Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202320146)

Decision
Case ID	202320146
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Paragon Asra Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	27 November 2025

Background

The resident complained following an increase in his variable service charge in 2023. He was unhappy as he felt he had received poor service from the landlord and was being charged for costs that he was not liable for. He asked us to investigate after receiving responses from the landlord that he remains dissatisfied with.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about:
1. The increase in the service charge.
2. How the landlord handled the resident’s service charge queries, including a request for it to provide a breakdown and to justify the charges.
3. How the landlord handled the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. The complaint about the increase in service charge is outside of the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
2. The landlord is responsible for maladministration with its handling of the resident’s service charge queries.
3. The landlord is responsible for service failure in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The increase in service charge

The tribunal or court would be better placed to consider the fairness of the increase in the resident’s service charge. This matter is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge queries

The landlord acted reasonably in providing a breakdown of the resident’s service charge in his budget statement.
The landlord provided reasonable explanations for the majority of charges included in the resident’s budget statement.
The landlord was unnecessarily delayed in addressing the resident’s concerns about his service charges.
The landlord should have taken steps to handle the resident’s concerns more appropriately. It would have been reasonable for it to have demonstrated that the services the resident complained about were provided and completed to a reasonable standard.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not provide its complaint responses within the timescales set out in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.

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 provided by the complaints team. 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 06 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200. This is an additional payment of £160. This is made up of: £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delay in addressing the resident’s concerns about his service charge. £60 for the landlord’s complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 06 January 2026
3	Confirm in writing that the lift related charges have been removed from the resident’s service charge account The landlord should: Provide a clear explanation, with any relevant evidence, of how it calculated the refund level. Provide an updated statement to demonstrate that it has removed the lift related service charges. Provide evidence of the credit being applied to the resident’s account with any payments it has taken relating to the lift. This should include looking back on past statements to determine when the charges were first added to the resident’s service charge account and crediting his account with any incorrect payments. Confirm the amended service charge in writing to the resident and the Ombudsman.	No later than 06 January 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
As the resident has brought the fault relating to the door entry system to the landlord’s attention, it should inspect the system (if it has not done so already) and if any faults are found, it should complete any necessary repairs. The landlord should consider sending out a survey to the residents in the block, to determine whether they still wish to have the CCTV cameras. If the landlord does not already have a schedule in place, it should consider setting consistent and frequent checks of the communal areas in the resident’s block, for example, quarterly. Where the landlord charges the resident for general charges such as ‘grounds maintenance’, it should ensure that it outlines what this charge will cover and then at the end of the financial year, evidence that it has completed the works. Where it introduces new services, the landlord should consider posting notices in its communal areas to help ensure residents are kept updated. Where the landlord is contacted about bulk rubbish removal in the future, it should consider if it can evidence which individuals, residents or businesses have dumped the rubbish. It should then consider recuperating the charges from them specifically, rather than passing the charges onto the whole block.

Our recommendations

As the resident has brought the fault relating to the door entry system to the landlord’s attention, it should inspect the system (if it has not done so already) and if any faults are found, it should complete any necessary repairs.

The landlord should consider sending out a survey to the residents in the block, to determine whether they still wish to have the CCTV cameras.

If the landlord does not already have a schedule in place, it should consider setting consistent and frequent checks of the communal areas in the resident’s block, for example, quarterly.

Where the landlord charges the resident for general charges such as ‘grounds maintenance’, it should ensure that it outlines what this charge will cover and then at the end of the financial year, evidence that it has completed the works.

Where it introduces new services, the landlord should consider posting notices in its communal areas to help ensure residents are kept updated.

