This is made up of £350 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience and £350 for her time and trouble chasing updates. This order replaces the landlord’s offer of £500. The landlord is also ordered to contact the resident and provide the following information:
1. A confirmation on whether a resident’s disability is included as a factor when assessing initial rent/rent increases.
2. A confirmation on whether the rent for a property that is necessarily larger to accommodate a disabled person is still based on meterage alone.
3. The basis on which it is able to charge the fees relating to the water/district heating system.
4. The conclusion of its assessment of the service charges and its position on whether any additional refunds are due.

Sign-up process

As part of her complaint in March 2023, the resident expressed concerns about the sign-up process. The landlord’s complaints policy notes it may not accept complaints about issues which occurred more than 12 months prior to being raised. While this took place in November 2020, which was older than 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint, the landlord nevertheless responded to this element of the complaint at both stages 1 and 2. This was an appropriate use of its discretion to address the resident’s concerns. Where such a complaint is made, the landlord should conduct a reasonable investigation, which may include talking to the parties involved and inspecting its records.
In this case, the resident advised that the various fees had not been explained to her and that the tenancy booklet had simply been left in a cupboard for her to find. The landlord explained that its usual procedure was to go over the handbook with new residents. However, it further explained that the handover occurred during COVID-19. It, therefore, was unable to provide the handbook in person.
It also noted that the housing officer was no longer working for the landlord. As such, it was unable to ask them for their perspective on what was discussed. It nevertheless consulted its records and confirmed that the various sign-up sheets had all been correctly completed. This was appropriate and demonstrated a reasonable investigation based on the available evidence.
The landlord also took on feedback about the resident’s experience and forwarded this to its sign-up team to identify any learning. This was an appropriate step and demonstrated it sought to learn from outcomes, in line with this service’s dispute resolution principles.
It also showed appropriate empathy for the resident’s position that she felt pressured to sign. It noted she had a choice as to whether to accept but also noted it was necessary for it to explain that the property may be offered to another applicant if not accepted. While this may create understandable pressure, it was nevertheless reasonable for the landlord to keep the resident informed.
In summary, the landlord conducted a reasonable investigation of the resident’s concerns based on the available evidence. It was appropriate that it identified learning from the resident’s experience and given the lack of contemporaneous evidence about what was discussed during the handover, it was reasonable that it did not uphold this element of the complaint. A finding of no maladministration has therefore been made for this element of the complaint.

Complaints handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. It will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
The resident initially raised concerns on or around 6 March 2023. It was not evident whether this was intended to be a formal complaint. Nevertheless, given that it was clearly an expression of dissatisfaction, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s concerns as a complaint. However, this only occurred on 10 April 2023, which was beyond the time it should have already provided its response. It was appropriate, therefore, that it apologised for the delay.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord offered a further apology and £20 compensation for the delay, which was appropriate in the circumstances.
However, following the resident’s escalation on 26 May 2023, the landlord did not provide its stage 2 response until 23 June 2023. While this was only slightly beyond the timeframes in its policy, the landlord failed to recognise this or apologise, which would have been frustrating for the resident. It is also not evident that it provided any kind of update informing the resident about the delay, as required by its policy. This was a further failing.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires that a complaints process only have 2 stages and that any further dispute should be referred to the Ombudsman for resolution. In this case, it is evident that the resident had further concerns to be addressed and there was further clarification that the landlord was able to provide beyond its stage 2 responses. It was reasonable in the circumstances to seek to provide this at the earliest opportunity. This process also did not prevent the resident from referring her complaint to this service at the same time.
As part of its further communications and investigations, the landlord identified failings, for which it offered compensation (as noted above). This offer was not motivated by an investigation by this service and so it is reasonable to take it into consideration. In addition to the £20 offered at stage 1, the landlord offered a further £100 for its delayed complaint responses. This amount was reasonable and proportionate to the impact caused by its failings. A finding of reasonable redress has therefore been made in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding the resident’s rent and service charge.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding the sign-up process.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £700 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its communications regarding rent and service charges.
This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £500. The ordered amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to contact the resident and provide the following information:
1. A confirmation on whether a resident’s disability is included as a factor when assessing initial rent/rent increases.
2. A confirmation on whether the rent for a property that is necessarily larger to accommodate a disabled person is still based on meterage alone.
3. The basis on which it is able to charge the fees relating to the water/district heating system.
4. The conclusion of its assessment of the service charges and its position on whether any additional refunds are due.

Recommendations

The landlord is to reiterate its offer of £120 for poor complaints handling, if this is yet to have been accepted.