Where the landlord is contacted about bulk rubbish removal in the future, it should consider if it can evidence which individuals, residents or businesses have dumped the rubbish. It should then consider recuperating the charges from them specifically, rather than passing the charges onto the whole block.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 February 2023	The resident raised his formal complaint following the increase in his service charge. He said: He did not consider the service charges to be justified, as the service the residents had received was poor. He was unhappy with the service charge statement he received, as he felt there were charges included that he was not liable to pay. He had not had a working door entry phone system for over 2 years. He phoned up and was told it would be repaired, but this had not been done. There has not been fully functioning CCTV since it was installed. He had been told the whole system would be overhauled, but this has not happened. He asked for an explanation on what ‘fire equipment other’ referred to. There is no lift in the block the resident lives in and so lift servicing contract and lift maintenance should be removed. There has been no communal cleaning for 3 months and residents have been cleaning the car park and communal area themselves. There has been no window cleaning to justify a charge. He asked what grounds maintenance contract includes as the residents have had to clean the communal grounds themselves. He queried the bulk rubbish removal charge, as the council had removed rubbish for free when residents requested it. The block the resident lives in has no trees, bushes or flowerbeds, so he queried why he was being charged for tree surgery and additional gardening. He requested a breakdown of the charge relating to the communal gates and barriers, as the pedestrian gate had been broken for over 6 months and only recently got repaired. He queried why the admin management fee was so high, when the administration has been poor.
16 March 2023	As the resident had not received any response from the landlord, he sent a chaser and asked for his complaint to be escalated.
18 April 2023	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the resident needing to raise his complaint and confirmed: It has arranged and carried out regular cleans of the communal areas. It had inspected the communal areas and was satisfied they met its cleanliness standards. It is launching window cleaning as a new service in 2023, and it sent correspondence about this to all leaseholders. The council will collect bulk rubbish but if this is reported to the landlord. It may use external contractors to do this and it will be charged back to the residents through the service charge.
18 April 2023	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response, as it did not address all of his complaint points and it contained incorrect information. He said the communal areas are not being cleaned, there are discrepancies on the visit sheets and site visits are non-existent. He said he would not be changing his standing order until the charges are justified or removed.
10 July 2023	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised that it had not addressed each complaint point in its stage 1 response. It said: It checked its repairs history for the block, but no issues had been raised with the door entry phone. It asked its contractor to attend and investigate any issues. For the CCTV, it checked its systems and found it to be functional. It asked for the resident to report any issues to it, so it could take any necessary action. The fire equipment service charge covers routine fire inspections and fire risk assessments. The lift servicing charges were incorrectly recorded against the wrong block, and it would correct this. Communal cleaning had been carried out, which has met the standards set out in the contract. It was introducing window cleaning as a new service for the financial year, and it sent out correspondence to the residents to let them know. It provided a poster outlining the grounds maintenance services in its stage 1 response. The bulk rubbish removal charge had been applied correctly. It was procuring a new contract for the communal gates and barrier maintenance. It found all of the charges had been applied and calculated correctly, except the lifts. It offered the resident £40 compensation for the delay in responding to the complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident raised his complaint with the Housing Ombudsman, he said: The communal areas of his property are in poor condition. The landlord has increased the service charges significantly and he is not happy with the breakdown and justification of the charges. The response he received was delayed and inaccurate and he is unhappy with the £40 compensation offered.

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 increase in the service charge.
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

The Ombudsman does not investigate complaints about the level of service charge. The resident’s complaint included that he felt the increase in the service charge was unreasonable and unjustified. The level of the service charge is therefore the basis of this complaint point, and the tribunal or court are better placed to consider this matter, given their powers and expertise. The tribunal or court could also consider the resident’s concerns about his liability for any costs.

Complaint	How the landlord handled the resident’s queries about the service charge, including his request for it to provide a breakdown and justify the charges.
Finding	Maladministration

The resident’s lease requires the resident to pay the service charge, which covers the landlord’s costs for common areas, insurance cover, repairs, maintenance, building services and other related expenses. The landlord is therefore permitted to charge the resident for any costs it reasonably incurs in managing the building.
On 24 February 2023, the landlord sent a letter to the resident which stated that the resident’s rent and service charge would be increasing from £760.45 to £957.80 starting 1 April 2023, for the 2023-2024 period. The letter included a detailed breakdown of the variable service charge and a budget statement listing each cost. This was reasonable, as it provided detailed and specific information on the exact costs that it was charging the resident.
However, this letter prompted the resident’s complaint, as he said the service received has been poor, it contains charges he is not liable to pay, and the charges are unjustified. As stated under the complaint procedure section above, he disputed several charges listed in the budget statement. While he requested a breakdown of the charges, the Ombudsman is satisfied this was provided. We have therefore assessed whether the landlord adequately explained and justified each charge.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 18 April 2023, the landlord failed to address most issues raised in the resident’s formal complaint, which was unreasonable. The resident had queried his service charges, giving the landlord an opportunity to explain how he benefitted from the services. However, it failed to explain this, which led to the resident escalating his complaint to stage 2 and likely increased his frustration. The Ombudsman expects landlords to give clear, transparent information about service charges. If it had answered the resident’s queries and addressed his complaint points, this may have helped resolve the situation sooner.
On 21 April 2023, the landlord recorded internally that it was investigating the resident’s concerns. While this was reasonable, this was after its stage 1 complaint response and the resident’s escalation to stage 2. In its stage 2 complaint response on 10 July 2023, it addressed each issue raised. This was reasonable, but the landlord should have investigated each issue sooner.

Door entry phone system

In his formal complaint, the resident reported that his door entry phone had not worked for over 2 years and reported that it needed to be repaired, but the issue was not resolved. We have not seen any evidence to show this was previously raised with the landlord and so we cannot see that there was a subsequent failure to complete a repair. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 complaint response that it had checked the repairs history and call logs for the resident’s block and property but found no record of jobs raised. The landlord said it would escalate the matter for investigation, which was a reasonable response.

CCTV

The resident reported that the CCTV had not worked properly since installation. He was told the whole system would be overhauled but this has not been done. The landlord noted previous instances where CCTV footage was used, including for an anti-social behaviour concern within the past 12 months. It therefore believed the CCTV was operational. The resident raised as part of his complaint that any time the block has needed CCTV, residents have been told that CCTV is not working, or it is facing the wrong way.
The landlord’s internal notes show it asked its contractor to check the CCTV, and it had reviewed its repair records, which showed no reported issues. However, it has provided no evidence that it confirmed the CCTV was working when the resident complained. It was unreasonable that it passed the responsibility onto the resident to report any issues. By raising the issue in his complaint, this should have prompted the landlord to check the CCTV was functioning properly and that charging residents for the service was justified.
The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that the landlord explained what the service charge relating to CCTV was for. However, it should consider inspecting the CCTV and if any faults are identified, carrying out the necessary repairs. It should also consider providing a survey to its residents, to determine whether they think the CCTV is beneficial and worth the cost.

Fire equipment

The resident complained that the fire alarm in his property was poor quality but was told it was his responsibility to replace it. The landlord noted internally that it does not service individual fire detectors and if there were issues, residents would need to report them to its repairs team. It noted that the fire equipment service charge covers maintenance of the Automatic Opening Vent (AOV), dry riser and routine fire inspections.
However, it later noted that there is no AOV or dry riser present in the property and the charge covers other routine fire inspections. This inconsistency shows the landlord was unclear about what the charge covered, but it reasonably investigated before confirming details to the resident.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord apologised for the conflicting information the resident received previously and confirmed its repairs team could fix his fire alarm. It was reasonable for it to apologise, as receiving incorrect information would likely cause frustration. It explained what the fire equipment service charge covers and provided a reasonable explanation of what the resident is paying for.

Lift charges

As part of his formal complaint, the resident stated that there is no lift in his block, and any related charges should be removed. In its stage 2 complaint response, on 10 July 2023, the landlord confirmed that the lift servicing charges had been incorrectly recorded, and it would contact its service charge team to have this removed. While this was a reasonable response, receiving a letter and budget statement with incorrect service charges likely reduced the resident’s confidence. It is important for landlords to ensure they have accurate information about service charges readily available.

Communal cleaning

The resident was unhappy with the cleanliness of the communal areas, he said residents in the block had to clean the communal area themselves, so he did not feel the charge was justified. Prior to its complaint responses, on 13 April 2023, the landlord noted internally that it had been carrying out regular cleans of the block and could provide the reports from the cleaning visits. In its stage 1 complaint response on 18 April 2023, it said that its contractors include photos in their cleaning reports, and its neighbourhood coordinator carries out inspections. The inspections confirmed the cleans met its contractual standards but advised the resident could send any photos to it of outstanding issues.
The Ombudsman considers it good practice for landlords to conduct regularly scheduled checks to confirm the standard of work is appropriate. We have not received any evidence of earlier cleaning reports or inspections, so we cannot verify that the cleaning was to a reasonable standard, as the landlord has said. However, it has provided inspection reports from July 2023, October 2023 and April 2024, which included photos and site assessments. These showed that the communal areas were generally in good condition after the time of the complaint, but that some extra work was required to bring the outside and inside areas up to an appropriate standard.
While this is positive, the resident’s concerns related to the service received over the previous financial year. We recognise that the landlord stated that cleans had been carried out and no concerns had been raised, but it did not demonstrate to the resident that these had been appropriately completed. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have shared any evidence it had to demonstrate that the service had been provided, the cleaning was to a reasonable standard, and therefore that the charge was justified. In our view, the landlord could have handled this query more appropriately.

Window cleaning

The resident raised that the charge for window cleaning should be removed, as the landlord has not cleaned the windows in his block. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord confirmed that this was a new service it had arranged for the 2023 financial year, where the communal windows would be cleaned every 6 months.
It explained that it had sent correspondence to all of its leaseholders to confirm this, however, the resident’s concerns suggest the resident did not receive it. The Ombudsman has also not seen evidence of the landlord notifying the resident about this new service. The landlord’s service charges policy states that where there are changes or variations which would result in a significant increase in costs or it intends to add new services at an additional cost to its residents, it will follow a consultation process with residents affected before making any changes.
The resident raised that he should not be charged for the window cleaning service, nevertheless, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has now explained why the charge was on his budget statement. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to have included with its complaint responses the earlier correspondence about introducing window cleaning. The resident felt he was paying for a service he was not advised about, so it would have been reasonable for the landlord to demonstrate the information it had sent previously.

Ground maintenance and gardening

The resident asked what the grounds maintenance service charge covers as the residents in his block had to clean the communal grounds themselves. The landlord said it had provided a poster with its complaint responses to explain this. This has not been provided to the Ombudsman, however. It has provided 3 grounds maintenance reports from July 2023, October 2023 and April 2024. These show that there was some improvement in the condition of the grounds. Nevertheless, without any evidence to demonstrate that the landlord has carried out these works, we are unable to assess whether the landlord has acted reasonably.
As part of his complaint, the resident also raised that his block does not benefit from any services relating to tree surgery or additional gardening, as there are no trees, bushes or flower beds. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord confirmed that this charge relates to bushes near the car park. While it was reasonable that it explained what the charge is for, it could have done more to demonstrate that the service was being carried out.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide evidence to the resident in its complaint responses that it had inspected the grounds. For example, by providing an inspection report and photographs, to verify that the maintenance was up to the expected standard and that it was taking his concerns seriously.

Bulk rubbish removal

The resident questioned the rubbish removal charge, as the council removes rubbish for free when the residents request it. In its complaint responses, the landlord confirmed that this is correct, if a resident contacts them. However, if the landlord has to notify the council about communal waste, it incurs charges. It confirmed that other residents have contacted it directly, requiring it to arrange removals and pay fees, which it has had to recuperate through its service charges. This was a reasonable explanation, as the landlord has no control over whether it is charged and it acted reasonably by clarifying the reason for this cost.
However, if it can evidence which individuals, residents or businesses that dumped rubbish in the future, it would be reasonable to seek to recuperate the charges from them specifically, rather than passing the charges onto the whole block.

Communal gate and barriers

The resident queried the charge relating to the communal gates and barriers, as he stated the pedestrian gate was broken for over 6 months before it was repaired. He was therefore unhappy with the service he had received and wanted to only be charged for the time the landlord attended. The Ombudsman has not received records of when the pedestrian gate was reported to the landlord and was subsequently fixed.
The landlord investigated this internally and confirmed in its stage 2 complaint response that it had secured a new agreement for the management of the communal gates and barriers. This demonstrates that it was trying to learn from the feedback and poor service provided in the past, which is reasonable. It also confirmed that it only pays for completed works, not travel or time on site, and would monitor any excessive time costs. This was reasonable as the resident had complained that he had seen contractors attend and carry out minimal work.
The landlord was therefore trying to reassure the resident, and it acted reasonably by explaining why this charge was on the budget statement and was justified. Although it did not directly address the resident’s assertion that the gate had been broken for a significant amount of time, it acted reasonably by advising on how it sought to resolve any issues moving forward.

Administration management fee

The resident also complained about the administration fee, as he felt this had been poor and asked why the residents are being charged so much for this. The landlord confirmed that this charge is to cover the cost of managing the service charge and for managing the services provided by third parties, such as contractors. The landlord therefore acted reasonably in being transparent about what the cost is for and addressing this with the resident.

Summary

The crux of the resident’s complaint related to the resident being unhappy that his service charges had increased and he was seeking for the landlord to justify the charges on the budget statement he had received. From the information the Ombudsman has received, the landlord has acted reasonably in being open and transparent about many of the charges that he is liable for. The terms set out in the resident’s lease mean the landlord is permitted to charge the resident for any outgoings relating to communal areas, repairs and maintenance. It therefore has not acted unreasonably.
However, in our view, the landlord should have provided explanations and information relating to the resident’s concerns sooner, as it took the landlord until the stage 2 complaint response to justify the charges and provide the information the resident was seeking. It also only found in its stage 2 complaint response that it had incorrectly charged the resident for charges relating to lifts and it should have picked up on this when the resident raised his initial complaint. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to have investigated the resident’s concerns, for example, relating to grounds maintenance and cleaning of the communal areas. It could have gone further to demonstrate that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
The Ombudsman has found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s queries about his service charges, as it should have answered the resident’s queries sooner. The Ombudsman has not offered any compensation for this complaint point, and we think compensation is appropriate, given the distress, inconvenience and the resident’s reduced confidence in the landlord. We therefore order the landlord to pay the resident £100, which is in line with our remedies guidance where there has been a failure by the landlord and it has not appropriately acknowledged it.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (“the Code”) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The resident formally complained on 26 February 2023, and he had to chase on 16 March 2023, as he had not received a response. The landlord subsequently acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 17 March 2023, which significantly exceeded the timeframe set out in the Code. It advised that it would provide its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 18 April 2023; this was 35 working days after the resident’s initial complaint and far exceeded the timeframe set out in the Code. It did not provide any updates or explanations for the delay, which was unreasonable. This delay would have likely caused frustration to the resident, particularly as he was waiting on answers to his queries.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on the same day, and the landlord acknowledged it on 21 April 2023, which was reasonable. It said it would provide its full response within 20 working days. The landlord subsequently provided its stage 2 complaint response on 10 July 2023, which was 33 working days over the timeframe set out in the Code.
The landlord’s application of its internal complaints process caused unreasonable delays for the resident. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord offered £40 compensation for the delay, however, this does not go far enough to put things right for the resident. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a further £60 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there has been a minor failure by the landlord and it has not appropriately acknowledged it.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord should review the information it holds relating to service charges for each block that it manages, to ensure this is accurate and it relays correct information in its communications with its residents.

Communication

The landlord should ensure it provides clear information to its residents and responds to the specific concerns being raised.